GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE

8455 STATE STREET, SOUTH GATE, CA 90280 (323) 564-7761
For profit - Limited Liability company 99 Beds EVA CARE GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
25/100
#815 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Greenfield Care Center of South Gate has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. Ranking #815 out of 1155 facilities in California puts them in the bottom half, and #189 out of 369 in Los Angeles County means only a few local options are worse. The facility's situation is worsening, with an increase in issues from 32 in 2024 to 34 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, earning 4 out of 5 stars, although turnover is 43%, which is average for the state. However, they have concerning fines of $57,906, higher than 83% of California facilities, reflecting ongoing compliance issues. In terms of care, more RN coverage than 83% of facilities is a positive aspect, as RNs can identify issues that CNAs might miss. Unfortunately, there have been serious incidents, such as a failure to provide necessary mobility and therapy services for a resident, which left them without the required support for over four months. Additionally, a resident was not provided with the proper two-person assistance during a transfer using a Hoyer lift, increasing their risk of injury. Overall, while some aspects of staffing show promise, the facility faces significant deficiencies that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
25/100
In California
#815/1155
Bottom 30%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
32 → 34 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$57,906 in fines. Higher than 52% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 46 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for California. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
94 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 32 issues
2025: 34 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
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $57,906

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: EVA CARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 94 deficiencies on record

3 actual harm
Sept 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect one of three resident's (Resident 1) right to be free from ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect one of three resident's (Resident 1) right to be free from physical abuse by another resident (Resident 2). This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 being slapped on the right side of the face by Resident 2.Findings:a. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities) and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that caused a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest).During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 7/16/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision with eating and using a wheelchair. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required partial assistance (helper did less than half the effort) with oral hygiene and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required maximal assistance (helper did more than half the effort) with toileting hygiene and showering/ bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper did all the effort) on staff for bed-to-chair transferring. During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 11/1/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled Resident at risk for recurrent fall/injury, revised on 7/23/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to observe Resident 1 frequently and to place Resident 1 in a supervised area when out of bed.During a review of Resident 1's nursing progress notes, dated 9/10/2025 at 9:33 a.m., the nursing progress notes indicated on 9/10/2025 at 9:05 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 reported to Registered Nurse (RN) 1 that Resident 2 slapped Resident 1. b. During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2's diagnoses included dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness), and major depressive disorder. During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required setup assistance with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, and bed-to-chair transferring. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required supervision with showering/ bathing, personal hygiene, and walking. During a review of Resident 2's H&P, dated 8/18/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's care plan titled Chronic confusion related to dementia as evidenced by altered interpretation (a changed understanding or explanation of something) or response to stimuli (anything that caused a physical or behavioral change), revised on 8/29/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to maintain a pleasant and quiet environment.During a review of Resident 2's nursing progress notes, dated 9/10/2025 at 9:41 a.m., the nursing progress notes indicated on 9/10/2025 at 9:05 a.m., LVN 1 reported to RN 1 that Resident 2 slapped Resident 1. During an interview on 9/11/2025 at 11:14 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated on 9/10/2025 around 8:50 a.m., he informed Resident 1 that it was time to shower, and Resident 1 replied No. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 was upset because Resident 1 yelled No when getting ready for the shower. CNA 1 stated that Resident 2 was looking at Resident 1 with furrowed eyebrows before she (CNA 1) stepped out of the room to get the Hoyer lift (a device that helped move people with limited mobility safely between surfaces). CNA 1 stated she left Resident 1 in the wheelchair by her bed. CNA 1 stated she went to get the Hoyer lift to transfer Resident 1 from wheelchair to shower chair. CNA 1 stated within four seconds of leaving the room, she heard Resident 2 cursing (using rude, offensive, or swear words) at Resident 1. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 was sitting in the wheelchair next to Resident 2's left side of the bed. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 asked Resident 2 Why are you cussing at me? I never did anything to you. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 got out of the bed, cursed at Resident 1, slapped Resident 1's right side of her face and punched Resident 1's stomach. CNA 1 stated she stopped Resident 2 and separated the residents. CNA 1 stated that she would not have left Resident 1 alone in the room with Resident 2, if she had known that Resident 1 could unlock the wheelchair and wheel to Resident 2's bedside. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 was ambulatory (able to walk) and capable of being physically aggressive (ready to fight or forceful) toward other residents. CNA 1 stated she should have taken Resident 1 with her when she left the room to get the Hoyer lift to prevent Resident 2 from physically attacking Resident 1. During an interview on 9/11/2025 at 12:23 p.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated on 9/10/2025 at 9 a.m., she was passing medication outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 power-walked to her from room [ROOM NUMBER] and informed her that Resident 2 slapped Resident 1 on the right side of her face. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 did not bring Resident 1 with her. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was sitting in the wheelchair at her bedside and Resident 2 was sleeping in bed. LVN 1 stated she separated the residents and placed Resident 1 in another room. LVN 1 stated neither Residents 1 nor 2 were able to provide any details about what happened. LVN 1 stated it was not acceptable to leave Resident 1 with an upset roommate because it might escalate to verbal, physical, or emotional abuse. LVN 1 stated staff should take precautions to separate the residents for safety, remove the upset resident, and de-escalate the situation. LVN 1 stated the incident would have been prevented if CNA 1 had removed Resident 1 from the room when Resident 2 became upset. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 10:41 a.m. with RN 1, RN 1 stated on 9/10/2025 around 9 a.m., LVN 1 informed her that Resident 2 slapped Resident 1 on the right side of the face. RN 1 stated CNA 1 was wheeling Resident 1 out of her (Resident 1's) room when she (RN 1) arrived. RN 1 stated Resident 2 was resting in bed. RN 1 stated leaving Resident 1 with Resident 2, who was upset with Resident 1, might further escalate the situation. RN 1 stated Resident 1 could self-propel in the wheelchair and go to Resident 2's side of the room. RN 1 stated it was not acceptable to leave Resident 1 in the room with Resident 2 after Resident 2 slapped Resident 1. RN 1 stated CNA 1 should have removed Resident 1 away from Resident 2 immediately when Resident 2 became verbally aggressive toward Resident 1. RN 1 stated Resident 1 was not protected. RN 1 stated CNA 1 should have taken Resident 1 with her to report the incident to LVN 1. RN 1 stated the incident was preventable. RN 1 stated all staff should protect the residents. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 12:25 p.m. with the Administrator in Training (AIT), the AIT stated staff should have immediately separated the residents after Resident 2 slapped Resident 1. The AIT stated the facility should provide as safe of an environment as possible. The AIT stated it was not acceptable to leave Resident 1 in the same room as Resident 2 after the incident. The AIT stated Resident 1 was not protected. The AIT stated Resident 2 slapping Resident 1 was preventable. The AIT stated CNA 1 should have left Resident 1 in bed or asked someone to bring the Hoyer lift to the room. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Abuse Policy, dated 10/2024, the P&P indicated residents would be protected from abuse and harm while residing at the facility. The P&P indicated no abuse or harm of any type would be tolerated, and residents would be monitored for protection. The P&P indicated all staff should monitor residents and identify potential signs and symptoms of abuse. The P&P indicated residents would be protected from the alleged offenders. The P&P further indicated that staff witnessing abuse would immediately intervene to protect the resident.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 licensed nurse failed to follow physician's orders for two of three sampled residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the licensed nurse failed to follow physician's orders for two of three sampled residents (Resident 2 and Resident 3) when:1. Resident 2's blood pressure readings and heart rate were not recorded and documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR), for six days in the month of August 2025 and one day in the month of September 2025.2. Resident 3's arteriovenous fistula (AV fistula, direct connection between an artery and a vein) dressing was not removed four hours after dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) treatment on 9/10/2025 and 9/11/2025.3. Resident 3 was not administered oxygen as ordered at two liters (measurement for gas volume) per minute.4. Resident 3's oxygen saturation level (O2 sat- a measurement of how much oxygen the blood was carrying as a percentage) was not assessed on room air.These deficient practices demonstrated a lack of nursing competency in assessment, documentation, and implementation of care, which had the potential to compromise the residents' health and safety. Findings:1. During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2's diagnoses included dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness), and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that caused a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 8/29/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 2 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 2 required setup assistance with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, and bed-to-chair transferring. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required supervision with showering/ bathing, personal hygiene, and walking. During a review of Resident 2's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/18/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's Order Summary Report, dated 9/11/2025, the report indicated to hold lisinopril (medication to treat high blood pressure [HTN]) and metoprolol tartrate (medication to treat HTN) for systolic blood pressure (top number in a blood pressure reading) less than 110 beats per minute (BPM) or heart rate less than 60 BPM. During a review of Resident 2's Medication Administration Records (MAR), dated from 8/1/2025 to 9/11/2025, the MAR indicated Resident 2's blood pressure was below the parameter (a set value that helped control something) and did not receive lisinopril and metoprolol on 8/2, 8/14, 8/16, 8/21, 8/23, 8/27, and 9/6/2025. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/11/2025 at 12:23 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 2's Vital Summary, dated from 8/1/2025- 9/11/2025 was reviewed. There were no blood pressure or heart rate readings documented on 8/2, 8/14, 8/16, 8/21, 8/23, 8/27, and 9/6/2025. LVN 1 stated that Resident 2's blood pressure or heart rate readings should be documented. LVN 1 stated the licensed nurse was responsible for taking vital signs (basic measure of how your body was working) and documenting in the residents' progress notes or MAR. LVN 1 stated the licensed nurse should have completed the documentation by the end of the shift to make sure the residents were in safe and stable condition. LVN 1 stated it was important to document the blood pressure readings and heart rate on the Vital Summary or the MAR for residents' safety. LVN 1 stated it was important to know the residents' blood pressure to prevent medication error (mistake in giving medicine). LVN 1 stated that incomplete documentation posed risks such as not knowing if Resident 2's blood pressure was too low, the next shift being unaware of prior events, difficulty tracing the resident's history, and potential delays in necessary care.During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 11:36 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the licensed nurse should measure and document the residents' blood pressure on the MAR. The DON stated that documentation was necessary so the next shift would know the previous blood pressure reading. The DON stated it was important to document the blood pressure readings in the MAR to ensure the continuity of care. The DON stated documentation must be completed by the end of the shift to serve as a baseline for the next shift. The DON stated that documentation should be timely and accurate, and failing to document blood pressure was unacceptable. The DON stated that without documented blood pressure, administering blood pressure medication could cause hypotension (low blood pressure) leading to dizziness, weakness, or fainting. The DON stated the facility's policy required blood pressure readings to be documented in the MAR.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Vital Sign, dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated the vital signs and O2 saturations would be documented in all appropriate areas in the resident's medical record. 2a. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 3's diagnoses included end stage renal disease (ESRD, irreversible kidney failure), congestive heart failure (CHF, a heart disorder which caused the heart to not pump the blood efficiently), and chronic respiratory failure (a long-term condition where the lungs could not get enough oxygen).During a review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 had intact cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required setup assistance with eating and oral hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required supervision with personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent (helper did all the effort) on staff for toileting hygiene, showering/ bathing, and bed-to-chair transferring. During a review of Resident 3's H&P, dated 6/17/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 3's care plan for ESRD, revised on 6/17/2025, the care plan goals indicated Resident 3 would remain free from complications daily. The care plan interventions indicated staff were to monitor Resident 3's left upper arm arteriovenous fistula (AV fistula, a direct connection between an artery and a vein) site for redness, swelling, local warmth, tenderness, bruit (a swishing sound over a blood vessel), thrill (a vibration over a blood vessel), and bleeding.During a review of Resident 3's nursing progress notes, dated 9/10/2025 at 7:27 p.m., the nursing progress notes indicated on 9/10/2025 at 4:10 p.m., Resident 3 returned from dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed).During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/11/2025 at 10:50 a.m. with Resident 3, in Resident 3' room, observed Resident 3's left upper arm. The arm was covered with a pressurized dressing (dressing that applied firm and consistent pressure to a site) over the AV fistula site. Resident 3 stated the licensed nursing staff did not check her AV fistula site or dressing after she returned from dialysis on 9/10/2025. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/11/2025 at 1:24 p.m. with LVN 1, in Resident 3's room, observed Resident 3's left upper arm. The arm was covered with a pressurized dressing over the AV fistula site. LVN 1 stated the pressurized dressing was from Resident 3's dialysis center and should have been removed four hours after returning. LVN 1 stated the licensed nurse should remove the dressing on the AV fistula site to prevent clogging. LVN 1 stated Resident 3 could not be dialyzed if the AV fistula was clogged. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 10:40 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated it was not acceptable that Resident 3 still had the dressing over her AV fistula site on the morning of 9/11/2025. RN 1 stated the licensed nurse should remove the AV fistula dressing within four hours of returning from the dialysis center to ensure enough blood flow. RN 1 stated the licensed nurse would not be able to assess for signs and symptoms of infection or bleeding if the AV fistula site was covered with a dressing. RN 1 stated it was important to assess the AV fistula site. RN 1 stated it was a nursing intervention to remove the dressing after four hours and did not require a physician's order. RN 1 stated that leaving the pressure dressing on the AV fistula posed risks of fistula occlusion (something that obstructed the blood flow) and malfunction. RN 1 stated the residents could not start dialysis and might have hypovolemia (the body had too little blood or fluid), electrolytes imbalance, and even a heart attack. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 11:36 a.m. with the DON, the DON stated it was standard of care to remove the pressurized dressing on the AV fistula in four hours of returning from dialysis. The DON stated that all the licensed nurses should know this. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Dialysis Services, dated 8/2012, the P&P indicated staff should assess the dialysis accesses site for bruit and thrill, any signs of bleeding or swelling, any sign and symptoms of infection.2b. During a review of Resident 3's Order Summary Report, dated 9/11/2025, the report indicated to administer oxygen at a rate of two liters (measurement for gas volume) per minute via nasal cannula (NC, a small plastic tube, which fit into the person's nostrils for providing supplemental oxygen) as needed for shortness of breaths (SOB), wheezing (a high-pitched sound made when breathing was restricted/obstructed in the lungs), chest pain, and oxygen saturation level (O2 sat, a measurement of how much oxygen the blood was carrying as a percentage) less than 90 percent (%) on room air. During a review of Resident 3's care plan for chronic respiratory failure, revised on 7/23/2025, the care plan interventions indicated to administer oxygen at a rate of two liters per minute via NC as needed for SOB, wheezing, chest pain, and O2 sat less than 90% on room air. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/11/2025 at 1:24 p.m. with LVN 1 in Resident 3's room, observed Resident 3 receiving oxygen at a rate of five liters per minute via NC. LVN 1 stated Resident 3 should have received two liters of oxygen instead of five liters per minute. LVN 1 stated it was not acceptable to administer five liters oxygen per minute to Resident 3 because it was not ordered. LVN 1 stated Resident 3 could not adjust the oxygen level. LVN 1 stated the licensed nurses should ensure the oxygen was administered as ordered during rounds (regular checks by nurses to ensure resident safety and care) throughout the shift. LVN 1 stated Resident 3 was receiving too much oxygen, and it put Resident 3's health at risk. LVN 1 stated it was important to follow the physician's order. LVN 1 stated that administering oxygen at a rate of five liters per minute did not align with the care plan's intervention. LVN 1 stated staff should implement the care plan's interventions. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 10:40 a.m. with RN 1, RN 1 stated Resident 3 should not receive more oxygen than ordered because of the diagnosis of CHF and chronic respiratory failure. RN 1 said Resident 3 could drown (lungs were overwhelmed, making it hard to breathe) from excessive oxygen, causing an imbalance in oxygenation and blood gas exchange (how oxygen entered the blood and carbon dioxide left it). RN 1 stated the licensed nurse should follow and comply with the physician's orders. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 11:36 a.m. with the DON, the DON stated the certified nursing assistant should not adjust the oxygen level and should notify the licensed nurses. The DON stated the licensed nurse needed to ensure the oxygen was administered as ordered during the shift because it was important to follow the physician's order. The DON stated Resident 3 had a diagnosis of CHF and chronic respiratory failure and should not receive too much oxygen because it would increase cognitive confusion. 2c. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/11/2025 at 1:46 p.m. with LVN 1, Resident 3's Weights and Vitals Summary, dated from 9/1/2025 - 9/11/2025, was reviewed. The Weights and Vitals Summary indicated Resident 3's O2 sat was obtained when the resident was receiving oxygen via NC and not on room air from 9/1/2025 - 9/11/2025. LVN 1 stated the licensed nurse should check Resident 3's O2 sat on room air to ensure an accurate assessment. During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 10:40 a.m. with RN 1, RN 1 stated the licensed nurse should check Resident 3's O2 sat on room air as ordered. RN 1 stated it was not acceptable to obtain an O2 sat when on oxygen because it was not a correct assessment. RN 1 stated the licensed nurses should assess the resident before administering the oxygen. RN 1 stated giving oxygen could unnecessarily cause more harm than good for the residents because of overcompensation (when the body tried to fix an imbalance, but the correction seemed too strong) in blood gas exchange. RN 1 stated that competent staff were essential to provide services that met residents' needs. RN 1 stated this highlighted a need for additional training to improve staff competency levels because any mistakes could compromise the health of the residents.During an interview on 9/12/2025 at 11:36 a.m. The DON stated for an accurate reading, the licensed nurse should have residents breathe room air for 30 minutes before checking the O2 sat. During a review of the facility's Charge Nurse Job Description, undated, the Job Description indicated, the charge nurse's responsibilities included following standards of nursing practices and implementing the facility's policies and procedures. The Job Description indicated the charge nurse should administer and document direct resident care, medications, and treatments per physicians' orders, and accurately record all care provided. The Job Description further indicated the charge nurse should implement an accurate comprehensive care plan based on resident's needs and assessment, and competently perform basic nursing skills. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Oxygen Therapy, dated 1/2024, the P&P indicated it was the policy of the facility that oxygen was administered as ordered by the physician.
Jul 2025 18 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not accommodate the preference to use a urinal for one of 19...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not accommodate the preference to use a urinal for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 wearing and voiding into an incontinence brief despite being continent, removing his ability to void in a dignified manner. Cross-reference: F-tags F657, F690Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 5/15/2025. Resident 1's admitting diagnoses included pleural effusion (a collection of fluid around your lungs) and pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by infection). During a review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 did not have cognitive impairments, and was dependent on staff for showering, and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 1's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 5/15/2025, the assessment indicated Resident 1 was incontinent bladder. The assessment was documented by Registered Nurse (RN) 2. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled The resident has bladder incontinence., dated 5/29/2025, indicated Resident 1 preferred to use a urinal. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 12:58 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated staff kept him in an incontinence brief. Resident 1 stated he was not incontinent and stated the incontinence brief prevented him from being able to use a urinal because he had difficulty removing the brief on his own. Resident 1 stated he would prefer to use a urinal and would feel better if he did not need to void into an incontinence brief. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:15 p.m., with RN 2, RN stated Resident 1's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 5/15/2025, was not accurate, and Resident 1 was not incontinent. RN 2 stated use of an incontinence brief, while continent, was a dignity concern. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 1:32 p.m., at Resident 1's bedside, no urinal was observed at Resident 1's bedside. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:37 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated she assumed Resident 1 was incontinent. CNA 1 stated she did not ask Resident 1 if he could use a urinal or if he wanted to use a urinal. CNA 1 stated it was important to provide a urinal to continent residents, if that was their preference, to help them to maintain their independence and ensure their dignity was maintained. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:42 p.m., at Resident 1's bedside, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated Resident 1 did not have a urinal at his bedside. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Dignity, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated staff were to ensure each resident was cared for in a manner that promoted or enhanced their sense of well-being and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. The P&P indicated individual preferences were to be identified during the assessment process and facility culture was to support dignity and respect for residents by honoring their choices and preferences.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain informed consent (voluntary agreement to accep...

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 obtain informed consent (voluntary agreement to accept treatment and/or procedures after receiving education regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives offered) from the Responsible Party (RP) 2 prior to administering Depakote (an anticonvulsant medication used to treat seizures [a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain which can cause uncontrolled jerking, blank stares, and loss of consciousness] and other behavioral conditions) and placing the bed against the wall for one of five sampled residents (Resident 37).This deficient practice resulted in the facility obtaining informed consent from Resident 37, who did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions, and resulted in Resident 37 making uninformed decisions regarding her care and unable to understand the risks and benefits of her treatment.Findings:a. During a review of Resident 37's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in muscle mass that can cause a decline in muscle strength and function), bipolar disease (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs), and osteoarthritis (a progressive disorder of the joints, caused by a gradual loss of cartilage). The Face Sheet indicated RP 2 listed as Resident 37's emergency contact.During a review of Resident 37's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 5/18/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 37's cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 37 used mobility devices such as a walker and wheelchair. The MDS indicated Resident 37 required maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 37 took anticonvulsant medication in the facility.During a review of Resident 37's Order Summary Report, order date 8/12/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated to give Depakote 250 milligrams (mg, a unit of measurement), by mouth two times a day for bipolar disorder manifested by Resident 37 being calm to yelling.During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 8 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated informed consent should only be obtained from the resident if the resident had the mental capacity to understand and make medical decisions. RN 1 stated if the resident did not have the mental capacity to understand and make medical decisions, informed consent would be obtained from the RP. RN 1 stated Resident 37 was on Depakote to treat behavioral symptoms manifested by her bipolar disorder. RN 1 stated prior to administering Depakote, Resident 37's physician was responsible for explaining the use of the medication, the side effects, and the risks and benefits to ensure an informed decision could be made.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:05 a.m., with RN 1, Resident 37's Informed Consent, dated 8/13/2024, was reviewed. The Informed Consent indicated informed consent for the use of Depakote 250 mg was obtained from Resident 37. RN 1 stated, on 8/13/2024, she verified informed consent was obtained from Resident 37. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:07 a.m., with RN 1, Resident 37's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/10/2024, was reviewed. The H&P indicated Resident 37 could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. RN 1 stated when Resident 37 was admitted to the facility, Resident 37's medical documents from her previous facility were faxed on 7/31/2024. RN 1 stated Resident 37 did not have the capacity to make medical decisions, therefore could not fully understand the use of Depakote, the side effects, and the risk and benefits. RN 1 stated informed consent should have been obtained from RP 2 to ensure an informed decision was made. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:45 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated informed consent for the use of Depakote should have been obtained from RP 2 instead of Resident 37. The DON stated allowing RP 2 to make an informed decision would ensure RP 2 was aware of all treatments administered to Resident 37 and to make any necessary decisions thereafter.b. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 9:54 a.m., in Resident 37's room, Resident 37 was lying in bed, and the left side of the bed was against the wall. During a review of Resident 37's Order Summary Report, order date 8/12/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 37 could have the bed against the wall, per Resident 37's request. During a review of Resident 37's Care Plan titled, At risk for Self-Injury Related to the Bed Against the Wall, dated 6/11/2025, the Care Plan's interventions indicated to allow Resident 37 to make an informed choice by explaining the risks, benefits, and alternatives. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:16 a.m., with RN 1, Resident 37's Informed Consent, dated 6/11/2025, was reviewed. The Informed Consent indicated informed consent for the bed against the wall was obtained from Resident 37. RN 1 stated, on 6/11/2025, she verified informed consent was obtained from Resident 37. RN 1 stated informed consent should not have been obtained from Resident 37 due to not having the capacity to understand the risks and benefits of having her bed against the wall and unable to make an informed decision.During a review on 7/18/2025 at 8:42 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated although Resident 37 requested to have her bed against the wall, Resident 37 was not able to fully understand the risks of her request. The DON stated the risks and benefits should have been explained to RP 2 to ensure RP 2 made an informed decision for Resident 37's safety. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Informed Consent of Physical and Chemical Restraints, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to have an informed consent prior to initiation of Chemical/Physical treatment or procedure.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light (a device that residents use to request assistance from staff) was within reach for one of six sampled ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light (a device that residents use to request assistance from staff) was within reach for one of six sampled residents (Resident 82). This deficient practice had the potential to result in delay or an inability for Resident 82 to obtain necessary care and services as needed. Findings:During concurrent observation and interview on 7/15/2025 at 11:14 a.m., in Resident 82's room, with Resident 82, observed Resident 82 lying in bed. Resident 82's call light was observed on the left side of the resident's bed. Resident 82's call light was not within reach. Resident 82 stated she needed assistance with personal care and was not able to reach the call light to call for assistance. During a review of Resident 82's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 82 on 7/14/2025 with diagnoses including seizure (a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain which can cause uncontrolled jerking, blank stares, and loss of consciousness), and acute respiratory failure (a critical condition where the lungs cannot adequately oxygenate the blood). During a review of Resident 82's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/5/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 82's cognition (ability to think, remember, and reason) was intact. During a review of Resident 82's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 7/14/2025, the admission Nursing Assessment indicated Resident 82 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs-routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 82's care plan titled Resident at risk for falling, date initiated 7/15/2025 indicated the facility would keep call light within the resident's reach. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/15/2025 at 11:24 a.m., in Resident 82's room, with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 82 was observed lying in bed. RN 1stated Resident 82's call l light was hanging on the left side of the resident bed not within reach. RN 1 stated Resident 82's call light should have been within reach for the resident to be able to call for assistance when needed. RN 1 stated the call light not within reach was a resident's safety issue, and placed Resident 82 at risk for fall and injury. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Call light/Bell, undated, the P&P indicated the facility would provide the resident with the call light and would be placed within reach when resident in bed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely notify one of three sampled residents' (Resident 81) physici...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely notify one of three sampled residents' (Resident 81) physician of significant weight loss on 3/17/2025 and 6/3/2025.This deficient practice resulted in a delay in care and services and had the potential to result in further weight loss. Cross Reference F692.Findings:During a review of Resident 81's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 81 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple myeloma (a type of blood cancer that affects white blood cells), cauda equina syndrome (a rare but serious condition where the nerve roots at the bottom of the spinal cord, called the cauda equina, are compressed), and chronic kidney disease (a type of blood cancer that affects).During a review of Resident 81's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 6/27/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 81's cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 81 was dependent on staff's assistance with eating, oral hygiene, toileting, bathing, and lower body dressing. During a review of Resident 81's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/14/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 81 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions.During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 11:27 a.m., with Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 1, RNA 1 stated the RNAs were responsible for weighing the residents based on the physician's order. RNA 1 stated residents were weighed upon their admission to the facility then weekly for a total of four weeks. RNA 1 stated unless the resident's physician orders for more frequent weights, the residents would then be weighed once a month. RNA 1 stated any fluctuations in a resident's weight had to be reported timely to the licensed nurse. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 11:36 a.m., with RNA 1, Resident 81's Weights, dated 3/21/2025 through 6/20/2025, were reviewed. The Weights indicated on 03/21/2025, Resident 81 weighed 166 lbs. and on 03/27/2025, Resident 81 weighed 139 lbs. which was a 16.27 percent (%) weight loss. The Weights indicated on 05/03/2025, Resident 81 weighed 147 lbs. and on 06/03/2025, Resident 81 weighed 136 lbs. which was a 7.48% weight loss. RNA 1 stated Resident 81 had weight loss indicated on 3/27/2025 and 6/3/2025 and should have been reported to the licensed nurse on duty. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 12:10 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated the RNAs were responsible for weighing the residents per the physician's order and report any weight changes to the Director of Nursing (DON) and licensed nurses. RN 1 stated reporting the weight changes were essential for timely physician notification and implementation of interventions to prevent further weight loss. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 12:13 p.m., with RN 1, Resident 81's Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR- a communication tool used by healthcare workers when there is a change of condition among the residents) dated 3/27/2025 through 6/26/2025, were reviewed. The SBARs did not indicate Resident 81's physician was notified of his weight loss on 3/27/2025 and 6/3/2025. The SBAR, dated 3/31/2025, indicated Resident 81 had poor oral intake (not eating and/or drinking enough food and liquids to meet the body's needs) but did not indicate Resident 81's weight loss. RN 1 stated once there was knowledge of a resident's weight loss, the resident's physician had to be notified as soon as possible to obtain new orders to prevent further weight loss. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 9:11 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated when a resident had unplanned weight loss, the RNAs and licensed nurses were responsible for informing her. The DON stated she would collaborate with the licensed nurse to inform the resident's physician and obtain new orders such as a change in diet, nourishment snacks, and/or new medications. The DON stated timely physician notification was necessary to treat the resident right away and not delay care. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/18/2025 at 9:15 a.m., with the DON, Resident 81's Weight Management Review, dated 4/8/2025 and 6/23/2025, were reviewed. The Weight Management Review, dated 4/8/2025, indicated Resident 81's physician was notified of significant weight loss due to recent hospitalizations and poor oral intake and new orders were given. The Weight Management Review, dated 6/23/2025, indicated Resident 81's physician was notified of Resident 81's fluctuating weight gain and weight loss and new order was given to administer Megace (medication to increase appetite). The DON stated she was not made aware of Resident 81's weight loss on 3/27/2025 and 6/3/2025, thus Resident 81's weight loss was not addressed until Resident 81's monthly Weight Management Review on 4/8/2025 and 6/23/2025. The DON stated the delay in physician notification resulted in the delay of implementing orders and additional interventions to prevent further weight loss. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Weight Assessment and Intervention, revised 9/2016, the P&P indicated, Any weight change of five pounds or 5% or greater within 30 days will be retaken the next day for confirmation. If the weight is verified, nursing will immediately notify the dietician and an interdisciplinary team (IDT, a group of healthcare professionals with various areas of expertise who work together towards the goals of the residents), then meeting with weight variance will be started. The attending physician of the subject resident will be notified for the significant weight loss or gain.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a written notice of financial liability (Skilled Nursing 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 a written notice of financial liability (Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice- SNF ABN) to two out of three sampled residents (Resident 13 and Resident 23) when Medicare Part A coverage ended and the residents chose to continue receiving skilled nursing services. This failure had the potential to result in unexpected pay charges for Resident 13 and Resident 23.Findings: a. During a review of Resident 13's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included diabetes (a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), heart failure ( a condition in which the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), and urinary tract infection (UTI- an infection in the bladder/urinary tract). During a review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 7/11/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 13's cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required substantial assistance (helper does more than half of the effort) when toileting and lower body dressing. During a review of Resident 13's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/21/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 13 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of the facility's Beneficiary Notice List of Resident discharged Within the Last Six Months Worksheet, dated 7/16/2025, the Worksheet indicated Resident 13's Medicare Part A coverage ended on 4/9/2025 and remained in the facility. During a review of Resident 13's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review form, dated 7/16/2025, the form indicated the facility or provider initiated the discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted. b. During a review of Resident 23's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypertension (high blood pressure), chronic pain syndrome, and lack of coordination. During a review of Resident 23's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 23's cognitive skills were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 23 was entirely dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, bathing, lower body dressing, and taking off footwear. During a review of the facility's Beneficiary Notice List of Resident discharged Within the Last Six Months Worksheet, dated 7/16/2025, the Worksheet indicated Resident 23's Medicare Part A coverage ended on 7/4/2025 and remained in the facility. During a review of Resident 23's SNF Beneficiary Notification Review form, dated 7/16/2025, the form indicated the facility or provider initiated the discharge from Medicare Part A Services when benefit days were not exhausted. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 12:22 p.m. with the Business Office Manager (BOM), the BOM stated the SNF ABN form was normally provided to Medicare Part A residents that had benefit days remaining and chose to stay in the facility. The BOM stated Resident 13 and 23 should have received the SNF ABN form. The BOM stated she did not provide the SNF ABN form to Resident 13 and Resident 23 because she mistakenly believed the SNF ABN form was replaced by the Detailed Explanation of Non-Coverage (DENC- explains the specific reasons for the end of covered services) form based on an email sent by corporate. The BOM stated she misread the email and did not provide the form to residents since 1/2025. The BOM stated failing to provide the SNF ABN form to Resident 13 and Resident 23 violated resident rights to be made aware of services not covered by Medicare. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Medicare Advanced Beneficiary Notice (undated), the P&P indicated the facility was to ensure residents are informed in advance when changes will occur to their bills. The P&P indicated if the director of admissions or benefits coordinator believes (upon admission or during the resident's stay) that Medicare (Part A of the Fee for Service Medicare Program) will not pay for an otherwise covered skilled service(s), the resident (or representative) was notified in writing why the service(s) may not be covered and of the resident's potential liability for payment of the non-covered service(s). The P&P indicated the facility issued the Skilled Nursing Facility Advanced Beneficiary Notice (CMS form 10055) to the resident prior to providing care that Medicare usually covers, but may not pay for because the care was considered not medically reasonable and necessary, or custodial. The P&P indicated the resident (or representative) may choose to continue receiving the skilled services that may not be covered, and assume financial responsibility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool) assessments for two of 19 sampled residents (Residents 71 and 81) were accurate. This deficient practice resulted in the transmission of inaccurate data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regarding Resident 71 and 81's health status. This deficient practice also created the potential for Residents 81 and 71 to not receive the care and interventions needed to reach their highest practicable physical and psychosocial well-being.Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 71’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 71 on [DATE], and most recently re-admitted Resident 71 on [DATE]. Resident 71’s admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body) and obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder characterized by repeated pauses in breathing during sleep due to a blockage in the upper airway). During a review of Resident 71’s Discharge MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 71 was independent with cognitive skills (the mental abilities used in thinking, learning, remembering, and problem-solving) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 71 was dependent on staff for all mobility while in and out of bed. The MDS did not indicate Resident 71 required oxygen therapy (a medical treatment that involves administering supplemental oxygen to individuals with breathing difficulties or low blood oxygen levels). During a review of Resident 71’s physician order, dated [DATE], the order indicated Resident 71 was to receive oxygen therapy at two (2) liters per minute (L/min, a unit for measuring oxygen delivery rate) as needed. During a review of Resident 71’s oxygen saturation monitoring flowsheet, dated 6/2025, the flowsheet indicated Resident 71 received oxygen therapy from [DATE] to [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:19 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the lookback period when coding for oxygen therapy in a discharge MDS was three (3) days. During a concurrent interview and record review, on [DATE] at 2:21 p.m., with the DON, Resident 71’s oxygen saturation monitoring flowsheet dated 6/2025, and MDS dated [DATE], were reviewed. The DON stated the oxygen saturation flowsheet indicated Resident 71 received oxygen therapy from [DATE] to [DATE]. The DON stated the MDS did not indicate Resident 71 required oxygen therapy. The DON stated the MDS should have reflected Resident 71’s oxygen therapy. During an interview on [DATE] 2:27 p.m., with the DON, the DON stated it was important for the MDS to be accurate because the MDS guided the resident’s plan of care. During a concurrent interview and record review, on [DATE] 2:28 p.m., with the DON, Resident 71’s current care plans were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 71 did not have a current care plan for oxygen therapy and stated there should be one. The DON stated that if the MDS were accurate, it would have prompted staff to create a care plan for Resident 71’s oxygen therapy. 2. During a review of Resident 81’s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 81 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple myeloma (a type of blood cancer that affects white blood cells), cauda equina syndrome (a rare but serious condition where the nerve roots at the bottom of the spinal cord, called the cauda equina, are compressed), and chronic kidney disease (a type of blood cancer that affects).During a review of Resident 81’s Discharge MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 81’s cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 81 was dependent on staff’s assistance with eating, oral hygiene, toileting, bathing, and lower body dressing. During a review of Resident 81’s History and Physical (H&P), dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 81 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions.During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 9:18 a.m., with the DON, Resident 81’s Weights, dated [DATE] through [DATE], were reviewed. The Weights indicated Resident 81’s weights on the following days:- [DATE], 147 pounds (lbs, unit of weight measurement)- [DATE], 135 lbs- [DATE], 148 lbs- [DATE], 136 lbs The DON stated Resident 81 had fluctuating weight loss and weight gain in one month. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 9:20 a.m., with the DON, Resident 81’s Discharge MDS, dated [DATE], was reviewed. The MDS did not indicate Resident 81 had a loss of five percent (5%) or more in the last month. The DON stated Resident 81’s MDS was not accurate due to Resident 81’s weight loss. The DON stated Resident had a weight loss from [DATE] through [DATE]. The DON stated the assessment should have been based on Resident 81’s most current weight prior to discharge. 3. During a review of Resident 81’s Weekly Skin Integrity Assessment for Pressure Sore (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence), dated [DATE], the Weekly Skin Integrity Assessment indicated Resident 81 had a stage 4 pressure sore (Full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone) to the sacral coccyx (area of the lower back near the tailbone)During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 9:20 a.m., with the DON, Resident 81’s Discharge MDS, dated [DATE], was reviewed. The MDS did not indicate Resident 81 had an unhealed pressure sore. The DON stated Resident 81’s MDS was not accurate because Resident 81 had a stage 4 pressure sore upon his discharge to the hospital. The DON stated an accurate MDS was important to show Resident 81’s “whole picture” and to develop and revise care plans to attend to Resident 81’s needs. The DON stated Resident 81’s Discharge MDS would be reviewed whether Resident 81 returned to the facility, transferred to another facility, or discharged home. The DON stated an inaccurate MDS had the potential to affect the care given to Resident 81.During a review of the facility’s policy and procedure (P&P) titled “Resident Assessments,” revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated all persons who completed the MDS were to attest to its accuracy.During a review of the facility’s P&P titled “Charting and Documentation,” revived 4/2025, the P&P indicated all services provided to the resident were to be documented in the resident’s medical record.
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 revise the incontinence care plan for one out of 19 sampled residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise the incontinence care plan for one out of 19 sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice placed Resident 1 at risk of not receiving interventions to maintain his continence and dignity. Cross-reference: F-tags F690 and F550Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 5/15/2025. Resident 1's admitting diagnoses included pleural effusion (a collection of fluid around your lungs) and pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by infection). During a review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 did not have cognitive impairments, and was dependent on staff for showering, and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 1's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 5/15/2025, the assessment indicated Resident 1 was incontinent bladder. The assessment was documented by Registered Nurse (RN) 2. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled The resident has bladder incontinence., dated 5/29/2025, indicated staff were to apply incontinence briefs and change them every 2 hours and as needed. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 12:58 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated staff kept him in an incontinence brief. Resident 1 stated he was continent and stated the incontinence brief prevented him from being able to use a urinal because he had difficulty removing the brief on his own. Resident 1 stated he would prefer to use a urinal. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:15 p.m., with RN 2, RN stated Resident 1's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 5/15/2025, was not accurate. RN 2 stated Resident 1 was continent, and he directly observed Resident 1 request a urinal to void and use it without issue when he was first admitted . RN 2 stated the assessment should have been revised because it was not accurate. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 9:33 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated any licensed nurse was capable of revising and updating resident care plans. The DON stated that if the resident's current care plan was not accurate, the care should be revised. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/18/2025 at 9:34 a.m., with the DON, Resident 1's care plan titled The resident has bladder incontinence., dated 5/29/2025 was reviewed. The DON stated the care plan was initiated on 5/16/2025 and revised on 5/29/2025. The DON stated the care plan still indicated Resident 1 was incontinent after the revision. The DON stated the care plan should have been revised. The DON stated revisions would allow for different care interventions to promote Resident 1's dignity and continence. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered revised 4/2025, the P&P indicated resident assessments were ongoing and care plans were to be revised as information about the resident changed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents' (Resident 67) lo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents' (Resident 67) low air loss mattress ([LALM], a mattress designed to distribute body weight over a broad surface area to help prevent skin breakdown) was accurately set to Resident 67's weight.This deficient practice had the potential to cause the avoidable development and/or worsening of pressure ulcers (PU, localized, pressure-related damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence) and the complications associated with impaired skin integrity.Findings:During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 9:34 a.m., 7/15/2025 at 1:21 p.m., and 7/16/2025 at 9:46 a.m., in Resident 67's room, Resident 67 was observed lying on a Tuffcare brand LALM. The weight setting on the pump to inflate the LALM indicated the LALM was set for an individual who weighed 305 pounds (lbs, a unit of measurement).During a review of Resident 67's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 67 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (ESRD- irreversible kidney failure), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) with diabetic polyneuropathy (disease or dysfunction of one or more nerves, typically causing numbness or weakness in the hands and feet), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing).During a review of Resident 67's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 5/25/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 67's cognitive skills (process of thinking) for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 67 was dependent on staff's assistance with toileting, bathing, and dressing. During a review of Resident 67's Weekly Skin Integrity Assessment for Pressure Sore (also known as pressure ulcer), dated 7/14/2025, the Weekly Skin Integrity Assessment indicated Resident 67 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer (Full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone) on the sacral coccyx (area of the lower back near the tailbone).During a review of Resident 67's Order Summary Report, order dated 6/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to use a LALM for wound healing. During a review of Resident 67's Care Plan titled, Sacral-coccyx Stage 4 Pressure Ulcer, dated 6/15/2025, the Care Plan interventions indicated to use a LALM for wound healing.During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/17/2025 at 10:47 a.m., with Treatment Nurse (TN) 1, in Resident 67's room, Resident 67 was observed lying on the LALM with the weight setting on the pump set to 305 lbs. TN 1 stated the LALMs were set according to each resident's weight. TN 1 stated the LALM were used to redistribute pressure on Resident 67's body. TN 1 stated the higher the number, the firmer the mattress became.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 10:49 a.m., with RN 1, Resident 67's Weight, dated 7/5/2025, was reviewed. The Weight indicated Resident 67 weighed 100 lbs. TN 1 stated Resident 67 had a stage 4 PU and utilized the LALM to reduce the amount of pressure, not only on her sacral coccyx area, but for the rest of her body. TN 1 stated 305 lbs was too high for Resident 67 which meant the LALM was too firm. TN 1 stated utilizing the LALM at a too high of a weight setting put Resident 67 at risk for developing new PUs and for her current PU to worsen. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:39 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated LALM were utilized as a PU management and prevention intervention. The DON stated in addition to other interventions, such as position changes, the LALM assisted in reducing the amount of pressure placed on Resident 67's body. The DON stated the higher the weight setting, the firmer the LALM became. The DON stated the LALM setting had to reflect Resident 67's weight because too high of a weight would increase the amount of pressure on Resident 67's existing wound and to the rest of her body. The DON stated this additional pressure put Resident 67 at risk of delay wound healing, worsening of the existing PU, and development of additional PUs. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Pressure-Reducing Mattresses, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to reduce pressure or relieve pressure, reduce skin irritation, and prevent break in skin integrity.During a review of the facility's document titled, Tuffcare Comfy Aire Series Air Mattress System User Manual, undated, the document indicated to adjust the pressure setting according to the individual's weight.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility applied an incontinence brief and failed to allow use of a urina...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility applied an incontinence brief and failed to allow use of a urinal for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice placed Resident 1 at risk for being unable to void with dignity into a urinal and maintain his continence (the ability to control movements of the bowels and bladder).Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 5/15/2025. Resident 1's admitting diagnoses included pleural effusion (a collection of fluid around your lungs) and pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by infection). During a review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 did not have cognitive impairments, and was dependent on staff for showering, and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 1's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 5/15/2025, the assessment indicated Resident 1 was incontinent bladder. The assessment was documented by Registered Nurse (RN) 2. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 12:58 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated staff kept him in an incontinence brief. Resident 1 stated he knew when he needed to void (urinate), and stated the incontinence brief prevented him from being able to use a urinal because he had difficulty removing the brief on his own. Resident 1 stated he would prefer to use a urinal. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:15 p.m., with RN 2, RN stated Resident 1's admission Nursing Assessment, dated 5/15/2025, was not accurate. RN 2 stated Resident 1 was continent, and he directly observed Resident 1 request a urinal to void and use it without issue when he was first admitted . RN 2 stated the application of an incontinence brief on a continent resident could cause them to become incontinent. RN 2 stated voiding into an incontinence brief also placed Resident 1 at risk for skin breakdown and injury. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 1:32 p.m., at Resident 1's bedside, no urinal was observed at Resident 1's bedside. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:37 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated she assumed Resident 1 was incontinent. CNA 1 stated she did not ask Resident 1 if he could use a urinal or if he wanted to use a urinal. CNA 1 stated it was important to provide a urinal to continent residents, if that was their preference, to help them to maintain their independence. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:42 p.m., at Resident 1's bedside, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated Resident 1 did not have a urinal at his bedside. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 1:46 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated it was important to accurately assess a resident's continence to ensure appropriate interventions were provided, including providing the required level of assistance and/or equipment. RN 1 stated that asking a resident to use an incontinence brief, or placing them in an incontinence brief, if not needed, increased their risk for sustaining skin breakdown, and also placed them at risk of developing incontinence. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting, revised 1/2024, the P&P indicated staff were to be provided with care that ensured their activities of daily living (ADLs, activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily) did not diminish unless unavoidable.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to reweigh one of three sampled residents (Resident 81) to confirm Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to reweigh one of three sampled residents (Resident 81) to confirm Resident 81's significant weight loss on 3/27/2025 and 6/3/2025. This deficient practice had the potential to result in improper management of Resident 81's weight.Cross Reference F580.Findings:During a review of Resident 81's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 81 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included multiple myeloma (a type of blood cancer that affects white blood cells), cauda equina syndrome (a rare but serious condition where the nerve roots at the bottom of the spinal cord, called the cauda equina, are compressed), and chronic kidney disease (a type of blood cancer that affects).During a review of Resident 81's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 6/27/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 81's cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 81 was dependent on staff's assistance with eating, oral hygiene, toileting, bathing, and lower body dressing. During a review of Resident 81's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/14/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 81 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions.During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 11:27 a.m., with Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 1, RNA 1 stated the RNAs were responsible for weighing the residents based on the physician's order. RNA 1 stated residents were weighed upon their admission to the facility then weekly for a total of four weeks. RNA 1 stated unless the resident's physician orders for more frequent weights, the residents would then be weighed once a month. RNA 1 stated if a resident lost five pounds (lbs, unit of measurement) or more, the RNAs were responsible for reweighing the resident to confirm the weight loss. RNA 1 stated to confirm a resident's weight loss, the RNA would reweight the resident the same day or the same time the following day. RNA 1 stated the purpose of reweighing the resident was to confirm the weight loss was accurate and to report timely to the licensed nurse. RNA 1 stated when a resident was reweighed, the weight should be documented on the resident's Weights.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 11:36 a.m., with RNA 1, Resident 81's Weights, dated 3/21/2025 through 6/20/2025, were reviewed. The Weights indicated on 03/21/2025, Resident 81 weighed 166 lbs. and on 03/27/2025, Resident 81 weighed 139 lbs. which was a 16.27 percent (%) weight loss. The Weights indicated on 05/03/2025, Resident 81 weighed 147 lbs. and on 06/03/2025, Resident 81 weighed 136 lbs. which was a 7.48% weight loss. RNA 1 stated Resident 81 had weight loss indicated on 3/27/2025 and 6/3/2025 and Resident 81 was not reweighed to confirm the weight loss. RNA 1 stated Resident 81 should have been reweighed the day of the weight loss or the following day. RNA 1 stated confirming weight loss was essential in notifying the licensed nurse timely to help prevent further weight loss.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 9:07 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated RNAs were responsible for weighing the residents according to the physician's orders. The DON stated any change in a resident's weight required a confirmation weight by reweighing the resident with the same weighing method. The DON stated Resident 81 should have been reweighed on 3/27/2025 and 6/3/2025 to confirm the weight loss and allow timely notification of Resident 81's physician and implementation of necessary interventions. The DON stated without confirming Resident 81's weight loss, Resident 81's care could have been mismanaged and inappropriate interventions could have been implemented.During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Weight Assessment and Intervention, revised 9/2016, the P&P indicated, Any weight change of five pounds or 5% or greater within 30 days will be retaken the next day for confirmation. If the weight is verified, nursing will immediately notify the dietician and an interdisciplinary team (IDT, a group of healthcare professionals with various areas of expertise who work together towards the goals of the residents), then meeting with weight variance will be started.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen therapy (a medical treatment that provid...

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 oxygen therapy (a medical treatment that provides extra oxygen to breathe, typically prescribed for individuals with conditions causing low blood oxygen levels) was administered as ordered by the physician for two of 19 sampled residents (Residents 71 and 1). This deficient practice placed Resident 71 and Resident 1 at risk of sustaining complications of not receiving enough or receiving too much supplemental oxygen.Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 71's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 71 on 12/23/2024, and most recently re-admitted Resident 71 on 6/16/2025. Resident 71's admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body) and obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder characterized by repeated pauses in breathing during sleep due to a blockage in the upper airway). During a review of Resident 71's Discharge MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 71 was independent with cognitive skills (the mental abilities used in thinking, learning, remembering, and problem-solving) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 71 was dependent on staff for all mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 71's physician order, dated 6/16/2025, the order indicated Resident 71 was to receive oxygen therapy at two (2) liters per minute (L/min, a unit for measuring oxygen delivery rate) as needed. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 11:33 a.m., with Resident 71, Resident 71 was observed receiving oxygen therapy at a rate of 4 L/min. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 8:54 a.m., with Resident 71, Resident 71 was observed receiving oxygen therapy at a rate of 4 L/min. During an interview on 7/17/2025 12:25 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN stated staff routinely check the oxygen flow rate for residents on oxygen therapy. RN 1 stated the purpose of checking the flow rate was to ensure the residents were receiving oxygen at the flow rate ordered by the physician. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/17/2025 at 12:27 p.m., with RN 1, Resident 71's physician order for oxygen therapy, dated 6/16/2025, was reviewed. The order indicated Resident 71 was to receive oxygen therapy at a fixed rate of 2 L/min. RN 1 stated that anytime Resident 71 was receiving oxygen therapy, the rate should only be set to 2 L/min. RN 1 stated it was important to administer oxygen therapy as ordered because residents can develop complications from excessive oxygen administration. 2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 5/15/2025. Resident 1's admitting diagnoses included pleural effusion (a collection of fluid around your lungs) and pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by infection). During a review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 did not have cognitive impairments, and was dependent on staff for showering, and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 1's physician order, dated 5/16/2025, the order indicated Resident 1 was to receive oxygen therapy at a rate of 2 L/min, with the option to increase the rate up to 5 L/min. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 1:12 p.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 was observed receiving oxygen therapy at 1.5 L/min. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/17/2025 at 12:29 p.m., with RN 1, Resident 1's physician order for oxygen therapy, dated 5/16/2025, was reviewed. RN 1 stated Resident 1's oxygen therapy should be administered at a rate of at least 2 L/min. RN 1 stated that the purpose of Resident 1's oxygen therapy was to ensure his blood oxygen levels were maintained at 90% or above (normal oxygen saturation typically ranges from 95% to 100%) and stated his blood oxygen levels could be impacted if he did not receive the oxygen therapy as ordered by the physician. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Oxygen Therapy, revised 1/2024, the P&P indicated staff were to ensure oxygen therapy was administered as ordered by the physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Usage of bedside rails revised 1/2024, which indicated consent (voluntary agreement to accept treatment and/or procedures after receiving education regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives offered) for side rail use would be obtained from the resident and/or responsible party (RP-a person who has been legally authorized to act on behalf of a resident in matters to care within the facility), after presenting potential benefits and risks for one of six sampled residents (Resident 12).This deficient practice had the potential to result in inappropriate use of side rails for Resident 12 and could lead to injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 12's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 12 on 6/6/2023 and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 12's admitting diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), anxiety (a feeling of fear), and hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure).During a review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 5/9/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 12's cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 12 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs- routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves).During a review of Resident 12's Order Summary Report, dated 7/17/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated on 1/30/2025, Resident 12's attending physician ordered bilateral side rails for turning and repositioning and for prevention of injury.During a review of Resident 12's care plan, titled Resident uses side rails for turning and repositioning., revised on 1/30/2025, the care plan interventions indicated the facility would explain to the resident or RP the risks and benefits of side rails use and would allow the resident or RP to make an informed decision regarding their use. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 10:03 a.m., and 2:14 p.m., in Resident 12's room, the resident was observed lying in bed with bilateral side rails in the upright position during both observations. During a telephone interview on 7/16/2025 at 7:35 a.m., with RP 1, RP 1 stated when Resident 12 was readmitted to the facility in 2024, the bed provided already had side rails installed. RP 1 stated no one from the facility explained anything about the risks or benefits of the side rails. RP 1 stated she was not asked to sign an informed consent, she assumed the side rails were part of the standard bed setup. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/16/2025 at 2;10 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 12's available informed consent for the use of side rails and clinical records, were reviewed. RN 1 stated side rails were used for residents who need assistance turning or repositioning in bed. RN 1 the facility required to explain the risks-such as entrapment, falls, or injury and obtain informed consent before applying them. RN 1 stated the discussion should be documented in the resident's medical records and signed by either the resident or their RP. RN 1 stated Resident 12's clinical records did not contain a completed or signed informed consent for the use of side rails. RN 1 stated as a result of an uncompleted informed consent form for side rails, Resident 12 and/or her RP 1 were not provided with the opportunity to make an informed decision about whether to accept or refuse the side rails use.During a review of the facility's P&P titled Usage of bedside rails, revised 1/2024, the P&P indicated the facility would assess every resident admitted to the facility for proper use of bed side rails. The P&P indicated For any purpose of bedside rails usage, it is a must to have consent of the resident/resident's representative or both.During a review of the facility's P&P titled Informed Consent of Physical and Chemical Restraints, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated:1. The facility would have an informed consent prior to initiation of physical treatment such as side rails.2. The facility would not apply physical restraints (side rails) until the informed consent was given by the resident and/or resident representative.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Registered Nurse (RN) 3 documented on the Medication Adminis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Registered Nurse (RN) 3 documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR - a daily documentation record used by a licensed nurse to document medications and treatments given to a resident) immediately after administering medications to one of seven sampled residents (Resident 19).This deficient practice had the potential to result in double administration of medication to Resident 19 which could lead to liver and kidney damage. Findings:During a review of Resident 19's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). During a review of Resident 19's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 7/1/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 19's cognition (process of thinking) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 19 was independent in eating, oral hygiene, toileting, and personal hygiene.During a review of Resident 19's Order Summary Report, active orders dated 7/17/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to:1. Give amlodipine (medication to lower blood pressure) 5 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement) by mouth, once a day for hypertension. Hold medication if systolic blood pressure (SBP- pressure in the arteries when the heart beats) less than 110 millimeters of mercury (mmHg, unit of blood pressure measurement).2. Give ClearLax (medication to produce a bowel movement) oral powder, one scoop of 17 grams (g, unit of measurement) by mouth, once a day for constipation (difficulty having a bowel movement). 3. Give Paxlovid (medication to treat Coronavirus 2019 [COVID-19, a contagious respiratory virus) 150 mg/100mg by mouth two times a day, for five days, related to COVID-19.During a review on 7/16/2025 at 11:14 a.m., Resident 19's MAR, dated 7/1/2025 through 7/31/2025, the MAR indicated Resident 19's amlodipine, ClearLax, and Paxlovid were due for administration at 9 a.m. and did not have any documentation to indicate whether the medications were given. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 11:20 a.m., with RN 3, RN 3 stated Resident 19 received his medications that were due at 9 a.m.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 11:25 a.m., with Resident 19, Resident 19 stated he received his medications while he ate breakfast.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 11:03 a.m., with RN 3, Resident 19's Medication Administration Audit Report, dated 7/16/2025, was reviewed. The Audit report indicated the following:- Amlodipine 5mg was held by RN on 7/16/2025 at 8:05 a.m. due to Resident 19's pulse rate being less than 60 beats per minute (bpm) and documented on the MAR on 7/16/2025 at 2:55 p.m.- ClearLax 17g was refused by Resident 19 on 7/16/2025 at 8:56 a.m. and documented on the MAR on 7/16/2025 at 2:56 p.m.- Paxlovid 150mg/100mg was administered on 7/16/2025 at 8:05 a.m. and documented on the MAR on 7/16/2025 at 2:56 p.m.RN 3 stated when administering medications, the process was pour, pass, document, meaning she was responsible for pouring the medication into the medication cup, administer the medication to the resident, and immediately document on the MAR. RN 3 stated she did not follow that process after administering Resident 19's medication on 7/16/2025. RN 3 stated immediately documenting on the MAR was a communication tool indicating the medications Resident 19 did and did not receive. RN 3 stated by not marking Resident 19's MAR, it appeared that Resident 19 had not received his scheduled medications. RN 3 stated this put Resident 19 at risk of double dosing on the Paxlovid which could affect the liver and kidneys. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:57 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated after administering medications to a resident, the licensed nurse was responsible for documenting immediately whether the medications were given, held, or refused. The DON stated documentation was the licensed nurse's signature of care provided to the residents. The DON stated by not documenting immediately after administration and waiting hours later, placed Resident 19 at risk of a medication error such as double administration. The DON stated another licensed nurse could take over Resident 19's care and may think the scheduled medications were not given and decide to administer another dose. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Administering Medications, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated, The individual administering the medication initials the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor for side effects for one of five sampled residents (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor for side effects for one of five sampled residents (Resident 67), who was on Cymbalta (medication used to treat depression [a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest] and chronic pain). This deficient practice had the potential to result in undetected side effects, delay in physician notification of a change of condition, and a delay in providing necessary care and services to Resident 67.Findings:During a review of Resident 67's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 67 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (ESRD- irreversible kidney failure), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) with diabetic polyneuropathy (disease or dysfunction of one or more nerves, typically causing numbness or weakness in the hands and feet), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing).During a review of Resident 67's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 5/25/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 67's cognitive skills (process of thinking) for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 67 was dependent on staff's assistance with toileting, bathing, and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 67 took antidepressant medication. During a review of Resident 67's Order Summary Report, order dated 6/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to give Cymbalta (an antidepressant medication), by mouth in the morning related to type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:21 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 67's Orders, dated 7/17/2025, were reviewed. The Orders did not indicate side effects monitoring for Resident 67's use of Cymbalta. RN 1 stated Resident 67 took Cymbalta to treat her neuropathy pain, however, Cymbalta was classified as an antidepressant. RN 1 stated Cymbalta had side effects that the licensed nurses had to monitor for. RN 1 stated if Resident 67 experienced any side effects of Cymbalta, the licensed nurse was responsible for notifying her physician.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:31 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated monitoring Resident 67 for side effects from Cymbalta was important to assess how Resident 67 tolerated taking the medication. The DON stated monitoring every shift for side effects would allow the licensed nurses to identify the change of condition and notify Resident 67's promptly. The DON stated without proper monitoring, the side effects such as nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and dry mouth would go undetected, which would result in delay in physician notification and treatment.During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, The Use of Psychotropic Medication (medication that affect the brain to treat mental health disorders), revised 6/2013, the P&P indicated the licensed nurses were responsible for monitoring psychotropic drug use for any side effects.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

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 coordinate the initiation of RNA ([RNA] certified nur...

