KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC

16890 GREEN TREE BLVD, VICTORVILLE, CA 92395 (760) 245-5361
For profit - Limited Liability company 118 Beds DAVID & FRANK JOHNSON Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
50/100
#609 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

Knolls West Post Acute LLC has a Trust Grade of C, indicating it is average among nursing homes, neither excelling nor failing significantly. It ranks #609 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the bottom half, and #45 out of 54 in San Bernardino County, suggesting limited local competition. The facility is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 11 to 16 in the last year. Staffing is a concern, with a rating of 2 out of 5 stars, indicating below-average performance, but it boasts a low turnover rate of 0%, which is a positive sign. While there have been no fines reported, there are serious incidents to note, including a resident who fell during a transfer that was not performed according to protocol, resulting in a head injury, and failure to adequately manage pressure ulcers for two residents, which could lead to severe complications. Additionally, there were food safety issues in the kitchen, highlighting a need for improvement in both care and facility management. Overall, families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering this home.

Trust Score
C
50/100
In California
#609/1155
Bottom 48%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
11 → 16 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
50 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 16 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near California average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Chain: DAVID & FRANK JOHNSON

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 50 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
May 2025 15 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity for one of seven 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 maintain resident dignity for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 311) reviewed for dignity practices by not providing a dignity bag (a cover placed over a urine collection bag so others cannot see the urine) for the foley catheter bag (a thin tube place in the bladder to drain urine into a bag) which exposed the urine contents to public view. This failure has the potential to cause Resident 311 embarrassment, and emotional distress (Feeling upset, anxious or humiliated), and loss of dignity (feeling disrespected or devaluated as a person). Findings: During a review of Resident 311's admission Record (contains demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 311 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the admitted diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (weakness on one side of the body (left side) after a stroke making it hard to move), Acute and Chronic Respiratory failure ( the lungs don't work properly, causing breathing problems that make them weak, and unable to get enough oxygen), and congestive heart failure (the heart isn't pumping blood well, which can cause swelling and tiredness). During an observation on May 19, 2025, at 11:55 AM inside Resident 311's room, Resident 311 was observed lying down in bed with head of the bed elevated, awake, alert and oriented to name, time and place. On the left side of the bed, a urine collection bag was visibly hanging, filled with yellow urine and attached to a catheter tubing. The bag was uncovered, with no dignity cover or privacy bag in place. During an interview on May 19, 2025, at 11:56 AM with Resident 311, the Resident 311 stated that he uses the urine bag because he cannot urinate on his own and that the nurses take care of it. During an interview on May 19, 2025, at 11:59 AM with Certified Nurse Assistant 3 (CNA 3), CNA 3 confirmed that the urine bag should have been place inside a dignity bag to protect the resident's privacy. During an interview on May 19, 2025, at 12:01 PM inside Resident 311's room with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON acknowledge and stated that the urine collection bag should be place inside a dignity cover (privacy bag) to ensure resident privacy and for infection control. During a review of Resident 311's Physician Orders dated May 7, 2025 indicated, Foley catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a bag when someone cannot pee on their own), FR # 16 x 10 cc (the catheter size is French size 16, which is the tube width and 10 cc balloon refers to a mall balloon at the tip that is filled with 10 milliliters of water to hold the catheter in place) to gravity drainage (the urine drains down naturally from the bladder into a collection using gravity) Dx (diagnosis) Neurogenic bladder (the bladder doesn't work properly, the person cannot fully control when or how they urinate) . During a review of Resident 311's Care Plan dated May 8, 2025, indicated, suprapubic catheter (a thin, flexible tube placed through the lower belly directly into the bladder to drain urine when someone cannot urinate thought on their own) .risk: infection / irritation at Suprapubic Site, Goals, suprapubic site will be free from infection QD (daily), Intervention .,provide privacy, promote dignity . During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 10:48 AM with ADON, the facility's P&P titled, Dignity Dignity, dated August 22, 2017, was review. 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 .12. Demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are prohibited. Staff are expected to promote dignity and assist residents: for example: a. helping the resident to keep urinary catheter bags covered . The ADON confirmed that the staff did not follow the facility's P&P.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

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 copy of the notice of transfer or discharge were sent to ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge were sent to the Ombudsman for one of two sampled residents (Resident 106) reviewed for hospitalization when Resident 106 was sent to the hospital on February 9, 2025, and there was no copy of notice of transfer or discharge sent to the Ombudsman. This failure had the potential for Resident 106 to be inappropriately transferred or discharged . Findings: During a review of Resident 106's clinical record, the admission Record (a document that gives a summary of resident's information) indicated Resident 106 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for cellulitis (infection of the skin) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing). During a review Resident 106's physician order (a set of instructions written by a doctor for the care of the resident) dated February 9, 2025, the physician's order indicated, Send patient to Desert Valley Hospital related to: left 4th toe infection. During a subsequent review of Resident 106's hospitalization paperwork, dated February 9, 2025, there was no record of the notice of transfer or discharge sent to the Ombudsman. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 9:30 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) the regulation F-623 was reviewed. It stated, Notify the resident and the resident's representative(s) of the transfer or discharge and the reasons for the move in writing and in a language and manner they understand. The facility must send a copy of the notice to a representative of the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The DON stated that the notification of the ombudsman is done by the social worker. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 9:57 AM with the Social Services, Resident 106's hospitalization paperwork, dated February 9,2025, was reviewed. The Social Services stated the notification to the Ombudsman is only done for planned discharges that are sent home, board and care or other skilled nursing facilities. The Social Worker further stated that there is no notification sent when the resident is sent to the hospital. During a subsequent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 10:00 AM with the Medical Records, Residents 106's chart was reviewed. The Medical Record stated when residents are sent out to he hospital, duplicate transfer sheets are used for resident information, however there is no record sent from medical records to the ombudsman, that task is handled by the social worker. During an interview and record review with the DON and the Administrator on May 21, 2025, at 1:56 PM, the Administrator stated that there is no process, policy or procedure for notification for transfers. The Administrator stated there was no process in place to notify the ombudsman for residents sent to the hospital. The DON further stated this process was not a nursing issue but was an issue for the social services, and there is no notification sent for residents being discharged or transferred to a hospital setting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Se...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS - a computerized resident assessment tool) for two sampled residents (Resident 84 and Resident 99) when: 1. For Resident 84's RAI-MDS assessment was not coded to indicate she had a diagnosis of schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves). 2. For Resident 99's RAI-MDS assessment was not coded to indicate she had a stage 1 pressure ulcer (bed sore). These failures resulted in the MDS assessments for Resident's 84 and 99 to inaccurately reflect their current medical status which had the potential to result in unmet care needs for the residents. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 84's admission Record, (contains medical and demographic information), the admission Record, indicated Resident 84 was initially admitted on [DATE], with admitting diagnoses which included schizophrenia, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness and paralysis on one side of the body), altered mental status, and dementia (term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities. During a review of Resident 84's RAI-MDS assessment dated [DATE], the assessment indicated, Section I - Active Diagnoses - Psychiatric/Mood Disorder was not coded to indicate Resident 84 had the diagnosis of schizophrenia as the checkbox I6000 Schizophrenia, was left unchecked. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 10:37 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing 1 (ADON 1), Resident 84's RAI-MDS assessment dated [DATE], was reviewed. The ADON 1 stated Resident 84 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and the MDS assessment should have indicated that but it did not. The ADON 1 further stated the facility used the current version of the RAI manual as their policy and procedure. During an interview on May 22, 2025, at 10:55 AM, with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS Nurse), the MDS nurse stated the facility incorrectly coded Resident 84's MDS assessment dated [DATE], because it did not include Resident 84's diagnosis of schizophrenia. The MDS Nurse further stated it was an oversight. During a review of current version of the RAI Manual titled, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, Dated October 2024, the manual indicated, .Section I: Active Diagnoses .Intent: the items in this section are intended to code diseases that have a direct relationship to the resident's current functional status, cognitive status, mood or behavior status .One of the important functions of the MDS assessment is to generate an updated, accurate picture of the resident's current health status . 2. During a review of Resident 99's admission Record, (contains medical and demographic information), the admission Record, indicated Resident 99 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included obesity (excess weight), muscle wasting and atrophy (loss or shrinking of muscle tissue), and cellulitis (skin infection) of left toe. During a review of Resident 99's Comprehensive Resident admission Assessment (an assessment done upon the resident's admission into the facility), dated April 27, 2025, the assessment indicated Resident 99 had a scratch/redness to the sacrococcyx area (tailbone area) upon admit. During a review of Resident 99's physician's orders, an order dated April 28, 2025, indicated, sacrococcyx stage 1 [pressure sore in the tailbone region] cleanse with soap and h20 [water] pat dry apply zinc oxide oint/cream [ointment/cream] QD [every day] & PRN [and as needed] x 21 days [for 21 days] . During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 7:58 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing 1 (ADON 1), the ADON 1 stated Resident 99 was admitted to the facility with a Stage 1 pressure ulcer. Resident 99's RAI-MDS assessment dated [DATE], was reviewed and the ADON 1 stated the assessment was coded incorrectly and should have indicated Resident 99 had a pressure ulcer upon admit but it did not. The ADON 1 stated the facility used the current version of the RAI manual as their policy and procedure. During a review of current version of the RAI Manual titled, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, Dated October 2024, the manual indicated, Section M: Skin Conditions .Intent: The items in this section document the risk, presence, appearance, and change of pressure ulcers/injuries .A complete assessment of skin is essential to an effective pressure ulcer prevention and skin treatment program .
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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set, (MDS- a federally req...

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 accuracy of the Minimum Data Set, (MDS- a federally required resident assessment tool used to plan care and track clinical status) for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 64) reviewed for MDS coding accuracy when the facility inaccurately, documented Resident 64 received antibiotics in February 2025, despite no physician's orders showing antibiotic use. This failure has the potential to cause poor care planning and inaccurate understanding of Resident 64's health, increasing the risk Resident 64's needs will not be met. Findings: During a review Resident 64's admission Record (contains demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the admitted diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease (poor blood circulation), stiffness of right ankle (limited movement), stiffness of left ankle (limited movement) During a review of Resident 64's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Section N0300-Medications, dated February 20, 2025, the MDS indicated, this section is used to record how many days in the last 7 days Resident 64 received injections or specific medications, such as antibiotics or insulin. This section indicated Resident 64 was coded as receiving antibiotics. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 11:22 AM with MDS Nurse, the Resident 64's Physician Orders dated February 1, 2025, was reviewed. The physician's orders, indicated, there was no documented evidence that Resident 64 was on antibiotics. The MDS nurse confirmed there was no indication or supporting documentation showing antibiotic administration and identified as an oversight and coding discrepancy on his part. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 11:36 AM with the MDS nurse, Resident 64's MDS Section N - medications, dated February 20, 2025, was reviewed. The MDS nurse acknowledged Resident 64 was inaccurately coded under F (antibiotics) and further stated that the accuracy of the MDS is very important because it directly affects resident care planning. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 11:50 AM, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS (U.S. Federal agency that oversees Medicare and Medicaid, and regulatory compliance for health care facilities, including nursing homes), Resident assessment Instrument, RAI (is an assessment system used in nursing homes) Version 3.0 Manual Section N: Medications was reviewed. The manual indicated, Intent: the intent of the items in this section is to record the number of days, during the last 7 days (or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days) that any type of injection, insulin, and / or select medications were received by the resident. The MDS nurse acknowledged that the documentation for Resident 64 under MDS section N was inaccurate.
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 update Resident 84's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to update Resident 84's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR - a federally mandated program that requires all individuals seeking admission to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility to be screened to ensure individuals who are identified to have a significant mental illness [SMI], intellectual or developmental disability [I/DD] are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) when Resident 84 did not have her diagnosis of schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) included in the PASRR assessment used to admit Resident 84 into the skilled nursing facility. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 84 to not be accurately assessed regarding the need for treatment and services in alternate care settings to better suite the needs of Resident 84. Findings: During a review of Resident 84's admission Record (contains medical and demographic information), the admission Record indicated Resident 84 was initially admitted on [DATE]. Further review of the face sheet indicated Resident 84 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia with an onset date which indicated December 2, 2024 (date of admission). Other diagnoses Resident 84 had upon admission included altered mental status, and dementia (a general term for a decline in mental ability, including memory, thinking and social abilities, severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 84's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I screening (a level 1 screening includes assessment of the resident's medical diagnoses to determine if the resident has or is suspected of having a PASRR condition [i.e. SMI, or I/DD]), dated December 2, 2024, the PASRR Level 1 screening indicated in section III for Serious Mental Illness .9. Diagnosed Serious Mental Illness. Does the individual have a serious diagnoses mental disorder such as .Schizophrenia .? This question was marked NO. Further review of the PASRR indicated the resolution status was LII - not required (Level 2 assessment is not required [level 2 assessment is done when the resident is positive for possible SMI and/or I/DD]). During an interview on May 21, 2025, at 10 AM, with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS Nurse), the MDS Nurse stated Resident 84's PASRR dated December 2, 2024, was inaccurate and did not include Resident 84's diagnosis of schizophrenia. The MDS Nurse further stated the PASRR assessment dated [DATE], was completed by the hospital for admission to the skilled nursing facility and the skilled nursing should have reviewed the PASRR when Resident 84 was admitted and identified the discrepancy (omission of schizophrenia diagnosis) but the discrepancy was not identified. The MDS Nurse further stated the skilled nursing facility updated the PASRR. During a review of Resident 84's revised PASRR level 1 screening, dated May 20, 2025, the revised PASRR indicated, .Status Change .9. Diagnosed Serious Mental Illness. Does the individual have a serious diagnosis mental disorder such as .Schizophrenia .? This question was marked YES. Further review of the revised PASRR indicated the resolution status was [NAME] Categorical Review (this means the resident was positive for a categorical condition, the resident is pending a review for possible level 2 screening and should not be admitted to a skilled nursing facility until acceptable resolution is obtained. During an interview on May 21, 2025, at 10:20 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing 1 (ADON 1), the ADON 1 stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure (P&P) specific to the PASRR process and stated they followed the guidance provided on the document titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I Screening Assessment Guide, updated October 2024. During an interview on May 22, 2025, at 8:52 AM, with the Quality Assurance Director (QA), the QA stated her expectation was that staff review PASRR assessments received from the hospital and ensure it was accurately completed and to complete a new one if needed. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 11:42 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing 2 (ADON 2), the ADON 2 stated Resident 84 had the diagnosis of schizophrenia upon admission into the skilled nursing facility. The ADON 2 further stated the hospital usually performed the PASRR level I assessment and skilled nursing facility staff were supposed to review it (PASRR Level 1) upon Resident 84's admission to ensure it was accurately completed. The ADON 2 stated if the PASRR was not accurate upon resident admit, the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS Nurse) was supposed to create an amendment to the PASRR. The ADON 2 stated the purpose of the PASRR is to ensure it is appropriate for the resident to be placed in a skilled nursing facility. The ADON 2 then reviewed Resident 84's PASRR dated May 20, 2025 (the amended PASRR which now reflected Resident 84 had schizophrenia), and acknowledged the PASRR indicated [NAME] Categorical review. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 11:43 AM, with the ADON 2, the facility document titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I Screening Assessment Guide, dated October 2024, was reviewed. The document indicated, Level I Screening Corrections. The Level I screening must always reflect the individual's current condition .Submitted Screenings: Cannot be edited .For major demographic and/or clinical errors, such as entering the wrong last name or selecting the wrong option for the clinical questions, the hospital must submit a new Pre-admission Screening (PAS) and the SNF must submit a new Resident Review (RR) to update the previous screening .Unacceptable PASRR Resolutions and Letters .The following PASRR resolutions are not valid PASRR resolutions and are unacceptable for admission to a Medicaid-Certified SNF: -[NAME] - Categorical Review .Here are explanations for each unacceptable resolution: [NAME] - Categorical Review: The Level 1 Screening was positive for a Categorical condition and is pending review by the Level II Evaluation contractor to confirm the Categorical condition. SNF admission must be deferred until an acceptable resolution is obtained .Reviewing the PASRR: .the admitting facility must accept the case and review the PASRR for the following: 1. Ensure the responses to the PASRR clinical questions were submitted accurately .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physical therapy services were provided to one...

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 physical therapy services were provided to one of three residents (Resident 59) sampled for rehabilitative and restorative services when Resident 59 did not receive physical therapy five times a week as ordered by the physician. This failure had the potential to cause a decrease in Resident 59 overall functioning or the inability for Resident 59 to reach his/her highest level of functioning. Findings: During a review of Resident 59's face sheet (contains medical and demographic information), the face sheet indicated Resident 59 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included polyneuropathy (condition in which multiple nerves are damaged or dysfunctional on both sides of the body, often leading to symptoms like weakness, numbness, and burning pain), generalized osteoarthritis (breakdown of cartilage in multiple joints, leading to pain, stiffness, and decreased joint function), heart failure (the heart not being able to fill with and pump blood), obesity (excess weight), and low back pain. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 10:56 AM, Resident 59 was lying in her bed and when asked how she was doing, Resident 59 stated she wanted to leave the facility but couldn't leave until she was able to walk again. Resident 59 further stated she was supposed to receive physical therapy daily but stated she did not receive it (physical therapy) as often as she thinks she was supposed to. During a review of Resident 59's physician's orders, an order dated April 30, 2025, indicated, Physical therapy .PT [physical therapy] eval [evaluation], and treatment. See patient QD [every day] 5 x/wk [five times a week] x 4 wks [for four weeks]. TX [treatment] approved may include .gait training [walking training] .manual PT [physical therapy] .wheelchair mobility and training . During a review of Resident 59's medical record a document titled, PT Evaluation & Plan of Treatment (an initial evaluation by the physical therapy department and an individualized rehabilitative treatment plan) dated April 30, 2025, indicated, frequency 5 times(s)/week 4 weeks, daily . During a review of Resident 59's care plan (individualized plan for the medical care of a resident), a care plan dated April 30, 2025, indicated, encourage mobility/activity as tolerated. Assist with ADL functioning & monitor for decline. During a review of Resident 59's Physical Therapy Treatment Encounter Note(s) (documentation of physical therapy sessions) dated all of May 2025, Resident 59 only received 3 physical therapy sessions for the week of May 14, 2025 to May 21, 2025. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 9:24 AM, with the Rehab director (RHD), the RHD reviewed Resident 59's clinical record and stated the rehab week starts on the day of the evaluation and treatment plan which for Resident 59 was on Wednesday April 30, 2025. The RHD stated Resident 59 was supposed to receive physical therapy services 5 days a week. The RHD acknowledged Resident 59 did not receive physical therapy 5 days a week for the week of May 14, 2025 to May 21, 2025. The RHD stated Resident 59 was supposed to receive physical therapy on May 16, 2025, but did not because he thought there may have been a scheduling error because Resident 59 was not assigned to a rehab staff for services. The RHD further stated Resident 59 did not receive services on May 20, 2025, because the physical therapy assistant who was assigned to work with Resident 59 called off and there was no documentation that Resident 59 received services on that day either. During an interview on May 22, 2025, at 12:52 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing 2 (ADON 2), the ADON 2 stated it was important for Resident 59 to receive therapy services to ensure the resident maintains functional ability and is able to reach their highest functioning level possible. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Physician Orders, dated October 2014, the policy indicated, Policy - It shall be this facility's policy to provide care and services to the resident in accordance with physician orders . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Care Plan, dated August 22, 2017, the policy indicated, Consistent with the facility's policy of providing appropriate care & services to residents admitted to the facility, the facility shall ensure development of a comprehensive care plan for each resident to meet his/her medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs .5. Services that are to be furnished for resident to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well being are to be included in the plan of care .
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 follow the physician's orders for heel protector boot...

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 physician's orders for heel protector boots for one of seven sampled residents (Resident 64) reviewed for skin integrity when Resident 64 was observed without the ordered heel protectors and was documented to have develop a deep tissue injury (DTI). This failure has the potential to contribute to Resident 64 delayed wound healing (slower recovery of injured skin and tissue), pain (physical discomfort), and further skin breakdown (worsening skin condition leading to open wounds). Findings: During a review Resident 64's admission Record (contains demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the admitted diagnosis of peripheral vascular disease (poor blood circulation), stiffness of right ankle (limited movement), stiffness of left ankle (limited movement). During an observation on May 19, 2025, at 10:50 AM inside Resident 64's room, Resident 64 was lying down on her back in bed with the head of the bed elevated. A pair of heel protectors was observed place on top of her nightstand. During an interview on May 19, 2025, at 11:25 AM with the Assistant Director, ADON 1, the ADON 1 confirmed that the heel protectors were found on top of the nightstand. The ADON 1 further stated after checking with the wound treatment nurse, Resident 64 should have been wearing the heel protector boots as ordered by the physician. During a review of Resident 64's Physician Orders dated May 12, 2025, indicated, heel protectors when in bed (for skin maintenance). During review of Resident 64's Braden Scale (a standardized clinical tool used to assess a resident's risk for developing pressure injuries or bedsores), dated February 20, 2025. The Braden assessment indicated a total score of 12. (Braden Scoring a total score of 12 or less = high, 13-14=Moderate risk; 15-16 = low risk. The Braden Scale indicates six areas: sensory perception (how well the resident feels discomfort or pain), moisture (How often the skin is wet) activity (how much the resident moves), mobility (How well the resident can change positions), nutrition (how well the resident eats), and friction / Shear (how much the skin rubs or slides when moving.) A high score (the resident requires specific interventions to protect skin integrity and prevent development of wounds). During a review of Resident 64's care plan titled, Pressure Ulcer / Skin Integrity dated November 22, 2024, the care plan indicated, .related to manifested by pressure ulcers/ skin breakdown, delayed/poor wound healing related to: impaired mobility, impaired condition urinary incontinence, chairfast/bedfast most of the time, impaired cognition .goals Maintain intact skin integrity ., interventions, Assist in turning and repositioning, Use pressure reducing devise such as gel cushion . During a second observation on May 21, 2025, at 5:35 AM, Resident 64 was lying on bed on her back with the head of the bed elevated. On top of her bedside table, a pair of purple heel protectors were resting alongside a stack of folded blue disposable under pads and linens. The heel protectors were visibly place aside on the table and not applied to Resident 64's heels as ordered by the physician. During an interview on May 21, 2025, at 5:45 AM with Certified Nursing Assistant 4 (CNA 4), the CNA 4 stated that when she started her shift at 10:00 PM in May 2025, the heel protectors were already place on the bedside table. The CNA 4 confirmed that the heel protectors remained there through her shift and that she did not notify the nurse. The CNA 4 further stated that she chose not to apply the protectors because Resident 64 did not have a dressing on her left ankle. During an interview on May 21, 2025, at 5:50 AM with License Vocational Nurse 4, ( LVN 4), LVN 4 stated that it was her first time working with Resident 64 and that she had not assessed Resident 64's skin during her shift. LVN 4 admitted she missed that step due to being unfamiliar with Resident 64. The LVN 4 further stated that her last rounding was at 5:00 AM, and she did not notice that the heel protectors were not being worn. During a review of Resident 64's nursing documents titled, License Progress Notes, dated May 21, 2025, at 7:15 AM, the license progress notes indicated, Noted resident left lateral ankle-deep tissue injury (DTI) with open area measuring 3.1 cm x 2 cm, with redness, purplish red discoloration, irregular surrounding skin and dark skin center . During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 3:08 PM, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Physician Orders, dated October 2014, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, It shall be this facility's policy to provide care and services to the resident in accordance with physician orders. Procedure. 1. All aspect of resident's care, including but not limited to the following shall only be provided if ordered by the physician .treatments . The ADON 1 acknowledged and confirmed that the staff should have followed the policy, but they did not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

