SPRING VALLEY POST ACUTE LLC

14973 HESPERIA ROAD, VICTORVILLE, CA 92395 (760) 245-6477
For profit - Limited Liability company 126 Beds DAVID & FRANK JOHNSON Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#1119 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Spring Valley Post Acute LLC has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its care and operations. It ranks #1119 out of 1155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the bottom half of facilities in the state, and it is the lowest-ranked option in San Bernardino County at #54. Although the facility has shown improvement, reducing issues from 8 in 2024 to 2 in 2025, it still has a troubling history, including critical failures in food safety that risked residents' health. Staffing is a mixed bag; while turnover is impressively low at 0%, the staffing rating is only 2 out of 5, and there is less RN coverage than 87% of California facilities, which is concerning. Additionally, the facility has incurred $67,043 in fines, suggesting ongoing compliance problems, and specific incidents include unsafe hot water temperatures that could cause burns and failures in ensuring proper use of restraints for residents under law enforcement supervision, putting them at risk for serious physical and psychological harm.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In California
#1119/1155
Bottom 4%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 2 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$67,043 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 20 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
38 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 2 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Federal Fines: $67,043

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: DAVID & FRANK JOHNSON

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 38 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Sept 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Someone could have died · 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 follow its own policy and procedure concerning the us...

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 own policy and procedure concerning the use of physical restraints when three of three Justice-Involved Residents (residents under the care of law enforcement, community supervision, in custody, held involuntarily through operation of law enforcement authorities [Residents 1, 2, and 3]) did not receive respectful and dignified treatment. This includes the right to be free from physical restraints, which was not necessary to address residents' medical conditions. The facility, instead, placed sole responsibility on the correctional officers for the application, removal, and monitoring of potential complications associated with the use of restraints.These failures had the potential to place clinically compromised residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3) at risk of serious physical injuries, including skin damage, pressure ulcers, nerve damage, and prolonged immobility. Additionally, it can also lead to serious psychological effects, such as loss of dignity, which may lead to anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts resulting from lack of monitoring by a trained staff, physician order, care plan, nursing assessments, and proper documentation related to the use of restraints.Findings:During an observation in Resident 1's room on September 24, 2025, at 12:10 PM, Resident 1 was observed lying on bed, restrained with metal shackles on both ankles, which were attached to the end of the bed frame. Resident 1 appeared alert and calm during the observation. The skin around the shackles was assessed and found to be intact, with no evidence of redness, blistering, discoloration, or any other skin issues that possibly are associated with the use of shackles. During this observation, two correctional officers were present at the bedside, monitoring Resident 1. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (general demographics) on September 24, 2025, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis ( partial paralysis on one side of the body), heart failure (heart is not pumping blood as well as it should), and hypotension ( low blood pressure).During an observation in Resident 2's room on September 24, 2025, at 12:15 PM, Resident 2 was observed on bed in the same room as Resident 1. Resident 2 was restrained with metal shackles on both ankles, which were attached to the end of the bed frame. Additionally, a metal shackle was observed on his left wrist and was attached to one of the side rails of the bed, while two correctional officers were on bedside monitoring Resident 1 and 2.During a review of Resident 2's admission Record (general demographics) on September 24, 2025, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnoses that included peripheral autonomic neuropathy (condition that affects the nerves that control involuntary body functions, such as heart rate, blood pressure, and sweating), acute kidney failure ( kidney suddenly stops working properly), and fracture of the left hand (break in one or more bones in the left hand).During an observation in Resident 3's room on September 24, 2025, at 12:26 PM, Resident 3 was observed on bed, restrained with metal shackles on both ankles that were attached to the end of the bed frame. Additionally, a metal shackle was also observed on his left wrist and was attached to one of the side rails of the bed, while two correctional officers were watching him.During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (general demographics) on September 24, 2025, the admission Record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnoses that included cellulitis ( bacterial infection that gets into the deeper layer of the skin) of the right lower limb, neuropathy (damaged nerves), and hypertension (high blood pressure).During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 1:20 PM, with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1), CNA 1 stated, the shackles were removed when the patients [residents] are taken to the restrooms and receive a bath. When asked how she repositions the residents while they are in shackles, she stated, I request the correctional officer to remove the shackles. however, she noted the shackles are not usually removed because there is enough slack for the residents to move their legs around.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 1: 31 PM, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 confirmed that she is assigned to the three residents who are in shackles. CNA 2 stated she requested the correctional officers to remove the shackles for Resident 1 and Resident 2 when they went to the toilet and when they took a shower. For Resident 3, CNA 2 stated she did not release the shackles throughout her shift, as he had not gone to the bathroom yet. When CNA 2 was asked if she had checked the wrists and ankles of Resident 1, Resident 2, and Resident 3 for bruises, CNA 2 mentioned she only observed briefly while she performed activities of daily living (ADL - basic tasks that residents perform to maintain their personal care).During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 1:50 PM, with the Activity Director (Director), Director stated, .The inmates do not participate with the activities of other residents, they are only given magazines, reading materials about people, nature or any topics they are interested in. The director confirmed the residents never leave their rooms except for showers and physical therapy sessions.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 1:59 PM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), LVN stated, the only time these shackles are removed is when the inmates go to the toilet or bathroom. The facility is a non- restraint facility, and the staff are not trained in the use of restraints. Furthermore, the staff indicated he does not visually check the resident's wrists and ankles. He also stated that the facility does not classify shackles as a means of restraint, and there is no official order for restraint as it is not part of the physician's orders.During a concurrent interview and record review on September 24, 2025, at 2:15 PM, with the Registered Nurse supervisor (RN supervisor), the medical records for Residents 1, 2, and 3 have no documentation of the following:a. no physician's order for the use of restraints.b. no care plan in place for restraints.c. no assessment conducted regarding the use of restraints; nor restraint was coded on Minimum Data Set (MDS-a standardized assessment tool used collect information about residents' health, functional abilities, and psychosocial status).d. no nursing progress notes documenting the placement and removal of the restraint; ande. no assessment of skin integrity associated with the use of restraints.These findings were verified by the RN supervisor, who stated that the facility is a no-restraint facility. The three residents, under the supervision of correctional officers admitted to the facility in shackles; however, the facility does not consider those shackles to be restraints.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 2:59 PM, with the Director of Staff Developer (DSD), the DSD stated, This is a no restraint facility, we don't have residents on restraints, federal guards are the ones releasing the shackles when the staff requested during patient [resident] care like when they go to shower. The DSD further stated the staff are not trained in the use of restraints.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 3:10 PM, with Resident 3, he stated, I do not go out, they only give me magazines to read. The resident stated his shackles are only released when he goes to the bathroom and toilet and when he does physical therapy training in the evening at least once a day.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 3:39 PM, Resident 1 confirmed he does not participate in any activity, and his shackles are only released during toileting, showers, and physical therapy training. Resident 1 also stated that PT training is conducted in his room in the evening at least once a day.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 3:44 PM, Resident 2 confirmed his shackles are only released when he goes to the bathroom, showers and does physical therapy training at least once a day, for a few minutes in the evening. Resident 2 also stated he does not participate in any activities. During a concurrent interview and record review on September 24, 2025, at 4:45 PM, with the administrator and the DSD, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Use of Restraints, dated October 2022, was reviewed. The P&P defined physical restraints, . as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one's body. The P&P also states, Prior to placing a resident in restraints, there shall be a pre-restraining assessment, . The P&P further states, Restraints shall only be used upon the written order of a physician. Also, the P&P mandates, A resident placed in a restraint will be observed at least every thirty (30) minutes by nursing personnel, When asked if this P&P was being followed, the administrator responded, The residents came with restraints, citing that they are inmates under the custody of correctional officers.During an interview on September 24, 2025, at 3:48 PM, with the Correction Officer (Officer), the Officer stated, inmates does not go out from their rooms, and the staff does not released shackles. Officer confirmed that they are with the residents twenty-four (24) hours a day, and they have to be on shackles per their policy.On September 24, 2025, at 5:00 PM, an immediate jeopardy (IJ- a situation that has threatened or was likely to threaten the health and safety of a resident) situation was called in the presence of the Administrator and the DSD for noncompliance related to the use of physical restraints, resulting in Residents 1, 2, and 3 being denied the right to be treated with respect and dignity. The Administrator and the DSD were verbally notified of the IJ situation.A corrective action plan (CAP) was requested following the implementation of IJ.On September 26, 2025, at 1:30 PM, an IJ Removal Plan was provided by the facility, which included:Upon notification, the facility initiated the following actions:1. What corrective action will be accomplished for those patients found to have been affected by the deficient practice?- Residents identified as affected by the deficient practice involving the use of physical restraints were discharged in coordination with the Federal Correctional Complex (FCC) Victorville and attending physician and transferred to [NAME] Valley Global Medical Center. The attending physician declined to issue orders for the continued use of restraints.- Residents affected by the deficient practice will be discharged in coordination with FCC as follows:o. Room # 9A Resident 1 on 9/25/25 to [Name of the hospital].o. Room # 9C Resident 2 on 9/25/25 to [Name of the hospital].o. Room # 16C Resident 3 on 9/25/25 to [Name of the hospital]. 2. How will the facility identify other patients having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice?- A comprehensive review of records for 107 residents was completed. In addition, direct observations were conducted across all shifts by charge nurses and Registered Nurses. Alert residents were interviewed by staff. No additional residents were found to be affected by the deficient practice.- On 09/24/25 around 5:00 PM on-going in-service training was provided by Director of Staff Development with an emphasis on the distinction between medical and correctional restraints.3. What measures will be put into place or what systemic changes will be made to ensure the deficient practice does not recur?- To prevent recurrence of the deficient practice related to physical restraints, the facility has implemented the following systemic changes:o Resident's requiring physical restraints will be observed for 72 hours, during which non-pharmacological interventions will be attempted in collaboration with Activities, Social Services, Nursing, and Rehab.o Physicians and family members will be notified, and nursing staff will follow up on all physician orders.o Social Services, in coordination with the interdisciplinary team (IDT), will provide information regarding the resident's behavior and the effectiveness of the treatment plan to the resident and, as appropriate, to the family or responsible party.o Licensed nurses will conduct weekly skin integrity checks and document daily progress notes. Any concerns will be escalated to the Primary Care Provider (PCP) and family.o Residents will be repositioned per facility protocol. 9/26/2026 Monthly psychosocial-emotional assessments will be conducted by Social Services, with documentation of observations, interviews, and reviews involving residents, families, and staff.4. How will the facility monitor its corrective actions to ensure ongoing compliance?Recapitulation of findings will be presented and reported by the Director of Nursing (DON) or designee to the Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee on a monthly basis for three months, or until 100% compliance has been sustained. The Committee will review the findings and take action as indicated.The facility will not admit justice-involved individuals until it has confirmed substantial compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations governing the care of justice-involved individuals. This includes alignment with the authorities outlined in F604.The safety and security of all residents remain the facility's highest priority. This corrective action plan directly addresses the Immediate Jeopardy finding by implementing the immediate measures outlined above.The IJ was removed on September 26, 2025, at 3:44 PM, in the presence of the Administrator and Meridian Management Representative after onsite observation, interview, and record review verified the facility's implementation of the corrective action plan.
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 ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 1) was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 1) was free of any significant medication errors (administration of medications which was not in accordance with accepted professional standards and principles), when Resident 1 was given medications that belongs to another resident. These failures had the potential to jeopardize the health and well-being of medically compromised Resident 1. Findings: During a phone interview on March 12, 2025, with Resident 1, Resident 1 reported that at 8:47 AM on February 26, 2025, a nurse gave her a medication cup labeled 52 B containing 6 different types of medication. She claimed that she did not take the medication because she is aware that it is not hers. A review of Resident 1 Face Sheet (contain resident demographic), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD – is a group of lung diseases that make it hard to breath). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (facility assessment tool), dated October 19, 2024, under Section C, it indicated her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15. (A BIMS score of 13 to 15 suggests the patient is cognitively intact). A review of Resident 1 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the Month of February 2025, indicated on February 26, 2025, resident 1 received the following medications: Lidoderm Patch 5%, Gabapentin capsule 300 mg, Allopurinol oral table 300 mg, Ergo Cal oral capsule 1.25 mg, Folic Acid tablet 1 mg, Isosorbide Mononitrate Oral Tablet 20 mg, Levothyroxine Sodium oral table 125 mcg, Apixaban oral tablet 5 mg, Magnesium oral table 200 mg, Nifedipine ER oral tablet 60 mg, Pantoprazole sodium tablet 40 mg. During an interview on March 13, 2025, at 11:14 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON 1), the DON 1 stated on February 28, 2025, a Registered Nurse (RN 1) notified her that Resident 1 claimed a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) provided her with 5 tablets of medication in a cup labeled 52B. Resident 1 asserted she did not consume it because she identified it was not hers. The RN recorded a photo of the medication and communicated it with her. She indicated that she verifies it with the pharmacy consultant, and it was concluded that the medications were: Levetiracetam oral tablet 1000mg, Montelukast Sodium oral tablet 10 mg, Zoloft oral tablet 50 mg, Finasteride oral tablet 5 mg. She noted that none of those medications were linked to Resident 1. She also mentioned that upon reviewing the medications, the four pills that Resident 1 identified belonged to Resident 5, but because Resident 5 had been admitted to the hospital on [DATE], it remains uncertain how Resident 1 acquired the medication. During concurrent record review and interview on March 13, 2025, at 11:23 AM with the DON 1, incident report dated February 28, 2025, was reviewed. DON acknowledged that Incident report indicated the incident of medication error took place however, unable to identify which Nursing staff member committed the error, the exact date and time it happened was unknown. During an interview on March 13, 2025, at 12:04 PM with the Administrator (Admin 1), the admin 1 stated that he thinks if the nursing staff are doing the job properly it shouldn ' t happen. During an interview on March 13, 2025, at 12:10 PM with LVN 1, LVN1 stated that the incorrect medications are those given in the morning, and since she is the night nurse, it was not her who administered the medication. A review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication and Treatment Administration dated October 2014, indicated, .9. Residents shall be identified before administration of a drug or treatment .