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 coordinate the initiation of RNA ([RNA] certified nursing aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) services with a resident's hospice (compassionate care for people who are near the end of life provided at the person's home or within a health care facility) provider after a resident exhibited documented limited range of motion [(ROM) full movement potential of a joint (where two bones meet)] for one out of five sampled residents. This failure resulted in unmet care needs and placed the resident at increased risk for functional decline. Findings: During a review of Resident 11's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (an interruption in blood flow to the brain), fracture (broken bone) of unspecified part of neck of unspecified femur (leg bone), muscle weakness, and history of falling. During a review of Resident 11's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 4/19/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 11's cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 11 was entirely dependent on staff to perform Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 11's Care Plan titled, At risk for Further Decline in ADL's Related to Impaired Mobility and Physical Limitations, initiated 1/3/2025, the Care Plan Goals indicated Resident 11 would have less episodes of further decline in ADLs. During a review of Resident 11's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 7/16/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated, on 1/3/2025, Resident 1 was ordered hospice services and, on 4/23/2025, Resident 11 was ordered a hand roll for his left hand. There were no orders for RNA ROM exercises. During observations made on 7/15/2025 at 9:13 a.m. and 7/16/2025 at 2:45 p.m. Resident 11 was in bed, with a nasal cannula (a small plastic tube, which fits into the person's nostrils for providing supplemental oxygen), with both of his legs bent and his left hand and arm bent inward. During a concurrent record review and interview on 7/16/2025 at 1:40 p.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), Resident 11's Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/21/2025, was reviewed. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 11 had the presence of a contracture (a stiffening/shortening at any joint, that reduces the joint's range of motion), ROM impairment on the left shoulder, and ROM impairments to both lower extremities. The note indicated the DOR coordinated with the desk nurse to recommend a left-hand roll. The DOR stated the normal practice was to notify the assigned nurses to notify the hospice provider whenever there was a concern, a recommendation or change of condition in the resident. The DOR stated Resident 11 was high risk for ADL decline and the development of contractures. The DOR stated she communicated the need for a hand roll but did not advocate for passive ROM exercises for Resident 11's upper and lower extremities. The DOR stated Resident 11 would have greatly benefitted from passive range of motion exercises for his upper and lower extremities to make him comfortable, maintain integrity of his joints and avoid decline. The DOR stated she did not recommend RNA services because the resident was a hospice resident and left the coordination of ROM exercises to the hospice team. The DOR stated she should have advocated for ROM exercises in addition to the application of the hand roll for Resident 11 regardless of his hospice care status. During a record review and interview on 7/17/2025 at 7:47 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 11's Nursing Progress Notes dated, 4/1/2025 to 7/2025, and all of Resident 11's SBARs, dated in 2025, were reviewed. The Nursing Progress Notes and the SBAR notes indicated there was no communication between licensed nursing staff and Resident 11's hospice provider about Resident 11's range of motion decline. RN 1 stated ROM exercises were important to ensure a resident maximized his or her ROM and to prevent mobility decline. RN 1 stated Resident 11 had known ROM limitations and was at risk for decline in mobility. RN 1 stated the licensed nursing staff should have advocated for ROM exercises and RNA services for Resident 11. RN 1 stated consistent ROM exercises should have been ordered to enhance Resident 11's quality of life, keep him comfortable and lessen the likelihood of the development of contractures. During a record review and interview on 7/17/2025 at 11:26 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 11's Nursing Progress Notes dated, 4/1/2025 to 7/2025, and all of Resident 11's SBARs, dated in 2025, were reviewed. The Nursing Progress Notes and the SBAR notes indicated there was no communication between licensed nursing staff and Resident 11's hospice provider about Resident 11's range of motion decline. LVN 1 stated he noticed Resident 11 had worsening ROM decline since February of 2025. LVN 1 stated he did not notify the hospice provider because he thought the hospice nurses were already aware. LVN 1 stated he should have coordinated with the hospice provider and advocated for RNA services and ROM exercises for Resident 11 so that pain associated with movement would have been minimized and to prevent further ROM decline. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, RNA Referral, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated the facility was to provide rehabilitative services and a restorative nursing program for residents to prevent deterioration and to achieve and maintain optimal levels of functioning and independence. During a review of the facility's P&P, titled, Hospice Candidate, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated the facility was to ensure hospice care was based on a philosophy of care in which the emphasis is on quality, rather than length of life for individuals with a terminal illness.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 care plans were developed and interventions im...

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 care plans were developed and interventions implemented for three of 19 sampled residents (Residents 71, 37, and 67). This deficient practice placed Residents 71, 37, and 67 at risk for not receiving the necessary interventions for the services and/or treatments they were receiving.Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 71’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 71 on 12/23/2024, and most recently re-admitted Resident 71 on 6/16/2025. Resident 71’s admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body) and obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder characterized by repeated pauses in breathing during sleep due to a blockage in the upper airway). During a review of Resident 71’s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 6/5/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 71 was independent with cognitive skills (the mental abilities used in thinking, learning, remembering, and problem-solving) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 71 was dependent on staff for all mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 71’s physician order, dated 6/16/2025, the order indicated Resident 71 was to receive oxygen therapy (a medical treatment that involves administering supplemental oxygen to individuals with breathing difficulties or low blood oxygen levels) at two (2) liters per minute (L/min, a unit for measuring oxygen delivery rate) as needed. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 11:33 a.m., at Resident 71’s bedside, Resident 71 was observed receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula (a small plastic tube, which fits into the person’s nostrils for providing supplemental oxygen). During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 8:54 a.m., at Resident 71’s bedside, Resident 71 was observed receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula. During an interview on 7/16/2025 2:27 p.m., with the DON, the DON stated there should be a care plan oxygen administration for residents on oxygen therapy. The DON stated it would include interventions such as keeping the resident’s head elevated for ease of breathing and monitoring the resident’s oxygen levels. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/16/2025 2:28 p.m., with the DON, Resident 71’s current care plans were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 71 did not have a current care plan for oxygen therapy and stated there should be one. The DON stated that if the MDS were accurate, it would have prompted staff to create a care plan for Resident 71’s oxygen therapy. 2. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 9:54 a.m., 7/15/2025 at 1:16 p.m., and 7/16/2025 at 9:45 a.m., in Resident 37’s room, Resident 37 was lying in bed, and one floor mat was observed folded up and set against a wheelchair.During a review of Resident 37’s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in muscle mass that can cause a decline in muscle strength and function), bipolar disease (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs), and osteoarthritis (a progressive disorder of the joints, caused by a gradual loss of cartilage). During a review of Resident 37’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 37’s cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 37 used mobility devices such as a walker and wheelchair. The MDS indicated Resident 37 required maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 37 had a fall with no injury since her admission to the facility. The MDS indicated Resident 37 took anticonvulsant medication (medication used to treat seizures [a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain which can cause uncontrolled jerking, blank stares, and loss of consciousness] and other behavioral conditions) in the facility. During a review of Resident 37’s History and Physical (H&P) dated 8/15/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 37 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 37’s Fall Risk Assessment, dated 6/14/2025, the Fall Risk Assessment indicated Resident 37 was at a high risk for falls. During a review of Resident 37’s Order Summary Report, order dated 7/8/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to place a floor mat (cushioned floor pad designed to help prevent injury should a person fall) on the right side of Resident 37’s bed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/17/2025 at 8:57 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5 in Resident 37’s room, Resident 5 was observed lying in bed, and one floor mat was folded up against the wall. CNA 5 stated she was aware Resident 5 was a fall risk and assisted Resident 5 to the restroom. CNA 5 stated after she assisted Resident 5 back to bed, she did not place the floor mat on the right side of Resident 37’s bed. CNA 5 stated due to Resident 37’s risk for falls, placing the floor mat was necessary to prevent injuries.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 9:55 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 37’s Care Plan titled, “At Risk for Falls”, revised 6/16/2025, was reviewed. The Care Plan interventions indicated to place a floor mat to the right side of the bed. RN 1 stated all care plan interventions were created as a guide to provide the best care to Resident 37. RN 1 stated when Resident 37 was in bed, the floor mat was supposed to be placed on the right side of the bed. RN 1 stated when a staff member assisted Resident 37 back to bed, they were responsible for placing the floor mat. RN 1 stated the purpose of the floor mat was to decrease the risk of injury if Resident 37 were to fall from her bed. RN 1 stated without the floor mat in place, Resident 37 was at risk of sustaining an injury from a fall such as a bruise, a skin tear, or a fracture.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:54 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated Resident 37 had recurrent falls and the care plan was revised to include interventions to decrease the risk of falls and injuries. The DON stated the floor mat was to be placed on Resident 37’s right side any time Resident 37 was in bed. The DON stated without the floor mat placement, if Resident 37 fell out of bed, Resident 37 could sustain an injury.During a review of the facility’s P&P titled, “Safety and Supervision of Residents”, revised 4/2025, the P&P indicated, “Implementing interventions to reduce accident risks and hazards shall include the following:a. Communicating specific interventions to all relevant staff;b. Assigning responsibility for carrying out interventions;c. Provide training, as necessary; d. Ensuring that interventions are implemented; ande. Documenting interventions.”3. During a review of Resident 37’s Order Summary Report, order date 8/12/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated to give Depakote (an anticonvulsant) 250 milligrams (mg, a unit of measurement), by mouth two times a day for bipolar disorder manifested by Resident 37 being calm to yelling. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:12 a.m., with RN 1, Resident 37’s Care Plans, dated 8/12/2024 through 7/17/2025, were reviewed. The Care Plans did not address the use of Depakote to treat Resident 37’s bipolar disorder as manifested as being calm to yelling. RN 1 stated a care plan to address Resident 37’s use of Depakote and the behavioral manifestations of Resident 37’s bipolar disorder should have been developed. RN 1 stated the care plan would address the use of Depakote, non-pharmacological interventions (interventions to treat a health problem without using medication), and monitoring for side effects and the frequency of behavior. RN 1 stated the care plan would include interventions to inform Resident 37’s physician of any change of condition. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:52 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated care plans were developed to guide the care for each resident. The DON stated Resident 37 should have had a care plan developed to address the use of Depakote to ensure Resident 37 was properly monitored for side effects and frequency of behaviors. The DON stated without a care plan, Resident 37 was at risk of not receiving the necessary care and services related to her use of Depakote which could result in undetected side effects or worsening behavior.4. During a review of Resident 67’s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 67 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (ESRD- irreversible kidney failure), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) with diabetic polyneuropathy (disease or dysfunction of one or more nerves, typically causing numbness or weakness in the hands and feet), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing).During a review of Resident 67’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 67’s cognitive skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 67 was dependent on staff’s assistance with toileting, bathing, and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 67 took antidepressant medication (medication used to treat depression [a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest] and chronic pain). During a review of Resident 67’s Order Summary Report, order dated 6/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to give Cymbalta (an antidepressant medication), by mouth in the morning related to type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic polyneuropathy.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:24 a.m., with RN 1, Resident 67’s Care Plans, dated 6/15/2025 through 7/17/2025, were reviewed. The Care Plans did not address Resident 67’s use of Cymbalta for polyneuropathy. RN 1 stated Resident 67 should have had a care plan developed to address the use of Cymbalta, monitoring for any side effects, and non-pharmacological interventions. RN 1 stated without a care plan with resident-specific interventions, Resident 67 was at risk of suffering undetected side effects from Cymbalta such as dry mouth, nausea and vomiting, and diarrhea. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 8:33 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated Resident 67 should have had a care plan developed to address Resident 67’s use of Cymbalta to ensure Resident 67 was properly monitored for side effects and efficacy of pain management. The DON stated without a care plan, Resident 67 was at risk of not receiving the necessary care related to her use of Cymbalta which could result in undetected side effects and mismanaged pain.During a review of the facility’s P&P titled “Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered” revised 4/2025, the P&P indicated a comprehensive care plan was to be developed for each resident. The P&P indicated the care plan was to describe the services provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to clarify hold parameters (specific instructions that accompany a med...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to clarify hold parameters (specific instructions that accompany a medication order for safe and effective drug administration) for amlodipine (medication to lower blood pressure) and lisinopril (medication to lower blood pressure) for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 19).This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 19 experiencing bradycardia (heart rate less than 60 beats per minute [bpm], a normal heart rate is between 60 to 100 bpm) with symptoms of dizziness, fatigue, chest pain, and/or fainting.Findings:During a review of Resident 19's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). During a review of Resident 19's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 7/1/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 19's cognition (process of thinking) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 19 was independent in eating, oral hygiene, toileting, and personal hygiene.During a review of Resident 19's Order Summary Report, order date 3/18/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to:1. Give amlodipine 5 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement) by mouth, once a day for hypertension. Hold medication if systolic blood pressure (SBP- pressure in the arteries when the heart beats) less than 110 millimeters of mercury (mmHg, unit of blood pressure measurement).2. Give lisinopril 5 mg by mouth, once a day for hypertension. Hold if SBP less than 110 mmHg.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 11:06 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 3, Resident 19's Medication Administration Record (MAR - a daily documentation record used by a licensed nurse to document medications and treatments given to a resident), dated 7/1/2025 through 7/31/2025, was reviewed. The MAR indicated Resident 19 had the following pulse rates less than 60 bpm:- 7/1/2025, 54 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/2/2025, 58 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/3/2025 58 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/4/2025, 58 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril refused by Resident 19- 7/6/2025, 54 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/7/2025, 54 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/8/2025, 54 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/10/2025, 56 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril held due to pulse less than 60 bpm- 7/12/2025, 54 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/14/2025, 54 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril administered- 7/16/2025, 56 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril held due to pulse less than 60 bpm- 7/17/2025, 56 bpm, amlodipine and lisinopril held due to pulse less than 60 bpmRN 3 stated their electronic MAR (eMAR) prompted the licensed nurse to check Resident 19's blood pressure and pulse rate prior to administering amlodipine and lisinopril. RN 3 stated it was standard practice to hold these medications when the pulse rate was less than 60 bpm. RN 3 stated she held Resident 19's amlodipine and lisinopril on 7/10/2025, 7/16/2025, and 7/17/2025 because Resident 19's pulse rate was less than 60 bpm. RN 3 stated Resident 19's orders did not specify hold parameters for pulse rate. RN 3 stated the licensed nurses, including herself, who administered Resident 19 his amlodipine and lisinopril, should have informed Resident 19's physician of Resident 19's pulse rate below 60 bpm. RN 3 stated informing the physician would result in clarification of the orders or change in medication. RN 3 stated continuing to administer Resident 19 amlodipine and lisinopril with his pulse rate below 60 bpm placed him at risk of bradycardia which could cause dizziness, chest pain, fainting, and/or fatigue. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 9:01 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 19's order for amlodipine and lisinopril to reflect parameters to hold the medications if Resident 19's pulse rate was below 60 bpm. The DON stated amlodipine and lisinopril had the potential to lower Resident 19's even more and clarifying the orders was important to ensure those medications were held appropriately. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Administering Medications, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated, Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner.During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medication and Treatment Orders, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated, Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principles of safe and effective order writing.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control measures were maintained and...

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 infection control measures were maintained and/or implemented for eight of 19 sampled residents (Residents 71, 70, 74, 1, 18, 52, 5, and 20) when: 1. Signage for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP, infection control measures used to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDROs], requiring staff to wear a protective gown and gloves during high-contact activity) was not placed outside of Rooms A, B, and C.2. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 and CNA 3 did not don the required personal protective equipment (PPE, clothing and equipment that is worn or used to provide protection against hazardous substances and/or environments) before entering Room D.3. CNA 1 did not don the required PPE before entering Resident 5's room.4. Failed to ensure Resident 20's suprapubic catheter (a tube inserted through the abdomen into the bladder that allows urine to drain from the bladder into a bag) drainage bag was not touching the floor.5. Licensed nursing staff failed to ensure the safe disposal of sharps (devices with sharp points or edges that can puncture or cut skin) containers (containers used to dispose of contaminated sharps) that were overfilled with sharps beyond the manufacturer's fill line for two of three sharps containers attached to medication carts 2 and medication cart 3. These deficient practices placed all facility residents at risk due to transmission of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19, a contagious respiratory virus) and/or MDROs from one resident to another, and to other staff. These deficient practices also placed Resident 20 at risk of infection.1.a. During a review of Resident 71’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 71 on 12/23/2024, and most recently re-admitted Resident 71 on 6/16/2025. Resident 71’s admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood) and obstructive sleep apnea (a sleep disorder characterized by repeated pauses in breathing during sleep due to a blockage in the upper airway). During a review of Resident 71’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 71 was independent with cognitive skills (the mental abilities used in thinking, learning, remembering, and problem-solving) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 71 was dependent on staff for all mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 71’s physician order, dated 7/4/2025, the order indicated staff were to implement EBP due to Resident 71’s multiple open wounds. During a review of Resident 71’s care plan titled “Resident is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions…,” revised 7/4/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to post clear signage outside of Resident 71’s room (Room A) to indicate the type of precaution in place and the required PPE. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 9:34 a.m., outside of Room A, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions (measures taken to prevent the spread of infection transmitted through respiratory droplets, requiring staff to wear a surgical mask) was observed posted on the wall. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 2:45 p.m., outside of Room A, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 8:25 a.m., outside of Room A, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. b. During a review of Resident 70’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 70 on 1/9/2024. Resident 70’s admitting diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness and presence of a gastrostomy tube (a surgically placed tube that provides a way to deliver nutrition, fluids, and medications directly into the stomach). During a review of Resident 70’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 70 had severe cognitive impairment (a significant decline in mental abilities), and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and for showering/bathing. During a review of Resident 70’s physician order, dated 3/21/2025, the order indicated staff were to implement EBP due to Resident 70’s colonization (the presence of microorganisms [i.e., bacteria, viruses, or fungi] within a person, without any apparent symptoms or disease) with an MDRO. During a review of Resident 70’s care plan titled “Resident is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions,” dated 3/21/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to post clear signage outside of Resident 70’s room (Room B) to indicate the type of precaution in place and the required PPE. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 2:40 p.m., outside of Room B, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 8:25 a.m., outside of Room B, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. c. During a review of Resident 74’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 74 on 3/13/2024, and most recently re-admitted him on 1/17/2025. Resident 74’s admitting diagnoses included perforation of intestine (a serious medical condition where a hole or tear develops in the wall of the gastrointestinal tract) and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 74’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 74 had moderate cognitive impairment (a decline in mental abilities, such as memory, thinking, and problem-solving) and required partial or moderate assistance from staff for toileting hygiene and for showering/bathing. During a review of Resident 74’s physician order, dated 3/27/2025, the order indicated staff were to implement EBP due to Resident 74’s colonization with an MDRO. During a review of Resident 74’s care plan titled “Resident is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions,” dated 3/27/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to post clear signage outside of Resident 74’s room (Room C) to indicate the type of precaution in place and the required PPE. During a review of Resident 1’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 5/15/2025. Resident 1’s admitting diagnoses included pleural effusion (a collection of fluid around your lungs) and pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by infection). During a review of Resident 1’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 did not have cognitive impairments, and was dependent on staff for showering, and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 1’s physician order, dated 7/4/2025, the order indicated staff were to implement EBP due to the presence of Resident 1’s indwelling PleurX catheter (a thin, flexible tube placed in the chest to drain fluid), Resident 1’s colonization with an MDRO, and the presence of an open wound. During a review of Resident 1’s care plan titled “Resident is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions,” dated 7/4/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to post clear signage outside of Resident 1’s room (Room C) to indicate the type of precaution in place and the required PPE. During a review of Resident 18’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 18 on 8/14/2024 and most recently re-admitted him on 8/18/2024. Resident 18’s admitting diagnoses included reduced mobility, paraplegia (inability to move the legs and lower body), and a pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence) of the right buttock. During a review of Resident 18’s MDS, dated MDS 5/25/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 18 had moderate cognitive impairment and was dependent on staff for toileting, showering, and mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 18’s physician order, dated 3/27/2025, the order indicated staff were to implement EBP due to Resident 18’s colonization with an MDRO. During a review of Resident 18’s care plan titled “Resident is on Enhanced Barrier Precautions,” dated 3/27/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to post clear signage outside of Resident 18’s room (Room C) to indicate the type of precaution in place and the required PPE. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 9:37 a.m., outside of Room C, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. During an observation on 07/16/2025 2:34 p.m., outside of Room C, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 8:26 a.m., outside of Room C, no EBP signage was observed on the wall or door. Signage for droplet precautions was observed posted on the wall. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 11:10 a.m., with Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the IPN stated EBP required staff to wear a protective gown, and droplet precautions only required a surgical mask. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 11:19 a.m., with the IPN, the IPN stated it was important to ensure signage for any required precautions was posted for infection control and to prevent transmission of infection. The IPN stated that without clear signage there was potential for the spread of infection. 2. During a review of Resident 52’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 52 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident 52’s admitting diagnoses included high blood pressure. During a review of Resident 52’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 52 did not have cognitive impairments and required substantial to maximal assistance from staff for toileting, showering, and mobility while in bed. During a review of Resident 52’s progress note, dated 7/11/2025, the progress note indicated Resident 52 tested positive for Covid-19. During a review of Resident 52’s physician order, dated 7/12/2025, the order indicated staff were to implement novel respiratory precautions (an infection control measure requiring staff to put on a disposable gown, eye protection [goggles or face shield], a fit-tested respirator [a mask that protects the wearer from hazardous airborne substances], and gloves) prior to entering Resident 52’s room. During a review of Resident 52’s care plan titled “…On Novel Respiratory Precautions,” dated 7/11/2025, the care plan indicated staff were to use the required PPE when providing care. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 3:33 p.m., at Resident 52’s bedside, CNA 2 entered Resident 52’s room and was not wearing a respirator-type face mask, face shield/goggles, or a gown. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 3:41 p.m., at Resident 52’s bedside, CNA 3 entered Resident 52’s room and was not wearing a respirator-type face mask, face shield/goggles, or a gown. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 3:52 p.m., outside of Resident 52’s room, with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated he did not see the signage indicating novel respiratory precautions before entering Resident 52’s room. CNA 2 stated he should have put on the required PPE prior to entering Resident 52’s room. CNA 2 stated the importance of putting on the required PPE was to prevent the transmission of Covid-19. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 3:56 p.m., with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated he did not see the signage indicating novel respiratory precautions before entering Resident 52’s room. CNA 3 stated the failure to use the required PPE created the risk for the spread of Covid-19. During an review of the facility P&P titled Infection Prevention and Control Program dated 2001, the P&P indicated that important facets of infection prevention included instituting measures to avoid complications or dissemination. It also indicated outbreak management procedures included preventing the spread of infection to other residents. 3. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 8:04 a.m., inside Resident 5’s room, CNA 1 was at Resident 5’s bedside assisting with Resident 5 with her breakfast meal set up. CNA 1 was not wearing a disposable gown nor gloves. CNA 1 peeled Resident 5’s orange with her bare hands. A “Droplet Precaution” sign and a PPE donning and doffing signs were posted to the right of Resident 5’s door. During a review of Resident 5’s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 4 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing). During a review of Resident 5’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 5’s cognition (process of thinking) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 5 required setup assisting with eating and was dependent on staff’s assistance with toileting, bathing, and dressing. During a review of Resident 5’s History and Physical (H&P), dated 12/14/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 5 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 5’s Progress Notes, dated 7/11/2025, the Progress Notes indicated Resident 5 was exposed to COVID-19 and was placed on droplet isolation precaution. During a review of Resident 5’s Order Summary Report, order dated 7/11/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated to place Resident 5 on droplet isolation precautions for ten days. During a review of Resident 5’s Care Plan, titled “Isolation Precaution related to COVID-19 Exposure”, dated 7/11/2025, the Care Plan interventions indicated to place Resident 5 on droplet isolation precautions as ordered and to use isolation barriers, such as PPE, as indicated. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 8:06 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she brought Resident 5’s breakfast tray into the room and assisted Resident 5 with uncovering her drinks and peeling her orange. CNA 1 stated she did not realize Resident 5 was on droplet isolation. CNA 1 stated because Resident 5 had the droplet isolation sign and the donning and doffing of PPE signs next to her door, she was required to wear a gown and gloves before entering her room. CNA 1 stated Resident 5 was exposed to COVID-19 and wearing the appropriate PPE was necessary to protect herself from contracting COVID-19 and from spreading to other residents and staff. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 9:42 a.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated prior to entering a resident’s room, the staff were responsible for being attentive to any isolation signs next to the resident’s door. The DSD stated for a droplet isolation, prior to entering the room, the staff had to don a disposable gown, gloves, and a mask. The DSD stated when assisting a resident with meals, which is near the resident, any droplet in the air could land on the skin or contaminate clothing. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/17/2025, with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), outside of Resident 5’s room, the IPN was observed donning a disposable gown and gloves. The IPN stated she was going into Resident 5’s room to retest Resident 5 for COVID-19 because she was exposed by a staff member. The IPN stated the facility currently had a COVID-19 outbreak and donning the proper PPE prior to entering Resident 5’s room was necessary to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 to other staff and residents. During a review of the facility’s P&P titled, “Droplet Precautions Policy”, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated, “Anyone entering the resident [droplet isolation] room should perform hand hygiene and don a face mask. If there is substantial risk of exposure to mucous membranes or spraying of respiratory secretions, if the pathogen/clinical syndrome indicates, in addition to face mask, PPE should also include a gown, gloves, and face shield or goggles.” 4. During a review of Resident 20’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 20 on 4/29/2022 and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 20’s admitting diagnoses included urinary tract infection, urogenital implant (catheter), and diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 20’s admission Nursing Assessment, dated 7/10/2025, the admission Nursing Assessment indicated Resident 20’s cognition was moderately impaired. The admission Nursing Assessment indicated Resident 20 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs- routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 20’s Order Summary Report, dated 7/10/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 20 would have suprapubic catheter, and the facility would provide care every shift. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 10:27 a.m., and 12:35 p.m., in Resident 20’s room, Resident 20 was observed lying in bed with suprapubic catheter. The catheter drainage bag was observed on the right side of Resident 20's bed, touching the floor during both observations. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 1:34 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4, CNA 4 stated the catheter bag should be hanging from the side of the resident bed, not on the floor. CNA 4 stated Resident 20’s catheter bag on the floor was not sanitary and could cause infection. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 4:15 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated catheter drainage bag must be secured to the resident’s bed and should never be touching the floor under any circumstances. The DON stated that when the catheter bag touches the floor increases the risk of bacterial contamination, which could potentially place Resident 20 at risk of catheter associated urinary tract infections. During a review of the facility’ policy and procedure (P&P) titled “Catheter Care, Urinary”, undated the facility would maintain the catheter tubing and drainage bag clean and would ensure the catheter tubing and drainage bag were kept off the floor. 5. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 11:05 a.m., a sharps container was attached to medication cart 2 filled with used needles, lancets and other sharps. The container was observed to be overfilled with sharps that passed the manufacturer’s fill line. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 11:05 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse, LVN 1 stated, This container is full and does pose an infection control risk to residents. During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 11:19 a.m., a sharps container was attached to medication cart 3 containing needles, lancets and other sharps. The container was observed to be filled beyond the manufacturer’s fill line. During an interview on 7/19/2025 at 12:40 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN), RN 3 stated, It is an infection control risk having the sharps container filled beyond the fill line. During a review of the facility’s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, “Sharps Disposal”, undated, the P&P indicated, “During use, containers for contaminated sharps will be handled as follows: Designated individuals will be responsible for sealing and replacing containers when they are 75% to 80% full to protect employees from punctures and/or accidents while attempting to push sharps into the container.”
Jul 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0573 (Tag F0573)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide copies of medical records to one of four sampled residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide copies of medical records to one of four sampled residents (Resident 2) Responsible Party (RP 1) upon request.This deficient practice was a violation of RP 1's right to obtain a copy of Resident 2's medical records.Findings:During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2's admitting diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy (thinning of muscle mass), lack of coordination, and generalized muscle weakness.During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 5/28/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 2 did not have cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairments. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required substantial to maximal assistance from staff with all mobility while in and out of bed.During a review of Resident 2's record titled Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC), undated, the record indicated it was signed by Resident 2.During an interview on 7/9/2025 at 11:29 AM, with Resident 2's Responsible Party (RP 1), RP 1 stated she repeatedly requested copies of any documents signed by Resident 2, including Resident 2's record titled Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC). RP 1 stated she sent multiple emails to the facility and had not received a response or the requested record.During a review of RP 1's emails to the facility dated 6/18/2025 at 6:12 AM and 6/19/2025 at 9:43 AM, the emails indicated RP 1 requested copies of any documents signed by Resident 2. The emails were addressed to the facility's Business Office Manager (BOM), Social Services Director (SSD), and Administrator (ADM).During a review of an email from the SSD to RP 1 dated 6/20/2025 at 10:09 AM, the email did not indicate RP1's requests for Resident 2's signed documents were addressed. During a review of RP 1's email to the facility dated 6/20/2025 at 6:02 PM, the email indicated RP 1 requested copies of any documents signed by Resident 2. The email was sent by RP 1 to the BOM, ADM, SSD, and Medical Records Director (MRD).During a review of an email dated 6/24/2025 at 9:31 AM, the email indicated RP 1 requested copies of any documents signed by Resident 2. The email was sent to the BOM, ADM, SSD, and MRD.During an interview on 7/9/2025 at 2:09 PM, with the MRD, the MRD stated she received the emails sent by RP 1 on 6/20/2025 at 6:02 PM and 6/24/2025 at 9:31 AM. The MRD stated copies of documents signed by Resident 2, including the NOMNC, were not provided to RP 1. When asked why copies of the requested documents were not provided, the MRD stated the Administrator in Training (AIT) told her to not respond to RP 1's emails. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/9/2025 at 2:15 PM, with the SSD, the emails sent by RP 1 dated 6/18/2025 at 6:12 AM, 6/19/2025 at 9:43 AM, 6/20/2025 at 6:02 PM, and 6/24/2025 at 9:31 AM, were reviewed. The SSD stated she received the emails from RP 1 and stated she did not reply to RP 1's requests, including the request for a signed copy of Resident 2's NOMNC. The SSD stated she did not follow-up with any other staff to ensure the record request was fulfilled.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/9/2025 at 2:25 PM, with the BOM, the emails sent by RP 1 dated 6/18/2025 at 6:12 AM and 6/19/2025 at 9:43 AM were reviewed. The BOM stated she received the emails and was aware of RP 1's requests. The BOM stated she did not provide any copies of records to RP 1.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/9/2025 2:44 PM, with the AIT, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Access to Personal and Medical Records, undated, was reviewed. The P&P indicated it was the facility's policy to provide access to and/or copies of records within 24 hours. The AIT stated there was no reason Resident 2's signed NOMNC could not be provided to RP 1. The AIT stated RP 1's request was missed.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to timely report suspicions of abuse for one of four sampled residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely report suspicions of abuse for one of four sampled residents (Resident 2).This deficient practice created a delay in the investigation of Resident 2's suspected abuse, and placed Resident 2 at risk for sustaining further abuse.Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2's admitting diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy (thinning of muscle mass), lack of coordination, and generalized muscle weakness.During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 5/28/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 2 did not have cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairments. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required substantial to maximal assistance from staff with all mobility while in and out of bed.a. During a review of Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025 at 3:13 PM, the progress note indicated on 6/13/2025, a verbal exchange, lasting approximately ten minutes, occurred between Resident 2 and RP 1. The progress note indicated RP 1 yelled at Resident 2 during the exchange.During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 12:09 PM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated verbal abuse was a type of abuse, and could appear as distress in the resident, including a change in their attitude or their demeanor. LVN 1 stated Resident 2 had a change in his demeanor since admission. LVN 1 stated Resident 2 used to smile more, but after interactions with RP 1, the resident was more upset and sadder than usual. LVN 1 stated Resident 2 told her he felt intimidated by RP 1.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/3/2025 at 12:18 PM, with LVN 1, Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025, was reviewed. LVN 1 stated she wrote the progress note and observed the documented exchange between Resident 2 and RP 1. LVN 1 stated Resident 2's blood pressure was elevated after the incident. LVN 1 stated she reported the incident to Registered Nurse (RN) 1. LVN 1 stated she did not report the incident to any outside agencies, including the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 12:47 PM, with RN 1, RN 1 stated LVN 1 informed her of the incident that occurred between Resident 2 and RP 1 on 6/13/2025. RN 1 stated she was not responsible for reporting the incident because she was not the staff who directly observed the incident. RN 1 stated that once she was made aware of the incident, she did not follow up further or assess Resident 2 for any harm or distress related to the incident. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 1:55 PM, with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated all facility staff were mandated reporters and required to report suspected abuse if they had knowledge of it. The DSD stated all staff members were required to report suspected abuse, even if they did not directly witness it themselves.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 2:01 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025 was reviewed. The progress note indicated RP 1 was yelling at the resident for approximately 10 minutes and that Resident 2 appeared visibly upset. The DON stated all staff were mandated reporters and stated the incident should have been reported in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P).During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 2:02 PM, with the DON, the facility's P&P titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018, was reviewed. The P&P indicated it was the facility's policy to ensure residents are safe and free from abuse. The DON stated the P&P indicated all staff were mandated reporters and that reporting of alleged abuse was to be completed according to state and federal guidance.During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 2:03 PM, with the DON, the DON stated the incident that occurred between Resident 2 and RP 1 on 6/13/2025 met the definitions of possible mental and/or verbal abuse in the facility's P&P titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018. The DON stated the incident should have been reported within two hours to the CDPH and other required agencies. The DON stated RN 1 and LVN 1 were both responsible for reporting.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 2:26 PM, with the facility's Administrator in Training (AIT), Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025 was reviewed. The AIT stated RP 1 yelling at Resident 2 was possible mental abuse. The AIT stated he was serving as the facility's abuse coordinator, and stated he was not made aware of the incident that occurred between Resident 2 and RP 1 on 6/13/2025. The AIT stated the incident should have been reported because RP 1 was causing distress to Resident 2. The AIT stated anyone with knowledge of the incident that occurred on 6/13/2025 should have reported it.b. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 2:33 PM, with the Social Services Director (SSD), the SSD stated a meeting was held with Resident 2 on 6/26/2025. The SSD stated during interactions, Resident 2 agreed with RP 1 to avoid arguing or fighting. The SSD stated that during the meeting, Resident 2 expressed distress related to his interactions with RP 1. The SSD stated Resident 2's statement indicated there was possible abuse occurring by RP 1 towards Resident 2. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/3/2025 at 2:50 PM, with the SSD, the SSD stated she first suspected abuse was occurring on 6/26/2025, but did not report Resident 2's suspected abuse until 6/27/2025. When asked why the reporting was delayed, the SSD stated she was waiting for guidance from the Ombudsman (a public official who advocates for residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities) on whether to report. The SSD stated she placed the initial call to the Ombudsman on 6/26/2025 but did not hear back from the Ombudsman until 6/27/2025. The SSD stated she was taught by the former SSD to get guidance from the Ombudsman prior to reporting suspected abuse.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/3/2025 at 2:56 PM, with the SSD, the facility's P&P titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018, was reviewed. The SSD stated the P&P did not indicate the Ombudsman was required to provide guidance on abuse reporting. The SSD stated the P&P indicated suspected abuse was to be reported right away. The SSD stated timely reporting was important to ensure the abuse was addressed and to prevent any unwanted adverse effects on the resident's wellbeing resulting from the abuse.During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 2:48 PM, with the AIT, the AIT stated he was not sure why the suspected abuse was reported late. The AIT stated the incident should have been reported on 6/26/2025, within two hours of the meeting with Resident 2.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed for two of four sampled residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were developed for two of four sampled residents (Resident 2 and Resident 3). This deficient practice placed Resident 2 and Resident 3 at risk of not receiving resident-centered care and interventions to assist them in reaching their highest practicable physical and psychosocial well-being.Findings: a. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the record indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was most recently re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 3's admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body) and hypotension (low blood pressure). During a review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 6/5/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 3 did not have cognitive impairments (a decline in one or more areas of mental function, such as memory, attention, or problem-solving). The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and rolling from left to right while in bed. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 11:29 AM, with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN), Resident 3's MDS dated [DATE] was reviewed. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required two person assist for repositioning from left to right while in bed. The MDSN stated the assistance of two staff, instead of just one, was for Resident 3's safety. The MDSN stated that if two-person assistance was not provided, there was potential for Resident 3 to sustain preventable accidents and injuries. The MDSN stated it was better to prevent harm to the resident, than to have an accident and address the harm after. The MDSN stated the requirement for two-person assistance should be care planned. During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 11:33 AM, with the MDSN, the MDSN stated Resident 3 did not have a care plan indicating the level of assistance required for the provision of safe, resident-centered care. The MDSN stated care plans guided the care provided to the residents, and the absence of a care plan placed Resident 3 at risk for injury from falls. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Policies and Procedure on Nursing Assessment, undated, the P&P indicated the results of the MDS assessment were to be used to formulate a plan of care. b. During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2's admitting diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy (thinning of muscle mass), lack of coordination, and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 did not have cognitive impairments. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required substantial to maximal assistance from staff with all mobility while in and out of bed. During a review of Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025 at 3:13 PM, the progress note indicated a verbal exchange, lasting approximately ten minutes, occurred on 6/13/2025, between Resident 2 and his Responsible Party (RP 1). The progress note indicated RP 1 yelled at Resident 2 during the exchange. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/3/2025 at 12:18 PM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025, was reviewed. LVN 1 stated she wrote the progress note and observed the documented exchange between Resident 2 and RP 1. LVN 1 stated she felt the exchange was possible verbal abuse. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 12:24 PM, with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated that any incidents of suspected or alleged abuse were to be care planned. LVN 1 stated the purpose of developing a care plan was to ensure the resident did not sustain any psychosocial harm from the incident and prevent repeated incidents of abuse. LVN 1 stated the care plan would include interventions to ensure that the goal was met. During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 2:05 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated a care plan should have been developed after the exchange between Resident 2 and RP 1 on 6/13/2025. The DON stated a care plan would address the suspected abuse between Resident 2 and RP 1 and would help prevent any future incidents of RP 1 yelling at Resident 2, potentially causing him distress. The DON stated the main goal of care would be to prevent any psychosocial harm to Resident 2. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018, the P&P indicated staff were to complete care plan updates to incorporate individualized recommendations.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was most recently re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 3's admitting diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition that occurs when the lungs cannot get enough oxygen into the blood or eliminate enough carbon dioxide from the body) and hypotension (low blood pressure).During a review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 6/5/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 3 did not have cognitive impairments (a decline in one or more areas of mental function, such as memory, attention, or problem-solving). The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and rolling from left to right while in bed, requiring two-person assist. During a review of Resident 3's progress note, dated 6/20/2025, the progress note indicated that on 6/20/2025 at 8:30 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 overheard Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 shouting for help. The progress note indicated RN 1 went to Resident 3's room and observed Resident 3 in a face-down position on the floor next to her bed. The progress note indicated RN 1 observed blood on the floor from Resident 3's head and foot. The progress note indicated Resident 3 stated she was being cleaned from behind when she fell from her bed onto the floor.During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 8:32 AM, with Resident 3, Resident 3 stated that on 6/20/2025, CNA 1 repositioned her onto her side facing away from CNA 1. Resident 3 stated there was no other staff on the opposite side of the bed where she was facing. Resident 3 stated she began to slide off the right side of her bed and fell to the floor.During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 9:06 AM, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she turned Resident 3 onto her right side, towards the edge of the mattress without any other staff present. CNA 1 stated Resident 3 required two staff during care for safety. CNA 1 stated she made a mistake by not waiting for another staff person to assist. CNA 1 stated Resident 3 fell from the bed and scraped her head on the bedrail. CNA 1 stated Resident 3 was receiving blood thinners at the time and she bled from her wounds. During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 10:05 AM, with RN 1, RN 1 stated Resident 3 required assistance from two staff for safety. RN 1 stated CNA 1 did not request assistance. RN 1 stated that if a resident required two-person assist but it was not provided, there was potential for injury, and the inability to provide safe or correct care. RN 1 stated that as a result of the fall, Resident 3 sustained injuries requiring first aid (the immediate care given to someone who is injured). During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 11:06 AM, with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), Resident 3's assessment titled Rehab Screening Form, dated 6/20/2025, was reviewed. The DOR stated the assessment was completed for Resident 3's fall on 6/20/2025, and the assessment indicated she re-educated staff on having at least two staff present when assisting Resident 3 while repositioning in bed due to obesity (a medical condition characterized by excessive accumulation of body fat). The DOR stated Resident 3 had required two-person assistance since her admission to the facility and staff were aware. The DOR stated all obese residents required at least two-person assist for safety. The DOR stated staff were educated to not overestimate what they can safely perform alone and to always have a second person to assist them.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 11:29 AM, with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN), Resident 3's MDS dated [DATE] was reviewed. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required two staff to perform repositioning from left to right while in bed. The MDSN stated the assistance of two staff, instead of just one, was for Resident 3's safety. The MDSN stated that if two-person assistance was not provided, there was potential for Resident 3 to sustain preventable accidents and injuries. The MDSN stated it was better to prevent harm to the resident than to have an accident and address the harm after. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 1:42 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Safey and Supervision of Residents, undated, was reviewed. The DON stated the P&P indicated indicate staff were to use various sources to identify risk factors for falls, including the resident's MDS.During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 1:43 PM, with the DON, the DON stated Resident 3 required assistance from two staff for repositioning in bed and toileting hygiene. The DON stated Resident 3's fall on 6/20/2025 could have been avoided if CNA 1 had waited for another staff to assist her.During a review of the facility's P&P titled Safety and Supervision of Residents, undated, the P&P indicated resident safety and assistance to prevent accidents were facility-wide priorities. The P&P indicated staff were to analyze information obtained from assessments to identify specific accident hazards or risks for the resident, and target interventions to reduce the potential for accidents.2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's admitting diagnoses included reduced mobility and broken bones in her right leg.During a review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 did not have cognitive impairments. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had impairments to her upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist, hand) on both sides of her body. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial to maximum assistance from staff for rolling left to right in bed. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, and transitioning from a sitting to lying position (and vice versa) and sitting to standing position (and vice versa).During a review of Resident 1's physician order, dated 6/23/2025, the order indicated staff were to ensure Resident 1 had floor mats on both sides of her bed.During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled Resident at risk for recurrent fall/injury related tohistory of falls., dated 6/22/2025, the care plan indicated goals of care included fall prevention and no injury from falls. Care plan interventions indicated staff were to place floor mats on both sides of Resident 1's bed.During a review of Resident 1's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 6/24/2025, the assessment indicated Resident 1 was at high risk for falls.During an observation on 7/3/2025 at 9:35 AM, at Resident 1's bedside, no floor mats were observed on the floor next to Resident 1's bed. During an observation on 7/7/2025 at 9:03 AM, at Resident 1's bedside, a blue floor mat was placed on the floor to Resident 1's right side. There was no floor mat observed to Resident 1's left side. Observed a gray floor mat folded and placed under Resident 1's roommate's bed.During a concurrent observation and interview, on 7/7/2025 at 9:10 AM, at Resident 1's bedside, with RN 1, RN 1 stated Resident 1 had floor mats on one side of her bed. RN 1 stated she was not sure if Resident 1 required floor mats to one side or both sides of her bed.During a concurrent observation and interview, on 7/7/2025 at 9:16 AM, at Resident 1's bedside, with RN 1, observed RN 1 unfold the gray floor mat from under Resident 1's roommate's bed, and place it to Resident 1's left side of the bed. RN 1 stated Resident 1 had orders for floor mats to both sides of her bed. RN 1 stated the purpose of the floor mats was to prevent injury from falls. RN 1 stated there was potential for Resident 1 to sustain injury from a fall if the floor mats were not placed as ordered.During an observation on 7/8/2025 at 8:35 AM, at Resident 1's bedside, observed a blue floor mat on Resident 1's right side of the bed. There was no floor mat to Resident 1's left side. Observed a gray floor mat was observed folded under Resident 1's roommate's bed.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 1:45 PM, with the DON, Resident 1's care plan titled Resident at risk for recurrent fall/injury related to history of falls., dated 6/22/2025, was reviewed. The DON stated the care plan indicated Resident 1 was to have floor mats on both sides of her bed.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/8/2025 at 1:47 PM, with the DON, the facility's P&P titled Fall Risk Intervention and Monitoring, undated, was reviewed. The P&P indicated it was the facility's policy to try and minimize complications from falling and staff were to implement relevant interventions to try and minimize serious consequences of falling. The DON stated floor mats were one of those interventions. The DON stated that residents should have floor mats as ordered and/or care planned. The DON stated floor mats helped to prevent injury from falls, and the absence of floor mats could result in the resident sustaining injuries from a fall.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 1:48 PM, with the DON, Resident 1's records titled Fall Investigation Form, dated 3/24/2025, and Fall Risk Assessment, dated 5/1/2025, were reviewed. The DON stated the Fall Investigation Form indicated Resident 1 sustained a fall on 3/24/2025 when she slid out of her wheelchair. The DON stated the Fall Risk Assessment indicated Resident 1 did not have a fall in the last six months. The DON stated the assessment was not accurate and stated the inaccuracy affected the resident's fall risk score. The DON stated the assessment should be accurate because it guided the plan of care to prevent Resident 1 from sustaining future falls.3. During a review of Resident 4's admission Record, the record indicated Resident 4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was most recently re-admitted on [DATE], Resident 4's admitting diagnoses included difficulty walking, history of falling, and convulsions (a sudden, violent, irregular movement of a limb or of the body, caused by involuntary contraction of muscles). During a review of Resident 4's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 5 had severe cognitive impairments and required supervision or touch assistance from staff for all mobility while in and out of bed.During a review of Resident 4's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 4/9/2025, the assessment indicated Resident 4 was at high risk for falls.During a review of Resident 4's care plan titled Resident at risk for further falls/injury related to impaired balance ., [history of] falls, trying to get out of bed unassisted.,, dated 5/5/2025, the care plan indicated goals of care included prevention of falls and injury from falls. Care plan interventions indicated staff were to place floor mats on both sides of Resident 4's bed.During an observation on 7/7/2025 at 9:17 AM, at Resident 4's bedside, observed Resident 4 lying in bed with a floor mat to his left side. There was no floor mat to Resident 4's right side.During an observation on 7/7/2025 at 10:01 AM, at Resident 4's bedside, observed no floor mats to either side of Resident 4's bed. Observed two floor mats folded and placed against the wall on Resident 4's left side of the bed. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 7/7/2025 at 10:05 AM, at Resident 4's bedside, with RN 2, observed Resident 4's floor mats folded up against the wall. RN 2 stated Resident 4 was at risk for falls. RN 2 stated Resident 4's floor mats were not in place. RN 2 stated the floor mats were moved by a CNA in preparation for Resident 4's shower. RN 2 stated the CNA was in another room with another resident. RN 2 stated the floor mats should not have been moved until the CNA was at the bedside and ready to take Resident 4 to the shower. RN 2 stated the absence of the floor mats could lead to injuries if Resident 4 fell. During an observation on 7/8/2025 at 8:36 AM, at Resident 4's bedside, observed a blue fall mat to Resident 4's left side. Observed no floor mat to Resident 4's right side. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 1:46 PM, with the DON, Resident 4's care plan titled Resident at risk for further falls/injury related to impaired balance ., [history of] falls, trying to get out of bed unassisted.,, dated 5/5/2025, was reviewed. The DON stated the care plan indicated Resident 4 was to have floor mats to both sides of his bed.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/8/2025 at 1:47 PM, with the DON, the facility's P&P titled Fall Risk Intervention and Monitoring, undated, was reviewed. The P&P indicated it was the facility's policy to try and minimize complications from falling. The DON stated the P&P indicated staff were to implement relevant interventions to try and minimize serious consequences of falling. The DON stated floor mats were one of those interventions. The DON stated that residents should have floor mats in placed as ordered and/or care planned. The DON stated floor mats helped to prevent injury from falls, and absence of floor mats could result in the resident sustaining injuries from a fall.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Registered Nurse (RN) 1, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Registered Nurse (RN) 1, and the Social Services Director (SSD) implemented the facility's policy and procedure titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018, related to abuse reporting, for one of four sampled residents (Resident 2).This deficient practice resulted in LVN 1 and RN 1 not reporting suspicions of Resident 2's abuse on 6/13/2025, and the SSD not reporting suspicions of Resident 2's abuse on 6/26/2025. Findings:During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2's admitting diagnoses included muscle wasting and atrophy (thinning of muscle mass), lack of coordination, and generalized muscle weakness.During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 5/28/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 2 did not have cognitive impairments (a decline in mental abilities, such as memory, thinking, and problem-solving). The MDS indicated Resident 2 required substantial to maximal assistance from staff with all mobility while in and out of bed.a. During a review of Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025 at 3:13 PM, the progress note indicated a verbal exchange, lasting approximately ten minutes, occurred on 6/13/2025, between Resident 2 and his Responsible Party (RP 1). The progress note indicated RP 1 yelled at Resident 2 during the exchange.During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 12:09 PM, with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated she received training related to abuse and abuse reporting about a month ago. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/3/2025 at 12:18 PM, with LVN 1, Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025, written by LVN 1, was reviewed. LVN 1 stated on 6/13/2025, she observed the documented exchange between Resident 2 and RP 1. LVN 1 stated Resident 2's blood pressure was elevated after the incident. LVN 1 stated she felt the exchange was possible verbal abuse and stated she reported the incident to Registered Nurse (RN) 1. LVN 1 stated she did not report the incident to any outside agencies, including the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 12:47 PM, with RN 1, RN 1 stated she received training related to abuse and abuse reporting in the last month. RN 1 stated LVN 1 informed her of the incident that occurred between Resident 2 and RP 1 on 6/13/2025. RN 1 stated she did not report the suspected verbal abuse. RN 1 stated she was not responsible for reporting the incident because she was not the staff who directly observed the incident.During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 1:55 PM, with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated all facility staff were mandated reporters and required to report if they had knowledge of suspected abuse. The DSD stated all staff members were required to report suspected abuse, even if they did not directly witness it themselves.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 2:01 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 2's progress note dated 6/13/2025 was reviewed. The progress note indicated RP 1 was yelling at the resident for approximately 10 minutes and that Resident 2 appeared visibly upset. The DON stated all staff were mandated reporters and stated the incident should have been reported in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P).During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 2:02 PM, with the DON, the facility's P&P titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018, was reviewed. The P&P indicated it was the facility's policy to ensure residents are safe and free from abuse. The DON stated the P&P indicated all staff were mandated reporters and that reporting of alleged abuse was to be completed according to state and federal guidance. The DON stated the incident that occurred between Resident 2 and RP 1 on 6/13/2025 met the definitions of possible mental and/or verbal abuse according to the facility's P&P. The DON stated the incident should have been reported within two hours to the CDPH and other required agencies. The DON stated RN 1 and LVN 1 were both responsible for reporting.During a review of RN 1's job description and performance standards, titled RN Supervisor, dated 6/2/2025, the document indicated the purpose of this position was to supervise and coordinate nursing care in compliance with facility policies and procedures. The document indicated RN 1 was responsible for the safety of residents under their supervision, and RN 1 was to observe all facility policies and procedures. During a review of LVN 1's job description and performance standards, titled Medication Nurse, dated 1/27/2022, the document indicated the LVN 1 was responsible for the safety of residents under their supervision, and LVN 1 was to observe all facility policies and procedures,b. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 2:33 PM, with the SSD, the SSD stated on 6/26/2025, a meeting was held with Resident 2 following a visit from the local police department related to an Adult Protective Services report filed by RP 1. The SSD stated that during the meeting, Resident 2 expressed distress related to his interactions with RP 1. The SSD stated Resident 2's statement indicated there was possible abuse occurring by RP 1 towards Resident 2. During a interview on 7/3/2025 at 2:50 PM, with the SSD, of Resident 2's the SSD stated she first suspected abuse was occurring on 6/26/2025, but did not report Resident 2's suspected abuse until 6/27/2025. When asked why the reporting was delayed, the SSD stated she was waiting for guidance from the Ombudsman (a public official who advocates for residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities) on whether to report. The SSD stated she placed the initial call to the Ombudsman on 6/26/2025 but did not hear from the Ombudsman until 6/27/2025. The SSD stated she was taught by the former SSD to get guidance from the Ombudsman prior to reporting suspected abuse.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/3/2025 at 2:56 PM, with the SSD, the facility's P&P titled Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, revised 2/2018, was reviewed. The P&P did not indicate the Ombudsman was required to provide guidance on abuse reporting. The SSD stated the P&P indicated suspected abuse was to be reported right away. The SSD stated timely reporting was important to ensure the abuse was addressed and to prevent any unwanted adverse effects on the resident's wellbeing resulting from the abuse.During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 3:20 PM, with the DSD, the DSD stated staff were not trained to get approval from the Ombudsman prior to reporting alleged or suspected abuse.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/3/2025 at 3:42 PM, with the DSD, the SSD's abuse training post-test results, dated 9/16/2024, were reviewed. The post-test indicated the SSD scored five out of 10 questions correct on her abuse training post-test upon hire. The DSD stated a score of five out of 10 was not a passing score. When asked what was done to address the score of five out of 10, the DSD stated nothing was done and the SSD proceeded to begin her role as the SSD.During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/8/2025 at 2:44 PM, with the Administrator in Training (AIT), the SSD's abuse training post-test results, dated 9/16/2024, were reviewed. The AIT stated the post-test score indicated the SSD failed the test. The AIT stated it was not sufficient for the DSD to accept the score and provide no further training, in-service, or re-evaluation to ensure the SSD had the required competencies related to abuse prevention. The AIT stated it was not acceptable, and stated it was important for the SSD to be competent in the facility's abuse policies because she was an advocate for the facility residents and she should be able to identify possible abuse and take the required actions. During a review of the SSD's job description and performance standards, titled Social Service Director (Designee), dated 6/6/2025, the document indicated the SSD was responsible for observing all facility policies and procedures, and was to provide services that meet the social and/or emotional needs affecting the resident's ability to achieve their highest level of function.
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a resident's continued episodes of orthosta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a resident's continued episodes of orthostatic hypotension (OH- a condition in which your blood pressure quickly drops when you stand up after sitting or lying down) and failed to ensure physician involvement in the discontinuation of Physical and Occupational Therapy (PT, OT) services for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), This failure resulted in a delay in appropriate medical intervention, placed the resident at risk for adverse outcomes including falls, syncope (dizziness), and compromised perfusion (pressure needed for blood to flow to blood vessels), and resulted in the premature termination of Medicare coverage. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included othrostatic hypotension (OH), history of falling, pleural effusion (a condition where an excessive amount of fluid accumulates in the pleural space, which is the area between the lungs and the chest wall), diabetes mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), postprocedural pneumothorax (collapsed lung), and muscle wasting. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 5/28/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 5/17/2025, Resident 1's H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated 5/24/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 1 was ordered physical and occupational therapy (PT, OT) services five days a week for four weeks for safety awareness, balance training, wheelchair mobility, pre-gait training (a set of exercises that help a patient walk better) and patient, or care giver training on 5/16/2025. During a review of Resident 1's Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC- an official document issued by Medicare-certified healthcare providers and suppliers to Medicare beneficiaries. It serves as a formal notice informing beneficiaries about the termination or denial of coverage for specific healthcare services or items), dated 6/5/2025, the NOMNC indicated Resident 1 Medicare Benefits would end on 6/7/2025. During a review of Resident 1's Final Determination Letter, dated 6/7/2025, the Final Determination Letter indicated the physician reviewer agreed with the termination of services. The Final Determination Letter also indicated there was no documented evidence that continued skilled services were needed daily to maintain or prevent decline. During a review of Resident 1's PT Progress Notes, dated 6/5/2025, the PT Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 demonstrated the need for continued PT services to facilitate with all functional mobility, increase functional activity tolerance, increase independence with gait (ability to walk), promote safety awareness, improve dynamic balance, facilitate motor control, enhance rehab potential, teach compensatory, or adaptation techniques and facilitate anticipatory reactions in order to enhance patient's quality of life by improving ability to increase performance skills with functional tasks, decrease level of care required from caregivers, decrease level of assistance from caregivers and facilitate increased independence with functional mobility throughout facility . During a review of Resident 1's Physician Orders, dated 6/12/2025, the Physician Orders indicated Physician 1 ordered for Resident 1's PT and OT services to be discontinued on 6/9/2025. The Physician Orders also indicated Physician 1 ordered Restorative Nurse Aide (RNA) services for ambulation (walking) using a front wheeled walker approximately 25 to 35 feet (ft- a unit of measurement) one to two sets or as tolerated every day for five days a week with two-person assist and wheelchair follow every day shift on 6/9/2025. During an interview on 6/11/2025 at 10:33 a.m. with Family Member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated she was the Representative Party for Resident 1 and was notified Resident 1's Medicare benefits ended because Resident 1 no longer required skilled services. FM 1 stated Resident 1's Medicare benefits ended prematurely on 6/7/2025. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), Resident 1's Physical Therapy Progress Notes, dated 6/2/2025 to 6/6/2025, were reviewed. The notes indicated Resident 1 exhibited episodes of OH during each physical therapy session during the dates of 6/2/2025 to 6/6/2025 and the charge nurses were made aware of each OH event. The DOR stated these changes of condition were reported to the nurses who were responsible for notifying the physician. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 3:25 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated she recalled Resident 1 exhibited signs and symptoms of orthostatic hypotension days shortly after his admission to the facility in 5/15/2025. RN 2 stated, There was an incident related to his orthostatic hypotension , but could not recall the exact events that transpired. RN 2 stated she could not recall why she did not make the physician aware. RN 2 stated it was important to ensure the physician was made aware of all episodes of orthostatic hypotension so that treatments would be started right away. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/2025 at 3:51 p.m. with RN 1, Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes, dated 5/1/2025 to 6/11/2025, were reviewed. The Nursing Progress Notes, dated 5/28/2025, indicated Physician 1 was made aware Resident 1's blood pressures dropped to 80/60 millimeters of mercury ([mm hg]- unit of measurement that describes the amount of force blood uses to get through the vessels of the body [normal range of 120–129 [top number] and 80–84 [bottom number]) while he walked. The Nursing Progress note indicated Midodrine 5 milligrams (mg- a unit of measurement) three times a day was ordered. There was no documentation (after 5/28/2025) to indicate Physician 1 was made aware of Resident 1's continued episodes of OH during physical therapy on 6/2/2025 to 6/6/2025 despite the administration of Midodrine. RN 1 stated she was the assigned Charge Nurse for Resident 1 on 6/2/2025 and was aware Resident 1 had continued episdoes of OH. RN 1 could not recall why Physcian 1 was not made aware. RN 1 stated Physician 1 should have been made aware Resident 1's order for Midodrine was not effective so that the plan of care could have been modified, and Physician 1 could have ordered other treatments to treat other possible underlying problems, like dehydration (when the body loses more fluid than it takes in) or an infection. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 2:29 p.m. with Physician 1, Physician 1 stated he expected the licensed nurses to make him aware of any changes of condition. Physician 1 stated he was not made aware that Resident 1 continued to have episodes of orthostatic hypotension during his physical therapy sessions. Physician 1 stated that would have wanted to be notified that the treatment (Midodrine) was ineffective so he could place other orders to try to treat any other underlying problems. Physician 1 stated he would have ordered more blood work, make sure [there was] no infection, and no dehydration . Physician 1 stated, Compression stockings, different medications like Florinef (a medication used to help treat orthostatic hypotension) and other options could have been explored . 2. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the physician was involved in the rehabilitation plan of care through the review of evaluations and progress notes that were sent to the physician on the 14th and 30th day of treatment. The DOR stated the review of the progress notes were confirmed by the physician's signature. The DOR stated the Rehabilitation Department relied on the licensed nurses to communicate the resident's progress in rehabilitation therapy and any changes to orders, like the discontinuation of PT and OT services, to the physician. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 2:29 p.m. with Physician 1, Physician 1 stated he was not usually involved in the plan of care for rehabilitation treatment and services and relied on the DOR to direct therapy. Physician 1 stated he was not aware Resident 1's physical therapy orders were discontinued. Physician 1 stated he would have preferred to know so that Resident 1's clinical condition could have been appropriately addressed before Resident 1's rehabilitation services ended. During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 3:25 p.m. with RN 2, RN 2 stated she received the order to discontinue the PT and OT services for Resident 1 on 6/9/2025. RN 2 stated the order was confirmed and placed by Resident 1's health plan and the DOR, not by Physician 1. During a concurrent interview and interview on 6/12/2025 at 4:05 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's Physician Orders, dated 6/9/2025, were reviewed. The Physician Orders indicated skilled PT and OT therapy were discontinued by Physician 1. The DON stated the physician should have been involved in the plan of care for rehabilitation services so that he could properly clear the resident for the discontinuation of physical therapy. The DON stated the lack of physician involvement placed Resident 1's safety at risk. The DON stated Resident 1 would have benefitted from continued PT and OT services. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Change of Condition , dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated the facility was to ensure all changes in resident condition would be communicated to the physician. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Skilled Nursing Rehabilitation Services , dated 8/2015, the P&P indicated each patient that received rehabilitation services should have a written Plan of Care developed by the collaborative healthcare team including, but not limited to, rehabilitation services staff, nursing services, the patient's physician and other appropriate healthcare professionals. The P&P indicated patients were encouraged to make choices about their participation in rehabilitation and to develop a sense of achievement in progress. The P&P indicated the patient Plan of Care, when appropriate, should include patient rehabilitation services specific to the patient's needs and goals in the most efficient and effective manner, including specialized rehabilitation services when appropriate. The P&P indicated the patient's Plan of Care should include, at least, the following: · Diagnoses · Long-term treatment goals · Type, amount, frequency and duration of treatments In accordance with the patient's Plan of Care, progress and changes in clinical condition, functional reassessments would be performed on an ongoing basis. Reassessment includes, but are not limited to: · The patient's response to rehabilitation interventions · Changes in the patient's condition · Choices for alternative interventions · Changes to modalities and procedures · Changes in goals, including progress toward meeting rehabilitation goals and objective. The P&P indicated the rehabilitation Plan of Care should be a part of the coordinated patient Plan of Care. The P&P indicated a report of the patient's progress shall be given to the physician within two [2] weeks of the initiation of rehabilitation services.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop an individualized care plan for orthostatic hypotension (OH...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to develop an individualized care plan for orthostatic hypotension (OH- a condition in which your blood pressure quickly drops when you stand up after sitting or lying down) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility failed to include clinically indicated instruction to administer Midodrine (an anti-hypotensive [low blood pressure] drug) prior to therapy sessions, despite the resident's history of symptomatic OH that affected participation in physical therapy. This failure placed Resident 1 at risk for falls, bodily injury, and early discontinuation of skilled therapy services. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included orthostatic hypotension (OH), history of falling, pleural effusion (a condition where an excessive amount of fluid accumulates in the pleural space, which is the area between the lungs and the chest wall), diabetes mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), postprocedural pneumothorax (collapsed lung), and muscle wasting. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 5/28/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 5/17/2025, Resident 1's H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated 5/24/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 1 was ordered physical and occupational therapy (PT, OT) services five days a week for four weeks for safety awareness, balance training, wheelchair mobility, pre-gait training (a set of exercises that help a patient walk better) and patient, or care giver training on 5/16/2025. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes, dated 5/28/2025, the Nursing Progress Notes indicated the rehabilitation staff notified the charge nurses Resident 1's blood pressure dropped to 80/60 millimeters of mercury ([mm hg]- unit of measurement that describes the amount of force blood uses to get through the vessels of the body [normal range of 120–129 [top number] and 80–84 [bottom number]) when Resident 1 walked. The Nursing Progress Notes indicated Physician 1 ordered Midodrine 5 milligrams (mg- a unit of measurement) three times a day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), Resident 1's Physical Therapy Progress Notes, dated 6/2/2025 to 6/6/2025, were reviewed. The notes indicated Resident 1 exhibited continued episodes of OH during each physical therapy session during the dates of 6/2/2025 to 6/6/2025. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/2025 at 2:14 p.m. with Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN) 1, all of Resident 1's active care plans, dated 5/2025 to 6/2025, were reviewed. There were no care plans specific to Resident 1's diagnosis of OH. MDSN 1 stated an OH care plan was necessary for Resident 1's safety and for the prevention of falls. MDSN 1 stated she developed care plans according to the residents' conditions and assessments. MDSN 1 stated an At Risk for Falls Related to Orthostatic Hypotension care plan should have been developed for Resident 1. MDSN 1 stated proper interventions would have included to assess the resident prior to therapy sessions, and to specifically indicate therapy sessions (RNA, or PT) were to start approximately thirty minutes after the administration of Midodrine was given, if needed, and to recheck orthostatic vital signs (a series of measurements of a patient's blood pressure and heart rate taken while they are lying down [supine], sitting, and standing). During an interview on 6/12/2025 at 4:05 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated care plans for a specific diagnosis should be developed and implemented especially if the facility was treating the diagnosis. The DON stated care plans were important to determine if the current plan of care allowed the resident to progress to his or her defined goals. The DON stated Resident 1 should have had individual care plans specific to his diagnosis of OH and for the medication, Midodrine. The DON stated the lack of care plans placed Resident 1 at risk for another fall. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Formulation of Care Plan , dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated the facility was to ensure a care plan would incorporate concerns, goals, and objectives to lead the resident's highest obtainable level of independence or highest practicable well-being. The P&P indicated the care plan was formulated based on the result of resident assessment done upon admission, quarterly, annually, and ongoing as needed. The P&P indicated concerns or problems secondary to change of conditions were also included in the care plan. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team , dated 7/2017, the P&P indicated the facility's care planning interdisciplinary team was responsible for the development of an individualized comprehensive care plan for each resident.
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident care plan was developed after brusing (a mark on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident care plan was developed after brusing (a mark on skin, black and blue or red to purple form when blood pools under skin, caused by a blood vessel break) was noted for one resident out of three sampled residents (Residents 1). This deficient practice resulted in a delay in care and monitoring for Resident 1 and potentially negatively affected the delivery of care. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning[ ability to think and reason] thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and legal blindness ( impaired vision). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 3/30/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 1 was alert and oriented to person ([AAO x1] person knows their own name and can identify themselves, a shorthand way of describing a person's awareness and cognitive [ability to think and reason] function) and was nonverbal. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 5/21/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper does all of the effort) on staff for eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff for rolling left to right in bed, moving from sitting to lying, lying to sitting, and transfering to and from a bed to a wheelchair. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes, dated 5/16/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1 was noted with skin discoloration (abnormal change in the color of the skin, either darkening or lightening, compared to a person's normal skin tone). The progress notes indicated Resident 1 had discoloration to the left mid-arm, under the left breast and chest. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes, dated 5/17/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1's skin discoloration spread to left rib extending toward the back. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 5/1/2025 - 5/31/2025, the TAR did not indicate the Treatment Nurse (TN) monitored Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration to the chest, left breast and flank from 5/16/2025 - 5/18/2025. The TAR did not indicate the TN monitored Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration to the left arm from 5/16/2025 - 5/18/2025. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care plan for left arm skin discoloration, dated 5/18/2025, the care plan indicated Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration would be healed without complications. The care plan indicated it was developed on 5/18/2025. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care plan for skin discoloration, dated 5/18/2025, the care plan indicated Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration would be healed without complications. The care plan indicated it was developed on 5/18/2025. During an interview on 6/2/2025 on 1:18 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated when a resident has a change of a condition a care plan must be developed. TN 1 stated she did not develop the care plan for Resident 1. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 2:38 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated she created a care plan on 5/16/2025 for Resident 1 ' s bruises discovered on 5/15/2025. LVN 1 stated a care plan was important because it was the plan of care for residents and continuation of care. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 3:42 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated she developed a care plan for Resident 1 ' s bruises on 5/18/2025 after Resident 1 returned from the hospital. TN 1 stated she did not develop a care plan when she discovered Resident 1 ' s bruises because she was not the resident's assigned nurse. TN 1 stated it was important for residents to have a care plan to develop interventions for residents ' care. During an interview on 6/3/2025 at 2:18 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she expected the licensed nurse to develop a care plan after the discovery of Resident 1 ' s bruises. The DON stated it was important to develop a care plan to develop interventions to prevent the resident's bruises from getting worse. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/3/2025 at 3:32 p.m. with the DON, Resident 1 ' s Care Plan dated 5/18/2025 was reviewed. The care plan did not indicate it was developed on 5/16/2025 when Resident 1 ' s bruises were discovered. The DON stated Resident 1 ' s care plan should have been developed when Resident 1 ' s bruises were discovered on 5/16/2025. During a review of facility ' s Job Description for Treatment Nurse, dated 7/2012, the job description indicated the TN would assess resident needs and initiate the development of individualized care plans. During a review of facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Change of condition, dated 7/2022, the P&P indicated when there is a medical change in a resident, licensed nurses must document resident change of condition and update care plan. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident care plan was developed after brusing (a mark on skin, black and blue or red to purple form when blood pools under skin, caused by a blood vessel break) was noted for one resident out of three sampled residents (Residents 1). This deficient practice resulted in a delay in care and monitoring for Resident 1 and potentially negatively affected the delivery of care. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning[ ability to think and reason] thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and legal blindness ( impaired vision). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 3/30/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 1 was alert and oriented to person ([AAO x1] person knows their own name and can identify themselves, a shorthand way of describing a person's awareness and cognitive [ability to think and reason] function) and was nonverbal. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 5/21/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper does all of the effort) on staff for eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff for rolling left to right in bed, moving from sitting to lying, lying to sitting, and transfering to and from a bed to a wheelchair. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes, dated 5/16/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1 was noted with skin discoloration (abnormal change in the color of the skin, either darkening or lightening, compared to a person's normal skin tone). The progress notes indicated Resident 1 had discoloration to the left mid-arm, under the left breast and chest. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes, dated 5/17/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1's skin discoloration spread to left rib extending toward the back. During a review of Resident 1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 5/1/2025 – 5/31/2025, the TAR did not indicate the Treatment Nurse (TN) monitored Resident 1's skin discoloration to the chest, left breast and flank from 5/16/2025 – 5/18/2025. The TAR did not indicate the TN monitored Resident 1's skin discoloration to the left arm from 5/16/2025 – 5/18/2025. During a review of Resident 1's Care plan for left arm skin discoloration, dated 5/18/2025, the care plan indicated Resident 1's skin discoloration would be healed without complications. The care plan indicated it was developed on 5/18/2025. During a review of Resident 1's Care plan for skin discoloration, dated 5/18/2025, the care plan indicated Resident 1's skin discoloration would be healed without complications. The care plan indicated it was developed on 5/18/2025. During an interview on 6/2/2025 on 1:18 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated when a resident has a change of a condition a care plan must be developed. TN 1 stated she did not develop the care plan for Resident 1. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 2:38 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated she created a care plan on 5/16/2025 for Resident 1's bruises discovered on 5/15/2025. LVN 1 stated a care plan was important because it was the plan of care for residents and continuation of care. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 3:42 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated she developed a care plan for Resident 1's bruises on 5/18/2025 after Resident 1 returned from the hospital. TN 1 stated she did not develop a care plan when she discovered Resident 1's bruises because she was not the resident's assigned nurse. TN 1 stated it was important for residents to have a care plan to develop interventions for residents' care. During an interview on 6/3/2025 at 2:18 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she expected the licensed nurse to develop a care plan after the discovery of Resident 1's bruises. The DON stated it was important to develop a care plan to develop interventions to prevent the resident's bruises from getting worse. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/3/2025 at 3:32 p.m. with the DON, Resident 1's Care Plan dated 5/18/2025 was reviewed. The care plan did not indicate it was developed on 5/16/2025 when Resident 1's bruises were discovered. The DON stated Resident 1's care plan should have been developed when Resident 1's bruises were discovered on 5/16/2025. During a review of facility's Job Description for Treatment Nurse, dated 7/2012, the job description indicated the TN would assess resident needs and initiate the development of individualized care plans. During a review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Change of condition, dated 7/2022, the P&P indicated when there is a medical change in a resident, licensed nurses must document resident change of condition and update care plan.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the following for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the following for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1): 1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 reported bruising (a mark on the skin, black and blue or red to purple form when blood pools under skin, caused by a blood vessel break) to Resident 1 ' s chest, left breast, flank, and left arm to the charge nurse or supervisor. 2. Treatment Nurse (TN) 1 documented the monitoring of Resident 1 ' s bruising. 3. TN 1 assessed Resident 1 ' s bruises. These deficient practices delayed Resident 1 ' s care and services. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning [ability to think and reason], thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and legal blindness (impaired vision). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 3/30/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 1 was alert and oriented to person ([AAO x1] person knows their own name and can identify themselves, a shorthand way of describing a person's awareness and cognitive function) and was nonverbal. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 5/21/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper does all of the effort) on staff for eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff for rolling left to right in bed, to move from sitting on side of bed to lying flat on bed, to moving from lying position to sitting on the side of bed and to transfer to and from a bed to a wheelchair. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes, dated 5/16/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1 was assessed and skin discoloration (abnormal change in the color of the skin, either darkening or lightening, compared to a person's normal skin tone) was noted. The progress notes indicated Resident 1 had discoloration on the left mid-arm, and under the left breast and chest. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes, dated 5/17/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration spread to the left rib extending toward the back. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Treatment Administration Record (TAR), for the month of May 2025, the TAR did not indicate TN 1 monitored Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration to the chest, left breast, flank, and left arm from 5/16/2025 - 5/18/2025. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 1:18 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated on 5/16/2025 she discovered discoloration to Residents 1 ' s upper chest, under the left breast, and the left upper arm. TN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s discoloration was purple in color. TN 1 stated she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) of Resident 1 ' s skin discoloration. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 2:14 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated on 5/15/2025, she discovered bruises on Resident 1 ' s body during a shower. CNA 1 stated the bruises were on the middle of Resident 1 ' s chest and under both breasts. CNA 1 stated she asked Resident 1 what happened and the resident replied she did not know. CNA 1 stated she did not report the bruises to anyone. CNA 1 stated she was supposed to notify the charge nurse about Resident 1 ' s bruises but she got busy. CNA 1 stated she was supposed to fill out a skin assessment form indicating new skin changes and give it to the charge nurse. CNA 1 stated it was important to report the findings because it was a change of condition and staff must be aware to keep an eye on it. CNA 1 stated if bruises were not reported, staff would not be aware and Resident 1 would not receive the care she needed. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 3:42 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated after she discovered Resident 1 ' s bruises on 5/16/2025, she did not document her findings. TN 1 stated she was supposed to document Resident 1's bruises but she did not. TN 1 stated she was supposed to document the location of the bruises and the color of the bruises. TN 1 stated she was supposed to monitor Resident 1 ' s bruises and document her findings but she did not. TN 1 stated it was important to document and inform staff of new findings. TN 1 stated it was important to monitor for new findings to be aware of any changes. During an interview on 6/3/2025 at 2:28 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated CNA 1 should have reported Resident 1 ' s bruises when she discovered them on 5/15/2025. The DON stated TN 1 did not document her findings because there was no treatment for bruises and TN was monitoring Resident 1 ' s bruises. The DON stated she expected TN 1 to document findings from monitoring bruises. The DON stated it was important to document if bruises were getting better or if there was any changes. The DON stated it was important to notify the charge nurse of any change of condition when discovered because it allowed staff to provide good quality of care to residents. During a review of the job description for CNA, dated 2/18/2019, the job description indicated CNAs must report changes in resident conditions to the charge nurse or supervisor. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Change of condition, dated 7/2022, the P&P indicated it was the facility ' s purpose to timely notify resident condition changes for immediate intervention. The P&P indicated the DON would be notified immediately of significant changes of conditions. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the following for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1): 1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 reported bruising (a mark on the skin, black and blue or red to purple form when blood pools under skin, caused by a blood vessel break) to Resident 1's chest, left breast, flank, and left arm to the charge nurse or supervisor. 2. Treatment Nurse (TN) 1 documented the monitoring of Resident 1's bruising. 3. TN 1 assessed Resident 1's bruises. These deficient practices delayed Resident 1's care and services. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning [ability to think and reason], thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities) and legal blindness (impaired vision). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 3/30/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 1 was alert and oriented to person ([AAO x1] person knows their own name and can identify themselves, a shorthand way of describing a person's awareness and cognitive function) and was nonverbal. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 5/21/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper does all of the effort) on staff for eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff for rolling left to right in bed, to move from sitting on side of bed to lying flat on bed, to moving from lying position to sitting on the side of bed and to transfer to and from a bed to a wheelchair. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes, dated 5/16/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1 was assessed and skin discoloration (abnormal change in the color of the skin, either darkening or lightening, compared to a person's normal skin tone) was noted. The progress notes indicated Resident 1 had discoloration on the left mid-arm, and under the left breast and chest. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes, dated 5/17/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 1's skin discoloration spread to the left rib extending toward the back. During a review of Resident 1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), for the month of May 2025, the TAR did not indicate TN 1 monitored Resident 1's skin discoloration to the chest, left breast, flank, and left arm from 5/16/2025 – 5/18/2025. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 1:18 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated on 5/16/2025 she discovered discoloration to Residents 1's upper chest, under the left breast, and the left upper arm. TN 1 stated Resident 1's discoloration was purple in color. TN 1 stated she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) of Resident 1's skin discoloration During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 2:14 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated on 5/15/2025, she discovered bruises on Resident 1's body during a shower. CNA 1 stated the bruises were on the middle of Resident 1's chest and under both breasts. CNA 1 stated she asked Resident 1 what happened and the resident replied she did not know. CNA 1 stated she did not report the bruises to anyone. CNA 1 stated she was supposed to notify the charge nurse about Resident 1's bruises but she got busy. CNA 1 stated she was supposed to fill out a skin assessment form indicating new skin changes and give it to the charge nurse. CNA 1 stated it was important to report the findings because it was a change of condition and staff must be aware to keep an eye on it. CNA 1 stated if bruises were not reported, staff would not be aware and Resident 1 would not receive the care she needed. During an interview on 6/2/2025 at 3:42 p.m. with TN 1, TN 1 stated after she discovered Resident 1's bruises on 5/16/2025, she did not document her findings. TN 1 stated she was supposed to document Resident 1's bruises but she did not. TN 1 stated she was supposed to document the location of the bruises and the color of the bruises. TN 1 stated she was supposed to monitor Resident 1's bruises and document her findings but she did not. TN 1 stated it was important to document and inform staff of new findings. TN 1 stated it was important to monitor for new findings to be aware of any changes. During an interview on 6/3/2025 at 2:28 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated CNA 1 should have reported Resident 1's bruises when she discovered them on 5/15/2025. The DON stated TN 1 did not document her findings because there was no treatment for bruises and TN was monitoring Resident 1's bruises. The DON stated she expected TN 1 to document findings from monitoring bruises. The DON stated it was important to document if bruises were getting better or if there was any changes. The DON stated it was important to notify the charge nurse of any change of condition when discovered because it allowed staff to provide good quality of care to residents. During a review of the job description for CNA, dated 2/18/2019, the job description indicated CNAs must report changes in resident conditions to the charge nurse or supervisor. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Change of condition, dated 7/2022, the P&P indicated it was the facility's purpose to timely notify resident condition changes for immediate intervention. The P&P indicated the DON would be notified immediately of significant changes of conditions.
Apr 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