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 attending physician conducted an initial 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 the attending physician conducted an initial comprehensive visit within the first 30 days after admission, for two sampled residents under a Medicare Part A&B stay (Resident 19 and 22). This failure has the potential to place Residents 19 and 22 at risk for serious harm or death. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 19's face sheet (demographic information) indicates Resident 19 is an [AGE] year-old female, admitted from the hospital on March 12, 2025, with diagnoses which include arthritis (redness, painful, swollen joint), atrial fibrillation (irregular rhythm that disrupts the normal flow of blood through the heart), hyperlipidemia (having too much fat in the blood), dementia (group of conditions that cause a progressive decline in cognitive abilities, such as memory, thinking, reasoning, and judgment), nutritional deficiency (occurs when someone doesn't get enough of the essential nutrients their body needs to function properly, like vitamins, minerals, or protein), fracture of left femur (a break in the femur, the largest and strongest bone in the human body). Resident 19 was admitted to the facility under a short term stay with Medicare coverage part A&B. During a concurrent observation and record review on May 20, 2025, Resident 19 chart was noted to have a blank History and Physical (H&P) [a comprehensive assessment where a healthcare provider gathers information about a patient's health history and performs a physical examination] page. As of May 20, 2025, the H&P was not completed by the physician and was red flagged for his/her attention. 2. A review of Resident 22's face sheet (demographic information) indicates Resident 22 is a [AGE] year-old female, admitted from the hospital on April 8th, 2025, with diagnoses which include end stage renal disease (the final, permanent stage of chronic kidney disease, where kidney function has declined to the point that the kidneys can no longer function on their own), diabetes mellitus (a disease where the body has trouble regulating blood sugar levels, either because it doesn't produce enough insulin, or the body can't properly use the insulin it does produce), morbid obesity (a complex chronic disease in which you have a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or higher), dependence on renal dialysis (Dialysis acts as a substitute for the kidneys, filtering the blood and removing waste products), hypertension (high blood pressure), muscle weakness, major depressive disorder (a mental health condition that causes a persistently low or depressed mood and a loss of interest in activities that once brought joy), history of falling. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility under a short term stay with Medicare coverage part A&B. During a concurrent observation and record review on May 20, 2025, Resident 22's chart was noted to have a blank History and Physical (H&P) [a comprehensive assessment where a healthcare provider gathers information about a patient's health history and performs a physical examination] page. As of May 20, 2025, the H&P was not completed by the physician and was red flagged for his/her attention. In an interview with the Assistant Director of Nurses 1 (ADON 1) on May 22, 2025, at 12:10 PM, the ADON 1 acknowledged that in a skilled nursing facility the first physician visit (this includes the initial comprehensive visit) must be conducted within the first 30 days after admission, and then at 30-day intervals up until 90 days after the admission date. The ADON 1 stated that the facility notified the physician several times via fax of the overdue visit. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 12:18 PM with the ADON 1, the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Physician Visits dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P states, 1). The attending physician will visit residents in a timely fashion, consistent with applicable State and Federal requirements . 2). The attending physician must visit his/her patients within 72 hours of admission, at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days following the resident's admission, and then at least every 60 days thereafter . 6) a physician visit is considered timely if it occurs no later than 10 days after the date the visit was required . The ADON 1 stated that the physicians were reminded by fax that their visits are overdue on several occasions. The ADON 1 stated the physicians responded to facility phone calls, provided verbal orders, and visited the facility during this timeframe and does not know as of why the documentation is not completed and orders are not signed. The ADON 1 recognized that as of May 22, 2025, Resident 19 and 22 History and Physical Examinations are not completed, not signed, and not dated by the Physician. The ADON 1 acknowledged that the facility's P&P was not followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure staff signed the narcotic reconciliation log when discrepancies were found in two of four narcotic reconciliation logboo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure staff signed the narcotic reconciliation log when discrepancies were found in two of four narcotic reconciliation logbooks. This failure had the potential to result in improper administration of medication and dosage, increasing risk of adverse drug reactions, and possible harm to 106 vulnerable patients. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with Registered Nurse Supervisor 3 (RNS 3), on May 21, 2025, at 5:07 AM, in the hallway, the narcotic reconciliation logbook in station 4 was inspected. The dates: March 7, 18, 19, 26; April 13, 17, 24; May 14, 20, 21, 2025 were missing signatures. RNS 3 confirmed the dates were missing signatures. During a concurrent observation and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 5 (LVN 5), on May 21, 2025, at 1:04 PM, in the hallway, the narcotic reconciliation logbook in station 1 was inspected. The dates: March 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 22, 25, 26, 29; May 19, 20, 21, 2025 were missing signatures. LVN 5 confirmed the dates were missing signatures. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 1:10 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Controlled Drug Reconciliation, revised 2020, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, .At the completion of each nursing shift, the on-coming and off-going nurses will count and reconcile controlled drugs subject to regulations and/or facility policies for individual counts . The ADON stated the facility staff should have followed the P&P.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure secure storage of medications when: 1. One Medication Storage room and one Medication Refrigerator located at Nursing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure secure storage of medications when: 1. One Medication Storage room and one Medication Refrigerator located at Nursing station 4 was found unlocked, and 2. One medication refrigerator located at Nursing station 1 was found unlocked. This failure has the potential for medications to be accessed and dispersed by an unauthorized person, in a vulnerable population of 103 residents. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:44 AM, the Medication Storage room located at the Nursing station 4 was accessed without a key by Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1). Inside the Medication Storage room, the Medication Refrigerator displays lock latches in place and no padlock. The unlocked medication refrigerator contains vials of injectable Ativan (a medication used to treat anxiety) and Haldol (a medication used to treat mental disorders), several Insulin (a medication used to treat high blood sugar) pens, and one Emergency Kit. The LVN 1 stated that he started working at the facility at the end of April 2025, and that the medication room and the medication refrigerator are always unlocked. The LVN 1 added that he never noticed a padlock on the medication refrigerator, and he has no key to the Medication Storage Room and has no key to the medication refrigerator. During a secondary observation on May 19, 2025, at 12:12 PM, the Medication Storage room and the Medication refrigerator at Nursing station 4 were rechecked in the presence of the Assistant Director of Nursing 1 (ADON 1). The ADON 1 opened the Medication Storage room without using a key and found the medication refrigerator still unlocked. The ADON 1 stated that the facility's policies require all medication storage areas and the medication refrigerator to be locked at all times and accessible by licensed nurses only. The ADON 1 called the RN Supervisor 1 (RNS 1). The supervisor confirmed that the medication room should be locked and accessible by key and the medication refrigerator should be locked with a padlock. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 12:21 PM, the second Medication Storage room located at the Nursing station 1 was inspected. The ADON 1 unlocked the door using a key. Inside this Medication Storage room, the Medication Refrigerator was unlocked. The medication refrigerator contains resident's medications that need to be refrigerated. The ADON 1 acknowledged this is a security problem with the medication storage areas, stating that many new nurses received online training during COVID ( a lung disease caused by a virus). The RNS 1 suggested staff retraining and refresher courses regarding medication storage safety and enforcement of consequences for staff who fail to follow medication security protocols. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 3:18 PM with the ADON 1, the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Storage of Medications dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 1). Drugs and biologicals used in the facility are stored in locked compartments under proper temperature, light and humidity controls. Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications have access to locked medications .6). Compartments (including, but not limited to drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals are locked when not in use .7). Medications requiring refrigeration are stored in a refrigerator located in the drug room at the nurses' station or other secure location . The ADON 1 stated the facility's P&P was not followed.
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 it followed its infection control program when...

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 followed its infection control program when: 1. A Registered nurse Supervisor 3 (RNS 3) did not perform hand hygiene (hand washing or the use of alcohol based hand sanitizer) after performing a blood glucose check (procedure done to check the level of sugar in the blood and requires a pinprick blood sample). This failure had the potential for the spread of infectious blood borne pathogens (bacteria and viruses which can cause disease and illness) and the spread of infectious microorganisms from one patient to another in a vulnerable population of 106 patients. 2. There was a bag of intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics administered into the veins) and IV tubing set (disposable IV set used to administer medication intravenously) dated [DATE] and [DATE], left at Patient 33 bedside on [DATE] (23 days after it was used). This failure had the potential for inadvertent use of an expired IV tubing set or antibiotic bag which was past its expiration date placing the resident at increased risk of infection. Findings: 1. During an observation on [DATE], at 5:37 AM, with Registered Nurse Supervisor 3 (RNS 3), RNS 3 used a lancet (a device used to pinprick a finger and create a drop of blood) to test Resident 69's blood sugar (amount of sugar in the blood). After RNS 3 obtained a blood sample from Resident 69 and tested the resident's blood sugar, RNS 3 took off his gloves and began documenting in the Medication Administration Record (a document used to record the administration of medications). During continued observation on [DATE], at 5:51 AM, with RNS 3, RNS 3 completed medication administration for Resident 69 and began preparing the medications for administration to his next resident. RNS 3 still had not performed hand hygiene after performing a blood glucose test on Resident 69. During an interview on [DATE], at 5:56 AM, with RNS 3, RNS 3 stated he didn't perform hand hygiene after removing the gloves he used to check Resident 69's blood sugar because he forgot. RNS 3 further stated he was supposed to use hand sanitizer immediately after removing his gloves and prior to preparing another patients medications but he didn't. RNS 3 stated the Licensed Vocational Nurse who was supposed to work the current shift had called off and that was why he had to administer medications. The RNS 3 stated it had been a while since he had to administer medications. During an interview on [DATE], at 8:37 AM, with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated staff were supposed to perform hand hygiene immediately after removing their gloves. The IP further stated staff should also be doing hand hygiene before and after performing a blood glucose check on a resident. The IP stated it was important to perform hand hygiene to help prevent the spread of infectious microorganisms. During an interview on [DATE], at 11:51 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing 2 (ADON 2), the ADON 2 stated staff should be performing hand hygiene after removing gloves and after using a glucometer (device used to check blood sugar) because it was important to prevent cross contamination (the spread of micro-organisms from one person or object to another) between patients for infection control. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated [DATE], the P&P indicated, This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections .2. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors .Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicobial) and water for the following situations: b. Before and after direct contact with residents; c. Before preparing or handling medications; d. Before and after handling an invasive device .l. After removing gloves .8. Hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment [i.e. gloves] . 2. During a review of Resident 33's clinical record, the admission Record (a document that gives a summary of residents information) indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of Cellulitis (a kin infection that causes swelling and redness), Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Essential Hypertension (high blood pressure) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing). During an observation on [DATE] at 10:23 AM, Resident 33 was found to have two intravenous (IV) pole was found next to Resident 33 bed with two empty IV medication bags with tubing, labeled Ceftriaxone (medication used to treat infection) 2 gm into 100 ML of Normal Saline with attached tubing dated [DATE], (32 days later) and the second labeled Ceftriaxone (medication used to treat infection) 2 gm into 100 ML of Normal Saline with tubing labeled with an expiration date of [DATE] (31 days). During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE] at 4:06 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed that the medication bags were dated [DATE] and [DATE] and further stated that the medication bag should have been removed following the administration completion. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 1:08 PM with the DON, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Control Universal Precautions was reviewed. The P&P indicated .All personnel involved with administering IV therapy will comply with universal precaution guidelines on all patients during any and all IV therapy procedures. The DON confirmed the P&P was not followed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

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 did not ensure physician's visits were conducted or physician's orders were ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure physician's visits were conducted or physician's orders were signed in a timely manner when: 1. Two of eight sampled residents (Residents 19 and 22) were missing required physician's visits for their Medicare Part A&B (Government hospital insurance and medical insurance) stay. This failure had the potential to result in transcription errors for Resident 19 and 22. 2. Four of eight sampled residents (Resident 14, 44, 56, and 43) had unsigned physician's orders in their chart. This failure had the potential to result in medical errors, and increased risk to resident's safety for Resident 14, 44, 56, and 43. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 19's face sheet (demographic information) indicates Resident 19 is an [AGE] year-old female, admitted from the hospital on March 12, 2025, with diagnoses which include arthritis (redness, painful, swollen joint), atrial fibrillation (irregular rhythm that disrupts the normal flow of blood through the heart), hyperlipidemia (having too much fat in the blood), dementia (group of conditions that cause a progressive decline in cognitive abilities, such as memory, thinking, reasoning, and judgment), nutritional deficiency (occurs when someone doesn't get enough of the essential nutrients their body needs to function properly, like vitamins, minerals, or protein), fracture of left femur (a break in the femur, the largest and strongest bone in the human body). Resident 19 was admitted to the facility under a short term stay with Medicare coverage part A&B. During a review on May 20, 2025, of Resident 19's medical chart, it was noted that all physician's orders since Resident 19 admission on [DATE], are red flagged for physician's signature. A record review of Resident 19's physician's orders (written instructions from a doctor outlining what should be done for a Resident 19 care and treatment) indicates the physician's orders were received via phone and there are no physician's signatures for the months of March 2025, April 2025, and May 2025 physician orders. A record review of Resident 22's face sheet (demographic information) indicates the resident is a [AGE] year-old female, admitted from the hospital on April 8th, 2025, with diagnoses which include end stage renal disease (the final, permanent stage of chronic kidney disease, where kidney function has declined to the point that the kidneys can no longer function on their own), diabetes mellitus (high blood sugars), morbid obesity (a complex chronic disease in which you have a body mass index (BMI) of 40 or higher), dependence on renal dialysis (Dialysis acts as a substitute for the kidneys, filtering the blood and removing waste products), hypertension (high blood pressure), muscle weakness, major depressive disorder (a mental health condition that causes a persistently low or depressed mood and a loss of interest in activities that once brought joy), history of falling. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility under a short term stay with Medicare coverage part A&B. During a review on May 20, 2025, of Resident 22's medical chart, it was noted that all physician's orders since Resident 22 admission on [DATE]th, 2025, are red flagged for physician's signature. A record review of Resident 22's physician's orders indicates the physician's orders were received via phone and there are no physician signatures for the months of April 2025 and May 2025 physician's orders. In an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing 1 (ADON 1) on May 22, 2025, at 12:10 PM, the ADON 1 acknowledged that in a skilled nursing facility the first physician visit (this includes the initial comprehensive visit) must be conducted within the first 30 days after admission, and then at 30-day intervals up until 90 days after the admission date. The ADON 1 stated that the facility notified the physician several times via fax of the overdue visit. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 12:18 PM with the ADON 1, the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Physician Visits, dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P states, 1. The attending physician will visit residents in a timely fashion, consistent with applicable State and Federal requirements . 2. The attending physician must visit his/her patients within 72 hours of admission, at least once every 30 days for the first 90 days following the resident's admission, and then at least every 60 days thereafter . 6. a physician visit is considered timely if it occurs no later than 10 days after the date the visit was required . The ADON 1 stated that the physicians were reminded by fax that their visits are overdue on several occasions. The ADON 1 stated the physicians responded to facility phone calls, provided verbal orders, and visited the facility during this timeframe and does not know as of why the documentation is not completed and orders are not signed. The ADON 1 recognized that as of May 22, 2025, all physician Orders for Residents 19 and 22 are not signed and dated by the physicians. ADON 1 acknowledged that the facility's P&P was not followed. 2. During a record review on May 20, 2025, at 9:15 AM, Resident 14's medical chart was reviewed. The physician order dated March 31, 2025, indicated, .D/C [discontinue] Benadryl [a medication used for allergies]. Alprazolam [a medication used for anxiety] 0.5 MG [milligram- a unit of measurement] tab [tablet] PO [by mouth] BID [twice a day] PRN [as needed] x [times] 30 days; Dx anxiety m/b [manifested by] inability to relax. Continue all monitors . The order was not signed by the physician. During a record review on May 20, 2025, at 9:23 AM, Resident 44's medical chart was reviewed. The physician order dated February 2, 2025, indicated, .0.1 MG Clonidine [a medication used for blood pressure] PO Q 6 H [hours] PRN for SBP [systolic blood pressure] > [greater than] 160. Monitor for BP [blood pressure] Q 6 H for PRN Clonidine use . The physician order dated February 27, 2025, indicated, .Rebels [a medication for high blood sugar] 7 MG tab PO QD [every day] AC [before] Breakfast; Dx [diagnoses]; DM . The orders were not signed by the physician. During a record review on May 20, 2025, at 9:30 AM, Resident 56's medical chart was reviewed. The physician order dated March 20, 2025, indicated, .Discontinue D 5 NS [dextrose in normal saline- a type of fluid given through the veins of the resident]; discontinue norepinephrine [a medication that helps regulates heart rate, blood pressure, attention, memory, and emotion]; discontinue dilaudid [a pain medication]; discontinue morphine [a pain medication] . The physician order dated April 8, 2025, indicated, .Flagyl [an antibiotics] 500 MG PO TID [three times a day] x 10 days; Dx: C-diff [an infection of the gut] . The orders were not signed by the physician. During a record review on May 20, 2025, at 9:39 AM, Resident 43's medical chart was reviewed. The physician order dated April 14, 2025, indicated, .D/C contact isolation precautions . The order was not signed by the physician. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 20, 2025, at 11:50 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Telephone Orders, revised 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, .Telephone orders must be countersigned by the physician during his or her next visit . The ADON stated facility did not follow the P&P.
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 maintain food safety practices in the kitchen as required by facility's policy and procedure (P&P). The facility did not ensu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain food safety practices in the kitchen as required by facility's policy and procedure (P&P). The facility did not ensure food preparation areas, equipment, and storage were kept clean, labeled, and safe and failed to prevent cross-contamination, improper thawing and unsanitary conditions when: 1. One kitchen staff was not wearing a hairnet in the food prep area. 2. The juice machine nuzzle, and black rubber ring had dark grime, old stains, and residue. 3. Six red colored drink pitchers were left on a counter without date labels. 4. A large blue plastic container labeled ICE ONLY was found uncovered and filled with ice on a metal prep table. 5. Two dented cans (6 lbs.) of pears in light syrup were found in the kitchen ready to use. 6. About 20 packages of raw meat were thawing in stacked plastic container under running water in the sanitizing compartment of the three-compartment sink; the meat was not labeled with thawing dates and temperature measured 62.4°F. 7. Four trays of uncovered deserts bowls were found in the refrigerator. 8. Two ovens had heavy grease, burnt food particles, and dark residue of interior walls racks and the oven floor; two loose screws were also found inside the bottom of one of the non-working ovens. The ovens contained heavy greasy, burnt food particles, dark residue on the interior walls, and debris on the oven floor. 9. The stove burners were covered in thick black greased and crumbled food debris 10. The flat top griddle had layers of grease stains and dark discoloration with a dirty spatula resting on its edged. 11. Personal beverages and food items belonging to staff were stored inside the refrigerator designated for resident food. These failures have the potential to result in foodborne illness(caused by eating food or drinking water contaminated with harmful germs such as bacteria, parasites, or viruses) for 100 of 103 residents who rely on the kitchen for their meals and beverages. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:32 AM with the Dietary Aid 1 (DA 1), the DA 1 was working inside the kitchen food preparation area without wearing a hairnet. DA 1 acknowledged the requirement and stated Yes, I will put one on. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 19, 2025, at 8:42 AM with the Dietary Supervisor (DSS)the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Food Preparation and Service, dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, Food and nutrition services staff swear hair restraints (hair net, hat beard restrain, etc.) so that hair does not contact food. The DSS stated that it was the facility's expectation for staff to wear proper hairnets while working inside the kitchen areas and that the staff did not follow the P&P. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:35 AM with DA 1, during a juice machine inspection, the juice machine was observed with a juice nozzle and surrounding black rubber ring. It was observed to be visible dirty and stained and covered with old residue and grime buildup. The clear plastic dispenser handle had yellow and red residue trapped inside and appeared discolored. The DA 1 acknowledged the condition and stated the equipment should be clean. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 8:35 AM with the Dietary Supervisor (DSS) the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitation, dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, All equipment, food contact surfaces and utensils shall be washed to remove or completely loosen soils by using the manual or mechanical means necessary and sanitized using hot water and/or chemical sanitizing solutions. The DSS stated that the expectation was for staff to clean and sanitize the juice machine regularly as part of daily cleaning routines and confirmed that the policy was not followed by staff. 3. During an concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:36 AM with Dietary Aid 1 (DA 1), six drink pitchers were observed on a metal preparation table filled with dark red liquid. The pitchers were unlabeled with the date indicating when they were prepared. The DA 1 confirmed the six pitchers should have been labeled with the preparation date, to track when they were prepared. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 8:44 AM with the Dietary Services supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated Revised January 2020 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 8. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated (use by date). The DSS stated that the expectation for staff was to label the drink pitchers with the preparation date. The DSS confirmed that the P&P was not follow by the staff. 4. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:37 AM with Dietary Supervisor Assistant 1(DSSA 1), a large blue plastic container labeled ICE ONLY was observed uncovered and filled with ice on top of a metal preparation table. The container was open to the air and left uncovered. DSSA 1 confirmed the ice container should have been covered and not left open to air. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 8:46 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Preparation and services, dated August 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 5. Food preparation staff adhere to proper hygiene and sanitary practices to prevent the spread of food bone illness. The DSS stated that ice is considered food and confirmed that the ice container should be covered when not in use to protect it from contamination. The DSS acknowledged that the P&P was not followed by staff. 5. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:39 AM with Dietary Aide 1 (DA 1), two dented 6 - lbs. (six, pounds measure of weight) were found on the bottom area of a metal car in the kitchen's ready to use section. The DA 1 confirmed that dented cans should not be used and acknowledged they were incorrectly placed in the ready to use section. During a concurrent interview wand record review on May 22, 2025, at 8:51 AM with Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage. Dated Revised January 2020 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, Food that are prepared off site will only be accepted from institutions that are subject to federal, state or local inspection. The food and nutrition services manager shall verify the latest approved inspection and also monitor food quality of the supplier. The DSS stated that dented cans should be removed and discarded. The DSS acknowledged that the policy was not follow by staff. 6. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:40 AM with Dietary services Supervisor 1 (DSSA 1) approximately 20 packages of raw meat were observed thawing inside two stacked clear plastic containers under running water in the sanitize compartment off the three-compartment sink. DSSA 1 confirmed the packages were unlabeled and acknowledged that the facility did not maintain a thawing log. During a follow up observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:38 AM with [NAME] 1 and DSSA 1, meat temperature was measured the temperature of the raw meat was found at 62.4°F and the [NAME] 1 stated that the meat had been thawing since 6:00 AM. [NAME] 1 further stated the meat would need to be discarded because the temperature exceeded the safe limit (above 41°F) increasing the risk of foodborne illness. DSSA 1 confirmed the meat should be kept at or below 41°F to remain safe. During an interview on May 19, 2025, at 4:46 PM with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated the facility standard procedure is to thaw meat in the refrigerator over approximately three days and that using the running water method is only acceptable if done correctly and for less than two hours. The RD confirmed the observed practice of thawing meat in the sanitize sink under running water was not the preferred method and acknowledged that no thawing log was maintained. The RD further stated that the staff education is needed to ensure proper thawing methods. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 8:55 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Preparation and Service, dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicted, Thawing Frozen Food, 1. Foods will not be thawed at room temperature. Thawing procedures include a. Thawing the refrigerator in a drip-proof container; b. completely submerging the item in cold running water (70°F or below) that is running fast enough to agitate and remove loose ice particles . The DSS stated the expectation was for staff to follow the proper thawing procedures, explaining that correct thawing is important to avoid foodborne hazards, and confirmed that the policy was not follow by staff. 7. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 8:54 AM with Dietary Services Supervisor Assistant 1 (DSSA 1) the walking refrigerator was inspected and there were four trays with bowls of uncovered resident desserts were observed stored inside the refrigerator. The trays were not covered, leaving the food exposed to the air. DSSA 1 acknowledged that the desserts should have been covered to prevent contamination. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 8:56 AM with the Dietary Services supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated Revised January 2020, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 8. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered . The DSS stated all foods should be covered while inside the refrigerator. The DSS confirmed the P&P was not follow by the staff. 8. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:05 AM with Dietary Supervisor Assistant 1 (DSSA 1), two out of five ovens were inspected inside the kitchen. Oven 2 was observed with heavy grease and burned food suck on the inside walls and racks and floor pan. Rust was noted on the oven racks, and no signs of recent cleaning or sanitization were evident. The DSSA 1 confirmed that the oven should have been cleaned regularly even if not in use. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:06 AM with Dietary Supervisor Assistant 1(DSSA 1). Oven 3 was inspected inside the kitchen. The oven was visibly dirty with thick layers of burnt food particles, dark grease stains, and heavy discoloration across the interior surfaces, including the walls, racks, and bottom pan. Two loose screws were noted inside the oven bottom. DSSA 1 stated although the oven was reported as out of order, it should still have been cleaned by staff. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 9:08 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitation, dated August 17, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 2. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair shall be free from breaks, corrosion, open seams, cracks and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fastener will be kept in good repair .17. The food services manage will be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning of kitchen and dining areas. Food service staff will be trained to maintain cleanliness thought their work areas during all tasks, and to clean after task before proceeding to the next assignment. The DSS stated that staff are expected to follow the sanitation policy, ensuring all equipment including nonfunctional ovens, is kept clean. The DSS acknowledged that the P&P was not followed by the staff. 9. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:07 AM with Dietary Supervisor Assistant 1(DSSA 1), the kitchen stove burners were inspected and found with a thick layer of blackened grease, burned food residue, and crumbled food debris across the top surface and burners. DSSA 1 stated the stove should have been regularly cleaned and confirmed that the equipment was not found in a clean condition. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025 , at 9:09 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitization dated August 17, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 2. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair shall be free from breaks, corrosion, open seams, cracks and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fastener will be kept in good repair .17. The food services manage will be responsible for scheduling staff for regular cleaning of kitchen and dining areas. Food service staff will be trained to maintain cleanliness thought their work areas during all tasks, and to clean after task before proceeding to the next assignment. The DSS acknowledged the P&P was not followed by staff. 10. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:12 AM with Dietary Supervisor Assistant 1 (DSSA 1) the flat top griddle inside the kitchen was inspected and found with thick layers of dark grease stains, burnt food residues, and heavy discoloration across the surface. A dirty spatula was resting on the edge of the griddle. DSSA 1 stated that the griddle should have been cleaned regularly after each use and confirmed that it was found unclean. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 9:12 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitization, dated August 17, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 2. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair shall be free from breaks, corrosion, open seams, cracks and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fastener will be kept in good repair The DSS stated that staff are expected to clean the griddle regularly, have cleaning logs and deep cleaning rotations, and acknowledged the staff did not follow the P&P. 11. During a concurrent observation and interview won May 19, 2025, at 9:14 AM with the with Dietary supervisor assistant (DSSA 1), personal food and beverage items were found stored inside the refrigerator designated for residents' food. These included three opened bottles of water, two canned drinks, multiple condiments cups containing left over food, and a grocery store plastic bag (labeled with name of an employee). DSSA 1 confirmed that staff are not allowed to store their personal items in the resident designated refrigerator and acknowledged the refrigerator should be kept free of non-resident items to avoid cross contamination. During an concurrent interview and record review on May 22, 2025, at 9:18 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage, revised January 2020, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 14 d. Beverages must be dated, when opened and discarded after twenty-four (24 ) hours .f. Partially eaten food may not be kept in the refrigerator. The DSS stated the staff should not place personal items in the resident designated refrigerator to avoid cross - contamination and confirmed that the P&P was not follow by staff.
CONCERN (F)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain essential kitchen equipment in safety operat...