Nov 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to update their abuse policy and procedure related to 1 of the 7 components of abuse prohibition. Specifically, the facility policy d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to update their abuse policy and procedure related to 1 of the 7 components of abuse prohibition. Specifically, the facility policy did not reflect the reporting of all allegations of abuse within the mandated timeframe of immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Policy and Procedure on Patient Abuse and Prevention, with an effective date of 10/2014, indicated, VII. Reporting, Facility shall ensure reporting of all alleged and/or substantiated violations to the state agency and all other agencies as required, and to take all necessary corrective actions based on the results of the investigation. a) Facility administrator shall be responsible for reporting of all alleged and substantiated violations to the state agency and all other agencies as required. b) Facility shall report the incident by calling the DHS within 24 hours of the knowledge of such incident; followed by a letter explaining the circumstances surrounding the incident. This letter shall be maintained in a separate file and made available to the Department upon request. c) The Administrator and Director of Nurses, in the order written shall report incidents of suspected abuse to the following agencies within twenty-four (24) hours of occurrence: - Department of Health-Licensing and Certification - LTC [long-term care] Ombudsman or designee or - Local enforcement agency or Police Department - Managing Physician for treatment orders as required - Family Members/Responsible Parties or Guardians. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 3:36 PM, the Administrator stated the abuse policy was the one the facility had when he became the administrator in 07/2023. The Administrator stated that according to the facility abuse policy, the facility had 24 hours to report any allegation of abuse unless it involved serious bodily injury.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse to the state survey agency for 1 (Resident #27) of 1 sampled resident reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to timely report an allegation of abuse to the state survey agency for 1 (Resident #27) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for abuse. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Policy and Procedure on Patient Abuse and Prevention, with an effective date of 10/2014, indicated, 2. Verbal Abuse is defined as any use of oral, written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability. The policy specified, VII. Reporting, Facility shall ensure reporting of all alleged and/or substantiated violations to the state agency and all other agencies as required, and to take all necessary corrective actions based on the results of the investigation. a) Facility administrator shall be responsible for reporting of all alleged and substantiated violations to the state agency and all other agencies as required. b) Facility shall report the incident by calling the DHS within 24 hours of the knowledge of such incident; followed by a letter explaining the circumstances surrounding the incident. This letter shall be maintained in a separate file and made available to the Department upon request. c) The Administrator and Director of Nurses, in the order written shall report incidents of suspected abuse to the following agencies within twenty-four (24) hours of occurrence: - Department of Health-Licensing and Certification - LTC [long-term care] Ombudsman or designee or - Local enforcement agency or Police Department - Managing Physician for treatment orders as required - Family Members/Responsible Parties or Guardians. According to the policy, VII. Abuse Prevention Coordinator. The facility Administrator is the duly appointed Abuse Prevention Coordinator. In the absence of the Administrator, the designated alternate or Assistance Administrator, if any, will take over the responsibilities. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #27 on 12/07/2018. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of morbid obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, muscle weakness, and chronic combined systolic and diastolic heart failure. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/09/2024, revealed Resident #27 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident had intact cognition. During an interview on 11/18/2024 at 9:20 AM, Resident #27 stated the certified nursing assistants (CNAs) did not provider them a shower because of their weight. According to Resident #27, CNA #8 told them that staff could not do their shower because the staff had lives and homes to get back to, that their weight placed the staff in danger, and if the staff gave them a shower and got hurt, the CNAs could sue them Resident #27 reported CNA #8 had not worked with them lately and they had been getting their showers recently. On 11/18/2024 at 9:40 AM, the surveyor reported the allegation of abuse to the Administrator and the Director of Nursing Services. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 3:03 PM, the Administrator stated he reported the allegation of abuse to the state agency on 11/18/2024 at 4:00 PM. The Administrator stated since there was no physical harm, the allegation only needed to be reported within 24 hours and not 2 hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address a resident's right hand contracture for 1 (Resident #185) of 1 sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, facility policy review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address a resident's right hand contracture for 1 (Resident #185) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for limited range of motion. Findings included: A facility policy titled Care Plan with the effective date of 10/2014 revealed, Policy. 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 psychological needs as identified in the comprehensive assessment. 2. Goals for plan of care should be measurable, achievable/attainable and resident centered. The policy specified, 7. Care Plan should be oriented to prevention of avoidable declines in functioning or functioning levels. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #185 on 10/21/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominate side. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/01/2024, revealed Resident #185 had a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS), that indicated the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS revealed the resident had a range of motion limitation on side in both their upper and lower extremities. Resident #185's medical record revealed no evidence to indicate a care plan had been developed to address the resident's right hand contracture. During an observation on 11/18/2024 at 11:21 AM, Resident #185 was noted to have a right hand contracture. During an observation on 11/19/2024 at 12:37 PM, Resident #185 was noted to have a right hand contracture. During an interview on 11/20/2024 at 10:52 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse #25 stated Resident #185 had a contracture of their right hand. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 3:03 PM, the MDS/Resident Coordinator stated she completed residents' care plans with Director of Nursing Services. The MDS/Resident Coordinator confirmed Resident #185 did not have a care plan to address their right hand contracture. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 3:11 PM, the Administrator stated a resident's care plan should include the resident's limited range of motion.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement services for the treatment of a right hand contracture for 1 (Resident #185) of 1 sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to implement services for the treatment of a right hand contracture for 1 (Resident #185) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for limited range of motion. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Range of Motion, dated 10/2015, revealed, Residents need movement in order to prevent decreased functioning. Hence, it is vital that nursing assistances recognize the role they play in aiding the resident to maintain an or achieve as much movement as is possible relative to physical & medical conditions. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #185 on 10/21/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting right dominate side. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 11/01/2024, revealed Resident #185 had a Staff Assessment for Mental Status (SAMS), that indicated the resident was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS revealed the resident had a range of motion limitation on side in both their upper and lower extremities. Resident #185's medical record revealed no evidence to indicate a care plan had been developed to address the resident's right hand contracture. During an observation on 11/18/2024 at 11:21 AM, Resident #185 was noted to have a right hand contracture and no use of a splint or hand towel was present. During an observation on 11/19/2024 at 12:37 PM, Resident #185 was noted to have a right hand contracture. During an observation on 11/20/2024 at 7:51 AM, Resident #185 was observed in bed. The resident was noted to have a right hand contracture and no splint or hand towel was present. During an interview on 11/20/2024 at 10:42 AM, Registered Nurse #24 stated there was a not a splint or hand roll in place that she knew of for Resident #185. During an interview on 11/02/2024 at 11:01 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #26 stated Resident #185's right hand was contracted and usually there was towel placed between the resident's fingers and hand. CNA #26 confirmed the hand roll or towel was not in place for the resident on 11/02/2024. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 11:48 AM, the Administrator stated the expectation was that range of motion be provided based on the resident's assessment. Per the Administrator, a hand roll would be a measure to prevent infection and contractures.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff donned personal protective equipment (PPE) before they entered the room...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff donned personal protective equipment (PPE) before they entered the room of a resident who was on contact isolation and failed to ensure staff cleaned a multi-use glucometer after use before it was placed back on the medication cart for 1 (Resident #75) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for infection control. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Infection Control- Transmission- Based Precautions, revised 10/2019, indicated Contact precautions are intended to prevent transmission of infections that are spread by direct (person-to-person) or indirect contact with the resident, or environment, and require the use of appropriate PPE including a gown and gloves upon entering the resident's room or cubicle. The PPE should be removed, and hand hygiene performed before leaving the residents room or cubicle. A facility policy titled, Blood Glucose Meter Calibration and Care, effective 10/2014, indicated Glucometer shall be sanitized in between patient use with any sterilizer per manufacturer's recommendation. The User Instruction Manual for the blood glucose monitoring system (glucometer) revealed, We suggest cleaning and disinfecting the meter between patient [resident] use. The manual specified, Cleaning and disinfecting can be completed by using a commercially available EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]-registered disinfectant detergent or germicide wipe. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #75 on 07/07/2021. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus with foot ulcer and acute osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot. A Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/15/2024, revealed Resident #75 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 a surgical wound and received insulin injections. On 11/19/2024 at 11;35 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #6 entered the room of Resident #75 to check the resident's blood sugar. A sign posted on the resident's door indicated the resident was on contact isolation and those who entered the room must wear a gown and gloves. LVN #6 entered the room without application of a gown or gloves. LVN #6 stated he did not need to wear PPE because he was not going to touch the resident. Once LVN #6 pricked the finger of Resident #75 to obtain blood with a multi-use glucometer, LVN #6 placed the glucometer in the top drawer of the medication cart, without sanitizing the glucometer. During an interview on 11/19/2024 at 11:51 AM, LVN #6 stated he was taught to sanitize the glucometer after use. LVN #6 acknowledged the glucometer used was a multi-use glucometer. LVN #6 stated he did not clean the glucometer after it was used because he did not have any disinfectant wipes on the medication cart. LVN #6 commented that if he was at a safe distance from the resident and did not provide physical contact, he did not need to apply PPE to enter the resident's room, even if the resident was on contact isolation. During an interview on 11/19/2024 at 1:36 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated staff were to always wear a gown and gloves when they entered a room of resident on contact precautions. During a follow-up interview on 11/21/2024 at 8:18 AM, the IP stated Resident #75 was on contact precautions for methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and all staff were to wear a gown and gloves when they entered the resident's room, regardless of the activity to be completed. The IP stated glucometers were to be cleaned after each use. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 8:51 AM, the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) stated Resident #75 was on contact precautions for MRSA in a wound, and staff were to put on a gown and gloves when they entered the resident's room. The DNS stated LVN #6 should clean the glucometer after use. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 11:18 AM, the Administrator staff were expected staff to wear a gown and gloves when they entered Resident #75's side of the room, and blood glucose meters were to be cleaned after each use.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) for 2 (Resident #34 and Resident #74)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of a preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) for 2 (Resident #34 and Resident #74) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASARRs. Findings included: A facility policy titled, Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR), revised 12/2006, indicated All new admissions and readmissions are screened for mental disorders (MD), intellectual disabilities (ID) or related disorders (RD) per the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review process. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. The facility conducts a Level I PASARR screen for all potential admissions, regardless of payer source, to determine if the individual meets the criteria for a MD, ID or RD, unless the individual was admitted directly to the facility from a hospital where he or she received acute impatient care and a Level I PASARR had already been completed and submitted. 1. An admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #74 on 11/04/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of schizophrenia, unspecified psychosis due to a known substance or physiological condition, impulse disorder, mood disorder due to known physiological condition, depressive episodes, and anxiety disorder Resident #74's Resident Care Plan, titled Psychosis revealed the resident had behavioral episodes of verbal outburst and a long history of psychosis and dementia with psychotic features. Resident #74's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level I Screening dated 11/04/2024, revealed the resident did not have a serious diagnoses mental disorder such as depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, or symptoms of psychosis, delusions, and/or mood disturbance. During an interview on 11/20/2024 at 10:49 AM, the Minimum Data Set/Resident Coordinator stated the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) reviewed a resident's PASARR for accuracy. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 8:51 AM, the DNS stated Resident #74 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and the resident's diagnosis should have been listed on the PASARR. During an interview on 11/21/2024 at 11:18 AM, the Administrator stated Resident #74's PASARR should have been checked for accuracy. 2. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #34 on 09/11/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included diagnoses of mood disorder and psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/24/2024, revealed Resident #34 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident had active diagnoses to include psychotic disorder. Resident #34's Resident Care Plan titled Psychosis included a problem/concern area, dated 09/22/2024, that indicated the resident was at risk for increasing confusion and disordered thoughts secondary to a diagnosis of psychosis. Resident #34's Order Summary Report, which contained active orders as of 11/20/2024, revealed an order dated 09/11/2024, for Seroquel oral tablet 100 milligrams, give one tablet by mouth one time a day for psychosis. Resident #34's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level I Screening dated 09/11/2024, revealed the resident did not have a serious diagnoses mental disorder such as depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, or symptoms of psychosis, delusions, and/or mood disturbance. During an interview on 11/20/2024 at 10:50 AM, the MDS/Resident Coordinator stated she was not responsible for ensuring the accuracy of a resident's PASARR. The MDS/Resident Coordinator stated she did not know why Resident #34's diagnosis of psychosis was not captured on the PASARR Level I Screening dated 09/11/2024.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident ' s right to be free from abuse...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident ' s right to be free from abuse (the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish), for one of five sampled residents (Residents 1), when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) was witnessed using profanity towards Resident 1, on November 6, 2024. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to experience psychosocial harm. Findings: During a review of Resident ' s 1 admission Record (document containing clinical and demographic data), it indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis which included anxiety disorder unspecified (feeling of fear, dread, or uneasiness that can range from mild to severe). During a review of Resident 1's clinical records, the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- screening tool to identify and monitor cognitive decline), dated November 7, 2024, indicated, Resident 1 ' s score was a 15 which indicated Resident 1 ' s cognition (the mental process of thinking, learning, remembering, and being aware of surroundings) is intact. During an interview on November 7, 2024, at 2:02 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant ( CNA 2), CNA 2 stated she was standing in the hallway with another staff member, when she overheard Resident 1 and CNA 1 engaged in a heated argument. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 was very upset and shouting regarding CNA 1 had gotten in his face and demanding him to Sit the hell down. During an interview on November 7, 2024, at 2:13 p.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated, on November 6, 2024, he had asked CNA 1 for some ice, CNA 1 grabbed the water pitcher and left the room to grab some gloves. Resident 1 stated he mentioned I guess I am not getting ice, because he though he did something wrong. Resident 1 further stated CNA 1 returned to the room right away and approached Resident 1 in a confrontational manner and got very close to his face. During an interview on November 7, 2024, at 3:18 p.m., with Resident 1 ' s roommate (Resident 2), Resident 2 stated he heard a verbal altercation between his roommate and a staff member on November 6, 2024. Resident 2 indicated that while he could hear the exchange, he was unable to observe it directly due to a curtain that separates their beds. During a telephone interview on November 7, 2024, at 4:11 p.m., with the Administrator, (ADM 1), ADM 1 stated CNA 1 ' s actions involved in the verbal altercation constituted a verbal abuse. During a telephone interview on November 13, 2024, at 3:21 p.m., with ADM 1, ADM 1 clarified detail regarding the facility ' s summary of investigation. ADM 1 stated Resident 1 asked a staff member for some ice, the staff member asked CNA 1 to bring ice for Resident 1. AMD stated, while in the room, CNA 1 realized he did not have the correct size of gloves, when CNA 1 walked out of the room to get some gloves without informing Resident 1, Resident 1 mistakenly thought he had done something wrong an exclaimed, Oh, f**k me. ADM 1 further stated CNA 1 returned to the room immediately upon hearing Resident 1 and told him If you don ' t sit your ass down, I will make you. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Policy and Procedure on Patient abuse and Prevention, dated October, 2014, the P&P indicated, 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.
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's designated responsible party for one of thre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's designated responsible party for one of three sampled resident (Resident 1) when Resident 1's change of condition when Resident 1 developed redness, irritation to right side of throat and right ear with pain and itching. This failure prohibited Resident 1's representative to be actively involved in participating with Resident 1's comprehensive Plan of care. Findings: During review of Residents 1's admission Record (general demographics), the document indicated Resident 1 was re- admitted to the facility on [DATE].2024, with diagnoses to include: Parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination), peripheral autonomic neuropathy ( a disorder that damages the nerves that control your internal organs), hypertensive heart disease ( condition that develops over many years in people with high blood pressure which occurs when the heart muscle does not pump properly), type 2 diabetes mellitus (condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar), and dementia (loss of thinking, remembering, and reasoning). During a concurrent interview and record review of Change of Condition notification (COC) with LVN 1 on June 18,2024 at 10:30 am. LVN 1 stated that on April 30,2024 at 10:30 am, she did not notify Resident 1's Responsible Party (RP) of redness, irritation to right side of throat and right ear with pain and itching. LVN1 stated that Resident 1 is self-responsible per documentation on admission Record. During a record review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) with LVN1, Resident 1's Primary Physician (MD), indicated that Resident 1does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. When LVN1 was asked if she reviewed the H&P that was written by Resident 1's MD on April 8, 2024, LVN 1 denies reviewing the H&P. She stated that she only read the admission record. During a concurrent record review and interview on June 18,2024 at 11:05 am with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated that Resident 1's RP on COC form indicated that RP was not notified on April 23,2024 and April 30,2024. DON stated that Resident 1's admission Record should have been updated to reflect MD's H&P written on April 8, 2024, indicating that Resident 1 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of the facility's policy titled, Change of Condition , revised in December,2014, the policy indicated: It is the policy of this facility, except in medical emergencies, to notify the resident, his/her attending physician, and any interested family member or legal representative, of changes in the resident's condition and /or status.