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 respect and dignity for one of three sampled...

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 respect and dignity for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 failed to ensure Resident 1 was cleaned timely as requested. This failure resulted in Resident 1 expressing feelings of anger towards CNA 1 and had the potential for Resident 1 to exhibit feelings of hopelessness and long-term psychological distress. Findings: During a record review of the facility ' s Five-Day Report, dated 4/7/2025, the Five-Day Report indicated Resident 1 alleged a night shift (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.) CNA had a bad attitude on 4/6/2025. The Five-Day Report indicated the CNA refused to change Resident 1 after she pressed the call light. The Five-Day Report indicated Resident 1 pressed the call light a second time because she needed to be changed, and the same CNA yanked her call light and told her not to press it anymore. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included fracture (broken bone) of the left hip, history of a fall, lack of coordination and urinary retention (incomplete emptying of the bladder). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 4/9/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial, maximal assistance (helper does more than half of the effort) for toileting hygiene, bathing and lower body dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff (helper does all the effort, resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) for bed mobility and bed-to-chair transfers. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Urinary Tract Infection (UTI- an infection in the bladder/urinary tract) Care Plan, initiated 4/2/2025, the UTI Care Plan indicated to provide good perineal (genital area) care each shift to keep Resident 1 clean and dry at all times. During an observation and interview on 4/10/2025 at 11:57 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1's eyebrows were furrowed and was breathing at a fast pace. Resident 1 stated she was mistreated by CNA 1 on 4/6/2025 during the 11p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Resident 1 stated she pushed the call light around 11 p.m. because she was soiled. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 walked in, opened the curtain, looked at Resident 1, and walked out. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 came back to clean Resident 1, aggressively separated her legs, pulled off her diaper and fanned it as if she was disgusted by the smell of Resident 1 ' s urine. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 acted as if she did not want to clean her. Resident 1 stated she pressed the call light again (around 2 a.m.) because she was soiled. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 went into the room, aggressively pulled the call light away from Resident 1 and told her not to use the call light and to stop calling. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 did not change her after that incident and was eventually changed by the following shift (7a.m. to 3 p.m. shift). Resident 1 stated this made her feel angry at CNA 1. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 12:10 p.m. with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated CNA 1 tended to lose her patience with the residents and was frustrated at times. CNA 3 stated CNA 1 would complain about other CNAs not helping her clean her assigned residents. CNA 3 stated she recalled a time when CNA 1 worked the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift (with CNA 3) and CNA 1 did not clean some of her residents. CNA 3 stated she had to step in and clean a few of CNA 1 ' s assigned residents. CNA 3 stated she and other CNAs have reported CNA 3 to the Director of Staff Development (DSD) before. During an interview and concurrent record review on 4/10/2025 at 3:33 p.m. with the DSD, CNA 1 ' s Disciplinary Action Forms, dated 2/3/2024 and 3/7/2025, were reviewed. The Disciplinary Action Form, dated 2/3/2024, indicated a resident assigned to CNA 1 was not changed throughout the night and the urinal was not emptied. The Disciplinary Action Form, dated 3/7/2025, indicated a resident assigned to CNA 1 was left soiled and laid on dry bowel movement throughout the shift. The DSD stated she recalled CNAs expressed concerns last month about CNA 1 not being a team player and refusing to help other CNAs with patient care. The DSD stated she was made aware CNA 1 struggled to complete patient-related tasks before the end of CNA 1's shift. The DSD stated she provided in-services to the CNAs about working as a team and helping each other. The DSD stated that if CNA 1 was not completing her tasks timely, then there was a potential for delayed care and for the residents to feel like they were not a priority. The DSD stated there was a possibility for the development of pressure ulcers (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence) if the residents were not cleaned timely. The DSD stated CNA 1 ' s job performance did not align with respecting residents ' rights and honoring the dignity of the residents. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 4:06 p.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she was the assigned CNA for Resident 1 on 4/6/2025 from the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. CNA 1 stated the normal process was to notify the nearby assigned CNA to cover her assignment and ensure all call lights were answered before she went on break. CNA 1 stated she took her break around 3:30 a.m. and came back around 4 a.m. CNA 1 stated she did not notify any nurse before she went on break because it slipped [her] mind. CNA 1 stated she should have let another nurse know that she was going to take a break before she clocked out so that the needs of her assigned residents could be attended to timely. CNA 1 stated when she clocked in after her break, she saw that Resident 1 ' s call light was on. CNA 1 stated she did not know how long the call light had been on and there was a potential for Resident 1 ' s needs not to be met in a timely manner. CNA 1 stated she did not recall any other issues related to Resident 1 ' s care on the 11p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on 4/6/2025. During an interview on 4/14/2025 at 2:11p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated she expected the CNAs to find another CNA to answer call lights and ensure patient needs were met before they left the floor for a break. DON stated she expected residents to be changed right away after a resident requested to be changed. DON stated if the CNA was busy, she expected the CNAs to provide the resident with an explanation and reassurance that the resident would be changed in the language that the resident understood. DON stated there was potential to make a resident feel upset and disrespected if the call light was not answered promptly, dialogue was not translated in the resident ' s preferred language, and if the resident was not cleaned in a timely manner. DON stated turning off the call light, ignoring the resident, yanking the call light away from the resident and the act of fanning the resident ' s perineal (genital) area while changing his or her diaper did not align with respecting the resident and honoring the resident ' s dignity. During a review of the facility ' s P&P, titled, Quality of Life Dignity, revised 8/2009, the P&P indicated the facility was to ensure each resident would be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality. During a review of the facility ' s P&P, titled, Accommodation of Needs, revised 1/2025, the P&P indicated the facility's environment and staff behaviors were directed towards assisting the resident in maintaining and/or achieving safe independent functioning, dignity and well-being. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Call Light/ Bell, revised 12/2014, the P&P indicated the facility was to respond to a resident ' s request and provide an explanation if the item was not available or the facility staff was unable to provide aid. During a review of the facility ' s P&P, titled, Translation or Interpretation of Facility Services, revised 7/2009, the P&P indicated the following: 1) Providing meaningful access to services provided by the facility required that the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) resident's needs and questions are accurately communicated to the staff. The P&P indicated oral interpretation services therefore include interpretation from the LEP resident's primary language back to English. 2) In order to provide meaningful access to services provided by this facility, translation and/or interpretation must be provided in a way that is culturally relevant and appropriate to the LEP individual.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management, for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 2) by failing to: 1. Ensure Registered Nurse (RN) 1 reported within 24 hours to the Administrator (ADM), the Director of Nursing Services (DON) and the California Department of Health (CDPH) when Resident 2 ' s family member (FM 1) alleged Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 was physically rough handling Resident 2. 2. Suspend CNA 2 after an allegation of rough handling was made by Resident 2. This resulted in a delay of an investigation by CDPH and had the potential for further abuse by CNA 2 to other residents. Findings: During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body), hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), muscle wasting and atrophy (muscle shrinking), difficulty in walking, and history of falling. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 4/6/2025, indicated Resident 2 ' s cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 2 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff to perform toileting hygiene, sitting to lying, and performing chair or bed- to-chair transfers. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 2:02 p.m. with FM 1, FM 1 stated on 4/5/2025, around 6:00 p.m., she witnessed CNA 2 roughly grab Resident 2 ' s arm and rush Resident 2 into the restroom. FM 1 stated she was so upset she went directly to RN 1 to report the incident. FM 1 stated RN 1 brought CNA 2 into the room to discuss and resolve the issue. FM 1 stated CNA 2 denied the allegations and justified her actions. FM 1 stated RN 1 assigned a different CNA to care for Resident 2. During an interview on 4/10/2025 at 3:54 p.m. with RN 1, stated his role was to report any allegation of abuse to the Administrator (ADM), the Director of Nursing (DON) and CDPH. RN 1 stated FM 1 reported to him CNA 2 was rough handling Resident 2. RN 1 stated he did not report the allegation to the DON or the ADM because he was busy, and he forgot during the shift. RN 1 stated it was important to report any allegations of abuse to ensure that it does not happen again to any other resident. RN 1 stated CNA 2 was permitted to work the remainder of the shift until 11 p.m. RN 1 stated he should have suspended CNA 2 for the remainder of the shift to protect other residents. During an interview on 4/14/2025 at 2:11pm with the DON, the DON stated the expectation of the staff was to report any allegation of abuse to ensure the abuse did not occur again. The DON stated if an allegation of abuse involved a staff member, the staff member should be sent home immediately pending the investigation. The DON stated she was never informed of an allegation of physical abuse on 4/5/2025. During an interview on 4/14/2025 at 3:19 p.m. with the ADM, the ADM stated he was not notified of any allegation of abuse on 4/5/2025. The ADM stated an allegation of abuse, should be reported to the CDPH. The ADM stated all staff were expected to ensure the safety of the residents by immediately suspending the alleged employee involved with the abuse allegation. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect Prevention Management revised 2/2018, the P&P indicated the following: 1. In the event of an allegation of abuse, the named employee would be suspended immediately, pending an investigation by the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, and Social Services. 2. The facility would ensure all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect or abuse, are immediately reported to the Administrator and Director of Nursing Services; with subsequent mandatory reporting in accordance with state law, through established procedures (including law enforcement, the state survey and certification agency, Ombudsman, Licensing Boards and Registries, and other agencies as required.) 3. Allegations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment (including injuries of unknown source) and misappropriation of resident property are reported no later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made.
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 10 sampled residents (Resident 3) who re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 10 sampled residents (Resident 3) who received dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) treatment received care in accordance with standards of practice, when the facility failed to: 1. Ensure nursing staff follow up on Resident 3 ' s potassium ([K] - a mineral the body needs, to help nerves and muscles work properly, especially your heart) lab order and notify the clinician of the abnormal results. 2. Ensure nursing staff ordered a potassium leverl instead of a Levetiracetam (Keppra – medications used to treat seizures [a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain which can cause uncontrolled jerking, blank stares, and loss of consciousness] level as ordered by the clinician. These deficient practices had the potential to delay necessary care and treatment for hyperkalemia placing Resident 3 at serious risk for heart rhythm problem, cardiac arrest or even death. During a review of Resident 3 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet - front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), dated 4/7/2025, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission record indicated the following diagnoses which included hyperkalemia (too much K in the blood usually greater than 5.0 milliequivalents per liter [mEq/L- a unit of measure]), hydrocephalus (excessive fluid in the brain and spinal cord), spina bifida (a condition that occurs at birth where the spine and spinal cord do not form properly), end stage renal disease (ESRD - irreversible kidney failure), and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 3 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/28/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 2/6/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 3 ' s cognition (ability to think, remember, and reason) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 3 had the ability to eat and perform toileting hygiene with setup or clean-up assistance (helper assists only prior to or following the activity) and required supervision (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching as resident completes the activity) for bathing and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required a wheelchair for mobility (ability to get from one place to another). During a review of Resident 3 ' s care plan titled, At risk for abnormal lab values and other medical problems, initiated on 10/29/2024 and revised on 2/14/2025, the care plan indicated Resident 3 ' s abnormal lab values and other medical problems were related to a history of hyperkalemia. The care plan goal indicated Resident 3 would have less episodes of abnormal lab values for three months. The care plan interventions indicated to notify MD for all lab values. During a review of Resident 3 ' s care plan titled, The Resident Needs Dialysis, initiated on 10/29/2024 and revised on 2/14/2025, the care plan indicated Resident 3 ' s needed dialysis related to renal failure. The care plan goal indicted resident would have no signs and symptoms of complications of dialysis. The care plan interventions indicated to monitor labs and report to doctor as needed. During a review of Resident 3 ' s care plan titled, The Resident has episodes of tachycardia, initiated on 1/22/2025 and revised on 2/24/2025, the care plan goal indicated resident will be free from complications of cardiac problems. The care plan interventions indicated to check potassium level. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Nurses Progress Note on 3/26/2025 at 6:41 a.m., the Nurses Progress Note indicated Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) received a phone call on 3/26/2025 at 6:35 a.m. from the dialysis center to send Resident 3 out to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) emergency room (ER) due to Resident 3 having a high potassium level of 7.3 mEq/L. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Nurses Progress Note on 3/26/2025 at 5:22 p.m., the Nurses Progress Note indicated RN 1 notified the Medical Director (MD) and the MD ordered 15 grams (gm – metric unit of measurement, used for medication dosage and/or amount) of Kayexalate (a medication used to treat elevated levels of potassium in the blood) every 12 hours times two doses and repeat a K level in the morning (3/27/2025). The Nurses Progress Note indicated the orders were carried out. During a review of Resident 3 Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated March 2025, the MAR indicated Resident 3 was administered Sodium Polystyrene Sulfonate Combination suspension 15 gm/60ml on 3/26/2025 at 6:08 p.m. and 8:52 p.m. and repeat K level in AM. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Nurse Progress Note on 3/27/2025 at 3:03 a.m., the Nurses Progress Note indicated Resident 3 continued to be monitored for hyperkalemia. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Telephone Order, dated 3/27/2025 at 4:58 a.m., the Telephone Order indicated to order a Repeat K level one time only. During a review of Resident 3 ' s lab requisition form dated 3/27/2025, the lab requisition form indicated in the profile/other tests section to draw a K level. The lab requisition indicated the lab was drawn from the right arm on 3/27/2025 at 6:05 a.m. During a review of Resident 3 ' s General Lab Work – Final Report on 3/27/2025 at 6:05 a.m., the final lab report indicated a Keppra lab result. The final lab report did not indicate a K level was drawn or resulted. During a review of Resident 3 ' s IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) Rounding Report from the dialysis center on 3/31/2025, the IDT Rounding Report indicated Resident 3 ' s K level result was 7.9 mEq/L. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/7/2025 at 2:30 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN 1), Resident 3 ' s Nursing Progress Notes, Doctor ' s Orders, and lab results and lab requisition were reviewed. RN 1 stated according to Resident 3 ' s lab requisition and lab order by the MD, a K level was ordered and drawn on 3/27/2025 at 6:05 a.m. RN 1 stated she could not find the lab result for K but did see lab results for Keppra on 3/27/2025 at 6:05 a.m. RN 1 stated there was no documentation in the Nursing Progress Notes indicating Resident 3 had refused the K lab or that the MD was notified regarding the K results. RN 1 stated the MD should have been notified and the nurse should have documented that the MD was notified regarding the K results. RN 1 stated she was not sure why a Keppra was blood draw was done instead of a K level, but would contact the lab for clarification. During an interview on 4/7/2025 at 3:27 p.m., with RN 1, RN 1 stated she called the lab and spoke with the lab director (LD). RN 1 stated the LD informed her the lab technician had drawn blood for Keppra instead of K in error. RN 1 stated once the Keppra lab came back in error, the nurse should have followed up with the lab regarding the K level. During an interview on 4/8/2025 at 4:17 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated if Resident 3 had a lab order for K, the nurses should have called the MD with the results. The DON stated if the K lab result was not there, the nurse should have called the lab to follow up. The DON stated the nurses should check on the lab orders and follow up every day to see if the results have been returned. The DON stated a high K could lead to heart issues, so it was important to check for the results. During a telephone interview on 4/8/2025 9:21 a.m., with the MD, the MD stated if there was a lab order for K for Resident 3, it was the expectation for the lab to be drawn and the nurse should have reported the results to him. The MD stated he received a lab result for Keppra on 3/27/2025 but never received a K result on that day. The MD stated he did not order a Keppra level on 3/27/2025. The MD stated if Resident 3 ' s K had come back very high on 3/27/2025, he would have sent the resident to the GACH ER to get the K level down and perform an electrocardiogram (EKG – an instrument used to measure the heart ' s electrical activity). The MD stated a K level above a 6.0 mEq/L would be considered very high and Resident 3 would have been sent to the GACH. The MD stated persistent hyperpotassemia (high K in the blood) could cause cardiac issues and that was the main concern for getting a K level on the resident. During a telephone interview on 4/9/2025 at 10:18 a.m., with the LD, the LD indicated on 3/27/2025, a Keppra level was ordered incorrectly by the date entry team at the lab. The LD stated RN 1 called him to inquire about the K level for Resident 3 on 4/8/2025. The LD stated he informed RN 1 that the nurses should have followed up on the lab request for a K level. The LD stated the instead of the nurse checking the potassium on lab requisition form, the nurse wrote in to draw a K level in the Other section on the lab requisition form. The LD stated when the nurse wrote K level in the other section of the lab requisition form instead of checking the potassium box, that meant to order something other than potassium. The LD stated the K level could have stood for many labs besides the potassium level. The LD stated the error fell on the nurses for not following up on the potassium level and his lab technicians for not confirming lab tests that are questionable. During a telephone interview on 4/9/2025 at 11:01 a.m., with RN 5, RN 5 stated she was the desk nurse on 3/26/2025 and received an endorsement from the previous shift that Resident 3 ' s K level was high, to give doses of Kayexalate and draw a K level after the Kayexalate was given. RN 5 stated she completed the lab requisition for the K level, but did not check the potassium box on the requisition because she did not see it. RN 5 stated she wrote K level in the other section. RN 5 stated she should have checked the potassium box or added a plus sign (+) to the K level to eliminate any confusion. RN 5 stated the K level was not done because she did not order the lab correctly. RN 5 stated without a K level, the nurses would not know if the Kayexalate was effective and Resident 3 ' s K level could have still been very high and could have led to heart failure if not addressed. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Laboratory and Radiology, dated January 2012, the P&P indicated, it was the policy of the facility that laboratory and reports be performed as prescribed by the physician filed in the resident ' s medical record. The P&P also indicated the following: 1. Licensed nurses will notify laboratory services to perform the lab test, record the notification in the Nurses Notes, document in the Lab Control Log and complete a lab requisition form. 2. The lab technician will check the Lab Control Log at the nurse ' s station to confirm the request. 3. As the laboratory results are received by the facility, the licensed nurse notifies the physician. 4. Abnormal laboratory results are to be called into the physician promptly and notification be recorded in the resident ' s medical record. 5. The abnormal laboratory results are to be signed by the reviewing licensed nurse who notifies physician and filed in the medical record. 6. If the laboratory report is not received with 48 hours, contact the services and immediately request a copy. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Dialysis Services, dated August 2012, the P&P indicated, it was the policy of the facility to provide adequate and appropriate care to dialysis clients in coordination with the dialysis center, under the management and direction of the resident ' s attending physician. The P&P indicated the facility may be required to provide interventions for dialysis residents such as assessment of potassium lab values.
Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect Prevention, when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 did not report within two hours to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), law enforcement, the ombudsman (an advocate for residents of nursing homes, board and care centers, and assisted living facilities),the Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing Services (DON) when Resident 1 informed CNA 2 that CNA 1 was rough with Resident 1 for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice resulted in a delay of an investigation by CDPH and had the potential for further abuse by CNA 1 to other residents within the facility while CNA 1 continued to work the remainder of CNA 1's scheduled shift. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included muscle weakness, spinal stenosis (abnormal narrowing of the spinal canal), and Diabetes Mellitus ([DM]-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 1/17/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and, or touching as resident completes activity) for toileting, oral hygiene, and dressing, and required clean-up assistance when performing personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Progress Notes, dated 1/19/2025, the progress note indicated Resident 1 ' s son made the facility aware that his mother told him a nurse was too rough on her (Resident 1) last night. The progress notes indicated Resident 1 stated a male CNA (CNA 1) was rough with her, hurt Resident 1 ' s arm, and cleaned Resident 1 with hot water last night. During a review of the facility ' s Five-Day Investigation Report, dated 1/22/2025, the investigation report indicated CNA 1 asked CNA 2 to translate (in Spanish) for Resident 1 when Resident 1 became agitated. The report indicated Resident 1 told CNA 2 that CNA 1 was rough (during care). During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at 11:31 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, during the 11 p.m.- 7 a.m. shift on 1/19/2025 around 4 a.m., he asked CNA 2 to translate for him and Resident 1 (in Spanish) because Resident 1 pushed the call light and was very agitated. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 told him Resident 1 was agitated because Resident 1 complained thatthe water was too hot when CNA 1 provided perineal care (the cleaning and maintenance of the genital and anal areas) earlier in the shift. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 never told him Resident 1 complained about him being too rough with her. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 told him that Resident 1 was just confused. CNA 1 stated he did not report the incident to LVN 1 because he believed everything was solved. During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at 11:51 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated, during the 11 p.m.- 7 a.m. shift, on 1/19/2025, she helped translate for CNA 1 and Resident 1. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 told her CNA 1 was too rough. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 also asked for a pain pill because her left arm was hurting after CNA 1 repositioned her. CNA 2 stated she only told LVN 1 that Resident 1 wanted her pain pill, but did not report Resident 1 ' s complaint about CNA 1. CNA 2 stated she should have told LVN 1 or notified the proper agencies (CPDH, law enforcement, and the ombudsman) about Resident 1 ' s concern, because it was considered an abuse allegation. CNA 2 stated all staff were considered mandated reporters. CNA 2 stated there was potential for further abuse by CNA 1 to Resident 1 or all the other residents within the facility. During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at12:46 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated he was assigned to care for Resident 1 for the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on 1/18/2025 and was not made aware of any incident or allegation of abuse between Resident 1 and CNA 1. LVN 1 stated he would have immediately reported the incident to the abuse coordinator, the police, the ombudsman, CDPH, and would have ensured CNA 1 was sent home. During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at 1:12 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated all facility staff were mandated reporters and did not have to wait for him to notify law enforcement, CDPH, and fill out the SOC 341 form (a form that documents the information given by the reporting party on the suspected incident of abuse or neglect of an elder or dependent adult). The ADM stated CNA 2 should have reported the incident right away. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect Prevention Policy, revised 12/2014, the policy indicated the following: 1. When abuse or mistreatment of a resident is suspected staff must immediately notify their supervisor in duty, who, in turn, notifies the abuse prevention coordinator (Administrator) and the Director of Nursing Services. 2. Staff must respond to all allegations immediately. 3. Notify the State Department of Public Health, and other regulatory agencies as assigned and according to state reporting requirements. 4. All facility employees were required by law to report any known or suspected abuse immediately upon identifying a concern. Cross reference F610.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect Prevention, when the following occurred for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1) by failing to: 1.Ensure a prompt investigation was initiated when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 had knowledge Resident 1 alleged that CNA 1 was rough during care. 2. Ensure the facility implemented prompt measures to protect Resident 1 when CNA 2 had knowledge that Resident 1 alleged that CNA 1 was rough during care. These deficient practices resulted in the delay of a timely investigation and allowed for further potential abuse by CNA 1 to Resident 1 and other residents within the facility while CNA 1 continued to work the remainder of his scheduled shift. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included muscle weakness, spinal stenosis (abnormal narrowing of the spinal canal), and Diabetes Mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 1/17/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and, or touching as resident completes activity) for toileting, oral hygiene, and dressing, and required clean-up assistance when performing personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Progress Notes, dated 1/19/2025, the progress note indicated Resident 1 ' s son made the facility aware that his mother told him a nurse was too rough on her (Resident 1) last night. The progress notes indicated Resident 1 stated a male CNA (CNA 1) was rough with her, hurt Resident 1 ' s arm, and cleaned Resident 1 with hot water last night. During a review of the facility ' s Five-Day Investigation Report, dated 1/22/2025, the report indicated CNA 1 asked CNA 2 to translate (in Spanish) for Resident 1 when Resident 1 became agitated. The report indicated Resident 1 told CNA 2 that CNA 1 was rough (during care). During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at 11:51 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated, during the 11 p.m.- 7 a.m. shift, on 1/19/2025, she helped translate for CNA 1 and Resident 1. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 told her CNA 1 was too rough and Resident 1 wanted a pain pill because her left arm was hurting after CNA 1 repositioned her. CNA 2 stated that she only told LVN 1 Resident 1 wanted her pain pill, but did not report Resident 1 ' s complaint about CNA 1. CNA 2 stated she should have told LVN 1 or notified the proper agencies (CPDH, law enforcement, and the ombudsman) about Resident 1 ' s concern because it was considered an abuse allegation. CNA 2 stated this delayed the facilities ' ability to investigate timely and prevent Resident 1 from possible further abuse. During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at12:46 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated he was assigned to care for Resident 1 for the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on 1/18/2025 and was not made aware of any incident or allegation of abuse between Resident 1 and CNA 1. LVN 1 stated that he would have immediately reported the incident to the abuse coordinator, the police, the ombudsman, CDPH, and would have ensured CNA 1 was sent home. LVN 1 recalled that CNA 1 stayed in the facility until the end of his shift (7:30 a.m.). LVN 1 stated if he had known about the allegation, he would have started an investigation sooner. During an interview, on 2/3/2025, at 1:12 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM), ADM stated that all facility staff members were mandated reporters and did not have to wait for him to notify law enforcement, CDPH, and to fill out the SOC 341 form (a form that documents the information given by the reporting party on the suspected incident of abuse or neglect of an elder or dependent adult). The ADM stated CNA 2 should have reported the incident right away. The ADM stated this led to a delay in an investigation, and the facility could have acted on the information to prevent further abuse. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled, Abuse and Neglect Prevention Policy, revised 12/2014, the policy indicated the following for the management of abuse allegations: 1. Remove or protect the resident from danger 2. Assess the resident for injuries 3. Investigate the alleged incident immediately 4. Suspend the employee who may have been alleged perpetrators Cross reference F609.
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Develop a person-centered care plan (document that helped nurse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Develop a person-centered care plan (document that helped nurses and other care team members organize aspects of resident care) and implement interventions (actions a nurse took to implement a care plan, intent to improve the resident's comfort and health) for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility did not develop a care plan for Resident 1's non-compliance with the use of the call light (a button or device used in healthcare settings, typically located near a resident's bed, that allowed them to signal a nurse or caregiver when they needed assistance). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect Resident 1's physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and had the potential to increase the resident ' s risk of falling. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to facility on 8/1/2024 and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a condition when blood did not have enough oxygen or had too much carbon dioxide), generalized muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that caused a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/30/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 12/18/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision with eating and partial assistance (helper did less than half the effort) with oral hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper did all effort) with toileting hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 9/27/2024, the assessment indicated Resident 1 was at high risk of falling. During a review of Resident 1's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 12/9/2024, the assessment indicated Resident 1 was at high risk of falling. During a review of Resident 1's Nurses ' Progress Notes, dated 12/9/2024 at 9:41 a.m., the note indicated on 12/9/2024, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 saw Resident 1 on the floor at 4:30 a.m., and Resident 1 told LVN 1 she was going to the restroom. The note indicated LVN 1 encouraged Resident 1 of the importance of using the call light when needing assistance. During a review of Resident 1's Fall Investigation Form, dated 12/10/2024, the form indicated Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall on 12/9/2024 at 4:35 a.m. because Resident 1 was trying to go to the restroom by herself. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled, Resident at risk for falling, revised on 12/13/2024, the care plan indicated the goal was to prevent Resident 1 from falls. The staff ' s interventions indicated to provide Resident 1 verbal reminders not to ambulate (walk) and/or transfer without assistance. During a telephone interview on 12/27/2024 at 12:08 p.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated he found Resident 1 on the floor in Resident 1 ' s room on 12/9/2024 around 4:30 a.m. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 did not use the call light for assistance before the fall. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had non-compliance with using the call light. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/27/2024 at 12:50 p.m. with the MDS Registered Nurse (MDS RN), Resident 1's care plans as of 12/27/2024 were reviewed. There was no care plan for Resident 1's non-compliance with using the call light. The MDS RN stated Resident 1 was very forgetful and non-compliant with call light use. The MDS RN stated there should be a care plan addressing Resident 1's non-compliance. The MDS RN stated Resident 1 was at high risk of falls and could fall as a result of being non-compliant with call light use. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/27/2024 at 1:49 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, The resident care plan (multidisciplinary [a group of healthcare professionals from different fields in order to determine residents' treatment plan]), revised in 12/2014, was reviewed. The policy indicated The Multidisciplinary Team reviews each plan of care at least quarterly and updates individual care plans as necessary. The DON stated the purpose of the care plan was to know how to take care of the resident continuously according to resident's needs. The DON stated a care plan should be developed within seven days of admission, and the MDS RN was responsible for completing the long-term care plan (care plan indicated a set of services that helped residents with chronic illnesses or disabilities maintain their independence). The DON stated nursing needed to have a care plan for Resident 1's behavior of non-compliance with call light, so staff could know the risks. The DON stated the care plan needed to be completed no later than the next day of the non-compliant behavior. The DON stated residents were at risk for falls if they were non-compliant with the use of the call light. During a review of facility P&P titled, The resident care plan (multidisciplinary), revised in 12/2014, the policy indicated The Multidisciplinary Team develops care plans within 72 hours of admission addressing the resident's most acute problems. The care plan is comprehensive for each resident including measurable objectives and timeframes to meet residents ' medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs.
Nov 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who required sub...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who required substantial/maximal assistance (staff does more than half the effort. Staff lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) with ADLs was provided water every two hours, according to physician order and care plan. This failure had the potential to cause dehydration and urinary tract infection ([UTI] an infection in the bladder/urinary tract) for Resident 1. Findings: During a review of the Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The admission Record indicated Resident 1's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus ([DM] a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), hypothyroidism (a condition that occur when the thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormone) and legally blindness. During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 1/18/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 did not have capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's physician's order dated 10/1/2024, the order indicated to provide Resident 1 with 4-6 ounces (oz) of water every two hours. During a review of Resident's 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool) dated 10/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to understand and make self-understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial/maximal assistance (staff does more than half the effort. Staff lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) with ADLs such as eating (the ability to use suitable utensils to bring food and/or liquid once the meal is placed before the resident), oral hygiene, upper body dressing and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's medical records dated 10/2024 and 11/2024, the records did not indicate Resident 1 received 4-6 oz of water every two hours. During a review of Resident 1 Care Plan dated 11/13/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for recurrent UTI. The Care Plan indicated, nursing interventions included to encourage and offer adequate fluid intake as tolerated. During an interview on 11/13/2024 at 1:10 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 1), CNA1 stated Resident 1 needed assistance with eating meals and drinking fluids. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 did not drink water because the resident refused. During an interview on 11/20 2024 at 2: 46 p.m., with Resident 1's Representative (RRP), RRP stated Resident 1 had been treated for UTI three times since she was admitted into the facility. RRP stated that facility staff kept telling her Resident 1 did not like to drink water, but each time she visited, Resident 1 would ask her for a drink of water. During a review of statement from the Director of Nursing (DON) dated 11/26/204, the statement Resident 1 had a physician's order to offer 4-6 oz of water every two hours to Resident 1. The statement indicated there was no supporting documentation to indicate Resident 1 was offered 4-6 ounces of water. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Hydration Policy and Procedure dated 3/2012, the P&P indicated it was the policy of the facility to encourage fluid intake to maintain the resident's hydration and was done during meal and in between meals. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Supporting dated 1/20/2024. The P&P indicated that Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care.
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy to document the findings related to a change of c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy to document the findings related to a change of condition (COC) every shift for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2). This deficient practice had the potential to result in serious harm such as another episode of aggression towards others, and a delay of necessary treatments. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to facility on 12/21/2016 and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included seizures (a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain which could cause uncontrolled jerking, blank stares, and loss of consciousness), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), anxiety disorder (a mental health condition that involved excessive and persistent feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), and insomnia (trouble falling asleep or staying asleep). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 10/18/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had impairment to both extremities and used a walker and/or wheelchair for mobility. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/30/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan titled, Roommate (Resident 2) hit resident (Resident 1) on right side of the face related altercation regarding television. At risk for pain or discomfort, dated 10/8/2024, the care plan indicated staff would monitor every shift for any change of condition. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Notes dated 10/8/2024, the nursing notes indicated Resident 1 had an altercation with Resident 2, and the doctor ordered staff to monitor Resident 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/22/2024 at 10:39 AM with Registered Nurse (RN 1), Resident 1 ' s Nursing Notes, dated from 10/8/2024 to 10/11/2024, were reviewed. RN 1 stated there were no documentations regarding Resident 1 ' s COC for the 11 PM to 7AM (night) shift on 10/8/2024, the 3 PM to 11 PM (evening) shift on 10/9/2024, the evening shift on 10/10/2024, or the night shift on 10/10/2024. RN 1 stated the licensed nurses should document every shift for 72 hours on the nursing note for Resident 1. RN 1 stated it was important to document so nurses could notify the doctor regarding any aftereffects on Resident 1 from the incident, and nurses could provide interventions to address any psychosocial needs. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/22/2024 at 11:55 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1 ' s Nursing Notes, dated from 10/8/2024 to 10/11/2024, were reviewed. The DON stated there were no documentation regarding Resident 1 ' s COC for the night shift on 10/8/2024, the evening shift on 10/9/2024, the evening shift on 10/10/2024, or the night shift on 10/10/2024. The DON stated the licensed nurse assigned to Resident 1 should document every shift for 72 hours on the nursing note. The DON stated staff monitored Resident 1 ' s emotions to see if the resident was feeling depressed or happy every shift for three days. The DON stated it was important to document so nurses could know if Resident 1 had any negative outcomes from the incident. 2. During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2 ' s diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), congestive heart failure (CHF- a heart disorder which caused the heart to not pump the blood efficiently), and cardiomyopathy (a diseases of the heart muscle that made it harder for the heart to pump blood). During a review of Resident 2 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 ' s cognitive skills for daily decisions making was mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 5 used a cane/ crutch for mobility. During a review of Resident 2 ' s H&P, dated 9/2/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Nursing Notes dated 10/18/2024, the nursing notes indicated Resident 2 had an altercation with Resident 1, and the doctor ordered staff to monitor Resident 2. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/22/2024 at 10:39 AM with RN 1, Resident 2 ' s Nursing Notes, dated from 10/8/2024 to 10/11/2024, were reviewed. RN 1 stated there were no documentation regarding Resident 2 ' s COC for the night shift on 10/9/2024, the night shift on 10/10/2024, or the 7 AM to 3 PM (morning) shift on 10/11/2024. RN 1 stated the licensed nurses should document every shift for 72 hours on the nursing note for Resident 2. RN 1 stated it was important to document so nurses could notify the doctor regarding any aftereffects on Resident 2 from the incident, and nurses could provide interventions to address any psychosocial needs. RN 1 stated not documenting every shift possibly delayed necessary care. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/22/2024 at 11:55 AM with the DON, Resident 2 ' s Nursing Notes, dated from 10/8/2024 to 10/11/2024, were reviewed. The DON stated there were no documentation regarding Resident 2 ' s COC for the night shift on 10/9/2024, the night shift on 10/10/2024, or the morning shift on 10/11/2024. The DON stated the licensed nurse assigned to Resident 2 should document every shift for 72 hours on the nursing note. The DON stated staff monitored Resident 2 ' s emotions to see if Resident 2 was feeling depressed or happy every shift for three days. The DON stated it was important to document so nurses could know if Resident 2 had any negative outcomes from the incident. The DON stated the potential risk of not documenting every shift was another altercation. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Change of Condition, revised on 7/2012, the P&P indicated the licensed nurse responsible for the resident would continue assessment and documentation every shift for 72 hours or until condition is stable.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from significant medication error by adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from significant medication error by administering amiodarone (a medication that prevents and treats irregular heartbeat) and metoprolol tartrate (medicine to treat high blood pressure) outside the parameters (specific instructions that you could measure) as ordered by the physician for one of three sample residents (Resident 2). These deficient practices had the potential to cause complications of hypotension (low blood pressure, dizziness and fainting leading to falls) and low pulse (leading to loss of consciousness). Findings: During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2 ' s diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus (DM- a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), congestive heart failure (CHF- a heart disorder which caused the heart to not pump the blood efficiently), and cardiomyopathy (a diseases of the heart muscle that made it harder for the heart to pump blood). During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/2/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2 ' s cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 2 used a cane/ crutch for mobility. During a review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/2/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Order Summary Report as of 10/22/2024, the report indicated on 9/19/2024 the physician ordered to hold amiodarone and metoprolol tartrate if Resident 2 ' s pulse was less than 60 beats per minute (BPM). During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/22/2024 at 11:55 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 2 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October 2024 was reviewed. The MAR indicated amiodarone was administered on 10/8/2024 at 9:00 AM with a pulse of 56 BPM, on 10/8/2024 at 5:00 PM with a pulse of 54 BPM, and on 10/9/2024 at 5:00 PM with a pulse of 54 BPM. The MAR also indicated metoprolol tartrate was administered on 10/8/2024 at 9:00 AM with a pulse of 56 BPM, on 10/8/2024 at 5:00 PM with a pulse of 54 BPM, on 10/9/2024 at 5:00 PM with a pulse of 54 BPM, on 10/15/2024 at 5:00 PM with a pulse of 56 BPM, and on 10/21/2024 at 9:00 AM with a pulse of 53 BPM. The DON stated the check mark on the MAR indicated the medication was administered. The DON stated the nurse should hold amiodarone and metoprolol tartrate with a pulse less than 60 BPM. The DON stated resident ' s pulse would go down and might lose consciousness if amiodarone and metoprolol tartrate were administered with a pulse less than 60 BPM. The DON stated the right thing to do was to call the doctor. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Administration, revised on 7/2013, the P&P indicated drugs must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. The P&P further indicated that medication for hypertension that required parameters before administration should be complied with.
Jul 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0675 (Tag F0675)

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 answer the call light in a timely manner, ensure the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to answer the call light in a timely manner, ensure the resident's preference to shower by a certain time was honored, and ensure the call lights were not cancelled without asking the residents if they needed assistance for two residents out of two sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2). These deficient practices had the potential to cause a negative impact on Resident 1's and Resident's ' 2s psychosocial well-being and caused a delay in care. Findings: 1. During an observation on 7/24/2024 at 10:15 a.m., in Resident 1's room, Resident 1's call light was not answered. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paraplegia (paralysis of the legs and lower body) and depression (a common and serious medical illness that negatively affects how a person feels, the way they think and how they act. Depression causes feelings of sadness and/or a loss of interest in activities they once enjoyed). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/23/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 5/21/2024, the MDS indicated that Resident 1's cognitive skills (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff (helper does all the effort) for toileting hygiene, dressing, personal hygiene, and showering/bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required maximal assistance (Helper does more than half the effort) from staff for eating and oral hygiene. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 10:10 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated the CNAs did not assist him as they should. Resident 1 stated the CNAs did not answer the call light in a timely manner and sometimes did not answer the call light at all. Resident 1 stated the CNAs cancelled the call light without asking him if needed assistance. Resident 1 stated he felt unimportant because no one cared that he was not getting the care he needed. 2. During an observation on 7/24/2024 at 10:46 a.m. in Resident 2's room, Resident 2 put his call light on. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) passed by Resident 2's room while the call light was on but did not answer the call light. CNA 1 passed by Resident 2's room again and entered the room to cancel the call light and did not ask any of the residents in the room if they needed assistance. During an observation on 7/24/2024 at 11:02 a.m. in Resident 2's room, CNA 1 went to Resident 2's room. Resident 2 asked CNA 1 why she did not return for his shower. CNA 1 stated she was busy with another resident. Resident 2 asked CNA 1 why did she not tell him that before but instead told the resident she was going to be back at 10:00 a.m. but did not return. Resident 2 told CNA 1 he had told her that he had visitors coming at 11:00 a.m. and he needed to be showered by then. CNA 1 apologized and said she would return when she finished with her other resident. During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (heart's upper chambers [atria] beat out of coordination with the lower chambers [ventricles]) and heart failure (progressive heart disease that affects the pumping action of the heart muscles, causes fatigue and shortness of breath). During a review of Resident 2's H&P dated 8/30/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated that Resident 2's cognitive skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing self, dressing and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required set up or clean up assistance for oral hygiene and eating. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 10:39 a.m. with Resident 2, Resident 2 stated every time he pushed his call light the CNAs ignored his call light. Resident 2 stated the CNAs had poor communication skills because he had been waiting to take a shower and no one had told him what the delay was. Resident 2 stated in the early morning he requested for his CNA to take his shower by 10:00 a.m. because he had visitors at 11:00 a.m. Resident 2 stated the CNA stated she would be back by 10:00 a.m. Resident 2 stated his CNA did not return. Resident 2 stated he was upset because the CNA never came back to tell him she was busy and instead he had been waiting and pushing the call light. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 10:52 a.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she was supposed to answer the call light when she passed by Resident 2's room but she did not because she was busy with another resident. CNA 1 stated she was not supposed to cancel the call light without asking the residents if they needed anything. CNA 1 stated she did not know which resident pushed the call light but she cancelled it without asking who needed help because she assumed it was Resident 2. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 wanted to take a shower but she was busy showering another resident. CNA 1 stated she did not return to Resident 2's room to tell him she was running behind, and did not ask staff for help from other staff. CNA 1 stated she did not inform her charge nurse that she could not accommodate Resident 2's needs. CNA 1 stated she should have returned to Resident 2's room to notify him that she was busy with another resident. CNA 1 stated it was important to communicate with Resident 2 to prevent him from getting upset. During an interview on 7/25/2024 at 9:55 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she expected all her staff to answer call lights when they hear it or see it on. The DON stated the process for answering call lights was to enter the residents' room and ask all residents if they needed anything. The DON stated it was important to answer residents call lights to meet resident needs. The DON stated if resident call lights were not answered the residents' care got delayed and residents could have an accident. The DON stated it was not acceptable to cancel call lights without asking residents if they needed anything. The DON stated if staff cancel call lights without asking residents if they need anything, they were not accommodating residents needs. The DON stated cancelling call lights was neglecting residents and their needs. The DON stated this practice would frustrate residents and residents would continue to push the call light until they get what they wanted. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Call Light/Bell , dated 1/2024, the P&P indicated call lights are to be answered within a reasonable time (3-5 minutes). The P&P indicated call light was to be turned off after the resident needs are attended to. The P&P indicated if staff is unable to help the resident, staff were to explain to the resident and notify the charge nurse for further instructions. During a review of facility's P&P titled Activities of Daily Living , dated 1/2024, the P&P indicated residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, Grooming and personal and oral hygiene.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control was maintained when the following occurred: 1. Resident 8 was not tested for Covid-19 (an acute dis...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control was maintained when the following occurred: 1. Resident 8 was not tested for Covid-19 (an acute disease caused by a coronavirus, capable of progressing to severe symptoms, including death, especially in older people and those with underlying health conditions) after symptoms of phlegm and a runny nose were first reported on 7/7/2024. 2. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 worked two shifts, on 7/9/2024 and 7/10/2024, while experiencing Covid-19 symptoms. These deficient practices created the risk for avoidable spread of infection to all facility residents and staff and placed vulnerable facility residents at risk of suffering severe illness and/or death. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 8's admission Record, the admission record indicated the facility admitted Resident 8 on 9/27/2023, and most recently re-admitted the resident on 4/18/2024. Resident 8's admitting diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (uncontrolled blood sugar levels), chest pain, and nephrotic syndrome (a kidney disorder that causes the body to excrete too much protein in the urine). During a review of Resident 8's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 8 had intact cognition (having sufficient judgment, planning, organization, self-control). The MDS indicated Resident 8 was dependent on staff for toileting, showering/bathing, and dressing her lower body. The MDS further indicated Resident 8 required substantial to maximal assistance from staff to reposition herself in bed and was dependent on staff to transition from her bed to a chair, and vice versa. During a review of Resident 8's physician orders, dated 4/18/2024, the physician orders indicated Resident 8 was to receive a test for Covid-19 as needed to rule out (eliminate the presence of) Covid-19. During a review of Resident 8's Change of Condition assessment (COC), dated 7/7/2024, the COC indicated that on 7/7/2024, Resident 8 began experiencing phlegm (mucus, thicker than normal due to illness or irritation, coughed up from the respiratory tract) and a runny nose. The COC did not indicate Resident 8 was tested for Covid-19. During a review of Resident 8's progress note, dated 7/10/2024, the progress note indicated Resident 8 tested positive for Covid-19 on 7/10/2024, and was moved to another room to isolate from other facility residents. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 10:30 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated when a resident had an order for Covid-19 testing as needed to rule out Covid-19, nursing staff should administer a Covid-19 test if the resident was displaying symptoms of Covid-19. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 11:17 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility document titled OSHA C19 Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard Policy and Procedure Manual , undated, was the current Covid-19 guidance being followed in the facility. During a review of the facility document titled OSHA C19 Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard Policy and Procedure Manual , undated, the document indicated the facility would ensure that each employee received training on COVID-19, including the signs and symptoms of COVID-19. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/24/2024 at 2:01 PM, with Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) 2, the facility's in-service training titled Covid-19 , dated 2/23/2024, was reviewed. IPN 2 stated the in-service training educated staff on the signs and symptoms of Covid-19, and stated congestion and a runny nose were symptoms of Covid-19. IPN 2 stated residents with Covid-19 symptoms were supposed to be tested for Covid-19. IPN 2 stated there was an increased risk of infection transmission to other residents if symptomatic residents were not tested and timely precautions implemented. 2. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 12:19 PM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated she began to feel congested during her shift on 7/9/2024. CNA 1 stated she did not report the new onset of symptoms to anyone and completed her shift. CNA 1 stated she felt congested on 7/10/2024 and knew staff were not supposed to work if symptomatic. CNA 1 stated she did not notify anyone of her symptoms and proceeded to work a full shift on 7/10/2024. CNA 1 stated she took a Covid-19 test on 7/10/2024, after her shift, and she was positive for Covid-19. CNA 1 stated there was risk for spread of infection if staff came in to work while symptomatic or positive for Covid-19. During an interview on 7/24/2024 at 1:57 PM, with the Office Assistant (OA), the OA stated all persons entering the facility, including staff, were supposed to complete a screening form for Covid-19. The OA stated use of the screening forms was discontinued at some point and resumed on 7/12/2024. The OA stated staff were trained to self-report any Covid-19 symptoms regardless of the use of the screening forms. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/24/2024 at 2:01 PM, with IPN 2, the undated facility document titled OSHA C19 Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard Policy and Procedure Manual was reviewed. IPN 2 stated the document indicated all staff were supposed to be screened for Covid-19 symptoms. IPN 2 stated that even when the screening forms were not being used, staff were still supposed to check themselves for symptoms and not come in to work if symptomatic. IPN 2 stated that symptomatic staff could infect other residents and other staff. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/24/2024 at 2:47 PM, with the DON, the facility's document titled Employee Daily Screening Tool , dated 5/16/2023, was reviewed. The DON stated it was important to identify symptomatic staff, and employees were supposed to complete the form prior to the start of their shift, and after their shift. The DON stated that if staff developed symptoms during their shift, they were supposed to notify her or IPN 2, and stated staff experiencing Covid-19 symptoms prior to their shift were not supposed to come in to work. The DON stated symptomatic staff create a risk of infection transmission in the facility. During a review of the facility document titled OSHA C19 Healthcare Emergency Temporary Standard Policy and Procedure Manual , undated, the document indicated the facility was supposed to screen each employee before each workday and each shift. During a review of the facility document titled Employee Daily Screening Tool , dated 5/16/2023, the document indicated staff were supposed to indicate yes or no if experiencing any Covid-19 signs and symptoms, including congestion, prior to the start of their shift. The document further indicated symptomatic staff were supposed to be restricted from work, and if symptoms developed during the shift, they were supposed to notify their supervisor to arrange for departure from the workplace. The document indicated that at the end of their shift, staff were supposed to indicate if they experienced any symptoms, including congestion, during their shift. The document indicated that if staff indicated any symptoms, they were supposed to notify and consult with the DON and/or IPN.
May 2024 26 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services to maintain mobility (ability to mov...