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 essential kitchen equipment in safety operating condition when: 1. Two ovens located in the kitchen were observed to be non-functional not in use, yet they remained accessible and unmarked as out of order. This failure has the potential to result in limited cooking capacity, delays, and disruption in the kitchen's ability to deliver timely meals and maintain appropriate sanitation. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:06 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor Assistant 1 (DSSA 1) inside the kitchen, during and inspection two of five ovens were to be visible nonfunctional. The second oven (Oven 2) had heavy blackened residue, grease build up, burned on grease and buildup from old food spills, along with rust on the interior walls, racks and bottom tray. The oven was grimy and clearly nonoperational, with no signage or markings indicating it was out of order. DSSA 1 stated the oven should be cleaned and kept in working condition and further confirmed that oven had been out of order for some time and, although maintenance had been notified, no repairs had been completed. During a concurrent observation and interview on May 19, 2025, at 9:10 AM with the DSSA 1, a third oven (Oven 3) was inspected and found to be nonfunctional and contained two loose screws on their interior bottom surface. DSSA 1 confirmed that Oven 3 was also out of order and had been reported to maintenance but was not labeled or marked as out of service. DSSA 1 acknowledged that even nonworking equipment should have been kept clean. During a concurrent interview and record review on May 21, 2025, at 9:21 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitation, dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, 2. All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, cracks and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. Seals, hinges and fasteners will be kept in good repair .16, Kitchen and .surfaces not in contact with food shall be cleaned on a regular scheduled and frequently enough to prevent accumulation of grime. The DSS stated that the two nonfunctional ovens (Oven 2 and Oven 3) had been out of order since February 2025 (approximately 1.5 to 2 months) and that maintenance had been notified. The DSS acknowledged that the equipment should have been labeled as out of order and kept clean even when not in use. The DSS further confirmed that although maintenance had been contacted and follow up was expected, no repairs had yet been made. The DSS also stated that staff are expected to clean equipment daily, including items like grills and top burners, even if the equipment is not currently operational The DSS explained that the pilot lights on the ovens would not stay lit, and [NAME] ovens were not currently in use, the staff had not followed the facility's sanitation P&P.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure quarterly (every 3 months) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data (data combining census and staffing information) report requir...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure quarterly (every 3 months) Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data (data combining census and staffing information) report required by Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was transmitted (submitted) to CMS in accordance with federal submissions timeframes, for quarter 2 (January 1 through March 31 of 2024. This failure resulted in inadequate monitoring of staffing information to be transmitted to CMS. Findings: During a record review of the PBJ Staffing data report for quarter 2 of 2024 for January 1 through March 31, 2024, no PBJ data was submitted (due May 15, 2024). On May 22 at 2:00 PM a policy and procedure (P&P) was requested from the facility, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated I don't have one. During a phone interview on May 22, 2025 at 2:21 PM with the Administration resource, the Administration Resource stated one of her roles was ensuring the PBJ Staffing Data report is submitted on a timely basis. The Administration Resource verified and stated quarter 2 of 2024 was not submitted. The Administration Resource stated timely submission of the PBJ Data is important to ensure staffing is adequate and as needed for patient care.
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure to ensure a comprehens...

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 its policy and procedure to ensure a comprehensive care plan was developed for one of four sample residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 was not provided a plan of care to meet Resident 1 ' s nutritional needs. This failure had the potential to place a clinically compromised resident (Resident 1 ' s) overall health and safety at risk. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (general demographics), the document indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, dementia (loss of memory), cerebrovascular disease (conditions that affect blood flow to your brain), and muscle weakness generalized (loss of strength in your muscles). A review of Resident 1 ' s clinical record, POLST indicated, Long-term artificial nutrition, including feeding tubes. During an interview on March 26, 2025, at 1:05 PM with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), LVN 1 stated, We usually follow resident care plan in providing care. During an interview on March 26, 2025, at 1:10 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, Residents care plans are developed on admissions and nursing staff follow the care plans. During a concurrent interview and record review on March 26, 2025, at 1:20 PM, with the ADON, Resident 1 ' s records were reviewed. Resident ' s records did not include a nutritional care plan. ADON stated, A nutritional care plan should have been developed and included the resident ' s records. During a concurrent interview and record review on March 26, 2025, at 3:40 PM with the ADON, the facility ' s undated policy and policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Policy. Consistent with the facility ' s policy of providing appropriate care and services to residents admitted to the facility, the facility shall ensure development of a comprehensive care plan for each resident to meet his/her medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment . ADON stated, There should have been a care plan in place to provide care for the resident (Resident 1).
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility failed to follow their policy and procedure on medication administration when a Licensed Vocational Nurse failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** The facility failed to follow their policy and procedure on medication administration when a Licensed Vocational Nurse failed to administer Nifedipine (medication use to lower blood pressure) ordered by physician to one of three sampled Residents (Resident 1). This failure has a potential to place a clinically compromised Resident 1 ' s health and safety at risk. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (general demographics), the document indicated Resident 1 was last 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), hypertension ( High blood pressure), gastroesophageal reflux ( involuntary back flow of stomach contents back into the esophagus or food pipe ), rheumatoid arthritis (chronic autoimmune disease that causes inflammation and damage to the joints), malignant neoplasm of female breast ( a cancerous tumor that develops in the breast tissue ), polyneuropathy (affects nerves that control movement, feeling, or both), depressive disorder ( loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time), anxiety disorder ( feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that strong enough to interfere with one ' s daily activities). During an interview with a Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN2), on December 17, 2024, at 12:30 PM, LVN2, stated on December 3, 2024, at 10:40 AM, LVN2 notified Resident 1 ' s Primary Physician (PMD) regarding a PRN (as situation demands or as needed) order for Hydralazine 60 mg PO (By mouth) every 6 hours PRN for Blood Pressure above 160 systolic. LVN 2 stated Hydralazine 60 mg po was administered on December 3, 2024, at 11:00 AM for a high blood pressure above 160 systolic. LVN 2 stated that Resident 1 verbalized she did not receive her blood pressure medication on December 2, 2024, at 9:00 pm. During a concurrent MEDICATION ADMINISTRATION RECORD (MAR) review and interview with Nursing Office Assistant (NOA), on December 17,2024, at 1:20 PM. NOA stated there is no documentation or signature on MAR, that Nifedipine ER 60 mg po Q HS was administered on November 28, 2024, and November 29, 2024, at 9:00 PM During an interview with Administrator (ADM) on December 22,2024 at 2:35 PM, ADM stated that he did a grievance following a complaint from Resident 1 ' s daughter regarding the missed medication dose on Resident 1 on December 2, 2024, at 9:00 PM. ADM interviewed LVN 1, and he stated that Nifedipine ER 60 mg was not given on December 2, 2024, at 9:00 pm due to blood pressure below110 systolic. ADM stated, upon reviewing the MAR, there is no documentation/Signature that a dose was administered on November 28, 2024, and November 29, 2024, at 9:00 PM. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission physician ' s orders on December 30, 2024, at 9:30 AM, dated November 27, 2024, indicated, NIFEDIPINE ER 60 MG PO Q HS ( At bedtime ) , HOLD FOR SYSTOLIC BELOW 110. During a concurrent record review and interview on December 22, 2024, at 2: 40 PM with the ADM, the facility ' s policy, and procedure (P&P) titled, Physician ' s Orders dated October 2014 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, It shall be this facility ' s policy to provide care and services to the resident in accordance with physician orders .1. All aspect of resident ' s care, including but not limited to the following shall only be provided if ordered by the physician: Medications. During a concurrent record review and interview on December 22,2024 at 2:42PM with the ADM, the facility ' s P&P titled, Medication and Treatment Administration dated October 2014 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to administer medication or treatment, upon order of a person lawfully authorized to give such orders, and within the scope of professional standards of practice .2. Medications and Treatments shall be administered as prescribed . 21. Licensed nurse administering the medication/treatment shall record the date, time, dose of the drug or treatment administered to the resident in the clinical record ( e.g. MAR, treatment record ).
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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, facility failed to follow their policy by not following physician ' s order t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, facility failed to follow their policy by not following physician ' s order to provide physical therapy five times a week for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to cause contractures (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissues, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) and decreased mobility to Resident 1, by negatively affecting his physical health, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (general demographics), the document indicated Resident 1 was last admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, wedge compression fracture of first lumbar vertebra (fracture occurs when the actually collapses to the front part of the vertebra and form a wedge shape), polyneuropathy( damage to multiple nerves outside of the brain and affects several nerve in different parts of the body at the same time), hypertension ( High blood pressure), acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure (Is a type of heart failure that occurs when a patient has active symptoms of heart failure that develops on top of a long term condition), hyperlipidemia (high levels of fat particles in the blood), cardiomegaly (enlarge heart), chronic pulmonary edema ( a condition where fluid builds up in the lungs over time and making it difficult to breath), myocardial infarction, type 2 ( a heart attack caused by imbalance between the heart muscle oxygen supply and demand without the presence of a ruptured atherosclerotic plaque), major depressive disorder ( loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life). During a concurrent record review of service matrix log and interview on December 18, 2024, at 12:45 PM with the Physical Therapy Director (PT 1), when asked about Resident 1 ' s frequency of physical therapy services, PT 1 stated, Physical therapy was ordered five times a week and according to our service matrix log, we are doing it only 3 times per week and some are 4 times per week . It is primarily due to staff calling in sick. When HFEN asked PT1 if that was an acceptable practice, PT 1 stated it is not acceptable. During a record review of physician ' s phone order dated August 15, 2024, at 6:18PM on December 18,2024 at 1:20PM, it stated Physical Therapy Clarification Order: PT Eval and Tx. See patient QD 5x/wk. X 4 wks. Tx. Approaches may include: TherEX, Ther/Acts, NMRE, Gait training, Manual PT. Orthotic training, Group TherActs, Wheelchair mobility training and modalities as needed. During a phone interview on December 22, 2024, at 2:35 PM with the Administrator (ADM), ADM stated Physical therapy should be performed per physician ' s order. If the order states 5 times a week, then it should be done 5 times per week. During a concurrent record review and interview on December 22, 2024, at 2: 40 PM with the ADM, the facility ' s policy, and procedure (P&P) titled, Physician ' s Orders dated October 2014 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, It shall be this facility ' s policy to provide care and services to the resident in accordance with physician orders .1. All aspect of resident ' s care, including but not limited to the following shall only be provided if ordered by the physician: Rehabilitation Services. During a concurrent record review and interview on December 22,2024 at 2:42PM with the ADM, the facility ' s P&P titled, Medication and Treatment Administration dated October 2014 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to administer medication or treatment, upon order of a person lawfully authorized to give such orders, and within the scope of professional standards of practice .2. Medications and Treatments shall be administered as prescribed
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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 licensed vocational nurse (LVN 1) perform medi...

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 licensed vocational nurse (LVN 1) perform medications administration according to the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) for one of four sample residents (Resident 1) when during resident 1's medication pass, the surveyor noticed that the LVN pre-signed the medication before administering it, failed to check the medication's expiration date, and failed to record on Resident 1's MAR the reason why Amlodipine (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) not available, believing that she could have borrowed Amlodipine from another resident for Resident 1. This deficient practice had the potential to adversely affect the health and safety of Resident 1 who is clinically compromised. Findings: During the review of Resident 1's admission record (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), the document indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included Atherosclerotic heart disease (hardening of the blood vessels that supplies blood to the heart), acute myocardial infarction (heart attach), hypertension (high blood pressure). During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN 1, on [DATE], at 8:45 AM, LVN 1 administered medication to Resident 1. LVN 1 marked her initials on the MAR prior to administering the medication. LVN 1 stated that Resident 1's amlodipine is not available, and she will circle her initials in the MAR to show medication was not administered. She also stated that she doesn't have to provide a reason for medication not being given in the MAR. She further added that she could potentially borrow Amlodipine from another resident's medicine if needed. LVN 1 explained that although she does not always think to check the expiration date, she is aware that it is required by policy before giving the medication. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON 1) on [DATE], at 11:02 AM. The ADON 1 stated she expects LVNs to do the 7 rights check when administering medication and ensuring the medication is not expired. She added that the squares on the MAR should be initial after medication is administered. Stated LVNs are not supposed to initial before administering the medication. She stated that LVNs should not borrow medication from another resident. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Medication and Treatment Administration indicated, .14. Licensed nurse should use the method of Pour, Pass & Chart when administering medications . 16. Before administering medication or treatment, check every medication/treatment against physician's order and transcription Medication Administration or Treatment Record. Information on the label of each medication/treatment should match physician's order. 17. No medication/treatment shall be used for any resident other than the resident for whom the medication/treatment was prescribed .
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 ensure that an allegation of physical abuse for one of three sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of physical abuse for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was reported to the local, state, and federal agencies immediately in accordance with their facility's policy. This failure had the potential for the alleged abuse to go uninvestigated and unreported thereby increasing the chances of health, safety, and psychosocial harm to Resident 1. Findings: During an interview with Administrator on September 5, 2024, at 2:30 PM, he stated that he did not feel there was enough evidence based on interviews with witnesses and resident to report it to the state. Stated the son came to him highly upset and he said he felt LVN 1 ( Licensed Vocational Nurse) threw resident on the ground, states what LVN 1 said to him resident was threatening to leave the building and I redirected him and told him to go back to his room He stated I don ' t know why she started to stop him at the nurses station, I usually wait until they get to the main door and then I redirect, when talked to LVN 1, I said you should have let him get to the door, because then he could have told you he was not trying to leave the building I just wanted to get away from you he stated the resident ' s claims was LVN 1 failed to give him pain medicine. He stated the son gets very upset when his father does not get his pain medications, and they are planning to move him closer to the daughter. He stated the son also told him he did not believe LVN 1 did that, and the son called the nursing board where they told him she was under investigation, so he felt LVN 1 did do this. States the son did not witness it but there were 2 other witnesses that say same thing LVN 1 says. States resident went to hospital and there were no finding and was cleared to return to facility. Since then, resident was moved to another side of the building so LVN 1 has nothing to do with resident. He stated he did report it to the licensing board. Stated he did not report it to CDPH because when he had the son and LVN 1 in his office the son stated I agree with what you ' re saying maybe my dad was just confused so that is why I did not report it. I let him know that in his policy it states he must report any allegation or suspicion of abuse and he stated ok, I will report it today. During an interview with LVN 1 on September 5, 2024, at 3:00PM, She stated that resident 1 was always fighting with roommate, so Doctor added more meds, Ativan (is used in adults and children at least [AGE] years old to treat anxiety disorders. Ativan is also used to treat insomnia caused by anxiety) and Norco (is used to relieve moderate to severe pain) for pain. States son and resident told the doctor he wanted to go home. She states the resident was dependent on Ativan and that particular night he kept asking for Norco and she gave it to him. States she was on the phone with the resident ' s daughter and noted the resident wheeled himself out the door stating he was going home, they ae not giving me medication. States daughter wanted to speak to her dad father and at that time the resident threw himself on the floor, states she ran back to where the resident was and the resident was aggressive towards staff and swinging arms, states it took 4 staff to get him back in the wheelchair and she stuck her foot on the wheel so he would not move then the resident spoke to daughter on phone and resident calmed down. Stated the next day the son [NAME] came into facility screaming and telling her that he understood father could be difficult and then told her that he had been to jail, and he was not afraid to come in the facility and deal with her. States the resident ' s son came the next day and he smelled of alcohol and hugged and kissed her cheek and she pushed him away. During a review of Resident 1 admission Record (general demographics) on September 5, 2024, at 2:30, the document indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis to include Spinal Stenosis, (a condition that occurs when the spinal canal narrows, putting pressure on the spinal cord and nerve roots) Muscle weakness, ( a loss of muscle strength, or the feeling that you need to use more effort to move your muscles) Difficulty walking, major depressive disorder ( when an individual has a persistently low or depressed mood, anhedonia or decreased interest in pleasurable activities, feelings of guilt or worthlessness, lack of energy, poor concentration, appetite changes, psychomotor retardation or agitation, sleep disturbances, or suicidal thoughts.) and anxiety disorder (a condition that causes excessive feelings of fear, dread, and worry that can interfere with daily life). During an interview with Resident 1 on September 5, 2024, at 3:25 PM He is Spanish speaking, he understands my questions and started to tell me that he was in his wheelchair and was wheeling himself around when the nurse came and put her foot on the wheel so that he could not move the wheelchair, he then stated the nurse turned the wheelchair around forcefully and he fell. States I ' m supposed to be going to a place near my daughter ' s home. States he feels safe in facility because that nurse is not allowed to get near him, states he likes the other nurses and has no complaints. During a review of the facility policy and procedure titled Abuse Investigation and reporting, revised January 12, 2021, indicated All reports of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation and /or injuries of unknown source (abuse), shall promptly reported to local, state and federal agencies (as defined by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Findings of abuse investigation will also be reported.
Sept 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

Employment Screening (Tag F0606)

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 residents from potential abuse and mistreatment, in a univ...

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 residents from potential abuse and mistreatment, in a universe of 112 residents, when the facility employed a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) with a disciplinary action (a formal process that imposes consequences or corrective measures for misconduct or violations of professional standards), in effect, against her professional license. This failure had the potential to cause residents to suffer abuse and mistreatment. Findings: An unannounced visit was made to the facility on September 10, 2024, at 10:46 AM, to investigate a facility reported incident regarding an allegation of physical abuse and deprivation of services by LVN 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on September 10, 2024, at 12:39 PM, with a Director of Staff Development (DSD), LVN 1 ' s personnel file and professional license was reviewed. The DSD stated LVN 1 ' s date of hire was February 14, 2024. A review of LVN 1 ' s professional license, dated expiration January 31, 2025, indicated, DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS START: JULY 31, 2023, ACTION: A FORMAL STATEMENT OF CHARGES FILED AGAINST A LICENSEE. PUBLIC RECORD ACTIONS PUBLIC DOCUMENTS (1), CASE NUMBER 4302023000964, DOCUMENT TYPE: ACCUSATION, DOCUMENT POSTED: JULY 31, 2023. A review of LVN 1 ' s Disciplinary Action, dated July 31, 2023, indicated, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS: 9. While working as a licensed vocational nurse at [name of a nursing facility] on November 30, 2022, Respondent verbally and physically mistreated Patient Y.C., an [AGE] year-old woman suffering from dementia. Specifically, multiple witnesses observed Respondent become angry with Patient Y.C., telling her to shut the fuck up and stating, I hate you and I'm going to kill you. Multiple witnesses also observed Respondent push Patient Y.C.'s wheelchair into a hallway and let go, allowing the wheelchair to roll into an isolation cart and causing Patient Y.C. to hit her knee. WHEREFORE, Complainant requests that a hearing be held on the matters herein alleged, and that following the hearing, the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians issue a decision: 1. Revoking or suspending Vocational Nurse License Number ., issued to [LVN 1]; 2. Ordering [LVN 1] to pay the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians the reasonable costs of the investigation and enforcement of this case, pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 125.3; and, 3. Taking such other and further action as deemed necessary and proper. In a continued interview with the DSD, the DSD stated she had not been involved with the hiring of LVN 1 but the disciplinary action on LVN 1 ' s license was a hard stop on the hiring process. The DSD stated if she had been handling LVN 1 ' s hiring paperwork she would have sent the information to the Human Resources (HR) Department and waited for guidance. During an interview with the Administrator (Admin) and the Director of Nursing (DON) on September 10, 2024, at 1:55 PM, the DON stated she knew LVN 1 had a disciplinary action, in effect, on her license before LVN 1 was hired. The DON stated she did not read the publicly posted Accusation, document, dated July 31, 2023, and did not know what LVN 1 had been accused of. The Admin stated he knew LVN 1 had a disciplinary action, in effect, on her license before LVN 1 was hired. The Admin stated he did not read the publicly posted Accusation, document, dated July 31, 2023, and did not know what LVN 1 had been accused of. The Admin stated the facility was short staffed and he was desperate to hire LVNs so they looked past the disciplinary action and hired LVN 1 anyway. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure titled, Patient Abuse and Prevention, dated August 2017, indicated, Policy. The facility shall uphold resident's right to be free from any form of verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. The facility shall establish system to prevent patient abuse including those practices and omissions, neglect and misappropriation of property that if left unchecked, may lead to abuse. Residents shall not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff; other residents, consultants or volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the individual, family members or legal guardians, friends, or other individuals. Procedures. In order to abide with the state and federal regulations governing abuse, the facility shall establish general procedures covering specific fundamentals of the regulatory requirement, as such, screening, training, prevention, identification, investigation, protection and reporting/response. These procedural guidelines shall, hence, be integrated into facility's daily operational procedures. 1. Screening. Prior to hiring of an employee, facility shall ensure provisions covering employment screenings for potential history of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of residents as defined above. This includes, but is not limited to, disclosure of information via application forms (e.g. self-declaration from the applicant), obtaining information from previous and current employers, making appropriate inquiries to applicable licensing boards and registries, criminal background check for those offered a position in direct patient care and others.
Jun 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