Oct 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

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 follow their policy and procedure (P&P) when it did not administer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure (P&P) when it did not administer regular insulin (a medication that helps your body use sugar for energy) that was readily available in their emergency kit (e-kit- small quantity of medications that can be dispensed when pharmacy services are not available) and instead used the insulin brought to the facility by resident's family. This had the potential to administer a medication that could have been tampered, contaminated or unsafe for use for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). Findings: During an interview on October 9, 2023 at 10:53 AM with Resident 1 inside his room, Resident 1 stated he was admitted on [DATE] and did not receive his insulin dose when he first came in. A review of Resident 1's admission Record , indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus (DM- commonly referred as diabetes, a health condition that affects how your body turns food into energy) among others. A review of Resident 1's History and Physical (a brief documentation of a resident's medical condition) , dated October 2, 2023, indicated Resident 1 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a concurrent interview and record review on October 9, 2023 at 11:53 AM with the Director Of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's SBAR/COC Assessment Form (SBAR- a written communication tool that helps provide essential, concise information, usually during a change of condition [COC]), dated September 30,2023, at 2:30 PM was reviewed. The DON stated that per SBAR/COC, Resident 1 had a blood sugar (concentration of sugar in the blood, with normal range of 70 to 100 milligram per deciliter [mg/dl- a unit of measurement]) of 506 mg/dl. Further review of the associated Licensed Progress Notes indicated Resident 1's doctor was made aware with order for 20 units of insulin. During an interview on October 12, 2023 at 2:08 PM with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), LVN 2 stated she was helping out LVN 1 in taking care of Resident 1 on September 30, 2023. LVN 2 stated she checked Resident 1's blood sugar at 506 mg/dl and notified the doctor. LVN 2 stated she also notified the doctor that Resident 1's medications hasn't been delivered yet by pharmacy, and that Resident 1's wife was insisting on administering Resident 1's regular insulin brought in from home by Resident 1's wife. LVN 2 stated there was regular insulin in the facility e-kit, but she administered the regular insulin brought in by Resident 1's wife after getting approval from the doctor and the DON. LVN 2 stated she should have given the regular insulin from the e-kit. During a concurrent interview and record review on October 12, 2023, at 2:49 PM with the DON, Resident 1's Physician's Telephone Orders , dated September 30, 2023, at 2:30 PM was reviewed. The order indicated, Give 20 units regular insulin x 1 dose . The DON stated there was nothing in the order that indicated the regular insulin could be taken from the home medication brought in by Resident 1's wife. The DON further stated the regular insulin administered to Resident 1 should have been taken from the e-kit. During a concurrent interview and record review on October 16, 2023 at 9:12 AM, with the DON, the facility's P&P titled, Medications Brought to the Facility by the Resident/Family , effective October 2015 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, .The facility shall ordinarily not permit residents and families to bring medications into the facility .2. The facility discourages the use of medications brought in from outside, and will inform residents and families of that policy as well as applicable laws and regulations .3. If a medication is not otherwise available and/or it is determined to be essential to the resident's life, health, safety, or well-being to be able to take a medication brought in from outside, the Director of Nursing Services/RN Supervisor shall check to ensure that: a. State law and regulations allow such use; b. The medications have been ordered by the resident's Attending Physician, and documented on the physician's order sheet; c. The contents of each container are labeled in accordance with established policies . The DON stated the physician's order dated September 30, 2023 at 2:30 PM did not indicate that the insulin can be taken from home meds brought in by Resident 1's wife. The DON stated the regular insulin was available and should have been taken from the facility e-kit. The DON further stated the facility did not follow their policy and procedure.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 their policy and procedure (P&P) when there were missing documentation for bowel and bladder elimination for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). These failures had the potential to cause unsafe conditions and poor quality of life for Resident 1. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's clinical record, the admission Record (contains demographic and medical information), indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), type 2 diabetes (high sugar level), and a fracture (a partial or complete break) of the right femur ( a long bone that runs the length of your upper leg or thigh). During a concurrent interview and record review on September 26, 2023, at 12:10 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's Bladder Elimination, dated September 1, 2023, through September 26, 2023, had missing documentation for the following dates and times: A. September 21, 2023, night shift (10:00 PM to 6:00 AM- the next day). B. September 23, 2023, night shift. C. September 25, 2023, evening shift (2:00 PM to 10:00 PM). During a subsequent interview and record review on September 26, 2023, at 12:12 PM, with the DON, Resident 1's Bowel Elimination, dated September 1, 2023, through September 26, 2023, had missing documentation for the following dates and times: A. September 21, 2023, night shift. B. September 25, evening shift. The DON acknowledged the missing bladder elimination and bowel elimination dates and times and stated it is understood that staff must chart every shift for the bowel and bladder elimination, and if it is not charted then we do not know if it was done. During a concurrent interview and record review on September 26,2023, at 12:33 PM, with the DON, the facility's P&P titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- personal care such as bathing, toileting, eating), Supporting, dated October 2014, indicated, .Residents will be provided with care, treatment, and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). Resident who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene . The DON stated the policy was not followed and should have been.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident 1) received the appropriate safeguards to ensure Resident 1 did not fall while a certified nursing assistant was providing care (CNA 1). This failure placed Resident 1 at high risk for injury to her back after surgery. Findings: An abbreviated survey was conducted on August 9, 2023 at 10:56 AM to investigate a complaint related to quality of care. A review of Resident 1's face sheet (contains demographic information) indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included: dementia with mood disturbances (mood changes, such as depression or anxiety) and heart failure. During a review of Resident 1's clinical record, the Physician's admission Order, dated April 4, 2023, indicated Resident 1 was status post laminectomy lumbar [operation to remove the back of one or more vertebrae (back bones)] for back bones one through four. Resident one is to wear a back brace. During a record review of the Fall risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1's total score was 12. Scores over 10 indicated the resident should be considered at high risk for potential falls. A prevention protocol should be initiated immediately . During a record review of Resident 1's weekly weight record dated April 4, 2023, indicated Resident 1's admission height was 5 feet 10 inches and a recorded weight of 199 pounds. During a record review of Residents 1's Change of Condition Form dated April 7, 2023, indicated Resident 1 had a fall during brief changes. CNA1 (certified nursing assistant) was present at time of the fall. CNA 1 stated that due to the resident being on a air mattress, the air shifted to where the resident leaned. Resident 1 leaved to far to the opposite side and fell to the floor. The nursing assistant taking care of Resident 1 at the time of this fall was CNA 1. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1), on August 23, 2023, at 2:07 PM, CNA 1 stated, It was a fall. I was changing Resident 1. Resident 1 rolled over and the mattress sunk in because she rolled to far to the side. Usually in that situation there's two people. It should have been two people. I was frustrated because I could not find anyone to help. I went out to find someone but I could not find anyone. CNA 1 stated further, That second person is to help support the weight and to help roll the resident over. I had counseling after the fall. They said we need to make sure we have two people for care. of Resident 1. During an interview and concurrent record review of Resident 1's records with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), on August 23, 2023, at 2:40 PM, DSD stated, We need two people for care if the resident is status post laminectomy. After reviewing Resident 1's records, DSD stated, Resident 1 would need extra assistance. You should have a extra person while providing care to Resident 1. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on August 23, 2023, at 4:02 PM, DON stated, If I'm a CNA and I feel like it's not safe. I would wait. CNA 1 should have waited until someone came. DON stated further, He should have used proper technique. The fall should have been prevented. It should not have happened. DON confirmed the fall was preventable and should not have happened while Resident 1 was in CNA 1's care. The facility policy and procedure titled Safety and Supervision of Residents dated July 2017, 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 .4. Employees shall be trained on potential accident hazards and demonstrate competency on how to identify accidents, hazards and try to prevent avoidable accidents .
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

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 residents are free from physical restraints (a device, ...

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 residents are free from physical restraints (a device, method, or process that is used for the specific purpose of restricting a resident's freedom of movement) when Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) held down Resident 1 while providing care. This failure had the potential for negative psychosocial outcome related to restricting freedom of movement for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). Findings: During an interview on July 28, 2023 at 12:55 PM with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated a staff held her down while in bed during diaper change. Resident 1 was unable to state the details of the incident, including the name of the staff. During an interview on August 3, 2023 at 9:10 AM with Certified Nursing Assistant Student 1 (Student 1), Student 1 stated she was assisting CNA 1 during diaper change on July 25, 2023, when Resident 1 became combative and started swinging her arms towards CNA 1. Student 1 stated CNA 1 held down Resident 1 ' s arm with one hand and continued with the diaper change with the other. Student 1 further stated CNA 1 later held down both of Resident 1 ' s arms to prevent her from swinging. During an interview on August 3, 2023 at 3:30 PM with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated Resident 1 became combative during diaper change on July 25, 2023. CNA 1 stated she was pregnant so she instinctively (the way people naturally react or behave, without having to think about it) held down both of Resident 1 ' s hands when Resident 1 started swinging her arms while lying in bed to protect herself and her unborn child. CNA 1 stated she held down Resident 1 for about 30 seconds to a minute before letting go. CNA 1 stated the facility procedure is to step back, let the resident calm down and call for assistance from another staff when a resident becomes combative. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 is not able to get out of bed on her own and cannot ambulate, further stating she should have stepped back immediately so Resident 1 could not reach her while striking out. CNA 1 further stated she shouldn ' t have held down Resident 1 ' s hands. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (AR), dated July 28, 2023, the AR indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a respiratory disease) and encounter for palliative care (specialized medical care that focuses on providing relief from pain and other symptoms of a serious illness) among others. During a review of Resident 8 ' s MDS (Minimum Data Set – a standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) Section G (Functional Status), dated June 1, 2023, the MDS Section G indicated, Resident 1 was totally dependent for transfers to and from bed, requiring two-person physical assist. MDS Section G further indicated Resident 1 is unable to walk. During a concurrent interview and record review on August 22, 2023 at 11:30 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Use of Restraint, dated October 2014 was reviewed. The P&P indicated, . Restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s) and only after all other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully .1. Physical restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident ' s body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one 's body .7. Emergency use of restraints is permitted if their use is immediately necessary to prevent the resident from injuring himself/herself or others and/or to prevent the resident from interfering with life-sustaining treatment, and no other less restrictive interventions are feasible . The DON stated CNA 1 did not use less restrictive interventions and should have just stepped back, further stating CNA 1 shouldn ' t have held down Resident 1.
Feb 2022 11 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage...

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 safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices in the kitchen when: 1. Ice machine was not kept in sanitary condition and put residents at risk for foodborne illness (stomach illness acquired from ingesting contaminated food). 2. The handwashing sink in dish washing area was not providing enough hot water pressure to wash hands effectively, which had the potential to cause foodborne illness. 3. The microwave was not kept in sanitary condition which could transfer to residents' foods during reheating. This had the potential to contaminate the food and cause foodborne illness. 4. The floor under the stainless-steel counters and center island had food crumbs and trashes that had the potential to attract pests. 5. The floor under the shelves in the dry storage had food crumbs and three dead roaches that had the potential to attract pests. 6. The inside of a cabinet on the steamtable had black grime and food crumbs that had the potential to attract pests and harbor bacteria growth. 7. The can opener in the kitchen was not kept in sanitary condition which could transfer to residents' foods. This had the potential to cause foodborne illness. 8. The storage space on the stove had food crumbs and black grime that had the potential to attract pests and harbor bacteria growth. 9. The shelves in dry storage room, across from the family room, were not smooth and easily cleanable that had the potential to attract pests. 10. The three compartment sinks (three sinks used for washing dishes, one for washing, one for rinsing and one for sanitizing dishes) that was also used for food preparation did not have an air gap (an air gap refers to a fixture that provides back-flow prevention. When installed and maintained properly, the air gap works to prevents drain water from backing up into the sink and possibly contaminating the area used for washing food. An air gap is a way to make certain wastewater and contaminants never re-enter the clean water supply), which had the potential for back flow from the drain to contaminate the sink. This had the potential to cause foodborne illness. 11. The dish machine wash temperature was not reaching the appropriate temperature per the manufacturer guidelines. This had the potential for dishes to not be washed properly and potentially cause food borne illness. 12. There were three boxes of food that were open and the food was not sealed. Having the food exposed to the air in the freezer could potentially cause freezer burn and affect the quality of the food. The facility's failures to ensure a safe and sanitary condition resulted in the likelihood of microorganisms that harbor foodborne pathogens to come in contact with residents' food which would cause food-borne illness to a population of 91 of 92 residents who received food from the kitchen and are medically compromised. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) on February 1, 2022, at 10:19 AM, there was black and red slime buildup on the ice chute inside ice machine storage bin. Surveyor used a white paper towel to remove a chunk (spoonful) of the black and red slime from around the rim of the ice chute, where ice drops and enters the ice storage bin. Verified black and red slime with MS. MS stated he cleaned the inside top part of the ice machine, where ice was made monthly. When he cleaned the top part of the ice machine, he had housekeeping clean the ice storage bin. MS stated the housekeeping may need to adjust deep cleaning twice per month instead of once per month to prevent the buildup of slime. He stated that he thinks that housekeeping may have missed that area where the buildup was found because it is hard to reach. During an interview on February 1, 2022, at 12:31 PM, with Housekeeping 1 (HK1) and the MS, in front of ice machine. HK 1 stated she just cleaned the ice machine storage bin with bleach and water mixture. After she cleaned the ice machine storage bin, she needed to write down the date in the ice machine sanitation log located next to ice machine. But today she forgot to write the date. HK 1 showed the sanitation log to surveyors and stated her coworker just cleaned the ice machine yesterday on January 31, 2022. Surveyor used white napkin to wipe the ice chute inside the ice storage bin. There still was black slime buildup. Verified finding with HK 1 and MS. HK 1 stated she had no idea why after she cleaned the internal ice machine storage bin with bleach, the black slime was still there. During an interview on February 1, 2022, at 4:27 PM, with ice machine Service Technician (ST) from company name, ST stated he provided services for the facility's ice machine many years. There was an area where the gasket (rubber piece that lined the top of the ice bin where the ice maker sat on top) was damaged in the ice machine. He stated that dirt could enter there, had that was how the slime buildup developed. ST recommended they replace the gasket of the ice machine and use bleach to sanitize ice machine ice storage bin to remove slime. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017,, it indicates that (A) Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch and food-contact surfaces shall be smooth, free of breaks, open seams, cracks, chips, inclusions, pits, and similar imperfections, free from sharp internal angles, corners, and crevices, finished to have smooth welds and joints . The Food Code states that the purpose of the requirements for multiuse food-contact surfaces is to ensure that such surfaces are capable of being easily cleaned and accessible for cleaning. Food-contact surfaces that do not meet these requirements provide a potential harbor for foodborne pathogenic organisms. Surfaces which have imperfections such as cracks, chips, or pits allow microorganisms to attach and form biofilms. Once established, these biofilms can release pathogens to food. Biofilms are highly resistant to cleaning and sanitizing efforts. During a record review of the Federal FDA 2017 Food Code 4-204.17, indicated The potential for mold and algal growth in this area is very likely due to the high moisture environment. Molds and algae that form . are difficult to remove and present a risk of contamination to the ice stored in the bin. During a record review of the Ice machine Cleaner and Sanitizer Usage titled, [Company name], undated, provided by MS indicated, Cleaning the Ice Bin and Drop Zone. Ice is held in ice bins and dispensers until it's ready to be used. As this is where ice spends the majority of its time, it's imperative to clean the ice bin thoroughly. Mold, slime, and algae can grow in an ice bin, feeding off dust and yeast from the air and enjoying relative privacy in the dark, moist bin environment. Get a bead on these contaminants and wipe them out during deep cleaning .Descale Your Ice Bin 2. Remove any visible grime or debris by wiping the interior . with warm water and a cloth . During a record review of the facility's policy titled, Sanitation, Revised 2017, indicated, 2. All . equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair, and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, cracks and chipped areas . During a record review of the Food and Nutrition Monthly Kitchen Audit Checklist/Report, dated November 30, 2021, December 28, 2021, and January 25, 2022, the RD 1 put a check mark met on the box 40 that indicated The interior and exterior of the ice Machine is clean and operable, free of rust. Ice scoop is covered when not in use. Passes white paper towel test. Record Review of the facility document titled Diet Order Listing Report. dated February 1, 2022, indicated there were 91 residents on PO (by mouth) diet. Review of the facility document titled Diet Order Listing Report, dated February 1, 2022, indicated there was one resident on NPO (nothing by mouth) means not receiving food by mouth. An immediate jeopardy (IJ) was called on 483.60(i)(2) - Store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, on February 1, 2022, at 3:00 PM, the survey team verbally notified the facility Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Maintenance Supervisor of the IJ due to the ice machines not being kept in sanitary condition. Failure to maintain sanitary ice machines had the potential to cause food-borne illness to the highly susceptible residents who received ice from the ice machines. The Corrective Action Plan (CAP) included the following: 1. Turned off the ice machine for servicing and sanitizing, until the issue(s) have been resolved. 