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 services to maintain mobility (ability to move) for one of four sampled residents (Resident 53) with limited range of motion [(ROM) full movement potential of a joint (where two bones meet)] and mobility by failing to: 1. Monitor Resident 53's ROM in each joint of both arms and legs upon admission, quarterly, and annually in accordance with the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, which indicated the resident's comprehensive assessment will identify a resident's current range of motion of his or her joints. 2. Provide Resident 53 with active assistive range of motion ([AAROM] use of muscles surrounding the joint to perform the exercise but required some help from a person or equipment) exercises from 12/23/2022 (admission assessment) to 5/1/2023 (more than four months) in accordance Resident 53's admission Rehab Screening Form (brief assessment of a resident's abilities) recommendations, dated 12/23/2022. 3. Provide Resident 53 with passive range of motion ([PROM] movement of joint through the ROM with no effort from the person) of the ankles in accordance with physician orders, dated 3/25/2024. 4. Assess and monitor Resident 3, 56, and 61's ROM in each joint of both arms and both legs upon admission, quarterly, and annually in accordance with the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Resident Mobility and Range of Motion. 5. Provide Resident 3 with PROM of both elbows, wrists, hands, knees, and the left ankle in accordance with physician orders, dated 11/27/2023. 6. Provide Resident 56 with active range of motion (AROM, performance of ROM of a joint without any assistance or effort of another person) of the right wrist and hand in accordance with physician orders, dated 4/7/2023. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 53 requiring full physical assistance to perform exercises of both arms and legs and Resident 53's development of both ankle contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness). These deficient practices also had the potential for Resident 3, 56, and 61 to experience an undetected decline in ROM and the development of contractures. Cross reference F580, F656, F677, F726, and F825 Findings: a. A review of Resident 53's general acute care hospital (GACH) Neurology (branch of medicine concerned with the study and treatment of disorders involving the brain, spinal cord, and nerves) Progress Note, dated 12/18/2022, indicated Resident 53 was fully awake, alert, and followed simple commands. The Neurology Progress Note also included a physical examination, which indicated Resident 53 held the arms and legs against gravity (active movement). A review of Resident 53's admission Record indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The admission Record indicated Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/2/2024, indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember). The MDS indicated Resident 53 did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 53's Progress Note, dated 12/22/2022 timed at 3:00 p.m., indicated Resident 53 was found in the middle of the bed with both legs dangling outside of the bed. The Progress Note indicated Resident 53 was assisted back to bed and repositioned. The Progress Note indicated Resident 53's physician was informed, and a physician order was carried out to place the bed in the lowest position and floor mat. A review of Resident 53's admission Rehab Screening Form, dated 12/23/2022, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures or ROM impairments in both arms, but had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehabilitation Screening Form indicated Resident 53's left leg was within functional limits ([WFL] sufficient movement without significant limitation) and the right leg (hip) had tightness into flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) and abduction (moving the leg away from the body). The Rehab Screening Form indicated to provide Resident 53 with Restorative Nursing Aide ([RNA] Certified Nursing Aide program that help residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) for AAROM exercises on both arms and legs, three to five times per week (3-5x/week) as tolerated. A review of Resident 53's Restorative Flow Sheets (record of RNA sessions) for 12/2022, 1/2023, 2/2023, 3/2023, and 4/2023 indicated AAROM exercises on both arms and legs were not included. A review of Resident 53's quarterly Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/9/2023, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures or ROM impairments in both arms. The Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue the RNA ROM exercise program. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 5/1/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide Resident 53 with PROM on both arms and legs, 3-5x/week with one person assist as tolerated. A review of Resident 53's quarterly Rehab Screening Forms, dated 7/9/2023 and 10/10/2023, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures or ROM impairments in both arms. The Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Forms indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue the RNA ROM exercise program. A review of Resident 53's annual Rehab Screening Form, dated 1/9/2024, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures and did not have any ROM impairments in both arms. The Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue the RNA ROM exercise program. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 3/25/2024, indicated for RNA to provide PROM on both arms and legs, followed by the application of both elbow splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion) for four to six hours (4-6 hours), 3-5x/week. A review of Resident 53's quarterly Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/9/2024, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures or ROM impairments in both arms. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue the RNA ROM exercise program. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/28/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), the facility's Rehab Screening Form was reviewed. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form was completed upon a resident's admission, quarterly, change of condition, and annually. The DOR stated ROM was assessed as either having no impairment, impairment on one side, or impairment on both sides. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include a ROM assessment for limitations in each joint of the arms (shoulders, elbows, wrists, and hands) and the legs (hips, knees, ankles). The DOR stated RNA services helped residents maintain their ROM and function. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:13 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was lying awake in bed with the head-of-bed (HOB) elevated and a bed sheet covering Resident 53's legs. Resident 53 smiled but did not speak. Resident 53's body twitched (short, jerky sudden movements) intermittently (did not happen continuously) and both elbows were in a bent position. Resident 53's hips and knees were visibly rotated away from the body with the knees bent, resembling a frog-like leg position, despite the presence of the bed sheet over both legs. Resident 53's ankles and feet were not visible. Resident 53 was not wearing any splints on both arms and legs. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed with the HOB elevated. Resident 53's elbows were in a bent position. Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA) 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left arm, including shoulder abduction (lifting the arm away from the body) and adduction (returning the arm toward the body), shoulder rotation (circular motion) in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, shoulder flexion (lifting the arm upward) and extension (returning the arm downward), elbow flexion (bending) and extension (straightening), and then applied an elbow extension splint (splint that prevents the resident from bending at the elbow) on the left arm. RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right arm, including shoulder abduction and adduction, shoulder rotation in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, shoulder flexion and extension, elbow flexion and extension, and then applied an elbow extension splint on the right arm. Resident 53's legs were rotated away from the body, both knees were bent, and both ankles were positioned in plantarflexion (ankles bent with toes pointing away from the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right leg, including hip abduction (moving the leg away from the body) and adduction (returning the leg toward the body), hip rotation clockwise and counterclockwise while the knee was extended, hip flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) with knee flexion (bending the knee), and ankle rotation. RNA 3 did not move Resident 53's right ankle into dorsiflexion (ankle bent with toes pointing toward the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left leg, including hip abduction, hip rotation clockwise and counterclockwise with the knee extended, hip flexion with knee flexion, and ankle rotation. RNA 3 did not move Resident 53's left ankle into dorsiflexion. RNA 3 then performed exercises to the left-hand fingers into flexion and extension, left wrist rotation, left wrist flexion and extension, right-hand fingers into flexion and extension, right wrist rotation, and right wrist flexion and extension. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:37 a.m. with RNA 3, RNA 3 stated she performed PROM on both of Resident 53's arms and legs and applied both elbow extension splints. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:36 a.m. with Physical Therapist (PT, professional trained in the restoration, maintenance, and promotion of optimal physical function) 1, PT 1 stated the ROM exercises that the RNAs were expected to perform for each resident's legs included hip flexion and extension, hip abduction and adduction, knee flexion and extension, and ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion to prevent contractures. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 4:06 p.m. with the DOR, in the presence of the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the MDS Coordinator (MDS 1), the facility's Rehabilitation electronic documentation (clinical therapy records) for PT, Occupational Therapy [(OT) profession aimed to increase or maintain a person's capability of participating in everyday life activities (occupations)], and Speech Therapy ([ST or SLP] profession aimed in the prevention, assessment, and treatment of speech, language, communicative, and swallowing disorders) was reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 53 never received any PT, OT, or SLP services while residing in the facility. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 4:23 p.m. with the DOR, Resident 53's Rehab Screening Form, dated 12/23/2022, was reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 53 had ROM impairments in the right leg due to tightness in the hip. The DOR stated Resident 53 did not have any contractures in both legs upon admission to the facility. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/29/2024 at 4:38 p.m., with Resident 53, in the presence of the DOR, ADON, and MDS 1, in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed with a bed sheet covering both legs. The DOR lifted the bed sheet to view both legs. Resident 53 did not have any splints on both legs. Resident 53's ankles were positioned in plantarflexion. The DOR attempted to provide ROM to Resident 53's ankles into dorsiflexion, but Resident 53's ankles remained in plantarflexion. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 4:43 p.m. with the DOR, ADON, and MDS 1, the DOR, ADON, and MDS 1 stated Resident 53 had plantarflexion contractures of both ankles. MDS 1 stated the ROM assessment in a resident's MDS indicated whether a resident had any ROM limitations but did not indicate which joint had a ROM limitation. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include any assessment of a resident's ROM at each joint and the facility was not monitoring each resident's ROM. The ADON stated ROM exercises, movement, proper positioning, and splints assisted in preventing contractures. The ADON stated Resident 53 did not have any splints on both legs. The ADON and MDS 1 stated the facility did not know Resident 53 had both ankle plantarflexion contractures, and therefore, did not know when Resident 53's contractures developed. The ADON stated contractures increased a resident's risk of developing skin breakdown (tissue damage caused by friction, shear, moisture, or pressure) and fractures (break in the bone). The ADON and MDS 1 stated Resident 53's plantarflexion contractures in both ankles were preventable. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 11:11 a.m. with PT 1, PT 1 stated contractures were a fixed positioning of a joint. PT 1 stated contractures were not reversible but could be surgically released. PT 1 stated contractures could be delayed with ROM exercises, proper positioning, and the application of splints. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 11:46 a.m. with the DOR, Resident 53's Rehab Screening Forms, dated 12/23/2022 and 4/9/2023, and physician orders dated, 5/1/2023, for RNA were reviewed. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form, dated 12/23/2022, included a recommendation for RNA to perform AAROM exercises to both arms and legs. The DOR stated Resident 53 did not receive RNA until the physician orders, dated 5/1/2023, which indicated for the RNA to perform PROM to both arms and legs. The DOR stated Resident 53 did not receive RNA for AAROM exercises from 12/23/2022 to 5/1/2023. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/9/2023, indicated to continue the RNA ROM exercise program but the DOR did not verify if Resident 53 was received RNA services. The DOR stated the facility's Rehab Screening Form did not monitor Resident 53's ROM. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3:44 p.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated AAROM meant a resident moved as much as possible but required additional help from another person. The DOR stated PROM meant the resident required full physical assistance. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 10:28 a.m. with the ADON and MDS 1, Resident 53's Rehab Screening Form, dated 12/23/2022, the Restorative Flow Sheets, and physician orders dated, 5/1/2023, for RNA were reviewed. The ADON stated the Rehab Screening Form, dated 12/23/2022, indicated a recommendation for RNA to provide AAROM exercises to both arms and legs. The ADON stated Resident 53 had some movement in both arms and both legs if the recommendation was for AAROM. The ADON and MDS 1 reviewed the Restorative Flow Sheets from 12/2022 to 4/2022 and stated Resident 53 did not receive RNA for AAROM exercises for four months. MDS 1 stated Resident 53 started receiving RNA for PROM exercises to both arms and legs in accordance with the physician order, dated 5/1/2023. MDS 1 stated the physician orders changed from AAROM to PROM which indicated Resident 53 could have declined in the ability to move. The ADON stated the Rehab Screening Form should have indicated Resident 53 was monitored for ROM (at each joint) since the RNAs were not trained to observe ROM. The ADON stated Resident 53's ROM limitations were preventable. b. A review of Resident 3's admission Record, indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 3's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), myocardial infarction (heart attack), hemiplegia or hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke, brain damage due to a loss of oxygen to the area) affecting the right dominant (used most often) side, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acquired absence of the left toes, and acquired absence of the right leg below the knee. A review of Resident 3's annual Rehab Screening Form, dated 11/6/2023, indicated Resident 3 had a ROM impairment in one arm and a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form did not indicate which arm and which leg had ROM impairments. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 3 had the same level of function without decline and to continue the Restorative Nursing Aide ([RNA] certified nursing aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) program. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 11/27/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide PROM on both upper extremities and both lower extremities, 3-5x/week with one person assist as tolerated. A review of Resident 3's quarterly Rehab Screening Form, dated 2/6/2024, indicated Resident 3 had a ROM impairment in one arm and a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form did not indicate which arm and which leg had ROM impairments. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 3 had the same level of function without decline and to continue the RNA program. A review of Resident 3 MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 had severely impaired cognition, had ROM impairments to one arm and one leg, and was dependent for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene, showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 3's quarterly Rehab Screening Form, dated 5/7/2024, indicated Resident 3 had a ROM impairment in one arm and a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form did not indicate which arm and which leg had ROM impairments. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 3 had the same level of function without decline and to continue the RNA program. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/28/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the DOR, the facility's Rehab Screening Form was reviewed. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form was completed upon a resident's admission, quarterly, change of condition, and annually. The DOR stated ROM was assessed as either having no impairment, impairment on one side, or impairment on both sides. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include a ROM assessment for limitations in each joint of the arms (shoulders, elbows, wrists, and hands) and the legs (hips, knees, ankles). The DOR stated RNA services helped residents (in general) maintain their ROM and function. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 11:30 a.m., in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was observed asleep while lying in bed with the HOB elevated and receiving liquid feeding through the G-tube. Resident 3 woke up easily to sound but did not speak. Resident 3 attempted to move the left hand to reach forward but no other active movement was observed in both arms and both legs. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:47 a.m., in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was observed lying in bed with the HOB elevated receiving liquid feeding through the G-tube. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:53 a.m., in Resident 3's room, the ADON came into Resident 3's room to disconnect the G-tube from the liquid feeding machine. RNA 2 stood on the left side of Resident 3's bed and performed exercises on Resident 3's left arm, including shoulder flexion (lifting the arm upward) and extension (returning the arm downward), shoulder horizontal abduction (lifting the arm from shoulder level in front of the body toward the side and away from the body) and horizontal adduction (lifting the arm from shoulder level on side of the body toward the front of the body), and shoulder rotation (circular motion). RNA 2 did not perform any exercises on the left elbow, wrist, or fingers. RNA 2 walked to the right side of Resident 3's bed and performed exercises on Resident 3's right arm including, shoulder flexion and extension, shoulder horizontal abduction and adduction, and shoulder rotation. RNA 2 did not perform any exercises to Resident 3's right elbow, wrist, and hand. RNA 2 removed the bed sheet over Resident 3's legs. Resident 3 was observed to have the absence of the right lower leg below the knee and a cushioned boot underneath the left foot. RNA 2 performed exercises to the right leg, including hip flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) and extension (returning the leg down away from the body), hip abduction (moving the leg away from the body) and adduction (returning the leg toward the body), and hip rotation. RNA did not perform any exercises to the right knee. RNA 2 removed the cushioned boot from the left foot, and Resident 3 was observed with the absence of toes. RNA 2 performed exercises to the left leg, including hip flexion and extension, hip abduction and adduction, and hip rotation. RNA 2 did not perform any PROM to the left knee and left ankle. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:04 a.m. with RNA 2, RNA 2 stated she performed PROM exercises to both arms and both legs. RNA 2 described and demonstrated the ROM exercises performed to Resident 3's arms and legs. RNA 2 stated she moved both of Resident 3's arms at the shoulder joint upward and downward (shoulder flexion and extension), side to side (shoulder horizonal abduction and horizonal adduction), and circles (shoulder rotation). RNA 2 stated she moved both of Resident 3's legs at the hip joint upward and downward (hip flexion and extension), side to side (hip abduction and adduction), and circles (hip rotation). During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:24 a.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the ROM exercises that the RNAs were expected to perform for each resident's arms included shoulder flexion and extension, shoulder abduction (lifting the arm up and away from the body) and adduction (returning the arm downward to the side of the body), elbow flexion (bending the elbow) and extension (straightening the elbow), wrist flexion (bending the wrist downward) and extension (bending the wrist upward), and finger flexion (bending the fingers toward the palm) and extension (straightening out the fingers). The DOR stated it was important to perform ROM exercises to each joint to improve circulation and prevent stiffness. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:36 a.m. with PT 1, PT 1 stated the ROM exercises that the RNAs were expected to perform for each resident's legs included hip flexion and extension, hip abduction and adduction, knee flexion (bending the knee) and extension (straightening out the knee), and ankle dorsiflexion (bending the ankle toward the body) and plantarflexion (bending the ankle away from the body) to prevent contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness). During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 12:36 p.m. with the DOR, Resident 3's Rehab Screening Forms were reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 3's Rehab Screening Forms, dated 11/6/2023, 2/6/2024, and 5/7/2024, indicated Resident 3 had a ROM impairment in one arm and ROM impairment in one leg due to Resident 3's hemiplegia affecting the right side of the body. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 2:36 p.m. with RNA 2, RNA 2 stated she did not perform ROM exercises to both of Resident 3's elbows, wrists, and hands because the physician orders indicated to perform exercises to Resident 3's upper extremity. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 4:43 p.m. with the DOR, ADON, and MDS 1, MDS 1 stated the ROM assessment in a resident's MDS indicated whether a resident had any ROM limitations but did not indicate which joint had a ROM limitation. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include any assessment of a resident's ROM at each joint and stated the facility was not monitoring each resident's ROM. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 10:28 a.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated the Rehab Screening Form should have monitored a resident's ROM since the RNAs were not trained to observe ROM. c. A review of Resident 56's admission Record, indicated Resident 56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), hemiplegia or hemiparesis following a cerebrovascular disease affecting the left dominant side, aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech as a result of brain damage), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 56's physician orders, dated 4/7/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide AROM on the right arm and right leg and PROM on the left leg, three to five times per week, with one person assist. A review of Resident 56's RNA Referral, dated 4/7/2023, indicated Resident 56 had increased stiffness on the left side of the body and refused to have the left arm touched. A review of Resident 56's quarterly Rehab Screening Forms, dated 6/22/2023, 9/24/2023, and 12/24/2023, indicated Resident 56 had ROM impairments in both arms and both legs. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 56 had the same level of function without decline and to continue the RNA program. A review of Resident 56's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 56 had moderately impaired cognition and had ROM impairments to one arm and one leg. The MDS also indicated Resident 56 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for rolling to either side, oral hygiene, showering/bathing, and upper body dressing, and was dependent for chair/bed-to-chair transfers and lower body dressing. A review of Resident 56's annual Rehab Screening Form, dated 3/24/2024, indicated Resident 56 had ROM impairments in both arms and both legs. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 56 had the same level of function without decline and to continue the RNA program. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 10:05 a.m., with Resident 56, in Resident 56's room, Resident 56 was observed awake while lying in bed. Resident 56 moved the right arm and right leg without any physical assistance. Resident 56's left arm was positioned with the left shoulder rotated toward the body, the elbow was bent and touching Resident 56's chest, the wrist was bent downward, and the knuckles of each finger were bent toward the palm. Resident 56's left leg was resting on the bed. Resident 56 stated he was unable to move the left side of the body and stated someone (unknown) performed exercises with Resident 56 at least once per day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/28/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the DOR, the facility's Rehab Screening Form was reviewed. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form was completed upon a resident's admission, quarterly, change of condition, and annually. The DOR stated ROM was assessed as either having no impairment, impairment on one side, or impairment on both sides. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include a ROM assessment for limitations in each joint of the arms (shoulders, elbows, wrists, and hands) and the legs (hips, knees, ankles). The DOR stated RNA services helped residents maintain their ROM and function. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 10:02 a.m., in Resident 56's room, Resident 56 was observed awake while lying in bed and performed exercises with RNA 1. Resident 56 performed AROM at the shoulder joint to lift the right arm upward (shoulder flexion) to shoulder level and downward (shoulder extension) without any physical assistance. Resident 56 required some physical assistance to perform right shoulder rotation (circular motion) and right elbow flexion (bending) and extension (straightening). Resident 56 did not perform any ROM exercises of the wrist and the hand. Resident 56 required some physical assistance to perform right hip and knee exercises. Resident 56 did not perform any right ankle exercises. RNA 1 performed PROM exercises to Resident 56's left leg, including hip flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) and extension (returning the leg down away from the body). RNA did not perform PROM of the left knee and ankle. RNA 1 stated Resident 56 did not have physician orders to perform ROM exercises to the left arm because Resident 56 did not want anyone to touch it. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 10:10 a.m. with RNA 1, RNA 1 described and demonstrated the ROM exercises performed with Resident 56. RNA 1 stated Resident 56 performed ROM exercises on the right arm, including moving the shoulder joint upward and downward (shoulder flexion and extension) and rotation. RNA 1 stated Resident 56 required some physical assistance to perform some right arm and right leg exercises and could only tolerate left hip flexion exercises due to pain. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:24 a.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the ROM exercises that the RNAs were expected to perform for each resident's arms included shoulder flexion and extension, shoulder abduction and adduction, elbow flexion and extension, wrist flexion (bending the wrist downward) and extension (bending the wrist upward), and finger flexion (bending the fingers toward the palm) and extension (straightening out the fingers). The DOR stated it was important to perform ROM exercises to each joint to improve circulation and prevent stiffness. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 2:32 p.m. with RNA 1, RNA 1 stated Resident 56 did not perform any ROM exercises on the right wrist and hand because Resident 56 already used the right hand constantly to eat and reposition the body. RNA 1 stated Resident 56 did not perform any ROM exercises to the right ankle because Resident 56 was starting to have pain in the right leg. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 4:43 p.m. with the DOR, ADON, and MDS 1, MDS 1 stated the ROM assessment in a resident's MDS indicated whether a resident had any ROM limitations but did not indicate which joint had a ROM limitation. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include any assessment of a resident's ROM at each joint and stated the facility was not monitoring each resident's ROM. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 1:15 p.m. with the DOR, Resident 56's Rehab Screening Forms, dated 4/7/2023, 6/22/2023, 9/24/2023, 12/24/2024, and 3/24/2024, were reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 56's Rehab Screening Forms did not include any assessment of Resident 56's ROM at each joint. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 10:28 a.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated [TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0825 (Tag F0825)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide Occupational Therapy ([OT] profession aimed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide Occupational Therapy ([OT] profession aimed to increase or maintain a person's capability of participating in everyday life activities [occupations]), Physical Therapy ([PT] profession aimed in the restoration, maintenance, and promotion of optimal physical function), and Speech Therapy ([ST or SLP] profession aimed in the prevention, assessment, and treatment of speech, language, communicative, and swallowing disorders) to one of four sampled residents (Resident 53), who had range of motion (ROM, full movement potential of a joint [where two bones meet]) mobility (ability to move) and swallowing problems. The facility failed to: 1. Provide Resident 53 with PT and OT evaluations upon admission to the facility in accordance with physician orders, dated 12/21/2022. 2. Provide Resident 53 with PT and OT evaluations upon admission to the facility in accordance admission notes, dated 12/22/2022. 3. Provide Resident 53, who received gastrostomy (G-tube- tube placed directly into the stomach for feeding and medication administration) feedings with a SLP evaluation in accordance with the physician orders, dated 12/27/2022. 4. Provide PT, OT, and SLP services consistent with the facility's job descriptions and the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Skilled Nursing Rehabilitation Services. 5. Provide Resident 3 PT and OT evaluations in accordance with the physician orders, dated 9/5/2022 and 10/23/2023, the facility's job descriptions for PT and OT, and the facility's P&P titled, Skilled Nursing Rehabilitation Services. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 53 not receiving any interventions to improve speech, cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember), the ability to eat by mouth, mobility, and activities of daily living (ADLs), resulting in Resident 53's dependence on staff for mobility and ADLs and a decline in the resident's physical and psychosocial well-being. These failures also had the potential to prevent Resident 3 from improving mobility, ADLs, and overall physical and psychosocial well-being. Cross reference F677, F684, and F688. Findings: a. A review of Resident 53's GACH Neurology (branch of medicine concerned with the a. study and treatment of disorders involving the brain, spinal cord, and nerves) Progress Note, dated 12/18/2022, indicated Resident 53's overall mental status appeared to be improving. The Neurology Progress Note indicated Resident 53 was fully awake, alert, followed simple commands, and held the arms and legs against gravity (active movement). A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The admission Record indicated Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 12/21/2022 timed at 11:41 p.m., indicated to provide PT and OT evaluation/consult as needed. A review of Resident 53's admission Progress Note, dated 12/22/2022 timed at 1:02 a.m., indicated Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 11:25 p.m. under skilled level of care, for PT and OT evaluation. The admission Progress Note indicated Resident 53 was alert with episodes of confusion, able to make needs known, was striking out at staff, resisted care while cleaning and changing, and kept moving the arm (unspecified). A review of Resident 53's Progress Note, dated 12/22/2022 timed at 3:00 p.m., indicated Resident 53 was found in the middle of the bed with both legs dangling outside of the bed. The Progress Note indicated Resident 53 was assisted back to bed and repositioned. The Progress Note indicated Resident 53's physician was informed, and a physician order was carried out to place the bed in the lowest position and floor mats. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 12/27/2022 timed at 2:20 p.m., indicated to provide a SLP evaluation and treatment as indicated. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 12/29/2022 timed at 4:32 p.m., indicated PT and OT evaluation/consult as needed was discontinued. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 2/22/2023 timed at 4:44 p.m., indicated discontinue speech therapy evaluation and treatment as indicated. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 3/25/2024, indicated for Restorative Nursing Aide ([RNA] Certified Nursing Aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) to provide passive range of motion ([PROM] movement of joint through the ROM with no effort from the person) on both arms and both legs, followed by the application of both elbow splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion) for four to six hours, three to five times per week. A review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/2/2024, indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 53 did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), the DOR stated therapy services helped residents regain ability and function. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:13 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed, awake, with the head-of-bed (HOB) elevated and a bed sheet covered Resident 53's legs. Resident 53 smiled but did not speak and was receiving feeding through a G-tube. Resident 53 did not actively move either arms or legs upon request. Resident 53's body twitched (short, jerky sudden movements) intermittently (did not happen continuously) and both elbows were in a bent position. Resident 53's hips and knees were visibly rotated away from the body with the knees bent, resembling a frog-like leg position, despite the presence of the bed sheet over both legs. Resident 53's ankles and feet were not visible. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed, alert, with the HOB elevated. Resident 53's elbows were in a bent position. Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA) 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left arm and then applied an elbow extension splint (splint that prevents bending at the elbow) on the left arm. RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right arm and then applied an elbow extension splint on the right arm. Resident 53's legs were rotated away from the body, both knees were bent, and both ankles were positioned in plantarflexion (ankles bent with toes pointing away from the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on both of Resident 53's legs. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:37 a.m. with RNA 3, RNA 3 stated she performed PROM on both of Resident 53's arms and legs and applied elbow extension splints on the resident's elbows. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 4:06 p.m. with the DOR in the presence of the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the MDS Coordinator (MDS 1), the DOR reviewed the facility's Rehabilitation electronic documentation system (clinical therapy records) and stated Resident 53 never received any PT, OT, or SLP services while residing in the facility. During a telephone interview on 5/30/2024 at 9:36 a.m. with Resident 53's family member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated Resident 53 used to walk, dress, and do everything without assistance but had mental health problems. FM 1 stated Resident 53 had gotten worse while residing at the facility since Resident 53 could no longer move and talk. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 11:32 a.m. with Speech Therapist (SLP) 1, SLP 1 stated a resident with a G-tube did not mean the resident could not chew or swallow. SLP 1 stated a Speech Therapist was the best person to determine whether a resident could swallow. SLP 1 stated the purpose of Speech Therapy included interventions for speech, swallowing, language, and cognition. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 11:56 a.m. with the DOR, Resident 53's physician orders for PT and OT evaluation, dated 12/21/2022, admission Progress Note, dated 12/22/2022, and physician orders for SLP evaluation, dated 12/27/2022, were reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 53's admission Progress Note, dated 12/22/2022, indicated Resident 53 was admitted for skilled level of care, including PT and OT evaluations. The DOR stated the physician orders for PT and OT evaluation were not completed and were discontinued on 12/29/2022 for an unknown reason. The DOR reviewed Resident 53's physician orders, dated 12/27/2022, for a SLP evaluation and treatment. The DOR stated the SLP evaluation was not completed and the SLP evaluation was discontinued on 2/22/2023. The DOR stated the resident's payor source (person, organization, or entity that pays for the care services administered by a health provider) had to be verified prior to evaluating a resident for therapy. The DOR stated the facility did not complete the PT, OT, and SLP evaluations on Resident 53 in accordance with the physician orders. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3:44 p.m., the DOR stated the purpose of PT, OT, and SLP were to improve the resident's strength and attempt to return the resident to his/her prior level of function (ability prior to admission to the facility). The DOR stated PT interventions were for the resident's legs, mobility, standing, transfers, and ambulation (the act of walking). The DOR stated OT interventions included interventions to the resident's arms, self-care, and ADLs. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 9:49 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and MDS Coordinator (MDS 1), Resident 53's physician orders for PT and OT, dated 12/21/2022, admission Progress Notes dated, 12/22/2022, physician's orders for SLP, dated 12/27/2022, and job descriptions for PT, OT, and SLP were reviewed. The MDS 1 stated, the admission Progress Note indicated Resident 53 was admitted to the facility for skilled services, including PT and OT. MDS 1 stated Resident 53's physician orders, dated 12/21/2022, for PT and OT evaluation was discontinued on 12/29/2022. The ADON stated the standard of practice for discontinuing physician orders included contacting the physician for an order to discontinue treatment and then the designated staff would carry out the order. MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53's Progress Notes dated 12/2022 and stated there were no nursing notes indicating Resident 53's physician was contacted to discontinue the PT and OT evaluation order. MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53's physician orders, dated 12/27/2022, for SLP evaluation and stated the order was discontinued on 2/22/2023. MDS 1 stated, there were no nursing notes indicating Resident 53's physician was contacted to discontinue the SLP evaluation order. The ADON and MDS 1 stated they did not know the reason Resident 53 did not receive any therapy. The ADON stated Resident 53 should have received PT, OT, and SLP evaluations. The ADON stated the purpose of therapy was for mobility and to regain strength. The ADON and MDS 1 stated facility did not attempt to maintain Resident 53's ability since Resident 53 did not receive any therapy services. The ADON stated she did not know whether Resident 53's mobility, ADLs, speech, and swallow could have improved since Resident 53's physician orders for PT, OT, and SLP were never carried out. The ADON stated according to the facility's job descriptions for PT, OT, and SLP, the facility did not provide therapy to Resident 53 in accordance with the job descriptions. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 12:45 p.m. with the Acting Administrator (AADM), the AADM stated the facility was responsible for a resident's care, including following the treatment plan and physician orders, upon accepting the resident's admission to the facility. A review of the facility's undated job description titled, Speech Pathologist, indicated the purpose for this position was to evaluate, treat, document and/or facilitate care for residents with impaired ability to swallow or communicate due to disease process. The SLP job description indicated the SLP was authorized to Evaluate resident's functional needs when referred by the resident's attending physician and Follow physician's orders, facility policies and procedures to evaluate and treat residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Skilled Nursing Rehabilitation Services, indicated each resident with physician orders for therapy services will receive an assessment. b., A review of Resident 3's admission Record, indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 3's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), myocardial infarction (heart attack), hemiplegia or hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke, brain damage due to a loss of oxygen to the area) affecting the right dominant (used most often) side, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acquired absence of the left toes, and acquired absence of the right leg below the knee. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 9/5/2022 timed at 4:57 p.m., indicated PT/OT evaluation as needed. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 9/6/2022 timed at 4:53 p.m., indicated the physician orders for PT/OT evaluation as needed, dated 9/5/2022, was discontinued. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 10/23/2023 timed at 8:33 p.m., indicated PT/OT evaluation as needed. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 10/24/2023 timed at 12:43 p.m., indicated the physician orders for PT/OT evaluation as needed, dated 10/23/2023, was discontinued. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 11/27/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide PROM on both arms and both legs, 3-5x/week with one person assist as tolerated. A review of Resident 3 MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 had severely impaired cognition, had ROM impairments to one arm and one leg, and was dependent (helper does all of the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated therapy services helped residents regain ability and function. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 11:30 a.m., in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was observed asleep while lying in bed with HOB elevated and receiving liquid feeding through the gastrostomy tube (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). Resident 3 woke up easily to sound but did not speak. Resident 3 attempted to move the left hand to reach forward but no other active movement was observed in both arms and both legs. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:47 a.m., in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was observed lying in bed with the HOB elevated and receiving liquid feeding through the G-tube. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:53 a.m., in Resident 3's room, the ADON came into Resident 3's room to disconnect the G-tube from the liquid feeding machine. RNA 2 stood on the left side of Resident 3's bed and performed exercises on Resident 3's left shoulder. RNA 2 walked to the right side of Resident 3's bed and performed exercises on Resident 3's right shoulder. RNA 2 removed the bed sheet over Resident 3's legs. Resident 3 was observed to have the absence of the right lower leg below the knee and the absence of toes on the left foot. RNA 2 performed exercises to the right hip and then performed exercises to the left hip. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:04 a.m. with RNA 2, RNA 2 stated she performed PROM exercises to both arms and both legs since Resident 3 did not assist with the exercises. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:36 a.m. with PT 1, PT 1 stated she had never seen Resident 3 for PT services. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 11:50 a.m. with the DOR, Resident 3's therapy documentation and physician orders were reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 3 received a PT evaluation on 4/14/2021 and had not received any PT services since 4/14/2021. The DOR stated Resident 3 had never received any OT services. The DOR reviewed Resident 3's physician orders, dated 9/5/2022, for PT/OT evaluation as needed which was discontinued on 9/6/2022. The DOR stated Resident 3 never received PT and OT evaluations in accordance with the physician orders, dated 9/5/2022. The DOR reviewed Resident 3's physician orders, dated 10/23/2023, for PT/OT evaluation as needed which was discontinued on 10/24/2024. The DOR stated never received the PT and OT evaluations in accordance with the physician orders, dated 10/23/2023, but received RNA services to continue to help Resident 3. The DOR stated the facility discontinued the physician orders for PT and OT without completing the evaluation if the PT and OT evaluation was not necessary. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 3:18 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 7, CNA 7 stated Resident 3 used to have a leg prosthesis (device designed to replace a missing part of the body or to make a part of the body work better) and stood up with assistance to transfer to the chair despite weakness to one-side of the body. CNA 7 stated Resident 3's abilities changed about two to three years ago but did not know the reason for Resident 3's decline. CNA 7 stated Resident 3 currently had stiffness in both arms and required complete care. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 11:56 a.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the resident's payor source (person, organization, or entity that pays for the care services administered by a health provider) had to be verified prior to evaluating a resident for therapy. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 8:46 a.m. with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated Resident 3's function has been the same for the past two years. CNA 4 stated Resident 3 did not speak, had leg amputations (loss or surgical removal of a body part), required G-tube feeding, and required two people for dressing due to difficulty lifting both arms. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 9:02 a.m. with the MDS 1, MDS 1 stated Resident 3 used to sit up in a wheelchair, had conversational language, and would eat. MDS 1 stated Resident 3 went to the hospital (unknown date) for an unknown reason and returned to the facility (unknown date) requiring total dependence for ADLs and mobility. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3:44 p.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the purpose of OT included intervention to a resident's arms, self-care, and ADLs. The DOR stated the purpose of PT included intervention to a resident's legs, mobility, standing, transfers, and ambulation (the act of walking). The DOR stated the purpose of therapy was to improve a resident's strength and attempt to return the resident to their prior level of function (ability prior to admission to the facility). During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 12:45 p.m. with the AADM, the AADM stated the facility was responsible for a resident's care, including following the treatment plan and physician orders, upon accepting the resident's admission to the facility. During an interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 4:18 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 3's nursing Progress Notes were reviewed. RN 1 stated the process of discontinuing a physician's order included calling the physician who will decide whether to discontinue the order. RN 1 reviewed Resident 3's nursing Progress Notes for the months of 9/2022 and 10/2023. RN 1 stated there were no nursing progress notes indicating the physician was called to discontinue PT and OT evaluations during the months of 9/2022 and 10/2023. A review of the facility's undated job description titled, Physical Therapist, indicated the purpose of this position was to evaluate, treat, document and/or facilitate care for residents with impaired ability to function at an independent level due to disease process. The PT job description indicated the PT was authorized to evaluate resident's functional needs when referred by the resident's attending physician and follow physician's orders, facility policies and procedures to evaluate and treat residents. A review of the facility's undated job description titled, Occupational Therapist, indicated the purpose of this position was to evaluate, treat, document and/or facilitate care for residents with impaired ability to perform activities of daily living at an independent level due to disease process. The OT job description indicated the OT was authorized to evaluate resident's functional needs when referred by the resident's attending physician and follow physician's orders, facility policies and procedures to evaluate and treat residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Skilled Nursing Rehabilitation Services, indicated each resident with physician orders for therapy services will receive an assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain informed consent prior to the administration o...

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 obtain informed consent prior to the administration of psychotropics (medications that affect the mind, emotions, and behavior) for three out of five residents (Resident 31 and 32). This deficient practice placed Residents 31 and 32 at risk for avoidable harm from unwanted adverse effects (a harmful and undesired effect resulting from a medication or intervention) related to psychotropic medication use and removed the residents' rights to make decisions about the care and treatments they received in the facility. Findings: a. A review of Resident 31's admission Record indicated Resident 31 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 31's admitting diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition that is a mix of schizophrenia symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions, and mood disorder symptoms such as depression and a milder form of mania), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and unspecified psychosis (a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality). A review of Resident 31's History and Physical (H&P), dated 12/10/2023, indicated Resident 31 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 31's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 3/5/2024, indicated Resident 31 was severely cognitively impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 31 required total assistance with toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 31's Physician Orders, dated 6/30/2022, indicated Resident 31 was prescribed Depakote (medication used to treat mood disorder) 1500 milligrams ([mg] a unit of weight measurement) at bedtime for schizoaffective disorder. A review of Resident 31's Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs (drugs used to treat psychosis), dated 6/30/2022, indicated an informed consent was provided to Resident 31's family member (FM 4) for the use of Depakote. The consent further indicated there was no verification signature from FM 4. A review of Resident 31's Physician Orders, dated 11/30/2023, indicated Resident 31 was prescribed Risperdal (medication used to treat psychotic disorders) 3 mg two times a day for schizoaffective disorder manifested by hearing and talking to voices. A review of Resident 31's Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs, dated 3/27/2024, indicated an informed consent was provided to FM 5 for the use of Risperdal. The consent further indicated there was no verification signature from FM 5. A review of Resident 31's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 5/2024, indicated Resident 31 received Risperdal 3mg every day, twice a day for the month of May 2024. The MAR indicated Resident 31 received Depakote 1500 mg every night for the month of May 2024. b. A review of Resident 32's admission Record indicated Resident 32 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 32's admitting diagnoses included anxiety disorder (a disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), history of falling, insomnia (a sleep disorder), altered mental status (mentally declining), and dementia (a disorder where loss of memory, language, problem-solving, and other thinking abilities are impaired and interfere with daily life). A review of Resident 32's H&P, dated 8/19/2023, indicated Resident 32 did not have capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 32's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 32 was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 32 required total assistance with toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 32's Physician Orders, dated 2/27/2024, indicated Resident 32 was prescribed Lorazepam (medication used to treat anxiety) 1 mg tablet at bedtime for sundown syndrome (a state of confusion that occurs in the late afternoon and lasts into the night manifested by increased confusion, anxiety, or aggression). A review of Resident 32's Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs, dated 2/27/2024, indicated an informed consent was provided to Resident 32's family member (FM 3) for the use of Lorazepam. The consent further indicated there was no verification signature from FM 3. A review of Resident 32's MAR, dated 5/2024, indicated Resident 32 received Lorazepam 1 mg every night for the month of May 2024 on except 5/14/2024. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/29/2024 at 10:32 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6, Resident 32 was observed sleepy but arousable. LVN 6 stated Resident 32 was probably sleepy from receiving Lorazepam the night before due to sun downing. LVN 6 stated she received report that Resident 32 was trying to roll over from the bed and onto the floor. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 8:05 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 31's Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs, dated 6/30/2022 and 3/27/2024, and Resident 32's Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs, dated 2/27/2024 was reviewed. RN 1 stated the process for informed consent was for the physician to assess the resident first and then receive informed consent from the resident or responsible party. RN 1 stated the informed consent for Resident 31 and Resident 32 did not have any signatures from their responsible parties, and that there should be a signature from either the residents' or their responsible parties on the consent form. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 9 a.m., with FM 5, FM 5 stated she never received a phone call from Resident 31's physician or anyone regarding psychiatric medications. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, The use of Psychotropic Medication, dated 1/2024, indicated the facility will comply with regulatory requirements related to the use of psychotropic medications which included documenting discussions with resident and or responsible party regarding the risk versus benefit of the use of medications (informed consent). A review of the California Department of Public Health All Facilities Letter (AFL, a letter from the Center for Health Care Quality (CHCQ), Licensing and Certification [L&C] Program to health facilities that are licensed or certified by L&C), AFL 24-08, dated 2/28/2024, indicated facility's must obtain a resident's written informed consent for treatment using psychotherapeutic drugs, and consent renewal every six months, which must be signed by the resident or resident's representative.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident's preference to have a female staff member escort ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident's preference to have a female staff member escort the resident to clinic visits outside of the facility for one of one sampled resident (Resident 84's). This deficient practice caused Resident 84 to repeatedly be accompanied to appointments by a male staff member despite Resident 84's wishes to have a female escort. This failure also had the potential to cause unnecessary psychological harm to the resident. Findings: A review of Resident 84's admission Record, dated 5/30/2024, indicated Resident 84 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 84's diagnoses included left hip fracture (a partial or complete break of the thigh bone, where it meets the pelvic bone), syncope (fainting) and collapse, hypertension (high blood pressure), type 2 diabetes (too much sugar circulating in the blood) hyperlipidemia (an abnormally high concentration of fat particles in the blood), and osteoarthritis (inflammation and swelling that occurs in the joints when the flexible tissue at the ends of bones begin to wear down over time). A review of Resident 84's History and Physical (H&P) dated 4/24/2024, P indicated Resident 84 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 84's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized resident assessment care screening tool), dated 4/15/2024, indicated Resident 84 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a screening tool used to identify the cognitive condition of residents upon admission into a long-term care facility) of 14 (cognitively intact, normal BIMS score is 13-15). The MDS also indicted Resident 84 required minimal assistance with eating, partial assistance with oral and personal hygiene and maximal assistance with toileting and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 84 required extensive assistance with transfers, walking, toilet use, and limited assistance with dressing, eating and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 84's Care Plans on 5/30/2024, indicated the facility did not develop a care plan addressing Resident 84's preference to be accompanied by a female staff member during outside appointments. A review of Resident 84's Nursing Progress Notes on 5/30/2024, indicated Resident 84's preference to have a female escort for outside appointments was not addressed. A review of Resident 84's Social Services Progress Notes on 5/30/2024, indicated Resident 84's preference to have a female escort for outside appointments was not addressed. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident 84, Resident 84 stated she continued to have a male staff member as an escort to clinic appointments even though she repeatedly informed staff and the Social Services Director (SSD) that she preferred a female escort. Resident 84 stated that she reached out to the SSD two to three days in advance but was still given a male escort for her obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) appointment. Resident 84 stated that the appointment was a waste of time because she refused to be examined and get undressed in front of the male escort. Resident 84 stated that her appointment had to be rescheduled. Resident 84 stated she developed vaginal bleeding but the appointment had to be delayed because the facility did not provide her with a female escort as requested. Resident 84 stated she has also had a male escort accompany her to her podiatry (pertaining to the feet) appointments even though she has asked for a female escort. Resident 84 stated that on one occasion the facility wanted to cancel her appointment at the last minute because they did not have a female staff member to escort her to the appointment. Resident 84 stated that she could not understand why the facility could not provide a female escort since they were aware of her clinic appointment schedule in advance. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 10:50 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 84's medical record was reviewed. RN 1 stated the SSD was the one who assisted residents with coordinating transportation and assigning escorts to accompany the residents to clinic appointments. RN 1 stated that the facility would attempt to accommodate certain preferences of the residents when scheduling appointments. RN 1 stated that ideally the facility needed at least 3 days to set up the transportation for residents. RN 1 stated that the facility had dedicated staff members to escort the residents to these appointments. RN 1 stated that the SSD had a team that accompanied the residents, but if all the dedicated staff were occupied, then the SSD asked another team member to go out with the resident. RN 1 stated Resident 84's transportation and preferences were communicated by the SSD through the electronic medical records system however the information was temporary and was not a part of a resident's medial record. RN 1 stated that this was where the SSD gave details regarding the residents' transportation. RN 1 stated that she was aware of Resident 84's preference to only have a female escort but stated that she could not find any documentation regarding Resident 84's preferences in the resident's medical record. RN 1 stated Resident 84's preferences should be documented in the medical record and care planned because it was not good to use word of mouth as a form of communication. RN 1 agreed that the lack of documentation regarding Resident 84's preference for a female escort was probably why the resident's preference was overlooked. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 11:04 a.m. with the SSD, the social services progress notes were reviewed. SSD stated that she had two escorts to accompany residents during outside appointment. The SSD stated she had one male and one female escort. The SSD stated that she was not initially aware of Resident 84's preference of a female escort until after the resident returned from her orthopedic appointment with the male escort on 5/13/2024. The SSD stated that Resident 84 complained at that time that her preference was to have a female escort that spoke English to accompany her. The SSD stated that did not have any documentation regarding Resident 84's preference for a female escort in her notes. The SSD stated that she did not document Resident 84's preferences in the medical records because the resident might have changed her mind. The SSD stated that documentation would have helped in communicating Resident 84's preferences to other staff especially if she (SSD) was not available. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 2:46 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated that resident's preferences should be communicated in the progress notes and the SSD should have put something in the notes regarding Resident 84's preferences. The ADON stated that Resident 84's preferences should have been care planned. The ADON stated that since Resident 84's preference to have a female escort during outside appointments was not documented, the preferences could not be implemented. The ADON stated that when Resident 84's preferences were not communicated, it could make Resident 84 feel like she was not being heard. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Accommodation of Needs, dated January 2024, indicated the resident's individual needs and preference are accommodated to the extent possible, except when the health and safety of the individual or other residents would be endangered. The P&P indicated that resident's individual needs and preferences, including the need for adaptive devices and modifications to physical environment are evaluated upon admission and reviewed on an ongoing basis. The P&P indicated that in order to accommodate individual needs and preferences, staff attitudes and behaviors are directed towards assisting the residents in maintaining independence, dignity, and well-being to the extent possible and in accordance with the residents' wishes. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Dignity, dated January 2024, indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. The P&P indicated that the facility culture supports dignity and respect for resident by honoring resident goals, choices, preferences, values and beliefs and individual needs and preferences of the resident are identified through the assessment process.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the primary physician of the change in conditi...

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 notify the primary physician of the change in condition of decline in range of motion (ROM, full movement potential of a joint [where two bones meet]) in both ankles for one of four sampled residents (Resident 53), who had limited mobility (ability to move) concerns. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 53's development of contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness) to both ankles. Cross reference F688 and F726. Findings: A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's admission Rehab Screening Form (brief assessment of a resident's abilities), dated 12/23/2023, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures, did not have any ROM impairments in both arms, but had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53's left leg was within functional limits ([WFL] sufficient movement without significant limitation) and the right leg had tightness into flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) and abduction (moving the leg away from the body). The Rehab Screening Form recommendation indicated to provide Resident 53 with Restorative Nursing Aide ([RNA] certified nursing aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) for AAROM exercises on both arms and both legs, three to five times per week (3-5x/week) as tolerated. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 5/1/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide Resident 53 with PROM on both arms and both legs, 3-5x/week with one person assist as tolerated. A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 3/25/2024, indicated for RNA to provide PROM on both arms and both legs, followed by the application of both elbow splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion) for four to six hours (4-6 hours), 3-5x/week. A review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/2/2024, indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) and did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and both legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 53's quarterly Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/9/2024, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures, did not have any ROM impairments in both arms, but had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue RNA ROM exercise program. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/28/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), the facility's Rehab Screening Form was reviewed. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form was completed upon a resident's admission, quarterly, change of condition, and annually. The DOR stated ROM was assessed as either having no impairment, impairment on one side, or impairment on both sides. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include a ROM assessment for limitations in each joint of the arms (shoulders, elbows, wrists, and hands) and the legs (hips, knees, ankles). During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed with the head-of-bed (HOB) elevated. Resident 53's elbows were in a bent position. Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 3 performed ROM exercises on both of Resident 53's arms and then applied both elbow splints. Resident 53's legs were rotated away from the body, both knees were bent, and both ankles were positioned in plantarflexion (ankles bent with toes pointing away from the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right leg, including hip abduction (moving the leg away from the body) and adduction (returning the leg toward the body), hip rotation clockwise and counterclockwise while the knee was extended, hip flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) with knee flexion (bending the knee), and ankle rotation. RNA 3 did not move Resident 53's right ankle into dorsiflexion (ankle bent with toes pointing toward the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left leg, including hip abduction, hip rotation clockwise and counterclockwise with the knee extended, hip flexion with knee flexion, and ankle rotation. RNA 3 did not move Resident 53's left ankle into dorsiflexion. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 4:23 p.m. with the DOR, Resident 53's admission Rehab Screening Form, dated 12/23/2022 was reviewed. The DOR stated Resident 53 had ROM impairments in the right leg due to tightness in the hip. The DOR stated Resident 53 did not have any contractures in either leg upon admission. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 4:38 p.m., in Resident 53's room, with the DOR, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed with a bed sheet covering both legs. The DOR lifted the blankets to view both legs. Both of Resident 53's ankles were positioned in plantarflexion. The DOR attempted to provide ROM to Resident 53's ankles into dorsiflexion, but Resident 53's ankles continued to be positioned in plantarflexion. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 4:43 p.m. with the DOR, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and MDS Coordinator (MDS 1), Resident 53's clinical records for changes in condition were reviewed. The DOR, ADON, and MDS 1 stated Resident 53 had plantarflexion contractures of both ankles. MDS 1 stated the ROM assessment in a resident's MDS indicated whether a resident had any ROM limitations but did not indicate which joint had a ROM limitation. The DOR stated the Rehab Screening Form did not include any assessment of a resident's ROM at each joint and stated the facility was not monitoring each resident's ROM. The ADON stated the plantarflexion contractures should have been reported to the charge nurse during Resident 53's routine care so the charge nurse could report the change of condition to Resident 53's physician. MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53's clinical records for any changes of condition documentation and did not locate any documentation related to Resident 53's plantarflexion contractures. MDS 1 stated the facility staff did not report Resident 53's plantarflexion contractures to nursing as a change in condition. The ADON and MDS 1 stated the facility did not know Resident 53 had both ankle plantarflexion contractures, and therefore, did not know when they developed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/30/2024 at 3:44 p.m. with RNA 1 and RNA 2, in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed. RNA 1 and RNA 2 observed Resident 53's ankles and described them as bent downward which was not normal. RNA 1 and RNA 2 stated they did not report Resident 53's ankle position to nursing since they just followed the physician orders. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 10:28 a.m. with the ADON, the facility's Rehab Screening Form was reviewed. The ADON stated the Rehab Screening Form should have monitored ROM since the RNAs were not trained to observe ROM. A review of the facility's undated Job Description and Performance Standards tilted, Restorative Nursing Assistant, indicated the RNA's responsibilities included to report changes in residents conditions immediately to a licensed nurse. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Change of Condition, revised 7/2012, indicated the facility ensured all changes in resident condition will be communicated to the physician. The P&P indicated all symptoms and unusual signs will be communicated to the physician promptly and any sudden or serious change in a resident's condition manifested by a marked change in physical or mental behavior will be communicated to the physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

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 staff failed to ensure one of six sampled residents (Resident 32...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to ensure one of six sampled residents (Resident 32) was free from an unnecessary physical restraint, as evidenced by: 1. Failing to ensure appropriate assessment for less restrictive measures prior to using a physical restraint for Residents 32. 2. Failing to obtain a physician order for the use of bed against the wall used as a physical restraint for Resident 32. 3. Failing to obtain a consent form for the use of a physical restraint, and of side rails for Resident 32. These deficient practices placed Resident 32 at risk for entrapment (when a person is trapped by the bed rail in a position they cannot move from) and had the potential to cause psychosocial harm from not being treated with dignity and respect. Findings: During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 11:32 a.m., in Resident 32's room, Resident 32 was observed lying in bed, eyes closed, visibly sleeping. Resident 32's bed was observed against the wall on the right site, big mattress on the floor on the left side of Resident 32's bed, and bilateral siderails in upper position. A review of Resident 32's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 32 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a loss of brain function such as memory, thinking, language, behavior), anxiety (a feeling of worry or fear), hypertension (high blood pressure), and muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/15/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 32 makes self-understood and understand others. MDS indicated Resident 32 require maximum assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 32's Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT]-a coordinated group of experts from several different fields who work together), dated 3/15/2024, the IDT indicated Resident 32's family requested for Resident 32 bed to be positioned against the wall. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 11:34 a.m., in Resident 32's room with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA2). CNA 2 stated Resident 32 is at risk for falls, and injuries. CNA 2 stated the facility uses a mattress on the floor, and siderails for residents at high risk for falls. CNA 2 stated she was not sure if siderails were considered restraint. CNA 2 stated Resident 32's bed against the wall was considered a physical restraint and should be removed right away. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 12:40 p.m., with Registered Nurse1 (RN1)., RN1 stated the facility placed Resident 32's bed against the wall to prevent Resident 32 from getting out of bed unassisted and to prevent Resident 32 from falling and having an injury. RN1 stated Resident 32 as at risk for falls. RN1 stated siderails and a bed against the wall was a physical restraint and should not be used for staff convenience. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 11:22 a.m., with RN1, Resident 32's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was reviewed. RN1 stated there was no documentation on least restrictive measures were implemented prior placing bed rails, and bed against the wall. RN 1 stated there was not a physician order for the use of restraints for Resident 32. RN 1 stated there was not a consent form signed by Resident 32, or Resident 32's responsible party for the use of physical restraints or siderails. A review of facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Use of Restraints, revised 12/14, the P&P indicated. Physical Restraints are defined as any manual method of physical device, which restricts freedom of movement. 1. Restraint shall be only used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s). 2. If the resident cannot remove a device in which the staff applied it given that resident's physical condition (side rails are put back down, rather that climbed over), that device is considered a restraint. 3. Restraints shall only be used upon the written order of a physician and after obtaining consent from the resident and /or responsible party. 4. Family and /or responsible party members may not give permission to use restraints for the sake of discipline or staff convenience or when the restraint is not necessary. 5. Facility staff will not use a restraint based solely of family request. A review of facility's P&P titled Policy and Procedure on Restraint, revised 7/2012, the P&P indicated: 1. Physical restraint will never be used for the convenience of the staff. 2. Residents are to be evaluated regarding safety measures, including the use of physical restraint. 3. Based on the assessment result if physical restraint is needed consent will be obtained by the doctor from the resident/ resident representative or both of use of such restraint. 4. All necessary and possible human approaches should be implemented before the use of restraint. A review of facility's P&P titled Policy and Procedure on Side Rails, revised 5/12, the P&P indicated: 1. Medical Director (MD) should obtain informed consent from resident, resident representative, or both before an order for a physical restraint such as side rails could be carried out by the licensed nurses. 2. Licensed nurse receiving the order from MD should verify from resident or resident representative or both that consent was obtained by the MD from him/her. 3. Documentation of the reason for side rails implementation with the obtained consent of MD from resident, resident representative, or both.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ([PASRR] res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ([PASRR] resident screening prior to admission, to determine if the person has, or is suspected of having, a mental illness) Level I screen was completed accurately for one of one resident, (Resident 22). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 22 to not receive the necessary and appropriate behavioral treatment and services and placed Resident 22 at risk for further complications of schizophrenia (mental illness that effects how person thinks, feels, and behaves) and major depressive disorder (a mental health condition that causes loss of interest in activities of daily living). Findings: A review of Resident 22's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 22 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia, major depressive, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ([COPD]- a lung disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems), diabetes ( high blood sugar),heart failure ( a condition when your heart doesn't pump enough blood for your body's needs), and muscle weakness( loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 22's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 4/21/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 22 was able to be self-understood and had the ability to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 22 required maximum assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from staff for dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and was dependent (helper does all the effort) from staff with transfers, and showers. A review of Resident 22's PASRR, dated 11/25/2023, in Section III indicated that Resident 22 did not have a Serious Mental Illness and was inaccurate. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 10:29 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN1). RN1 stated a PASRR Level I screen, must be completed accurately for each resident admitted to the facility. RN 1 stated, if the PASRR Level I screen was not completed correctly, facility cannot provide adequate services regarding specialized care to residents with mental illness. RN1 stated the PASRR Level I screen, was important to be completed accurately so the residents with mental illness would receive proper care and services at the facility. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 10:42 with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 22's PASRR Level I, dated 11/25/2023 was reviewed. The ADON confirmed Resident 22's PASSR Level I screen was inaccurate. The ADON stated Resident 22 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including schizophrenia, and major depression. The ADON stated, the admission Nurse was responsible for completing the PASSR Level I screen and was required to check if it was completed correctly upon admission and quarterly. The ADON stated if a PASSR Level I was completed inaccurately the residents would not receive the needed care/services, and the facility staff would not know how to care for the resident with mental illness. The ADON stated it was important the PASSR Level I was completed accurately to address the resident mental health needs and to implement the care plan to reflect resident care needs. A review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), revised 12/16, the P&P indicated: 1. Each resident admitted to the facility shall have a PASRR Level I Screening completed. 2. Identify residents with mental illness (MI) and/or intellectual disability (ID). 3. Ensure these residents receive the services they require for their MI or ID in the appropriate setting .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the staff provided the necessary care and serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the staff provided the necessary care and services to one out of eight sampled residents (Resident 27) that promoted residents well-being by failing to: 1. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) offered assistance to Resident 27, to clean up his bed that had a large amount of feces (stool). 2. Ensure CNA 1 gave Resident 27 had ice water when requested. 3. Ensure Resident 27 had a working call light to communicate his needs to staff. These deficient practices had the potential to have a negative impact on Resident 27's quality of life and caused Resident 27 needs not to be met like toileting, bathing receiving drinking water. Findings: A review of Resident 27's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 27 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs) and heart failure (progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles that caused fatigue and shortness of breath). A review of Resident 27's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/22/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 27 had the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. A review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/25/2024, the MDS indicated that Resident 27's cognitive skills (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 27 needed supervision (the helper provides verbal cues, touching contact as resident completes activity) for toileting hygiene, dressing, and for showers/baths. The MD indicated Resident 27 needed supervision for toilet transfer (the ability to get on and off a toilet or commode), to move from sit to stand position, and to walk for at least 10 feet. During an observation on 5/30/2024 at 8:18 a.m., in the hallway outside of Resident 27's room, there was a foul odor of feces. Resident 27 was observed in bed with his pants above his knees and there was a large amount of feces on Resident 27's bed, located under Resident 27's buttocks. It was observed that feces were on Resident 27's floor by his bedside. During an observation on 5/30/2024 at 10:47 a.m., in Resident 27's room, it observed Resident 27 was lying on his right-side body with a large amount of feces on Resident 27's bed, located under Resident 27's buttocks and on the floor in the room. During an observation on 5/30/2024 at 11:50 a.m., in Resident 27's room, it was observed Resident 27 was lying on his right-side body with a large amount of feces on Resident 27's bed, under Resident 27's buttocks and on the floor in the room. During an observation on 5/30/2024 at 12:33 p.m., in Resident 27's room, it was observed Resident 27 was lying on his right-side body with a large amount of feces on Resident 27's bed, under Resident 27's buttocks and on the floor in the room. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 12:38 p.m., with Resident 27 at his bedside, Resident 27 stated he pushed his call light to be cleaned earlier but no one came to his room to assist him. Resident 27 stated he needed some help with something but now it was too late. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 1:25 p.m. with CNA 1, in the hallway, the CNA 1 stated it was her responsibility to check on her resident's call lights and make sure they were accessible and working. CNA 1 stated she had checked Resident 27's call light today and it was working, but it was not working. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/30/2024 at 1:31 p.m. with CNA 1, in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 was lying on his right side of the body and had a large amount of feces on his bed, directly beside his buttocks. CNA 1 stated that she was not aware that Resident 27 had feces on his bed. CNA 1 stated she had gone into Resident 27's room today a couple of times but never seen the feces on his bed or on the floor and she did not smell the feces. CNA 1 stated it was her job to check Resident 27's environment and assist him with anything he needed. CNA 1 stated it was the CNA job to notice Resident 27 was sitting on feces but she did not. CNA 1 stated it was important not to have a resident sitting on his feces to prevent skin damage, sickness, infections and for hygiene purposes. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3:14 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN1) LVN 1 stated she had gone to Resident 27's room for medication administration two times, once in the morning and after lunch. LVN 1 stated two times she went to Resident 27's room she did not smell or see the feces on Resident 27's bed or floor. The LVN 1 stated it was important not to have a resident sitting on their feces to prevent skin irritation and skin prevent skin breakdown. LVN 1 stated anyone that went into Resident 27's room should have noticed the feces on the bed and on the floor, but no one did. LVN 1 stated it was important to continuously check on residents' well-being too prevent injuries and to assist residents with their needs. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/31/2024 at 8:17 a.m. with Resident 27, in Resident 27's room, the Resident 27 pushed his call light and the call light did not light up in the room, outside of the room and it did not make a noise. Resident 27 stated he couldn't believe that the call light was not working. Resident 27 stated maybe that was the reason why staff did not come to his room to assist him. Resident 21 stated if he needed help, how would he get it if his call light did not work. Resident 27 stated he asked CNA 1 for ice water but CNA 1 never gave him the ice water. Resident 27 stated he had been pushing his call light, but no one came to his room to help him. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 10:22 a.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she had checked on resident 27's environment, his bed and checked his call light today and everything looked good and call light did work. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/31/2024 at 10:29 a.m. with CNA 1, in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 pushed his call light and his call light did not turn on inside the room or outside the room and it did not make any noise to indicate call light was working. CNA 1 stated the call light should light up inside the room and outside the room but it was not working. CNA 1 stated that it was her job to check if Resident 27 had a working call light. CNA 1 stated it was important to have a working call light because it was the way the residents communicated their needs. CNA 1 stated she wanted to be truthful and say that she did not check his call light today and did not remember when the last time she actually checked to see if the call light worked. Resident 27 stated he was still waiting for CNA 1 to bring him some ice water. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting, undated, the P&P indicated the facility would provide support and assistance with hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care), mobility (transfer and ambulation, including walking), elimination (toileting), and dining (meals and snacks). The P&P indicated a resident's ability to perform ADLS will be measured using clinical tools, including the MDS.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and services to maintain or improve...