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure when the licensed nurse failed to document the refusal of medication for one of three sampled Residents (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow their Policy and Procedure when the licensed nurse failed to document the refusal of medication for one of three sampled Residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to place a clinically compromised Resident (Resident 1) health and safety at risk. When not receiving the necessary medication as prescribed by the physician. Findings: During a review of Resident 1s admission Record (general demographics), indicates being admitted to facility April 15, 2024 with diagnosis (DX) of Polyneuropathy (multiple nerves are damage), gastroenteritis and colitis ( inflammation in the digestive tract), bipolar disorder (episodes of mood swings), muscle weakness ( decrease in strength), dysphagia ( difficulty in swallowing), type II diabetes mellitus (sugar imbalance in body), anxiety (feeling of worry), psychotic disorder ( disconnection from reality), and hepatomegaly (enlargement of liver). During interview of Resident 1 on June 18, 2022, at 1:50 pm, Resident in wheelchair, is alert and oriented. Resident 1 stated on June 16, 2024, the License Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) did not administer her 9:00 pm medications. Resident 1 stated that she spoke to LVN 1 asking for her scheduled medications. LVN1 stated that he will come back at around 9:00 pm to administer the medication. Resident 1 stated that LVN1 never showed up to give her medications. During a concurrent record review and interview with LVN1 on June 18, 2024, at 3:00pm. LVN 1 stated that Resident 1 refused to take her 9:00 pm medications. When LVN 1 asked if he documented the refusal, LVN 1 stated he forgot to document and admitted that he made a mistake for not documenting. During a concurrent record review and interview with Administrator (ADM), when ADM asked if LVN1 documented medication refusal on Resident 1's medication sheet on June 16, 2024, at 9:00 pm. ADM stated there were no documentation regarding Resident 1's refusal of medications. ADM stated facility's policy is for nurses to document when a resident refused to take their scheduled medication. During an interview with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN) on June 25, 2024, at 10:10am, she stated when a resident refused to take their medication, licensed personnel are to document the refusal. RN states, there is a section on the back of the medication sheet to document as to why the medication was not given and risk and benefits of medication refusal. RN also stated that if the refusal of medication is not documented, it is considered not given. During a record review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Medication and Treatment Administration, dated October 2014, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to administer medication or treatment, upon order of a person lawfully authorized to give such orders, and within scope of professional standards of practice .21. Licensed nurse administering the medication/treatment shall record the date, time, dose of the drug or treatment administered to the resident in the clinical record. 23. Record any instances of resident refusal to medication or treatment administration. Determine probable cause of refusal and explain to resident risk and benefit of medications or treatment administration refusal.
May 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 (Residents #16, #69, and #79) of 8 s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 (Residents #16, #69, and #79) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: A facility policy titled, MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes, revised in January 2022, revealed, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. Per the policy, 2. Timeframes for completion and submission of assessments is based on the current requirements published in the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)'s Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2023, revealed The Annual assessment is a comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed on an annual basis unless an SCSA [significant change in status assessment] or an SCPA [significant correction to prior assessment] has been completed since the most recert comprehensive assessment was completed. Per the manual, The MDS completion date must be no later than 14 days after the ARD [assessment reference date]. This date may be earlier than or the same as the CAA(s) [care area assessment] completion date, but not later than. 1. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #16 on 04/20/2022. Resident #16's annual MDS, with an ARD of 03/25/2024, revealed the MDS was not signed as being completed. 2. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #69 on 12/03/2023. Resident #69's annual MDS, with an ARD of 04/11/2024, revealed the MDS was not signed as being completed. 3. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #79 on 04/22/2022. Resident #79's annual MDS, with an ARD of 04/16/2024, revealed the MDS was not signed as being completed. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:02 AM, MDS Coordinator #2 stated it was the responsibility of the MDS staff to ensure the MDS assessments were completed; however, the Director of Nursing (DON) signed the MDS assessment to indicate their completion. MDS Coordinator #2 acknowledged that Residents #16, #69, and #79 annual MDS assessments had not been signed as completed and were overdue. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:21 AM, the DON stated she signed the MDS assessments to indicate they were complete. The DON stated she was aware that there were some late MDS assessments. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:49 AM, the Administrator stated he deferred all questions related to MDS assessments to nursing. Per the Administrator, the nurses were responsible, but ultimately the DON was responsible for signing the MDS to indicate the assessments were complete. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 9:54 AM, MDS Coordinator #3 confirmed there were late MDS assessments as they had not been signed by the DON. MDS Coordinator stated she did not know what happened, and explained the MDS assessments just did not get signed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 (Residents #58, #96, and #109) of 8 samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record reviews, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely completion of quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for 3 (Residents #58, #96, and #109) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for resident assessments. Findings included: A facility policy titled, MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes, revised in January 2022, revealed, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. Per the policy, 2. Timeframes for completion and submission of assessments is based on the current requirements published in the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2023, revealed The Quarterly assessment is an OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment of any type. It is used to track a resident's status between comprehensive assessment to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a resident's status are monitored. Per the manual, The MDS completion date must be no later than 14 days after the ARD [assessment reference date]. 1. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #58 on 10/15/2020. Resident #58's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 04/09/2024, revealed the MDS was not signed as being completed. 2. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #96 on 06/27/2023. Resident #96's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 03/26/2024, revealed the MDS was not signed as being completed. 3. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #109 on 12/28/2023. Resident #109's quarterly MDS, with an ARD of 03/28/2024, revealed the MDS was not signed as being completed. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:02 AM, MDS Coordinator #2 stated it was the responsibility of the MDS staff to ensure the MDS assessments were completed; however, the Director of Nursing (DON) signed the MDS assessment to indicate their completion. MDS Coordinator #2 acknowledged that Residents #58, #96, and #109 quarterly MDS assessments had not been signed as completed and were overdue. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:21 AM, the DON stated she signed the MDS assessments to indicate they were complete. The DON stated she was aware that there were some late MDS assessments. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:49 AM, the Administrator stated he deferred all questions related to MDS assessments to nursing. Per the Administrator, the nurses were responsible, but ultimately the DON was responsible for signing the MDS to indicate the assessments were complete. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 9:54 AM, MDS Coordinator #3 confirmed there were late MDS assessments as they had not been signed by the DON. MDS Coordinator stated she did not know what happened, and explained the MDS assessments just did not get signed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing weekly as ordered by the physician and store respiratory equipment when not in u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing weekly as ordered by the physician and store respiratory equipment when not in use as directed by the facility's policy for 1 (Resident #188) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Policy and Procedures on Oxygen Therapy, dated August 2017, revealed, 8. When not in use, nasal cannula shall be placed and secured in a clean plastic bag to avoid contamination. An admission Record revealed the facility readmitted the resident on 03/22/2024, with diagnoses to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, and pleural effusion (fluid build-up around the lungs). A 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/29/2024, revealed Resident #188 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident used oxygen therapy. Resident #188's care plan, initiated on 03/25/2024, revealed the resident used oxygen for shortness of breath and a potential for respiratory distress related to a diagnosis of COPD. Resident #188's Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 05/22/2024, revealed an order dated 03/22/2024, that directed staff to change the nasal cannula/mask every seven days and as needed when soiled and change oxygen tubing every week on every day shift on Fridays and as needed. The resident also had an order dated 03/23/2024, that specified the resident may use CPAP from home. During a concurrent observation and interview on 05/20/2024 at 10:08 AM, the surveyor noted Resident #188's CPAP mask was uncovered on the floor beside the resident's bed and the resident's oxygen tubing had a date on it of 05/17/2024. Resident #188 stated they wore the CPAP mask at night. During an interview on 05/21/1024 at 3:23 PM, the Infection Preventionist stated the staff placed CPAP masks in bags when the masks were not in use. During an observation on 05/21/2024 at 3:27 PM, Resident #188 was not present in their room; however, the resident's nasal cannula was uncovered and lying on top of a disposable pad on the resident's bed. The nasal prongs of the cannula were exposed and touched the resident's mattress pad. The resident's oxygen tubing was noted to have a date on it of 05/17/2024. During an observation on 05/22/2024 at 7:21 AM, Resident #188's CPAP mask was uncovered and hung on the side of the resident's bed. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:20 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #7 stated a resident's nasal cannula should be stored in a plastic bag when not in use. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:36 AM, License Vocational Nurse (LVN) #9 stated when a resident's CPAP mask and nasal cannula were not being used, they should be stored in a bag. LVN #9 stated nasal cannula tubing should be changed every Friday. During a follow-up interview on 05/22/2024 at 8:55 AM, the IP stated both masks and tubing should be stored in a bag when not in use. The IP stated a resident's nasal cannula tubing should be changed every Friday and as needed. According to the IP, all CNAs, LVNs, and respiratory therapy staff are responsible to ensure masks and tubing are stored properly. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:12 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated nasal cannula tubing was changed weekly on Fridays and as needed. The DON stated a resident's nasal cannula and mask should be stored in a bag when not in use. Per the DON, the Respiratory Therapist was responsible for the daily cleaning of the masks and nasal cannula. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:27 AM, the Administrator stated he expected weekly changes of a resident's nasal cannula. Per the Administrator, the nasal cannula should also be changed when they become dirty. According to the Administrator, a nasal cannula and mask should be stored in a plastic bag when not in use. The Administrator stated he deferred to the nursing department for any answers regarding oxygen equipment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to indicate the duration of an as-needed anti-anxiety medication for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 sampled residents reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to indicate the duration of an as-needed anti-anxiety medication for 1 (Resident #20) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Policy and Procedure on Psychotropic Medications, dated October 2014, revealed, The facility shall use a psychotherapeutic drug or chemical restraint on residents only as part of a plan to eliminate or modify symptoms for which the drug is prescribed, and only on the written order of a physician that specifies the duration of the use of the medication and the circumstances under which the medication is to be used and only if the resident, or his/her surrogate decision maker has given consent to the use of the medication Per the policy, 4. When a decision is reached and made by the interdisciplinary team and the physician that the resident needs the psychotropic medication/chemical restraint, a written physician's order that specifies the duration of the use of the medication and the circumstances under which medication is to be used shall be obtained. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #20 on 12/14/2023, with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder and anxiety. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 03/14/2024, revealed Resident #20 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed the resident had not received an anti-anxiety medication in the last seven days of the assessment period. Resident #20's care plan, with an initiated date of 12/18/2023, revealed the resident had periods of anxiety manifested by an inability to relax and Xanax medication use. Interventions directed staff to administer medications as ordered, to monitor and record episodes of behavior per their psychotropic policy, and for the pharmacist to review the drug regime monthly. Resident #20's Order Summary Report, with active orders as of 05/22/2024, revealed an order dated 02/29/2024, for Xanax oral tablet 0.5 milligram, give one tablet by mouth for anxiety manifested by the inability to relax twice a day as needed. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 9:45 AM, the Pharmacist stated he always asked facilities to keep the duration of as needed psychotropics to 14 days and then the physician needed to re-evaluate the need for the medication. The Pharmacist stated as needed order for Xanax needed to include an end date so the physician could then re-evaluate the resident for continued use. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:04 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the use of as needed psychotropic medications was limited to 14 days and needed to be re-evaluated by the physician for continued use. The DON stated she did not know why Resident #20 had an as needed Xanax order. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:14 AM, the Administrator stated he deferred to nursing on as needed psychotropic use in the facility.
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, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly store and date foods items in 1 (Unit 1 and Unit 2) of 2 nourishment refrigerators in the facility. Findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly store and date foods items in 1 (Unit 1 and Unit 2) of 2 nourishment refrigerators in the facility. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Foods Brought by Family and Visitors / Food Storage, revised in January 2022, revealed, 5. Family and other visitors can bring food to be consumed by the resident. a. Non-perishable foods and food appropriate to store at room temperature will be stored in resident room in re-sealable containers. These foods will be discarded on or before the use by' date. If no, use by date is provided, item will be labeled with a use by date 3 days from when the item was received. b. Perishable foods from outside must be consumed, discarded or taken home with visitors on same day the food is brought. Refrigeration is not available for resident's food/leftovers. Intact family prepared meals are okay to be stored for 3 days. c. Intact fresh fruit may be stored unsealed. During an observation of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 nourishment refrigerator on 05/22/2024 at 9:45 AM, the surveyor observed a stack of three to four cold pizza in a resealable bag labeled for Resident #16 and dated 05/09/2024, an undated resealable container of prunes with a resident's room number on it, two pears in an undated resealable plastic bag with a resident's room number on it, and an unlabeled and undated container of sprouts. There was sign on the outside of the refrigerator that specified resident food items bust be discarded within three days. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 9:47 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #4 stated food items in the refrigerator were labeled and dated by whomever placed the food item in the refrigerator. Per LVN #4, food items were kept in the refrigerator for only two to three days. Per LPVN #4, the housekeeping staff was responsible for cleaning of the nourishment refrigerators. During a concurrent observation and interview on 05/22/2024 at 9:58 AM, Housekeeper #5 stated the housekeeping staff checked the nourishment refrigerators daily, and cleaned them every Sunday. Housekeeper #5 stated food was only supposed to be in the refrigerator for three days before it was discarded. Housekeeper #5 confirmed the presence of pizzas in a Ziploc bag dated 05/09/2024, an undated container of prunes, an undated and unlabeled container of sprouts, and an undated Ziploc bag of pears in the Unit 1 and Unit 2 nourishment refrigerator. According to Housekeeper #5, there was no way to know how long the undated food items had been in the nourishment refrigerator. During an interview on 05/2202024 at 10:14 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant #6 stated items placed in the refrigerator should be labeled and dated. During an interview on 05/22/2024 at 2:15 PM, the Housekeeping Supervisor stated the nursing staff labeled and dated food items in the nourishment refrigerator and the housekeeping staff maintained the cleanliness of the nourishment refrigerators. According to the Housekeeping Supervisor, the housekeeping staff was supposed to check the nourishment refrigerators in the morning and discard items within three days. According to the Housekeeping Supervisor, someone must have forgotten to check the refrigerator and discard the items. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:21 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated housekeeping was responsible for cleaning the nourishment refrigerators. Per the DON, food items should be discarded after 72 hours, unless the items was unopened. According to the DON, the nursing staff was responsible for ensuring food items in the nourishment refrigerator are labeled and dated. During an interview on 05/23/2024 at 8:49 AM, the Administrator stated he did not know who maintained the nourishment refrigerators, who was responsible for labeling and dating the food items, or how long leftover food could be left in the refrigerator before being discarded.
Jun 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the prevention of avoidable accidents for one ...

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 prevention of avoidable accidents for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when a Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) failed to perform a two-person transfer while using a Hoyer Lift (a mechanical lift used to transfer residents from their bed to a chair, or wheelchair, etc.) with Resident 1, and failed to use the appropriate Hoyer Lift sling with Resident 1 during a transfer from a bed to a wheelchair. These failures resulted in Resident 1 falling to the floor and sustaining a laceration (a break in the skin caused by blunt force trauma) to the back of the head, requiring evaluation and treatment at a hospital. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (contains Resident 1's medical and demographic information), undated, the admission Record indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included quadriplegia (paralysis of the arms and legs), altered mental status, muscle weakness, and cachexia (weakness and wasting of the body due to severe chronic illness) and severe protein-calorie malnutrition (inadequate intake of calories from proteins, vitamins, and minerals). During a review of Resident 1's fall assessment titled, [name of facility] Fall Risk Evaluation, (a scored assessment of Resident 1's fall risk) dated March 3, 2023, the fall assessment indicated, Resident 1 was identified to be at high-risk for falls, with a score of 12. The document further indicated, .If the total score is 10 or greater, the resident should be considered at HIGH RISK for potential falls . During a concurrent observation and interview on May 4, 2023, at 2:38 PM, with Resident 1, in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was observed to be unable to move his arms and legs. Resident 1 appeared thin and frail (weak and delicate), and did not verbalize anything when spoken to, but when asked if he fell from a Hoyer Lift recently, Resident 1 nodded his head up and down. During an interview on May 23, 2023, at 2:25 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated, she was working at the facility on April 20, 2023, at the time when Resident 1 fell from the Hoyer Lift. The ADON stated, she responded to the incident after Resident 1 had fallen to the floor, and because of the fall, Resident 1 sustained a laceration to the rear of his head, which bled and required evaluation at a hospital. The ADON further stated, Resident 1 fell from the Hoyer Lift sling, because CNA 1 had used the incorrect sling to transfer Resident 1 with the Hoyer Lift. The ADON further stated, CNA 1 had used the sling intended to be used with the sit-to-stand lift (a mechanical lift used to aid residents to rise from the seated position but does not support the resident's entire body weight) but should have instead used the full body sling meant to be used with the Hoyer Lift. The ADON further stated, the sit-to-stand sling was not supposed to be used at all with the Hoyer Lift. The ADON further stated, Resident 1 required the assistance of two staff members when the Hoyer Lift was used, but CNA 1 did not get the assistance of another staff member to assist with the transfer, and instead attempted the transfer by herself. During an interview on May 23, 2023, at 2:44 PM, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, on April 20, 2023, she attempted to transfer Resident 1 by herself from their bed to a wheelchair using the Hoyer Lift. CNA 1 further stated, she was aware Resident 1 required the assistance of two staff during transfers with the Hoyer Lift but stated Resident 1 was not very heavy, so she thought she could attempt to perform the transfer alone. CNA 1 further stated, she used the sit-to-stand sling instead of the Hoyer full body sling when she used the Hoyer device to transfer Resident 1, and at the time she performed the transfer, she was not aware that she was using the wrong sling. During a follow up interview on May 23, 2023, at 2:54 PM, with the ADON, the ADON stated, two staff members were required to transfer any resident when using the Hoyer Lift, because one person was supposed to stand by the Hoyer Lift while the other staff member was supposed to be by the resident in the sling, to guide the resident and make sure they don't bump their head or fall. During a concurrent interview and record review, on May 30, 2023, at 4:30 PM, with the Director of Nurses (DON), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Safety and Supervision of Residents, undated, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, Our facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide priorities . Employees shall be trained on potential accident hazards and demonstrate competency on how to identify and report accident hazards, and try to prevent avoidable accidents . Individualized, Resident-Centered Approach to Safety . 3. The care team shall target interventions to reduce individual risks related to hazards in the environment, including adequate supervision and assistive devices. 4. Implementing interventions to reduce accident risks and hazards shall include the following: . d. Ensuring that interventions are implemented . The DON stated, Resident 1 required two staff members during transfers with the Hoyer Lift, but the resident only had the supervision of one staff member at the time the resident fell. During a review of Resident 1's physician's orders, dated April 20, 2023, the physician ' s orders indicated the following: 1) Amoxicillin (An antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections) 875 mg (milligrams-a unit of measurements) - potassium clavulanate (an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections) 125 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours x (times) 7 days .2) Sulfamethoxazole (an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections) 800 mg-trimethoprim (an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections) 160 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours x 7 days - head laceration/prophylaxis-(a medication or a treatment designed and used to prevent a disease or illness from occurring) .3. Back of head laceration treatment cleanse with normal saline wound cleanser, pat dry, cover with dry dressing wrap with kerlix (a type of gauze dressing), secure with tape daily & reevaluate in 7 days . During a review of the facility's Hoyer Lift [name of manufacturer] operator's manual titled, Owner's Operator and Maintenance Manual Electric Portable Patient Lift, undated, the manual indicated, Warning . [name of manufacturer] products are specifically designed and manufactured for use in conjunction with [name of manufacturer] accessories. Accessories designed by other manufacturers have not been tested by [name of manufacturer] and are not recommended for use with [name of manufacturer] products . Operating the Patient Lift . [name of manufacturer] slings and patient lift accessories are specifically designed to be used in conjunction with [name of manufacturer] patient lifts. Slings and accessories designed by other manufacturers are not to be utilized as a component of [name of manufacturer] ' s patient lift system . for the safety of the patient, DO NOT intermix slings and patient lifts of different manufacturers. Warranty will be voided . Operating the Patient Lift . [name of manufacturer] recommends that two assistants be used for all lifting preparation and transferring to/from procedures . WARNING . DO NOT use slings and patient lifts of different manufacturers . Injury or damage may occur . During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment of the resident's functional capabilities), dated March 1, 2023, the MDS Section G (functional status) indicated, Resident 1 was total dependence (totally dependent on staff) for transfers [to and from bed, wheelchair etc.] and bed mobility. The MDS further indicated, Resident 1 required the assistance of two staff members during transfers. During a review of Resident 1's Physical Therapy Recertification and Updated Plan of Treatment (a summary assessment and plan of treatment for the resident), signed on April 20, 2023, the plan indicated, . Patient will safely perform functional transfers with TD [total dependence] . Comments: Hoyer transfers recommended for safety . During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled, ADL [activities of daily living] - care plan, dated January 23, 2023, the care plan indicated, Needs assistance with ADLs: Transfers - Total Assist Support . 2-3 staff assist . with interventions including, Assist with transfers, request extra help as needed . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Policy and Procedure on Hoyer Lift Usage, dated August 2017, the P&P indicated, It is this facility ' s policy to help move, lift, and transfer heavy residents who are unable to assist mover . 1. Assess physical characteristics of the resident (i.e. weight size, height, age, physical limitations and abilities) and determine if assistance is needed from another caregiver . 5. DO NOT use Hoyer Lift equipment if unfamiliar with procedure . 7. Provide reassurance that precaution will be taken to prevent falls . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Policy and Procedure on Fall Prevention and Reduction, dated October 2014, the P&P indicated, Policy. It is this facility ' s policy to prevent falls to the extent possible and within the control of the facility . 1. Residents, Upon admission, shall be assessed and evaluated for risk for falls or further falls. 2. Residents identified to be at risk for falls or further falls shall have plans of care developed to minimize or reduce risk factors for falls or further falls. 3. Plans of care shall include interventions on the following . Provision of monitoring and supervision to resident to prevent fall incident . During a review of the facility's job description for Certified Nursing Assistant titled, Certified Nursing Assistant, undated, the job description indicated, . Purpose of your job position. The primary purpose of your job position is to provide each of your assigned residents with routine daily nursing care and services in accordance with the resident ' s assessment and care plan, and as may be directed by your supervisors . Delegation of Authority. As a Certified Nursing Assistant you are delegated the administrative authority, responsibility, and accountability necessary for carrying out your assigned duties . Perform all assigned tasks in accordance with our established policies and procedures, and as instructed by your supervisors . Follow established safety precautions in the performance of all duties . Operate all equipment in a safe manner .
May 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

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 investigate in compliance to the facility policy and procedure for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate in compliance to the facility policy and procedure for unknown injury for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 complained of pain to left hip, and staff had noted discoloration and swelling to the right hip without a prior known history of trauma or falls. This failure had the potential to delay treatment affect (Resident 1's) health, safety and well-being. Findings: During a review of Residents 1 ' s admission Record (general demographics), the document indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (condition that causes confusions), major depressive disorder (a condition of feeling of sadness) and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a phone interview on April 24, 2023, at 3:15 PM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) the LVN 1 stated she Resident 1 was transferred to the hospital on April 10, 2023, for radiography (x-ray to show pictures of the pain inside the body) of the left leg due to pain. The LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 had discoloration and swelling on Resident 1 ' s right hip as well, and when asked, Resident 1 stated she had a fall. The LVN 1 stated there had not been any prior report of fall for Resident 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on April 24, 2023, at 3:50 PM, with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the Licensed Progress Notes, dated April 10, 2023, and SBAR (Situation Background Assessment Report), dated April 10, 2023, were reviewed. The Licensed Progress Notes indicated, .CNA reported during ADL ' s [Activities of Daily Living] that resident has discoloration to Rt [right hip] . Site swelling with pain . During a concurrent interview and record review on April 24, 2023, at 3:55 PM, with the ADON, the SBAR (Situation Background Assessment Report), dated April 10, 2023, was reviewed. The SBAR indicated, .3x3 discoloration right hip, pain location right hip . When asked if the facility initiated an investigation, the ADON stated, We did not do investigation because we transferred the resident out to the hospital. A review of acute hospital [Name of hospital] discharge records and discharge diagnoses from the hospital dated April 23, 2023, indicated, Left hip fracture (a break in a bone that occurs quickly) . Status post hip surgery (procedure to repair the hip). During an interview on May 9, 2023, at 11:12 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON acknowledged that the facility did not investigate the unknown injury. The DON stated she would start an investigation of Resident 1 ' s unknown injury and further stated The staff should have initiated an investigation. During a concurrent interview and review with the DON on May 17, 2023, at 10:55 AM, the facility ' s policy titled, Protocol for Prevention, Monitoring, and Recording of accidents and Incidents, dated, October 2014, was reviewed. The facility policy indicated, . Policy It is the policy of this facility to implement and enforce all safety procedures and rules to ensure the safety and well-being of residents, staff, and visitors. Facility shall implement measures to prevent, monitor and record accidents and incidents whenever applicable. In the cases where it is unavoidable and accidents or incidents occur, the facility will provide emergency treatment, arrange for transportation to an acute hospital, prepare and file all required reports and records and conduct a thorough investigation of the accident or incident to prevent recurrence . The DON acknowledged the facility did not initiate an investigation for the unknown injury and stated, We should have done investigation.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0563 (Tag F0563)

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 state guidelines for Covid 19 visitations in providing indoo...

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 state guidelines for Covid 19 visitations in providing indoor visitation for one of 3 sampled residents (Resident 1) while in the Covid 19 unit. This failure resulted in Resident 1 visitors having to sit outside at window and not be able to be bedside visiting with resident. Findings: During review of Residents 1's admission Record (general demographics), the document indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include metabolic encephalopathy (chemical imbalance in brain), non-st elevation myocardial infarction (partial blockage of heart arteries, low oxygen to heart muscle), diabetes mellitus type 2(body not able to produce insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), blindness right eye (not able to see in right eye). During a concurrent interview and record review on February 01, 2023, at 3:19 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 1's Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation (SBAR), dated December 15, 2022, was reviewed. The (SBAR) indicated, Resident 1 tested Covid 19 positive, asymptomatic at this time, place in red zone. ADON stated, we had stopped visitations in Covid 19 unit which lasted three weeks, at that time we were not following current All Facilities Letter (AFL) state guidelines, we were following our mitigation on visitations because of the outbreak, we thought we were protecting our residents. During an interview on February 01, 2023, at 3:19 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON states the Covid unit had no visitations for maybe 3 weeks in December 2022, we notified family they could visit at the window but no physical contact with residents. We were really trying to prevent the spread. We felt it was safer for the residents to stop visitations in Covid unit. They could visit at window. When asked, was the facility following the state guidelines for visitations, states, we did not follow state regulation for visitations, we followed our policy we thought it would be safe for the facility. During an interview on February 01, 2023, at 4:05 PM, with the Administrator (AD), AD states we know now they can enter the Covid unit, we had window visits, we did this for resident safety. We realize we got family mad, we tried to tell them this is to safeguard their loved ones, some were pleased but there are a few that thought it was horrendous. Most were thankful. January 01, 2023, we started accepting all visitors because we had a survey here, and they notified us about the visitations. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Visitation Policy and Procedure (no date), the policy and procedure indicated, The facility shall conduct visitation through different means, however, the facility chooses to adhere to the core principles of Covid 19 infection prevention to ensure we have done everything possible to keep our resident's, staff, and visitors safe. The facility believes in patient-centered care and residents physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and support of quality of life is being conducted and respected by the facility .If personal protective equipment (PPE) is required for contact with the resident due to quarantine or Covid 19 positive isolation status (including fully vaccinated visitors), it must be donned and doffed according to instruction by HCP. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Rights revised August 2017, the policy and procedure indicated, Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity. aa. Visit and be visited by others from outside the facility. During a review of QSO-20-39-NH Visitation Guidance, Revised September 23, 2022, states Visitation is allowed for all residents at all times. Indoor Visitation .residents who are on transmission-based precautions (TBP) or quarantine can still receive visitors. In these cases, visits should occur in the resident's room and the resident should wear a well-fitting facemask (if tolerated). Before visiting residents, who are on TBP or quarantine, visitors should be made aware of the potential risk of visiting and precautions necessary in order to visit the resident. Visitors should adhere to the core principles of infection prevention. Facilities may offer well-fitting facemasks or other appropriate PPE. Indoor Visitation during an Outbreak . While it is safer for visitors not to enter the facility during an outbreak investigation, visitors must still be allowed in the facility. Visitors should be made aware of the potential risk of visiting during an outbreak investigation and adhere to the core principles of infection prevention.
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 care and service in accordance with acceptable professional...