2. Contacted a third party licensed vendor for immediate servicing and cleaning ice machine. 3. Provided in service training to maintenance staff, and dietary staff by the third party licensed vendor. 4. Purchased ice from the store while the ice machine was being serviced. 5. Based on the third party licensed vendor's recommendations, the ice storage bin gasket was replaced. 6. The ice machine bin will be cleaned twice a month and as needed. 7. The maintenance Supervisor will inspect the ice machine and document in the cleaning log every 2 weeks and as needed. Action plan completed on February 2, 2022. 1. Third party licensed ice machine service vendor was contacted, and ice machine service technician was in the facility on February 1, 2022. Service Technician recommended replace the bin gasket of the ice machine. Service Technician also provided in service on cleaning and sanitizing ice machine and ice storage bin with Maintenance Supervisor and Interim Dietary Manager. 2. The ice machine gasket replaced on February 1, 2022. 3. The Maintenance Supervisor received training on cleaning and sanitizing ice machine and ice storage bin. 4. The Interim Dietary Manager received training on cleaning and sanitizing ice machine and ice storage bin. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 11:31 AM, with MS and Interim Dietary Manager (IDM), in front of ice machine. MS stated he replaced old gasket of ice machine per ST recommendation. In future, dietary and maintenance will clean and disinfect ice machine biweekly, housekeeping clean and disinfect exterior ice machine daily. Verified with IDM, he stated he is going to clean internal ice machine biweekly. When cleaning internal ice machine, he would remove ice from ice storage bin. Then he cleaned the ice storage bin with sanitizer solution including ice chute. Any build up and any color slime should not be in ice machine storage bin. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with Registered Dietitian 1 (RD 1) and Interim Dietary Manager (IDM), at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated she only checked ice machine sanitation log; checked that there was no ice scoop inside internal ice machine storage bin; She used a white paper tower to check the cover of the ice bin. She stated she does not check the ice chute for cleanliness. During an interview on February 3, 2022, at 9:45 AM, with IDM. IDM stated ice from the ice machine is for everyone (residents, employee) in this building and also used for food preparation in the kitchen. During an interview on February 3, 2022, 12:40 PM, with HK 1. HK 1 stated when she clean ice machine on February 1, 2022, she only used bleach and water. There was a little slime (look like Jell-O) come out from ice storage bin. HK 1 admitted she may miss the ice chute because it hard to reach. During an interview on February 4, 2022, at 10:08 AM, with MS, MS stated the manufacturer guidelines for the ice machine indicated that the ice machine needed to be cleaned every six months and did not provide instruction on how to clean or scrub the interior of the ice storage bin, so he developed a cleaning protocol. He stated despite using the cleaning protocol, he thought that housekeeping probably did not reach into the ice storage bin and look up into ice chute to clean it. That is why surveyor found the slime build up. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 11:01 AM, ice machine was clean, no slime buildup. During a review of facility invoice for ice machine service vendor [Company name], dated February 1, 2022, indicated Start time: 3:40. Time finish: 4:40. Service Performed: Give instructions on cleaning and sanitizing ice machine and bin with maintenance supervisor and Dietary supervisor. Replacement of bin gasket should be done. During a review of facility's receipt [Company name], dated February 1, 2022, at 6:41 PM provided by MS, indicated purchasing of ice machine gasket. During a review of facility document titled, In-service on how to properly clean the ice machine, dated February 1, 2022, at 4:30 PM indicated Maintenance Supervisor and Interim Dietary manager completed the competency training on February 1, 2022. The Immediate Jeopardy was abated on February 2, 2022, at 3:11 PM, in the presence of the Administrator, at the Administrator office, after an acceptable corrective action plan was provided and verified to be implemented by observation, interviews, and document review. 2. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, 6-103.12, indicated, Water under pressure shall be provided to all fixtures, equipment, and nonfood equipment that are required to use water and inadequate water pressure could lead to situations that place the public health at risk. For example, inadequate pressure could result in improper handwashing. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, 5-202.12, indicated, A handwashing sink shall be equipped to provide water at a temperature of at least 38° C (100°F) through a mixing valve or combination faucet, and Warm water is more effective than cold water in removing the fatty soils encountered in kitchens. An adequate flow of warm water will cause soap to lather and aid in flushing soil quickly from the hands. ASTM Standards for testing the efficacy of handwashing formulations specify a water temperature of 40°C ± 2°C (100 to 108°F). During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 11:12 AM, the handwashing sink located in the dish washing area, was not providing enough hot water pressure. When cold water was used to increase the water pressure, it caused water to came out from faucet cold. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. IDM stated he had brought up to maintenance that the hand washing sink located in dish washing area had inadequate water pressure, but maintenance claimed they could not fix it because of the location. RD 1 stated she expected the handwashing sink to meet adequate temperature and pressure to meet the Food Code. 3. The Federal Code 2017 indicates food contacted surface and utensils are to be clean to sight and touch and utensils and food contact surfaces of equipment are to have a smooth, easily cleanable surface and resistant to scratching, and decomposition. During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 9:42 AM, the microwave was dirty with food crumbs and yellow grime on the top inside where food is placed to be warmed. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated the microwave should be cleaned weekly. RD 1 expected microwave should have a weekly deep clean and kept clean with wipe down after meal service. During a review of the facility's policy titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner .2. All .equipment shall be kept clean. 3. All equipment, food contact surfaces .shall be washed to remove or completely loosen soils. 4. During a concurrent observation and interview with the IDM, on February 1, 2022, at 9:21 AM, the floor under the stainless-steel counters, between juice machine and coffee maker, had a build-up of dust, trash and black grime. The floor under the center islands had food trash, debris, and used gloves. The IDM stated it should not be like that. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated the floor should be cleaned four times per day. Cleaned after each meal trayline and 4th time cleaned was end of the day. She stated after New year, this facility had hired lot of new employees. Possibly there was some job responsibility confusion. Will continue to do in-service and request Dietary Assistant supervisor do spot check. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, (A) Physical facilities shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean. Cleaning of the physical facilities is an important measure in ensuring the protection and sanitary preparation of food. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, it indicated, Cleanliness of the food establishment is important to minimize attractants for insects and rodents, aid in preventing the contamination of food and equipment, and prevent nuisance conditions. During a review of the facility policy's titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 1. All kitchen, Kitchen areas and dining area shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish .15. Kitchen .not in contact with food shall be cleaned on a regular schedule and frequently enough to prevent accumulation of grime. 5. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, Dead rodents, birds, and insects must be removed promptly from the facilities to ensure clean and sanitary facilities and to preclude exacerbating the situation by allowing carcasses to attract other pests. During a concurrent observation and interview with the IDM, on February 1, 2022, at 9:32 AM, at dry food storage. The floor under dry food storage shelves had a build-up of food crumbs, cheerios. Three dead roaches were found on the floor underneath a black crate. IDM stated Dietary staff had not done cleaning under shelves in dry food storage. Dietary staff sweep and mop dry food storage room twice per week. Every two-week, dietary staff clean the storage room underneath shelves. Once per month dietary staff do the deep cleaning at dry food storage room. There is no cleaning log for food dry storage room done bi-weekly. I do not notice any pests in the kitchen. If there is pest issue, I will inform Maintenance Supervisor. Maintenance Supervisor will contact pest control vendor. IDM admitted it is not enough cleaning in dry food storage room since there was build up food crumbs and dead roaches. During an interview on February 1, 2020, at 10:51 AM, with MS, MS stated that pest control company come one per month at the beginning of the month. The pests contract company came out and sprays for free if they have to call between the one-month time frame. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated the floor needed to be swept regularly, there should not be food crumbs, cheerios, and roaches. Dietary would notify maintenance if there was pest issue. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, (A) Physical facilities shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep them clean. Cleaning of the physical facilities is an important measure in ensuring the protection and sanitary preparation of food. During a review of the facility's policy titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 1. All kitchen, Kitchen areas and dining area shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish and protected from rodents, roaches, flies and other insects. During a review of the facility's policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, Revised October 2017, indicated Foods shall received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. 1. Food Services, or other designated staff. Will maintain clean food storage area all times. 6. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, .(C) Non-food contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris. The presence of food debris or dirt on nonfood contact surfaces may provide a suitable environment for the growth of microorganisms which employees may inadvertently transfer to food. If these areas are not kept clean, they may also provide harborage for insects, rodents and other pests. During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 9:26 AM, there was black grime and food crumbs inside cabinet of the steamtable. Cabinet was not used for storage, but it was a potential area to attract pests. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. IDM stated the cabinet of the steamtable had not been cleaned in a long time. During a review of the facility's policy titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 15. Kitchen .not in contact with food shall be cleaned on a regular schedule and frequently enough to prevent accumulation of grime. 7. During a record review of the FDA Federal Code 2017, indicates food contact surface and utensils are to be clean to sight and touch and utensils and food contact surfaces of equipment are to have a smooth, easily cleanable surface and resistant to scratching, and decomposition. During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 9:43 AM, there was black grime at the base of can opener and sticky residue on blade. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. IDM stated he expected can opener should be clean after each used. During a review of the facility's policy titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 2. All .equipment shall be kept clean. 3. All equipment, food contact surfaces .shall be washed to remove or completely loosen soils . 8. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, .(C) Non-food contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris. The presence of food debris or dirt on nonfood contact surfaces may provide a suitable environment for the growth of microorganisms which employees may inadvertently transfer to food. If these areas are not kept clean, they may also provide harborage for insects, rodents and other pests. During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 9:29 AM, the storage space on stove had food crumbs, and was dirty and dusty. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated the storage space on stove should be kept clean. During a review of the facility's policy titled, Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner.15. Kitchen .not in contact with food shall be cleaned . 9. During a record review of the FDA Food Code 2017, Equipment and utensils must be designed and constructed to be durable and capable of retaining their original characteristics so that such items can continue to fulfill their intended purpose for the duration of their life expectancy and to maintain their easy cleanability. If they cannot maintain their original characteristics, they may become difficult to clean, allowing for the harborage of pathogenic microorganisms, insects, and rodents. During a concurrent observation and interview with DM (Dietary Manager) and IDM on February 2, 2022, at 9:09 AM, dry food storage room located across from the family room, observed tears in the linoleum shelves covering. Interviewed DM who works in sister facility come to this facility helping. DM stated It is not acceptable to have tears in the linoleum shelves coverings, they need to remodel the shelves. Debris that gets caught under the torn linoleum will attract pests. Interviewed IDM, IDM stated Maintenance aware the tear and torn shelves, pending approval to get shelves fix. IDM admitted it is not acceptable to have tear and torn shelves in dry food storage. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated shelves in the dry food storage cannot be sanitized correctly because the linoleum was peeling on the shelves. IDM stated maintenance will take out the shelves and replaced new shelves. During a review of the facility's policy titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. 2. All ., shelves shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning. 10. During a record review of the FDA Federal Food Code 2017, indicates A plumbing system shall be installed to preclude backflow of a solid, liquid, or gas contaminant into the water supply system at each point of use at the food establishment, including on a hose [NAME] if a hose is attached or on a hose [NAME] if a hose is not attached and backflow prevention is required by LAW, by: (A) Providing an air gap as specified under 5-202.12. 5-202.13 indicated An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the plumbing fixture, equipment, or nonfood equipment shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than one inch. In addition, During periods of extraordinary demand, drinking water systems may develop negative pressure in portions of the system. If a connection exists between the system and a source of contaminated water during times of negative pressure, contaminated water may be drawn into and foul the entire system. Providing an air gap between the water supply outlet and the flood level rim of the plumbing fixture or equipment prevents contamination that may be caused by backflow. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 2, 2022, at 9:42 AM, with the MS, the three compartment sinks that was also used for food preparations did not have air gap. MS stated that a plumbing company recently come to fix the pipes because they were backing up. He stated they did a drain clean out. 11. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 10:10 AM, the dish machine wash water temperature gauge was observed at 100 degrees Fahrenheit (Fahrenheit unit of measurement °F). Verified dish machine wash temperature with DA 2, she stated it was 102 °F. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated will request dish machine [company name] come in checked the inadequate dish machine wash water temperature. During a review of the facility's policy titled Sanitization, Revised July 2017, indicated The food service area shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary manner . 8. Dishwashing machines must be operated using the following specifications: Low Temperature Dishwasher (Chemical sanitization). a. Wash temperature (120 °F). 12. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 2, 2022, at 9:22 AM, with IDM, reach in freeze, observed a box of 20-pound opened bread stick exposed to the air. Another box of opened 20.5-pound Ranch style roll exposed to the air. Walk in freeze had a box of opened Cinnamon French toast exposed to the air. Interviewed IDM. IDM stated, opened foods items need to be seal. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. IDM 1 stated he needed to do in service opened food items need to be seal. During a review of the facility policy statement Food Receiving and Storage, Revised October 2017, indicated Foods shall received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. 8. All foods stored in the refrigerator and freeze will be covered .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

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 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR- a f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR- a federal requirement to help ensure individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) was re-evaluated after a Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA- a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS- a facility assessment tool) assessment done for a resident that must be completed when a resident meets the significant change guidelines for either improvement or decline), for one resident reviewed for PASRR (Resident 51). This failure had the potential for Resident 51 not to receive the care and services most appropriate for her needs. Findings: During a review of Resident 51's clinical record, the face sheet (contains demographic and medical information) indicated, Resident 51 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder (mental disorder characterized by depressed mood or loss of interest in activities), dementia (a group of conditions affecting memory and judgement), and psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by disconnection from reality). During an interview with MDS Nurse 1 on February 3, 2022, at 8:01 AM, she stated the facility do not re-evaluate PASRR after a SCSA. A concurrent interview and record review of Resident 51's MDS, dated [DATE], was conducted with MDS Nurse 1, on February 3, 2022, at 10:14 AM. She stated Resident 51's SCSA was done because of weight loss and change in continence (ability to control movements of the bowels and bladder) level. She further stated the latest PASSR on file was dated October 12, 2020, and her PASRR was also not re-evaluated after the completion of the SCSA. During a follow up interview with MDS Nurse 1, on February 3, 2022, at 12:18 PM, she stated the facility did not follow the PASRR Guidelines. A review of the Department of Health Care Services Guide to Completing the PASRR Level I Screening, dated May 2018, indicated, Select Resident Review (RR) (Status Change) if the individual has already been admitted to your facility and you are updating the existing PASRR on file for either of the following reasons: A. The individual's stay has exceeded the 30-day exempted hospital discharge 1. The Resident Review Level I Screening should be submitted by the 40th calendar day after admission for such cases. B. There is a significant change in an individual's physical or mental condition. According to the MDS 3.0 manual a significant change is a decline or improvement in an individual's status that: 1. Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions, is not self-limiting (for declines only) and 2. Impacts more than one area of the individual's health status and 3. Requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision of the care plan.