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 treatment and services to maintain or improve the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs, tasks related to personal care including bathing, dressing, hygiene, eating, and mobility) for one of four sampled residents (Resident 53) with limited range of motion [(ROM) full movement potential of a joint (where two bones meet)] and mobility by failing to transfer Resident 53 out of the bed daily. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 53, who had a history of depression, to experience limited social interaction and a decline in ROM, mobility, ADLs, affecting Resident 53's quality of life. Cross reference F656, F688, and F825. Findings: A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's Activity Attendance Record for 12/2023, indicated Resident 53 was seen for room visits from 12/1/2023 to 12/31/2023. A review of Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report (record of nursing tasks) for 12/2023, indicated Resident 53 was totally dependent for locomotion off unit (movement to different locations of the facility) on 12/3/2023, 12/5/2023, 12/9/2023, 12/13/2023, 12/14/2023, 12/18/2023, 12/19/2023, 12/20/2023, and 12/21/2023. A review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 1/2/2024, indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) and did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and both legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 53's Activity Attendance Record for 1/2024, indicated Resident 53 was seen for room visits from 1/1/2024 to 1/31/2024. A review of Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report for 1/2024, indicated Resident 53 was totally dependent for locomotion off unit on 1/1/2024, 1/2/2024, 1/8/2024, 1/9/2024, and 1/17/2024. A review of Resident 53's Activity Attendance Record for 2/2024, indicated Resident 53 was seen for room visits from 2/1/2024 to 2/29/2024. A review of Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report for 2/2024, indicated Resident 53 was totally dependent for locomotion off unit on 2/1/2024, 2/3/2024, 2/13/2024, 2/14/2024, 2/19/2024, 2/20/2024, 2/26/2024, 2/27/2024, and 2/28/2024. A review of Resident 53's Activity Attendance Record for 3/2024, indicated Resident 53 was seen for room visits from 3/1/2024 to 3/12/2024 and 3/21/2024 to 3/31/2024. The Activity Attendance record indicated Resident 53 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 3/20/2024. A review of Resident 53's general acute care hospital (GACH) History and Present Illness (H&P), indicated Resident 53 presented to the emergency room on 3/13/2024 crying due to ongoing pain and found to have fecal impaction (occurs when hard mass of stool gets makes it difficult to have a bowel movement). A review of Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report for 3/2024, indicated Resident 53 was totally dependent for locomotion off unit on 3/1/2024, 3/5/2024, 3/6/2024, 3/7/2024, 3/8/2024, 3/12/2024, 3/21/2024, 3/25/2024, and 3/28/2024. A review of Resident 53's care plan, initiated on 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 53 had constipation related to decrease physical activity. A review of Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report for 4/2024, indicated Resident 53 was totally dependent for locomotion off unit on 4/1/2024. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition and did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and both legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene, showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 53's care plan, initiated 4/5/2024, indicated Resident 53's activity participation was complicated due to body weakness. The care plan interventions indicated to provide sensory stimulation (activation of one of more senses including taste, smell, vision, vision, and touch) daily. A review of Resident 53's Activity Attendance Record for 4/2024, indicated Resident 53 was seen for room visits from 4/1/2024 to 4/7/2024 and from 4/10/2024 to 4/30/2024. The Activity Attendance Record indicated Resident 53 was hospitalized from [DATE] to 4/9/2024. A review of Resident 53's nursing Progress Notes, dated 4/8/2024 at 7:52 p.m., indicated Resident 53 had persistent crying and screaming in bed. Resident 53's physician was notified and ordered for Resident 53's transfer to the GACH. A review of Resident 53's Activity Attendance Record for 5/2024, indicated Resident 53 was seen for room visits from 5/1/2024 to 5/6/2024, 5/9/2024 to 5/26/2024, and participated in the activity room on 5/27/2024 for a coffee social. The Activity Attendance Record indicated Resident 43 was in the hospital from [DATE] to 5/8/2024. A review of Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report for 5/2024, indicated Resident 53 was totally dependent for locomotion off unit on 5/5/2024, 5/10/2024, 5/18/2024, 5/28/2024, and 5/30/2024. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:38 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed awake while lying in bed and started crying, moaning, and screaming. Resident 53 was unable to communicate Resident 53's feelings. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:13 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed with the head-of-bed (HOB) elevated. A bed sheet was covering Resident 53's legs. Resident 53 smiled but did not speak. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed with the HOB elevated. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 1:12 p.m., in Resident 53's room, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 8 was observed cleaning Resident 53 while lying in bed. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 2:27 p.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 4:28 p.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed. During an observation on 5/30/2024 at 8:40 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed. During an observation on 5/30/2024 at 3:20 p.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 8:37 a.m. with the Activity Director (AD), Resident 53's Activity Attendance Records from 12/2023 to 5/2024 were reviewed. The AD stated Resident 53 was alert but could not vocalize Resident 53's needs. The AD stated Resident 53 received sensory stimulation and participated in a coffee social on 5/27/2024. The AD reviewed Resident 53's Activity Attendance Records and stated Resident 53 was seen for activities inside the room from 12/2023 to 5/27/2024 except during hospitalizations and on 5/27/2024. During an observation on 5/31/2024 at 9:01 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed awake while lying in bed and yelling. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 9:12 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the MDS Coordinator (MDS 1), Resident 53's physician orders, care plans, Activity Attendance Records, Documentation Survey Reports, and the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) were reviewed. The MDS 1 stated the residents (in general) should be getting out of bed daily to prevent skin breakdown (tissue damage caused by friction, shear, moisture, or pressure), prevent depression, promote movement, and prevent lung problems. ADON and MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53 physician orders and stated there was no physician orders preventing Resident 53 from getting out of bed daily. MDS 1 stated Resident 53 went to the shower on Mondays and Thursdays. MDS 1 stated Resident 53 did not have a care plan for ADLs but had a care plan for constipation. ADON stated movement assisted in preventing constipation. ADON and MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53's Activity Attendance Records from 12/2023 to 5/2024 and stated Resident 53 was seen inside the room for the past six months except for 5/27/2024. ADON and MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53's Documentation Survey Report and stated Resident 53 was transferred out of the room nine times in 12/2023, five times in 1/2024, nine times in 2/2024, nine times in 3/2024, one time in 4/2024, and five times in 5/2024. ADON and MDS 1 reviewed the facility's P&P titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting, and stated the facility was not providing services to maintain Resident 53's ADLs. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Supporting, indicated the facility will provide care and services for residents who were unable to carryout ADLs independently in accordance with the care plan, including assistance with mobility, which included transfers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to monitor behaviors and provide non-pharmacological beha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to monitor behaviors and provide non-pharmacological behavioral interventions for antipsychotic medication (a type of psychotropic psychiatric medication used to treat psychotic disorders) use for one out of five residents (Resident 61). This deficient practice had the potential to cause Resident 61 extrapyramidal side effects (a series of potentially irreversible psychiatric drug induced movement disorders) and potentially prevent Resident 61 from functioning at her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well being. Findings: A review of Resident 61's admission Record indicated Resident 61 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 61's admitting diagnose included cerebral palsy (a condition that develops before birth which affects movement and posture with exaggerated reflexes, floppy or rigid limbs, and involuntary motions) and major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life) with a single episode of severe psychotic features (seeing or hearing stimuli that is not there, having false beliefs, and confused or disturbed thoughts). A review of Resident 61's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/22/2024, indicated Resident 61 was severely cognitively impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 61 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 61's Physician Orders, dated 1/25/2024 indicated a current and renewed order to monitor for any adverse side effects (an undesired and harmful effect resulting from medication) of tardive dyskinesia (repetitive, involuntary movements, such as grimacing and eye blinking), cognitive impairment, akathisia (inability to remain still), and pseudo-parkinsonism (a reaction to mediations that manifests as tremors) for antipsychotics. A review of Resident 61's Physician Orders, dated 3/6/2024 indicated a current and renewed order for Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) oral tablet 50 milligrams ([mg] a unit of measurement] via G-tube ([gastrostomy] a tube is inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) at bedtime related to major depressive disorder with a single episode of severe psychotic features manifested by crying. A review of Resident 61's Physician Orders, dated 3/6/2024, indicated a current and renewed order to monitor for behavior episodes of depression manifested by crying every shift related to major depressive disorder with a single episode of severe psychotic features. A review of Resident 61's Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR, is federally required guidelines that required skilled nursing facilities to evaluate resident psychotropic medications on a routine basis, in an attempt to taper off completely or provided the smallest therapeutic dose possible to prevent adverse reactions, and with detailed documentation justifying the continued use) Request & Risk Versus Benefit Statement, dated 3/14/2024, indicated Resident 61 was not a candidate for GDR and was contraindicated because the benefits outweigh the risks, and that the GDR would likely cause psychiatric instability but did not indicate the benefits or the risks. A review of Resident 61's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 3/2024 indicated Resident 61 received Seroquel 50 mg every day for crying. The MAR indicated Resident 61 manifested behaviors of crying on 3/23/2024, 3/25/2024, 3/26/2024, 3/27/2024, and 3/29/2024, for a total of 10 episodes crying. A review of Resident 61's MAR dated 4/2024 indicated Resident 61 received Seroquel 50 mg every day for crying. The MAR indicated Resident 61 manifested behaviors of crying on 4/5/2024, 4/6/2024, 4/12/2024, 4/15/2024, 4/16/2024, 4/17/2024, 4/18/2024, 4/25/2024, 4/28/2024, 4/30/2024 for a total of 5 episodes crying. A review of Resident 61's MAR dated 5/2024 indicated Resident 61 received Seroquel 50 mg every day for crying. The MAR indicated Resident 61 manifested behaviors of crying on 5/7/2024, 5/8/2024, 5/10/2024, 5/13/2024, 5/14/2024, 5/16/2024, 5/17/2024, 5/19/2024, 5/20/2024, 5/21/2024, and 5/24/2024 for a total of 11 episodes crying. During an observation on 5/28/2024, at 9:20 a.m., Resident 61 was observed lying in bed, non-verbal and had contractures (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joins) of both arms and legs. During an observation on 5/28/2024, at 12:10 p.m., Resident 61's knees were observed flexed (bent) towards the chest in a fixed position. Resident 61 did not respond to verbal stimuli. During an observation on 5/29/2024, at 8:05 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 was observed obtaining a radial (wrist) blood pressure due to Resident 61 having contractures on both arms. During an interview on 5/30/2024, at 8:47 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated Resident 61 was receiving Seroquel 50 mg at night because the resident would cry, scream, and meow at night which disrupted the sleeping pattern of other residents. The ADON stated when residents were receiving antipsychotic medications the nurses would monitor Resident 61's crying behavior in the MAR, but no other behaviors such as screaming, meowing, or sleep disruption was being monitored. The ADON stated that non-pharmacological interventions were not charted by nursing when behaviors were noted. The ADON stated antipsychotics could lead to irreversible effects for Resident 61, and the risks versus benefits should be weighed. During an interview on 5/30/2024, at 11:22 a.m., with Psychiatrist (MD) 1, MD 1 stated she started Resident 61 on Seroquel 50 mg in December 2023 for crying and responding to internal stimuli such as auditory or visual hallucinations (hearing and seeing things that are not there). MD 1 stated Resident 61 would not sleep at night which would not allow other residents to sleep at night. During an observation on 5/30/202, at 1:56 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 6, CNA 6 was observed communicating to Resident 61 by meowing at her. During an interview on 5/30/2024, at 3:49 p.m., with CNA 5, CNA 5 stated she would hear Resident 61 meow at times, but when Resident 61 meowed she was not distraught or crying. During an interview on 5/31/2024, at 4:25 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated she witnessed Resident 61 meow, laugh alone sometimes, and meow in a howling voice that sounded like crying. During an interview on 5/31/2024, at 4:32 p.m., with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated she never witnessed Resident 61 crying when assigned to her care. A review of the facility Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Psychotropic Medication Use, undated, indicated: a. Consideration of the use of psychotropic medication is based on a comprehensive review of the resident. This includes evaluation of the resident's signs and symptoms in order to identify underlying causes. b. Non-pharmacological approaches are used (unless contraindicated) to minimize the need for medications, permit the lowest possible dose, and allow for discontinuation of medications when possible. c. Residents on psychotropic medications receive gradual dose reductions (couple with non-pharmacological interventions), unless clinically contraindicated, in an effort to discontinue these medications. d. When determining whether to initiate, modify, or discontinue medication therapy, the interdisciplinary team conducts an evaluation of the resident to clarify other causes for symptoms have been ruled out and signs and symptoms are clinically significant enough to warrant medication therapy. A review of the facility P&P titled Restraints-Chemical, dated 1/2001, indicated a chemical restraint is defined as any drug that is used for discipline or convenience and not required to treat medical symptoms. The P&P indicated chemical restraints will not be used to limit or control resident behavior for the convenience of the staff. A review of the facility P&P titled Charting and Documentation, dated 7/2017, indicated the purpose of the policy was for all services provided to the resident, progress toward the care plan goals, or any changes in the resident's medical, physical, functional, or psychosocial condition, shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The P&P indicated the medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from medication error rate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from medication error rates below 5% for one out of five residents (Resident 61). This deficient practice had the potential for residents to be at risk for medication errors. Findings: A review of Resident 61's admission Record indicated Resident 61 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 61's admitting diagnosis included cerebral palsy (a condition that develops before birth which affects movement and posture with exaggerated reflexes, floppy or rigid limbs, and involuntary motions) and major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life) with a single episode of severe psychotic features (seeing or hearing stimuli that is not there, having false beliefs, and confused or disturbed thoughts). A review of Resident 61's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/22/2024, indicated Resident 61 was severely cognitively impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 61 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 61's Physician Order, dated 10/10/2023, indicated to administer Ferrous Sulfate (an iron supplement) liquid 5 milligrams ([mg] a unit of liquid measurement) in 20 milliliters ([ml] a unit of liquid measurement) via the gastrostomy ([G-tube] a surgically inserted tube that provides nutrition directly to the stomach) twice a day. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:05 a.m., in Resident 61's room, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 was observed taking Resident 61's blood pressure while wearing gloves. LVN 3 put his hand in his pocket with contaminated gloves that came into contact with his clothing. LVN 3 did not check Resident 61's gastrostomy ([G-tube] a surgically inserted tube that provides nutrition directly to the stomach) placement (a procedure to verify that the G-tube has not been dislodged to prevent infection and choking) prior to administering drugs. LVN 3 administered Ferrous Sulfate 300 milligrams ([mg] a unit of weight measurement) in 5 ml but the order was to give Ferrous Sulfate 5 mg/20 ml. After LVN 3 left the room, LVN 3 put on another pair of gloves, decontaminated his equipment (blood pressure cuff) using disinfectant wipes but did not perform hand hygiene after cleaning contaminated equipment. LVN 3 proceeded to use his computer with contaminated hands. During an interview on 5/30/2024, at 3:36 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated G-tube placement should be checked prior to every medication administration to prevent aspiration (choking) or infection. The ADON stated medication orders should be checked and verified prior to administering medications to residents to prevent medication errors, and if there was a discrepancy the physician should be called to clarify the order. The ADON stated medication errors could cause adverse reactions (harmful side effects) if the medication was too much and ineffective therapeutic levels (medication doses that provide benefits as intended) if the mediation was not enough. During an interview on 5/30/2024, at 3:34 p.m., with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the IPN stated when staff enter a contact isolation room contaminated gloves should be discarded first, then hand hygiene performed before putting hands into the pocket or touching clothing or non-contaminated surfaces to prevent the spread of infection. The IPN stated after disinfecting contaminated equipment hand hygiene should be performed to prevent the spread of infection to other residents or staff. A review of facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Enteral Nutrition: General Guidelines, dated 7/2012, indicated tube placement will be verified prior to medication administration via enteral tubes (tubes that bypass nutrition orally and is inserted directly into the gut). A review of the facility P&P titled Medication Administration, dated 7/2013, indicated drugs must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician (5 rights), and should there be any doubt of administering medication, the physician should be notified to verify the order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic mechanical soft (texture-modifie...

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 a therapeutic mechanical soft (texture-modified [moist and soft] foods for people who have difficulty chewing and swallowing) diet was served as prescribed by the physician for one of two sampled residents (Resident 42). This deficient practice had the potential to cause Resident 84 to choke on food that was too difficult to chew or swallow. Findings: A review of Resident 42's admission Record, dated 5/30/2024, indicated Resident 42 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 42's diagnoses included altered mental status (AMS - disruption in how the brain works that causes a change in behavior), metabolic encephalopathy (a problem in the brain caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood), hyponatremia (abnormally low level of sodium in the blood), and dehydration (a harmful reduction in the amount of water in the body). A review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized resident assessment care screening tool), dated 3/6/2024, indicated Resident 42 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a screening tool used to identify the cognitive condition of residents upon admission into a long-term care facility) of six (severe impairment, normal BIMS score is 13-15). The MDS indicated Resident 42 required maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with toileting and bathing and moderate assistance (helper provides less than half the effort) with eating. A review of Resident 42's's History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/21/2023, indicated Resident 42 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 42's Order Summary Report, dated 4/24/2024, indicated a no added salt diet (NAS), mechanical soft texture, thin liquids consistency, fresh fruit only as a dessert starting on 2/24/2023. A review of Resident 42's Quarterly Nutritional Assessment, dated 3/6/2024, indicated Resident 42 was receiving a mechanical altered diet and had chewing problems. A review of the facility's Spring Menu - Week 1, dated 5/27/2024 through 6/2/2024, indicted that zesty lasagna, Italian green beans, garlic bread and a peanut butter cookie would be served for lunch on 5/28/2024. The menu also indicated the peanut butter cookie should be served soft for the mechanical soft diet. A review of the facility's kitchen instructions titled Comparison of IDDSI Level #6 - Soft and Bite Size to Healthcare Menu Direct, LLC's Mechanical Soft Diet, dated 2023, indicated that residents receiving a mechanical soft diet may have soft cookies, cake, pies, puddings. A review of the Health Menus Direct, LLC Recipe for Peanut Butter Cookies, dated 2024, indicated instructions to bake cookies for 10 - 14 minutes at 375 degrees Fahrenheit and do not over bake. The recipe instructions also indicted that for mechanical soft diets the cookie may be given soft. During the lunch dining observation on 5/28/2024 at 12 :40 p.m., in Resident 42's room, observed Resident 42's sitting in his bed. Resident 42 did not appear to have upper or lower teeth or dentures. Observed Resident 42's meal tray which displayed a diet card that indicated Resident 42 was to receive a mechanical soft regular diet with no added sodium (salt). Resident 42 was assisted with feeding by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3. Observed Resident 42's tray to have chopped lasagna, green beans, toasted bread cut into wedges and one cookie and a carton of reduced fat milk. Upon observation, the cookie appeared hard with darkened outer edges. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:15 p.m. with CNA 3, observed Resident 42's tray after eating. CNA 3 stated that Resident 42 had eaten approximately 30 percent (%) of his meal. CNA 3 stated Resident 42 tended to spit out food that he did not like. Observed that Resident 42 had eaten most of the cookie on the tray. Asked CNA 3 how Resident 42 was able to eat the cookie since he did not have teeth or dentures, and CNA 3 replied that she had to soften the cookie with the Resident 42's milk because the cookie was too hard and dry for the resident to eat. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 11:25 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 stated that the dietary staff prepared the meal trays and placed them on the cart. LVN 2 stated that the CNAs would then distribute the trays to the residents from the cart. LVN 2 stated that the diet type should be on a card located on each resident's tray when being served by the CNAs. LVN 2 stated that the charge nurses should visibly look at the meal to make sure the food on the tray matched the resident's diet on the meal card. LVN 2 stated that residents who were receiving a mechanical soft diet had a hard time swallowing or chewing food and a resident with missing or no teeth would have a difficult time chewing a hard cookie. LVN 2 stated that a resident who was ordered a mechanical soft diet could choke or aspirate (when food, liquid, or other material enters a person's airway) hard cookie. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 11:36 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated that when residents were admitted to the facility, the physician's diet order was sent to the kitchen by the nursing staff. The DS stated that he reviewed the therapeutic menus to ensure that the residents were being served the proper diet. The DS stated that it was the responsibility of the kitchen to follow the diet order as written. The DS stated that for a mechanical soft diet a cookie should be served soft and should not have been served if it was too hard. The DS also stated that he followed the recipe for the peanut butter cookies served for lunch on 5/28/2024. The DS stated that he was aware that residents receiving a mechanical soft diet could have cookies that were served soft. The DS stated he could add more butter to the cookie recipe or reduce the cooking time to ensure the cookies remained soft, but he did not do that for that cookie recipe. The DS stated that if the cookies were cooked too long, they would get too hard and could not be served for a mechanical soft diet. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 2:46 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated that residents receiving a mechanical soft diet should have food that was finely chopped to make sure the resident did not aspirate especially if they have missing teeth. The ADON stated that the treatment nurse should check the trays before giving to the residents. The ADON also stated that a resident receiving a mechanical soft should not be given a hard cookie because they could aspirate. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Therapeutic Diet, revised on 12/2024, indicated that a therapeutic diet will be served to residents who have a therapeutic diet order by the attending physical. The P&P indicated that mechanically altered diets as well as diets modified for medical or nutritional needs will be considered a therapeutic diet. The P&P also indicated that the DS would establish a tray identification system to ensure each resident receives his/her diet as ordered by the physician.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0642 (Tag F0642)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) signed the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) signed the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident standardized assessment and care-screening tool) assessments for four of 26 sampled residents (Resident 53, 61, 56, and 3) and failed to ensure the MDS assessment was complete prior to certification (action or process of providing someone or something with an official document attesting to a status of level of achievement) of completion. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the provision of care and provided inaccurate information upon submission to the Federal database. Findings: a. A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the MDS Coordinator (MDS 1) signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 1/3/2023. Resident 53's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated MDS 1 completed Sections A, B, C, G, GG, H, I, J, portions of K, L, M, N, O, and P on 1/10/2023. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 4/7/2023. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 7/12/2023. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 10/8/2023. Resident 53's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated the Social Services Designee completed Section D, E, and Q0110C on 10/13/2023. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 1/6/2024. Resident 53's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated MDS 1 completed Section A, B, C, G, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and S on 1/10/2024. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 4/15/2024. Resident 53's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated MDS 1 completed Section A, B, C, G, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, Q, S, and X on 5/29/2024 (more than month after the assessment completion date). b. A review of Resident 61's admission Record, indicated Resident 61 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 61's diagnoses included cerebral palsy (condition marked by impaired muscle coordination and/or other disabilities, typically caused by damage to the brain before or at birth), type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness) of both knees, muscle weakness, and attention to gastrostomy. A review of Resident 61's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 10/23/2023. A review of Resident 61's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 2/1/2024. Resident 61's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated MDS 1 completed Sections A, B, C, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, and portions of Section Q on 2/13/2024. A review of Resident 61's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 5/3/2024. Resident 61's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated MDS 1 completed Sections A, B, C, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, and X on 5/29/2024. c. A review of Resident 3's admission Record, indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 3's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), myocardial infarction (heart attack), hemiplegia or hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke, brain damage due to a loss of oxygen to the area) affecting the right dominant (used most often) side, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acquired absence of the left toes, and acquired absence of the right leg below the knee. A review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 5/3/2024. Resident 3's MDS Section Z - Assessment Administration indicated MDS 1 completed Section A, B, C, G, GG, H, I, J, L, M, N, O, P, and X on 5/29/2024. d. A review of Resident 56's admission Record, indicated Resident 56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, hemiplegia or hemiparesis following a cerebrovascular disease affecting the left dominant side, aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech as a result of brain damage), and dysphagia. A review of Resident 56's MDS, 12/17/2023, indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 12/29/2023. A review of Resident 56's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated MDS 1 signed the assessment as the RN Assessment Coordinator verifying the assessment completion on 3/21/2024. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 3:36 p.m. with MDS 1, MDS 1 stated he was a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) and stated the Director of Nursing (DON) signed the facility's MDS assessments. A review of the Federal Resident Assessment Instrument ([RAI] comprehensive assessment, which includes the MDS, to assist nursing homes in proving appropriate and overall care to residents) User's Manual, effective date 10/1/2023, indicated federal regulation requires the RN assessment coordinator to sign and thereby certify that the assessment is complete. The RAI User's Manual further indicated the actual date the MDS was completed, reviewed, and signed as complete by the RN assessment coordinator must be equal to the latest date, or later than the date(s) completed by assessment team members.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

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 a develop care plans for 2 of 26 sampled residents (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to a develop care plans for 2 of 26 sampled residents (Resident 84 and 53) when: a. For Resident 84, the facility failed to develop a care plan for both ½ bedrails up to assist Resident 84 with repositioning and Resident 84's preference to have a female escort during outside clinic appointments. b. For Resident 53, the facility failed to develop a care plan for range of motion ([ROM] full movement potential of a joint [where two bones meet]) and mobility (ability to move) impairments, including the provision of Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA, certified nursing aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) services and activities of daily living (ADLs, tasks related to personal care including bathing, dressing, hygiene, eating, and mobility). This deficient practice had the potential to delay necessary monitoring and safety interventions related to both ½ side rails being in the up position while Resident 84 was in bed. This deficient practice also resulted in Resident 84 repeatedly having a male escort during outside appointments despite wishes for a female escort. This deficient practice also had the potential for Resident 53 to experience a decline in ROM and a decline in ADLs due to the absence of a care plan to guide interventions. Cross reference F676 or F677 and 688. Findings: a. A review of Resident 84's admission Record, dated 5/30/2024, indicated Resident 84 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 84's diagnoses included left hip fracture (a partial or complete break of the thigh bone, where it meets the pelvic bone), syncope (fainting) and collapse, hypertension (high blood pressure), type 2 diabetes (too much sugar circulating in the blood) hyperlipidemia (an abnormally high concentration of fat particles in the blood), and osteoarthritis (inflammation and swelling that occurs in the joints when the flexible tissue at the ends of bones begin to wear down over time). A review of Resident 84's History and Physical (H&P) dated 4/24/2024, indicated Resident 84 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 84's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized resident assessment care screening tool), dated 4/15/2024, indicated Resident 84 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a screening tool used to identify the cognitive condition of residents upon admission into a long-term care facility) of 14 (cognitively intact, normal BIMS score is 13-15). The MDS indicted Resident 84 required minimal assistance with eating, partial assistance with oral and personal hygiene and maximal assistance with toileting and bathing. extensive assistance with transfers, walking, toilet use, and limited assistance with dressing, eating and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 84's Order Summary Report, dated 4/24/2024, indicated an active order dated 4/3/2024 for both ½ side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler. A review of Resident 84's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, group of different disciplines working together towards a common goal of a resident) Care Conference Note, dated 4/8/2024, indicated that Resident 84 used both ½ side rails as enablers for turning and repositioning. A review of Resident 84's Care Plans, indicated there was no care plan developed addressing Resident 84's physician order for both ½ side rails to be up when in bed for turning and repositioning. During a review of Resident 84's IDT Care Conference Note, dated 4/8/2024, the IDT note did not address Resident 84's preference for a female escort to accompany her to clinic appointments. A review of Resident 84's Care Plans, indicated there was no care plan developed addressing Resident 84's preference to be accompanied by a female during outside clinic appointments. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/29/2024 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident 84, in Resident 84's room, observed Resident 84 sitting in a wheelchair next to her bed. Observed both ½ side rails were raised while Resident 84 was out of bed. Resident 84 pointed to her side rails with padding and asked, Do others have these on their bed? During a concurrent interview and record review with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 5/31/2024 at 9:43 a.m., Resident 84's medical record was reviewed. RN 1 stated that Resident 84 had an order for ½ side rails for repositioning and turning. RN 1 stated that there should a care plan for the use of ½ side rails but she could not find one in Resident 84's medical record. RN 1 stated she was aware of Resident 84's preference to have a female escort to outside clinic appointments. RN 1 stated that a care plan was not developed for Resident 84's preferences. RN 1 stated that there should have been a care plan addressing Resident 84's preferences. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 2:46 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 84's medical record was reviewed. The ADON looked through Resident 84's medical record but was unable to locate a care plan addressing Resident 84's preferences or use of bed rails. The ADON stated that care plans were important to make sure residents had a plan of care. The ADON also stated that no care plan for restraints meant that there were no interventions carried out for Resident 84's safety. The ADON stated that if bed rails were initiated upon admission, the nursing staff did not assess the resident to see if side rails were needed. The ADON stated the resident would feel like the restraints were not communicated to them. The ADON stated the side rails made the resident feel like they were in a hospital instead of a home like environment. The ADON also stated that Resident 84's preferences should have been communicated in the progress notes and a care plan should have been initiated. The ADON stated that since Resident 84's preferences were not documented or care planned, Resident 84's preferences were not followed. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Safety, dated April 2021, indicated residents will be evaluated on admission, quarterly and whenever there is a change in condition to identify circumstances that pose a risk for the safety and wellbeing of the resident. The P&P indicated after a risk evaluation is completed by the IDT, a resident-centered care plan will be developed to mitigate safety risk factors. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Policy and Procedure - Care Plans, dated January 2024, indicated a care plan is the summation of the resident concerns, goals, approaches and interventions in order to meet the goals and help minimize if not totally eradicate residents' problems. The P&P indicated that the care plan is accomplished through the IDT and is based on the assessment by the group. The P&P indicated that the care plan identified the professional services and the responsible person that evaluates the concerns and carried out the intervention to prevent or reduce re-occurrences of the same problems and concerns and prevents further decline and deterioration in resident's function or status. The P&P further indicated that a care plan is developed within 7 days upon admission, reviewed quarterly, annually, and as often as needed as there is a change of condition. b. A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 3/25/2024, indicated for RNA to provide passive range of motion ([PROM] movement of joint through the ROM with no effort from the person) on both arms and both legs, followed by the application both elbow splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion) for four to six hours, three to five times per week. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) and did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and both legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 53's quarterly Rehab Screening Form (brief assessment of a resident's abilities), dated 4/9/2024, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness), did not have any ROM impairments in both arms, but had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue RNA ROM exercise program. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:13 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed wearing a hospital gown while lying awake in bed with the head-of-bed (HOB) elevated. Resident 53 smiled but did not speak and was receiving liquid feeding through the G-tube. Resident 53 did not actively move either arm or leg upon request. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed with the HOB elevated. Resident 53's elbows were in a bent position. Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 3 performed ROM exercises on both of Resident 53's arms and then applied both elbow splints. Resident 53's legs were rotated away from the body, both knees were bent, and both ankles were positioned in plantarflexion (ankles bent with toes pointing away from the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's legs but did not provide any ROM to both ankles into dorsiflexion (ankle bent with toes pointing toward the body). During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 1:12 p.m., in Resident 53's room, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 8 cleaned Resident 53 in bed. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 2:27 p.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 3:36 p.m. with the MDS Coordinator (MDS 1), Resident 53's care plans were reviewed. MDS 1 stated care plans included interventions provided to the resident. MDS 1 reviewed Resident 53's care plans and stated Resident 53 did not have any care plans for RNA services and ADLs. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 8:54 a.m. with MDS 1, MDS 1 stated care plans ensured the facility provided care to meet the resident's needs. A review of the facility's undated P&P titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, the P&P indicated a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial (social conditions related to mental health) and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident.
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 staff failed to review, update and /or revised a care plan (a fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to review, update and /or revised a care plan (a form that summarizes a person's health conditions and current treatments for their care) addressing fall, and the use of physical restraints for one of six sampled residents (Resident 32). These deficient practices had the potential to place Resident 32 at risk for recurrent falls, and to negatively affect the provision of care, and physical well-being of Resident 32. Findings: During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 11:32 a.m., in Resident 32's room, Resident 32 was observed in bed. Resident 32 was observed the bed against the wall on the right side of the room. A review of Resident 32's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 32 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a loss of brain function such as memory, thinking, language, behavior), anxiety (a feeling of worry or fear), hypertension (high blood pressure), and muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/15/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 32 was self-understood and had the ability to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 32 required maximum assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 32's Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT]-a coordinated group of experts from several different fields who work together), dated 3/15/2024, the IDT indicated family requested Resident 32's bed to be positioned against the wall. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 11:22 a.m., with RN1, Resident 32's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was reviewed. RN1 stated there was no physician order in the EMR for the use of physical restraints for Resident 32. RN 1 stated there was no documentation in the EMR that the care plan was reviewed and /or revised to address the use of physical restraints for Resident 32. A review of Resident 32's progress note, dated 3/4/2024, the progress note indicated Certified Nurse Assistant1 (CNA 1) reported that resident was found on the floor mat facing the bed. A review of Resident 32's progress note, dated 3/5/2024, the progress note indicated Resident 32 was being monitored for falls. A review of Resident 32's progress note, dated 4/10/2024, the progress note indicated CNA 1 reported Resident 32 was found on the floor, by her bedside. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 11:25 a.m., with RN1, Resident 32's EMR was reviewed. RN1 stated there was no documented evidence in the EMR the care plan was reviewed and /or revised to address Resident 32's falls. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 10:42 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the care plan must be reviewed and/or revised when residents have a change of condition, and/or new physician order. The ADON stated Resident 32's care plan should have been revised to address Resident 32's fall preventions, care needs, and prevention from falls reoccurring. The ADON stated Resident 32's care plan should have been undated to include the use of physical restraints. A review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Policy and Procedure - Care Plan, revised 9/2009, the P&P indicated a care plan is the summation of the resident concerns, goals, approaches, and interventions to meet the goals and help minimize if not totally eradicate residents' problems. The P&P indicated the resident care plan is developed within seven (7) days upon residents' admission, reviewed quarterly, annually, or as often as there is a change of condition. During a review of facility's P&P titled Policy and Procedure on Restraint, revised 7/2012, the P&P indicated: 1. Physical restraint will never be used for the convenience of the staff. 2. Residents are to be evaluated regarding safety measures, including the use of physical restraint. 3. Based on the assessment result if physical restraint is needed consent will be obtained by the doctor from the resident/ resident representative or both of use of such restraint. 4. All necessary and possible human approaches should be implemented before the use of restraint. A review of facility's P&P titled Use of Restraints, revised 12/2014, the P&P indicated, Physical Restraints are defined as any manual method of physical device, which restricts freedom of movement. The P&P indicated the following: 1. Restraint shall be only used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s). 2. If the resident cannot remove a device in which the staff applied it given that resident's physical condition (side rails are put back down, rather that climbed over), that device is considered a restraint. 3. Restraints shall only be used upon the written order of a physician and after obtaining consent from the resident and /or responsible party. 4. Family and /or responsible party members may not give permission to use restraints for the sake of discipline or staff convenience or when the restraint is not necessary. 5. Facility staff will not use a restraint based solely of family request.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide treatment and services for two out of three re...

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 treatment and services for two out of three residents (Resident 35 and Resident 53) by failing to: a. Document Resident 53's hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episode. This deficient practice had the potential to cause miscommunication of Resident 35's negative health trends and medication adjustments of insulin. b. Ensure Resident 53 who had range of motion (ROM, full movement potential of a joint [where two bones meet]) and mobility (ability to move) concerns) were properly assessed for the provision and application of elbow splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion) to both arms, including the determination of Resident 53's splint wear time (length of time the splint was applied) of four to six hours in accordance with professional standards of practice for Occupational Therapy (OT, profession aimed to increase or maintain a person's capability of participating in everyday life activities [occupations]). Cross reference F825. This deficient practice had the potential to damage Resident 53's skin integrity (relating to skin health), including but not limited to redness, bruising, swelling, and development of pressure sores (injuries to the skin and underlying tissue caused by prolonged pressure on the skin). Findings: a. A review of Resident 35's admission Record indicated Resident 35 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 35's diagnosis included type II diabetes mellitus (a chronic metabolic condition where the body has trouble regulating sugar as fuel). A review of Resident 35's History and Physical (H&P), undated, indicated Resident 35 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 35's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 5/14/2024, indicated Resident 35 was mildly cognitively impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 35 required substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with toileting hygiene, showering, dressing the lower body, and putting on footwear. A review of Resident 35's Physicians Orders, dated 4/5/2024, indicated Resident 35 was to received Insulin Lispro (a fast-acting insulin used to treat high blood sugar) per sliding scale (a scale used to determine how much insulin to give based on blood sugar results) for type 2 diabetes mellitus. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:25 a.m., Resident 35 was observed awake, sitting up in bed. Resident 35 reported feeling dizzy and pushed the call light. During an observation on 5/28/2024, at 9:28 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (DON) answered Resident 35's call light. Resident 35 stated she felt dizzy. The ADON asked Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 5 to obtain Resident 35's blood sugar. Resident 35's blood sugar level was 56 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl, unit of measurement, Normal Reference Range between 70 mg/dl and 100 mg/dl. A review of Resident 35's Weights and Vitals Summary, dated 5/1/2024 through 5/31/2024 indicated Resident 35's had a hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) episode on 5/28/2024 at 9:35 a.m. Resident 35's blood sugar level was 56 mg/dl. A review of Resident 35's progress notes, dated 5/28/2024 through 5/31/2024 indicated there was no documentation of Resident 35's hypoglycemic episode on 5/28/2024 at 9:35 a.m. A review of Resident 35's medical record indicated there was no change of condition note for Resident 35's hypoglycemic episode on 5/28/2024 at 9:35 a.m. During an interview at 5/28/2024, at 10:05 a.m., LVN 5 stated she gave Resident 35 some food and juice since Resident 35 refused glucagon (a sugar pill used for hypoglycemia). LVN 5 stated she did not have an order to administer glucagon at the time anyway. LVN 5 stated she had retaken Resident 35's blood sugar which was 87 mg/dl. During an interview on 5/31/2024, at 9:45 a.m., with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the IPN stated Resident 35's hypoglycemic episode on 5/28/2024 at 9:35 a.m. was considered a change of condition which should have been documented. The IPN stated abnormal blood sugar levels should be documented in the resident's chart so that the resident could be properly monitored, and medication could be adjusted accordingly. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Management of Hypoglycemia, undated, indicated hypoglycemic events should be documented, including interventions, level of consciousness, and provider instructions upon notification. A review of the facility P&P titled Change of Condition, dated 7/2012, indicated the purpose of the policy was to clearly define guidelines for timely notification of a change in resident condition for immediate intervention. The P&P indicated all nursing actions, physician orders/instructions, and resident assessment information will be documented in the nursing progress notes. The P&P indicated the licensed nurse is responsible for the resident and will continue assessment and documentation on every shift for seventy-two (72) hours or until condition has stabilized. b. A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 3/25/2024, indicated for the Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA, certified nursing aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) to provide passive range of motion (PROM, movement of joint through the ROM with no effort from the person) on both arms and both legs, followed by the application of both elbow splints for four to six hours (4-6 hours), three to five times per week. A review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/2/2024, indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) and did not have any ROM impairments to both arms and both legs. The MDS indicated Resident 53 was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. A review of Resident 53's quarterly Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/9/2024, indicated Resident 53 did not have any contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness), did not have any ROM impairments in both arms, but had a ROM impairment in one leg. The Rehab Screening Form indicated Resident 53 had the same level of function without significant decline and to continue RNA ROM exercise program. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:13 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed wearing a hospital gown while lying awake in bed with the head-of-bed (HOB) elevated. A bed sheet was covering Resident 53's legs. Resident 53 smiled but did not speak. Resident 53's body twitched (short, jerky sudden movements) intermittently (did not happen continuously) and both elbows were in a bent position. Resident 53 was not wearing any splints on both arms. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying awake in bed with the HOB elevated. Resident 53's elbows were in a bent position. Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left arm, including shoulder abduction (lifting the arm away from the body) and adduction (returning the arm toward the body), shoulder rotation (circular motion) in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, shoulder flexion (lifting the arm upward) and extension (returning the arm downward), elbow flexion (bending) and extension (straightening), and then applied an elbow extension splint (splint that prevents the resident from bending at the elbow) on the left arm. RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right arm, including shoulder abduction and adduction, shoulder rotation in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, shoulder flexion and extension, elbow flexion and extension, and then applied an elbow extension splint on the right arm. RNA 3 then performed ROM exercises to both legs. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:37 a.m. with RNA 3, RNA 3 stated she performed PROM on both of Resident 53's arms and legs and applied both elbow extension splints. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:40 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed crying and yelling while lying in bed. LVN 3 stated Resident 53 was yelling either due to psychosis or Resident 53 did not like the splints the RNAs just applied to both elbows. During an observation on 5/24/2024 at 2:27 p.m., in Resident 53's room, RNA 1 removed Resident 53's elbow splints after approximately five hours. Resident 53's skin was slightly red on the areas where the splint was applied on both arms, but Resident 53's skin was intact without pressure areas. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 4:06 p.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR), Resident 53's Rehab Screening Form, dated 4/9/2024 and the facility's Rehabilitation electronic documentation were reviewed. The DOR reviewed Resident 53's Rehab Screening Form and stated Resident 53 did not have any ROM issues but provided both elbow splints to prevent elbow contractures. The DOR reviewed the facility's Rehabilitation electronic documentation and stated Resident 53 has never received therapy services, including OT. The DOR stated OT did not complete a written assessment indicating Resident 53 needed both elbow splints and did not have any document evidence Resident 53 tolerated the elbow splints for 4-6 hours. The DOR stated the RNAs (unspecified) were instruction on how to apply both elbow splints on Resident 53's arms when the splints arrived at the facility. The DOR stated the OT profession's standard of practice for providing a splint to a resident included applying the splint and determining the resident's splint wear time. The DOR stated there was no documented evidence the DOR followed the OT profession's standard of practice. The DOR stated splints could cause skin breakdown (tissue damage caused by friction, shear, moisture, or pressure) or pressure areas if an assessment was not done. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 10:20 a.m. with the Physical Therapist (PT 1), PT 1 stated splint (also known as orthotics) training was a skilled treatment requiring an evaluation, recommendations of the splint, adjusting the splints, and determine the splint wear time. PT 1 stated the determination of splint wear time included applying the splint for 15 to 30 minutes and then gradually increasing the splint application time. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 12:12 p.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the provision of a splint was skilled service that required an evaluation, adjustment of the splint, and skin checks for the tolerance. The DOR stated the splint was applied and adjusted on both of Resident 53's elbows but the RNAs were experienced to check the skin for any pressure areas. The DOR stated the facility did not have any documented evidence the OT performed an evaluation for Resident 53's elbow splints and determined the splint wear time for Resident 53. During an observation on 5/31/2024 at 9:01 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed lying in bed yelling while both elbow splints were applied to the arms. A review of a textbook titled, Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction, fifth edition, published 2002, page 316, indicated the OT's role is to evaluate the need for a splint clinically and functionally; to select the most appropriate splint; to provide or fabricate (make) the splint; to assess the fit of the splint; to teach the patient and caregivers the purpose, care, and use of the splint. The Occupational Therapy for Physical Dysfunction textbook, page 316, further indicated the OT must consider, carefully monitor, and teach the patient and caregiver to report any of these problems related to orthotic use, including impaired skin integrity, pain, and swelling.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to practice pressure related injury preventive practices...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to practice pressure related injury preventive practices for two out eight residents (Resident 3 and Resident 26) when the facility failed to: 1.Ensure a low air mattress (LAM) was set according to Resident 26's weight of 255 pounds and the LAM was set to 350 pounds. 2. Ensure the LAM was set according to Resident 3's weight of 161 pounds and LAM was set to 180 pounds. 3. Assess and prevent a pressure injury over Resident 3's ears. These deficient practices placed Resident 3 and Resident 26 at a higher risk of developing a pressure injury due to incorrect weight setting on the LAM and caused Resident 3 to develop a pressure injury on right ear due to prolonged use of medical device. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of kidney failure (occurs when kidneys suddenly become unable to filter waste products from the blood, kidneys lose their filtering ability, dangerous levels of wastes may accumulate, and blood's chemical makeup may get out of balance) and myocardial infarction (A heart attack, occurs when a blood clot blocks blood flow to the heart). A review of Resident 3's History and Physical (H&P) dated 10/23/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 3 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 3 had an unclear speech. The MDS indicated that Resident 3's cognitive skills (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for all activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent on staff for moving from left to right in the bed, from sitting to lying positioning, and for chair/bed -to-chair transfer. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 10/29/2023, the physician orders indicated to change oxygen tubing on every Sunday. 2. A review of Resident 26's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of hemiplegia (condition caused by a brain injury, that results in a varying degree of weakness, stiffness, and lack of control in one side of the body) and kissing spine (close approximation of adjacent spinous processes due to degenerative changes of the spine). A review of Resident 26's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/6/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 26 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 26's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/4/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 26 cognitive skills (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 26 needed substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from staff for toileting hygiene, shower/baths, and lower body dressing. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:10 a.m. in Resident 26 room, Resident 26's LAM was set to 350 pounds. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:14 a.m. in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was lying on a LAM that was set to 180 pounds. During an observation on 5/31/2024 at 11:52 a.m. in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was siting on a wheelchair and did not have a nasal cannula on. Resident 3 was observed with blood over his right ear and redness over his left ear. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 12:30 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3), in Resident 26's and 3's room, LVN 3 stated residents that are bedbound use the LAM to prevent skin breakdown. LVN 3 stated he did not know the LAM was not set to correct residents' weight. LVN 3 stated he could not adjust the LAM to the correct weight because he did not know how to do that. LVN 3 stated the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) was responsible for setting the LAM and the MS is called for all LAM troubleshooting. LVN 3 stated if LAM was overinflated it can cause resident to be uneven in the bed or the mattress could possibly pop. LVN 3 stated it was important to set the LAM with correct weight to prevent pressure injuries, for safety and for comfort. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/31/2024 at 12:42 a.m. with LVN 3, in Resident 3's room, the Resident 3 had blood over his right ear and redness to his left ear. LVN 3 stated he did not know that Resident 3's ear had been bleeding. LVN 3 assessed Residents 3's right ear, blood oozed out and Resident 3 grimaced. LVN 3 stated Resident 3 got the pressure injury due to prolonged use of a nasal cannula. LVN 3 stated that staff should have noticed the pressure injury during shower time, diaper change, skin treatments or when they provide medications to Resident 3. LVN 3 stated it was important to continuously assess residents with medical devices to prevent skin injuries. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 2:36 p.m. with MS in Resident 26's and Resident 3's room, the MS stated he was responsible to set up the LAM according to resident's weight. The MS stated the nurses inform him of resident's weight and he uses that weight to set up the LAM. The MS stated the LAM for Resident 26 and Resident 3 have been set to the same weight since he initially set it up. The MS stated he had not been notified if Resident 26 or Resident 3's weight had changed. The MS stated it was important to have a LAM with the correct weight to prevent skin injuries. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 2:59 p.m. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated residents that use a medical device should be assessed for pressure injuries due to the use of a medical device. The ADON stated residents that use a nasal cannula (tube placed in the nose to deliver oxygen to the body) should be assessed daily for pressure injuries by the treatment nurse. The ADON stated residents' skin should be assessed when nasal cannula tubing is changed every week. The ADON stated residents develop pressure injuries when they have prolonged use of a medical device and when residents are not assessed accordingly. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 3:14 p.m. with ADON, the ADON stated residents that are bed bound use [NAME] to prevent skin breakdowns. The ADON stated a licensed nurse and MS are responsible to set the LAM. The ADON stated the MS would assist the licensed nurse to set up the LAM. The ADON stated if the LAM is over inflated it could be uncomfortable and painful for a resident. The ADON stated it was important to set the LAM with correct patient weights to prevent skin pressure injuries, for resident safety and for their comfort. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Air Loss Mattress, dated 07/2012, the P&P indicated facility's purpose was to ensure that residents skin integrity was maintained and to aid in healing decubitus ulcers. The P&P indicated the air pressure of the air loss mattress will be adjusted based on the resident's weight to serve its purpose. A review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Oxygen administration, dated 12/2014, the P&P indicated to provide protection behind the residents' ears, in order to minimize the risk of pressure ulcer development.
CONCERN (E)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

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 date and input the time of continuous tube feeding ad...

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 date and input the time of continuous tube feeding administration, the date and time the tube feeding formula per policy and standards of care for three of five sampled residents (Resident 25, Resident 53, and Resident 61). This deficient practice had the potential to cause weight loss or infection. Findings: a. A review of Resident 61's admission Record indicated Resident 61 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 61 diagnoses included cerebral palsy (a condition that develops before birth which affects movement and posture with exaggerated reflexes, floppy or rigid limbs, and involuntary motions), major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life) with a single episode of severe psychotic features (seeing or hearing stimuli that is not there, having false beliefs, and confused or disturbed thoughts), gastrostomy status ([G-tube] also known as an enteral tube, and is surgically inserted tube that enters and provides nutritional directly the stomach), and Type II diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar). A review of Resident 61's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/22/2024, indicated Resident 61 was severely cognitively impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 61 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 61's Physician Orders, dated 10/10/2023 indicated a current order for enteral feeding (nutrition delivered directly to the gut) of Glucerna 1.2 (a type of nutrition for diabetics) at a rate of 50 milliliters ([ml] a unit of measurement) for 20 hours a day. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:16 a.m., Resident 61 was observed awake in bed and non-verbal. Resident 61's tube feeding was not dated to indicate when the feeding was started. Resident 61's water bag (to be infused periodically through the G-tube for hydration) was dated 5/26/2024, at 4:00 p.m. b. A review of Resident 25's admission Record indicated Resident 25 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 25's diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), gastrostomy malfunction, and Type II diabetes mellitus. A review of Resident 25's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 25 was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 25 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 25's care plan titled, Risk for Aspiration (choking), dated 6/23/2022 indicated an enteral feeding of Glucerna 1.5 at a rate of 50 ml for 20 hours a day. During an observation on 5/28/2024, at 10:12 a.m., Resident 25 was observed asleep. Resident 25's tube feeding was dated 5/27/2024 but did not indicate a time the feeding was started. c. A review of Resident 53's admission Record indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 53's diagnoses included encounter for attention to gastrostomy. A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 53 was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 53 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 53's care plan titled, Maintain Current Body Weight, dated 3/26/2024 indicated to administer enteral feeding of Jevity 1.2 at a rate of 55 ml for 20 hours a day. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:38 a.m., Resident 53 was observed awake in bed verbal with incoherent speech. Resident 53's tube feeding was dated 5/27/2024 but no time was noted to indicate when the feeding was started. Resident 53's water bag was dated 5/26/2024, at 4:00 p.m. During an interview on 5/28/2024, at 2:15 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated all tube feedings should have the resident's name, the room, the date and time the feeding was started, and the nurses' initials. The ADON stated it was important to put the date and time to determine the amount the resident received, and to note when to discard the feeding to prevent administering expired food to residents. The ADON stated feedings and water should be discarded every 24 hours to prevent bacterial growth. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Enteral Nutrition: General Guidelines, dated 7/2012, indicated: a. All feeding bags/containers (open and closed systems) of formula must be labeled with the Resident's name, date and time hung, and nurse's initials. b. Feeding bags, administration sets and syringes should be changed every 24 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure an informed consent was obtained for bed ...