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 care and service in accordance with acceptable professional standards of quality for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1's oxygen saturation (test that measures the amount of oxygen being carried by red blood cells) was not monitored in accordance with the physician's order. This failure had the potential for Resident 1's medical care needs not to be met, placing Resident 1's healthy and safety at risk. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's clinical record, the admission Record (contains demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (irregular and fast heart rate), pacemaker (device placed into the chest to help control the heartbeat), and heart attack (when something blocks the blood flow to the heart). A review of Resident 1's Physician's Order Sheet, dated December 21, 2022, indicated Monitor O2 (oxygen) Saturation Q [every] shift . During a review of Resident 1's Care plan (measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs) , initiated on December 22, 2022, it indicated Resident 1 used oxygen for dyspnea (difficulty breathing), and to monitor abnormal breathing patterns. Further review indicated to implement interventions as ordered. A concurrent phone interview and record review was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on February 2, 2022, at 12:00 PM. The ADON reviewed Resident 1's Medication Administration Record for the month of December 2022. The MAR indicated there were no documentation for monitoring of Resident 1's oxygen saturation every shift for two separate shifts: December 22, 2022, during the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift and December 26, 2022, during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift. The ADON stated there should not be any missing documentation in the MAR. During a concurrent interview and record review, with the ADON, on February 2, 2022, at 1:30 PM, the DON reviewed the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, OXYGEN THERAPY, dated August 2017, and DOCUMENTATION PRINCIPLES, dated August 22, 2017, and stated the policies were not followed. A review of the facility's P&P titled, OXYGEN THERAPY, dated August 2017, indicated .Oxygen therapy shall be administered as ordered by the physician . During a review of the facility's P&P titled DOCUMENTATION PRINCIPLES, dated August 22, 2017, it indicated .adhere with standardized documentation principles and maintain clinical records in a manner that will comply with licensing and certification governmental agency requirements and professional standards . The person making the entry, with date, signature and title, must authenticate all entries in the health/clinical record .
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 needed care and services were provided to one of four sample...

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 needed care and services were provided to one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1's order for urine analysis (U/A- testing a sample of urine) with culture and sensitivity (C+S- test to find germs that can cause an infection) was carried out seven days after it was ordered. This failure had the potential to result in an unidentified complication and/or worsening of Resident 1's condition due to a delay in assessment and treatment. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's clinical record, the admission Record (contains demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of atrial fibrillation (irregular and fast heart rate), pacemaker (device placed into the chest to help control the heartbeat), and heart attack (when something blocks the blood flow to the heart). A review of Resident 1's Physician Order Sheet, dated December 22, 2022, indicated a laboratry order for U/A with C+S. During a phone interview on February 1, 2022, at 5:43 PM, with Licensed Vocation Nurse (LVN 1), LVN 1 stated when there is a U/A with C+S order, it should be carried out right away. LVN 1 stated the order should have been carried out that day but had missed it. A concurrent interview and record review was conducted on February 1, 2022, at 12:42 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON reviewed Resident 1's laboratory results titled .URINALYSIS .URINE CULTURE/ C&S [culture and sensitivity] , which indicated the sample was collected on December 29, 2022, at 11:25 AM. (Seven days after it was ordered.) Further review indicated it was received by the laboratory on December 29, 2022, at 2:35 PM, and the results were reported on December 31, 2022, at 2:09 PM. The ADON stated the U/A with C+S must have been missed and should have been collected and sent to the laboratory for testing on December 22, 2022, or the next day. During a concurrent interview and record review, with the ADON, on February 1, 2022, at 12:43 PM, the ADON reviewed the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, PHYSICIAN ORDERS, dated October 2014, which indicated, .It shall be the facility's policy to provide care and services to the resident in accordance with physician orders . The ADON stated the policy was not followed because the U/A with C+S should have been collected sooner.
Dec 2022 18 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's policy and procedure titled Pol...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Pressure Ulcers (wounds caused by prolonged pressure on a bony prominence that may be superficial (Stage 1) to involving damage which includes all layers of skin down to the bone (Stage IV), dated August 22, 2017, for two of two sampled residents (Residents 3 and 44) was followed when: 1. The facility did not provide documented evidence for Resident 3 who had a Stage 4 pressure (involves all layers of skin down to the bone) ulcer on the sacrum (located above the tailbone) and a Stage 3 pressure (Involves all layers of skin down to the muscle) ulcer on the left hip to show the resident had been repositioned at least every two hours to prevent further pressure on the wounds. 2. For Resident 44: the facility did not conduct a full assessment (includes: Type of Ulcer, Location, Stage of Pressure Ulcer, Measurements, Non-viable tissue, Odor, Amount of Exudate [fluid], Type of Exudate, Wound bed, Description of surrounding skin/tissue, Description of wound edges, Progress towards healing, Nature and frequency of Pain and Signs of Infection) of a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI- a form of pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcers are localized areas of tissue damage that develop because of prolonged pressure on areas of bone that are close to the skin's surface) on Resident 44's right heel at admission; the facility did not follow the physician's treatment order for the DTI for 64 days, the facility did not inform the wound care doctor of Resident 44's DTI for 40 days; the facility did not conduct weekly wound assessments for nine weeks and the Registered Dietician (RD) did not include the DTI in Resident 44's Nutritional Assessments from admission through to November 9, 2022. These failures had the potential to cause Residents 3 and 44, to suffer an increased risk of mortality (the state of being subject to death), infection, decline in function (a loss of independence in self-care capabilities and deterioration in mobility and in activities of daily living), and pain. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (chemical imbalance in the brain), hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (muscle weakness, inability to move one side of body as a result of blocked blood flow to the brain), dementia (a group of conditions affecting the ability to remember, think or make decisions), contracture of left and right knee (stiffening of the knee and inability to move the knee), blindness (inability to see), pressure ulcer of sacral region and pressure ulcer of left hip (localized damage to the skin on the hip). During a concurrent observation and interview on December 13, 2022, at 8:48 AM, with Resident 3, who was lying in bed covered up with her legs turned to the right, Resident 3 stated she did not know how her wound developed or when it occurred, and the facility staff had not explained that to her. Resident 3 stated the treatment nurse puts a dressing on her wound, and she did not know if they [wounds] are getting better. Resident 3 stated the certified nursing assistant (CNA) would come twice a day to check the dressing on her wound. Resident 3 stated that she did not have pain in the wounds, but the wounds would sometimes itch and I know I shouldn't scratch them. Resident 3 stated the certified nursing aides did not come in every two hours to assist with repositioning and that they used to come in more often but not so much anymore. Resident 3 was observed three times on December 13, 2022, at 8:48 AM, 10:30 AM, and 12:25 PM lying in her bed, in the same position, on her back with legs turned to the right and under her blanket. During a review of Resident 3's Braden Scale - For predicting pressure sore risk (Braden scale), dated October 21, 2022, the Braden Scale indicated Resident 3 was at high risk for pressure sore development with a score of 9 out of 23. The lower the score, indicated the increased risk for pressure sore development. During a review Resident 3's Long term care plan, Impaired skin/tissue integrity, chronic wound (care plan) dated October 21, 2022, indicated the plan/approach included assist with and/or encourage turning/repositioning at least every 2 hours and as needed. During a review of Resident 3's MDS (minimum data set, a clinical assessment of all residents in nursing homes) 3.0 Section G (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 required total assistance (full staff performance every time) with one-person physical assist for bed mobility (how the resident moves to and from lying position, turns side to side, and positions body while in bed or alternate sleep furniture). During a review of Resident 3's IDT (interdisciplinary team- a group of clinical staff such as nursing, dietary, and activities), wound care committee (IDT notes), dated November 11, 2022, the IDT notes under IDT recommendations was to reposition/turn every 2 hours. During an interview with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 2) on December 13, 2022, at 3:20 PM, CNA 2 stated documentation for certified nursing assistants was written on the facility's nurse assistant additional notes. CNA 2 stated this documentation would include every 2-hour turning or those cares that are completed outside of the ADL (Activities of daily living such as eating, bathing, and walking) charting. During a review of Resident 3's Nurse assistant additional notes, dated October 25, 2022, through November 27, 2022, the notes indicated zero documentation of every 2-hour turning or repositioning of Resident 3. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on pressure ulcers (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in section 1.8 If bedbound, reposition every two hours; if chairbound reposition every hour. Section 5.3 indicated, A resident who is dependent on staff for repositioning should have repositioning schedule to maintain skin integrity. Repositioning schedule may range from every 2 hours or more frequently depending on tissue tolerance. Section 5.7, indicated Document implementation of repositioning schedule in the resident's medical chart, e.g., licensed progress notes, ADLS charting or medication administration record (MAR). During an interview on December 13, 2022, at 5:06 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the intervention for pressure ulcers was expected to be every 2-hour turning and/or repositioning, which was not documented. The DON stated she made observations of residents' positions while lying in bed, throughout the day to ensure they were repositioned every two hours. The DON stated staff used a badge card to tell staff which way a resident should be facing at various times during the day while in bed. The DON stated that the CNAs and all staff have the same badge. The DON stated only observations were completed, there was no paper documentation to show that repositioning and/or every 2-hour turning was completed. 2. A review of Resident 44's face sheet (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), undated, indicated Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of 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), psychosis (a severe mental condition in which thought and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality), difficulty with walking, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. During an observation and interview with Resident 44 and Resident 44's family member on December 5, 2022, at 11:23 AM, Resident 44 was in a wheelchair positioned beside her bed in her room. Sitting on Resident 44's bed was her family member. The family member stated she found out today Resident 44 had a blister on her right heel. Resident 44's right ankle had a cushion fastened around the ankle and there was a sock on the right foot. Resident 44's family member stated she was upset because it seemed Resident 44 had gone downhill since being admitted to the facility. Resident 44's family member stated Resident 44 could no longer use the bathroom on her own, wore a diaper and had a sore on her right foot. Resident 44 began to speak to her family member however Resident 44's sentences did not make sense and did not relate to the subject being discussed. A review of Resident 44's Comprehensive Resident admission Assessment, dated September 27, 2022, indicated Resident 44's skin was intact. Resident 44's Body Reassessment, dated September 28, 2022, indicated Resident 44 had a DTI to her right heel. The Body Reassessment, did not indicate measurements of the DTI, condition, or appearance of the skin in and around the DTI, presence of pain or signs of infection if any. A review of Resident 44's ADL [Activities of Daily Living] Care Plan, dated September 28, 2022, indicated, Bed Mobility: extensive assist, Transfers: extensive assist, Walk in Room/Corridor: extensive assist and Locomotion On/Off Unit: extensive assist. Pressure Ulcer/Skin Integrity Care Plan, dated September 28, 2022, indicated, Pressure ulcers/skin breakdown, delayed/poor wound healing related to impaired mobility, impaired cognition, urinary incontinence and chairfast/bedfast most of the time. A review of Resident 44's Long Term Care Plan titled, Impaired Skin/Tissue Integrity, Chronic Wound, dated September 28, 2022, indicated, Related to: DTI (R) [right] heel . Plan/Approach: . Assess and Document wound characteristics/dimensions initially, q [every] week and PRN [as needed] decline, Monitor wound progress; reevaluate wound Tx [treatment]/interventions q week and PRN, Use proper infection control procedures @ [at] all times to prevent cross contamination, Assess infection risk. Monitor for s/s [signs and symptoms] of wound infection and notify Dr. [doctor] . Assess for pain [secondary] to wound or its treatment and manage appropriately, . Monitor those dressings remain clean and intact between changes, replace PRN, . Avoid pressure, friction, and shear to involved area(s) @ all times, . Suspend Feet/Heels(s) off bed surface w/ [with] pillow under calf as tolerated, . A review of Resident 44's treatment orders for the DTI indicated: a. September 28, 2022, (R) heel DTI clnse [cleanse] c [with] NS [normal saline], pat dry, paint c iodine [antiseptic], cover c dry drsg [dressing], Qday [every day], x [times] 21 days, reeval [reevaluate] PRN [as needed]. b. November 4, 2022, (R) heel blood filled blister. Cleanse c N/S [normal saline] pat to dry. Apply betadine [an antiseptic], ABD [abdominal] pad & [and] wrap c kerlix [brand name] wrap. Then re-eval x 21 days . c. December 5, 2022, D/C [discontinue] previous orders to R [right] heel . [change] in etiology [the cause of the condition]. R heel st [stage] 3 [three-full thickness skin loss involving damage or necrosis (dead tissue) of subcutaneous tissue (innermost layer of skin) that may extend down to, but not through, underlying fascia (connective tissue)] PR [pressure] injury clnse [cleanse] c [with] NS [normal saline], pat dry, apply Medi Honey [a brand name for an ointment that supports autolytic (destruction of cells by their own enzymes) debridement (removal of damaged tissue) and a moist wound healing environment], cover c dry drsg [dressing], Qday [every day] & [and] PRN [as needed] x [times] 21 days, then reeval [reevaluate]. A review of Resident 44's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) from September 28, 2022, to November 3, 2022, indicated Resident 44's right heel DTI was being treated by cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Medi Honey, cover with dry dressing every day and as needed. Not with the order dated September 28, 2022, (R) heel DTI clnse c NS, pat dry, paint c iodine, cover c dry drsg, Qday, x 21 days, reeval PRN. A review of Resident 44's physician's orders did not indicate a Medi Honey treatment during this time period. Thirty-seven days had passed without following the correct physician's order for wound treatment. A review of Resident 44's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) from November 4, 2022, to November 30, 2022, indicated Resident 44's right heel DTI was being treated by cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply Medi Honey, cover with dry dressing every day and as needed. Not with the order dated November 4, 2022, (R) heel blood filled blister. Cleanse c N/S pat to dry. Apply betadine, ABD pad & wrap c kerlix wrap. Then re-eval x 21 days . A review of Resident 44's physician's orders did not indicate a Medi Honey treatment during this time period. Twenty-seven days had passed without following the correct physician's order for wound treatment. A review of Resident 44's Wound Care Doctor's Progress Notes was conducted. There was no documented evidence to show the Wound Care doctor had assessed Resident 4's DTI from September 27, 2022, to November 6, 2022, for a total of 40 days. A review of Resident 44's Weekly Wound Assessments from September 27, 2022, to December 4, 2022, was conducted. There was no documented evidence to show weekly wound assessments had been conducted, for a total of nine weeks. A review of Resident 44's Nutritional Assessments dated October 5, 2022, October 12, 2022, October 19, 2022, and November 9, 2022, indicated Resident 44's skin was clear and intact, and no breakdown documented. During an interview and record review with a Registered Dietician (RD) on December 13, 2022, at 10:56 AM, a review of Resident 44's weights from September 27, 2022 (weight 124 pounds) to October 24, 2022 (weight 117 pounds) was conducted. The RD verified Resident 44 lost 7 pounds in one month, a negative 5.65% [percent] significant weight change, which impacted the body's ability to heal. During an observation of Resident 44's wound on December 13, 2022, at 5:20 PM with a Treatment Nurse (TN 1), Resident 44's right and left heels were floated (pressure is relieved by not having the heel touch any surface) on pillows. Resident 44's right heel was wrapped in gauze. TN 1 stated Resident 44's stage III pressure sore measured 3 (three).9 (nine) cm (centimeters-a unit of measurement) x (by) 4 (four).9 cm about the size of a baseball. TN 1 cut the dressing away. Resident 44 became agitated stating be careful, be careful, no, no, no, Resident 44 reached toward her right foot in a protective gesture. TN 1 reassured Resident 44 and was very gentle with Resident 44's right foot. Resident 44 relaxed back onto her pillow. Resident 44's stage III pressure ulcer looked like hard, black necrotic (dead) tissue covering the entire wound's surface with one very small open area to the lower right corner of the wound. No oozing or weeping was observed coming from the wound. There was no odor. During a concurrent interview with the Wound Care Doctor (WCD) on December 13, 2022, at 5:42 PM, in the presence of TN 1, the WCD stated he came to the facility every Monday and evaluated all the residents with wounds. The WCD stated he was not told about Resident 44's wound until November 7, 2022. The WCD reviewed Resident 44's TARS from September 28, 2022, to November 3, 2022. The WCD stated he would not have ordered a Medi Honey treatment for a DTI and the treatment nurses knew this. TN 1 stated she would not have used the Medi Honey because she knew the WCD liked the betadine treatment for DTIs. The WCD stated Resident 44's wound was covered by a scab which was eschar (dead tissue). The WCD stated the wound was stable at this time and he was monitoring it for signs of infection. The WCD stated if the wound started oozing pus, he would debride (removal of dead tissue with a scalpel) the scab. The WCD stated he was hopeful the scab would eventually fall off and healthy tissue would be underneath. The WCD stated Resident 44 could not turn or reposition herself and it was very important that the staff kept the pressure off the resident's heels. The doctor stated he recommended a boot, but the facility did not want the boot they liked floating the heels with pillows. During a continued concurrent interview on December 13, 2022, at 6:07 PM with TN 1 and in the presence of the WCD, TN 1 stated she had not been informed about Resident 44's wound until November 4, 2022. TN 1 stated the Charge Nurses would let her know about resident wounds. TN 1 stated she used the betadine treatment in November 2022 and did not start the Medi Honey treatment until December 5, 2022. TN 1 reviewed Resident 44's TARs for September 2022, October 2022, and November 2022. TN 1 stated her initials on the TARS were made by someone else, because she had not documented her initials on the September 2022, October 2022, and November 2022 TARS presented to her. TN 1 stated she did not know where the TAR was which indicated the treatment she had provided. TN 1 stated the charge nurses were responsible for conducting the weekly wound assessments and she filled out the wound progress report with the WCD on his Monday visits. During an interview with the RD on December 13, 2022, at 6:35 PM, the RD stated she reviewed the residents' admission assessments to obtain information on the residents and check for the presence of wounds. The RD stated Resident 44's admission assessment indicated Resident 44's skin was clear and intact. The RD stated she had missed the Body Reassessment, that indicated the right heel DTI. The RD stated Resident 44's Nutritional Assessments dated October 5, 2022, October 12, 2022, October 19, 2022, and November 9, 2022, did not include considerations for the right heel DTI. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on December 13, 2022, at 7:41 PM, the DON verified a full assessment of Resident 44's DTI was not documented at admission and should have been. The DON verified there was no physician's order for the Medi Honey treatment indicated on Resident 44's TARs dated September 2022, October 2022, and November 2022. The DON stated a Treatment Nurse conducted the recapitulation (orders are reviewed and verified as accurate against the physician's initial orders, subsequent telephone orders and compared to the medication and treatment administration records monthly) of wound care orders and should have caught the error and did not. The DON stated the nurses should have followed the physician's treatment orders dated September 28, 2022, and November 4, 2022, and did not. The DON stated a Treatment Nurse should have informed the WCD of Resident 44's DTI on October 3, 2022 (the first weekly WCD visit following admission) and did not. The DON verified weekly wound assessments had not been documented and Resident 44's nutritional assessments should have included the right heel DTI and did not. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Pressure Ulcers, dated August 22, 2017, indicated, Policy: .A resident, who enters the facility with pressure ulcer and/or develops unavoidable pressure ulcers being in the facility, must receive treatment and services necessary to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing. Procedures: .All residents shall be assessed on admission or readmission of their skin condition and integrity, using the prescribed Nursing admission Assessment form. Licensed nurse must also refer resident to the Registered Dietitian at the new onset of a pressure ulcer for possible adjustments in his/her nutritional needs (caloric, protein and fluid) .Physician and other healthcare professional .shall have inputs in the assessment and identification of the type of ulcer. Assessments of Pressure Ulcers: Licensed charge nurse or treatment nurse shall conduct basic assessment and data collection on the following: Type of Ulcer . Location .Stage of Pressure Ulcer . Measurements . Non-viable tissue . Odor . Amount of Exudate [fluid] . Type of Exudate . Wound bed . Description of surrounding skin/tissue . Description of wound edges . Progress towards healing . Nature and frequency of Pain . Signs of Infection. Assessment of pressure ulcers shall be done at least once every week or as wound condition changes. Document general findings in the weekly skin and wound progress report. Choice of treatment and dressings should be based on the characteristics of the wound, relevance of the specific product to the identified pressure ulcer, treatment goals and manufacturer's recommendations for use. Pressure ulcer treatment orders shall be evaluated for effectiveness every 2 [two] - [to] 4 [four] weeks . The licensed nurse or treatment nurse shall also evaluate treatment plan, documenting whether or not to continue or modify the current interventions. Weekly/Monthly Special Skin Care Report - report containing progress on each resident identified with pressure ulcer, whether in-house or community acquired, shall be completed by the licensed nurse or treatment nurse on a weekly basis. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on ReCapping of Physician Orders, dated August 22, 2017, indicated, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to review and provide recapitulation of physician's orders on a monthly basis. Physician Order Sheets will be reviewed and recapped to include necessary changes, corrections and updates made via telephone orders.
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 complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a computerized clinical assessme...

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 Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a computerized clinical assessment) Significant Change assessment within 14 days for one resident, Resident 8, reviewed for hospice services. This failure had the potential to delay identification and implementation of the resident's care and support needs. Findings: During a review of Resident 8's clinical record, the admission Record (a document containing clinical and demographic information) was reviewed. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included heart failure (a weakened heart condition), chronic kidney disease stage III (kidney malfunctioning disease that has progressed to the third of five stages), and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition (when not enough protein or calories are consumed to meet nutritional needs). The clinical record further indicated that the resident was admitted under hospice services on December 10, 2021. During a concurrent interview and record review with a MDS Nurse (MDS 1) on December 12, 2022, at 2:50 PM, Resident 8's MDS Assessments were reviewed. MDS 1 stated that a significant change assessment was supposed to be completed within 14 days from when a resident was admitted to hospice services. MDS 1 confirmed they did not complete the assessment until four months after Resident 8 was admitted on to hospice services, in April 2022. During an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) on December 13, 2022, at 12:23 PM, the DON stated they did not complete a timely significant change assessment when Resident 8 was admitted to hospice services. She stated her expectation was for the significant change MDS assessment to be completed within 14 days or less. The DON further stated the facility uses the Resident Assessment Tool (RAI) Manual as the Policy and Procedure (P&P) for MDS. During a review of CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Long Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2019, the manual indicated on page 2-23, An SCSA [significant change in status assessment] is required to be performed when a terminally ill resident enrolls in a hospice program (Medicare-certified or State-licensed hospice provider) or changes hospice providers and remains a resident at the nursing home. The ARD [assessment reference date] must be within 14 days from the effective date of the hospice election . An SCSA must be performed regardless of whether an assessment was recently conducted on the resident. This is to ensure a coordinated plan of care between the hospice and nursing home is in place.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately identify on three different Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately identify on three different Minimum Data Set (MDS) (a computerized clinical assessment) assessments for one resident, Resident 8, that the resident was receiving hospice (a program providing services for the care of terminally ill residents and their family) services. This failure had the potential to delay identification and implementation of the resident's care and support needs. Findings: During a review of Resident 8's clinical record, the admission Record (a document containing clinical and demographic information) was reviewed. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included heart failure (a weakened heart condition), chronic kidney disease stage III (kidney malfunctioning disease that has progressed to the third of five stages), and moderate protein-calorie malnutrition (when not enough protein or calories are consumed to meet nutritional needs). The clinical record further indicated that the resident was admitted under hospice services on December 10, 2021. During a concurrent interview and record review with a MDS Nurse (MDS 1) on December 13, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Resident 8's MDS Assessments were reviewed. Three separate MDS assessments, a quarterly assessment completed in January 2022, a significant change assessment completed in April 2022, and a quarterly assessment completed in October 2022, were reviewed. Section O Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs on all three assessments were coded No for hospice care, indicating the resident was not receiving hospice services. MDS 1 confirmed all three assessments were coded inaccurately. MDS 1 further stated Hospice Care should have been coded yes. During an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) on December 13, 2022, at 12:23 PM, the DON stated her expectations were for the MDS assessments to be coded accurately. She further stated the assessments should have been coded yes, so that the coordinating plan of care can reflect the resident's hospice needs. The DON stated the facility uses the Resident Assessment Tool (RAI) Manual as the Policy and Procedure (P&P) for MDS. During a review of CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Long Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) 3.0 User's Manual, dated October 2019, the manual indicated coding instructions on page O-5, O0100K, Hospice Care - Code residents identified as being in a hospice program for terminally ill persons where an array of services is provided for the palliation and management of terminal illness and related conditions. The manual further indicated coding yes would indicate hospice care was performed while a resident of this facility and within the last 14 days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an individualized comprehensive care plan was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an individualized comprehensive care plan was initiated for one out of 32 residents (Resident 57) for care and precautions to be taken for a resident with a gastrostomy (insertion of tube through the abdomen wall through which liquid nourishments and medications can be administered) feeding . This failure had the potential for Resident 57 to develop nutritional risks from unidentified care concerns or place him at risk for aspiration (inhalation of food or fluid into the lungs) if preventive measures were not care planned. Findings: During a review of Resident 57's admission Record, (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), dementia (a group of conditions affecting the ability to remember, think or make decisions), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (muscle weakness, inability to move one side of body as a result of blocked blood flow to the brain). During an observation of Resident 57 on December 6, 2022, at 12:26 PM, in Resident 57's room, Resident 57 was observed eating a lunch meal of oats and sliced watermelon. Resident 57 had gastrostomy feeding (Isosource HN) infusing at a rate of 85 cc (cubic centimeters- a liquid measurement) per hour with 150 cc of Isosource HN remaining in enteral feeding bag hanging on the enteral feeding pump. During a review of Resident 57's Order Summary Report of physician's orders, (summary), dated November 1, 2022, indicated Resident 57 was to have continuous feeding of Diabetic Source (if not available Diabetic Source AC, or if not available can switch to Isosource HN), Formula at 85 cc (cubic centimeters - a liquid measurement) per hour for 20 hours via enteral feeding pump. Start at 12:00 PM, turn off at 8:00 AM, or until dose limit is complete. The summary also indicated the physician had ordered that Resident 57 could have a mechanical soft diet (a diet in which the texture is altered for people with chewing difficulties). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Enteral Nutrition, dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, Risk of aspiration is assessed by the nurse and provider and addressed in the individual care plan. During a concurrent record review and interview on December 12, 2022, at 9:53 AM. after receiving a copy of all care plans for Resident 57 the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON was asked to locate the care plan for enteral feeding for Resident 57. The ADON stated she was not able to locate the enteral feeding care plan. The ADON stated the expectation was that in addition to the nutritional status care plan there should also be an enteral feeding care plan in the patient chart.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0691 (Tag F0691)

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 colostomy (an opening for the large intestine...