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 licensed nurses performed glucometer (a machine that monitors how much sugar is in the blood) calibration (the process...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nurses performed glucometer (a machine that monitors how much sugar is in the blood) calibration (the process of setting up an instrument to provide a result for a sample within an acceptable range) in accordance with the facility policy and manufacturer's guidelines. This deficient practice had the potential to cause a wrong blood sugar reading in a vulnerable population of 28 residents who gets their blood sugar monitored. Findings: A review of Assure Platinum Blood glucose monitoring system Quality Assurance/ Quality Control Reference Manual page 15 indicated, Step 1: Insert the test strip .Step 2: Press the Back or Forward button one time to enter the control solution mode. A control solution bottle will appear at the top right of the screen .Step 3: Mix solution by gently inverting control solution bottle several times (do not shake). Remove the cap from the control solution bottle and place on flat surface. Squeeze the bottle and discard the first drop. Apply the second drop to the top of the clean cap. Step 4: Bring meter and strip to drop. Test strip will draw up the solution. The meter will show result in 7 seconds. Step 5: Compare the result to the range printed on the test strip bottle. Make sure the result is within the acceptable range. If the result falls within this range, the meter and test strip are working correctly. Note: Do not use system if control solution result is out of range . During a concurrent observation and interview with a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2), on February 3, 2022, at 6:45 AM, LVN 2 performed a glucometer calibration. He squeezed the control solution bottle and applied the first drop of the solution on the bottom flat surface of a medication cup. He brought the meter and strip to the drop and waited for the result. The meter result was not within the acceptable range. (He did not follow Step 3. He used a medication cup instead of the solution bottle cap. He did not use the second drop of the solution. He used the first drop, which should have been discarded). During further observation and interview with LVN 2, on February 3, 2022, at 7:18 AM, LVN 2 calibrated three more glucometer machines. The control solution (High) results were not within acceptable range (213-266), readings were 364, 365, and 358. After going back and forth asking for assistance, he was able to get the reading within range, 243. LVN 2 stated he was mistaken and was pressing the wrong buttons. (LVN 2 did not follow Step 2. He did not set the meter in the control solution mode). During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN 4, on February 3, 2022, at 2:13 PM, LVN 4 performed a glucometer calibration. She squeezed the control solution bottle and applied the first drop of the solution on the bottom flat surface of a medication cup. She brought the meter and strip to the drop and waited for the result. (She did not follow Step 3. She used a medication cup instead of the solution bottle cap. She did not use the second drop of the solution. She used the first drop, which should have been discarded.) During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), on February 4, 2022, at 8:06 AM, she stated glucometers were calibrated to ensure accurate blood sugar readings throughout the day, and if not calibrated it can potentially harm the residents. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DSD, on February 4, 2022, at 11:45 AM, the DSD reviewed the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Performing A Control Solution Test for Glucometer, dated October 2008, which indicated, The facility will perform a control solution test on the glucometer based on manufacturer's guidance. The DSD stated the facility must follow the manufacturer's guidelines in performing glucometer calibration.
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 medications were properly labeled, dated, and stored when opened for Over the Counter (OTC- are medicines sold directl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly labeled, dated, and stored when opened for Over the Counter (OTC- are medicines sold directly to a consumer without a requirement for prescription) medication bottles were available for use in one of three Medication Storage Rooms. This failure had the potential to cause unsafe and/or inappropriate storage and administration of medications for a highly vulnerable population of 92 residents. Findings: During an inspection of the Medication Storage Room at Station 2 with the Director of Nursing (DON), on February 3, 2022, at 7:03 AM, the DON acknowledged the medication storage cabinet had the following: 1. An opened, undated Oyster Shell Calcium (calcium supplement) 500 mg (milligrams - a unit of measurement) bottle. 2. An opened, undated Ferrous Gluconate (iron supplement) 5Gr (Grain-a unit of measurement) 324 mg. bottle. 3. An opened, undated Ibuprofen (pain medication) 200 mg. bottle. 4. An opened, undated Simethicone (medication to reduce gas formation) 80 mg. bottle. During a subsequent interview with the DON, on February 3, 2022, at 7:06 AM, she stated these medication bottles should be dated and should have been removed per facility protocol. A concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the DON on February 4, 2022, at 10:42 AM. She reviewed the facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Medication Room, dated February 2022, and stated it was not followed. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Policy and Procedure on Medication Room, effective February 2022, the P&P indicated, Over the counter medications not limited to supplements on bottles, eye drops once opened shall be labeled with the open date.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Food and Nutrition Services staff had appropriate competencies to carry out the functions of the food and nutritio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Food and Nutrition Services staff had appropriate competencies to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services when two Dietary Aide (Dietary Aide 1 and Dietary Aide 2) did not know how to check the sanitation concentration on the dish machine. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illness (stomach illness acquired from ingesting contaminated food) to all residents, in a medically compromised population of 91 out of 92 residents who received foods from the kitchen. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interviews on February 2, 2022, at 9:56 AM, with Dietary Aide 1(DA 1), Dietary Aide 2 (DA 2) and Interim Dietary Manager (IDM), in dishwashing area. Observed DA 1 tested the sanitation level of the dish machine by dipping a chlorine test strip inside the liquid once the dish machine was done washing, he swirled the paper strip in the water. He then compared the color of the test strip to the indicator colors of the chlorine test strip container. DA 1 not sure which indicator colors he supposed to compared it to. He stated that the chlorine test strip color should be between 100 ppm (measured as parts per million) and 200 ppm. Interviewed DA 2, DA 2 also could not verbalize the correct ppm. DA 2 stated it needed to be in 200 ppm. DA 2 stated she used the test strips for the Quaternary Ammonium to test the dish machine. Interviewed IDM, IDM stated that the ppm for dish machine should be 50 - 100 ppm with chlorine test strip. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with Registered Dietitian (RD 1) and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. IDM stated he did initial dish machine training for new employees. No other in serving training done by him or by Registered Dietitian for dish machine since they were hired. DA 1 was a new employee hired during December 2021. DA 2 had been in this facility for 6 months. During a review of DA 1's Dietary Employee Orientation Checklist, dated January 18, 2022, the Dietary Employee Orientation Checklist indicated, DA 1 hired date: December 28, 2021. During a review of DA 1's Verification of Job Competency Demonstration - Diet Aide, dated January 18, 2022, the Verification of Job Competency Demonstration - Diet Aide indicated, DA 1 able verbalized knowledge of sanitation method used in dish machine and proper concentration and verified by IDM. During a review of DA 1's Competency Test for Cooks and Dietary Staff, dated January 18, 2022, the Competency Test for Cooks and Dietary Staff indicated, Question 14. What is the correct concentration of chlorine (bleach) for low temperature dish machine? DA 1 answered number 14 question correct with 50 -100. IDM reviewed the test with his signature on the test. During a review of DA 2's Dietary Employee Orientation Checklist, dated August 11, 2021, the Dietary Employee Orientation Checklist indicated, DA 2 hired date: August 5, 2021. During a review of DA 2's Verification of Job Competency Demonstration - Diet Aide, dated August 11, 2021, the Verification of Job Competency Demonstration - Diet Aide indicated, DA 2 able demonstrated knowledge of sanitation method used in dish machine and proper concentration and verified by IDM. During a review of DA 2's Competency Test for Cooks and Dietary Staff, dated August 11, 2021, the Competency Test for Cooks and Dietary Staff indicated, Question 14. What is the correct concentration of chlorine (bleach) for low temperature dish machine? DA 1 answered number 14 question correct with 50 -100. IDM reviewed the test with his signature on the test. During a review of the facility's policy titled Dishwashing Machine Use, Revised July 2019, indicated Dishwashing machine chemical sanitizer minimum concentration chlorine should be 50-100 ppm.
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure trash can lids were functioning and ready to use when the foo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure trash can lids were functioning and ready to use when the footstep was not functioning in multiple residents' isolation rooms (residential care needs Personal Protective Equipment (PPE- gown gloves and face masks to provide care to control the source of infection). This failure had the potential to spread the source of infection and to compromise the health and wellbeing from a universe of 92 residents who were on isolation precautions (use PPE while providing care to the residents). Findings: During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 10:26 AM, in a resident room [room [ROOM NUMBER]] observed a trash can lid on the floor separated from the trash can. During a concurrent observation and interview with a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 1) on February 1, 2022, at 10: 30 AM, CNA 1 confirmed the trash can's lid was broken and found on the floor. CNA 1 stated some of the trash lids were broken and they can fix it easily. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 1, 2022, at 11:10 AM, in a shared resident room [room [ROOM NUMBER]] CNA 1 confirmed the trash lid was broken and it was on the floor. During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 11:14 AM, in a shared resident room [room [ROOM NUMBER]], an employee attempted to open the trash can using the footstep and it did not open. Employee then lifted the trash can lid with one hand and discarded the PPEs in the trash can. During a concurrent observation and interview with CNA 2 on February 1, 2022, at 11:14 AM, in resident room [room [ROOM NUMBER]] CNA 2 confirmed the trash can lid was separated and not functioning. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 9:32 AM, in a resident room [room [ROOM NUMBER]], the trash can footstep was not working. During a concurrent observation and interview with Assistant Director of Staff Development (ADSD) on February 2, 2022, at 9:45 AM, in [room [ROOM NUMBER]], the ADSD confirmed the trash cans' footstep were nonfunctioning and the employees were expected to remove the trash can lid manually with one hand and keep the lid on the floor then discard the PPE after resident care. The ADSD further stated employees in serviced to wear a glove and place the lid back on the trash can. The ADSD stated trash can footstep were supposed to be always functionable especially in the isolation rooms to control the source of infection and to prevent cross contamination. During an interview with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP) on February 4, 2022, at 11: 56 AM, the IP stated trash can footsteps were intended to be contactless or non-touch to discard the PPEs especially in isolation rooms to control the source of infection and s prevent cross contamination. The IP stated broken trash can lid were not acceptable. Facility was unable to provide a policy and procedure for broken trash can lid.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 document the Minimum Data Set (MDS- facility assessment tool) for three ( Residents 38, 81, and 155) of seven residents reviewed for MDS accuracy when: 1. Resident 38's Clopidogrel- an antiplatelet (medication that prevents blood cells from sticking together forming a clot) was coded as anticoagulant (medication that prevents the formation of blood clots) in Resident 38's MDS, dated [DATE]. 2. Resident 81's Clopidogrel- an antiplatelet was coded as anticoagulant in Resident 81's MDS, dated [DATE]. 3. Resident 155's MDS assessment for Active Diagnoses was left blank. These failed practices had the potential to result in unmet care needs for Residents 38, 81 and 155, which can affect the health and safety of the residents. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 38's clinical records indicated, Resident 38 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (a group of conditions affecting memory and judgement), bipolar disorder (disorder associated with episodes of mood swings), and hypertension (elevated blood pressure). A review of Resident 38's Physician's Order Summary Report, dated October 27, 2021, indicated, Resident 38 was prescribed, Clopidogrel 75 milligram (mg- unit of measurement) by mouth once a day for clot (clumps of blood) prevention starting May 18, 2021. A concurrent interview and record review of Resident 38's MDS, dated [DATE], was conducted with MDS Nurse 1, on February 3, 2022, at 7:45 AM. Section N indicated, Resident 38 received anticoagulant for 7 days. She stated Resident 38 was taking Clopidogrel and was coded as an anticoagulant. She stated it was coded incorrectly, Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet and not an anticoagulant medication. 2. A review of Resident 81's clinical record, indicated, Resident 81 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus (a disease that results in high blood sugar), Sepsis (blood infection), and hypertension. A review of Resident 81's Physician's Order Summary Report, dated October 14, 2021, indicated, Resident 81 was prescribed Aspirin 81 milligram by mouth once a day for clot prevention starting October 14, 2021. A concurrent interview and record review of Resident 81's MDS, dated [DATE], was conducted with MDS Nurse 1, on February 3, 2022, at 7:50 AM. Section N indicated, Resident 81 received anticoagulant for 7 days. She stated Resident 81 was taking Aspirin and was coded as anticoagulant not as an antiplatelets. She stated Resident 8's MDS was coded incorrectly. A review of CMS's (Centers for Medicare and Medical Services) RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Version 3.0 Manual, revised October 2019, N041E, Anticoagulant (e.g., warfarin, heparin, or low-molecular weight heparin), indicated, Record the number of days an anticoagulant medication was received at any time during the 7-day look back period (or since admission, entry or reentry if less than 7 days). Do not code antiplatelet medications such as aspirin/extended release, dipyrimadole, or clopidogrel here. 3. During a review of Resident 155's admission Record (data contains demographic information) indicated, Resident 155 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs), hypertension and diabetes mellitus. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 4, 2022, at 9: 51 AM, with the MDS Nurse 1, reviewed Resident 155's admission MDS dated [DATE], section I (active diagnoses) and confirmed the diagnoses section of Resident 155's MDS assessment was completely left blank. MDS Nurse 1 stated she was going to modify the assessment. MDS Nurse 1 further reviewed Resident 155's admission Record and confirmed the diagnoses and stated she should have documented the assessment completely. During a follow up interview and record review with the MDS Nurse 1, on February 4, 2022, at 10:18 AM, the MDS Nurse 1 reviewed Center's for Medicare and Medical Service's (CMS) RAI Version 3.0 Manual, revised October 2019, the MDS Nurse 1 stated the manual for active diagnoses was not followed by MDS Nurse. The MDS Nurse 1 stated they are expected to code the assessments accurately and completely. A review of CMS's RAI Version 3.0 Manual, revised October 2019, Page I-1, 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, medical treatments, nursing monitoring, or risk of death. One of the important functions of the MDS is to generate an updated, accurate picture of the resident's current health status.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

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 follow its policy on Food Temperature to provide appe...