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: 1. Ensure an informed consent was obtained for bed siderail use (a form of physical restraint) for five of five sample residents (Residents 13, 24, 27, 32 84). 2. Ensure Resident 27 had a physician's order for siderails prior to installing bed siderails. 3. Ensure Resident 13's responsible party (RP) was informed about the risk and benefits of bed siderail use. 4. Ensure Residents 84, 24, and 32 were evaluated for alternatives prior to installing bed rails. These deficient practices placed Residents 13, 24, 27, 32 and 84 at risk of inappropriate use of bedrails, placed the residents at risk for unnecessary restraints, and had the potential to violate the residents' rights and responsible party's right of being informed prior to restraint use. Findings: a. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 11:32 a.m., in Resident 32's room, Resident 32 was observed lying in bed with bilateral bed siderails in upper position. A review of Resident 32's admission Record (Face Sheet), indicated Resident 32 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a loss of brain function such as memory, thinking, language, behavior), anxiety (a feeling of worry or fear), hypertension (high blood pressure), and muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/15/2024, indicated Resident 32 makes self-understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 32 required maximum assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 32's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/23, indicated Resident 32 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 32's Order Summary Report, dated 9/3/2023, indicated both half (½) side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as enabler (equipment, devices, or furniture, used with the intention of promoting independence, comfort, and/or safety). During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 11:34 a.m., in Resident 32's room, with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated Resident 32 gets out of bed often without calling for assistance. CNA 2 stated Resident 32 was at risk for falls and injuries. CNA 2 stated the facility used bed siderails for residents at high risk for falls. CNA 2 stated bed siderails needed to be up when Resident 32 was lying in bed for safety. CNA 2 stated bed siderails were used for assisting Resident 32 to move from side to side with the assistance of staff. CNA 2 stated she was not sure if bed siderails were considered a restraint. During a telephone interview on 5/29/2024 at 8:06 a.m., with Resident 32's family member (FM 3). FM 3 stated when Resident 32 was readmitted to the facility in 8/11/2023, Resident 32's bed had bed siderails already installed. FM 3 stated she did not consent for bed siderails. FM 3 stated staff did not provide her with informed consent for the use of bed siderails, and she was not aware an informed consent was needed for the use of bed siderails. b. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 9:43 a.m., in Resident 24's room, Resident 24 was observed lying in bed and had siderails up. Resident 24 stated he was not aware why his bed had siderails. Resident 24 stated staff had not informed him why he needed bed rails. Resident 24 stated he did not need siderails on his bed. A review of Resident 24's admission Record (Face Sheet), indicated Resident 24 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including seizure (uncontrolled body movements that occur because of abnormal electric activity in the brain), heart failure, diabetes, and depression. A review of Resident 24's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 24 makes self- understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 24 required supervision assistance (helper provides verbal cues, and contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, dressing, and walking. A review of Resident 24's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/20/2023, indicated Resident 24 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 24's Order Summary Report, dated 7/11/2023, indicated bilateral padded side rails up on the bed for turning and repositioning Resident 24. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/29/2024 at 11:22 a.m., with the Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 32's and Resident 24's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was reviewed. RN 1 was not able to provide documentation on least restrictive measures that were implemented prior to placing bed siderails. RN 1 stated there was not an informed consent signed by Resident 24, and Resident 32, or Resident 32's family member for the use of bed rails in the electronic medical record. c. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 12:25 p.m., in Resident 13's room, Resident 13's bed had bilateral upper bed side rails attached to bed. A review of Resident 13's admission Record, indicated Resident 13 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including ischemic heart disease (heart weakening caused by reduced blood flow to your heart) and dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort in swallowing). A review of Resident 13's H&P dated 8/31/2023, indicated Resident 13 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 13's Minimum MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 13 had an unclear speech, sometimes understood others, sometimes made herself understood, and her vision was impaired. The MDS indicated that Resident 13's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required maximum assistance for all activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required maximum assistance for rolling left to right in bed, from sitting positioning to lying position and from lying position to sitting on the side of the bed. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 11:45 a.m. with Resident 13's Responsible Party (RP 1), RP 1 stated no one asked him if he wanted bed siderails placed on Resident 13's bed. RP 1 stated he thought all resident beds came with bed siderails. RP 1 stated he did not know what the bed siderails were used for. RP 1 stated he did not give consent for the bed siderails to be placed on Resident 13's bed. d. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 12:01 p.m., in Resident 27's room, Resident 27's bed had bilateral upper bed siderails attached to bed. A review of Resident 27's admission Record, indicated Resident 27 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 27's diagnoses included peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs) and heart failure (progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles causing fatigue and shortness of breath). A review of Resident 27's H&P dated 6/22/2023, indicated Resident 27 had the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. A review of Resident 27's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 27's cognitive skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 27 required supervision (the helper provides verbal cues, touching contact as resident completes activity) for toileting hygiene, dressing, and for showers/baths. The MDS indicated Resident 27 required supervision for toilet transfer (the ability to get on and off a toilet or commode), to move from sit to stand position, and to walk for at least 10 feet. A review of Resident 27's EMR indicated there was no order for bilateral upper side rails for restraints. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 12:33 p.m. with Resident 27, in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 stated the facility staff did not ask him if he wanted the siderails on the bed. Resident 27 stated he thought the bed came like that and that all residents had siderails on their bed. Resident 27 stated he did not use the side rails on the bed at all. Resident 27 stated it would have been nice if the facility staff informed him of the purpose for the siderails and asked Resident 27's if he wanted the siderails. Resident 27 stated this was his home and he should be able to choose what he wants or did not want. Resident 27 stated he did not give his consent for the siderail use. Resident 27 stated he had been at facility for years and no one had taken the time to check if he needed the siderails. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 12:44 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, LVN 3 stated residents in this facility do get upper siderails on the bed but it was not considered a restraint. LVN 3 stated when a bed had upper and lower siderails they are restrictive and considered a restraint. LVN 3 stated he did not know if an informed consent. LVN 3 stated he never verified with residents or their responsible parties if they consented for siderails. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 2:58 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated residents that had siderails were residents who need assistance with repositioning or at risk for falls. The ADON stated a siderail was considered a restraint and it was used as a last resort for safety. The ADON stated prior to siderail use, a resident must have a doctor's order and an informed consent. The ADON stated a resident's bed should not have siderails if there was no order or an informed consent for siderails. The ADON stated if a resident or responsible party are not informed of the risk and benefits of siderail use, they will feel that information was not communicated to them because it was withheld from them. The ADON stated siderails did not create a homelike environment and created an institutionalized environment (an environment experience by people admitted to prison, a mental asylum, or an orphanage). e. A review of Resident 84's admission Record, dated 5/30/2024, indicated Resident 84 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses which included left hip fracture (a partial or complete break of the thigh bone, where it meets the pelvic bone), syncope and collapse (fainting or a temporary loss of consciousness with a quick recovery), hypertension (high blood pressure), and osteoarthritis (inflammation and swelling that occurs in the joints when the flexible tissue at the ends of bones begin to wear down over time). A review of Resident 84's H&P dated 4/24/2024, indicated that Resident 84 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 84's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 84 had no cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident required minimal assistance with eating, partial assistance with oral and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 84's Order Summary Report, dated 4/24/2024, indicated an active order for both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler. A review of Resident 84's Informed Consent for Physical Restraint, dated 4/3/2024, indicated the facility obtained an informed consent for Resident 84 for the use of physical restraints (both half side rails for turning and repositioning), however the informed consent was not signed by Resident 84 or the physician. A review of Resident 84's care plan dated 5/30/2024, indicated a new care plan was initiated for Resident 84's physician order for both half side rails to be up when in bed for turning and repositioning. A review of Resident 84's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, group of different disciplines working together towards a common goal of a resident) Care Conference Notes, dated 4/8/2024, indicated that Resident 84 used both half siderails as enablers for turning and repositioning. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/31/2024 at 9:35 a.m. with LVN 4, it was observed the upper bed siderails raised on both sides of Resident 84's bed. LVN 4 stated, The side rails are left up. LVN 4 stated when side rails are up, it is considered a restraint to the resident. LVN 4 stated that Resident 84 should have a doctor's order and an informed consent to use the siderails for safety. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 9:43 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN 1), Resident 84's medical record was reviewed. RN 1 stated Resident 84 had a doctor's order for half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning. RN 1 stated Resident 84 should also have an informed consent for siderail orders. RN 1 stated the copy in the electronic medical record (EMR) was not signed by Resident 84 or the physician. During an interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 10:40 a.m. with the Medical Records Director (MRD), Resident 84's medical records were reviewed. The MRD stated that a paper copy of Resident 84's informed consent for restraints for the use of bed siderails should be in the chart and available for signature by the doctor. The MRD was unable to provide a signed copy of a consent for restraints by the physician. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 2:46 p.m. with the ADON, Resident 84's electronic medical record was reviewed. The ADON stated all informed consents for restraints should be signed by the physician, resident, or responsible party. The ADON stated an evaluation for restraints must be done on resident before placing the bed siderails upon admission. The ADON stated that other interventions should be tried on residents before placing bed siderails. The ADON stated half bed siderails are considered a restraint and need an informed consent to be placed in the EMR resident's chart. The ADON stated that the paper copy of the informed consent must be signed by the doctor and the resident before initiating the bed siderails/restraints. During a review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Policy and Procedure on Side Rails, revised 5/2012, indicated: 1. Medical Director (MD) should obtain informed consent from resident, resident representative, or both before an order for a physical restraint such as side rails could be carried out by the licensed nurses. 2. Licensed nurse receiving the order from MD should verify from resident or resident representative or both that consent was obtained by the MD from him/her. 3. Documentation of the reason for side rails implementation with the obtained consent of MD from resident, resident representative, or both. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Policy and Procedure on Restraint, dated 7/2012, indicated if the restraint is needed, it has to indicate the medical necessity due to resident physical condition or psychosocial problem. The P&P indicated except for an emergency situation that threatens residents' and others' health and safety, restraint will not be used. The P&P indicated that based on the assessment result if either a physical/chemical restraint is needed, consent will be obtained by the doctor from the resident/resident representative or both of the use of such restraint. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Use of Restraints, dated 12/2014, indicated restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s) and only after other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully. The P&P indicated that practices that inappropriately utilize equipment to prevent resident mobility are considered restraints and are not permitted such as using bed rails to keep a resident from voluntarily getting out of bed as opposed to enhancing mobility while in bed. The P&P indicated that restraints may only be used if/when the resident has a specific medical symptom that cannot be addressed by a less restrictive intervention. The P&P stated that prior to placing a resident in restraints, a pre-restraining assessment and review is done to determine the need for restraints. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Informed Consent and Chemical Restraints, revised 1/2024, indicated the facility must have an informed consent prior to initiation of Chemical/Physical treatment or procedure.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 four of four Restorative Nursing Aides (RNA, c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure four of four Restorative Nursing Aides (RNA, certified nursing aide program that helps residents to maintain their function and joint mobility) received an evaluation of competence (possession of sufficient knowledge or skill) as evidenced by: a. Four of four sampled residents (Resident 53, 3, 56, and 61) with range of motion [ROM, full movement potential of a joint (where two bones meet)] and mobility (ability to move) concerns did not receive ROM exercises to each joint of both arms and both legs in accordance with physician orders and the facility's job description titled, Restorative Nursing Assistant. b. Four of four RNAs (RNA 1, RNA 2, RNA 3, and RNA 4) did not have an evaluation indicating each RNA was proficient (able to do something to a higher than average standard) to provide RNA services in accordance with the facility's policy titled, Competency of Nursing Staff. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 53, 3, 56, and 61 receiving incomplete ROM exercises to both arms and both legs, placing the residents at risk for loss of motion and the development of contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to joint stiffness). Cross reference F688. Findings: 1a. A review of Resident 53's admission Record, indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 53 on 12/21/2022 and readmitted Resident 53 on 3/20/2024. The admission Record indicated Resident 53's diagnoses included psychosis (severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality), major depressive disorders (depression, a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning), seizures (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that causes temporary abnormalities in muscle tone or movements like stiffness, twitching or limpness), starvation (suffering caused by hunger), and attention to gastrostomy (G-tube, tube placed directly into the stomach for long-term feeding). A review of Resident 53's physician orders, dated 3/25/2024, indicated for RNA to provide passive range of motion ([PROM] movement of joint through the ROM with no effort from the person) on both arms and both legs, followed by applying both elbow splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion) for four to six hours (4-6 hours), three to five times per week (3-5x/week). A review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/2/2024, indicated Resident 53 had severely impaired cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) and was dependent (helper does all the effort or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene (cleaning teeth), showering/bathing, and dressing. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:09 a.m., in Resident 53's room, Resident 53 was observed while lying awake in bed with the head of bed (HOB) elevated and did not speak. Resident 53's elbows were in a bent position. Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA) 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left arm, including shoulder abduction (lifting the arm away from the body) and adduction (returning the arm toward the body), shoulder rotation (circular motion) in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, shoulder flexion (lifting the arm upward) and extension (returning the arm downward), elbow flexion (bending) and extension (straightening), and then applied an elbow extension splint (splint that prevents the resident from bending at the elbow) on the left arm. RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right arm, including shoulder abduction and adduction, shoulder rotation in clockwise and counterclockwise directions, shoulder flexion and extension, elbow flexion and extension, and then applied an elbow extension splint on the right arm. Resident 53's legs were rotated away from the body, both knees were bent, and both ankles were positioned in plantarflexion (ankles bent with toes pointing away from the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's right leg, including hip abduction (moving the leg away from the body) and adduction (returning the leg toward the body), hip rotation clockwise and counterclockwise while the knee was extended, hip flexion (bending the leg at the hip joint toward the body) with knee flexion (bending the knee), and ankle rotation. RNA 3 did not move Resident 53's right ankle into dorsiflexion (ankle bent with toes pointing toward the body). RNA 3 performed ROM exercises on Resident 53's left leg, including hip abduction and adduction, hip rotation clockwise and counterclockwise with the knee extended, hip flexion with knee flexion, and ankle rotation. RNA 3 did not move Resident 53's left ankle into dorsiflexion. RNA 3 then performed exercises to the left-hand fingers into flexion (bending the fingers toward the palm) and extension (straightening out the fingers), left wrist rotation, left wrist flexion (bending the wrist downward) and extension (bending the wrist upward), right-hand fingers into flexion and extension, right wrist rotation, and right wrist flexion and extension. b. A review of Resident 3's admission Record, indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 3 on 12/18/2018 and readmitted Resident 3 on 10/23/2023. The admission Record indicated Resident 3's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), myocardial infarction (heart attack), hemiplegia or hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke, brain damage due to a loss of oxygen to the area) affecting the right dominant (used most often) side, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acquired absence of the left toes, and acquired absence of the right leg below the knee. A review of Resident 3's physician orders, dated 11/27/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide PROM on both upper extremities (arms) and both lower extremities (legs), 3-5x/week with one person assist as tolerated. A review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 had severely impaired cognition and was dependent for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene, showering/bathing, and dressing. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:53 a.m., in Resident 3's room, RNA 2 stood on the left side of Resident 3's bed and performed exercises on Resident 3's left arm, including shoulder flexion and extension, shoulder horizontal abduction (lifting the arm from shoulder level in front of the body toward the side and away from the body) and horizontal adduction (lifting the arm from shoulder level on side of the body toward the front of the body), and shoulder rotation. RNA 2 did not perform any exercises on the left elbow, wrist, or fingers. RNA 2 walked to the right side of Resident 3's bed and performed exercises on Resident 3's right arm including, shoulder flexion and extension, shoulder horizontal abduction and adduction, and shoulder rotation. RNA 2 did not perform any exercises to Resident 3's right elbow, wrist, and hand. RNA 2 removed the bed sheet over Resident 3's legs. Resident 3 was observed to have the absence of the right lower leg below the knee and a cushioned boot underneath the left foot. RNA 2 performed exercises to the right leg, including hip flexion and extension, hip abduction and adduction, and hip rotation. RNA did not perform any exercises to the right knee. RNA 2 removed the cushioned boot from the left foot, and Resident 3 was observed with the absence of toes. RNA 2 performed exercises to the left leg, including hip flexion and extension, hip abduction and adduction, and hip rotation. RNA 2 did not perform any PROM to the left knee and left ankle. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 2:36 p.m. with RNA 2, RNA 2 stated she did not perform ROM exercises to both of Resident 3's elbows, wrists, and hands because the physician orders indicated to perform exercises to Resident 3's upper extremity. c. A review of Resident 56's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 56 on 3/5/2023 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus, hemiplegia or hemiparesis following a cerebrovascular disease (affecting the blood flow of the brain) affecting the left dominant side, aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech as a result of brain damage), and dysphagia. A review of Resident 56's physician orders, dated 4/7/2023, indicated for the RNA to provide active range of motion (AROM, performance of ROM of a joint without any assistance or effort of another person) on the right arm and right leg and PROM on the left leg, 3-5x/week, with one person assist. A review of Resident 56's RNA Referral, dated 4/7/2023, indicated Resident 56 had increased stiffness on the left side of the body and refused to have the left arm touched. A review of Resident 56's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 56 had moderately impaired cognition, had ROM impairments to one arm and one leg, and required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for rolling to either side, oral hygiene, showering/bathing, and upper body dressing, and was dependent for chair/bed-to-chair transfers and lower body dressing. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 10:02 a.m., in Resident 56's room, Resident 56 was observed awake while lying in bed and performed exercises with RNA 1. Resident 56 performed AROM at the shoulder joint to lift the right arm upward (shoulder flexion) to shoulder level and downward (shoulder extension) without any physical assistance. Resident 56 required some physical assistance to perform right shoulder rotation and right elbow flexion and extension. Resident 56 did not perform any ROM exercises of the wrist and the hand. Resident 56 required some physical assistance to perform right hip and knee exercises. Resident 56 did not perform any exercises on the right ankle. RNA 1 performed PROM exercises to Resident 56's left leg, including hip flexion and extension. RNA did not perform PROM of the left knee and ankle. RNA 1 stated Resident 56 did not have physician orders to perform ROM exercises to the left arm because Resident 56 did not want anyone to touch it. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 2:32 p.m. with RNA 1, RNA 1 stated Resident 56 did not perform any ROM exercises on the right wrist and hand because Resident 56 already used the right hand constantly to eat and reposition the body. RNA 1 stated Resident 56 did not perform any ROM exercises to the right ankle because Resident 56 was starting to have pain in the right leg. d. A review of Resident 61's admission Record, indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 61 on 9/26/2023 and readmitted Resident 61 on 10/10/2023. The admission Record indicated Resident 61's diagnoses included cerebral palsy (condition marked by impaired muscle coordination and/or other disabilities, typically caused by damage to the brain before or at birth), diabetes mellitus, contractures of both knees, muscle weakness, and attention to the G-tube. A review of Resident 61's physician orders, dated 11/20/2023, indicated for RNA to provide PROM with 10 repetitions to both arms and both legs followed by applying splints to both elbows and both knees for 4-6 hours, five times per week. A review of Resident 61's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 61 was severely impaired for daily decision making, had ROM impairments to both arms and both legs, and was dependent for rolling to either side, transferring from sit to lying, chair/bed-to-chair transfers, oral hygiene, showering/bathing, and dressing. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 9:42 a.m., in Resident 61's room, Resident 61 was observed awake while lying in bed. RNA 1 was standing on the left side of Resident 61's bed and provided PROM to Resident 61's left arm, and RNA 3 was standing on the right side of Resident 61's bed and provided PROM to Resident 61's right arm. RNA 1 and RNA 3 provided PROM to both of Resident 61's arms at the same time but each RNA was performing different types of PROM on different joints. RNA 1 applied an elbow splint to the left arm, and then RNA 3 applied an elbow splint to the right arm. Resident 61 did not receive any PROM to both wrists and hands. Resident 61's bed sheet was removed from both legs. Resident 61's hips were pressed together and bent upward toward Resident 61's body while the knees were almost completely bent downward. RNA 3 and RNA 1 attempted to move both of Resident 61's legs away from each other. RNA 3 held the right leg away from the body while RNA 1 straightened and bent the left hip and knee. RNA 1 then held the left leg away from the body while RNA 3 straightened and bent the right hip and knee. Resident 61 moaned and was loudly breathing during the leg exercises. RNA 3 stated Resident 61 was probably feeling slight discomfort from the PROM exercises on the legs. RNA 3 and RNA 1 then applied both knee splints. Resident 61 did not receive any PROM to both ankles. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 9:58 a.m., RNA 1 and RNA 3 stated they performed PROM exercises to both arms and both legs at the same time since Resident 61 was very stiff. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:24 a.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the ROM exercises that the RNAs were expected to perform for each arm included shoulder flexion and extension, shoulder abduction and adduction, elbow flexion and extension, wrist flexion and extension, and finger flexion and extension. The DOR stated it was important to perform ROM exercises to each joint to improve circulation and prevent stiffness. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:36 a.m. with Physical Therapist 1 (PT 1), PT 1 stated the ROM exercises that the RNAs were expected to perform for each leg included hip flexion and extension, hip abduction and adduction, knee flexion and extension, and ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion to prevent contractures. A review of the facility's undated Job Description and Performance Standards tilted, Restorative Nursing Assistant, indicated responsibilities included providing restorative nursing care as outlined by the physician orders. 2. A review of RNA 1's personnel file indicated a document titled, Certified Nursing Assistant Skills Competency Review, dated 5/12/2023. A review of RNA 2's personnel file indicated a document titled, Certified Nursing Assistant Skills Competency Review, dated 10/20/2023. A review of RNA 3's personnel file indicated a document titled, Certified Nursing Assistant Skills Competency Review, dated 5/19/2023. A review of RNA 4's personnel file indicated a document titled, Certified Nursing Assistant Skills Competency Review, dated 5/19/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/31/2024 at 11:12 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), RNA 1, RNA 2, RNA 3, and RNA 4's personnel files were reviewed. The DSD stated RNAs were Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) with more specific job duties which included weighing each resident, applying splints (material used to restrict, protect, or immobilize a part of the body to support function, assist and/or increase range of motion), performing ROM exercises, assisting the CNAs to transfer residents, and assisting with mobility, like ambulation (the act of walking) and sit to stand transfers. The DSD stated competency evaluations for nursing staff occurred annually to ensure the staff was qualitied to perform job duties and responsibilities and ensure safety for the residents. The DSD reviewed all four personnel files and stated RNA 1, RNA 2, RNA 3, and RNA 4 had a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Skills Competency Review since they were also CNAs. The DSD stated the competency skills to apply splints and obtain weights was not included in the CNA Skills Competency Review. The DSD reviewed all four RNA personnel files and stated all four RNAs did not a competency skill evaluation specific to the RNA job duties. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Competency of Nursing Staff, revised 10/2017, indicated nursing assistants employed by the facility will demonstrate specific competencies and skills sets deemed necessary to care for the needs of residents. The P&P also indicated competency evaluations will include the ability to use tools, devices, or equipment used to care for residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the standardized recipes for the lunch menu was followed on 5/28/2024 when the following occurred: 1. Ten residents re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the standardized recipes for the lunch menu was followed on 5/28/2024 when the following occurred: 1. Ten residents receiving a puree diet (foods that do not require chewing and are easily swallowed, all foods should be smooth and pureed to the consistency of pudding) received lasagna in a texture or form that met their needs. The pureed lasagna was lumpy, not smooth and had large pieces of pasta present requiring chewing before swallowing. 21 residents receiving a mechanical soft diet (provides foods that are easily chewed) received toasted garlic bread with a hard crust per the spreadsheet (food portion and serving guide) and menu. 2. Ensure staff followed food production recipes for the dysphagia diet (foods that are moist, mechanically altered requiring little chewing and does not fall apart when swallowed) during lunch preparation and tray line observation. Two residents on a Dysphagia diet received chopped lasagna instead of the ground turkey patty with chopped pasta and green beans cut to ½ inch. 3. Follow the lunch menu and portion sizes as written for residents on a pureed diet. 10 residents on a pureed diet received ½ cup of lasagna instead of 1 cup per the food portion and serving guide. These deficient practices had the potential to result in meal dissatisfaction, decreased nutritional intake, weight loss, and increased choking risk for 10 residents who were receiving a pureed diet, and 21 residents receiving a mechanical soft diet. Findings: 1. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 11:30 AM, in the kitchen, Dietary Aide (DA) 2 was preparing garlic bread. DA 2 spread butter, garlic powder, parmesan cheesed and seasonings on sliced white bread, then placed the garlic bread in the hot oven. DA 2 stated garlic bread was served with the lasagna for lunch. During an observation of the lunch tray line service on 5/28/2024 at 11:55 AM, the pureed lasagna was dry and not smooth. The garlic bread when removed from the oven, was light brown in color, dry and toasted. When DA 2 sliced the bread in half using a knife, there was a crunch sound. During the same observation for lunch service on 5/28/2024 at 11:55 AM, residents receiving a regular diet and mechanical soft diet received the same dry and toasted garlic bread. During an interview with DA 2 on 5/28/2024 at 12:30 PM, DA 2 stated she was making more garlic bread. DA 2 stated some of the garlic bread was dry. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 12:45 PM with the Dietary Supervisor (DS) and [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated pureed food should be the consistency of mashed potatoes. [NAME] 1 stated it was important to make the food smooth, so residents were able to swallow. [NAME] 1 stated the pureed lasagna served for lunch did not look smooth because there were pieces of noodles. The DS stated the garlic bread was left in the oven for too long and became dry. The DS stated residents receiving a mechanical soft diet, should receive soft bread per the menu because they could have problems with eating the dry bread. During a subsequent interview and taste tray test of the pureed lasagna on 5/28/2024 at 12:45 PM, with the DS and [NAME] 1, the pureed lasagna was thick with lumpy texture. There were some chunky pieces that required chewing and moving around in the mouth before swallowing. The DS stated the consistency of the pureed lasagna was not smooth and there were large pieces of noodles requiring chewing before swallowing. The DS stated residents receiving a pureed diet could have difficulty swallowing. [NAME] 1 stated the pureed lasagna should have been blended longer for a smooth texture. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Pureed Diet, dated 2018 indicated the puree diet provides foods that do not require chewing and are easily swallowed. The P&P indicated all foods should be smooth and pureed to the consistency of pudding. A review of the facility policy titled Mechanical soft diet (dated 2018) indicated, diet proved foods that are easily chewed. It is appropriate for individuals who have chewing problems, poor dentures, and minor swallowing problems. Foods suggested soft breads. A review of facility spreadsheet for lunch (portion and serving guide) on 5/28/2024 indicated for mechanical soft diet: Zesty Lasagna no hard edges, Italian [NAME] beans (soft), Garlic Bread (soft no hard crust), Peanut butter cookies (soft). Pureed diet: Zesty Lasagna pureed (1 cup), Italian green beans pureed, garlic bread pureed. 2. A review of the Lunch Menu for Dysphagia Mechanical diet dated 5/28/2024, indicated the following ground turkey patties served with #10 scoop yielding 3 ounces (oz., unit of measurement) moist with 1 oz. sauce, pasta ½ cup chopped ½ mash would be served. During an observation of the lunch tray line service on 5/28/2024, at 11:55 AM, [NAME] 1 served lasagna and regular green beans for the residents who were receiving a dysphagia diet (finally chopped to prevent choking). During a concurrent review of the Menu and interview on 5/28/2024 at 12:45 PM, with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated she made a mistake and did not follow the menu for the dysphagia mechanical diet (finally chopped/minced). [NAME] 1 stated the residents receiving a dysphagia diet should receive ground turkey with sauce and chopped pasta on the side. During a subsequent interview on 5/28/2024 at 12:45 PM, with the DS, the DS stated the cooks should always follow the menu for the different therapeutic diets (diets that are modified per physician's orders). A review of the Turkey Patties Recipe indicated, for Dysphagia diets, grind the turkey patties and serve with gravy to moisten. 3. A review of the lunch menu for the pureed diet dated 5/28/2024, indicated 1 cup of pureed zesty Lasagna; ½ cup of Italian green beans; parsley garnish flakes; pureed garlic bread; and pureed peanut butter cookies were to be served. During an observation of the lunch tray line service on 5/28/2024, at 11:55 AM, [NAME] 1 was observed serving pureed lasagna using #8 scoop yielding ½ cup instead of 1 cup for residents who were receiving a pureed diet. During a concurrent interview and review of the menu on 5/28/2024 at 12:45 PM, with [NAME] 1 and the DS, [NAME] 1 stated she served the wrong scoop size and served less food to residents who received a pureed diet. [NAME] 1 stated it was important to make sure the correct amount was served because serving less food to the residents could result in weight loss. The DS stated the cooks should always follow the menu and the serving guide to serve the correct amount. The DS stated not serving the correct portion, could result in residents not receiving the right calories and protein. A review of facility menu and spreadsheet dated 5/28/2024, indicated to serve 1 cup of pureed lasagna for residents receiving a pureed diet.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and preparation practices when: 1. One staff working in the dish washing area did not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and preparation practices when: 1. One staff working in the dish washing area did not wash their hands before removing the clean and sanitized dishes from the dish machine. 2. Expired food brought to residents from outside of the facility were stored in the resident food refrigerator. There was coffee from staff stored in the refrigerator. The refrigerator had no thermometer and monitoring system for the refrigerator temperatures. These deficient practices had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to food borne illness in 67 out of 74 residents who received food from the facility, including residents who had food stored in the resident refrigerator. Findings: 1. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 8:45 AM, in the dishwashing area, DA 1 was observed rinsing soiled dishes and loading the dirty dishes in the dish machine while wearing gloves. DA 1 dipped his hands in a bucket filled with water located inside the manual dishwashing sink next to the dishwashing machine. DA 1 shook the excess water off his hands while still wearing the same gloves and proceeded to remove the clean and sanitized dishes from the dish machine. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 9:00 AM, with DA 1, DA 1 stated there was usually two people working in the dish machine area to help remove the clean and sanitized dishes. DA 1 stated he was cleaning his gloves in the sanitizer water before removing the clean dishes. DA 1 stated he should remove the dirty gloves, wash his hands, and then replace the gloves before touching the clean and sanitized dishes. DA 1 stated it was important to his wash hands to not contaminate the clean dishes. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 9:10 AM, with the DS, the DS stated the dishwasher should wash their hands and replace their gloves after working with the dirty dishes and before removing the clean and sanitized dishes. A review of facility's P&P titled, Glove Use Policy, dated 2023, indicated gloved hands are considered a food contact surface that can get contaminated or soiled. The P&P indicated disposable gloves are a single use item and should be discarded after each use. The P&P indicated to wash hands when changing to a fresh pair when gloves need to be changed, before beginning a different task, and as soon as they become soiled. 2. During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 11:30 AM, of the resident refrigerator located in the activity room, there was no thermometer. There was one large container of cold coffee with no label or date. There was a box with 5 small bottles of expired liquid turmeric health tonics (herbal drinks) with a use by date of 5/2/2024. There were 5 yogurt containers and 10 applesauce individual containers with manufacture expiration date of 1/19/2024. During a concurrent interview on 5/29/2024 at 11:30 AM, with the Activity Director (AD), the AD stated the nurses checked the resident's food brought from outside. The AD stated if there was left over food, staff brought the food to the activity room for storage in the resident refrigerator. The AD stated she labeled and dated the food. The AD stated that she had not checked the temperature of the refrigerator since there was no thermometer. The AD stated the coffee belonged to the staff and should not be in the resident refrigerator. The AD stated the resident's family brought the yogurt and applesauce recently and she did not check the dates. The AD verified that the yogurt, applesauce, and turmeric herbal drinks were expired and removed them from the refrigerator. The AD stated it was important that the temperature of the refrigerator was monitored to make sure the food was safely stored. A review of facility's P&P titled, Foods Brought by Family/Visits, revised 3/2022, indicated food brought by family/visitors that is left with the resident to consume later is labeled and stored in manner that it is clearly distinguishable from facility prepared food. The P&P indicated perishable foods are stored in resealable containers with tightly fitting lids in a refrigerator. The P&P indicated containers are labeled with the resident's name, the item, and the use by date. The P&P indicated nursing staff will discard perishable foods on or before the use by date.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical records were maintained in accordance with acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the clinical records were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and complete accurately the Advance Directives Acknowledgement ([ADA]- a form gives you the right to give instructions about your own health care) for three of six sampled residents (Residents 8, 63, and 53). These deficient practices resulted in inaccurate, and incomplete medical records, and had the potential to result in uncertainty in the care and services for residents and placed residents at risk of not receiving care based on their wishes due to inaccurate and incomplete documentation for Residents 8, 63, and 53. Findings: a. A review of Resident 8's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 8 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes (high blood sugar), major depressive disorder (a mental health condition that causes loss of interest in activities of daily living), hypertension (high blood pressure), and muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 8's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 4/25/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 8 was self-understood and had the ability to understand others. The MDS also indicated Resident 8 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for toileting hygiene, shower, and chair, bed-to-chair transfer. A review of Resident 8's ADA, undated, the ADA form indicated Resident 8's initials, signature, and date was to be notated. The ADA also required facility staff signature, and date on the form. The ADA form was undated, there were no Resident 8's initials, and missing facility staff signature. b. A review of Resident 63's Face Sheet, indicated Resident 63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, heart failure (a condition when your heart doesn't pump enough blood for your body), and muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 63's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 63 self-understood and had the ability to understand others. The MDS also indicated Resident 8 was dependent from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, and chair, bed-to-chair transfer. A review of Resident 63's History and Physical (H&P) dated 1/16/2024, indicated Resident 63 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 63's ADA form indicated, Resident 8's initials, signature, and date next to the signature was required. The ADA form also requires facility staff signature, and date on the form. The ADA form was undated, and there were no initials for Resident 63 on the form. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/30/2024 at 9:01 a.m., with Social Services Director (SSD) Resident 8's and Resident 63's ADA form was reviewed. The SSD stated she was responsible for competing the ADA form. The SSD confirmed that Resident 8's, and Resident 63's ADA form were undated, missing Resident 8's, and Resident 63's initials which meant they were incomplete. The SSD stated the ADA form must be completed accurate per facility policy. The SSD stated it was important the form was accurate to ensure residents received treatment, and services needed. The SSD stated inaccurate ADA forms could lead to actions that could harm residents. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 10:42 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated Resident 8's and Resident 63's ADA form should have been completed accurately. The ADON stated the ADA form was a legal document that reflected the residents' medical needs and wishes and must be completed accurately per facility policy. c. A review of Resident 53's admission Record indicated Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with an admitting diagnosis that included but was not limited to: encounter for attention to gastrostomy (an opening into the stomach from the abdominal wall, made surgically for the introduction of food). A review of Resident 53's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 53 was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 53 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 53's ADA form, undated, indicated no date next to the signatures, which was required. During an interview on 5/30/2024, at 8:38 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN 1), RN 1 stated the ADA forms must be signed and dated to legitimize the document. A review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Advance Directives, revised 7/2012, indicated the following: 1. Prior to or upon admission of a resident to our facility, the Social Services Director or designee will provide written information to the resident concerning his/her right to make decisions concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, and the right to formulate advance directives. 2. Each resident will also be informed that our facility's policies do not condition the provision of care or discriminate against an individual based on whether or not the individual has executed an advance directive. 3. Prior to or upon admission of a resident, the Social Services Director or designee will inquire of the resident, and/or his/her family members, about the existence of any written advance directives. 4. Information about whether or not the resident has executed an advance directive shall be displayed prominently in the medical record. A review of facility's P&P titled Charting and Documentation, revised 7/2017, indicated: 1. Documentation in the medical record may be electronic, manual or a combination. 2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record. 3. Documentation in the medical record will be complete, and accurate. 4. Documentation will include details, including: a) The date and time. b) The name and title of the individual(s). c) The signature and title of the individual(s) documenting.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI - a systematic, interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and data-driven approach to maint...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI - a systematic, interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and data-driven approach to maintaining and improving safety and quality in nursing homes while involving residents, families, and nursing home caregivers) committee failed to identify, develop, and implement action plans to ensure: 1. Range of motion (ROM- full movement potential of a joint where two bones meet) was monitored for all residents. (see F-Tag F688) 2. Informed consent for psychotropic medications (drug that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood) including behavior monitoring and signature verification was done for all residents. (see F-Tag 758) 3. Informed consents were obtained for bed rails. (see F-Tag 700) 4. Physical therapy services were provided per physician's orders. (see F-Tag 825) 5. Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA- assists residents with exercises to improve or maintain mobility and independence) staff were competent to perform their duties as evidenced by: a. Residents with ROM concerns did not receive ROM exercises in accordance with physician orders and the facility's job description titled, Restorative Nursing Assistant. b. Four of four RNAs did not have an evaluation indicating each RNA was proficient (able to do something to a higher than average standard) to provide RNA services in accordance with the facility's policy titled, Competency of Nursing Staff. (F-Tag 726) These deficient practices had the potential to affect the health and safety of the residents. Findings: During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 4:30 p.m. with the Acting Administrator (AADM), the AADM verified that the QAPI Committee was unaware of the various facility issues, such as not monitoring ROM for all residents, not obtaining informed consents and behavior monitoring for residents receiving psychotropic medications, not assessing or obtaining informed consents for bed rails, not ensuring the competency of RNA staff, and not providing physical therapy services as ordered by the physician. The AADM stated the issues were not brought up during the QAPI meetings. The AADM stated that these concerns should have been addressed in the QAPI meetings. The AADM stated that patterns of informed consent issues should have been caught by the medical records department during medical record audits and the issue raised in the QAPI meetings. The AADM stated that residents need to be assessed and informed consents must be obtained as well as attempting alternative measures before implementing bed rails. The AADM also stated that if a resident was admitted for physical therapy/occupational therapy (PT/OT), the rehabilitation department must assess the resident. The AADM stated that since there was a concern regarding ROM in 2022, the QAPI Committee should have picked ROM as a QAPI goal. The AADM stated that it was important to identify the issues in QAPI to prevent the decline of residents with issues that were not identified. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program, dated 2001 and revised February 2020, indicated the facility shall develop, implement, and maintain an ongoing, facility-wide, data-driven QAPI program that is focused on the indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life for our residents. The P&P indicated the QAPI plan describes the process for identifying and correcting quality deficiencies. The P&P indicated key components of the process included: a. tracking and measuring performance, b. establishing goals and thresholds for performance measurement, c. identifying and prioritizing quality deficiencies, d. systematically analyzing underlying causes of systemic quality deficiencies, e. developing and implementing corrective action or performance improvement activities, and f. monitoring or evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action/performance improvement activities and revising as needed.
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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure standard infection control practices were foll...

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 standard infection control practices were followed for seven of by failing to: 1. Ensure Resident 22 and Resident 24's oxygen nasal cannula tubing (a device used to deliver supplemental oxygen placed directly in a resident's nostrils) was dated, properly stored when not in use, and was off the floor, and ensure Resident 69's nebulizer (a drug delivery device used to administer medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs) mask was dated, labeled, properly stored when not in use, and was not touching the floor. 2. Ensure the Social Services Director (DSD) and Registered Nurse (RN) 1 removed their gloves when moving between Resident 33 and Resident 274, and Resident 17 and Resident 13. 3. Ensure contact precautions were followed when Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 put his hand in his pocket with contaminated gloves, and failed to perform hand hygiene after cleaning a contaminated blood pressure cuff used on Resident 61. These deficient practices had the potential to result in cross-contamination and placed Residents 22, 24, 69, 33, 274, 17, 13, and 61, and all other residents residing in the facility at high risk for the spread of infections. Findings: 1a. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 10:38 a.m., in Resident 22's room, Resident 22's oxygen nasal cannula was observed touching the floor next to Resident 22's bed. The oxygen tubing was undated. A review of Resident 22's admission Record (Face Sheet), indicated Resident 22 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD]- a lung disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems), diabetes (high blood sugar), heart failure ( a condition when your heart doesn't pump enough blood for your body's needs), and muscle weakness (loss of muscle strength). A review of Resident 22's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 4/21/2024, indicated Resident 22 was self-understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 22 required maximum assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from staff for dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and was dependent (helper does all the effort) from staff with transfer, and showers. A review of Resident 22's Order Summary Report dated 11/25/2023, indicated to administer oxygen (O2) at two liters per minute (2LPM) via nasal cannula. b. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:43 a.m., in Resident 24's room, Resident 24's oxygen cannula tubing was observed on the floor under Resident 24's bed. The oxygen tubing was undated. A review of Resident 24's admission Record (Face Sheet), indicated Resident 24 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including seizure (uncontrolled body movements that occur because of abnormal electric activity in the brain), heart failure, and diabetes. A review of Resident 24's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 24 was self- understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 24 required supervision assistance (helper provides verbal cues, and contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, dressing, and walking. A review of Resident 24's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/20/2023, indicated Resident 24 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 24's Order Summary Report dated 7/6/2020, indicated to administer O2 at 2LPM via nasal cannula. c. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 9:12 a.m., in Resident 69's room, Resident 69's nebulizer mask was observed touching the floor next to Resident 69's bed. The oxygen tubing was undated and the nebulizer machine was unlabeled. A review of Resident 69's admission Record (Face Sheet), indicated Resident 69 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure (a condition where there's not enough oxygen in your body), diabetes, muscle weakness, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 69's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 69 was self-understood and usually understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 69 was dependent from staff for toileting hygiene, shower, and require moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) for oral, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 69's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 5/2024, indicated was to receive O2 at 2LPM via nasal cannula. A review of Resident 69's care plan initiated 2/19/2024, and revised 2/19/2024, indicated to administer oxygen at 2LPM via nasal cannula. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/28/2024 at 2:30 p.m., with Resident 69, in Resident 69's room, Resident 69 was observed lying in bed, well groomed, dressed in a hospital gown. Resident 69's nebulizer machine on the top of Resident 69's nightstand by the resident's bed. The undated nebulizer mask was on the floor. Resident 69 stated he had been using the nebulizer machine and nebulizer mask sometimes, not every day. During an interview on 5/29/2024 10:29 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN 1). RN 1 stated nasal cannula tubing and nebulizer masks should be changed weekly, dated, and placed in a bag next to the residents' bed when not in use. RN 1 stated if the nasal cannula was touching the floor, it was unsanitary and could lead to infection issues. RN 1stated if the nasal cannula and nebulizer mask was not stored properly in the bag it was possible for contamination (making something dirty, containing unwanted substances). RN 1 stated the contamination could produce respiratory problems and place the residents at risk for infection. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 10:42 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated the oxygen nasal cannula and nebulizer mask should be dated, changed weekly, and placed in the bag next to the residents' bed. The ADON stated was important that the respiratory equipment was dated, and labeled so staff would know when it was last changed. The ADON stated it was important to place the nasal cannula, and nebulizer mask in the bag to prevent contamination, and respiratory infections. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) tilted Policy and Procedure on Nebulizer, revised 7/2012, indicated the nebulizer machine should be labeled and dated of the resident's name using the nebulizer. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled Oxygen Administration, revised 12/2014, indicated to store cannula or mask so as not to touch the floor when not in use. A review of facility's P&P, titled Oxygen Therapy, revised 1/2024, indicated oxygen tubing is to be replaced once a week. The P&P indicated oxygen masks or nasal prongs are to be replaced once a week. 3. A review of Resident 61's admission Record indicated Resident 61 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 61's diagnoses included cerebral palsy (a condition that develops before birth which affects movement and posture with exaggerated reflexes, floppy or rigid limbs, and involuntary motions) and major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life) with a single episode of severe psychotic features (seeing or hearing stimuli that is not there, having false beliefs, and confused or disturbed thoughts). A review of Resident 61's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 61 was severely cognitively impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 61 required total dependence for care with nutrition, hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing, and moving. A review of Resident 61's Physician Orders, dated 11/6/2024 indicated an order for contact precautions (precautions used in the care of patients known or suspected to have a serious illness easily transmitted by direct patient contact or by indirect contact with items in the patient's environment) for Candida Auris ([C. Auris] a fungal infection). During an observation on 5/29/2024 at 8:05 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 was observed in Resident 61's room taking Resident 61's blood pressure while wearing gloves. LVN 3 then put his gloved hand in his pocket and pulled out a pulse oximetry (a noninvasive small device used in measuring the saturation of oxygen in a person's blood) to take Resident 61's pulse and oxygen saturation (how much oxygen is in the blood). After LVN 3 left the room, he put on another pair of gloves, decontaminated his equipment (blood pressure cuff and pulse oximetry) using disinfectant wipes but did not perform hand hygiene after cleaning the equipment. LVN 3 then proceeded to use his computer. A review of the facility P&P titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 6/2012, indicated the purpose of the policy was to prevent the spread of infections with hand washing and hand hygiene. The P&P indicated staff were to perform hand washing after contact with the resident's intact skin and after handling contaminated equipment. A review of the facility P&P titled Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions, dated 1/2024, indicated contact precautions are implemented for residents known or suspected to be infected with microorganisms that can be transmitted by direct contact with the resident or indirect contact with environmental surfaces or resident-care items in the resident's environment. The P&P indicated staff were to: a. Wear gloves while entering the room. b. Gloves are removed, and hand hygiene performed before leaving the room. c. Staff are to wear a disposable gown upon entering the room and remove before leaving the room and avoid touching potentially contaminated surfaces with clothing after the gown is removed. 2a. A review of Resident 33's admission Record, indicated Resident 33 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 33's diagnoses included legal blindness (when person can see, but only in a very small window in the eye) and dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning, thinking, remembering, and reasoning, to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities). A review of Resident 33's History and Physical (H&P) dated 1/18/2024, indicated Resident 33 did have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 33's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 33's vision was severely impaired. The MDS indicated that Resident 33's cognitive skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 33 required supervision for eating, oral hygiene and for personal hygiene. b. A review of Resident 274's admission Record, indicated Resident 274 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 274's diagnoses included post laminectomy syndrome (a condition in which the patient continues to feel pain after undergoing back surgery) and overactive bladder (a problem with bladder function that causes the sudden need to urinate). A review of Resident 274's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 274's cognitive skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 274 required supervision for eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. c. A review of Resident 17's admission Record, indicated Resident 17 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 17's diagnoses included hemiplegia (a condition caused by a brain injury, that results in a varying degree of weakness, stiffness and lack of control in one side of the body) and gastrostomy (creation of an artificial external opening into the stomach for nutritional support). A review of Resident 17's H&P dated 10/15/2023, indicated Resident 17 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 17's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 17 had unclear speech, had minimal difficulty in hearing, and impaired vision. The MDS indicated Resident 17 rarely understood others and rarely made herself understood. The MDS indicated that Resident 17's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 17 was dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 17 was dependent on staff for all movements in bed or transfers. d. A review of Resident 13's admission Record, indicated Resident 13 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 13's diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort in swallowing, as a symptom of disease) and gastrostomy. A review of Resident 13's H&P dated 8/31/2023, indicated Resident 13 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 13's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 13 had unclear speech, sometimes understood others, sometimes made herself understood, and impaired vision. The MDS indicated that Resident 13's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required maximal assistance for all activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required maximal assistance for rolling left to right in bed, from sitting positioning to lying position and from lying position to sitting on the side of the bed. During an observation on 5/28/2024 at 10:26 a.m., in Resident 33's and Resident 274's room, the SSD entered the room wearing a gown, mask and gloves. The SSD assisted Resident 33 by giving her a yogurt and setting the resident up to eat. The SSD placed a towel under Resident 33's chin and handed her a spoon. The SSD did not remove her gloves or perform hand hygiene and proceeded to assist Resident 274. The SSD went to Residents 274's nightstand and removed a coffee drink from the nightstand and handed the drink to Resident 274. The SSD touched Resident 274's side table and brought it closer to Resident 274. The SSD did not remove her gloves and returned to Resident 274's bedside. The SSD used a towel to clean up the yogurt that Resident 274 had on her face. The SSD touched Resident 274's hair and covered the resident with sheets without performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 10:31 a.m. with the SSD, the SSD stated she put on a gown and gloves to reduce the risk of getting an infection prior to entering the room because the residents were on precautions. The SSD stated it was acceptable to use the same personal protective equipment between residents as long as the residents were in the same room. The SSD stated she forgot to remove her gloves between residents. The SSD stated she should have removed her gloves to prevent the spread of an infection. During an interview on 5/29/2024 at 3:12 p.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP) Nurse, the IP Nurse stated all staff must remove gloves prior to providing care for another resident. The IP Nurse stated it was unacceptable to use the same pair of gloves when coming in contact with other residents' belongings or providing care to another resident. The IP Nurse stated it was important to remove gloves prior to coming in contact with other residents to prevent the spread of infections. e. During an observation on 5/31/2024 at 8:31 a.m., in Resident 13 and Resident 17's room, RN 1 was observed assisting Resident 13. RN 1 did not remove her gloves after touching Resident 13's privacy curtain. RN 1 then proceeded to Resident 17's bedside and touched Resident 17's gastrotomy tube (G-tube, a tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) equipment. RN 1 did not remove her gloves when she moved from Resident 13 to Resident 17. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 8:42 a.m. with the IP Nurse, the IP Nurse stated RN 1 should have changed her gloves when touching the resident's G-tube equipment. The IP Nurse stated the gloves should have been changed to prevent the spread of infections. A review of the facility's P&P titled Standard Infection Precautions, dated 6/2012, indicated standard infection precautions will be employed in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnoses or presumed infection status. The P&P indicated staff were to remove gloves immediately after use, before touching non-contaminated items and environmental surfaces, and prior to going to another resident, and wash hands immediately to avoid transfer of microorganisms to other residents or environments. A review of the facility's P&P titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated 7/12/2022, indicated personal protective equipment is removed before exiting room or before providing care to another resident in same room.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

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 assess the need for modifications to the call light s...

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 assess the need for modifications to the call light system for one out of eight (8) residents, (Resident 27) by failing to: 1. Ensure the facility the call light for Resident 27 working properly and alarmed when activated by Resident 27. 2. Ensure the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) reported Resident 27's call light needed repair and was not working to the Maintenance Supervisor (MS). These deficient practices resulted in a delay in obtaining necessary care and services and placed Resident 27 at risk for an accident if called for help. Findings: A review of Resident 27's admission Record indicated Resident 27 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs) and heart failure (progressive heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscles that causes fatigue, shortness of breath). A review of Resident 27's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/22/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 27 had the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. A review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/25/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 27's cognitive skills (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 27 needed supervision (the helper provides verbal cues, touching contact as resident completes activity) for toileting hygiene, dressing, and for showers/baths. The MDS indicated Resident 27 needed supervision for toilet transfer (the ability to get on and off a toilet or commode), to move from sit to stand position, and to walk for at least 10 feet. During an interview with Resident 27 on 5/30/2024 at 12:38 p.m., in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 stated he pushed his call light earlier, but no one came to his room to assist him. Resident 27 stated he needed some help but now, it was too late. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 1:25 p.m. with CNA 1, in the hallway, CNA 1 stated it was her responsibility to check on her resident's call lights and make sure they were accessible and working. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/31/2024 at 8:17 a.m. with Resident 27, in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 pushed his call light and the call light did not work. Resident 27 stated he couldn't believe that the call light was not working. Resident 27 stated maybe that was the reason staff did not come to his room to assist him when he called for help. Resident 27 stated if he needed help, how would he get it, if his call light did not work. Resident 27 stated he asked his CNA for ice water, but the CNA never came to give him ice water. Resident 27 stated he had been pushing his call light, but no one came to his room to help him. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/31/2024 at 10:29 a.m. with CNA 1, in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 call light and his call light did not work. CNA 1 stated the call light should light up inside the room and outside the room, but it was not working. CNA 1 stated that it was her job to check if Resident 27 had a working call light. CNA 1 stated it was important to have a working call light because it was the way residents communicated their needs. CNA 1 stated she wanted to be truthful and say that she did not check his call light today and did not remember when the last time she actually checked the call light to see if it worked. CNA 1 stated she would notify maintenance to fix the call light today, 5/31/2024. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 2:36 p.m. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), in the hallway, the MS stated not all call lights were checked every day. The MS stated he randomly picked three rooms daily and checked their call light system. The MS stated he was not aware that Resident 27's call light was not working. The MS stated the CNA 1 did not inform him that a call light needed to be repaired. The MS stated it was important that every resident had a working call light because that was the way the residents communicated their needs. During a review of facility's Policy and procedure (P&P) titled Call Lights, dated 1/2024, the P&P indicated it was the facility's purpose to provide the residents a means of communication with nursing staff. The P&P indicated if call light was defective, staff must promptly report this information to the unit supervisor for immediate repair or replacement.
Dec 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive and resident-centered care plan to address the risk of exposure to COVID-19 (a highly contagious respiratory illness caused by a virus that can easily spread from person to person) for two of four sampled residents (Residents 1 and Resident 2). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the delivery of nursing care and medical interventions to Residents 1 and 2. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included neuromyelitis optica (a rare condition where the immune system damages the spinal cord and the nerves of the eyes (optic nerves), major depressive disorder (a common and serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act.), exposure to COVID-19. During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 11/30/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had fluctuating capacity to understand a make decision. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive assessment and care-screening tool), dated 11/17/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had clear cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions). During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility 9/24/2020. Resident 2's diagnoses included major depressive disorder (a common and serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act.), hemiplegia (a condition caused by brain damage or spinal cord injury that leads to paralysis or weakness on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness or the inability to move on one side of the body, making it hard to perform everyday activities like eating or dressing). During a review of Resident 2's H&P, dated 9/21/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had fluctuating capacity to understand a make decision. During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had clear cognition. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/7/23 at 2:28 p.m. with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN), Resident's 1 and Resident 2's care plans were reviewed. The IPN stated there was no care plan developed for Resident 1 nor Resident 2. The IPN stated there should have been a care plan developed for the risk of COVID-19. The IPN stated a care plan was developed for residents with interventions that nursing follows to make sure care was being rendered. The IPN stated if a care plan was not completed there could possibly be a missed opportunity for care rendered to the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/7/23 at 2:43 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident's 1 and Resident 2's care plans were reviewed. The DON stated neither Resident 1 nor Resident 2 had a care plan for exposure to COVID-19. The DON stated care plans were developed to show a focused plan of care on taking care of the residents. The DON stated that if no care plan was developed it could affect the resident by potentially not getting the focused care needed. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plan, dated 2001, the P&P indicated, our facility develops a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and psychological needs. Care plans are revised as changes in the resident's condition dictate. Reviews are made at least quarterly.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control measures by failing to: 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control measures by failing to: 1. Ensure a COVID-19 (Coronavirus, a highly contagious respiratory illness caused by a virus that can easily spread from person to person) outbreak was reported to the proper California Department of Public Health (CDPH) District Office. 2. Ensure staff was performing proper hand hygiene when going from one resident room to another resident room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in the spread of Coronavirus to residents and staff that could cause respiratory illness, hospitalization, and death. Findings: a. During an observation on 12/7/2023 at 10:00 a.m., the facility's highlighted floor map was noted to have 3 (three) COVID positive rooms and 2 (two) rooms that residents were exposed to close contacts upon entrance. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/7/2023 at 12:04 p.m. with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN), the All Facilities Letter 23-08 ([AFL] a letter from the Center for Health Care Quality [CHCQ], Licensing and Certification [L&C] Program to health facilities that are licensed or certified by L&C) was reviewed. The IPN stated the COVID outbreak was reported to the Research Electronic Data Capture ([REDCap] an application that provides facilities a platform to report COVID-19 data and other information to DPH) and to the National Healthcare Safety Network ([NHSN] a national healthcare-associated infection reporting system developed and maintained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on 12/4/2023 after testing the first COVID positive resident. The IPN stated, I did not know I had to report to the local District Office. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/7/2023 at 12:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the AFL 23-08 was reviewed. The DON stated the AFL letters were used for guidance. The DON stated the letter stated you should report to the local District Office. The DON stated, We did not know about this. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated October 2018, the P&P indicated, Outbreak Management, Outbreak management is a process that consists of: reporting the information to appropriate public health authorities. b. During an observation on 12/7/2023 at 10:40 a.m. in resident room [ROOM NUMBER], a certified nursing assistant (CNA) was observed exiting the room wearing gloves. The CNA removed the gloves and walked into another resident room without performing hand hygiene. During an observation on 12/7/2023 at 10:49 a.m. in resident room [ROOM NUMBER], a CNA was observed fixing the resident's bed and straightening the resident's room. The CNA exited the room without performing hand hygiene and went directly to room [ROOM NUMBER] to assist a resident without performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 12/7/2023 at 11:30 a.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated hand sanitizing should happen before and leaving a room. CNA 1 stated you should never go from one resident room to another without hand sanitizing. CNA 1 stated if hand sanitizing was not performed it could affect the resident potentially spreading a bacteria, virus, or anything. During an interview on 12/7/2023 at 11:39 a.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated you should never go in or out of a resident's room without hand sanitizing. CNA 2 stated if you do not hand sanitize and go between residents you could possibly spread a pathogen like COVID-19, clostridioides difficile (c. diff, is a germ [bacterium] that causes diarrhea and colitis [an inflammation of the colon]), any infection or virus. CNA 2 stated this could possibly make residents sick depending on their health issues. During an interview on 12/7/2023 at 11:50 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated the facility used universal precautions, when going in and out of the resident rooms you need to perform hand hygiene. LVN 1 stated if hand hygiene was not done, there could be cross contamination from resident to resident. LVN 1 stated that on performing hand hygiene could potentially harm a resident by spreading bacteria or any other viruses around. During an interview on 12/7/2023 at 12:04 p.m. with the IPN, the IPN stated all staff should perform hand hygiene before entering and leaving a resident room. The IPN stated this was important not to cross contaminate. The IPN stated not performing hand hygiene could bring one infection to another resident and visa versa. During an interview on 12/7/2023 at 12:30 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated hand hygiene was very important for infection control. The DON stated hand hygiene should be performed before entering and when exiting a resident's room. The DON stated if hand hygiene was not done it could potentially transfer infection from one resident to another. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 6/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to consider Handwashing/Hand hygiene to be the single most important means of preventing the spread of infections. The P&P indicated all personnel shall adhere to our established hand washing/hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection and disease to other personnel, resident, and visitors. If hands are not visibly soiled, use an alcohol-based hand rub containing 60-95% ethanol or isopropanol for all the following situations: Before direct contact with residents. After removing gloves. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Standard Infection Precautions, dated 6/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility that standard infection precautions will be employed in the care of all residents regardless of their diagnoses or presumed infection status. Hand washing, wash hands immediately after gloves are removed, between resident contacts. Remove gloves immediately after use, before touching non-contaminated items and environmental surfaces, and prior to going to another resident, and wash hands immediately to avoid transfer of microorganisms to other residents or environments.
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0620 (Tag F0620)

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 staff failed to ensure the admission agreement (contract) was reviewed, completed and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the staff failed to ensure the admission agreement (contract) was reviewed, completed and signed by the resident or responsible party, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident 1), at the time of admission according to the facility's admission policy. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 not being informed of his rights, financial responsibilities, Medicare or Medicaid benefit, and had the potential that concerns about admissions were not addressed. Findings A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included malignant neoplasm of kidney and renal pelvis (cancer in the kidney and the urinary tube), type 2 diabetes (DM-high blood sugar), and hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure). A review of Resident 1's history and physical (H&P) dated 7/19/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. A review of Resident 1's minimum data set ([MDS] a standardized care assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/31/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (thought process) was intact and could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance with one to two person assist with activities such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, transfer (moving between surfaces to and from bed, chair, and wheelchair) and bed mobility (how resident moves from lying to turning side to side). The MDS indicated Resident 1 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. A review of Resident 1's facility admission agreement (contract) indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE], and his admission packet was not reviewed and signed by the responsible party until 9/1/2023. During an interview on 11/27/2023 at 2:00 p.m. with the admissions coordinator, the admissions coordinator stated that when Resident 1 was admitted to the facility, she was off work and did not return until 8/16/2023. The admissions coordinator stated she was not made aware that Resident 1's admission packet had not been completed. The admissions coordinator stated that it is facility policy that the admission packet be signed and reviewed with the resident and/or family, the day the resident is admitted to the facility. The admissions coordinator stated that the importance of reviewing and signing the admission packet is so that the resident and/or family are aware of their rights to care and consent to treatment. During an interview on 11/27/2023 at 2:56 p.m. with the social service director (SSD), the SSD stated that she was assigned to cover the admissions coordinator during the time she was off work. The SSD stated that Resident 1's admission packet was not reviewed and signed because it was not communicated and endorsed to her that the admission packet had not been completed. The SSD stated it was important for the facility admission packet to be reviewed and signed upon admission, because the admission packet explains the rights of the resident, the rules and regulations, and consent to care and treatment. During an interview on 11/27/2023 at 3:45 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated that she was not aware that Resident 1's admission packet was reviewed and signed seven (7) weeks after Resident 1 was admitted to the facility. The DON stated that according to policy, the admissions packet should be signed and reviewed the day the resident is admitted to the facility. A review of the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled admission Agreement , revised August 2018, indicated at the time of admission, the resident (or his/her representative) must sign an admission agreement (contract).
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the personal belonging inventory list to 1 of 3 r...