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 colostomy (an opening for the large intestine through the abdomen where stool is passed) care for one out of 32 residents (Resident 67). This failure had the potential to cause Resident 67 to suffer increased infection, pain, and unpleasant odors due to the colostomy bag not being emptied or skin not being cleansed to prevent breakdown. FINIDNGS During a review of Resident 67's admission Record, (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included heart failure (a condition in which the heart does not pump blood adequately), end stage renal disease (a condition in which the kidney does not function), dysphagia (inability to swallow) and bed confinement status (inability to tolerate activity out of bed). During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 8:45 AM, Resident 67 stated she had been waiting for two hours for the treatment nurse to empty her colostomy bag. Resident 67 stated she was told only the treatment nurse could empty the bag, while at other places CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistant) would empty the bag. During a review of Resident 67's Physician's telephone orders, dated October 30, 2022, the orders indicated colostomy care was to be provided every shift and as needed. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Colostomy/Ileostomy care procedure, dated August 22, 2017, the colostomy/ileostomy care procedure indicated staff were to review the resident's care plan to assess for any special needs of the resident. During review of Resident 67's Colostomy care plan, (care plan), dated October 30, 2022, the care plan indicated to provide colostomy care every shift by nursing staff. During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 9:00 AM, with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) can empty the colostomy bag, while the wound nurse would change the wafer/apparatus (this goes around the stoma opening and protects the skin from contact from stool) as needed. The DSD stated, that if the colostomy bag was half full or bubbled from gas that this would indicate the colostomy bag would need emptying or changing. During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 9:15 AM, with the Treatment Nurse (TN 2), TN 2 stated that the CNA can empty the contents of the colostomy bag, while the treatment nurse would change the wafer as needed. TN 2 stated that if the colostomy bag appears bloated with gas and/or half full with stool, this would indicate the need to empty and/or change the colostomy bag. During a review of the Resident 67's Facility Skilled Documentation Flow Sheet, (skilled notes), dated December 1, 2022, through December 6, 2022, under the section Special Skin Care needs, the Ostomy or Stoma box was not marked with a check mark to indicate the skill was completed for the dates December 1, 2022, through December 6, 2022 . The skilled notes are to be signed by a licensed nurse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status ...

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 acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one of one sampled resident (Resident 44) when: For Resident 44, a significant weight loss of 5.65% (percent) in 1 (one) month and a continued weight loss of 11.29% in approximately two plus months was identified, but a Weight Change Review, was not documented, Resident 44's care plan was not updated to address Resident 44's refusal to eat, or the impact of nutritional deficits on wound healing for a Deep Tissue Injury (DTI- a form of pressure ulcer. Pressure ulcers are localized areas of tissue damage that develop because of prolonged pressure on bony prominences-areas of bone that are close to the skin's surface). Resident 44 was not placed on weekly weights and Resident 44's DTI was not included in Resident 44's Nutritional Assessments dated October 5, 2022, October 12, 2022, October 19, 2022, and November 9, 2022. These failures to address Resident 44's weight loss had the potential to place Resident 44 at risk for further weight loss, impaired wound healing, a decline in function (a loss of independence in self-care capabilities and deterioration in mobility and in activities of daily living), and dehydration. Findings: A review of Resident 44's face sheet (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), undated, indicated Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of 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), psychosis (a severe mental condition in which thought and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality), difficulty with walking, muscle weakness and lack of coordination. During an observation and interview with Resident 44 on December 5, 2022, at 12:32 PM, Resident 44 was in bed with an over-bed table positioned in front of her. Resident 44's face, neck, and arms were thin, the collar bone and cheek bones were clearly visible. A lunch tray was on the over--bed table. A built-up spoon and fork were positioned next to the tray. Resident 44 stated she did not need any help with eating, I can do it myself. A few bites were taken out of the mash potatoes but none of the other food was touched: turkey, chopped tomatoes, and a square of cake. Resident 44 was observed over the next 30 minutes and Resident 44 did not attempt to feed herself and there was no staff assisting Resident 44 to eat. A review of Resident 44's Comprehensive Resident admission Assessment, dated September 27, 2022, indicated Resident 44's skin was intact. Resident 44's Body Reassessment, dated September 28, 2022, indicated Resident 44 had a DTI to her right heel. A review of Resident 44's Nutritional Status-Care plan, Date Initiated: September 27, 2022, and updated on December 12, 2022, indicated, Resident is at risk for alteration in nutritional status related to: . Mechanically altered diet, Broken/Missing teeth . Approach/Intervention: Provide diet as ordered. Monitor tolerance to food and meal % [percent], Encourage increase of PO [by mouth] fluids unless contraindicated, Monitor weights and report significant weight loss/gain to MD [medical doctor] and dietician, Dietary Evaluation, Offer food alternatives when appropriate. Honor food preferences. Create a dining experience conducive to eating, Monitor for S/S [signs and symptoms] of choking/aspiration [breathing food or fluid into the lungs] Report to MD, Protein supplement as ordered, Monitor for S/S of dehydration, RNA [Restorative Nursing Assistant] feeding program as indicated and finely chopped [diet] thin liquids. (There was no documented evidence on the nutritional care plan to indicate, Refusal of meals, weight loss of 5%-percent-or more in last 30 days, or pressure ulcers.) A review of Resident 44's weight chart indicated the following: a. September 27, 2022: 124 lbs. (pounds) b. October 3, 2022: 123 lbs. c. October 10, 2022: 120 lbs. d. October 17, 2022: 116 lbs. e. October 24, 2022: 117 lbs. (7 lb. weight loss in one month, 5.65% - percent) f. November 2022: 118 lbs. g. December 2022: 110 lbs. (14 lb. weight loss in approximately two plus months, 11.29%) A review of Resident 44's Nutritional Assessment Note, dated October 5, 2022, by a Registered Dietitian (RD), indicated, Visit Assessment: .Skin clear and intact.Height: 5 [five] ft. [feet] 4 [four] in. [inches], Weight 124.0 lbs. [pounds], BMI [Body Mass Index- a weight-to-height ratio to indicate an individual as overweight or underweight] 21.28 [normal], .Within the past 6 [six] months, there has been no significant weight change. Skin: no breakdown documented. A review of Resident 44's Nutritional Assessment Note, dated October 12, 2022, by a Registered Dietitian (RD), indicated, Visit Assessment: .Skin clear and intact. Height: 5 ft. 4 in., Weight 120.0 lbs., BMI 20.60 [normal], . Skin: no breakdown documented. A review of Resident 44's Nutritional Assessment Note, dated October 19, 2022, by a Registered Dietitian (RD), indicated, Visit assessment: Continued unplanned weight loss noted. This week loss of 4 [four] lbs., net loss of 7 [seven] lbs. over 3 [three] weeks, PO [by mouth] intake is highly variable, overall poor. Will recommend appetite stimulant daily and snacks TID [three times a day] as resident is agreeable to try. Height: 5 ft. 4 in., Weight 120.0 lbs. BMI 20.60 . Within the past 6 [six] months, there has been no significant weight change. Skin: no breakdown documented. (The Nutritional Assessment Note, dated October 19, 2022, indicated the following errors: Resident 44 lost eight pounds over three weeks not seven pounds, Resident 44's weight was 116 lbs. not 120 lbs., and the BMI was not accurate as it was not recalculated using the correct weight of 116 lbs.) A review of Resident 44's Nutritional Assessment Note, dated November 9, 2022, by a Registered Dietitian (RD), indicated, Visit assessment: .Monthly weight loss of 5 lbs., - [negative] 4.1% [percent] x [times] 1 [one] month, Resident with poor PO intake despite megestrol [a medication to increase appetite]1[one] x [time]/ [per] day, Boost [nutritional supplement] TID [three times a day] and snacks TID. Sacral [the triangular-shaped bone at the base of the back] stage II pressure injury [a wound caused by prolonged pressure on a bony prominence with a break in the top two layers of skin] will recommend additional protein supplements for wound healing and increase appetite stimulant due to worsening appetite. At visit resident was alert with confusion, likely needs feeding assistance as she sat in front of lunch but did not attempt to self-feed. Height: 5 ft. 4 in., Weight 118.0 lbs., BMI 20.25 [normal], . Skin: no breakdown documented. (The Nutritional Assessment Note, dated November 9, 2022, indicated the following errors: Resident 44 lost 6 lbs. with 4.84% of weight loss in one month not 5 lbs. with a 4.1% of weight loss in one month and there was no documentation of a sacral pressure sore for Resident 44) A review of Resident 44's physician's order dated November 21, 2022, indicated, Assisted Feeding c [with] all meals. A review of Resident 44's Weight Management Update, dated November 14, 2022, indicated, Progress/Status: Appetite remains poor. Spoke w/ [with] [name of family member] Pt. [patient] is picky, never been overweight but healthy, will continue to assist Pt. with meals as needed and when allowed. Pt. has episodes of refusal. Supplements reviewed: Vit. [vitamin] C [nutritional supplement], iron [nutritional supplement], probiotic [nutritional supplement] and will add supplement PRN [as needed]. IDT Recommendations: Will cont. [continue] with Plan of Care, speak with Pt. about pref. [preferences] also risk vs [verses] benefit. MD [Medical Doctor] agree with Plan of Care. A review of Resident 44's Weight Change Review, notes from September 27, 2022, to December 12, 2022, was conducted. There was no documented evidence to show a Weight Change Review, had been conducted for Resident 44's significant weight loss identified on October 24, 2022. During an interview with a Registered Dietician (RD) on December 13, 2022, at 10:56 AM, the RD reviewed Resident 44's weight chart and verified the weights were accurate. The RD stated the 1-month weight loss indicated on October 24, 2022, was considered significant. The RD stated the approximate 2 + month weight loss indicated in December 2022 was considered significant. The RD stated the DTI should have been part of her assessment however it was missed due to the initial assessment not indicating the DTI. The RD stated, I didn't notice the reassessment. The RD acknowledged the following errors indicated in Resident 44's Nutritional Assessments: a. Nutritional Assessment Note, dated October 19, 2022, indicated the following errors: Resident 44 lost eight pounds over three weeks not seven pounds, Resident 44's weight was 116 lbs. not 120 lbs., and the BMI was not accurate as it was not recalculated using the correct weight of 116 lbs. b. Nutritional Assessment Note, dated November 9, 2022, indicated the following errors: Resident 44 lost 6 lbs. with 4.84% of weight loss in one month not 5 lbs. with a 4.1% weight loss in one month and there was no documentation of a sacral pressure sore for Resident 44. The RD stated she reviewed the Residents Treatment Administration Records (TARs) once per month however she did not see Resident 44's DTI, The RD stated within 72 hours of identifying significant weight loss she notified the Director of Nursing (DON) to schedule an IDT meeting to discuss the significant weight loss. The RD verified Resident 44's Nutritional Status-Care plan, Date Initiated: September 27, 2022, and updated on December 12, 2022, was not updated to include Refusal of meals, weight loss of 5%-percent- or more in last 30 days, or pressure ulcers and should have been. The RD stated Resident 44 needed assistance with eating and the staff should be assisting her. In a continued interview with the RD on December 13, 2022, at 6:35 PM, The RD stated Resident 44 should have been placed on weekly weights for November and December 2022 but was not. The RD stated she initiated weekly weights for Resident 44 through the computer program, but something must have happened in the transfer, and it was not carried out. The RD stated Resident 44's weekly weights for October 2022, were due to the admission policy for weekly weights not for the identified weight loss. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on December 13, 2022, at 7:41 PM, the DON verified Resident 44 suffered a significant weight loss on October 24, 2022. The DON verified a Weight Change Review, was not done and it should have been. The DON stated the Nutritional Status-Care plan, Date Initiated: September 27, 2022, and updated on December 12, 2022, should have been updated with the refusal of meals, weight loss of 5%-percent-or more in last 30 days, and pressure ulcers, and was not. The DON stated Resident 44's DTI should have been included in his Nutritional Assessments and Resident 44 should have been placed on weekly weights for November and December 2022 and was not. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Weights, dated August 22, 2017, indicated, Policy: In accordance with state and federal regulations, facility must ensure that based on a resident's comprehensive assessment, acceptable parameters of a resident's nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels shall be maintained, unless the resident's clinical conditions demonstrate it to be impossible . Noting of a Significant Weight Change: a. Current weights shall be compared with existing weight history of resident. Resident shall be re-weighed if there is [a] significant variance (i.e., greater than 5% of body weight gain or loss in one (1) month). If significant weight changes [are] confirmed, notification shall be made to resident's primary physician and family/legal agent. b. Follow facility protocol when determining significant weight changes for weekly weights. Normally a weight change of 2 [two] or more lbs. per week is reported to the primary physician for appropriate interventions. c. Consultation with a Registered Dietitian is recommended prior to altering a resident's nutritional plan of care due to weight loss. d. The Dietitian and/or Food Services Supervisor shall record outcome of assessment and recommendation for changes to plan of care. e. Licensed Nurse shall notify physician for orders or recommendations to implement new plan of care. Consistent Implementation of Plan of Care: Facility must ensure consistent implementation of plan of care, which shall include, but not be limited to: Observable delivery of care during dining periods, Encouragement of resident during meal times, . Accurate documentation of weights, Accurate documentation of meal percentages, Documentation of interventions taken to assist resident [to] achieve his/her ideal body weight, . Accurate assessment of resident needs, . Dietary assessment and interventions, . Implementation of weekly weights for a specific time period to aggressively monitor resident's weights .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician of a missed dialysis (a process ...

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 physician of a missed dialysis (a process of filtering out the blood through a machine, when the kidneys are unable to do it by themselves) treatment for one resident, Resident 408. This failure had the potential for the resident to experience serious side effects due to the build up of toxins in the blood that the dialysis filters out, high blood pressure and fluid retention. Findings: During a review of the clinical record for Resident 408, the admission Record (a document containing clinical and demographic information) was reviewed. Resident 408 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease (kidney disease that has progressed to the last of five stages, usually requiring dialysis), cellulitis (skin infection) of both lower extremities, hypertension (high blood pressure), and congestive heart failure (a weakened heart condition that causes fluid buildup in the body). The clinical record document titled Order Summary Report, dated November 28, 2022, indicated that Resident 408 was to receive dialysis treatment every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. During a concurrent observation and interview on December 5, 2022, at 12:55 PM, Resident 408 was sitting on the edge of his bed eating lunch. Resident 408 stated he was sitting in the lobby this morning, waiting to be taken to dialysis, but transportation never came. Resident 408 stated this caused him to miss his dialysis treatment for today. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), on December 8, 2022, at 3:55 PM, the clinical record for Resident 408 was reviewed. The ADON stated she could not find documentation to indicate the physician was notified of the missed dialysis. She further stated she could not find the documentation to indicate that the dialysis center had been called in an attempt to reschedule the missed dialysis treatment. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Director of Nurses (DON), on December 13, 2022, at 12:23 PM, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Policy and Procedure on Dialysis Care, dated August 22, 2017, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, .7. Physician shall also be notified if resident misses his/her dialysis treatment for whatever expressed reason. The DON stated they did not follow their policy. She further stated that her expectation was for the physician to be notified for the missed dialysis treatment, and for the dialysis center to be called in an attempt to reschedule the treatment. The DON stated that a missed dialysis treatment had the potential to cause fluid overload, high blood pressure, and other serious side effects for the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 7) demonstrated competency when she prepared insulin (a medication used to help con...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 7) demonstrated competency when she prepared insulin (a medication used to help control blood sugar levels) in accordance with manufacturers recommendations when she drew up insulin from a prefilled insulin syringe into a separate insulin syringe for administration to Resident A. This failure had the potential for the increased risk of medication errors, and to alter the efficacy (ability to produce desired effects) and accuracy of the prefilled insulin pen for subsequent injections. Findings: During an observation on December 11, 2022, at 5:01 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7), LVN 7 was preparing medications for administration to Resident A. During the preparation of Insulin Aspart (a short acting insulin), LVN 7 used a separate insulin syringe and inserted the needle into the tip of the Insulin Aspart [brand name of insulin pen] prefilled syringe and withdrew 6 units of insulin for administration to Resident A. LVN 7 then subcutaneously (into the fatty layers of tissue) administered the insulin to Resident A using the insulin syringe which she used to access the medication from the [brand name of insulin pen]. During an interview on December 11, 2022, at 5:21 AM, with LVN 7, LVN 7 stated she usually drew up insulin from the [brand name of insulin pen] into a separate insulin syringe because she thought it was more accurate. During an interview on December 11, 2022, at 5:55 AM, with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated it was not an acceptable practice to prepare insulin by withdrawing insulin from the [brand name of insulin pen] prefilled syringe into a separate insulin syringe for administration. The IP further stated herself, the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), were responsible for training nurses on the appropriate use of the [brand name of insulin pen]. During an interview on December 11, 2022, at 5:59 AM, with the DON, the DON stated the appropriate way to use the [brand name of insulin pen] was to attach the applicable single use needle and administer the insulin utilizing the insulin pen and attached needle. The DON further stated it was not acceptable to insert a needle from a separate syringe and withdraw insulin from the pen for administration. During a review of the facility document titled, Insulin Pen Skill Competency Test, dated August 17, 2022, signed by LVN 7, the competency test indicated, .Attach pen needle .dial desired insulin dosage .injection [sic] insulin via plunger . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Competency of Nursing Staff, revised May 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .2. In addition, licensed nurses and nursing assistants employed (or contracted) by the facility will: .b. demonstrate specific competencies and skill sets deemed necessary to care for the needs of residents, as identified through resident assessments and described in the plans of care .4. Competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs includes but is not limited to competencies in areas such as: .f. Basic nursing skills; .i. Medication management . A review of the manufacturers insert titled, Instructions for Use Insulin Aspart [brand name of insulin pen], revised November 2019, was reviewed. The insert indicated, .Insulin Aspart [brand name of insulin pen] is designed to be used with [brand name of insulin pen specific needles] .
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 staff member (Licensed Vocational Nurse 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 one staff member (Licensed Vocational Nurse 5 - LVN 5) followed the facility policy and procedure for medication administration when the nurse did not review the pharmacy medication label (a label applied to the medication with information regarding who the medication belongs to, the name of the medication, the dose etc) for insulin (a medication used to help regulate blood sugar levels) prior to attempting to administer the medication to Resident 56. This failure had the potential to result in physical harm to Resident 56 as a result of the increased risk of a medication error when the five rights of medication administration (five principles used to help prevent medication errors by verifying: right medication, right dose, right time, right route, right patient) were not verified prior to administration to the resident. Findings: During a review of Resident 56's medical record, the admission Record (contains medical and demographic information), indicated, Resident 56 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included polyneuropathy (damage to the nerves), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disease which affects the body's ability to regulate blood sugar levels), senile degeneration of the brain (mental loss of intellectual ability associated with old age), and major depressive disorder. During a concurrent medication administration observation and interview on January 17, 2023, at 4:25 PM, with LVN 5, LVN 5 stated she was preparing to administer six units (a dose measurement) of insulin lispro (a fast-acting medication used to help regulate blood sugar levels), to Resident 56. The Licensed Vocational Nurse 5 showed the insulin she was preparing to administer, and the medication label applied to the medication indicated Insulin glargine (a long-acting type of insulin) inject 10 units SQ [subcutaneously - into the fatty tissue, just under the skin] at bedtime . with an open date (date first used) of January 1, 2023. During a concurrent observation and interview on January 17, 2023, at 4:27 PM, LVN 5 took the insulin pen with the medication label insulin glargine inject 10 units SQ at bedtime, and went to the bedside of Resident 56. The LVN then set the syringe to administer eight units of insulin, attached a needle to the insulin pen, and asked Resident 56 to lie down for administration of the medication. Immediately prior to administration of the medication, the nurse was stopped by the surveyor. When asked to compare the medication label on the insulin pen with what medication she was supposed to administer to Resident 56, LVN 5 stated she did not realize the label indicated insulin glargine when she was supposed to be administering insulin lispro. Upon further discussion with LVN 5, LVN 5 stated immediately prior to administration of the insulin, she found the insulin pen in medication cart #3 and saw that the manufacturers label indicated insulin lispro, but that the pharmacy medication label was missing. LVN 5 then stated she found a loose insulin pen pharmacy label in the medication cart and applied it to the unlabeled insulin pen because she thought it had fallen off. LVN 5 stated she did not look at the pharmacy label after applying it on the insulin pen at any time prior to attempted administration to Resident 56 and did not realize the medication name on the label differed from the medication contained within the insulin pen. LVN 5 then stated she should have checked the label prior to administering the medication to the resident but did not. During a concurrent observation and interview on January 17, 2023, at 4:32 PM, with LVN 5, medication cart #3 was reviewed for its contents. In the cart, near the insulin pens, was another loose insulin pen pharmacy label for insulin Lispro with the name of Resident 22. LVN 5 then stated she did not know if the pharmacy label for Resident 22's insulin lispro was supposed to go to the insulin lispro pen she attempted to administer to Resident 56. During an interview on January 17, 2023, at 4:55 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated staff was not supposed to be attaching pharmacy medication label to insulin pens if the labels fell off. The ADON stated Resident 56 had the potential to be administered insulin from an insulin pen which may have belonged to Resident 22 due to the mislabeling performed by LVN 5. During a follow up interview on January 17, 2023, at 4:59 PM, with LVN 5, LVN 5 stated she should have stopped herself when she realized the insulin pen in medication cart #3 was not labeled and she should not have applied any pharmacy label to it and should have identified the label discrepancy prior to attempted administration to Resident 56, but she did not. During an interview on January 18, 2023, at 10:46 AM, with the facility's Consultant Pharmacist (CP), the CP stated during medication administration, licensed nurses were supposed to verify both the manufacturers label on the medication and the pharmacy label of the medication prior to administration of the medication to the resident. The CP further stated all medications were supposed to have pharmacy labels on them and at no time should facility staff be applying a pharmacy label if it is identified to have come off of a medication. The CP stated any time non pharmacy staff attempts to label a medication, there is a potential for mislabeling and medication errors especially with high-risk medications like insulin. During a review of the LVN job description titled, Charge Nurse, undated, the job description indicated, .every effort has been made to identify the essential functions of this position .Drug Administration Functions .Ensure that prescribed medication for one resident is not administered to another . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Guidelines for Medication Administration, undated, the policy indicated, Policy - The following guidelines will be observed in the administration of all medications. Procedure - Observe the 'five rights' of administering medication. -the right resident/patient. - the right drug. - the right dose. - the right time. - the right route .Read the label on the medication container three (3) times before administering the medication. The first reading is before you take the container from the shelf, drawer, etc. - The second reading is before you pour [prepare] the medication .Compare and verify the medication label with the Resident/Patients medication information. - The third reading is before you return the container to the appropriate storage area and before you take the medication to the Resident/Patient. Even if you will take the container to the Resident/Patient's room, you should still read the label on the container to verify it before you take the medication to the room .Note the following: if a discrepancy exists or you are unfamiliar with the medication, consult the appropriate resource(s) such as the pharmacist or the PDR [physicians' desk reference - a medication resource].
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure clinical records for six residents (Residents 3, 28, 64, 67...