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 on Food Temperature to provide appetizing food at appropriate temperatures according to residents' preferences for three of 91 sampled residents (Resident 17, 70, 104). This failure placed residents at potential risk to decrease nutritional intake and affect the resident's nutrition status. Finding: During an interview on February 1, 2022, at 11:50 AM, with Resident 17, Resident 17 stated, the food was always cold. During an interview on February 1, 2022, at 9:00 AM, with Resident 70, Resident 70 stated, lousy food, the food was cold all the time. During an interview on February 1, 2022, at 9:47 AM, with Resident 104, Resident 104 stated, terrible foods, the food serves cold. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 11:53 AM, with Interim Dietary Manager (IDM) meal cart leaving kitchen with test meal inside. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 11:54 AM, with IDM meal cart with test meal inside arrived station 1 hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 12:00 PM, with IDM meal cart with test meal inside send to hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 12:03 PM, with IDM meal cart with test meal inside send back to hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER] and stay there waiting for CNAs to get meal trays for residents who need feeding assistance. Before CNAs entered resident room delivery meal tray, CNAs put on isolation grown and glove. During an observation on February 2, 2022, at 12:13 PM, with IDM meal cart with test meal inside send back to hallway outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. Last meal tray from the meal cart was delivered to the resident. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 2, 2022, at 12:14 PM, with IDM, at Sun patio dining room, a test meal was conducted for food temperature and palatability of the regular and puree diet meals. The following temperatures were obtained from the test meal: Regular diet for beef: 112 degrees Fahrenheit (Fahrenheit unit of measurement °F), spinach: 123 °F , potatoes:107 °F . Puree diet for beef: 115 °F, spinach at 107 °F, potatoes:107 °F, bread:109 °F, milk:50 °F . Verified with IDM who also conduct the test tray with surveyor, he agreed pureed spinach was cold. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with RD 1 and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated they have been working on getting the meal out faster to the residents. However, because of COVID-19 and all residents are being quarantined for potential COVID-19 outbreak and the nursing staff have to put on gloves and isolation gown before entering each room and delivering the food trays, that may be contributing to the delay in getting meals to residents and the food being cold. During an interview on February 3, 2022, at 9:08 AM, with IDM, IDM stated that he thinks his staff probably put to many plates in the plate warmer which would cause it not work properly. IDM expect his staff will keep the amount of plates they need in plate warmer. During a review of the facility policy Food Temperatures, Revised May 2011, indicated Policy Statement. Foods should be served at proper temperature to ensure food safety and palatability. 18. Palatability of foods determines appropriate temperature at bedsides or tableside food. Generally hot food is palatable between 110 degrees Fahrenheit or greater .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate food textures was provided when 13 of 13 residents (Residents 50, 39, 102, 16, 14, 25, 30,10, 63, 55, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate food textures was provided when 13 of 13 residents (Residents 50, 39, 102, 16, 14, 25, 30,10, 63, 55, 28, 355, 33) with pureed texture (a diet with food texture of smooth like pudding or mashed potatoes that requires no chewing for one who has difficulty chewing and/ or swallowing) received a bowl of Peanut Butter and Chocolate Swirl Pie pureed dessert with runny, watery consistency, had lumpy and chunk for lunch on February 2 2022. This failure had the potential to place the residents at risk of choking and aspiration. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on February 2, 2022, at 12:14 PM, with Interim Dietary manager (IDM), at Sun patio dining room, a test meal was conducted. Observed a bowl of pureed texture Peanut butter and Chocolate Swirl Pie dessert with runny, watery consistency, had chunk and lump in dessert. The IDM stated the consistency for the pureed dessert was too runny and was not supposed to have lump and chunk on it. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with Registered Dietitian (RD 1) and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated pureed consistency should not have lump, chunk, and able to spoon to mold form. During an interview on February 3, 2022, at 9:08 AM, with IDM, IDM stated pureed dessert had lump or chunk because dietary staff who make it does not blend it properly. During a review of an undated facility document titled Recipe: Pureed desserts, indicated, 4. Ensure mixture achieves smooth, lump free and extremely thick consistency. During a review of a facility document titled Diet Orders List dated February 1, 2022, indicated 13 of 13 residents received pureed texture.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their infection control and prevention program by not following their policy and procedures when: 1. Resident 70's urinal (a container used to collect urine) was unlabeled and had brownish orange stain on the bottom of the container. 2. For one out of six residents, (Resident 100) nasal cannula (oxygen tubing) was not changed as per the facility's policy and procedure. 3. A Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) failed to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE- equipment such as gloves, masks, and gowns worn by people who are at risk of injury or infection) and perform hand hygiene when she entered room [ROOM NUMBER] in the yellow zone (a designated area for symptomatic, suspected COVID-19, and residents awaiting test results; COVID-19 exposed residents; and newly admitted or re-admitted residents under observation for COVID-19 and/or with unknown COVID-19 vaccination status, or declined COVID-19 vaccination). 4. LVN 1 failed to wear appropriate PPE and perform hand hygiene when she entered room [ROOM NUMBER] in the yellow zone to administer medications. These failed practices had the potential for the spread of infection, and placing residents health and safety at risk of a highly susceptible population of 92 residents . Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 70's clinical record, the face sheet (contains demographic and medical information) indicated, Resident 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (kidneys can no longer function on their own) and contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral communicable diseases. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 70, on February 1, 2022, at 10:30 AM, in Resident 70's room, Resident 70 was lying in his bed, watching television. A urinal was hanging on his left side bed rail. The bottom part of the urinal was stained with brownish orange substance. It did not have a label to indicate who it belonged to. Resident 40 stated, they usually give me a new urinal every week and write my room number and bed, but they didn't do it on this one. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3), on February 1, 2022, at 10:40 AM, in Resident 70's room, she stated, Resident 70 should have a new urinal because it was soiled and unlabeled. During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), on February 4, 2022, at 8:10 AM, the DSD stated, it was the facility's practice to label the residents urinals with their initials and/or room number. She further stated unlabeled urinals may pose an infection control issue. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Labeling of Personal Items/ Personal Effects, dated October 2014, the P&P indicated, Policy. It is the facility's policy to ensure provision of services to the resident population, including but not limited to assisting resident in labeling his/ her personal items that it serves in a manner that does not compromise their health and safety. Steps in the procedure: 4. Personal items/ effects shall be labeled with resident's name and/or room number. 5. Borrowing or common use of such personal items/ effects shall not be allowed. 2. During a review of Resident 100's clinical record, the face sheet, indicated, Resident 100 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, heart disease, fluid overload (too much fluid in the body), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung condition that makes it hard to breathe), and contact with and (suspected) exposure to other viral. A review of Resident 100's Physicians' Telephone Orders Sheet, dated January 6, 2022, indicated, Oxygen 2LPM (Liters per Minute- unit of measurement) via nasal cannula continuously every shift. During a concurrent observation and interview with a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3), on February 1, 2022, at 12:00 PM, in Resident 100's room, a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen concentrator (device containing pressurized oxygen which delivers oxygen to a resident) had a date showing it was last changed on January 17, 2022 (14 days ago). LVN 3 stated nasal cannulas are supposed to be changed every week on Sunday nights. LVN 3 confirmed Resident 100's oxygen tubing was outdated and should be changed. During an interview on February 4, 2022, at 11:58 AM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated the protocol for nasal cannula was to change the nasal cannulas every week on Sundays, on the night shift. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled POLICY AND PROCEDURES ON OXYGEN THERAPY, dated October 2014, indicated, Policy: It is this facility 's policy to provide oxygen to residents, in a safe and therapeutic manner .Procedures. 9. Humidifiers, Tubing, and/or Infection Control Bag shall be changed every week labeled and dated . 3. During an observation on February 3, 2022, at 6:29 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had a sign posted next to the entry door that indicated, DROPLET PRECAUTIONS [used to prevent the spread of germs that are passed through the respiratory secretions] . STOP . Staff - Required: hand hygiene before entering room, gown and gloves to enter room, mask with eye shield within six feet of patient, and hand hygiene after exiting room. During an observation in the hallway of the yellow zone on February 3, 2022, at 6:33 AM, LVN 1 entered the room without wearing gown and gloves. She was later observed to leave the room without performing hand hygiene. During an interview on February 3, 2022, at 7:20 AM, with LVN 1, she acknowledged she did not wear the appropriate PPE and said, I did not put the gown and gloves on . LVN 1 stated she saw the sign outside the resident's room. She further stated she was supposed to wear the appropriate PPE and perform hand hygiene after she exited the room. She also stated it is not acceptable, it can transmit and spread infections among residents and staff. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP), on February 4, 2022, at 11:53 AM, the ICP stated staff were expected to follow Transmission-Based Precautions (TBP- infection control measures used to help stop the spread of infection) including appropriate use of PPE and hand hygiene as indicated in the droplet precaution signage. She stated the facility's policy was not followed and it is not acceptable. There is a risk for transmission of communicable diseases and infections. 4. During an observation on February 3, 2022, at 6:51 AM, room [ROOM NUMBER] had a sign posted next to the entry door indicated, DROPLET PRECAUTIONS STOP . Staff - Required: hand hygiene before entering room, gown and gloves to enter room, mask with eye shield within six feet of patient, and hand hygiene after exiting room. During a medication administration observation on February 3, 2022, at 6:53 AM, with LVN 1, LVN 1 entered a yellow zone resident room without wearing gown. LVN 1 later observed to leave the room without performing hand hygiene and prepared medications for the resident. During an interview on February 3, 2022, at 7:02 AM, with LVN 1, she acknowledged she did not wear the appropriate PPE. LVN 1 stated she saw the sign outside the resident's room. She stated she was supposed to wear the appropriate PPE and perform hand hygiene after she exited the room. LVN 1 stated not wearing proper PPE can transmit and spread infections. During a concurrent interview and record review with the ICP, on February 4, 2022, at 11:53 AM, the ICP stated staff were expected to follow TBP including appropriate use of PPE and hand hygiene as indicated in the droplet precaution signage. She stated the facility's policy was not followed. She stated it was not acceptable for there is a risk of transmitting infections. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, the P&P indicated, . Policy Interpretation and Implementation - 2. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents and visitors . 5. Use an alcohol-based hand rub . or alternatively, soap . and water for the following situations: .l. Before and after entering isolation precaution settings . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Personal Protective Equipment, revised October 2018, the P&P indicated, . Policy Interpretation and Implementation - 1. The type of PPE required for a task is based on .a. The type of transmission-based precaution .
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly when trash, and opened boxes were found outside on the floor surrounding the dumpster a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly when trash, and opened boxes were found outside on the floor surrounding the dumpster and the lids of the dumpsters did not close properly. This failure had the potential to attract pests and rodents. Findings: During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 9:48 AM, outside facility in front of the laundry area, the dumpster was overflow with trash and opened boxes. Lids of the dumpster was unable to fully close. Surrounding the dumpster on the floor there was trash and piles of opened boxes. During an observation on February 1, 2022, at 9:52 AM, outside facility in front of laundry, three recycle dumpster lids were not close. One of the trash dumpster had a white mattress sticking out and the lid was not closed. During a concurrent observation and interviews on February 2, 2022, at 9:51 AM, with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) and Interim Dietary Manager (IDM), in front of the dumpster. Observed the dumpster was overflowing with trash, and the lids were unable to close properly. There was trash, open boxes surrounding the floor outside the dumpster. MS stated the trash is picked up daily Monday through Friday. The dumpsters are always overflowing. The trash company will not take opened boxes that are on the floor, only if it is inside the dumpster. IDM stated the trash truck driver unwilling to load second round if there was more trash. During an interview on February 2, 2022, at 3:18 PM, with Registered Dietitian 1 (RD 1) and IDM, at Sun patio dining room. RD 1 stated the lids of the dumpters should be kept closed and should not be overflowing. During a review of the facility's policy titled Food - Related Garbage and Rubbish Disposal, Revised April 2006, indicated 7. Outside dumpster provided by garbage pick up services will be kept closed and free of surrounding litter.
Apr 2019 13 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of haza...

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 resident environment remained free of hazards when water temperatures within the facility reached 136.6 °F (Fahrenheit - unit of measure for temperature) in areas where hot water was accessible to residents. This failure lead to unsafe hot water temperatures which had the potential to cause severe burns and scalding to a vulnerable population of 103 Residents. Findings: On April 12, 2019, at 8:46 AM, during the recertification survey, a surveyor returned from using the common restroom located near Nurses Station 2 and across from room [ROOM NUMBER]. The surveyor informed the survey team, the water coming from the sink was noted to feel extremely hot to the touch. The surveyor stated he had to pull his hands back quickly due to how hot the water was despite his attempts to try and balance the temperature with cold water. On April 12, 2019, at 8:51 AM, a surveyor calibrated a digital probe thermometer per the manufacturers recommendations and requested the presence of a member from the maintenance department. The Assistant Maintenance Supervisor (AMS) arrived to assist the surveyor. During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:00 AM, The AMS placed his hand under the running water from the sink in the common restroom and snatched his hand back immediately and stated the water was really hot . The AMS further stated he did not have a thermometer with him and that he would use the surveyor's thermometer to test the temperature of the hot water in the sink. The AMS filled a cup with hot running water from the sink and placed a thermometer into the cup for the reading. The AMS read the hot water temperature reading aloud 133.8 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 133.8 °F. During an observation and interview with AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:17 AM, the AMS stated the water temperature in the common restroom was too high and could cause an accident. The AMS rechecked the hot water temperature from the sink in the common restroom located near Nurses Station 2 and stated the temperature was 133.8 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 133.8 °F During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:24 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the AMS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 131 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 131 °F. The AMS stated the temperature was too high and could cause injury. During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:28 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the AMS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 129.4 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 129.4 °F. The AMS stated the temperature was too high. During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:32 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the AMS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 132 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 132 °F. The AMS stated the temperature should be less than 120 °F. He further stated he did not understand why the temperature was so high. During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:37 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the AMS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 132.4 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 132.4 °F. The AMS stated he would need to discuss the findings with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS). During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:41 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the AMS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 136.6 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 136.6 °F. The AMS stated the water temperature was not getting better. He further stated the water temperature needed to be adjusted for safety. During an observation and concurrent interview with the AMS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:47 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the AMS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 136 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 136 °F. The AMS stated he needed to discuss the high water temperatures with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS). He stated the temperatures needed to be adjusted immediately. He further stated he knew it would take only a minute or two for a burn to occur with water temperatures at 136 °F. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 9:58 AM, the MS stated he had turned the water temperature up for residents to shower and had forgot to turn the water temperature back down. He further stated the water temperature was turned up to 136 °F, from 6:00 AM to 8:30 AM. The MS stated he monitors the temperature of the water by the gauge in the boiler room. He stated he rarely monitored the water with a thermometer in individual resident rooms. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 10:15 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the MS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 135.7 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 135.7 °F. The MS stated the water temperature should be between 105-120 °F and water temperatures above 120 °F could cause injury to the residents and staff. MS further stated he had been turning the water up to 136 °F since 2017. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 10:24 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the MS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 136 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 136 °F. The MS stated too hot. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 10:33 AM, in the boiler room, the MS stated the boiler room gauge was previously set at 136 °F but he recently adjusted the temperature back to 118 °F after the AMS had notified him of the water temperature findings. The MS demonstrated on the gauge where he set the temperature. He stated he would set the boiler temperature at 136-138 °F. The MS stated it was no determining factor about turning the temperature to 136 °F versus 138 °F, he stated those numbers were just the ones he had used. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 10:48 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the MS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 134.2 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 134.2 °F. The MS stated he did not know how long it took for the temperature of the water to reach 120 °F after turning the boiler/heater down. He stated the cooling of the water would depend on if the shower was in use or the hot water was being used. He further stated the water in the resident's sink could possibly burn a resident during shower time. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 10:55 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the MS checked the hot water temperature from the sink and stated it was 133.9 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 133.9 °F. The MS stated the water temperature was not safe. During an observation and concurrent interview with the MS, on April 12, 2019, at 11:05 AM, in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, the MS checked the hot water temperature from room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom sink and stated it was 134.8 °F. The surveyor viewed the thermometer reading for verification and the display showed 134.8 °F. The MS stated he had not ever timed how long it took for the water temperature to reach a safe temperature in the residents' room after he had turned the water temperature back to 118 °F. During an interview with Resident 66, on April 12, 2019, at 11:25 AM, Resident 66 stated sometimes the water temperature in the shower gets too hot. Resident 66 further stated while showering, she has tried to turn the knob to balance the water temperature but due to weakness of her hands, she cannot balance the water temperature and would throw the nozzle away from her body to keep from being scalded. During an interview with Resident 75, on April 12, 2019, at 11:33 AM, she stated the water in the sink gets too hot. During an interview with Resident 51, on April 12, 2019, at 11:39 AM, she stated the water gets hot and the knobs are hard to turn due to her hand weakness. During an interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN/SUP) on April 12, 2019, at 11:50 AM, the RN/SUP stated contact with water temperatures in excess of 120 °F can cause burns within seconds. During a follow up interview with MS, on April 12, 2019, at 12:20 PM, the MS stated he would manually increase or decrease the water temperature on the water heaters/boilers. The MS stated he routinely overrode the automatic shutoff temperature control safety valve. He further stated if the temperature was set at 120 °F, when the temperature reached 120 °F, the boiler would shut off. The MS stated he knew the valve was a safety device but he would override the safety device to warm up the water quickly and had been doing so since January 2017. The MS stated he forgot to decrease the boiler temperature on April 12, 2019. The MS stated he could not explain how each resident was monitored to ensure there were no accidents when the water was turned up during shower time. During an interview with the ADMIN, on April 12, 2019, at 1:44 PM, the ADMIN stated the override of the water temperatures were very disappointing. She further stated she was not aware the water temperatures were being overridden at any time. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Patient's Safety dated October 2014, indicated Policy. It is the policy of this facility to provide services to each resident that will allow them to maintain their highest practicable level of function and well-being, without jeopardy to their safety. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Maintenance Service dated December 2009, indicated Policy Interpretation and Implementation. 1. The Maintenance Department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times. 2. Functions of maintenance personnel include, but are not limited to: a. Maintaining the building in compliance with current federal, state, and local laws, regulations and guidelines. b. Maintaining the building in good repair and free from hazards .j. Maintaining water temperatures daily in patient rooms and nursing areas M-F (selected areas on floor plan) maintaining the degrees between 105 degrees to 120 degrees. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ, a crisis situation in which the health and safety of individual(s) are at risk) was called on April 12, 2019, at 1:38 PM, after water temperature readings taken from one common facility restroom sink and ten resident's bathroom sinks reached temperatures of up to 136.6 ° F. It was discovered a staff member of the facility manually overrode the automatic shutoff temperature control safety valve for the hot water and increased the water temperature of the heaters/boilers to 136 ° F for two and a half hours every day (between 6:00 AM and 8:30 AM). The IJ was called in the presence of the Administrator (ADMIN), the Director of Nursing (DON), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) , and the RN Supervisor (RN/SUP). A Corrective Action Plan (CAP-a plan which includes interventions to remove the potential or actual harm of an immediate jeopardy situation) was requested and was received on April 12, 2019, at 4:22 PM. A review of the CAP conducted on April 12, 2019, at 4:57 PM, indicated water heaters/boilers supplying hot water to shower rooms, common restrooms, and residents bathrooms, were returned or remained at a maximum temp of 120 °F and hot water temperature checks were to be taken every hour to ensure water temperatures were no longer a danger to residents. Residents were assessed for burns and/or scalding and the staff member who manually overrode the automatic shutoff temperature control safety valve, was given directives to never override the water safety valve. Additionally, an in-service was conducted with all staff members instructing them to report to the maintenance department, any water temperatures that feel too hot. During a follow up interview with the ADMIN, on April 15, 2019, at 9:46 AM, the ADMIN stated she was shocked the MS was manually adjusting the water temperature on the water heaters and increasing the temperature above the safety guidelines indicated by the state. She further stated it is not ok to override the automatic shutoff temperature control safety valve and increase the water temperature of the boilers because it can cause burns to the residents. During an interview with the ADON on April 15, 2019, at 10:18 AM, the ADON stated the water temperature in sinks and showers should always be between 105 °F and 120 °F. She further stated if the water exceeds 120 °F, it can cause burns to the residents. After the acceptable corrective action plan was verified with the facility to be implemented through observation, interview, and record review the IJ was lifted on April 15, 2019, at 1:50 PM, in the presence of the ADMIN, ADON and RN/SUP.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 interventions that would promote safe storage ...