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 a copy of the personal belonging inventory list to 1 of 3 residents, Resident 1, on admission. This deficient practice had the potential that Resident 1 won't be able to monitor his belongings and were placed at risk to go missing, misplaced, or stolen. Findings A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included malignant neoplasm of kidney and renal pelvis (cancer in the kidney and the urinary tube), type 2 diabetes (DM-high blood sugar), and hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure). A review of Resident 1's history and physical (H&P) dated 7/19/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. A review of Resident 1's minimum data set ([MDS] a standardized care assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/31/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (thought process) was intact and could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance with one to two person assist with activities such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, transfer (moving between surfaces to and from bed, chair, and wheelchair) and bed mobility (how resident moves from lying to turning side to side). The MDS indicated Resident 1 was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. A review of Resident 1's belongings list dated 7/19/2023 indicated Resident 1 had one (1) pair of glasses and one cellphone. A review of Resident 1's continuation of personal inventory list dated 9/1/2023, the inventory list indicated Resident 1 had the following: 1 tablet 1 tablet charger 2 cell phones 2 cell phone chargers During an interview on 11/21/2023 at 2:07 p.m., License Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated after completing Resident 1's belongings list, she did not provide a copy of the belongings list to Resident 1 or his family. LVN 1 stated she was not aware it was facility policy to provide a copy. LVN 1 stated the importance of providing a copy of the inventory list is so that the residents' personal items are being accounted for correctly. During an interview on 11/27/2023 at 3:24 p.m., LVN 2 stated upon completing the initial inventory list, she did not give Resident 1 a copy of the inventory list. LVN 2 stated she was under the impression that the residents or the family received a copy of the inventory list when they were being discharged from the facility. LVN 2 stated she was not aware that the was facility policy to provide a copy of the inventory list. LVN 2 stated the importance of providing a copy of the inventory list is so that it shows accountability for the resident's belongings. During an interview on 11/27/2023 at 3:45 p.m. with the director of nursing (DON)., the DON stated she was not aware the license nurses did not provide Resident 1 and his family a copy of the resident belongings list as indicated in the policy. DON stated she would provide an in-service to the nursing staff and re-educate them on the facility policy and procedures. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled Inventory of Personal Belongings List , revised 1/2015, indicated an inventory list of the resident's valuable shall be made at the time of admission and discharge. The resident/agent and a facility representative shall sign the list, and a copy shall be provided to the resident/agent, with the original placed in the health record. As the resident/agent notifies the facility of items of values either brought in or taken from the facility, the staff shall update the list. Both parties shall sign the updated list and a copy shall be provided to the resident/agent, with the original placed in the health record.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE, used to provide protection to the wearer from infectious agents) for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE, used to provide protection to the wearer from infectious agents) for a resident on COVID-19 isolation precautions for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had a potential to place Resident 1, other residents, and staff at risk for COVID-19 infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1's original admission date was on 6/8/2023 with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection (UTI [a common infection that happens when bacteria, often from the skin or rectum, enters the urethra, and infects the urinary tract]), primary and secondary malignant neoplasm of unspecified site (a new and abnormal growth of tissue [characteristic of cancer] that has spread to other parts of the body from the original site), chronic kidney disease, Stage 3 (mild to moderate damage to your kidneys, which do not work as well as they should to filter waste and extra fluid out of your blood), and anemia (a condition that develops when your blood produces a lower-than-normal amount of healthy red blood cells). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 6/20/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognition (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance from staff with transfer, locomotion on/off the unit, dressing, bathing, and limited assistance from staff with bed mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS also indicated Resident 1 required supervision from staff with eating. During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/10/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's SBAR Communication Form and Progress Note [The SBAR (Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation) technique provides a framework for communication between members of the health care team about a patient's condition], dated 7/29/2023, the SBAR indicated Resident 1 had a positive result for COVID-19 and a new physician order for room change for isolation measures. During a review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), for the month of July 2023, the MAR indicated Resident 1 was placed in novel respiratory isolation for 10 days beginning on 7/29/2023. The MAR also indicated for staff to use appropriate PPE: mask, face shield, gloves and gowns. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titiled, At Risk for Signs & Symptoms of COVID-19, initiated on 7/29/2023, the care plan interventions included the following: 1) resident to be on contact and droplet isolation precautions; 2) maintain adequate isolation supplies near the isolation room; 3) use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE's) such as mask, gloves, face shield and gown when providing care; 4) dedicated Licensed Nurse & certified nurse assistant (CNA) for continuous observation, assessment, monitoring and provision of resident needs; and 5) Staff to practice strict hand hygiene at all times. During an observation on 8/3/2023 at 11:20 a.m. in the Director of Nursing's (DON) office, in direct line of sight from Resident 1's COVID-19 isolation room, CNA 2 was observed exiting from Resident 1's room. CNA 2 was wearing a face mask and a face shield. CNA 2 was observed removing the face shield and placing it in a clear plastic bag, and then storing the bag in the top drawer of the clean isolation cart. No trash container was observed outside of Resident 1's room. During an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) Nurse on 8/3/2023 at 10:42 a.m., the IP stated there was one CNA and one registered nurse (RN) assigned to Resident 1, but both staff members also had a regular run (they also take care of other non-COVID-19 residents during the same shift). The IP stated there were no issues with PPE inventory and the facility had a two-week supply on hand plus a large supply in their facility warehouse. The IP stated there were a total of five staff that were confirmed COVID-19 positive with antigen testing, and the most recent one was confirmed on the morning of 8/3/2023. During an interview with CNA 1 on 8/3/2023 at 12:45 p.m., CNA 1 stated she was assigned to Resident 1 plus five other non-COVID/non-isolation residents. CNA 1 stated there was enough supplies at the facility, and did not have any concerns about the PPE supply. CNA 1 stated the PPE supplies were located in the isolation cart near Resident 1's room. If supplies run low, CNA 1 stated she would contact the Maintenance Department for additional supplies. CNA 1 stated she exited Resident 1's room with her face shield and face mask. CNA 1 stated she removed and disinfected the face shield, and then placed it in a clear plastic bag in the top drawer of the isolation cart because it would be reused when she has to care for Resident 1 again during the shift. CNA 1 stated she used the same face mask and did not discard it. CNA 1 stated she cared for the other residents on her assignment as needed, and it may be right after providing care for Resident 1. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) on 8/3/2023 at 1:30 p.m., LVN 1 stated she entered Resident 1's room and had spoken with Resident 1 during the times when she had to check the resident's blood pressure and give Resident 1 medications. LVN 1 stated she put on PPE before entering the room. LVN 1 stated she obtained PPE from the isolation cart located outside of Resident 1's room. LVN 1 stated she exited Resident 1's room with her face shield and face mask. LVN 1 stated she removed and disinfected the face shield and then placed it in a clear plastic bag in the top drawer of the isolation cart so it could be reused when she has to return to provide care again. LVN 1 stated she reused the face shield because the IP told the staff that they could reuse the face shield. LVN 1 stated she could not determine who the face shield belonged to since the clear plastic bags were not labeled with a name and there was no name on the face shield itself. During an interview with the IP on 8/3/2023 at 1:51 p.m, the IP stated she did not know why the staff was reusing the face shields from the COVID-19 isolation area. The IP stated the staff had not been instructed nor given in-services on reusing face shields. The IP stated she would remove and discard the face shield from the top drawer of Resident 1's isolation cart and inform nursing not to reuse the face shields. The IP stated all CNAs would be called into the Director of Staff Development's (DSD) office and instructed not to reuse the face shields. During an observation on 8/3/2023 at 2:05 p.m., an overhead page for of all CNAs to report to the DSD's office was heard. During an interview with the DON on 8/3/2023 at 3:45 p.m., the DON stated the CNA would don PPE before going into Resident 1's room and would exit with the face mask and face shield. The DON stated the CNA would place the face shield into a bag but did not know where the bag was kept. The DON acknowledged the facility did not have a shortage of PPE supplies at this time. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised 10/2018, the P&P indicated, An infection prevention and control program (IPCP) is established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The P&P indicated, Surveillance tools are used for recognizing the occurrence of infections .monitoring employee infection, monitoring adherence to infection prevention and control practices. The P&P further indicated, The important facets of infection prevention include educating staff and ensuring that they adhere to proper techniques and procedures, and The facility provides personal protective equipment, checks for its proper use.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 provided care and servi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 provided care and services to prevent an injury for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) by failing to: 1. Ensure CNA 1 provided two-person physical assistance (help from two person) when using a Hoyer Lift (mechanical lift, a device used by staff to transfer residents from a bed to a chair or other similar places) to transfer Resident 1 from Resident 1 ' s bed to the wheelchair. 2. Ensure CNA 1 used the Hoyer lift according to the manufacturer ' s instructions, indicating to use a two-person assistance for transferring a person to a wheelchair with one assistant behind the chair and the other operating the patient lift, the assistant behind the chair will pull back on the grab handle or sides of the sling to seat the patient well into the back of the chair. As a result, CNA 1 transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair on her own, without assistance, and the Hoyer lift hit Resident 1 in the left eye. Resident 1 was transferred to the general acute care hospital (GACH) due to the injury sustained to the left eye and was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion (a superficial scratch on the clear, protective window at the front of the eye [cornea]). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and was readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including glaucoma (a group of eye conditions that can cause blindness. The nerve connecting the eye to the brain is damaged, usually due to high eye pressure), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition that impairs the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel), difficulty in walking, and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/29/2022, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 2/3/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the capacity understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had total dependence for transfers out of bed and required two-person physical assistance. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Note, dated 3/18/2023, at 10:12 a.m., the note indicated at 9:45 a.m., the Charge Nurse reported Resident 1 was hit by the Hoyer lift and the resident was bleeding in the left eye. The note indicated Resident 1 was assessed and noted with a bloodshot left eye, with bloody tears coming out from it. The note indicated the facility's Medical Director was notified and ordered to transfer the resident to the hospital. During a review of CNA 1 ' s written statement, dated 3/18/2023, the statement indicated CNA 1 transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair using the mechanical lift without the assistance of another staff member. During a review of CNA 1 ' s Disciplinary Action Notice, dated 3/18/2023, the notice indicated, During patient transfer, an injury occurred. Resident was supposed to be 2-person assist; however, the resident was transferred by the CNA alone/without assistance from another CNA. The disciplinary action notice was signed by CNA 1 on 3/18/2023. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Resident Transfer and Referral Record, dated 3/18/2023, the record indicated Resident 1 was transferred via ambulance to a general acute care hospital (GACH) on 3/18/2023 for an injury to the left eye. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH After Visits Summary, dated 3/18/2023, the summary indicated Resident 1 was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion and decreased vision. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Follow-Up Investigation Report, dated 3/20/2023, the report indicated on 3/18/2023, an eye patch was applied to Resident 1 ' s left eye. The report indicated Resident 1 arrived from the GACH with a diagnosis of corneal abrasion related to injury. The report indicated the following physician ' s orders: 1. Erythromycin Ophthalmic Ointment (used to treat bacterial infections of the eye) 5 milligrams per gram (mg/g, unit of measurement) instill 1 application in the left eye every 6 hours for 7 days. 2. Fluorometholone Ophthalmic Suspension 0.1% (used to treat eye conditions caused by inflammation [swelling]) instill 1 drop in the left eye every 4 hours for 10 days. 3. Follow-up appointment with ophthalmologist (eye doctor) on 3/21/2023 at 11 a.m. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 11:51 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated she was the supervisor on 3/18/2023, day shift. RN 1 stated Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 reported CNA 1 used the Hoyer lift to transfer Resident 1 to the wheelchair and when CNA 1 moved the Hoyer lift away from the resident, Resident 1 leaned forward, and the cradle part of the lift hit the resident in the left eye. RN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s left eye sclera (the white outer layer of the eyeball) was blood red and had blood-tinged tears. RN 1 stated 911 (emergency services) was called and Resident 1 was transferred to the GACH via ambulance. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 12:02 p.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated on 3/18/2023, the Hoyer lift hit Resident 1 in the left eye, when CNA 1 transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair. LVN 1 stated it was required to have two-staff assistance when transferring a resident with the Hoyer lift. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 had not mentioned she had asked another staff for assistance when she transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 12:44 p.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she was caring for Resident 1 today, 3/31/2023. CNA 2 stated when she transferred Resident 1 from the bed to the wheelchair, she requested two to three staff for assistance to transfer the resident using the Hoyer lift for safety. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 1:22 p.m., with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated CNA 1 had not asked her for assistance to transfer Resident 1 to the wheelchair on 3/18/2023. CNA 3 stated when using the Hoyer lift, there should be at least two staff assisting for the safety of the resident and the staff. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 1:40 p.m., with CNA 5, CNA 5 stated CNA 1 had not asked her for help to transfer Resident 1 to the wheelchair on 3/18/2023. CNA 5 stated a minimum of two staff must be used when using the Hoyer lift and three staff should assist if the resident was heavier. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 2:07 p.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated the Hoyer lift must be used with a minimum of two staff. The DSD stated one staff controlled the mechanical lift and the other staff was to guide the lift and ensure the resident was safe. The DSD stated she had interviewed CNA 1 over the telephone and stated the first thing CNA 1 said was that she knew she was supposed to have another staff assist her when she transferred Resident 1 using the Hoyer lift. The DSD stated CNA 1 had not mentioned that she had asked anyone for help when she transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair. The DSD stated Resident 1 ' s accident was preventable because CNA 1 should have had another staff assist her when she transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair using the Hoyer lift. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 3 p.m., with Resident 1 in the hallway, Resident 1 stated CNA 1 had transferred her from the bed to the wheelchair using the Hoyer lift by herself. Resident 1 stated other staff had used the Hoyer lift and transferred her to the wheelchair by themselves, but this was the first time she got hurt. Resident 1 stated the Hoyer lift was not raised high enough and it moved and hit her in the left eye. Resident 1 stated it was very bad when the accident happened because the resident's eye was a very delicate area. Resident 1 stated she was very scared because her eye was all bloody and she was afraid she could lose her eye. During a telephone interview on 4/10/2023, at 12:10 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated on 3/18/2023, she transferred Resident 1 to the wheelchair using the Hoyer lift by herself. CNA 1 stated when she was retracting the Hoyer lift, Resident 1 leaned forward while she adjusted her blouse, and the metal bar of the Hoyer lift grazed (slightly hit) the resident ' s left eye. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 ' s left eye was bleeding a little bit and she went to get the Charge Nurse and the Supervisor to assess the resident. CNA 1 stated she was trained to use the Hoyer lift and was instructed to always have two-person assistance when transferring a resident, but she had transferred Resident 1 on her own. CNA 1 stated she did not remember if she had asked someone for assistance, but at the end of the day it was her fault because she should have had another staff member assist her. CNA 1 stated she was not thinking when she transferred Resident 1 on her own. CNA 1 stated it was a mistake that would not happen again. During a review of the facility ' s assistive devices lesson plan, dated 3/20/2023, the plan indicated the sling lift/Hoyer lift must be used with two staff members. During a review of the manufacturer instructions for the battery powered patient lift user manual, dated 10/18/2018, the manual indicated manufacturer recommended two assistants be used for all lifting and transfers. The manual indicated for transferring to a wheelchair one assistant behind the chair and the other operating the patient lift, the assistant behind the chair will pull back on the grab handle or sides of the sling to seat the patient well into the back of the chair. This will maintain a good center of balance and prevent the chair from tipping forward. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Mechanical Lift Use, undated, the P&P indicated, The mechanical lift shall be used according to the manufacturer ' s instruction booklet. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Mechanical Lift (Hoyer Brand), dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to move a resident who is totally dependent in transfer by a mechanical means for resident ' s safety. The P&P indicated the procedure must be performed by nursing assistants or licensed nurses who have been in-serviced on use of the device. The P&P indicated, as one person (First person) operates and maneuvers the lift, Move lift slowly away from bed. (Second person should guide the sling.) .First person to lower the patient down SLOWLY, and the second person guides the resident into the chair.
Mar 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 properly assess one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) after th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to properly assess one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) after the resident experienced a change in behavior. This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 1 experiencing adverse effects due to Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 failing to recognize a change in condition (COC) and signs and symptoms related to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar level). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition that impairs the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel) and hypertension (condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/12/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/23/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision and set-up only for bed mobility, required limited, one-person assistance for transfers out of bed, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and was independent for eating. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report, dated 3/16/2023, the report indicated Resident 1 had an order, dated 1/11/2023, for Glucagon (medication used to increase blood sugar levels) injection kit one (1) mg (milligram) to inject one dose intramuscularly (in the muscle) as needed for hypoglycemia related to Type 2 diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan titled, At risk for recurrent hyperglycemia secondary to diabetes mellitus, dated 2/6/2023, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions included assessment of the resident, to monitor for signs of hypoglycemia, and to notify MD (Medical Doctor), DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney), and responsible party for any COC. During a review of Resident 1 ' s progress note, dated 3/14/2023 at 8:17 a.m., the note indicated LVN 1 documented Resident 1 was noted with forgetfulness, did not give insulin (medication used to treat high blood sugar) because the blood sugar level was 70 grams per deciliter (g/dl, unit of measurement. Normal Reference Range [NRR] 80 to 100 g/dl). The note indicated Resident 1 was unable to verbalize clearly what she needed. The note indicated Resident 1 stated she did not need a brief change and then stated she needed a brief change. During an interview on 3/15/2023, at 10:28 a.m., with Resident 1, in her room, Resident 1 stated yesterday she had breakfast at approximately 7 a.m. and she had eaten some oatmeal and drank some juice but was feeling like her blood sugar was low. Resident 1 stated she had trouble holding the spoon, felt confused and could not think straight because her mind was racing and going a thousand miles an hour. Resident 1 stated she had pressed the call light at approximately 7:15 a.m. and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 came to her room and asked if she needed assistance. Resident 1 stated she was moaning and pulling on her own shirt and CNA 1 asked Resident 1 what was going on. Resident 1 stated she was incoherent so she could not say that she felt like her blood sugar was crashing and all she managed to say was nurse, nurse. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 left her room, probably to get the nurse. Resident 1 stated she felt like her sugar was low and felt nervous, so she had reached for a piece of bread and took two bites. Resident 1 stated she would have crashed if she had not eaten the bread. Resident 1 stated she was checked by the nurse at approximately 8:30 a.m. and was changed to go to dialysis (procedure to clean the blood when the kidneys do not function). Resident 1 stated she did not remember staff placing her socks and shoes on her and stated she did not remember the ride over to the dialysis center. Resident 1 stated she did not know why she was not checked because she felt like her blood sugar was low and instead, she was being changed to go to dialysis. Resident 1 stated she was afraid she was going to crash and was going to go into a coma. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 8:44 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated on 3/14/2023, at approximately 7:30 a.m., CNA 1 stated Resident 1 told CNA 1 her blood sugar was low. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 looked confused because her eyes were wide open, and the resident was not able to speak in a complete sentence and that was not normal for the resident. CNA 1 stated at approximately 7:35 a.m., she (CNA 1) reported to LVN 1 that Resident 1 told her that she felt like her blood sugar was low. CNA 1 stated at approximately 8 a.m., LVN 1 asked her to prepare Resident 1 to go to dialysis. CNA 1 stated she was not focused on changing Resident 1 because she was not behaving normal and she had never seen the resident behave that way, so she wanted to make sure LVN 1 checked the resident before preparing her to go to dialysis. CNA 1 stated the day prior, on 3/13/2023, CNA 1 had taken Resident 1 to take the shower and had a conversation with the resident. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 took her own shower, picked her own clothes, and was behaving normal, so she knew something was not right on 3/14/2023. CNA 1 stated she asked LVN 1 if she had checked Resident 1, and was told LVN 1 did, and that the resident was okay. CNA 1 stated she proceeded to go to Resident 1 ' s room and stated the resident was confused and disoriented. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 could not make a complete sentence and she could not communicate what she needed. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 looked frustrated because she kept rubbing her head, laid her head back and was shaking her head. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 would say one word, stop, and say, I can ' t think. CNA 1 stated she had to ask another CNA to assist her to change Resident 1 because the resident was rubbing her head and there was no initiation from the resident to turn when she had asked her to turn to her side. CNA 1 stated the behavior was not normal for Resident 1 because the resident normally was able to turn on her side when she was changed. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 assisted her to change Resident 1 and stated when she was being changed, Resident 1 yelled out, No! I don ' t want to get changed! and a few seconds later the resident said, I need to be changed. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 went in the room when Resident 1 yelled and stated LVN 1 shook her head and rolled her eyes. CNA 1 stated she continued with Resident 1 ' s care because LVN 1 had told her the resident was okay. CNA 1 also stated LVN 1 was standing at the doorway of Resident 1 ' s room and heard her interaction with the resident and LVN 1 had not reacted like something was wrong with the resident, so she thought everything must have been okay. CNA 1 stated she had used the gait belt to transfer Resident 1 to the wheelchair for safety because the resident had not looked good to her. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 had not looked good because her eyes were wide open, she had not reached for her phone and her blanket, and she had struggled to raise her feet as if she had no strength to lift them up. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 looked zoned out and stated LVN 1 had witnessed Resident 1 ' s abnormal behavior as well but had not appeared to have taken it seriously. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 10:48 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated she assessed Resident 1 on 3/14/2023, at approximately 8:10 a.m., and stated Resident 1 ' s sentences were shorter and stated the resident had asked for her nurse and closed her eyes. LVN 1 stated she checked Resident 1 ' s blood sugar and it was 70 g/dl at 8:10 a.m. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had not shown any signs of hypoglycemia, but if the blood sugar was lower than 70 g/dl, she would have given her snacks before she left for dialysis. LVN 1 stated she was outside Resident 1 ' s door when her brief was changed, and heard a commotion inside the room. LVN 1 stated she peaked in the room and heard Resident 1 say she did not need to be changed and then said she needed to be changed. LVN 1 stated it was not normal behavior for Resident 1 to go back and forth with deciding if she needed her brief to be changed. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/16/2023, at 10:52 a.m., with LVN 1, the progress note dated 3/14/2023 at 8:17 a.m., was reviewed. LVN 1 stated forgetfulness and the inability to verbalize needs was abnormal behavior for Resident 1. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s inability to think clearly could have been a symptom of hypoglycemia. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had appeared frustrated and had just wanted things to get done so she did not think the resident ' s behavior was related to hypoglycemia. LVN 1 stated it was the first time she had witnessed Resident 1 behaving the way she was. LVN 1 stated it was not normal for Resident 1 to require two-person assistance to have her brief changed. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s blood sugar was checked about one hour after she had eaten breakfast and it was 70 g/dl and stated it should not have been that low after eating. LVN 1 stated she had not made the connection between Resident 1 ' s abnormal behavior and the low blood sugar level and she should have. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s abnormal behavior constituted a COC, but at the time she had not made that connection. LVN 1 stated a COC should have been reported to the doctor. LVN 1 stated she should have given Resident 1 juice to increase the resident's blood sugar level because it may have dropped even further and may have resulted in Resident 1 becoming shaky, unresponsive, losing consciousness, requiring hospitalization, and potentially may have led to death. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 11:34 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she assisted CNA 1 to change the brief of Resident 1 on 3/14/2023. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 kept repeating she needed to be changed and stated it was out of character for the resident to keep repeating herself. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 needed more help than usual when she was transferred to the wheelchair. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 12:32 p.m., with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated she responded to Resident 1 ' s call light at approximately 8:20 a.m. and stated Resident 1 looked lost. CNA 3 stated she had asked Resident 1 if she needed help and asked the resident twice if she needed to be changed and the resident had not responded to her. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 seemed confused because when she did respond to her, she said, I am, I am, I am thinking. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 was not able to think clearly and was not able to say what she needed. CNA 3 stated she reported to LVN 1, who was also in Resident 1 ' s room, that resident was not answering her when she asked her if she needed to be changed and stated LVN 1 told her the resident probably wanted her nurse (CNA 1) to change her. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 did not look right and appeared disoriented because she would shake her head and not respond to her question to be changed. CNA 3 stated LVN 1 was present the entire time she was in the room with Resident 1. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 1:49 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated if a resident ' s blood sugar level was 70 g/dl, the resident had to be assessed for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia which included resident not behaving like their usual self, confusion, not having full awareness, and the inability to think clearly due to a foggy or cloudy mind. The ADON stated the licensed nurse must be able to identify behavior that was different from the resident ' s baseline. The ADON stated if the licensed nurse identified abnormal behavior and the blood sugar level was low, the nurse should have given the resident juice and rechecked their blood sugar to make sure the level increased. The ADON stated if a licensed nurse did not recognize adverse signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia it may lead to the resident becoming more hypoglycemic, may lead to fainting, hospitalization, and death. The ADON stated the signs and symptoms Resident 1 experienced may have been related to hypertension and/or hypoglycemia and if the symptoms were related to hypertension, it may have led to resident having a stroke if the symptoms were not recognized by the licensed nurse. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Policy and Procedures on Managing Diabetic Residents, revised 2010, the P&P indicated, To ensure that resident, who is diabetic, will be provided with appropriate care and services based on each individual characteristic and type of diabetes illness .When the resident has a change of condition, blood sugar will be assessed right away to determine if the COC is related to hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia for immediate intervention. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Change of Condition, dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility that all changes in resident condition will be communicated to the physician. Under Acute Medical Change of the P&P, the P&P indicated 1. Any sudden or serious change in a resident ' s condition manifested by a marked change in physical or mental behavior will be communicated to the physician . Under Routine Medical Change of the P&P, the P&P indicated, 1. All symptoms and unusual signs will be communicated to the physician promptly. Routine changes are a minor change in physical and mental behavior . During a review of the facility ' s Job Description and Performance Standards for a Charge Nurse, the standards indicated a Charge Nurse performed comprehensive assessment of residents as assigned, promptly reported changes in residents ' conditions to the physician, Director of Nursing Service, and responsible party, and took follow-up action as necessary, notified physician of any unusual observations, and was responsible for the safety of residents under his/her supervision. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to properly assess one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) after the resident experienced a change in behavior. This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 1 experiencing adverse effects due to Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 failing to recognize a change in condition (COC) and signs and symptoms related to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar level). Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition that impairs the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel) and hypertension (condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/12/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/23/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision and set-up only for bed mobility, required limited, one-person assistance for transfers out of bed, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and was independent for eating. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated 3/16/2023, the report indicated Resident 1 had an order, dated 1/11/2023, for Glucagon (medication used to increase blood sugar levels) injection kit one (1) mg (milligram) to inject one dose intramuscularly (in the muscle) as needed for hypoglycemia related to Type 2 diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titled, At risk for recurrent hyperglycemia secondary to diabetes mellitus , dated 2/6/2023, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions included assessment of the resident, to monitor for signs of hypoglycemia, and to notify MD (Medical Doctor), DPOA (Durable Power of Attorney), and responsible party for any COC. During a review of Resident 1's progress note, dated 3/14/2023 at 8:17 a.m., the note indicated LVN 1 documented Resident 1 was noted with forgetfulness, did not give insulin (medication used to treat high blood sugar) because the blood sugar level was 70 grams per deciliter (g/dl, unit of measurement. Normal Reference Range [NRR] 80 to 100 g/dl). The note indicated Resident 1 was unable to verbalize clearly what she needed. The note indicated Resident 1 stated she did not need a brief change and then stated she needed a brief change. During an interview on 3/15/2023, at 10:28 a.m., with Resident 1, in her room, Resident 1 stated yesterday she had breakfast at approximately 7 a.m. and she had eaten some oatmeal and drank some juice but was feeling like her blood sugar was low. Resident 1 stated she had trouble holding the spoon, felt confused and could not think straight because her mind was racing and going a thousand miles an hour . Resident 1 stated she had pressed the call light at approximately 7:15 a.m. and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 came to her room and asked if she needed assistance. Resident 1 stated she was moaning and pulling on her own shirt and CNA 1 asked Resident 1 what was going on. Resident 1 stated she was incoherent so she could not say that she felt like her blood sugar was crashing and all she managed to say was nurse, nurse . Resident 1 stated CNA 1 left her room, probably to get the nurse. Resident 1 stated she felt like her sugar was low and felt nervous, so she had reached for a piece of bread and took two bites. Resident 1 stated she would have crashed if she had not eaten the bread. Resident 1 stated she was checked by the nurse at approximately 8:30 a.m. and was changed to go to dialysis (procedure to clean the blood when the kidneys do not function). Resident 1 stated she did not remember staff placing her socks and shoes on her and stated she did not remember the ride over to the dialysis center. Resident 1 stated she did not know why she was not checked because she felt like her blood sugar was low and instead, she was being changed to go to dialysis. Resident 1 stated she was afraid she was going to crash and was going to go into a coma. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 8:44 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated on 3/14/2023, at approximately 7:30 a.m., CNA 1 stated Resident 1 told CNA 1 her blood sugar was low. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 looked confused because her eyes were wide open, and the resident was not able to speak in a complete sentence and that was not normal for the resident. CNA 1 stated at approximately 7:35 a.m., she (CNA 1) reported to LVN 1 that Resident 1 told her that she felt like her blood sugar was low. CNA 1 stated at approximately 8 a.m., LVN 1 asked her to prepare Resident 1 to go to dialysis. CNA 1 stated she was not focused on changing Resident 1 because she was not behaving normal and she had never seen the resident behave that way, so she wanted to make sure LVN 1 checked the resident before preparing her to go to dialysis. CNA 1 stated the day prior, on 3/13/2023, CNA 1 had taken Resident 1 to take the shower and had a conversation with the resident. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 took her own shower, picked her own clothes, and was behaving normal, so she knew something was not right on 3/14/2023. CNA 1 stated she asked LVN 1 if she had checked Resident 1, and was told LVN 1 did, and that the resident was okay. CNA 1 stated she proceeded to go to Resident 1's room and stated the resident was confused and disoriented. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 could not make a complete sentence and she could not communicate what she needed. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 looked frustrated because she kept rubbing her head, laid her head back and was shaking her head. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 would say one word, stop, and say, I can't think . CNA 1 stated she had to ask another CNA to assist her to change Resident 1 because the resident was rubbing her head and there was no initiation from the resident to turn when she had asked her to turn to her side. CNA 1 stated the behavior was not normal for Resident 1 because the resident normally was able to turn on her side when she was changed. CNA 1 stated CNA 2 assisted her to change Resident 1 and stated when she was being changed, Resident 1 yelled out, No! I don't want to get changed! and a few seconds later the resident said, I need to be changed. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 went in the room when Resident 1 yelled and stated LVN 1 shook her head and rolled her eyes. CNA 1 stated she continued with Resident 1's care because LVN 1 had told her the resident was okay. CNA 1 also stated LVN 1 was standing at the doorway of Resident 1's room and heard her interaction with the resident and LVN 1 had not reacted like something was wrong with the resident, so she thought everything must have been okay. CNA 1 stated she had used the gait belt to transfer Resident 1 to the wheelchair for safety because the resident had not looked good to her. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 had not looked good because her eyes were wide open, she had not reached for her phone and her blanket, and she had struggled to raise her feet as if she had no strength to lift them up. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 looked zoned out and stated LVN 1 had witnessed Resident 1's abnormal behavior as well but had not appeared to have taken it seriously. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 10:48 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated she assessed Resident 1 on 3/14/2023, at approximately 8:10 a.m., and stated Resident 1's sentences were shorter and stated the resident had asked for her nurse and closed her eyes. LVN 1 stated she checked Resident 1's blood sugar and it was 70 g/dl at 8:10 a.m. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had not shown any signs of hypoglycemia, but if the blood sugar was lower than 70 g/dl, she would have given her snacks before she left for dialysis. LVN 1 stated she was outside Resident 1's door when her brief was changed, and heard a commotion inside the room. LVN 1 stated she peaked in the room and heard Resident 1 say she did not need to be changed and then said she needed to be changed. LVN 1 stated it was not normal behavior for Resident 1 to go back and forth with deciding if she needed her brief to be changed. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/16/2023, at 10:52 a.m., with LVN 1, the progress note dated 3/14/2023 at 8:17 a.m., was reviewed. LVN 1 stated forgetfulness and the inability to verbalize needs was abnormal behavior for Resident 1. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's inability to think clearly could have been a symptom of hypoglycemia. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had appeared frustrated and had just wanted things to get done so she did not think the resident's behavior was related to hypoglycemia. LVN 1 stated it was the first time she had witnessed Resident 1 behaving the way she was. LVN 1 stated it was not normal for Resident 1 to require two-person assistance to have her brief changed. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's blood sugar was checked about one hour after she had eaten breakfast and it was 70 g/dl and stated it should not have been that low after eating. LVN 1 stated she had not made the connection between Resident 1's abnormal behavior and the low blood sugar level and she should have. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's abnormal behavior constituted a COC, but at the time she had not made that connection. LVN 1 stated a COC should have been reported to the doctor. LVN 1 stated she should have given Resident 1 juice to increase the resident's blood sugar level because it may have dropped even further and may have resulted in Resident 1 becoming shaky, unresponsive, losing consciousness, requiring hospitalization, and potentially may have led to death. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 11:34 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she assisted CNA 1 to change the brief of Resident 1 on 3/14/2023. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 kept repeating she needed to be changed and stated it was out of character for the resident to keep repeating herself. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 needed more help than usual when she was transferred to the wheelchair. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 12:32 p.m., with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated she responded to Resident 1's call light at approximately 8:20 a.m. and stated Resident 1 looked lost. CNA 3 stated she had asked Resident 1 if she needed help and asked the resident twice if she needed to be changed and the resident had not responded to her. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 seemed confused because when she did respond to her, she said, I am, I am, I am thinking. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 was not able to think clearly and was not able to say what she needed. CNA 3 stated she reported to LVN 1, who was also in Resident 1's room, that resident was not answering her when she asked her if she needed to be changed and stated LVN 1 told her the resident probably wanted her nurse (CNA 1) to change her. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 did not look right and appeared disoriented because she would shake her head and not respond to her question to be changed. CNA 3 stated LVN 1 was present the entire time she was in the room with Resident 1. During an interview on 3/16/2023, at 1:49 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated if a resident's blood sugar level was 70 g/dl, the resident had to be assessed for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia which included resident not behaving like their usual self, confusion, not having full awareness, and the inability to think clearly due to a foggy or cloudy mind. The ADON stated the licensed nurse must be able to identify behavior that was different from the resident's baseline. The ADON stated if the licensed nurse identified abnormal behavior and the blood sugar level was low, the nurse should have given the resident juice and rechecked their blood sugar to make sure the level increased. The ADON stated if a licensed nurse did not recognize adverse signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia it may lead to the resident becoming more hypoglycemic, may lead to fainting, hospitalization, and death. The ADON stated the signs and symptoms Resident 1 experienced may have been related to hypertension and/or hypoglycemia and if the symptoms were related to hypertension, it may have led to resident having a stroke if the symptoms were not recognized by the licensed nurse. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Policy and Procedures on Managing Diabetic Residents , revised 2010, the P&P indicated, To ensure that resident, who is diabetic, will be provided with appropriate care and services based on each individual characteristic and type of diabetes illness .When the resident has a change of condition, blood sugar will be assessed right away to determine if the COC is related to hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia for immediate intervention. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Change of Condition , dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility that all changes in resident condition will be communicated to the physician. Under Acute Medical Change of the P&P, the P&P indicated 1. Any sudden or serious change in a resident's condition manifested by a marked change in physical or mental behavior will be communicated to the physician . Under Routine Medical Change of the P&P, the P&P indicated, 1. All symptoms and unusual signs will be communicated to the physician promptly. Routine changes are a minor change in physical and mental behavior . During a review of the facility's Job Description and Performance Standards for a Charge Nurse, the standards indicated a Charge Nurse performed comprehensive assessment of residents as assigned, promptly reported changes in residents' conditions to the physician, Director of Nursing Service, and responsible party, and took follow-up action as necessary, notified physician of any unusual observations, and was responsible for the safety of residents under his/her supervision.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 complete a post-dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a post-dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood which may involve diverting blood to a machine to be cleaned) assessment for two of four sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2). This deficient practice increased the risk of missing an adverse reaction after the dialysis treatment, which had the potential to cause harm to Resident 1 and 2. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition that impairs the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel), hypertension (condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal), end stage renal disease ([ESRD] the final permanent stage of chronic kidney disease, where kidney function has declined to the point that the kidneys can no longer filter waste from the blood), and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/12/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/23/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision and set-up only for bed mobility, required limited, one-person assistance for transfers out of bed, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and was independent for eating. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan titled, At risk for complication related to hemodialysis with diagnosis of ESRD, dated 1/12/2023, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions included assessment of the resident, to assess access site on the eft upper arm, to assess skin around the access site, note redness, swelling, local warmth, exudate (drainage of fluid), tenderness, and to check for the bruit (the sound of blood flowing through a dialysis fistula [surgically made passage between an artery and a vein]) and thrill (feeling the vibration of blood flowing through a dialysis fistula). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nurse ' s Dialysis Communication Record, dated 3/11/2023, the record indicated the post-dialysis assessment was not completed. b. During a review of Resident 2 ' s face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including ESRD, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 2 ' s H&P, dated 3/6/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 2 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required limited, one-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers out of bed, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene and required supervision and set-up for eating. During a review of resident 2 ' s Care Plan titled, At risk for complication related to hemodialysis with diagnosis of ESRD, dated 3/1/2023, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions included assessment of the resident, to assess access site on the right upper chest jugular catheter (a tube inserted into the vein in the neck for blood access in patients with renal failure), to assess skin around the access site, note redness, swelling, local warmth, exudate, tenderness, and to check for the bruit and thrill. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Nurse ' s Dialysis Communication Record, dated 3/3/2023 and 3/6/2023, the record indicated the post-dialysis assessment was not completed. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/16/2023, at 10:48 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 1 ' s Nurse ' s Dialysis Communication Record, dated 3/11/2023, and Resident 2 ' s Nurse ' s Dialysis Communication Record, dated 3/3/2023 and 3/6/2023, was reviewed. LVN 1 confirmed the post-dialysis assessment was not completed for Resident 1 and 2. LVN 1 stated it was important to complete the post-dialysis assessment to ensure the resident was stable and the dialysis port (the access used to perform dialysis) was not bleeding. LVN 1 stated if the resident was not checked and was bleeding it could be missed and lead to low blood pressure, may lead to a change in condition, may lead to hospitalization, and death of the resident if the bleeding was not stopped. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/16/2023, at 2:11 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 1 ' s progress notes and Nurse ' s Dialysis Communication Record, dated 3/11/2023, and Resident 2 ' s progress notes and Nurse ' s Dialysis Communication Record, dated 3/3/2023 and 3/6/2023, was reviewed. The ADON verified the post-dialysis assessment was not completed for Resident 1 and 2. The ADON stated the licensed nurse must assess the dialysis site, check the mental status, and vital signs (respiration rate, blood pressure, and temperature) after dialysis because a resident who received dialysis had the potential to deteriorate (process in which a person ' s mental and physical health becomes worse) if the dialysis was not well-tolerated. The ADON stated it was important to check the dialysis port for bleeding and to check the bruit and thrill of the port. The ADON stated the potential risks for the resident was bleeding from the dialysis port which could lead to death of the resident. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dialysis, dated 5/2005, the P&P indicated, Licensed nurses shall document the following .b. Date and time of the resident ' s return from the treatment, vitals, and an assessment of the resident ' s response to treatment .c. Some of the assessment details to be included: presence or absence of edema, elevated blood pressure, shortness of breath, or chest pain, monitoring for bleeding secondary to heparin (medication used to prevent a blood clot from forming and may lead to bruising more easily and bleeding that takes longer to stop) therapy from the site, mouth, urine, or feces, checking of AV shunt ([Arteriovenous] a surgically created connection between an artery and a vein, used for dialysis) .for swelling, redness, pain, drainage, and bruit/thrills. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete a post-dialysis (a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood which may involve diverting blood to a machine to be cleaned) assessment for two of four sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2). This deficient practice increased the risk of missing an adverse reaction after the dialysis treatment, which had the potential to cause harm to Resident 1 and 2. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition that impairs the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel), hypertension (condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal), end stage renal disease ([ESRD] the final permanent stage of chronic kidney disease, where kidney function has declined to the point that the kidneys can no longer filter waste from the blood), and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/12/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/23/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision and set-up only for bed mobility, required limited, one-person assistance for transfers out of bed, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and was independent for eating. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titled, At risk for complication related to hemodialysis with diagnosis of ESRD , dated 1/12/2023, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions included assessment of the resident, to assess access site on the eft upper arm, to assess skin around the access site, note redness, swelling, local warmth, exudate (drainage of fluid), tenderness, and to check for the bruit (the sound of blood flowing through a dialysis fistula [surgically made passage between an artery and a vein]) and thrill (feeling the vibration of blood flowing through a dialysis fistula). During a review of Resident 1's Nurse's Dialysis Communication Record , dated 3/11/2023, the record indicated the post-dialysis assessment was not completed. b. During a review of Resident 2's face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including ESRD, Type 2 diabetes mellitus, and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 2's H&P, dated 3/6/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 2 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required limited, one-person assistance for bed mobility, transfers out of bed, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene and required supervision and set-up for eating. During a review of resident 2's Care Plan titled, At risk for complication related to hemodialysis with diagnosis of ESRD , dated 3/1/2023, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions included assessment of the resident, to assess access site on the right upper chest jugular catheter (a tube inserted into the vein in the neck for blood access in patients with renal failure), to assess skin around the access site, note redness, swelling, local warmth, exudate, tenderness, and to check for the bruit and thrill. During a review of Resident 2's Nurse's Dialysis Communication Record , dated 3/3/2023 and 3/6/2023, the record indicated the post-dialysis assessment was not completed. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/16/2023, at 10:48 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 1's Nurse's Dialysis Communication Record , dated 3/11/2023, and Resident 2's Nurse's Dialysis Communication Record , dated 3/3/2023 and 3/6/2023, was reviewed. LVN 1 confirmed the post-dialysis assessment was not completed for Resident 1 and 2. LVN 1 stated it was important to complete the post-dialysis assessment to ensure the resident was stable and the dialysis port (the access used to perform dialysis) was not bleeding. LVN 1 stated if the resident was not checked and was bleeding it could be missed and lead to low blood pressure, may lead to a change in condition, may lead to hospitalization, and death of the resident if the bleeding was not stopped. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/16/2023, at 2:11 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 1's progress notes and Nurse's Dialysis Communication Record , dated 3/11/2023, and Resident 2's progress notes and Nurse's Dialysis Communication Record , dated 3/3/2023 and 3/6/2023, was reviewed. The ADON verified the post-dialysis assessment was not completed for Resident 1 and 2. The ADON stated the licensed nurse must assess the dialysis site, check the mental status, and vital signs (respiration rate, blood pressure, and temperature) after dialysis because a resident who received dialysis had the potential to deteriorate (process in which a person's mental and physical health becomes worse) if the dialysis was not well-tolerated. The ADON stated it was important to check the dialysis port for bleeding and to check the bruit and thrill of the port. The ADON stated the potential risks for the resident was bleeding from the dialysis port which could lead to death of the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dialysis , dated 5/2005, the P&P indicated, Licensed nurses shall document the following .b. Date and time of the resident's return from the treatment, vitals, and an assessment of the resident's response to treatment .c. Some of the assessment details to be included: presence or absence of edema, elevated blood pressure, shortness of breath, or chest pain, monitoring for bleeding secondary to heparin (medication used to prevent a blood clot from forming and may lead to bruising more easily and bleeding that takes longer to stop) therapy from the site, mouth, urine, or feces, checking of AV shunt ([Arteriovenous] a surgically created connection between an artery and a vein, used for dialysis) .for swelling, redness, pain, drainage, and bruit/thrills.
Jan 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat one of three sampled residents (Resident 2) wit...

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 treat one of three sampled residents (Resident 2) with dignity when Resident 2 was left wet with urine in her adult brief for over an hour and when dry stool was left on the resident's skin due to not being properly cleaned after having a bowel movement. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 2 feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable being left in a dirty brief. These deficient practices have the potential to negatively affect Resident 2's psychosocial well-being and comfort. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (loss of ability to move on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) on the right dominant side. During a review of Resident 2's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/31/2022, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 10/19/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 2 had the ability to express ideas and wants, and had the ability to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required extensive assistance for transfers out of bed, locomotion on and off the unit, and toilet use. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required limited assistance with dressing and personal hygiene, and supervision with bed mobility and eating. During a review of Resident 2's Care Plan titled, Incontinent of B&B (bowel and bladder), At risk for skin breakdown,. dated 1/4/2018, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions indicated to assist Resident 2 in toileting as often as needed and to provide skin care after each incontinence episode (inability to control bowel and bladder functions). During an interview with Resident 2 on 12/23/2022 at 12:15 p.m., in Resident 2's room, Resident 2 stated she has waited up to three to four hours to be changed and sat in a wet and/or stooled brief. Resident 2 stated she felt embarrassed when she waited a long time to be changed because she was dirty. Resident 2 stated she was very wet at that moment (during the interview) and stated she felt very uncomfortable. Resident 2 stated she had asked to be changed that morning (12/23/2022) and no one came. Resident 2 stated she had been waiting over an hour to be changed. During a concurrent observation and interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4 on 12/23/2022 at 12:31 p.m., observed CNA 4 enter Resident 2's room and ask if the resident needed help. CNA 4 was informed Resident 2 had a wet brief and had asked to be changed. CNA 4 stated Resident 2 knew she needed to wait until all the residents were done eating to have her brief changed. CNA 4 stated residents were normally changed in the morning and after each meal. CNA 4 stated it would be uncomfortable for the resident to be left wet or dirty and the resident should be changed when the resident requested to be changed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/23/2022 at 1:09 p.m., in Resident 2's room, observed CNA 4 and CNA 5 change Resident 2's brief. Observed Resident 2's brief was soaked with urine. CNA 4 confirmed Resident 2's brief was soaked with urine. Observed Resident 2 had dry stool on the back of her left thigh. CNA 5 confirmed Resident 2 had dry stool on the back of her left thigh and stated resident had not been cleaned the right way. CNA 5 stated not cleaning the resident's skin properly to remove all the stool may lead to skin irritation, a rash, and redness. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 Supervisor on 12/23/2022 at 3:44 p.m., RN 1 stated it was the resident's right to be changed when they ask to be changed. RN 1 stated it was inappropriate to tell a resident they had to wait to be changed until after the residents were done eating. RN 1 stated it may affect the self-esteem and dignity of the resident to make them wait to be changed until after they are done eating. During an interview with the Administrator (ADM) on 12/23/2022 at 4:20 p.m., the ADM stated it was a dignity issue to not be cleaned properly after having a bowel movement and not changed when the resident requested to be changed. The ADM stated the resident should not be told they have to wait to be changed until after residents were done eating. The ADM stated not being cleaned properly and leaving dry stool on the skin may lead to skin breakdown, a rash, resident feeling uncomfortable, and may affect their dignity. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dignity, dated 2/2021, the P&P indicated, Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. The P&P indicated demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are prohibited. Staff are expected to promote dignity and assist residents by promptly responding to a resident's request for toileting assistance. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Incontinent Care, dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to remove urine or feces from skin, to cleanse and lubricate skin, and to provide dry, odor free perineal care system .Check for wetness at least every two hours or as often as needed based on the resident's needs.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for three of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for three of three sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3). This deficient practice increased the potential for an accident and/or a delay in care due to the inability to call for help. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease ([ESRD] the final permanent stage of chronic kidney disease, where kidney function has declined to the point that the kidneys can no longer filter waste from the blood), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a long-term condition that impairs the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel), and reduced mobility. During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/25/2022, the H&P indicated Resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 11/17/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 1 required limited, one-person assistance for bed mobility and eating, and required extensive assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was completely dependent on staff for transfers out of bed and for locomotion on and off the unit. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled, Impaired physical functioning, dated 9/17/2021, and initiated on 9/21/2021, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions indicated to place the resident's call light within reach. During a review of Resident 2's face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (loss of ability to move on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) affecting the resident's right dominant side. During a review of Resident 2's H&P, dated 10/31/2022, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had the ability to express ideas and wants, and had the ability to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required extensive assistance for transfers out of bed, locomotion on and off the unit, and toilet use. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required limited assistance with dressing and personal hygiene, and supervision for bed mobility and eating. During a review of Resident 2's care plan titled, Risk for decline in ADL's (activities of daily living such as grooming, toilet use, etc)/ Self care deficit manifested by extensive one-person assist in ADL's, dated 10/7/2017, the care plan indicated the staff's interventions indicated to keep the resident's call light within easy reach and answer promptly. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 2 on 12/23/2022 at 12:15 p.m., in Resident 2's room, observed Resident 2 sitting on her wheelchair. Resident 2 stated her adult brief was very wet and she had asked staff that morning (12/23/2022) to change her, but no one had come yet. Resident 2 was asked to activate her call light. Resident 2 stated she could not reach the call light because it was on her right side, and could not use her right hand due to weakness. Observed Resident 2 attempt to reach for the call light with her left hand, but it was not placed within her reach. During a concurrent interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and observation on 12/23/2022 at 12:28 p.m., LVN 1was observed entering Resident 2's room. LVN 1 confirmed Resident 2's call light was not within reach of the resident. LVN 1 stated it was important for the call light to be placed within reach so the resident could call for assistance and to prevent an accident if the resident was reaching for the call light. During a review of Resident 3's face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including abnormalities of gait (manner of walking) and mobility, and visual loss. During a review of Resident 3's H&P, dated 9/19/2022, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was completely dependent on staff for transfers out of bed, required extensive assistance for locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, and toilet use, and required limited assistance with bed mobility, eating, and personal hygiene. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 3 on 12/23/2022 at 1:23 p.m., in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 stated she asked staff for drinking cups and the nurse never came back. Resident 3 stated she was blind. Observed Resident 3's call light at the head of the bed by the resident's pillow. Resident 3 was asked to activate her call light. Resident 3 stated she did not know anything about a call light because she was blind and could not see it. During a concurrent observation and interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 on 12/23/2022 at 1:28 p.m., CNA 1 entered Resident 3's room and confirmed the resident's call light should be attached to the resident or near her so she could be aware of and/or could feel where the call light was placed. CNA 2 stated it was important for the call light to be within reach so the resident could call for help. During a concurrent observation and interview with CNA 1 on 12/23/2022 at 1:35 p.m., in Resident 1's room, observed Resident 1's call light was not within reach of the resident and was placed in between the side rail of the bed and the bed's mattress. CNA 1 confirmed Resident 1's call light was not within reach of Resident 1 and stated it was important for the call light to be within reach so the resident could call for help. During an interview with CNA 2 on 12/23/2022 at 2:19 p.m., CNA 2 stated the resident's call light should be placed within reach of the resident because the resident may fall if they had to reach for it and the resident could not call for help if the call light was not placed within their reach. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 Supervisor on 12/23/2022 at 3:44 p.m., RN 1 stated the call light should be placed within reach of the resident so they could call for help and to prevent a potential fall if the resident had to reach for the call light. RN 1 stated the call light should be within reach of the resident for their safety. During an interview with the Administrator (ADM) on 12/23/2022 at 4:20 p.m., the ADM stated the resident's call light should be placed in reach of the resident so the resident could verbalize needs and call in case of an emergency. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Call Light/Bell, dated 7/2012, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to provide the resident a means of communication with nursing staff .Call light only be out of reach during resident care to prevent injury and during time when residents are out of bed, but would immediately be within reach after care or when resident is back to bed .Place the call light device within resident's reach before leaving room.
Mar 2022 18 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to: a. ensure two out of 8 sampled Residents (Residents 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: a. ensure two out of 8 sampled Residents (Residents 29 and 3) were treated with respect to promote dignity by failing to serve Residents 29 and 3 meals at the same time as their roommates. b.respond to residents' needs and requests for assistance with toileting and activities of daily living (ADL) in a timely manner for three of 12 sampled residents (Resident 22, 123, and 124). These deficient practices has the potential to cause psychosocial harm or decline to the residents and violates residents' right to be treated with dignity. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 29's admission record, the record indicated Resident 29 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure (a long-term condition in which the heart cannot pump blood well enough to meet the body's needs all the time), rheumatoid arthritis (a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting many joints, including those in the hands and feet.), dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 29's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care planning tool) dated 1/10/2022, MDS indicated the resident's cognition (ability to think, understand, and reason) was severely impaired. Resident 29 was totally dependent on transfer and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, eating toilet use, and personal hygiene. During a record review of the order summary report for the month of March 2022, the report indicated that Resident 29 has a physician's order dated 10/30/2020, for a regular pureed (a consistency that does not require chewing) texture diet with a thin liquid consistency. b. During a review of Resident 3's admission record, the record indicated Resident 3 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that include metabolic encephalopathy (an alteration in consciousness caused by partial or total brain dysfunction), alcohol dependence with withdrawal, and unspecified psychosis (a severe mental disorder in which thought, and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality). A review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 35's cognition was severely impaired. Residents 3's activities of daily living (ADL) indicated resident was independent on bed mobility. Resident 3 required extensive assistance with transfer, dressing, and toilet use, and limited assistance with eating and personal hygiene. During a record review of the order summary for the month of March 2022, the order indicated that Resident 3 has a Physician's order dated 8/18/2021, for a no added salt diet with regular texture. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/22, at 12:31 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant 6 (CNA 6), CNA 6 stated she was assigned by the Director of Staff Development (DSD) to feed two Residents (Resident 29 and Resident 29's roommate) during lunchtime. CNA 6 was feeding Resident 29's roommate while Resident 29 was watching Television in bed. Resident 29 stated, I am hungry. CNA 6 confirmed the facility should set it up in a way that everyone could eat at the same time for dignity. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/2022, at 12:50 p.m., Resident 35's lunch tray was in the food cart. Resident 35's roommate finished his lunch tray and Resident 35 stated I can smell the food and I am hungry. During a record review of the feeding schedule for lunch dated 3/10/2022, CNA 6 was assigned to room [ROOM NUMBER] A and 24 B beds and Certified Nurse Assistant 7 (CNA 7) was assigned to 21 B and 23 B. During an interview on 3/17/2022, at 10:43 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON acknowledged, for any residents, not eating same time with roommates would cause the decline of dignity especially those requiring feeding assistance. b. During a review of Resident 22's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), wedge compression fracture of T11-T12 (a fracture that occurs in the front of the backbone), generalized muscle weakness, urinary tract infection (an infection in any part of the urinary system), and altered mental status. A review of Resident 22's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition (ability to think, understand, and reason) was severely impaired. Resident 22 required total assistance with transfer, extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use, and limited assistance with eating and personal hygiene. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/14/22 at 10:17 a.m., Resident 22 was observed lying on the bed and the resident's call light was on top of the bedside drawer. Resident 22 stated, I got to go to the bathroom. I have no time to talk. The resident started yelling for help. Resident 22 stated, I cannot reach my call light .where is it? During an observation on 3/14/22 at 10:26 a.m., at the hallway in front of Resident 22's room, Resident 22 was heard yelling outside for assistance. CNA 3 passed by the room without checking the resident and was observed going into another resident's room. At 3/14/22 11:08 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) was observed going into Resident 22's room and assisted Resident 22's needs. During an interview on 3/14/22 at 11:48 a.m., with Resident 22, Resident 22 stated I am good now, but I was so mad. No one came to help me for a long time! During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 8 (CNA 8) on 3/17/22 at 10:27 a.m., CNA 8 stated Sometimes, residents complain about call light not being answered. CNA 8 stated, In the morning, everybody is asking for help with the bathroom and breakfast because they have been waiting .I would feel frustrated if nobody comes to take care of me. During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) on 3/17/22 at 10:54 a.m., DSD stated, the call light was very important for the residents. If resident's needs are not attended timely manner, Resident could get upset and it increases the risk for fall or injury. During an interview on 3/17/22, at 10:43 a.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, If the assigned CNA for the resident was busy with another resident, it is all staff's responsibility to answer the call light. A review of the Resident Council Meeting notes on 9/10/21, indicated evening shift nurses did not answer to the call lights in a timely manner. A review of the Resident Council Meeting notes on 10/8/21, indicated morning and evening shift nurses sometimes did not change their dirty linen in a timely manner, and nurses on all shifts did not answer to the call lights in a timely manner. A review of the Resident Council Meeting notes on 11/12/21, indicated morning and evening shift nurses did not answer to the call lights in a timely manner. A review of the Resident Council Meeting notes on 1/21/22, indicated Nurses are not attending to resident's needs in a timely manner. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled Quality of Life- Dignity, revised on 8/2009, indicated 1. Residents shall be treated with dignity and respect at all times. 2. Treated with dignity means the resident will be assisted in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled Answering the call light dated 10/2010, indicated the purpose of answering the call light is to respond to the resident's request and needs. It also indicated 4. Be sure that the call light is plugged in at all times. 5. When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident. 8. Answer the resident's call as soon as possible.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to dispose properly of the resident's medical records on...

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 dispose properly of the resident's medical records on the tube feeding bag (nutritional supplements) for one of five sampled residents (Resident 20). This failure has the potential outcome of residents' personal medical information being released to the public without the resident's knowledge or consent. Findings: During a review of Resident 20's admission Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 20 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident 20's diagnoses included atherosclerosis of native arteries of extremities (a disease of the arteries characterized by the deposition of plaques of fatty material on their inner walls) with gangrene (dead tissue caused by an infection or lack of blood flow) on the left leg, pneumonia (an infection of one or both of the lungs caused by bacteria, viruses, or fungi), type 2 diabetes (A group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood), hypertension (high blood pressure), depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life), and generalized weakness. During a review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool, dated 12/25/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 20's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) function was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 20 was totally dependent on transfer and eating and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 20's medication administration record for the month of March 2022 indicated, Resident 20 had an order for Glucerna 1.2 calorie Liquid (nutritional supplements) 65 milliliter per hour via Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube (a tube inserted through the wall of the abdomen directly into the stomach) scheduled to be administered over 24 hours. During an observation on 3/14/2021, at 9:45 a.m., Resident 20's tube feeding bag was found in the regular trash bin and the tube feeding bag label had Resident 20's name, room number, and tube feeding order. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/16/2021, at 8:54 a.m., with housekeeping staff (HK), HK stated regular trash bin is emptied out and thrown into the outside bin. The bin outside is regularly picked up by a trash service company that does not do paper shredding services. Resident 20's tube feeding bag was found in the regular trash bin and the tube feeding bag label which had Resident 20's name, room number, tube feeding order. During an interview on 3/16/2021, at 11:42 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse 5 (LVN 5), LVN 5 stated that she changed the tube feeding bag in the morning if empty or passed 24 hours. LVN 5 confirmed, that before discarding the used tube feeding bag, the resident's information must be removed to keep the resident's medical information secure and avoid a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ([HIPAA] a federal law that protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge) violation. LVN 5 stated, the tube feeding bag with resident's information should have been crossed out to protect residents, but she forgot to do it in the morning. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, HIPAA Compliance, dated 9/30/13, the P/P indicated, The facility will adopt guidelines and procedures that are compliant with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and other related HIPAA rules and the practices established by the Rule as well as other applicable federal and state laws During a review of Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, it indicated a major goal of the Privacy Rule is to assure that individuals' health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public's health and wellbeing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of one resident (Resident 16) was free...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of one resident (Resident 16) was free from physical restraint when bed/chair alarm (pressure sensing devices that alarm when the resident gets up) order was not obtained from physician prior to applying. This deficient practice had the potential to inhibit Resident 16's freedom of movement or activity which had a potential for physical and psychosocial decline. Findings: A review of Resident 16's admission Record (Facesheet) dated 3/17/2022, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses not limited to atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular beating of the heart), dementia (progressive brain disease causes symptoms such as memory loss), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), hypertension ([HTN] condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal), schizophrenia (a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how the person thinks, feels, and behaves), and muscle weakness. A review of the Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/5/2021, indicated Resident 16 had severe cognitive (ability to make decisions of daily living) impairment; required supervision from staff with bed mobility and transferring from bed; required limited assistance from staff with toileting; required extensive assistance from staff with dressing and bathing; and was using bed alarm and chair alarm daily. A review of Resident 16's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 3/5/2022, indicated resident had a high risk for fall During an observation on 3/15/2022 at 9:03 a.m., Resident 16 was repositioning in bed and bed alarm rang. Resident 16 did not attempt to get up from bed. During an interview on 3/15/2022, at 2:53 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 2), CNA 2 stated the purpose of the bed/chair alarm is for the security of the resident, so they will not get up and wander off. CNA 2 stated Resident 16 liked to move a lot, did not like to stay in bed, and could not stay still. CNA 2 stated the bed/chair alarm is very sensitive and will ring even with small movements. During an observation on 3/15/2022, at 3:03 p.m., Resident 16 was sitting in a wheelchair in the hallway. Resident 16 stood up and the chair alarm rang. Activities Assistant (AA 1) told the resident to please sit down. During an interview on 3/15/2022, at 3:17 p.m., with AA 1, the AA stated Resident 16 tended to get up a lot, so he was on a bed/chair alarm, which alerts the staff to respond. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/15/2022, at 3:33 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3), LVN 3 stated bed/chair alarm was indicated for residents that are confused and have a risk for falls. LVN 3 stated that a physician's order must be obtained, and the care plan must be updated according to the physician's order for the bed alarm. A review of Resident 16's physician orders dated up to 3/15/2022, did not indicate bed/chair alarm was ordered. A review of Resident 16's care plans up until 3/15/2022, did not indicate bed/chair alarm was care planned for. A review of Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] a group of health care professionals from diverse fields who work in a coordinated fashion toward a common goal for the resident) notes dated 3/4/2022, indicated bed/chair alarm was discussed as a fall precaution. A review of Resident 16's Physical Restraint assessment dated [DATE] did not indicate personal alarm was used. LVN 3 stated there should have been an order and care plan for using the bed/chair alarm for Resident 16 to know what is going on with the resident, his goals, interventions, and expected outcomes. During an interview on 3/16/2022, at 11:42 a.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the purpose of the bed alarm is to alert staff the resident is trying to get out of bed/chair and to respond. DON stated the alarm is very sensitive and will ring with any movement the resident makes. DON stated a restraint is a device used to prevent residents from moving freely. DON stated to ensure a device is not a restraint required completion of a physical restraint assessment to include alarms, physician's order, and consent (if applicable to device), and care plan. DON stated it is important to include these documentations to prevent anything from restricting residents' movement. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Adaptive/Assistive Devices, revised 7/2012 indicated adaptive/assistive devices such as bed alarm will be recommended by the IDT or specialist involved in the assessment based on the assessment result or finding. Resident attending physician will give an order on assistive/adaptive devices. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Use of Restraints, indicated restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptom(s) and never for discipline or staff convenience, or for the prevention of falls. The definition of a restraint is based on the functional status of the resident and not the device. If the resident cannot remove a device in the same manner in which the staff applied it given the resident's physical condition, and this restricts his/her typical ability to change position or place, that device is considered a restraint.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive standardized ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool) for a significant change in status was completed within the required time frame for one of eight sampled resident (Resident 58). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the provision of necessary care and services. Findings: During a review of Resident 58's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 58's diagnoses included status post (S/P) fracture of right femur (broken thigh bone), protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), anemia (a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 58's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 1/14/22, indicated the resident has severe impaired cognition (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 58 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing, and required total dependence with eating and transfer. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/16/22 at 9:12 a.m., the DON stated on 3/3/22, Resident 58 complained of severe pain to her right knee. The DON stated a radiologic exam (X-ray) was done on the same day. The DON stated the results of the X-ray indicated an acute femur fracture, and Resident 58's physician and responsible party were notified. The DON stated Resident 58 was transferred to a hospital on 3/3/22 due to severe pain and fracture of the right leg. The DON stated that an investigation was conducted with interviews. The DON stated she reported to the incident to the Department of Public Health (DPH) and Ombudsman. The DON stated Resident 58 returned to the facility on 3/7/22 and needed close monitoring after her significant change. The DON stated that a resident-centered care plan should have been developed and implemented based on Resident 58 current needs. During an interview with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) on 3/16/22 at 11:30 a.m., RN 1 stated for newly admitted and readmitted residents, the license nurses were expected to complete the resident admission assessment which included the admission body assessment. RN 1 stated all licensed nurses were also expected to perform their resident's daily skin assessment during the residents' shower days and perform a routine body check every shift. A review of Resident 58's readmission Documents on 3/7/22 indicated that Resident 58 had a right femur fracture with orthopedic brace. Resident 58 was transferred to acute hospital on 3/3/3022 due to pain score 7/10 (severe pain) and swelling on her right knee, During a concurrent interview and review of Resident 58's Assessment Record indicated there was no Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] group of different disciplines working together towards a common goal of a resident) meeting organized by the facility to address Resident 58's readmission to the facility on 3/7/22 to 3/17/22. MDS Nurse confirmed an IDT meeting was not done, and the comprehensive assessment of Resident 58's significant change has not been initiated at this time. A review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS') Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual dated October 2019, indicated the completion of the RAI can be conceptualized using the nursing process as follows: CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual CH 1: Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) October 2019 Page 1-9 a. Assessment-Taking stock of all observations, information, and knowledge about a resident from all available sources (e.g., medical records, the resident, resident's family, and/or guardian or other legally authorized representative). b. Decision Making-Determining with the resident (resident's family and/or guardian or other legally authorized representative), the resident's physician and the interdisciplinary team, the severity, functional impact, and scope of a resident's clinical issues and needs. Decision making should be guided by a review of the assessment information, in-depth understanding of the resident's diagnoses and co-morbidities, and the careful consideration of the triggered areas in the CAA process. Understanding the causes and relationships between a resident's clinical issues and needs and discovering the whats and whys of the resident's clinical issues and needs; finding out who the resident is and consideration for incorporating his or her needs, interests, and lifestyle choices into the delivery of care, is key to this step of the process. c. Identification of Outcomes-Determining the expected outcomes forms the basis for evaluating resident-specific goals and interventions that are designed to help residents achieve those goals. This also assists the interdisciplinary team in determining who needs to be involved to support the expected resident outcomes. Outcomes identification reinforces individualized care tenets by promoting the resident's active participation in the process. d. Care Planning-Establishing a course of action with input from the resident (resident's family and/or guardian or other legally authorized representative), resident's physician and interdisciplinary team that moves a resident toward resident-specific goals utilizing individual resident strengths and interdisciplinary expertise; crafting the how of resident care. e. Implementation-Putting that course of action (specific interventions derived through interdisciplinary individualized care planning) into motion by staff knowledgeable about the resident's care goals and approaches; carrying out the how and when of resident care. f. Evaluation-Critically reviewing individualized care plan goals, interventions and implementation in terms of achieved resident outcomes as identified and assessing the need to modify the care plan (i.e., change interventions) to adjust to changes in the resident's status, goals, or improvement or decline. ?
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 effectively manage the pain for one of one sampled re...