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 clinical records for six residents (Residents 3, 28, 64, 67, 78, and 161) were complete and accurate when: 1. The Physician's Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST - Written medical orders that addresses a limited number of critical medical decisions) for five of five residents (Residents 3, 28, 64, 67, and 78) reviewed for advance directives (a legal document that explains how an individual wants medical decisions to be made if the individual is incapable of making their own decisions) was left blank regarding whether or not an advance directive existed for the residents. This failure had the potential to result in a delay of treatment for the residents as related to advance directives, or for life sustaining measures to be rendered against what the resident wanted. 2. Certified Nursing Assistants did not document bowel movements (stooling) for Resident 161 between December 1, 2022, and December 6, 2022, in accordance with the facility policy and procedure. This failure resulted in the facility to have incomplete and inaccurate records regarding Resident 161's bowel movements between December 1, 2022, and December 6, 2022, which had the potential for a delay in the facilities ability to identify an alteration in Resident 161's baseline bowel habits and subsequent treatment for potential gastrointestinal concerns. Findings: 1a. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted [DATE], with diagnoses that included metabolic encephalopathy (chemical imbalance in the brain), hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (muscle weakness, inability to move one side of body as a result of blocked blood flow to the brain), dementia (a group of conditions affecting the ability to remember, think or make decisions), contracture of left and right knee (stiffening of the knee and inability to move the knee as used to), blindness (inability to see), pressure ulcer of sacral region (localized damage to the skin between the lower back and tailbone), and pressure ulcer of left hip (localized damage to the skin on the hip). During a review Resident 3's Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), for Resident 3, dated October 20, 2022, indicated that Section D - Information and Signatures did not have a check mark to indicate if there was or was not an Advance Directive for Resident 3. During an interview on December 12, 2022, at 08:59 AM with Minimum Data Set (MDS), MDS 1 stated that the RN (Registered Nurse) or LVN (Licensed Vocational Nurse) were to complete the POLST (Physician's Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) upon admission, unless the facility is waiting for family or responsible party to sign the form. MDS 1 stated there is no formal review of the POLST in the chart by other staff in the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Advance Directives, (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. that if an advance directive is not completed within 24 hours, it shall be the responsibility of the admissions coordinator or designee to document in the resident's file reasons for such delay .5. that an advance directive acknowledgement that remains incomplete after five days of admission shall be forwarded to facility administrator for necessary actions. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on POLST (Physician orders for life-sustaining treatment), (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. Medical records and social services department will follow up completion of the form within 72 hours upon resident's admission to the facility. 1b. During a review of Resident 28's admission Record, (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included orthopedic aftercare (care provided after a broken bone), fall, arthropathy (a disease of the joints), glaucoma (a group of eye conditions that cause blindness), and heart failure (a condition in which the heart does not pump blood adequately). During a review of Resident 28's Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), for Resident 28, dated October 26, 2022, indicated that Section D - Information and Signatures, did not have a check mark to indicate if there was or was not an Advance Directive for Resident 28. During an interview on December 12, 2022, at 08:59 AM with Minimum Data Set (MDS), MDS 1, stated that the RN (Registered Nurse) or LVN (Licensed Vocational Nurse) were to complete the POLST (Physician's Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) upon admission, unless the facility is waiting for family or responsible party to sign the form. MDS 1 stated there is no formal review of the POLST in the chart by other staff in the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Advance Directives, (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. indicates that if an advance directive is not completed within 24 hours, it shall be the responsibility of the admissions coordinator or designee to document in the resident's file reasons for such delay 5. indicates that an advance directive acknowledgement that remains incomplete after five days of admission shall be forwarded to facility administrator for necessary actions. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on POLST (Physician orders for life-sustaining treatment), (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. Medical records and social services department will follow up completion of the form within 72 hours upon resident's admission to the facility. 1c. During a review of Resident 64's admission Record, (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 64 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included zygomatic fracture, right side (fracture of cheek), maxillary fracture (upper jaw fracture), fracture of nasal bones (fracture of nose), unspecified fall, unspecified glaucoma (a group of eye diseases that can cause vision loss), muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, unspecified lack of coordination, and unspecified dementia (a group of conditions affecting the ability to remember, think or make decisions). During a review of Resident 64's Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), for Resident 64, dated October 18, 2022, indicated that Section D - Information and Signatures, did not have a check mark to indicate if there was or was not an Advance Directive for Resident 64. During an interview on December 12, 2022, at 08:59 AM with Minimum Data Set (MDS), MDS 1 stated that the RN (Registered Nurse) or LVN (Licensed Vocational Nurse) were to complete the POLST (Physician's Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) upon admission, unless the facility is waiting for family or responsible party to sign the form. MDS 1 stated there is no formal review of the POLST in the chart by other staff in the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Advance Directives, (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. indicates that if an advance directive is not completed within 24 hours, it shall be the responsibility of the admissions coordinator or designee to document in the resident's file reasons for such delay .5. indicates that an advance directive acknowledgement that remains incomplete after five days of admission shall be forwarded to facility administrator for necessary actions. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on POLST (Physician orders for life-sustaining treatment), (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. Medical records and social services department will follow up completion of the form within 72 hours upon resident's admission to the facility. 1d. During a review of Resident 67's admission Record, (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included heart failure (a condition in which the heart does not pump blood adequately), end stage renal disease (a condition in which the kidney dose not function), dysphagia (inability to swallow) and bed confinement status (inability to tolerate activity out of bed). During a review of Resident 67's Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), for Resident 67, dated October 30, 2022, indicated that Section D - Information and Signatures, did not have a check mark to indicate if there was or was not an Advance Directive for Resident 67. During an interview on December 12, 2022, at 08:59 AM with Minimum Data Set (MDS), MDS 1 stated that the RN (Registered Nurse) or LVN (Licensed Vocational Nurse) were to complete the POLST (Physician's Order for Life Sustaining Treatment) upon admission, unless the facility is waiting for family or responsible party to sign the form. MDS 1 stated there is no formal review of the POLST in the chart by other staff in the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Advance Directives, (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. indicates that if an advance directive is not completed within 24 hours, it shall be the responsibility of the admissions coordinator or designee to document in the resident's file reasons for such delay 5. indicates that an advance directive acknowledgement that remains incomplete after five days of admission shall be forwarded to facility administrator for necessary actions. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on POLST (Physician orders for life-sustaining treatment), (P&P), dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated, in the procedures section, 4. Medical records and social services department will follow up completion of the form within 72 hours upon resident's admission to the facility. 1e. During a review of Resident 78's clinical record, the admission Record (contains medical and demographic information), indicated Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included, unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction (residual effects produced after damage to tissues of the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), encephalopathy (a disturbance of the brains functioning which commonly results in confusion and memory loss), acute (severe or sudden onset) respiratory failure, heart failure, and dementia (a brain disease that causes memory disorders, personality changes, and impaired reasoning). During a review of Resident 78's POLST, dated October 31, 2022, the POLST did not have a checkbox indicated in section D (Information and Signatures) for information pertaining to whether or not the resident had an advance directive. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 13, 2022, at 8:50 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 78's POLST, dated October 31, 2022, was reviewed. The DON stated the POLST for resident 78 did not indicate whether or not the resident had an advance directive and was therefore incomplete. The DON stated the POLST form is completed for each resident by the admission nurse in collaboration with the social services department. During an interview on December 13, 2022, at 9:10 AM, with the Director of Social Services (DSS), the DSS stated the POLST was completed upon admission and it was usually completed by the charge nurse. The DSS Stated the POLST was also reviewed within 5 days by the Care Conference and if it was not completed at the time of admission or there are omissions, it was supposed to be caught and corrected during the time of the conference. The DSS further stated section D for advanced directives should be checkmarked to indicate whether or not an advanced directive existed for the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 13, 2022, at 9:26 AM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the DSS, both the ADON and the DSS reviewed Resident 78's POLST, dated October 31, 2022 and acknowledged the POLST for Resident 78 did not indicate in section D whether or not the resident had an advance directive. The ADON stated the advance directive section of the POLST was supposed to be completed upon admission but it was not. The ADON further stated Resident 78 had an advance directive which was received after the resident was admitted into the facility and the staff member who received the advance directive should have informed the charge nurse and a nurse should have updated the POLST to reflect that an advance directive existed but that was also not done. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment), dated August 22, 2017, the policy indicated, Policy. It is the policy of this facility for POLST to be completed and file in the residents chart. POLST is a physician order that gives residents more control over their end-of-life care. Procedures. 1. Must be completed by a healthcare professional based on resident's preferences and medical indications .4. Medical Records and Social Services Department will follow up completion of the form within 72 hours upon resident's admission to the facility. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Documentation Principles, dated August 22, 2017, indicated, .It shall be this facility's policy to adhere with standardized documentation principles and maintain clinical records in a manner that will comply with licensing and certification governmental agency requirements and professional standards .4. Entries in the clinical record must be accurate, legible, clear and timely . 2. During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 10:25 AM, with Resident 161, Resident 161 stated he had diarrhea for the last 7 days (December 1, 2022, through December 7, 2022). Resident 161 further stated the Certified Nursing Assistants were aware of his diarrhea because they were the ones who cleaned him up after his bowel movements. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 7, 2022, at 10:55 AM, with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated the process for documenting bowel movements included documentation on the B.M Record log for documenting if the bowel movement was small, medium, or large and if loose (stools that are more watery and soft than usual). Resident 161's clinical record was reviewed and there was no B.M Record log for December 2022. CNA 1 confirmed Resident 161's B.M Record log was not created for December 2022 and therefore did not contain charting on bowel movements from December 1, 2022, through December 6, 2022 (the week the resident complained about diarrhea). CNA 1 further stated charting for a bowel movement on the CNA-ADL Tracking Form, was supposed to indicate if the resident was incontinent and the number of bowel movements that occurred during each shift. Review of Resident 161's, CNA-ADL Tracking Form, dated December 2022, indicated 'S, M, and/or L for the days between December 1, 2022 and December 6, 2022 for the 7:00 AM - 3:00 PM shift. The ADL tracking form indicated, .record # of episodes/movements . CNA 1 stated the documentation was incorrect and instead of the size, documentation should have indicated the number of bowel movements (as specified in the instructions printed on the form). During an interview on December 7, 2022, with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP confirmed Resident 161 did not have a B.M Record log initiated for December 1, 2022 through December 6, 2022. The IP stated Resident 161' bowel movement charting had not been done correctly. The IP stated she was responsible for teaching the CAN's the correct charting method and she would have to conduct a re-education. The IP further stated there was a concern Resident 161 could have Clostridium Difficile (C-diff) a bacteria which causes diarrhea) since the resident was on an intravenous [IV - administered into the vein) antibiotic medication (Ceftriaxone 2 grams every 24 hours for 25 days since November 21, 2022). The IP further stated the charge nurse would need to initiate an order for a stool sample and place the resident on contact isolation until C-diff could be ruled out. The IP stated this was not previously done because nobody notified the charge nurse of diarrhea or documented the BM properly. During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 2:54 PM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN1), LVN 1 stated she was the charge nurse for Resident 161 on December 1, 2, 3, and 7, 2022, and no certified nursing assistant had informed her that Resident 161 had diarrhea. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Bowel (Lower Gastrointestinal Tract) Disorders - Clinical Protocol, dated August 22, 2017, indicated, .Examples of lower gastrointestinal tract conditions and symptoms include: .f. Alteration in bowel movements: .Treatment/Management .6. The attending physician will collaborate with staff and the medical director to identify individuals who need contact isolation precautions because of infectious diarrhea or fecal incontinence . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Documentation Principles, dated August 22, 2017, indicated, Policy. It shall be this facility's policy to adhere with standardized documentation principles and maintain clinical records in a manner that will comply with licensing and certification governmental agency requirements and professional standards. Procedures .4. Entries in the clinical record must be accurate, legible, clear and timely .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide evidence the Medical Director or a designee, attended Quality Assurance and Process Improvement (QAPI) meetings for the first quart...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide evidence the Medical Director or a designee, attended Quality Assurance and Process Improvement (QAPI) meetings for the first quarter (January 1 - March 31) and second quarter (April 1 - June 30) of 2022. This failure resulted in the facilities inability to provide evidence the Medical Director or designee (a required QAPI member) had participation in, and had an opportunity to provide meaningful insight, during required quality assurance meetings regarding facility operations. Findings: During an interview on December 13, 2022, at 5:26 PM, with the Administrator (ADMIN), the ADMIN stated one of the purposes of the QAPI committee was to decide on which facility problem-prone areas the facility would work on improving based upon data the QAPI team was collecting, and the ongoing concerns based on the severity of the identified issues and overall impact on the resident population. During an interview on December 13, 2022, at 5:51 PM, with the ADMIN, the ADMIN stated the required QAPI committee members included the Medical Director or designee, Director of Nursing, Administrator, Infection Preventionist, Director of Staff development and other department heads. During a concurrent observation and interview on December 13, 2022, at 5:54 PM, in the Administrator's (ADMIN) office, with the ADMIN and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADMIN was looking for documented evidence that the facility's Medical Director or designee was present during QAPI meetings throughout the year 2022. The ADMIN and DON were looking through a binder which contained meeting minutes and sign-in sheets for past QAPI meetings. Documents spanned back as far as the year 2020. The ADMIN and DON were unable to find sign-in sheets or other evidence which indicated the Medical Director or Designee was present for a QAPI meeting between January 1, 2022, and June 30, 2022. The ADMIN further stated sometimes the Medical Director or designee would attend virtually but, in those cases, it would be documented. The ADMIN further stated they were unable to find documentation that the Medical Director or designee participated in the meetings either virtually or in-person for the first and second quarter of 2022 (January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022). During an interview on December 13, 2022, at 6:05 PM, with the ADON, the ADON stated the facility was unable to find evidence the Medical Director or designee attended QAPI meetings for the first and second quarter of 2022. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 13, 2022, at 6:18 PM, with the ADMIN, the facility policy and procedure titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee, dated July 2016, was reviewed. The policy indicated, This facility shall establish and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee that oversees the implementation of the QAPI Program .The primary goals of the QAPI Committee are to: 1. Establish, maintain and oversee facility systems and processes to support the delivery of quality of care and services .3. Help identify actual and potential negative outcomes relative to resident care and resolve them appropriately .Committee Membership .2. The Administrator shall appoint individuals to fill any vacancies occurring on the committee. 3. The following individuals will serve on the committee: .d. Medical Director .Committee Meetings. 1. The committee will meet monthly at an appointed time .Committee Reports and Records. 1. The committee shall maintain minutes of all regular and special meetings that include at least the following information: a. The date and time the committee met; b. The names of committee members present and absent . The ADMIN stated the facility was supposed to have monthly QAPI meetings per their policy and procedure but they were not able to have as many QAPI meetings as intended because of the pandemic. The ADMIN again confirmed they also did not have evidence the Medical Director or designee participated in the meetings for the first and second quarter of 2022.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices when: 1. The Fac...