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 interventions that would promote safe storage and safe self-administration of drugs were implemented in accordance to the facility's policy and procedure affecting for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 13). This failure had the potential to cause unauthorized residents to have access to the medications that could affect the residents' health and safety. Findings: A review of Resident 13's clinical records, indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of muscle weakness (generalized), paraplegia (unable to move legs and lower body), hypertension (high blood pressure), and acute kidney failure (kidney damage). A review of Resident 13's Self Administration of Drugs assessment, dated July 18, 2018, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, a healthcare team from different fields working together to provide the best outcomes for each resident) indicated, The Interdisciplinary Team has determined that it is not safe for the resident to self-administer drugs. Describe reasons: resident prefers for licensed staff to administer medications. During an observation on April 11, 2019, at 2:03 PM, in Resident 13's room, Resident 13 had a cup of pills in his left hand. Resident 13 picked up a white pill from the medicine cup and stated, I don't know what this white pill is for. The cup of pills did not have a label indicating the type of pill or the date and time when the pills were to be administered. Resident 13 removed a bottle of gingko biloba (medication supplement to improve memory) from his drawer and took a pill and swallowed it along with the other pills in the cup. During an interview with Resident 13, on April 11, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Resident 13 stated the nurse had given him the cup of pills and left. Resident 13 further stated the facility had not provided him a place to safely store his pills. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 8), on April 11, 2019, at 2:40 PM, LVN 8 stated she gave Resident 13 the cup of pills. LVN 8 stated she had an emergency and left Resident 13's room. She stated she forgot to go back to Resident 13's room to see if he actually took the cup of pills she prepared. She stated she did not know Resident 13 had a bottle of gingko biloba in his bedside drawer. LVN 8 stated the medicine cup she left at Resident 13's bed had amlodipine (high blood pressure medicine) 2.5 mg and medication supplements such as, one tablet of cranberry (supplement) 450 milligrams (mg), one tablet of sennosides plus docusate (for constipation), one tablet of hemp oil (supplement) 1000 mg, one capsule of multivitamins, one tablet of zinc (supplement) 220 mg, and one tablet of ascorbic acid (supplement) 500 mg. LVN 8 stated she should not have left the blood pressure medication and supplements unsupervised at Resident 13's bedside. LVN 8 stated, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) had determined Resident 13 could not safely self-administer his medications. During a record review and concurrent interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN/Sup), on April 12, 2019, at 8:14 AM, the RN/Sup stated the Self-Administration of Drugs assessment, dated July 18, 2018, was the most recent assessment. The RN/Sup stated a plan of care had not been developed because the IDT had not determined Resident 13 was safe to self-administer his medications. The RN/Sup further stated there was no physician order indicating which drugs Resident 13 could self-administer. The RN/Sup stated the medication should not have been left at Resident 13's bedside. The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Self-Administration of Drugs dated October 2014, indicated Policy: It shall be this facility's policy to assess resident upon admission or readmission to determine if resident wants to self-administer drugs and if resident can safely self-administer. Procedure: 4. If resident requests to self-administer drugs and members of the Interdisciplinary Team considers resident having the ability to safely self-administer drugs, then a physician order reflecting which drugs or medications a resident may self-administer shall be obtained. 5. Based on the recommendation by the Interdisciplinary Team to self-administer drugs or medications, plan of care shall be developed to provide interventions and/or care approaches that will promote safe storage and self-administration of drugs. 6. Interventions or care approaches shall include but not limit to: a. Patient training and education, b. Who will be responsible for storage of medications, c. Who will be responsible for documentation of the administration of medication, d. Location of the drug administration (inside resident's room or in the nursing station).
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** 2. During a review of Resident 34's clinical record, the document titled Record of Admission (contains demographic and medical i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 34's clinical record, the document titled Record of Admission (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 34 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Atherosclerotic heart disease (Plaque buildup within the heart's blood vessels), Hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes (a disease which results in elevated blood sugar), and hyperlipidemia (high level of fats in the blood). During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 34, on April 9, 2019, at 9:08 AM, Resident 34 did not have a foley catheter. Resident 34 stated she previously had a foley catheter but it was taken out in December 2018. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 34, the MDS, dated [DATE], section H0100 (Bladder and Bowel Section) indicated Resident 34 had a foley catheter. During further review of the clinical record for Resident 34, a physicians order, dated December 9, 2018, indicated May D/C (discontinue) F/C (foley catheter) per request (more than two months prior to the completion of the MDS). A review of nurse progress notes, dated December 9, 2018, for Resident 34, indicated the foley catheter was removed. A review of the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) ADL (activities of daily living) Tracking Form (a form used to track daily activities such as toileting, bathing and eating), dated January and February 2019, indicated the resident did not have a foley catheter. During record review and concurrent interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on April 11, 2019, at 11:48 AM, the ADON stated she was familiar with Resident 34 and the resident did not have a foley catheter for the last three months. The ADON reviewed the clinical record for the resident and was unable to find a current MD order for a foley catheter. She stated the last foley catheter was discontinued in December 2018. The ADON also reviewed the CNA-ADL Tracking Form for January and February 2019, and stated the documents indicated the resident did not have a catheter and the MDS dated February, 26, 2019, was incorrect. During an interview with the Minimum Data Set Nurse 1, on April 15, 2019, at 10:41 AM, the Minimum Data Set Nurse 1 reviewed the clinical record for Resident 34 and stated the MDS dated [DATE], should not have indicated Resident 34 had a foley catheter and the MDS needed to be corrected. The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Resident Assessment Instrument dated October 2014, indicated Policy. It is this facility's policy to provide appropriate care and services to residents by conducting initial and periodic comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capacity. The comprehensive assessment of a resident's needs shall be based on the State's RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) which includes both the Minimum Data Set (MDS) version 3.0 and Care Area Assessments (CAA). A review of the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual titled Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual version 1.15, dated October 2018, section H0100 Appliances, indicated Check next to each appliance [including foley catheters] that was used at any time in the past 7 days. Select none of the above if none of the appliances A-D were used in the past 7 days. 3. During a review of Resident 79's clinical record, the document Record of Admission (contains demographic and medical information), undated, indicated Resident 79 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Hypertension (high blood pressure), Chest pain, Shortness of breath and muscle weakness. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 79, the MDS dated [DATE], section N0410 (medications received) indicated the resident received an anticoagulant. A review of Resident 79's Medication Administration Record (MAR - a record used to document the administration of medications), dated March 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019, indicated Resident 79 was not administered an anticoagulant. A review of Resident 79's current physicians orders, dated March 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019, indicated Resident 79 did not have a physician's order for an anticoagulant during the time of the completion of the MDS. A review of Resident 79's weekly nursing progress notes dated March 1, 2019 through March 31, 2019, did not indicate an anticoagulant was administered to Resident 79 under the section Current Medications. During a record review and concurrent interview with the Minimum Data Set Nurse 1, on April 14, 2019, at 8:33 AM, she reviewed the clinical record for Resident 79 and was unable to find evidence that an anticoagulant was administered to the resident in March 2019. Minimum Data Set Nurse 1 stated the MDS dated [DATE], incorrectly indicated the resident was taking an anticoagulant medication. During a record review and concurrent interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on April 12, 2019, at 9:57 AM, She reviewed the clinical record for Resident 79 and stated there was no evidence the resident was taking an anticoagulant and the MDS, dated [DATE], was incorrect. The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Resident Assessment Instrument dated October 2014, indicated Policy. It is this facility's policy to provide appropriate care and services to residents by conducting initial and periodic comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capacity. The comprehensive assessment of a resident's needs shall be based on the State's RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) which includes both the Minimum Data Set (MDS) version 3.0 and Care Area Assessments (CAA). A review of the MDS 3.0 RAI Manual titled Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual version 1.15, dated October 2018, section N0410 (medications received), indicated Steps for Assessment - 1. Review the resident's medical record for documentation that any of these medications were received by the resident during the 7 day look-back period . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS - resident care assessment tool) for three of 26 sampled residents (Resident 7, 34 and 79) when: 1. For Resident 7, the MDS assessment dated [DATE], was not coded to include left side hemiplegia (paralysis-unable to move one side of the body) or left side hemiparesis (weakness affecting one side of the body). 2. Resident 34's MDS dated [DATE], inaccurately indicated the resident had a foley catheter (a thin, sterile tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine). 3. Resident 79's MDS dated [DATE], inaccurately indicated the resident was taking an anticoagulant medication (medication used to prevent the formation of blood clots and maintain open blood vessels.) These failures in MDS coding had the potential to result in unmet care needs for Residents 7, 34 and 79, which could potentially jeopardize their health and safety. Findings: 1. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 7, the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction (stroke-blockage or narrowing of blood flow in the brain) affecting non-dominate side, hypertension (high blood pressure), and syncope and collapse (fainting). During a review of Resident 7's Interdisciplinary Team Conference Notes (IDT- a healthcare team from different fields working together to provide the best outcomes for each resident), dated January 9, 2019, indicated the IDT had conducted a bedside conference with Resident 7, and had discussed the plan of care regarding Resident 7's CVA and left sided weakness. During an observation on April 8, 2019, at 10:03 AM, in the smoking area, Resident 7 was sitting in a wheelchair smoking a cigarette. Resident 7's left hand was rested on her lap. Resident 7 placed the cigarette between her lips and propelled the wheelchair with her right hand closer to an ashtray. Resident 7's left hand remained positioned on her lap. Resident 7 removed the cigarette from her lips with her right hand and dropped the cigarette into the ashtray. During a record review and concurrent interview with the MDS coordinator (MDS 1), on April 8, 2019, at 10:32 AM, MDS 1 reviewed the MDS Quarterly Assessment, dated January 5, 2019, under Section I (Active Diagnoses), and stated the MDS assessment was not coded for hemiplegia or hemiparesis during the MDS process. MDS 1 stated the MDS assessment should have been coded for hemiplegia and hemiparesis to reflect Resident 7's hemiplegia and left sided weakness. During an observation on April 9, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Resident 7 was sitting in a wheelchair propelling down the hall way with her right hand and right foot. Resident 7's left hand was positioned on her lap and the left foot was positioned on the foot rest of the wheelchair. During an interview with Resident 7, on April 9, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Resident 7 stated she was not able to move her left hand or left leg without assistance due to a stroke and a hip injury. During a record review and concurrent interview with the physical therapist (PT 1), on April 9, 2019, at 11:30 AM, PT 1 reviewed Resident 7's Rehabilitation Case Management Assessment dated April 11, 2018, and stated she had completed the assessment last year on April 11, 2018. PT 1 stated Resident 7's assessment indicated left sided weakness and hemiplegia due to a late effect of the CVA (cerebrovascular accident also known as a stroke). PT 1 stated Resident 7 could propel the wheelchair with her right hand and was not able to propel the wheelchair with the left hand due to the hemiplegia. The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Resident Assessment Instrument, dated October 2014, indicated It is the facility's policy to provide appropriate care and services to residents by conducting initial and periodical comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capacity .7. Each member of the interdisciplinary team who completes a portion of the assessment must sign and certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a revised comprehensive person-centered care plan (an individualized plan of care written for residents to guide staff in implementing interventions for identified concerns) to prevent further low blood sugar events for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 82). This failure resulted in no documented interventions to prevent an avoidable low blood sugar event which resulted in a peripheral intravenous (IV-within the vein) access site inserted below the arteriovenous fistula (a surgical access site formed by the joining of a vein and an artery in the arm) on the left arm for hemodialysis (a process of purifying the blood whose kidneys are not working normally). Resident 82 received a second dose of Dextrose 50 % (percentage) through an IVP (intravenous push- a bolus of fluid through an IV line, administered all at once) for neurological impairment, altered level of consciousness, inability to swallow oral glucose, and cold and clammy skin. Findings: During a review of the clinical record for Resident 82, the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (abnormal blood sugar/glucose control) with hypoglycemia (low blood sugar), end stage renal disease (kidney disease), dependence on renal dialysis (machine-artificial kidneys to purifying the blood), and difficulty in walking. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 82, on April 11, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Resident 82 was sitting in the wheelchair outside of her room. Resident 82 started to cry and stated she did not want to die. Resident 82 was wearing a gray long sleeve blouse that covered her arms and extended over the left wrist. Resident 82 stated she had an IV line in her left arm. Resident 82 lifted up the blouse and the IV site was observed on the lower part of her left arm and above the hand. Resident 82 lifted her blouse further and the AV-shunt was viewed. Resident 82 stated the kidney doctor (nephrologist) had indicated she was not to have a blood pressure or blood drawn from the left arm. Resident 82 stated, I protect this arm. Resident 82 stated she was worried about the AV-shunt malfunctioning due to the IV line in her left arm. Resident 82 stated she had requested the facility to remove the IV line but the facility did not. Resident 82 stated the facility said the IV line would be removed before she went to the dialysis center. During a record review and concurrent interview with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS 1), on April 11, 2019, at 10:50 AM, MDS 1 stated the care plan was not revised after the hypoglycemic event on April 9, 2019. MDS 1 stated the care plan should have been revised to prevent avoidable declines in functioning or functioning level in accordance to policy and procedure. During an interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN/Sup), on April 15, 2019, at 12:15 PM, the RN/Sup stated she was the assigned Registered Nurse Supervisor on April 9, 2019 and April 11, 2019. The RN/sup stated the care plan had not been updated after Resident 82's hypoglycemic event on April 9, 2019. The RN/sup stated the care plan should have been updated or revised to reflect the change in care and Resident 82's condition. During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), on April 15, 2019, at 11:55 AM, the DSD stated the facility should have assessed for the potential risk or the underlining cause of Resident 82's change in condition to guide the revision of the care plan. The DSD stated the care plan was not revised after the change in condition. The facility policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Care Plan dated October 2014, indicated 7. Care Plans should be oriented to prevention of avoidable declines in functioning or functioning level. 