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 effectively manage the pain for one of one sampled resident (Resident 13) experiencing pain. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect Resident 13's physical comfort and psychosocial well-being and had the potential to increase the pain level and result in an unmanageable pain level. Findings: A review of Resident 13's admission Record indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 13's diagnoses included unilateral primary osteoarthritis (wearing down of the protective tissue at the ends of bones [cartilage] occurs gradually and worsens over time), bipolar disorder (disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs), neuralgia and neuritis (pain caused by damaged or irritated nerves). A review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident 13 was able to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and dressing, and required total assistance with transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, toilet use, and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 6 had no impairment on both upper (arms) and lower (legs) extremities. A review of Resident 13's Order Summary Report dated 3/16/2022, indicated the resident was receiving the following pain medications: 1. Gabapentin (used to treat nerve pain) 800 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement) every 8 hours. 2. Norco (narcotic pain medicataion used to treat moderate to severe pain) tablet 10-325 mg as needed every 6 hours 3.Tramadol Hydrochloride (used to relieve moderate to moderately severe pain) 50 mg every 6 hours as needed. 4.Cymbalta (used to relieve nerve pain) capsule 60 mg every morning. During an initial tour of the facility on 3/15/2022 at 9:21 a.m., Resident 13 was observed complaining of severe pain to her right hip due to not being repositioned timely by the staff. Resident 13 stated she stayed in one position for a long time in bed and that made it uncomfortable throughout the day. Resident 13 stated she was given pain medication when she complained of pain from being in bed. Resident 13 stated she had been requesting a more appropriate bed. Resident 13 stated the facility recently changed her bed, but it still does not help alleviate the pain because it is not a firm mattress. Resident 13 stated she was aware that her weight was adding to her pain, and she had been wanting to lose weight. Resident 13 stated she was hoping that the facility could provide a bed that was not for use by a regular petite-sized resident because it was hard to move side to side because the bed was not stable or firm enough to help her in repositioning. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/17/2022 at 9:20 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4), LVN 4 stated Resident 13 was recently seen by a pain management physician (MD 1) and has been receiving multiple pain medications to help ease her pain. LVN 4 stated there was an order for an X-ray (a photographic or digital image of the internal composition of something, especially a part of the body) of the resident's right hip but due to the resident's size the technician could not obtain one. LVN 4 stated that the order was discontinued, and the MD 1 was made aware. LVN 4 stated Registered Nurse (RN 1) supervisor should have followed up with MD 1 or asked for other alternatives for interventions. During an interview on 3/17/2022 at 10:51 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that pain needs to be assessed every shift and that as much as possible residents should be pain free. The DON the facility should do everything to address the resident's complaints of pain, even sending the Resident to the hospital. The DON stated the facility transfers or arranges for residents to go to the hospital. The DON stated discontinuing the order for an x-ray was not the right intervention for Resident 13 and the facility should have used all kinds of resources before discontinuing the order. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) dated 12/2014 and titled, Pain Assessment and Management, indicated that to help the staff identify pain in the resident, and to develop interventions that are consistent with the resident's goals and needs and that address the underlying causes of pain. The pain management program is based on a facility- wide commitment to resident comfort. Pain management is defined as the process of alleviating the resident's pain to a level that is acceptable to the resident and is based on his or her clinical condition and established treatment goals.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

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, staff failed to provide reasonable accommodation to meet the resident's need...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, staff failed to provide reasonable accommodation to meet the resident's needs by failing to ensure the resident's call lights was within reach for three of eight sampled residents (Residents 123 and 124). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact Resident 123, and 124's psychosocial well-being or result in delayed provision of services. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 123's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 123's diagnoses included sepsis (a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the body's response to an infection damages its own tissues), diabetes mellitus (refers to a group of diseases that affect how your body uses blood sugar), and adult failure to thrive (a decline seen in older adults - typically those with multiple chronic medical conditions - resulting in a downward spiral of poor nutrition, weight loss, inactivity, depression and decreasing functional ability; and muscle weakness). During a review of Resident 123's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 3/13/2022, the MDS indicated the resident had severe impaired cognition (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 123 required total dependence with bed mobility, dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/14/2022 at 9:50 a.m., Resident 123 was observed smiling and was verbally responsive with a soft-spoken. Resident 123 was observed with right and left arm contractures (permanent tightening and shortening of the muscles, tendons, skin that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff). The call light pad was observed on the bedside table out of Resident 123's reach. Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7) stated the call light pad should have been within the resident's reach close to his head where the resident can be able to move his head to tap the call light pad. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 9 (CNA 9) on 3/17/2022 at 9:20 a.m., Resident 123's call light pad was observed on top of the side table, out of the resident's reach. CNA 9 stated Resident 123's call light should be placed on top of the pillow near the resident's head so when he moves his head he can reach and tap the call light pad. CNA 9 stated the call light was very important to the resident, because it tells you that the resident needs something. b. During a review of Resident 124's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 124's diagnoses included angioneurotic edema (a sudden swelling below the skin surface and it can be painful or itchy), dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), and neuropathy (damage or dysfunction of one or more nerves that typically results in numbness, tingling, muscle weakness and pain in the affected area). A review of Resident 124's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 58 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing, and required total dependence with transfer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/2022 at 3:31 p.m., Resident 124 was heard screaming and yelling. Resident124's call light was observed attached to the bed linen; however, the call light button was observed on the floor, out of the resident's reach. Resident 124 stated that she has severe pain on her left leg and was observed grimacing while touching her left leg. LVN 7 stated that since admission, Resident 124 had been screaming and yelling all the time. LVN 7 stated that Resident 124 confirmed she does not have any physician orders for pain since her admission, but they were just ordered on 3/14/2022. LVN 7 stated there was no comprehensive resident-centered care plan developed to address the resident's pain. LVN 7 stated Resident 124 should have been properly assessed for her needs for pain management instead of addressing her behavior of screaming and yelling. During a review of facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Answering Call Lights, the P/P indicated that the purpose of this procedure is to respond to the resident's requests and needs. Steps are taken to ensure that a resident's need and request is consider when request are made and when call light are used to respond to needs at the time of use. Ensure the call light is plugged at all times. When resident is in bed and confined to a chair, the call light will be placed within easy reach of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one controlled substance (medication with a hi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one controlled substance (medication with a high potential for abuse) was disposed of, after expiration and discontinuation of the physician's order for one out of one resident (Resident 9). This deficient practice increased the facility's risk for potential loss, diversion (transfer of a medication from a legal to an illegal use) or accidental exposure to controlled substances, and potential for harm to residents. Findings: A review of Resident 9's admission Record (Facesheet) dated [DATE], indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses not limited to major depressive disorder ([MDD] a common but serious mood disorder, causing severe symptoms that affect how you feel, think, and handle daily activities, such as sleeping, eating, or working), dementia (a chronic or persistent disorder of the mental processes caused by brain disease or injury and marked by memory disorders, personality changes, and impaired reasoning.), hypertension ([HTN] condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal), fracture (complete or partial break in a bone) of left femur (thigh bone), obesity, and iron deficiency anemia (a condition in which blood lacks adequate healthy red blood cells, causing less oxygen to be carried to the body's tissues). A review of the Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated [DATE], indicated Resident 9 had moderate cognitive (ability to make decisions of daily living) impairment; and required supervision from staff with bed mobility, dressing, toileting; and required physical help from staff with transfer for bathing. During an inspection of Station 2's Medication Cart on [DATE], at 12:38 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), observed Tramadol Hcl (medication used to treat pain) 50 milligrams (mg) medication card (a bubble pack from the dispensing pharmacy labeled with the resident's information that contains the individual doses of the medication) with accompanying Controlled Drug Record (a log signed by the nurse with the date and time each time a controlled substance is given to a resident) for Resident 9. The pharmacy label on the Medication Card and Controlled Drug Record indicated Tramadol 50 mg was ordered, take 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate pain 4-7 (on a scale of 1 (minimal) to 10 (severe pain); was dispensed [DATE] and expired [DATE]. LVN 1 stated Tramadol 50 mg on Medication Card and Controlled Drug Record was expired and discontinued and the physician ordered a new dose of medication Tramadol for Resident 9. A review of Resident 9's completed and discontinued orders with LVN 1 indicated medication Tramadol 50 mg with orders give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate pain 4-7 was discontinued [DATE]. A review of Resident 9's active orders as of [DATE] with LVN 1 indicated medication Tramadol 50 mg with orders give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate to sever pain 4-10 was ordered and started [DATE]. LVN 1 stated once controlled medications are discontinued or expired, the process is to give them to the Director of Nursing (DON) as soon as possible. LVN 1 confirmed Tramadol 50 mg for Resident 9 was not given to the DON and stated there is a potential for this medication to be given to other residents causing them to get sick since the medication was already expired. During an interview on [DATE], at 1:01 p.m., with DON, the DON stated the process when controlled medications are discontinued or expired is for licensed nurses to hand over to her as soon as possible. DON stated she would perform count of controlled medication for accuracy. DON stated the Tramadol 50 mg was not handed over to her, but said it was important to do so immediately so medication could be destroyed and not be given to any other resident. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Administration & Disposal of Controlled Medications, revised 7/2012 indicated scheduled II-V controlled substances remaining in the facility after a resident has been discharged , or order discontinued, are disposed of in the facility by the director of nursing or designated facility registered nurse in conjunction with the pharmacist.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure it was free of medication error rate of less th...

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 it was free of medication error rate of less than five (5) percent (%) for two of six randomly selected residents (Resident 48 and 35) observed during medication administration. This deficient practice of two medication errors out of 30 opportunities (observations during medication administration), resulted in a medication administration error rate of 6.67 %, that exceeded the five (5) percent threshold and the potential to increase the side effects of the medications. Findings: a. During a review of the admission Record, the record indicated Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 48's diagnoses include hemiplegia (a severe or complete loss of strength or paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (mild or partial weakness or loss of strength on one side of the body) following other nontraumatic Intracranial hemorrhage (acute bleeding inside the skull or brain) affecting the right dominant side, type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), and hypertension (chronically elevated blood pressure). During a review of Resident 48's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 10/19/2021, the MDS indicated the resident's cognition (ability to think, understand, and reason) was severely impaired. Resident 48 required extensive assistance with transfer and limited assistance with dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Resident 48 was independent on bed mobility and eating. During a review of Resident 48's order summary report for the month of March 2022, the report indicated, Resident 48 had a physician's order for: 1. controlled carbohydrate diet with regular texture. 2. Metformin (an oral diabetes medicine that helps regulate blood sugar levels) HCl Tablet 500 milligrams (mg, a unit of measure). Give one tablet by mouth two times a day with meals. During medication pass observation on 3/15/2022 at 9:12 a.m., licensed vocational nurse (LVN 1) administered Metformin HCl Tablet 500 mg one tablet by mouth to Resident 48. The medications were administered without food. Resident 48 stated she had her breakfast at 8:07 a.m. b. During a review of the admission Record, the record indicated Resident 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 35's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area) affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), cerebral palsy (a condition marked by impaired muscle coordination (spastic paralysis) and/or other disabilities, typically caused by damage to the brain before or at birth), deaf nonspeaking, and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 35's MDS dated , 1/10/22, indicated Resident 35's cognitive skills for daily decision making were independent. Resident 35 required extensive assistance with transfer, dressing, and limited assistance with bed mobility, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 35's order summary report for the month of March 2022 indicated, Resident 35 had a physician's order for: 1. fortified diet with regular texture. 2. Metformin HCl Tablet 500 mg one tablet two times a day. Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day with Food. On 3/15/2022 at 9:45 a.m., during medication pass observation, LVN 1 administered one tablet of Metformin HCl Tablet 500 mg by mouth to Resident 35 without food. Resident 35's roommate stated that they had breakfast at 7:30 a.m. During concurrent record review and interview on 3/15/2022 at 10:00 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated that Resident 48 and 35's physician's order for Metformin HCl Tablet 500 mg indicated to give with a meal for Resident 48 and food for Resident 35. LVN 1 stated if the medication was not given as Doctor's ordered, it would increase the risk of side effects which include nausea, vomiting and headache. During an interview on 3/17/2022, at 10:43 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, for any medications that need to be given with meal or food should be scheduled close to meal times, 7 a.m., 12 p.m., or 5 p.m. according to the medication frequency and its schedule. The medications that need to be given with meals or food need to be administered before or after 30 minutes of consuming food to avoid possible side effects. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Administering Medications, dated 1/2001 indicated that 3. Medications must be administered in a timely manner and in accordance with the attending physician's written/verbal orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 infection control practices were followed by Licensed Vocational (LVN 1) during care for one out of seven residents (Resident 124) who resided in a yellow zone room (area for newly admitted or readmitted residents, residents with incomplete or unknown COVID-19 [a highly contagious infection, caused by a corona virus that can easily spread from person to person] vaccination status). This deficient practice had the potential to place the residents, staff, and the community at risk for the spread of infection. Findings: A review of Resident 124's admission record (Facesheet) dated 3/17/22, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses not limited to urinary tract infection ([UTI] an infection of some part of the urinary tract), hyperlipidemia ([HLD] a condition that causes the levels of certain bad fats, or lipids, to be too high in the blood), dementia (memory loss), and hypertension ([HTN] a condition present when blood flows through the blood vessels with a force greater than normal). A review of the Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/16/2022, indicated Resident 124 was cognitively intact; required extensive assistance from staff with bed mobility, dressing, and toileting; and was totally dependent on staff with bathing. During an observation on 3/16/22, at 2:10 p.m., LVN 1 was preparing to enter room [ROOM NUMBER]. LVN 1 was wearing personal protective equipment ([PPE] equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses) N95 mask (PPE worn on the face that covers at least the nose and mouth used to filter infection virus-containing smaller particles that can remain suspended in the air over long distances) and face shield (PPE for protection of the facial area) and donned (put on) gown and gloves. LVN 1 then performed hand-hygiene with an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) prior to entering the room. LVN 1 informed Resident 124 she was going to empty the resident's foley catheter (a flexible plastic tube inserted into the bladder to provide continuous urinary drainage) bag. LVN 1 picked up a urinal from Resident 124's bed rail, emptied the foley catheter bag into a urinal, then emptied the contents from the urinal in the toilet. LVN 1 placed the urinal back on the resident's bed rail. Resident 124 asked LVN 1 to push her side table closer and adjust her pillow. With the same gloves that touched the foley catheter bag and urinal, LVN 1 touched Resident 124's side table then adjusted her pillow and bedding. LVN 1 doffed her gloves and gown and performed hand-hygiene with ABHR prior to leaving the resident's room. During an interview on 3/16/2022, at 2:17 p.m., with LVN 1, the LVN stated she went into Resident 124's room to empty her foley catheter bag. LVN 1 stated the urinal is considered a contaminated item and the bed is considered a clean area. LVN 1 stated she forgot to change her gloves and wash her hands after emptying the urinal and before touching the resident's bed side table and bedding. LVN 1 stated there is a potential for cross contamination to occur when going from something dirty to clean. During an interview on 3/16/2022 at 3:01 p.m., with Infection Prevention ([IP] nurse in charge of infection prevention for the facility), the IP stated hand hygiene should be done before and after coming in contact with the resident and if it is not done, there is a potential to contaminate the resident causing the resident or others who come into contact to get sick. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised 12/2014, indicated to use alcohol-based hand rub or alternatively soap and water before and after handling an invasive device such as urinary catheters.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to ensure an accurate assessment was conducted for three of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to ensure an accurate assessment was conducted for three of three sampled residents (Residents 124, 58 and 49). Residents 124, 58, and 49 did not have an accurate assessment for following: 1. Failure to address Resident 124's complaints of pain. 2. Failure to accurately assess and monitor Resident 58's skin integrity, who was at a very high risk for skin breakdown due to the application of an orthopedic brace (a medical devices designed to address musculoskeletal issues; they are used to properly align, correct the position, support, stabilize, and protect certain parts of the body as they heal from injury or trauma) to the right leg. 3. Failure to ensure Resident 49's bowel and bladder assessment was conducted timely. These deficient practices had the potential to result in a delay in necessary care and treatment for Residents 124, 58, and 49. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 124's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 124's diagnoses included angioneurotic edema (a sudden swelling below the skin surface and it can be painful or itchy), dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), and neuropathy (damage or dysfunction of one or more nerves that typically results in numbness, tingling, muscle weakness and pain in the affected area). A review of Resident 124's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 3/16/22, indicated the resident had no cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 58 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing, and required total dependence with transfer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/22 at 3:31 p.m., Resident 124 was heard screaming and yelling. Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7) stated Resident 124 was in the yellow zone because the resident was newly admitted . Resident 124 stated that she has severe pain on her left leg. Resident 124 was observed grimacing while touching her left leg. LVN 7 stated since Resident 124's admission, the resident has been screaming and yelling all the time. LVN 7 stated Resident 124 did not have a physician's order for pain upon admission, however there was a new order on 3/14/22. LVN 7 stated there was no resident-centered comprehensive care plan developed to address Resident 124's pain to the left leg. LVN 7 stated Resident 124 should have been properly assessed for her needs for pain management instead of addressing her behavior of screaming and yelling. A review of Resident 124's Physician's order dated 3/14/22, indicated Acetaminophen ([Tylenol] used to relieve mild to moderate pain) 325 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement) 2 tablets by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. The order did not have any pain scale parameters. b. During a review of Resident 58's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 58's diagnoses included status post (S/P) fracture of right femur (broken thigh bone), protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), anemia (a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 58's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident has severe impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 58 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing, and total dependence with eating and transfer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/22 at 12:22 p.m., Resident 58 was observed lying in bed in a supine (face up) position with an orthopedic brace on her right leg. Resident 58 stated the physician told her she had a fracture to her right leg. LVN 4 and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 10 were observed performing a routine body skin assessment to Resident 58. Resident 58 was observed with non-blanchable (discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed) erythema of the skin on her right leg popliteal areas (of or relating to the back part of the leg behind the knee joint), measuring approximately 3 centimeters (cm) by 2 cm. LVN 4 stated Resident 58's right leg brace should applied at all times to stabilize the resident's fracture. LVN 4 stated having an orthopedic brace in contact with the skin too long would have a higher risk of developing pressure ulcers (injuries to the skin and underlying tissue). LVN 4 confirmed there were no specific instructions ordered for the application of Resident 58's orthopedic brace. A review of Resident 58's admission Nursing assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had right arm and left arm skin discolorations, and otherwise no other skin impairment documented. A review of Resident 58's Physician's admission Order dated 3/7/22, indicated there were no orders of instructions and of risk prevention for pressure injury for Resident 58's right leg fracture with orthopedic brace. A review of the facility's Change of Condition Logbook dated from 3/4/22 to 3/15/22, indicated that there were no records reported of Resident 58 having new skin breakdown. A review of the facility's Treatment Monitoring Logbook dated March 2022, indicated that there was no treatment monitoring recorded for Resident 58 right leg fracture. A review of Resident 58's Braden Scale of Prediction of Pressure Sore Risk dated 3/7/3022, indicated the resident was a very high risk for developing pressure ulcers. A review of Resident 58's daily skin inspection tool dated from 3/7/22 to 3/15/22, used by CNAs during the residents' shower day, indicated that Resident 58's skin integrity was not inspected. c. During a review of Resident 49's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 49 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 49's diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), and anemia. A review of Resident 49's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 49 had unclear speech, and was able to usually make himself understood and was usually able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 49 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, locomotion on and off the unit, personal hygiene, bathing and dressing, and required total dependence with transfer and eating. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had no impairment of both upper and lower extremities (arms/legs). During an interview with LVN 4 on 3/17/2022 at 9:25 a.m., LVN 4 stated an assessment was performed upon a resident's admission and quarterly thereafter, except for fall incidents which should be updated. During an interview with the MDS Nurse (MDS Nurse) on 3/17/2022 at 9:40 a.m., MDS Nurse stated he was responsible for completing every resident quarterly assessment for bowel and bladder, pain, fall, and the Braden scale (an assessment tool for predicting the risk of pressure ulcers). When asked why there was no assessment for Resident 49's bowel and bladder, MDS Nurse stated he missed it. MDS Nurse stated it was important to complete an assessment to determine the resident's needs. MDS Nurse stated an assessment would help identify a resident's improvement or decline. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Policies and Procedure on Nursing Assessment, dated 7/2012, indicated to assess all residents admitted within 7 days upon admission per state regulation. The P/P indicated to the completion of admission assessment within 14 days per federal then quarterly, and annually and as often as needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of eight sampled residents (Residents 123 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of eight sampled residents (Residents 123 and 58) fingernails and moustache/beard were clean and trimmed regularly. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact Resident 123 and 58's quality of life and self-esteem. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 123's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 123's diagnoses included sepsis (a potentially life-threatening condition that occurs when the body's response to an infection damages its own tissues), diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), adult failure to thrive (a decline seen in older adults, typically those with multiple chronic medical conditions, resulting in a downward spiral of poor nutrition, weight loss, inactivity, depression and decreasing functional ability) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 123's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 3/13/22, the MDS indicated the resident has severe impaired cognition (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 123 required total dependence with bed mobility, dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing. During an observation on 3/14/22 at 9:50 a.m., Resident 123 was verbally responsive with a soft-spoken voice. Resident 123 was smiling and had long fingernails. Resident 123 was observed with contractures (shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity) to both arms. Resident 123's fingernails were observed with brown substance underneath the nailbeds. Resident 123 was also observed with long facial hair. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/17/22 at 9:20 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 9 stated that Resident 123's fingernails should be trimmed regularly and maintained clean at all times to prevent from harboring bacteria through long fingernails. CNA 9 observed checking Resident 123's fingernails and stated the resident's fingernails were not trimmed. b. During a review of Resident 58's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 58's diagnoses included status post (S/P) fracture of right femur (broken thigh bone), protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), anemia (a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 58's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 58 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing, and required total dependence with eating and transfer. During an observation on 3/14/22 at 10:10 a.m., Resident 58 was observed with long fingernails with brown substance underneath the nailbeds. During interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7) on 3/14/22 at 2:34 p.m., LVN 7 stated it was the CNAs responsibility to maintain proper grooming of the residents including clean fingernails at all times. LVN 7 stated that an individualized resident-centered care plan should be developed and implemented for residents requiring extensive assistance and/or total dependence with activities with daily living (ADL) needs. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/17/22 at 9:20 a.m., CNA 9 stated that Resident 58's fingernails should be trimmed regularly and maintained clean at all times to prevent them from harboring bacteria. CNA 9 was observed checking Resident 58's fingernails and she stated that the resident's fingernails were not trimmed. During a review of Resident 58's care plans indicated that there was no comprehensive care plan developed to maintain and improve the resident's ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) dated 2001 and titled, Care Plan, the P/P indicated that a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable, objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing and psychological needs. 1. An interdisciplinary assessment team, in coordination with the resident and his/her family or representative, develops and maintains a comprehensive care plan for each resident. 2. The comprehensive care plan has been designed to: a. Incorporate identified problem areas; b. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; c. Build on the resident's strengths; d. Reflect treatment goals and objectives in measurable problems; e. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care; f. Prevent declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels; and g. Enhance the optimal functioning of the resident by focusing on a rehabilitative program. During a review of facility's P/P dated 2001 and titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Supporting, the P/P indicated that to ensure resident will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADL). Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good grooming and personal and oral hygiene.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 one of eight sampled residents (Resident 58), ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 58), who was readmitted to the facility with intact skin integrity and an order for an orthopedic brace (medical device designed to address musculoskeletal issues; used to properly align, correct the position, support, stabilize, and protect certain parts of the body as they heal from injury or trauma) to the right leg, received care consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent medical-device related pressure ulcers (injuries result from use of medical devices, equipment, furniture, and everyday objects in direct contact with skin and because of increased external mechanical load leading to soft tissue damage) and received necessary treatment and services to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new pressure ulcers from developing. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 58 developing a Stage I pressure ulcer (non-blanchable [discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed] intact skin) on the right popliteal area (of or relating to the back part of the leg behind the knee joint) of the right leg. Findings: During a review of Resident 58's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 58's diagnoses included status post (S/P) fracture of the right femur (broken thigh bone), protein-calorie malnutrition, dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), anemia (lack of healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues), and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 58's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and screening tool, dated 1/14/22, indicated the resident had severe impaired cognition (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 58 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing, and required total dependence with eating and transfer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/22 at 12:22 p.m., Resident 58 was lying in bed in a supine (face up) position with an orthopedic brace on her right leg. Resident 58 stated that the doctor told her that she had fracture on her right leg. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4 and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 10 were observed performing a routine body skin assessment on Resident 58. Resident 58 was noted with non-blanchable erythema of the skin on her right leg popliteal area, measuring approximately 3 centimeters (cm) by 2 cm. LVN 4 stated Resident 58's orthopedic brace should always be on the resident's right leg at all times for stabilization due to her fracture. LVN 4 agreed that having an orthopedic brace in contact with skin too long would place the resident at a higher risk of developing pressure ulcers. LVN 4 confirmed there were no specific instructions ordered for placing the orthopedic brace on Resident 58. LVN 4 verified a care plan was not developed as a person-centered care plan based on the resident's current status. During an interview on 3/15/22 at 3:03 p.m. with LVN 7, LVN 7 stated CNAs were supposed to inform the licensed nurses of any skin changes on the residents. LVN 7 stated CNAs performed daily skin assessments on every shower day and report any abnormal findings. LVN 7 stated that any change of condition should be reported and recorded immediately at the time it was discovered and should notify the resident's physician and responsible party. During an interview on 3/15/22 at 3:37 p.m. with LVN 6, who was the facility's Treatment Nurse, LVN 6 stated Resident 58 was being monitored for her right and left arm discolorations and orthopedic brace. LVN 6 stated that she did not know Resident 58 had a pressure sore underneath the orthopedic brace. LVN 6 stated that a skin assessment should have been done properly and thoroughly on a daily basis for Resident 58 who was a very high risk in developing pressure ulcers. LVN 6 confirmed that she assessed and monitored Resident 58's circulation, coldness and pain only. LVN 6 stated that a skin assessment should include skin color, temperature, texture, moisture, integrity and location. During an interview on 3/16/22 at 9:12 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated on 3/3/22, Resident 58 complained of severe pain on her right knee. The DON stated a Radiologic (Xray) exam was done on the same day which resulted in an acute femur fracture, and that Resident 58's physician and responsible were notified. The DON stated Resident 58 was transferred to a general acute care hospital (GACH) on 3/3/22 due to severe pain and fracture of the right leg. The DON stated an investigation and interviews was done, and she reported the incident to the Department of Public Health (DPH) and Ombudsman. The DON stated Resident 58 returned to the facility on 3/7/22 and needed close monitoring because it was a significant change. The DON stated a resident-centered care plan should have been developed and implemented based on Resident 58 current needs. During an interview on 3/16/22 at 11:30 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated for newly admitted and readmitted residents, the license nurses were expected to complete the resident admission assessment which included the admission body assessment. RN 1 stated all license nurses were also expected to do perform daily skin assessment during the residents' shower days and conduct a routine body check every shift. During an interview on 3/17/22 at 9:20 a.m., CNA 9 and CNA 11 stated that they followed Resident 58's turning schedule every 2 hours, but they confirmed that there was no repositioning documentation in the resident's chart. Both CNA 9 and CNA 11 agreed that when a task was executed and not documented, it was considered not done. A review of Resident 58's readmission Report on 3/7/22 from the GACH indicated that Resident 58 had a right femur fracture with an orthopedic brace. The report indicated Resident 58 was transferred to the GACH on 3/3/3022 due to pain of seven out of ten (severe pain) on a pain scale and swelling on her right knee. A review of Resident 58's Assessment Record indicated that there was no Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] a group of different disciplines working together towards a common goal) meeting was organized by the facility from the resident's readmission on [DATE] to 3/17/22. During a subsequent interview, the MDS Coordinator confirmed that a IDT meeting was not conducted, and a comprehensive assessment of significant change have not initiated at this time. A review of the Resident 58's admission Nursing assessment dated [DATE], indicated that resident has right arm and left arm skin discolorations, otherwise no other skin impairment documented. A review of Physician's admission Order dated 3/7/22, indicated there was no ordered instructions and/or risk prevention for pressure injury for Resident 58's right leg fracture with orthopedic brace. A review of the Change of Condition logbook dated from 3/4/22 to 3/15/22, indicated that there was no record reported of Resident 58 having new skin breakdown. A review of the facility's Treatment Monitoring Logbook, for the month of March 2022, indicated that there was no treatment monitoring recorded for Resident 58's right leg fracture. A review of Resident 58's Braden Scale of Prediction of Pressure Sore Risk dated 3/7/3022, indicated the resident was a very high risk for developing pressure ulcers. A review of the Daily Skin Inspection Tool dated from 3/7/22, to 3/15/22, used by the CNAs during residents' shower days, indicated that Resident 58's skin integrity was not inspected. A review of Resident 58's Care Plan dated 3/7/22, for right leg orthopedic brace from middle thigh to ankle, indicated the staff's interventions included to notify Resident 58's physician and resident representative for any change of condition, and monitor skin for any circulation, coldness, and pain daily. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) dated year 2021 and titled, Care Plan, indicated that a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable, objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing and psychological needs. The P/P indicated an interdisciplinary assessment team, in coordination with the resident and his/her family or representative, develops and maintains a comprehensive care plan for each resident. The comprehensive care plan has been designed to: a. Incorporate identified problem areas; b. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; c. Build on the resident's strengths; d. Reflect treatment goals and objectives in measurable problems; e. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care; f. Prevent declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels; and g. Enhance the optimal functioning of the resident by focusing on a rehabilitative program. A review of the facility's P/P dated 7/2012 and titled, Change of Condition, indicated that all changes in resident condition will be communicated to the physician. The purpose to clearly define guidelines for timely notification of a change in resident condition for immediate intervention. Any sudden or serious change in a resident's condition manifested by a marked change in physical or mental behavior will be communicated to the physician. The responsible party will be notified that there has been a change in the resident's condition and what steps are being taken. All nursing actions/ interventions will be documented in the licensed progress notes as soon as possible after resident needs have been met. The licensed nurse responsible for the resident will continue assessment and documentation every shift for seventy-two (72) hours or until condition has stable. Resident will be listed on the twenty-four (24) Hour report and have progress and needs clearly communicated to each shift. A review of the facility's P/P dated 12/14 and titled, Pressure Ulcer Risk Assessment, indicated to provide guidelines for the assessment and identification of residents at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The P/P indicated: 1. Pressure ulcers are usually formed when a resident remains in the same position for an extended period of time causing increased pressure or a decrease of circulation (blood flow) to that area, which destroys the tissues. 2. The most common site of a pressure ulcer is where the bone is near the surface of the body including the back of the head around the ears, elbows, shoulder blades, backbone, hips, knees, heels, ankles and toes. 3. Pressure can also come from splints, casts, bandages and wrinkles in the bed linen. 4. If pressure ulcers are not treated when discovered, they quickly get larger, become very painful for the resident, and often times become infected. 5. Pressure ulcers are often made worse by continual pressure, heat, moisture, irritating substances on the resident's skin (i.e., perspiration, feces, urine, wound discharge, soap, residue, etc.), decline in nutrition and hydration status, acute illness and/or decline in the resident's physical and /or/mental condition. 6. Once a pressure ulcer develops, it can extremely be difficult to heal. 7. Pressure ulcers are a serious skin condition for the resident. 8. Routinely assess and document the condition of the resident's skin per facility wound and skin care program for any signs and symptoms of irritation or breakdown. Immediately report any signs of a developing pressure ulcer to the supervisor.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 16 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 5...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 16 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 5), who had limited range of motion ([ROM] the extent of movement of a joint) and limited mobility, received appropriate treatment and services to increase ROM, prevent further decrease in ROM, and maintain or improve mobility. This deficient practice had the potential to place Residents 1 and 5 at increased risk for further decline and development of contractures (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints). Findings: a. During a review of Resident 5's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 5's diagnoses included hemiplegia (a severe or complete loss of strength or paralysis [inability to move] on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (a mild or partial weakness or loss of strength on one side of the body) affecting the non-dominant side, diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), protein-calorie malnutrition, adult failure to thrive (a decline seen in older adults, typically those with multiple chronic medical conditions, resulting in a downward spiral of poor nutrition, weight loss, inactivity, depression and decreasing functional ability), contractures of the right and left knee and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 5's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool) dated 3/1/22, indicated the resident has severe impaired cognition (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 5 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and total dependence with eating, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing. During a concurrent observation and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 7, on 3/14/22 at 10:27 a.m., Resident 5 was observed lying on a Geri chair (a medical recliner chair designed to allow the resident to sit comfortably in a variety of positions while being fully supported) with contractures to the right and left knees, and left arm. LVN 7 stated Resident 5 required total assistance with activities of daily living ([ADLs] daily self-care activities such as dressing, personal hygiene, and bathing) due to contractures of her arms and legs. During a concurrent observation and interview with Restorative Nursing Aide ([RNA] provides rehabilitation care to help residents regain or improve their physical, mental and emotional health) 1 on 3/16/22 at 10:42 a.m., RNA 1 stated Resident 5 was contracted on the right arm and right leg. RNA 1 confirmed Resident 5 was not on the RNA program since the resident's readmission on [DATE]. RNA 1 stated she believed that Resident 5 would benefit from participation in the RNA program to prevent her from further decline and contractures of all extremities. RNA 1 stated Resident 5 was totally dependent with ADLs. RNA 1 stated that she can only visually assess Resident 5's range of motion (ROM) and there was no way to monitor if there was further decline of the resident's ROM because there was no physician order. A review of Resident 5's physician orders, confirmed with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, indicated there were no range of motion ([ROM] how far one can move or stretch a part of the body) exercises ordered. A review of Resident 5's admission Nursing assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had left arm and left-hand contractures. A review of Resident 5's Rehabilitation Screening form during admission on [DATE] was not found, initiated nor completed. A review of Resident 5's quarterly Rehabilitation Screening Form dated 12/8/21, indicated the resident was assessed as having no contractures, no self-feeding problems, and no swallowing problems. A review of Resident 5's Rehabilitation Screening form dated 3/15/22, indicated the resident was assessed as having no contractures, no self-feeding problems, and no swallowing problems. The form indicated no rehab interventions indicated at this time. During an interview with RN 1 and the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/16/22 at 1:06 p.m., RN 1 stated Resident 5 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with right and left knee contractures. The DON stated because Resident 5 already had contractures, the resident would not further decline from that contractures. The DON stated the Rehabilitation Director (RD) might have missed conducting Resident 5's initial Rehab screening. During a concurrent interview, RD stated she confirmed and verified she did not perform the initial rehabilitation screening for Resident 5 during readmission to the facility because there was no physician order. RD stated a physician's order was not needed to initiate a rehabilitation screening for Resident 5 who was admitted with hemiplegia, hemiparesis and with contractures. b. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included gastro-esophageal reflux disease ([GERD] digestive disease in which stomach acid or bile irritates the food pipe lining), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), and diabetes mellitus (increased blood sugar). A review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 was able to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, personal hygiene, bathing and dressing, and required limited assistance with locomotion on and off the unit. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had impairment on both the upper and lower extremities (arms and legs). During a record review of Resident 1's physician orders indicated there were no orders for ROM exercises. During an interview on 3/17/2022 at 8:49 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4), LVN 4 stated residents that do not move a lot needed to have a restorative nurse assistant (RNA) order to prevent contractures (shortening or hardening of muscles, tendon, or other tissue leading to deformity) or further limitations that would create more problems. During an interview on 3/17/2022 at 8:52 a.m. with RNA 1, RNA 1 stated Resident 1 used to have exercises and after she was transferred to the hospital there was no more orders for ROM exercises. RNA 1 stated Resident 1 had a prior fall and would benefit from ROM exercises to prevent further limitation or from developing contractures. During an interview on 3/17/2022 at 9:54 a.m. with the Rehabilitation Director (RD), RD stated Resident 1 had a previous order for RNA exercises, but the facility's computerized system messed up the order. RD stated Resident 1 did not need exercises and that the resident would not develop any contractures because of not given exercises. RD stated residents that stayed in bed or did not move a lot was the one who would benefit from RNA exercises. RD stated she assessed Resident 1 and that there was limitation to the resident's upper and lower extremities. RD added that she never discontinued Resident 1's ROM order. During an interview on 3/17/2022 at 10:51 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 1 should have an active order for RNA services to prevent the resident from getting stiffness or contractures. The DON stated anybody that does not move often would benefit from RNA exercises. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), dated 7/2018 and titled, Restorative Program, indicated the restorative program focuses on achieving and maintaining optimal physical, mental, and psychological functioning of the resident to attain/maintain each resident's highest practicable functioning. The P/P indicated the facility provides Restorative programs to promote the resident's ability to adapt and adjust to living as independently and safely as possible.
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 ensure the bed siderails were not loose for five of f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the bed siderails were not loose for five of five sampled Residents (Residents 174, 6, 13, 1, and 49). This deficient practice placed Residents 174, 6, 13, 1, and 49 at risk for accidents and hazards such as having a body part caught between the rails, and/or falls. Findings: a. A review of Resident 174's admission Record indicated Resident 174 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 174's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus (increased blood sugar), complete traumatic amputation (removal of a body part) at knee level of the right lower leg and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 174's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 12/27/2021, indicated Resident 174's had clear speech, was able to make himself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 174 required limited assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene, and required extensive assistance from one staff with transfer, walking in the room and corridor, locomotion on and off unit (how residents move to and return off unit locations), toilet use, and bathing. A review of Resident 174's Order Summary Report, active as of 3/16/2022, indicated both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler. b. A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 6's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and acquired absence of the right leg below the knee. A review of Resident 6's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 6 was able to make himself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 6 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use, and limited assistance with personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 6 required total assistance with bathing and transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 6 had impairment on the lower extremities (legs). A review of Resident 6's Order Summary Report active as of 3/16/2022, indicated both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler c. A review of Resident 13's admission Record indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 13's diagnoses included unilateral primary osteoarthritis (wearing down of the protective tissue at the ends of the bones (cartilage) occurs gradually and worsens over time), bipolar disorder (disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs), neuralgia (intense intermittent pain along the course of a nerve) and neuritis (pain caused by damaged or irritated nerves). A review of Resident 13's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 13 was able to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 13 required extensive assistance with bed mobility and dressing, and required total assistance with transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, toilet use, and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 6 had no impairment on both the upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 13's Order Summary Report active as of 3/16/2022, indicated both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler. d. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included gastro-esophageal reflux disease ([GERD] digestive disease in which stomach acid or bile irritates the food pipe lining), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe) and diabetes mellitus. A review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 was able to make herself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, personal hygiene, bathing and dressing, and required limited assistance with locomotion on and off the unit. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had impairment on both the upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report active as of 3/16/2022, indicated both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler. e. A review of Resident 49's admission Record indicated Resident 49 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 49's diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), diabetes mellitus, and anemia (low number of red blood cells in the blood). A review of Resident 49's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 49 had unclear speech and could make himself usually understood and usually was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 49 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, locomotion on and off unit personal hygiene, bathing and dressing, and required total assistance with transfer and eating. The MDS indicated Resident 49 had no impairment on both upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 49 's Order Summary Report active as of 3/16/2022, indicated both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as an enabler. During an initial tour of the facility on 3/14/2022 at 2:59 p.m., observed Resident's 1, 6, 13, 49, and 174's bed side rails were loose. Resident 174 was observed attempting to sit up in by holding onto the unstable bed siderails. During an interview on 3/14/2022 at 3 p.m., Resident 174 stated his bed side rails had been loose and he was having a hard time trying to stabilize himself because they were loose. Resident 174 stated because he had an amputation of both lower legs, he used his upper torso to reposition himself in bed. Resident 174 stated it depended on where he can hold onto, but for the most part it was the bed siderails that he usually used. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3) on 3/14/2022 at 3:10 p.m., CNA 3 stated that she verbally reported the loose siderails to the maintenance staff. CNA 3 stated she was also aware that there were residents with loose bed siderails on her assignment. During an interview with Resident 1 on 3/14/2022 at 3:30 p.m. Resident 1 stated her siderails were unstable and loose. Resident 1 stated she had fallen once because she thought she could hold unto the bed siderails but since they were loose, she slid down and fell. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/16/2022 at 2:43 pm with Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS stated that non-working bed rails were a high risk for accidents or entrapment that could lead to death. MS stated they have a schedule to check all bed siderails. MS stated that overuse of bed or siderails leads to loose screws of the bed rails. MS stated the bed siderails of Residents 1, 6, 13, 49, and 174 was loose and not secured and needed to be tightened for safety. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 3/17/2022 at 10:24 am, LVN 1 stated that to report loose or not non-working beds, he usually told the MS verbally and followed up with the next shift. LVN 1 stated that there was no particular log or maintenance log used to report broken equipment. During a record review of the logbook documentation for bed maintenance for the week of 2/22/2022, the logbook indicated Resident's 1, 6, 13, 49, and 174's rooms passed the maintenance checks of the beds. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), dated 12/2014 and titled, Beds and Mattresses, the P/P indicated every 3 months maintenance was to repair and or replace as necessary the bedside rails to include lock/ release button during inspections. Inspect bed rails weekly, connector on rails and tighten as necessary, check for gaps in the area between the mattress and the rail, remove any burs or rough edges to prevent injury, inspect cranks if applicable and check for missing or faulty screws.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff were able to identify and produce the correct textures for pureed diets (food textures made of liquidized...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff were able to identify and produce the correct textures for pureed diets (food textures made of liquidized or crushed fruit or vegetables for people who cannot chew or have a problem swallowing). The dietary staff did not prepare the appropriate texture of meat according to the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS). This deficient practice had the potential to result in choking or aspiration (when swallowed food goes down the airway, cutting off breathing) during lunch time for 12 out of 12 residents on a pureed diet. This deficient practice had the potential to result in choking or aspiration (when swallowed food goes down the airway, cutting off breathing) during lunch time for 12 out of 12 residents on a pureed diet. Findings: During an observation of tray line service for lunch on 3/15/2022 at 11:45 a.m., [NAME] 1(C1) checked the temperature of the pureed food that was on the steam table it was green beans, mashed potatoes, and Barbecue (BBQ) pork riblet. During an interview on 3/15/2022 at 11:46 a.m., with Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), DSS stated that the BBQ pork riblet is pureed by C1 45 minutes before the tray line starts and C1 will put it in the oven. When asked DSS is the meat pureed enough for him? DSS stated that it looks pureed for him. DSS was asked to evaluate the texture of all the pureed food, mashed potatoes and green beans did not have lumps while BBQ pork riblet had lumps of meats. DSS confirmed that there were 12 residents in the facility that received pureed food. During an interview with cook (C1) on 3/15/2022 at 12:45 p.m., cook1 verified that she prepared the pureed diet using a blender and she goes by the texture, she added that she put the gravy to check the consistency of the meat during the process. During a test tray of the lunch menu on 3/15/2022 at 12:55 p.m., the pureed tray, mechanical soft and regular diet was asked to test, pureed tray with mashed potatoes and green beans sample was able to swallow without chewing meanwhile pork riblet stays in tongue and needs chewing before able to swallow. During an interview on 3/16/2022 at 11:25 a.m. with DSS, DSS stated that they served the pureed diet as it is yesterday and that it should have been blended more. When asked if lumps of meats are okay for pureed diet? DSS stated that it should be runnier not too firm to prevent aspiration or choking because resident with history of stroke or those residents that lose their swallowing reflex might aspirate. Pureed diet is for resident that could not swallow or chew good. During a record review of the therapy notes dated 3/16/2022 from the speech therapist indicated that the pureed pork meat was evaluated and appear to have lumps but is pureed. During an interview with Registered Dietician (RD) on 3/17/2022 at 9 :44 a.m., RD stated that the picture that was taken from yesterday's tray line looks more minced or ground, consistency of the pureed should be more like a pudding, RD stated that by merely looking at the pureed food [NAME] should be able to identify if it is pureed or not, RD further stated that [NAME] does not need to feel the texture of the pureed food. A review of facility's lunch spreadsheet dated 3/15/2022, the pureed diet indicated to serve scoop of pureed BBQ pork riblet patty, Parslied red potatoes, French cut green beans, cornbread, and melted margarine. A review of facility's policy titled Puree, dated 2018 indicated, puree diet provides foods that do not require chewing and are easily swallowed. All foods should be smooth and pureed to the consistency of pudding. Foods should be prepared using a food processor or blender. Blenderized foods that are liquid may need to be thickened to the consistency of mashed potatoes depending on the individual's swallowing abilities. This diet is appropriate for individuals who have no teeth, lack a gag reflex, or following surgery of the mouth. The diet is indicated for individuals who have dysphagia for any reason such as stroke, head trauma, end stage dementia, Alzheimer's disease.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 12 of 12 residents receiving a pureed diet (food texture made of liquidized or crushed fruit or vegetables for those w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 12 of 12 residents receiving a pureed diet (food texture made of liquidized or crushed fruit or vegetables for those who do not need to chew or have problem swallowing) received a lump-free meal. This deficient practice had the potential to result in increased choking risk for the residents receiving a pureed diet. Findings: During an observation of tray line service for lunch on 3/15/2022 at 11:45 a.m., [NAME] 1 (C1) checked the temperature of the pureed food that was on the steam table. The foods observed were green beans, mashed potatoes, and barbecue (BBQ) pork riblet. During an interview on 3/15/2022 at 11:46 a.m. with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), DSS stated that the BBQ pork riblet was pureed by C1 approximately 45 minutes before the tray line started and C1 would place it in the oven. When DSS was asked if the meat was pureed enough for him, DSS stated that it looked pureed to him. DSS was asked to feel the texture of all the pureed food. The mashed potatoes and green beans were observed to not have lumps, while the BBQ pork riblet had lumps of meats. DSS stated that there were 12 residents in the facility that received pureed food. During an interview with C1 on 3/15/2022 at 12:45 p.m., C1 stated she prepared the pureed diet using a blender and she goes by the texture. During a test tray of the lunch menu items on 3/15/2022 at 12:55 p.m., the pureed, mechanical soft and regular diets were provided as test trays. The mashed potatoes and green beans on the pureed tray were able to be swallowed without chewing, however the pork riblet stayed on the tongue and required chewing before being able to swallow. During an interview on 3/16/2022 at 11:25 a.m. with DSS, DSS stated staff served the pureed diet on 3/15/22 without the pork riblets being blended completely. DSS stated the meal should have been blended more. When asked if lumps of meat were okay for pureed diets, the DSS stated that it should be runny and not too firm to prevent aspiration (to breathe in) or choking because the resident with a history of stroke or those residents that lose their swallowing reflex might aspirate. DSS stated the pureed diet was for residents that could not swallow or chew well. A review of the facility's lunch spreadsheet dated 3/15/2022, the pureed diet indicated to serve a scoop of pureed BBQ pork riblet patty, parslied red potatoes, french cut green beans, cornbread, and melted margarine. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Puree, dated 2018, indicated, puree diet provides foods that do not require chewing and are easily swallowed. The P/P indicated all foods should be smooth and pureed to the consistency of pudding. Foods should be prepared using a food processor or blender. Blenderized foods that are liquid may need to be thickened to the consistency of mashed potatoes depending on the individual's swallowing abilities. This diet is appropriate for individuals who have no teeth, lack a gag reflex, or following surgery of the mouth. The diet is indicated for individuals who have dysphagia for any reason such as stroke, head trauma, end stage dementia, Alzheimer's disease.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain Resident beds side rails (structural support...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain Resident beds side rails (structural support attached to the frame of a bed, intended to prevent falls and assist in repositioning and getting out of bed). in a safe operating condition for 5 of 5 sampled Residents. (Resident 174, 6,13,1, and 49) These deficient practices placed the residents at risk for a potential accident or entrapment (when a resident becomes caught between the mattress, bed or headboard and the bed rail, or between the rails) related to lose and faulty screws on side rails. Findings: A. During a review of the admission record indicated Resident 174 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus (DM-increase blood sugar), complete traumatic amputation at knee level, right lower leg and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 174's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive standardized assessment and screening tool), dated 12/27/2021, MDS indicated Resident 174 had clear speech, able to make himself understood and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 174 required limited assistance on bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene, required extensive assistance from one staff for transfer, walk in the room and corridor, locomotion on and off unit (how residents move to and return off unit locations), toilet use, and bathing. During a review of the order summary report active as of 3/16/2022, the summary indicated that Resident 174's both half side rails should be up when in bed for turning and repositioning as enabler. B. During a review of the Face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included DM, essential Hypertension (high blood pressure), and acquired absence of right leg below knee. During a review of Resident 6's MDS dated [DATE], MDS indicated Resident 6 could make himself understood and was able to understand others and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use, limited assistance on personal hygiene, supervision on eating, unable to walk in the room or in corridor and total assistance in bathing and transfer. The MDs further indicated Resident 6 had impairment of range of motion on lower extremities. During a review of order summary report active as of 3/16/2022, the summary indicated Resident 6's both half side rails should be up when in bed for turning and repositioning as enabler C. During a review of the admission record, the record indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included unilateral primary osteoarthritis (wearing down of the protective tissue at the ends of bones (cartilage) occurs gradually and worsens over time), bipolar disorder (disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs), neuralgia and neuritis (pain caused by damaged or irritated nerves). During a review of Resident 13's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 13, could make herself understood and was able to understand others and required extensive assistance with bed mobility and dressing while requires having total assistance with transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, toilet use, and bathing. The MDS further indicated for range of motion, Resident 6 had no impairment on both upper and lower extremities. During a review of the order summary report active as of 3/16/2022, the report indicated Resident 13's both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as enabler D. During a review of the admission record, the record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD- digestive disease in which stomach acid or bile irritates the food pipe lining), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe) and DM. During a review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1, could make herself understood and was able to understand others and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, personal hygiene, bathing and dressing while requires having limited assistance with locomotion on and off the unit. The MDs further indicated for range of motion, Resident 1 had impairment on both upper and lower extremities. During a review of order summary report active as of 3/16/2022, the report indicated Resident 1's both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as enabler e. During a review of the admission record, the record, the record indicated Resident 49 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), DM, anemia (low blood). During a review of Resident 49's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 49, had unclear speech and could make himself usually understood and usually was able to understand others and required extensive assistance with bed mobility, toilet use, locomotion on and off unit personal hygiene, bathing and dressing while requires having total assistance with transfer and eating. The MDs further indicated for range of motion, Resident 1 had no impairment on both upper and lower extremities. During a review of order summary report active as of 3/16/2022, the report indicated Resident 174's both half side rails up when in bed for turning and repositioning as enabler. During an initial tour on 3/14/2022 at 2:59 p.m., observed Residents side rails were loose. Resident 174 tried to sit up in bed to have a conversation, Resident 174 was observed trying to hold onto the unstable siderails. During an interview on 3/14/2022 at 3 p.m., Resident 174 stated that his side rails has been loose and that he is having a hard time trying to stabilized himself if its loose like that, Resident 174 stated that since mostly he uses his upper torso duet to amputation of both legs to reposition himself he depends on where he can hold onto, but for the most part it is the side rails that he usually use. During an interview on 3/14/2022 at 3:30 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated that her siderails are unstable and loose, Resident 1 stated that she had fallen once because she thought she can hold unto the siderails but since its loose she slides down and fell. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 3(CNA 3) on 3/14/2022 at 3:10pm, CNA 3 stated that she verbally reports it to maintenance if there is loose siderails. CNA 3 stated that she also aware that there are loose siderails on her assignment. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/16/2022 at 2:43 p.m., with Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS stated that the remote button to put the bed up or down was not working, and the maintenance department tries to fix as soon as possible. MS stated that not working bed is high risk for accidents or entrapment that could lead to death. MS stated that they have a schedule maintenance to check all siderails or bed depends on the room number. MS stated that overuse of bed or siderails leads to lose screw of the bed rails, MS stated that bed rails of Resident 174,6,13,1 and 49 is not secured or it is loose and needs to be tighten for safety. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) on 3/17/2022 at 10:24 am, LVN 1 stated that to report loose or not working bed he usually tells the MS verbally and follow up the next shift he is working if it was done or not, LVN 1 stated that there is no log or any maintenance log that he is aware of to report any broken equipment's. During a record review of the logbook documentation for bed maintenance for the week of 2/15/2022 Rooms 25-35 pass and week of 2/22/2022 rooms 36 to 41 pass the maintenance of bed which Resident 174,6,13,1 and 49 resides. During a review of the Policy and procedure (P/P) dated 12/14 title Beds and Mattresses indicated that maintenance every 3 months repair and or replace as necessary the bedside rails to include lock/ release button during inspections. Inspect bed rails weekly, connector on rails and tighten as necessary, check for gaps in the area between the mattress and the rail, remove any burs or rough edges to prevent injury, inspect cranks if applicable and check for missing or faulty screws. During a review of the facility's P/P dated 07/2012 titled 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. Maintenance personnel shall follow the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule.
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 safe food preparation practices in the kitchen when: A. The Ice machine's internal compartments were dirty as eviden...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe food preparation practices in the kitchen when: A. The Ice machine's internal compartments were dirty as evidenced by a black substance on the surfaces. B. Dietary Staff such as cook and assistant cook wearing jewelry (bracelet and dangling earrings) during food preparation. These failures had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to foodborne illness in 72 out of 79 medically compromised residents who received food and ice from the kitchen. Findings: A. During an initial tour with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) on 3/14/2022 at 8:57 a.m., wiped the inside compartment of the ice machine using a paper towel and a black substance was noted. DSS stated that it is due for cleaning because it's been a month that was not cleaned it is expected that it is dirty, DSS stated that it could be risk for getting food borne illness due to black substance that was found underneath, DSS further stated that he would let the maintenance person know so they could clean the ice machine. B. During an initial tour to the kitchen on 3/14/2022 at 9:01 a.m., observed dietary aide (DA), cook(C1) and dishwasher are wearing jewelrey above their gloves. During an observation of the tray line service for lunch on 3/15/2022 at 11:45 a.m., C1 (wearing watch and necklace) and DA (wearing 4 rings and a silver watch) touches the plate and scoop the food from the steam table to put on the resident's tray, DA will wheel the compartment of food tray open the door and give the tray of food to nursing staff. DA just goes straight to the tray line without handwashing.C2 blends the food for pureed diet while wearing bracelet watch, dangling earrings and rings. During an interview with C2 on 3/15/2022 at 12:45p.m., C2 stated that she goes to work wearing this jewelry for luck, C2 added that she should not be wearing any jewelries except band ring. C2 said that DSS gave an in service and that she forgot to take it out today. During an interview on 3/16/2022 at 11:25 a.m., with DSS, DSS stated that he gave in services to his staff about not wearing jewelries while in the kitchen. Further stated that it could cause a food borne illness or if there are tiny stones it could drop on residents' food, and they could choke. DSS stated that staff in the kitchen needs to be cautious because food is served to all residents except for the tube feeding residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) dated 2018 titled Safety and infection Control indicated that food and nutrition personnel must be familiar with and participate in the facility's accident prevention.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s), $57,906 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 94 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $57,906 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (25/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 25/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Greenfield Of South Gate's CMS Rating?

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

How is Greenfield Of South Gate Staffed?

CMS rates GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Greenfield Of South Gate?

State health inspectors documented 94 deficiencies at GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE during 2022 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 91 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Greenfield Of South Gate?

GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by EVA CARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 74 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SOUTH GATE, California.

How Does Greenfield Of South Gate Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Greenfield Of South Gate?

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

Is Greenfield Of South Gate Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Greenfield Of South Gate Stick Around?

GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Greenfield Of South Gate Ever Fined?

GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE has been fined $57,906 across 1 penalty action. This is above the California average of $33,658. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Greenfield Of South Gate on Any Federal Watch List?

GREENFIELD CARE CENTER OF SOUTH GATE 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.