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 infection control practices when: 1. The Facility did not ensure that visitors of Resident 158, who had clostridium difficile (C-Diff- a bacteria causing diarrhea and infection in the intestines) were educated about isolation precautions, proper protective equipment, and hand hygiene. 2. The facility did not ensure that proper hand hygiene was done before and after providing direct care for Residents 409 and 72. 3. The facility did not remove Resident 49's Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (PICC - a thin, long catheter that is inserted through a vein in the upper arm and passed through to the larger veins near the heart, for administration of medications or liquid nutrition) after an intravenous (IV) antibiotic was completed. These failures had the potential to cause and spread infectious disease (disease caused by bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites) to residents and staff in the facility. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 158's clinical record, the admission Record (a document containing demographic information), indicated Resident 158 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included enterocolitis (inflammation of the small intestines and colon) due to clostridium difficile (a type of bacteria that causes diarrhea and infection in the intestinal tract). During an observation on December 8, 2022, at 3:46 PM, Resident 158 was observed in his bed, in room [ROOM NUMBER]. room [ROOM NUMBER]'s door was open, with an orange sign taped to it, which stated, stop and report to nurse's station before entering room. The back of the sign stated, Contact Precaution Isolation, and indicated that an isolation gown and gloves were the required personal protective equipment (PPE) that needed to be worn by any person when entering the room. During a concurrent observation and interview on December 8, 2022, at 4:05 PM, two visitors were seen inside Resident 158's room, with no PPE on. One of the visitors was observed walking out of the room without performing hand hygiene. The visitor stated she was not informed by staff that the resident had an infection that was easily transmissible to other people. She further stated she was not educated by staff regarding the necessary PPE to enter the room, or hand hygiene upon exiting the room. The visitor stated the door was open when she arrived, and she did not realize the orange stop sign was posted on the door. During an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) and Director of Nurses (DON) on December 13, 2022, at 12:38 PM, the IP stated that they educate the resident and responsible party of the isolation precautions upon admission, but rely on the stop sign posted on the door to inform any other visitors coming to see the resident. The DON denied having any other system in place, besides the stop sign on the door, to educate visitors coming into the room, of the isolation precautions and required PPE. She further stated that the nursing staff should have notified and educated the visitors during their rounds if they saw them in the room without PPE. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Visitation, Infection Control During, dated August 22, 2017, the P&P indicated .4. Visiting a resident who is under transmission-based precautions is permitted. A. Family members and visitors who are providing care or have very close contact with the resident are trained regarding the appropriate use of infection control barriers such as personal protective equipment. B. Adherence to transmission-based precautions by visitors is required . 2. During an observation on December 11, 2022, at 4:35 AM, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 2) was observed providing care for Resident 72. CNA 2 removed her gloves, exited the room, and did not perform hand hygiene before proceeding into Resident 408's room to provide care. During an observation on December 11, 2022, at 4:39 AM, CNA 2 was observed providing care for Resident 408. CNA 2 removed her gloves, exited the room, and did not perform hand hygiene before proceeding back into Resident 72's room to provide care. During a concurrent observation and interview on December 11, 2022, at 4:52 AM, CNA 2 was seen exiting Resident 72's room again, without performing hand hygiene. When asked why she did not perform hand hygiene, CNA 2 stated she was in a rush to complete her tasks before her shift was over and did not think it was necessary. She stated, I thought as long as I was wearing gloves, that's all that mattered. During an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on December 11, 2022, at 5:03 AM, the IP stated her expectations were for hand hygiene to be performed before, after, and in-between each resident's care. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on December 13, 2022, at 12:23 PM, the DON stated that CNA 2 should have performed hand hygiene before and after care for each resident. She further stated if hand hygiene is not performed, there is potential for cross contamination and increased risk of infection. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated August 22, 2017, indicated .2. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors .7. Use an alcohol-based hand rub .; or, alternatively, soap and water for the following situations: .b. Before and after direct contact with resident; .g. Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care; .l. After removing gloves. 3. A review of Resident 49's face sheet (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), undated, indicated Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of urinary tract infection, ESBL (extended spectrum beta-lactamase-an enzyme found in some strains of bacteria. ESBL-producing bacteria cannot be killed by many of the antibiotics that are used to treat infections) infection in the urine. During an observation and interview with Resident 49 on December 5, 2022, at 10:26 AM, Resident 49 was in his room in bed. The head of the bed was up about 45 degrees. Resident 49 was watching TV. An indwelling urinary catheter (A flexible plastic tube (a catheter) inserted into the bladder that remains (dwells) there to provide continuous urinary drainage) was in place. Clear, yellow urine was noted in the collection bag. A PICC line (a thin, flexible tube inserted into a vein in the upper arm and guided into a large vein above the right side of the heart called the superior vena cava. A needle is inserted into a port outside the body to draw blood or give fluids) with two lumens (the line may have two or three ends so more than one medicine can be administered at a time. These ends are called lumens) was noted in Resident 49's right upper arm. Resident 49 stated he was going to the hospital for bladder surgery soon. Resident 49 stated he was not receiving the antibiotic through the PICC line because it had finished. Resident 49 turned his head and looked at the two lumens dangling down his right arm, flicked them with his left fingers and stated, They're just there. A review of Resident 49's physician order, dated October 28, 2022, indicated, Meropenem [an antibiotic], 1 [one] gm [gram-a unit of measurement], IV [intravenous-giving a drug or other substance through a needle or tube inserted into a vein], Q [every] 8 [eight] [hours] for 14 days. A review of Resident 49's Intravenous Medication Record, indicated the meropenem was started on October 28, 2022, and the last dose was completed on November 10, 2022. The PICC line was observed in Resident 49's right arm on December 5, 2022. (The PICC line remained in place for 25 days past the completion of the antibiotic). During an interview with the Medical Director (MD) on December 7, 2022, at 4:04 PM, the MD stated Resident 49's PICC line should have been removed right after the antibiotic had been completed. The MD stated the PICC line should have been removed even if Resident 49 was returning to the hospital for surgery, They can just put another PICC line in at the hospital. The MD stated due to the high risk and severe consequences of a central line [PICC line] infection, it was better to take the PICC line out. The MD stated he did not know the facility's policy and procedure indicated a PICC line could remain in place for a year, that policy will be changed. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on December 12, 2022, at 2:34 PM, the DON stated she was not aware the MD did not agree with the facility's policy and procedure titled, Peripherally Inserted Catheter Care (PICC), dated August 22, 2017, that indicated, 6) Catheter can stay in place for approximately one year if maintained properly. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Infection Control, revised October 2019, indicated, The facility has an infection control committee. Members include the medical director, administrator, director of nursing and the IP [Infection Preventionist]. The committee meets at least quarterly and is responsible for infection control. They establish, review, monitor and approve policies for investigating, controlling, and preventing infections. The committee reports and reviews statistics of the number, type, source, and location of infections. A review of the National Center of Biotechnology (NCBI) a part of the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) web page titled Central Line Management, dated (page last updated) May 1, 2022, indicated, Most importantly, every day, the need for central venous access should be reevaluated. Whenever central access is no longer necessary, the central line should be removed promptly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to label and discard medications for three of three sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to label and discard medications for three of three sampled residents (Residents 20, 5 and 56) when: 1. For Resident 20 there were two vials of Humulin R (a short-acting insulin that starts to work in 30 minutes and lasts for several hours to control a resident's blood sugar) 100 units (a unit of measurement)/ (in) one ml (milliliters-a unit of measurement) insulin which had not been labeled or removed as follows: a. Vial #1 (a small container of glass for holding liquids, number one) indicated an opened date of September 19, 2022. On December 8, 2022, Vial #1 was in the medication cart and available for use. Vial #1 had not been discarded 28 days after the opened date as indicated on the pharmacy label. b. Vial #2 was open but did not indicate an opened date. 2. For Resident 5, a vial (a small container of glass for holding liquids) of Humulin R (a short-acting insulin that starts to work in 30 minutes and lasts for several hours to control a resident's blood sugar) 100 units (a unit of measurement)/ (in) one ml (milliliters-a unit of measurement) was open and in the medication cart available for use but did not indicate an opened date. 3. For Resident 56, a vial (a small container of glass for holding liquids) of Lispro (a short-acting insulin that starts to work in 30 minutes and lasts for several hours to control a resident's blood sugar) 100 units (a unit of measurement)/ (in) one ml (milliliters-a unit of measurement) indicated an opened date of October 7, 2022. On December 8, 2022, the vial of Lispro was in the medication cart and available for use. The vial of Lispro had not been discarded 28 days after the opened date as indicated on the pharmacy label. These failures had the potential to cause Residents 20, 5, and 56 to suffer adverse effects from high blood sugar levels (thirst, headaches, trouble concentrating, blurred vision, frequent peeing, fatigue [weak, tired feeling], and weight loss) due to the reduced effectiveness of their insulin medication. Findings: During a medication storage observation and interview with a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3) on December 8, 2022, at 3:34 PM, LVN 3 unlocked a medication cart and withdrew vials of insulin from the upper left-hand drawer. LVN 3 stated the vials of insulin were for the residents on her run (block of assigned rooms). A review of the vials of insulin indicated the following: 1a. For Resident 20, Vial #1 contained Humulin R 100 units/ml and indicated an opened date of September 19, 2022. The pharmacy label indicated, Discard 28 days after date opened. (80 days had passed since the opened date) LVN 3 verified Vial #1 had not been discarded within the 28-day discard date. LVN 3 stated she had not checked the opened date on Vial #1, and she had assumed it was OK. A review of Resident 20's Proof of Prescription Delivery, indicated, for Vial #1, Drug Name: HumuLIN R 100 UNITS/ML, Rx [prescription] Date: 09/12/2022 [September 12, 2022], Delivered Date/Time: 09/12/2022 [September 12, 2022] 10:40:09 PM. A review of Resident 20's blood sugar checks from October 18, 2022, to December 8, 2022, was conducted. Resident 20's blood sugar readings had not changed from their baseline. A review of Resident 20's face sheet (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), undated, indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood). 1b. For Resident 20, Vial #2 contained Humulin R 100 units/ml and had been opened but did not indicate an opened date. The pharmacy label indicated, Discard 28 days after date opened. LVN 3 verified Vial #2 had been opened but not dated with an opened date. LVN 3 stated she had not checked the opened date on Vial #2, and she had assumed it was OK. A review of Resident 20's Proof of Prescription Delivery, indicated, for Vial #2, Drug Name: HumuLIN R 100 UNITS/ML, Rx Date: 12/06/2022 [December 6, 2022], Delivered Date/Time: 12/06/2022 [December 6, 2022] 1:07:00 PM. A review of Resident 5's face sheet (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), undated, indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood). 2. For Resident 5, a vial contained Humulin R 100 units/ml and had been opened but did not indicate an opened date. The pharmacy label indicated, Discard 28 days after date opened. The pharmacy's Proof of Prescription Delivery, receipt indicated the facility had received the vial on November 3, 2022. (The facility had Resident 5's vial of insulin in its possession for 35 days). LVN 3 verified Resident 5's vial of insulin had been opened but not dated with an opened date. LVN 3 stated she had not checked the opened date on Resident 5's vial of insulin, and she had assumed it was OK. A review of Resident 5's Proof of Prescription Delivery, indicated, Drug Name: HumuLIN R 100 UNITS/ML, Rx [prescription] Date: 11/02/2022 [November 2, 2022], Delivered Date/Time: 11/03/2022 [November 3, 2022] 3:12:08 AM. A review of Resident 5's blood sugar checks from December 1, 2022, to December 8, 2022, was conducted. Resident 5's blood sugar readings had not changed from their baseline. 3. For Resident 56, a vial contained Lispro 100 units/ml and indicated an opened date of October 7, 2022. The pharmacy label indicated, Discard 28 days after date opened. (62 days had passed since the opened date) LVN 3 verified Resident 56's vial of insulin had not been discarded within the 28-day discard date. LVN 3 stated she had not checked the opened date on Resident 56's vial of insulin, and she had assumed it was OK. LVN 3 stated on December 8, 2022, she had administered Resident 56 a dose of insulin from the vial of insulin that had been open for 62 days. A review of Resident 56's Proof of Prescription Delivery, indicated, Drug Name: INSULIN LISPRO 100 UNIT/ML, Rx [prescription] Date: 09/06/2022 [September 6, 2022], Delivered Date/Time: 10/07/2022 [October 7, 2022] 12:38:50 PM. A review of Resident 56's blood sugar checks from November 4, 2022, to December 8, 2022, was conducted. Resident 56's blood sugar readings had not changed from their baseline. A review of Resident 56's face sheet (a document that gives a summary of resident's information), undated, indicated Resident 56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood). During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on December 12, 2022, at 12:01 PM, the DON stated vials of insulin were supposed to be dated when opened and Residents 20 and 5's vials had not. The DON stated vials of insulin were supposed to be discarded in 28 days as indicated on the pharmacy label and Residents 20 and 56's vials had not. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Storage and Labeling, undated, indicated, Policy: All drugs will be labeled and stored in a manner consistent with manufacturers' published specifications, federal and state regulations, and to enhance accurate and safe medication administration by the facility staff. Procedure: . Drugs shall not be kept in stock after the expiration date on the label and no contaminated or deteriorated drugs shall be available for use.'Date Open' Procedures: Using professional judgment, the pharmacist may label medications with different expiration dates than the manufacturer's labeling on the original container. The pharmacy label supersedes other information on the medication container and all other labeling and recommendations. 1) Date Open Stickers-Certain products have limited expiration dates after the product has been mixed or opened for the first time.2) On containers that do not have a space to record the opening date on the manufacturers' label the Pharmacy will affix a blank 'Date Opened' sticker to the container. 3) It will be the responsibility of the Nursing Staff to enter the opening date on all manufacturers' labels or blank Pharmacy labels.
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 follow the menu when pureed (smooth, pudding consistency food that does nt require chewing) peaches were served instead of th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the menu when pureed (smooth, pudding consistency food that does nt require chewing) peaches were served instead of the pureed peach cobbler as indicated in the lunch menu for 4 of 109 residents. This failure had the potential to disregard resident's food choices when a dessert substitute was served during lunch. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on December 8, 2022, at 1:15 PM, with the Director of Food Service (DFS) in the facility conference room, the texture and taste of the pureed desert was observed to be different. The DFS tasted the regular dessert and the pureed dessert, and she stated, Yes, the taste and texture between the two are different. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 8, 2022, at 2:40 PM, with Dietary Aid 3 (DA3) , Recipe Name: Pureed Dessert, undated was reviewed. It indicated, Ingredients, Dessert , Regular Portion . Directions:1. Remove portions required from regular prepared recipe. Place in food processor and process until smooth. DA3 stated, Yes, I didn't follow the recipe. She further stated, she ran out of the regular cobbler and if she made another peach cobbler the dessert would not make it in time for tray line, so she decided to make pureed peaches with whip cream instead. During a concurrent interview and record review on December 8, 2022, at 2:43 PM, with the DFS, Recipe Name: Pureed Dessert. undated was reviewed. It indicated, Ingredients, Dessert , Regular Portion . Directions:1. Remove portions required from regular prepared recipe. Place in food processor and process until smooth. The DFS stated, The recipe was not followed During an interview on December 8,2022, at 3:13 PM, with the Registered Dietician (RD), the RD stated her expectation was that staff follow the recipe during food preparation. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Menu, dated August 22,2017, indicated, .4. Menu for regular and therapeutic diet . It is expected that food palatability shall not be affected by the food texture, however, food taste may vary if food substitute is utilized
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0825 (Tag F0825)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services for the ordered number of frequencies for specialized rehabilitative services as determined by Physical Ther...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services for the ordered number of frequencies for specialized rehabilitative services as determined by Physical Therapy for 2 Residents (29 and 358) as ordered by the physician. These failures had the potential to cause a decline in the residents' functional status and/or prohibit the optimization of their functional status. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on December 6, 2022, at 3:19 PM Resident 358 stated she has left sided weakness due to a stroke and had not been getting physical therapy that she should be getting, because the therapist has been gone on vacation. Resident 358 was observed lying in bed, with maximum assistance needed to reach for items at bedside table. A record review of Resident 358's Physical Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, for the certification period of October 27, 2022, through November 25, 2022, listed the following: Diagnoses include Muscle weakness, and Hemiplegia following a cerebral infarction (paralysis of one side of body due to an obstruction of blood flow to the brain). Reason for referral was that Resident 358 required skilled Physical Therapy services to evaluate need for assistive device, increase independence with gait (walking), facilitate with all functional mobility, promote safety awareness, improve dynamic balance (ability to maintain balance during weight shifting), increase lower extremity range of motion and strength, minimize falls, enhance quality of life and functional mobility. Plan of treatment included: therapeutic exercises, neuromuscular re-education, gait training therapy, manual therapy, techniques, physical therapy evaluation: high complexity, therapeutic activities, and wheelchair management training. Frequency of treatments are five times a week, for a four-week duration. This plan of treatment was made by the Doctor of Physical Therapy (PT), and supervising Provider by the Medical Doctor (MD 2). A record review of Resident 358's Physical Therapy Recertification and Updated Plan of Treatment, for the certification period of November 23, 2022 through December 22, 2022, listed the following Diagnoses include Muscle weakness, and Hemiplegia following a cerebral infarction. Plan of treatment included: therapeutic exercises, neuromuscular re-education, gait training therapy, manual therapy, techniques, physical therapy evaluation: high complexity, therapeutic activities, and wheelchair management training. Frequency of treatments are five times a week, for a four-week duration. This plan of treatment was made by the Doctor of Physical Therapy (PT), and supervising Provider by the Medical Doctor (MD 2). During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 358's Physical Therapy Projections on December 12, 2022, at 8:30 AM, the Director of Rehabilitation Services (DRS) stated that the record reflected Resident 358 had not been receiving the ordered number of rehabilitation sessions as indicated on the treatment plan because they do not have enough staff to do it. He stated the facility was having a hard time recruiting staff. During further record review of Resident 358's Physical Therapy Projections, the record showed that on the following weeks, Resident 358 received the following number of treatment sessions: a. Week of November 3, 2022- November 9, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions b. Week of November 17, 2022- November 23, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions c. Week of November 24, 2022- November 30, 2022, received two of five prescribed treatment sessions d. Week of December 2, 2022- December 7, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on December 7, 2022, at 9:48 AM, Resident 29 reported she was supposed to have therapy five times a week but was lucky if she received therapy on the weekends, and would like to continue having therapy to improve her function. Resident 29 was observed walking across the room with a walker, with no assistance, then sitting on the edge of the bed. A record review of Resident 29's Physical Therapy Evaluation and Plan of Treatment, for the certification period of September 22, 2022 through October 21, 2022, listed the following: Diagnoses include Cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply), Acute Myocardial infarction (disruption of blood flow to heart muscle) and muscle weakness. Reason for referral was that Resident 29 exhibited new onset of decrease in strength, decrease in functional mobility, decreased transfer ability, reduced ability to safely ambulate (walk), reduced functional activity tolerance, reduced static and dynamic balance (ability to maintain balance during weight shifting), increased need for assistance from others and reduced activities of daily living (bathing, walking, feeding self) participation indicating the need for Physical Therapy to evaluate need. Plan of treatment included therapeutic exercises, neuromuscular re-education, gait training therapy, manual therapy, techniques, physical therapy evaluation: high complexity, therapeutic activities, and wheelchair management training. Frequency of treatments are five times a week, for a four-week duration. This plan of treatment was made by the Doctor of Physical Therapy (PT), and supervising Provider by the Medical Doctor (MD 3). A record review of Resident 29's Physical Therapy Recertification and Updated Plan of Treatment, for the certification period of October 22, 2022 through November 20, 2022, listed the following: Diagnoses include Cerebral infarction, Acute Myocardial infarction and muscle weakness. Plan of treatment included: therapeutic exercises, neuromuscular re-education, gait training therapy, manual therapy, techniques, physical therapy evaluation: high complexity, therapeutic activities, and wheelchair management training. Frequency of treatments are five times a week, for a four-week duration. This plan of treatment was made by the Doctor of Physical Therapy (PT), and supervising Provider by the Medical Doctor (MD 3). A record review of Resident 29's Physical Therapy Recertification and Updated Plan of Treatment, for the certification period of November 21, 2022 through December 20, 2022, listed the following: Diagnoses include Cerebral infarction, Acute Myocardial infarction and muscle weakness. Plan of treatment included: therapeutic exercises, neuromuscular re-education, gait (walk) training therapy, manual therapy, techniques, physical therapy evaluation: high complexity, therapeutic activities, and wheelchair management training. Frequency of treatments are five times a week, for a four-week duration. This plan of treatment was made by the Registered Physical Therapist (PT 2), and supervising by the Medical Doctor (MD 3). During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 29's Physical Therapy Projections, on December 12, 2022, at 8:30 AM, with the Director of Rehabilitation Services (DRS), the DRS stated that the record reflected Resident 29 had not been receiving the ordered number of rehabilitation sessions as indicated on the treatment plan because they do not have enough staff to do it. During further record review of Resident 29's Physical Therapy Projections, the record showed that on the following weeks, Resident 29 received the following number of treatment sessions: a. Week of September 29, 2022- October 5, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions b. Week of October 6, 2022- October 12, 2022, received two of five prescribed treatment sessions c. Week of October 13, 2022- October 19, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions d. Week of October 20, 2022- October 26, 2022, received four of five prescribed treatment sessions e. Week of October 27, 2022- November 2, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions f. Week of November 3, 2022- November 9, 2022, received two of five prescribed treatment sessions g. Week of November 10, 2022- November 16, 2022, received three of five prescribed treatment sessions h. Week of November 17, 2022 - November 23, 2022, received two of five prescribed treatment sessions i. Week of November 24, 2022- November 30, 2022, received two of five prescribed treatment sessions j. Week of December 1, 2022- December 7, 2022, received two of five prescribed treatment sessions
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0563 (Tag F0563)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to uphold residents' rights for visitation for all 105 residents residing within the facility when the facility was restricting ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to uphold residents' rights for visitation for all 105 residents residing within the facility when the facility was restricting visitors by requiring visitors to be tested for COVID-19 (an illness caused by a virus) prior to entering the facility, charging visitors five dollars for COVID-19 tests, limiting visitation time to 1 hour, and by posting limiting visitation hours as was all specified by the Visiting Policy posted at the reception desk (main entrance) of the facility. These failures resulted in the infringement of the rights for visitation of all 105 residents by potentially deterring visitors as a result of the posted requirements. In addition, this failure resulted in the visitor of one resident (Resident 162) to demonstrate verbal frustration regarding the visitation restrictions. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on January 17, 2023, at 1:06 PM, at the facilities main entrance, a visitor for Resident 162 (RV 162) was visibly frustrated and stated during a visit to the facility the prior week, she had to test for COVID-19 as a requirement for visitation of her family member (Resident 162). The RV 162 further stated, she had to pay five dollars for the COVID test and she did not think it was fair that she had to pay in order to visit her family member. In addition, RV 162 stated her husband attempted to visit during off hours on a previous day, but the front door was locked, and the hours were limited to specific times of the day. RV 162 stated They can't do that and was shaking her finger at a sign posted on the receptionist desk which was titled, Visiting Policy, undated, which indicated, .- Visitation time is 1 [one] hour - All visits must have a COVID test done at the FRONT DESK - can purchase at front desk for $5.00 [five dollars] (CASH ONLY) or bring own rapid test [a COVID-19 test] - vaccinated: negative COVID test valid for 72 hrs [hours] - non-vaccinated: negative COVID test valid for 48 hrs - Visiting hours are: Monday - Friday 8 AM-6 PM, Saturday - Sunday 8 AM - 5 PM, Holidays 8 AM - 5 PM. The RV 162 stated she was going to file a complaint with the California Department of Public health (CDPH - entity which surveys health facilities to ensure they are operating within state and federal guidelines). During an interview on January 17, 2023, at 1:19 PM, at the receptionist desk at the front entrance, with the Staff Receptionist (SR), when asked about the visitation guidelines, the SR stated she tells visitors that they are required to have a COVID-19 test done and that the test is good for 3 days if the visitor is vaccinated or 2 days if they were unvaccinated. The SR further stated the facility charged visitors five dollars for a COVID test if the visitors did not bring their own test kit. The SR further stated the visiting hours were posted on the Visiting Policy at the front desk but stated they allowed visitors until 8:00 PM. The SR stated if a visitor wanted to come during non-visiting hours, the staff would need to inform the administrator. During a concurrent observation and interview on January 17, 2023, at 1:25 PM, at the receptionist desk at the front entrance, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON saw the Visiting Policy sign posted at the desk and stated she was not aware the facility was charging visitors for COVID-19 tests and requiring visitors to test for COVID-19 before being allowed to visit. The ADON further stated the requirement for visitors to test for COVID-19 was supposed to be changed and no longer applied as to correspond with the most recent COVID-19 regulations by CDPH. The ADON stated in regards to the posted visiting hours, the visiting hours were recommended but the visitors could come at any time through the secondary door on the side of the building and a staff member would let them in the facility. There were no other visible signs or instructions noted to be at the receptionist desk or front entrance doors for guidance regarding off-hour visitation. During an interview on January 17, 2023, at 1:30 PM, with the Administrator (ADMIN), the Admin stated the facility required COVID testing for visitors and that he was aware of the new CDPH guidelines (regarding visitors no longer requiring COVID-19 tests) but was trying to keep the COVID-19 numbers down in the facility. The Admin further stated the five dollars they charged visitors for COVID-19 tests, went to the activities department. During a concurrent interview and record review, on January 18, 2023, at 2:33 PM, with the SR, The SR stated she tested at least two visitors yesterday (January 17, 2023) as a requirement for visitation and provided COVID-19 testing documents for the two visitors she tested. The documents were titled, [name of facility], dated January 17, 2023, the forms indicated the visitors for Residents 58 and Residents 458 were both tested for COVID-19 on January 17, 2023. The forms further indicated, .Visitor .Weekly Mandatory Surveillance Testing . The SR stated she recalled that both visitors paid five dollars for the COVID-19 tests because they did not bring their own test kit. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Visitation, Infection Control during, dated August 22, 2017, the policy had no mention of specific visiting hours, no requirement to test for COVID-19 prior to visitation, no mention of charging five dollars for COVID-19 tests, and no limitation of 1 hour for visit duration as was all indicated in the Visiting Policy posted at the receptionist desk. During a review of the document titled, State of California - Health and Human Services Agency California Department of Public Health [CDPH] All Facilities Letter [AFL] 22-07.1 [AFL - a document sent to facilities for guidance on regulations], dated October 6, 2022, the AFL indicated, Subject: Guidance for Limiting the Transmission of COVID-19 in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) .This AFL revision announces that, effective September 17, 2022, the visitation requirements outlined in the August 26, 2021 Public Health Order (PHO) are rescinded. Visitors are no longer required to show proof of vaccination or a negative test to have indoor visitation .SNFs must also enable visits to be conducted with an adequate degree of privacy and should be allowed at times convenient to visitors (e.g., outside of regular work hours) .All facilities must comply with state and federal resident's rights requirements pertaining to visitation .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to designate a qualified Director of Food Services to provide the daily oversight of the dietary department which includes, implementing menus,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to designate a qualified Director of Food Services to provide the daily oversight of the dietary department which includes, implementing menus, purchasing food, training of staff, and ensuring compliance with all state and federal regulations. This failure had the potential to result in a lack of oversight in the operations of the dietary department and supervision of staff which could lead to poor quality of services in the department. Findings: During an interview on December 5, 2022, at 8:20 A.M., with the Director of Food Services, (DFS) , DFS stated she was the Director of Food Services and runs the day-to-day operations of the kitchen. During further interview on December 5, 2022, at 8: 45 A.M., with the DFS, the DFS stated she was not a certified dietary manager because she failed to pass the test twice given by the Dietary Managers Association (DMA). The DFS also stated she had no bachelor's degree in food and nutrition or completed an approved dietary service training program as required by regulation. During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 2:30 P.M. with Dietary Aid 1 (DA1), DA1 stated she directly reports to the DFS. She further stated the DFS created her schedule , so when she needed to call off, she informed the DFS and followed the instructions provided by her. During an interview on December 7, 2022, at 2:35 P.M. with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated her immediate supervisor was the DFS. [NAME] 1 stated the DFS manages the daily operations of the Dietary Department. She further stated she meets with the Registered Dietician (RD) weekly to discuss menu changes or new diets only. [NAME] 1 further stated, when a concern arises related to the kitchen such as a broken equipment or purchasing new kitchen equipment, she reports it to the DFS. During an interview on December 8, 2022, at 10:10 A.M. with [NAME] 2, when asked, who her direct supervisor was and how often she meets with the RD for any concerns, [NAME] 2 stated, To be honest with you I have not met the RD. I just tell the DFS, who is my direct boss, all my concerns in the kitchen. During an interview on December 8, 2022, at 10:20 A.M. with the DFS, the DFS stated her other responsibilities in the kitchen were budgeting, hiring new staff, providing in-services, and doing performance evaluations of the kitchen staff. During an interview on December 8, 2022, 3:13 P.M. with the RD, the RD stated she was a contracted full-time RD consultant in the facility who comes once a week to evaluate resident menus, residents who are newly admitted , and residents that staff referred for a consult. When the RD was asked whether the DFS met the qualifications required to manage the kitchen she stated , I don't know her qualification. During an interview on December 12, 2022, at 8:14 AM with Dietary Aid 2 (DA2), DA2 stated, she directly reports to the DFS. She further stated the DFS performs her yearly performance evaluations, competencies , in-services, and she also hires new staff. During a interview on December 12, 2022, at 9:00 A.M. with the Administrator, the Administrator stated the document titled Director of Food Services contains the job description of the DFS. During a record review of the facility's document, Director of Food Services, undated , indicated, the DFS was hired December 20, 2013, and her supervisor is the RD. It further indicated, .Education . Be a graduate of an accredited course in dietetic training approved by the American Dietetic Association .Specific Requirements . Must be registered as a Food Service Director in this state.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Data (Tag F0851)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report accurate Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) data when there was a discrepancy between the staffing hours reported and the actual staffing ho...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report accurate Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) data when there was a discrepancy between the staffing hours reported and the actual staffing hours worked. This failure had the potential for staffing hours to not be met which could delay care needed by 109 residents in the facility. Findings: A record review of the Payroll Based Journal (PBJ) Staffing Data Report from [name of oversight agency] showed the facility had excessive low weekend staffing for the quarters January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022, and from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022. During an interview on December 8, 2022, at 12:00PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), she reported there were always licensed staff available 24 hours a day seven days a week in the facility. The DON stated the PBJ was inaccurately reflecting excessive low weekend staffing, but upon review of the facility's Direct Hours Per Patient Day (DHPPD) which showed the direct service hours worked, payroll, and sign-in documents, the facility was meeting the required staffing hours. The DON stated the inaccurate PBJ data negatively affects the facility as it reflected low staffing which was inaccurate. During an interview on December 13, 2022, at 3:00PM with the Nurse Resource (NR 1), NR 1 stated, If there was a discrepancy with PBJ, we [the facility] must correct it. If there was a discrepancy, [the facility] must compare the PBJ with who actually worked that day. At the facility level, the Payroll and Director of Staff Development (DSD) confirms who worked for the day, then it is submitted to the corporate office, and corporate office submits that data to [name of oversight agency]. During a phone interview on December 13, 2022, at 4:25PM with the Human Resource Director (HRD) from the corporate office, she stated the DSD and Payroll work together to confirm clock-ins and staff hours. The data was then uploaded to the corporate office. When Agency staff (registry- staff hired for a shift) are used, the facility will have invoices uploaded from accounts payable to the corporate office to capture service hours. Exempt employees will not capture extra hours reported to PBJ because they are defaulted at 40 hours. Any discrepancies to service hours reported may be due to employees being coded incorrectly. The HRD stated if administrative staff from nursing clock in to work as a floor staff, if they do not code correctly it will not be captured for PBJ hours. The facility's DHPPD reports are more accurate because the facility know exactly which staff are working which department and when they are working. During a concurrent interview and record review of a random weekend shift from the second quarter dated January 15, 2022, was reviewed with the Clerical Resource (CR) and the Nurse Resource (NR 2) on December 13, 2022, at 6:55PM. The payroll and clock-in report for January 15, 2022, showed a discrepancy with the facility's DHPPD Report and with what the facility's corporate office reported to [name of oversight agency] for PBJ. The facility's corporate office reported the service hours to [name of oversight agency] and listed 205.13 total Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) hours for January 15, 2022, while the facility DHPPD total CNA hours showed 233.05 as determined by the payroll and clock-in documents for January 15, 2022. The facility corporate office did not include the CNA hours served by registry staff on that day. Both NR 2 and CR stated that the discrepancies are shown with the service hours because the registry staff were not being captured when reported to PBJ. NR 2 stated the invoices which capture the hours worked for registry staff were not being submitted timely to reflect accurate data for PBJ, thus is not included in the number of hours reported to [name of oversight agency] for total direct care service hours. During a concurrent interview and record review of the DHPPD, all weekends for the quarters January 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022, and from April 1, 2022 through June 30, 2022 reflected staffing hours were met, with the exception of the third quarter which showed three days staffing was below required hours as follows. a) On May 8, 2022, the Actual CNA DHPPD was 2.34 b) On May 15, 2022, the Actual CNA DHPPD was 2.20 c) On June 19, 2022, the Actual CNA DHPPD was 1.52, and Actual Licensed Staff DHPPD was 2.62 During an interview with the DSD, she stated there were several call-offs on these dates. There were one Registered Nurse (RN), four Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN), and at least nine CNAs for each shift. Staffing was concurrent with payroll report and sign-in documents for those three days.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Concerns
  • • 50 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 50/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Knolls West Post Acute Llc's CMS Rating?

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

How is Knolls West Post Acute Llc Staffed?

CMS rates KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Knolls West Post Acute Llc?

State health inspectors documented 50 deficiencies at KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 46 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Knolls West Post Acute Llc?

KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC 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 DAVID & FRANK JOHNSON, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 118 certified beds and approximately 108 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in VICTORVILLE, California.

How Does Knolls West Post Acute Llc Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Knolls West Post Acute Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Knolls West Post Acute Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC 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 3-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 Knolls West Post Acute Llc Stick Around?

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

Was Knolls West Post Acute Llc Ever Fined?

KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Knolls West Post Acute Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

KNOLLS WEST POST ACUTE LLC 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.