8. Care Plans must show evidence of facility's effort to address or manage risk factors. The facility policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Pre and Post Dialysis Monitoring dated October 2014, indicated Procedures: 1. Licensed nurse shall monitor resident and document on pre and post dialysis observations in the clinical record or using prescribed form. 2. Licensed nurse shall monitor and document on patient's condition before and after dialysis treatment such as vital signs including pain, conditions of hemodialysis access, blood sugar level, level of consciousness, others as indicated. Before Dialysis Procedure: .3. If resident present with changes in condition (abnormal vital signs, shunt malfunction, altered level of consciousness) notify physician immediately. Also call and notify dialysis center of resident condition. 4. If resident is cleared to go to dialysis center, arrange transportation services and secure transfer information for the dialysis center.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During an observation on April 9, 2019, at 11:56 AM, Resident 86 was asleep and was observed lying on the left side of the be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During an observation on April 9, 2019, at 11:56 AM, Resident 86 was asleep and was observed lying on the left side of the bed. Resident 86 was holding both hands towards her chest and observed bilateral hand contractures. Resident 86 was unable to verbalize due to her medical condition. During an interview on April 9, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Resident 86's son stated he was aware of the hand contractures. During a record review of Resident 86's physician orders, dated August 8, 2018, it indicated, Right Hand Splint (a supportive device to immobilize affected limb) and Right Elbow Splint to Prevent Further Contractures and Skin Breakdowns and Bilateral Knee Orthotics for Extension. During a second observation on April 11, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Resident 86 did not have splints applied for right hand and right elbow. During an interview on April 11, 2019, at 12:25 PM, the Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA 1) stated Resident 86 wears a knee splint to prevent contractures and skin breakdown. RNA 1 further stated the splinting was done off and on and interventions for restorative nursing care orders were documented in an RNA binder. During a concurrent record review with RNA 1 of Resident 86's RNA Documentation Sheet, dated for the month of January 2019, it indicated right elbow splint as applied to Resident 86. There was no documented evidence found that right hand splint was being applied for Resident 86. During a concurrent interview with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 6), she stated the physician ordered the splint to prevent further hand contractures for Resident 86. LVN 6 further stated if the hand splint was not being provided, Resident 86's hand contractures will worsen. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure On Restorative Nursing Care, dated October 2014, indicated, 10. If restorative nursing care is provided by the restorative nurse assistant, restorative program including resident's level of performance should be documented in the RNA Progress Notes. 11. Restorative nursing care provided by a certified nurse assistant, e.g., passive range of motion during ADL care, should be documented in the ADL Sheet and/or licensed nurse progress notes. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure treatment and services were provided in accordance to the facility's policy and procedure for two of 26 sampled residents (Residents 7 and 86) when: 1. For Resident 7, a smoking protective apron and supervision was not provided when the quarterly smoking assessment and care plan indicated Resident 7 could not safely light and hold a cigarette in her left hand due to hemiplegia (unable to move one side of the body). These failures placed Resident 7 at a greater risk for injury, such as skin burns. 2. For Resident 86, Restorative Nursing Services (RNA) was not provided in accordance to the physician's order. This failure had the potential to worsen Resident 86's hand contractures (abnormal stiffness) that could negatively affect Resident 86's highest practicable level of health and well-being. Findings: 1. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 7, the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness to one side of the body) following a cerebral infarction (stroke-blockage or narrowing of blood flow in the brain) affecting non-dominate side, hypertension (high blood pressure), and syncope and collapse (fainting). During an observation on April 8, 2019, at 10:03 AM, in the smoking area, Resident 7 was sitting in a wheelchair unsupervised smoking a cigarette without a protective apron, with her right hand. Resident 7's left hand was rested on her lap. Resident 7 placed the cigarette between her lips and propelled the wheelchair with her right hand closer to an ashtray. Resident 7's left hand remained positioned on her lap. Resident 7 removed the cigarette from her lips with her right hand and dropped the cigarette ash into the ashtray. During an interview with Resident 7, on April 8, 2019, at 10:04 AM, Resident 7 stated the facility did not provide supervision for her when she smoked. Resident 7 asked, Are they supposed to supervise me when I smoke? Resident 7 stated she had never been offered a protective apron. Resident 7 asked, Where do I get a protective apron from? Resident 7 stated she was not able to use her left hand due to weakness in the left hand. During an interview with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 5), on April 8, 2019, at 10:09 AM, in the nurse's station, LVN 5 stated the smoking hours were posted on the door which lead to the designated smoking area. LVN 5 stated smoking monitoring staff (SMS) were assigned to monitor the residents during smoking hours. LVN 5 stated she did not know who was assigned to monitor the smoking area on April 8, 2019, at 10:00 AM. LVN 5 went out to the smoking area and stated she had observed Resident 7 smoking in the smoking area without supervision and without a protective apron. LVN 5 stated a SMS should have been in the smoking area when a resident is smoking. During a follow-up observation on April 8, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Resident 7 was in the smoking area, without supervision or a protective apron. Resident 7 was using her right hand to smoke and the left hand was positioned on her lap. There was no movement observed from Resident 7's left hand. During a record review and concurrent interview with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS 1), on April 8, 2019, at 10:43 AM, MDS 1 stated Resident 7's smoking assessment score was two, dated January 7, 2019, indicating Resident 7 should have been supervised during smoking hours. MDS 1 stated Resident 7's care plan for Smoking dated April 4, 2019, indicated Resident 7 should have had a smoking protective apron applied when smoking. MDS 1 stated smoking assessments are conducted on admission to the facility, quarterly and as needed. MDS 1 stated she was not able to find documentation in the clinical chart indicating Resident 7 had refused a smoking protective apron. During an interview with SMS 1, on April 9, 2019, at 9:25 AM, SMS 1 stated he arrived at the smoking area on April 8, 2019, at 10:30 AM. SMS 1 stated he was 30 minutes late to the smoking area. SMS 1 stated he did not know who would monitor the smoking area if he was late. SMS 1 stated he should have notified the charge nurse that he was going to be late. SMS 1 stated he had been employed by the facility for one year and he had not monitored Resident 7 for smoking. SMS 1 stated the facility provides a list of the residents that requires smoking monitoring and supervision. SMS 1 stated Resident 7 has never been on the smoking list for monitoring and supervision. During a record review and concurrent interview with the physical therapist (PT 1), on April 9, 2019, at 11:30 AM, PT 1 reviewed Resident 7's Rehabilitation Case Management Assessment dated April 11, 2018, and stated she had completed the assessment last year on April 11, 2018. PT 1 stated Resident 7's assessment indicated left sided weakness and hemiplegia due to a late effect of the CVA (cerebrovascular accident also known as a stroke). PT 1 stated Resident 7 propelled the wheelchair with her right hand and was not able to propel the wheelchair with the left hand due to the hemiplegia. PT 1 stated Resident 7 could not hold a cigarette in her left hand on April 11, 2018. During an interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN/Sup), on April 15, 2019, at 1:40 PM, the RN/Sup stated residents should have been monitored in the smoking area during the posted smoking schedule. During a follow-up interview with Resident 7, on April 15, 2019, at 1:40 PM, in Resident 7's room, Resident 7 stated she had weakness in the left hand. Resident 7 stated her left hand shakes involuntarily and she could not safely hold a cigarette in the left hand or safely light a cigarette using the left hand. Resident 7 stated her cigarettes had fallen from her mouth and right hand on occasions, especially when it was windy. Resident 7 stated she would ask other residents in the smoking area for assistance if she was unable to light her cigarette. Resident 7 stated the facility did not offer her a protective apron. A review of the Care Plan for Resident 7, titled Discharge Planning dated April 7, 2019, indicated Goal/target Date: Family and physician recognize the need for 24 hour nursing intervention to maintain to maintain present level of functioning. LTC (long term care): Anticipated based on Resident's current healthcare needs. LTC: Resident is dependent in all ADL's (activity of daily living) maintain level of functioning .LTC: Resident is unable to perform ADL's. The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Resident Smoking, undated, indicated It shall be this Facility's policy to allow residents to smoke provided smoking is done in an area and in a manner that does not pose any harm or danger to the Facility, personal property or personal endangerment .Procedure: 12. Residents who are not capable of smoking paraphernalia (smoking supplies) safely may be placed on schedule and/or supervised smoking . The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Care Plan dated October 2014, indicated . 7. Care Plans should be oriented to prevention of avoidable declines in functioning or functioning levels. 8. Care Plans must show evidence of facility's effort to address or manage risk factors.
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 provide communication to the dialysis center 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 provide communication to the dialysis center for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 82) when Resident 82 had a hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) event. This failed practice had the potential for unmet coordination of care between the facility and dialysis center, which had the potential to jeopardize Resident 82's health, safety and welfare. Findings: During a review of the clinical record for Resident 82, the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of diabetes mellitus (abnormal blood sugar/glucose control) with hypoglycemia, end stage renal disease (kidney disease), dependence on renal dialysis (machine-artificial kidneys to purifying the blood), and difficult in walking. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 82, on April 11, 2019, at 10:07 AM, Resident 82 was sitting in the wheelchair outside of her room. Resident 82 was alert, oriented (to place, time, and place), and started to cry. Resident 82 stated she did not want to die. Resident 82 was wearing a gray long sleeve blouse that covered her arms and extended over the left wrist. Resident 82 stated she had an IV line in her left arm. Resident 82 lifted up the blouse and the IV site was observed on the lower part of her left arm and above the hand. Resident 82 lifted her blouse further and the AV-shunt was viewed. Resident 82 stated the kidney doctor (nephrologist) had indicated she was not to have a blood pressure or blood drawn from the left arm. Resident 82 stated, I protect this arm. Resident 82 stated she was worried about the AV-shunt malfunctioning due to the IV line in her left arm. Resident 82 stated she had requested the facility to remove the IV line but the facility did not. Resident 82 stated the facility said the IV line would be removed before she went to the dialysis center. During a telephone interview with the Dialysis Registered Nurse Supervisor (DSRN), on April 15, 2019, at 9:58 AM, the DSRN stated the facility had not communicated the change in Resident 82's health status when the IV line was accessed in the same extremity where the AV-shunt was located, the altered level of consciousness, the low blood sugar, or the dextrose (sugar) administration. The DSRN stated the Dialysis Medical Director should have been informed that the extremity where the AV-shunt was located had been used to administer fluids. The DSRN stated the facility did not follow the contract agreement titled Nursing Home Dialysis Transfer Agreement dated 2018, for providing treatment information to the dialysis center including medications and any changes in the resident's condition (physical or mental) to ensure proper care was provided for Resident 82. During an interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN/Sup), on April 15, 2019, at 12:15 PM, the RN/Sup stated the facility did not notify the dialysis center about Resident 82's change in condition or the treatment provided on April 9, 2019 and April 11, 2019, in accordance to the facility policy and the written agreement between facility and dialysis center. The facility policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Pre and Post Dialysis Monitoring dated October 2014, indicated Procedures: 1. Licensed nurse shall monitor resident and document on pre and post dialysis observations in the clinical record or using prescribed form. 2. Licensed nurse shall monitor and document on patient's condition before and after dialysis treatment such as vital signs including pain, conditions of hemodialysis access, blood sugar level, level of consciousness, others as indicated. Before Dialysis Procedure: .3. If resident present with changes in condition (abnormal vital signs, shunt malfunction, altered level of consciousness) notify physician immediately. Also call and notify dialysis center of resident condition. 4. If resident is cleared to go to dialysis center, arrange transportation services and secure transfer information for the dialysis center. The facility policy and procedure titled, Policy and Procedure on Dialysis Care dated October 2014, indicated Procedure: 2. Written contract and/or agreements shall contain provisions on how to maintain communication by and between facility and dialysis centers to ensure proper care is provided to residents .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse administered medication as or...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a licensed nurse administered medication as ordered by the physician for one of 26 sampled residents (Resident 68) when an ipratropium bromide 0.5 milligram (mg-unit of measurement) and albuterol sulfate 3 mg (a combination of two drugs used to treat and prevent wheezing and shortness of breath-SOB) inhalation solution (solution of medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs.) was administered to the resident instead of albuterol sulfate 2.5 mg inhalation solution sulfate. This failure had the potential to alter the desired effect of the medication and administering the wrong medication could jeopardize the health and well-being of the resident. Findings: During a medication administration observation on April 10, 2019, at 5:33 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) removed the ipratropium bromide and albuterol sulfate solution from the bottom drawer of the Station 3's medication cart and poured the solution into the medicine nebulizer (med neb - a drug delivery device used to administer the medicine in the form of a mist inhaled in to the lungs) and administered the medication to Resident 68. During a review of Resident 68's clinical record, the admission Record (a document containing demographic and medical information) indicated, Resident 68 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- progressive lung disease makes hard to breathe). A review of Resident 68's History and Physical examination (H&P), dated February 11, 2019, indicated Resident 68 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 68's monthly recapitulation (an order summary report, usually each month to summarize patient's medical information and doctor's orders) for April 1, 2019, through April 30, 2019, indicated, albuterol med neb 0.5% Q 4H (Every four hours) PRN (as needed) for SOB (Shortness of Breath). A further review of Resident 68's Transfer Medication Order Sheet, dated February 9, 2019, indicated albuterol medneb [medication nebulizer] 2.5 mg every 4 hours as needed PRN and ipratropium medneb every 4 hours as needed for SOB was discontinued. During further review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR- record of drugs administered to the resident) for Resident 68, indicated Resident 68 had only albuterol 0.5% ordered Q4 hours PRN for SOB. During a concurrent interview and record review with LVN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 7:28 AM, LVN 1 reviewed Resident 68's MAR and confirmed Resident 68 did not have an order for ipratropium bromide and albuterol sulfate. LVN 1 stated the resident was supposed to have albuterol sulfate inhalation solution alone. LVN 1 further confirmed she took the ipratropium bromide and albuterol sulfate inhalation solution from another resident's (Resident 699) medication box and administered the it to Resident 68. LVN 1 acknowledged she did not follow the physician's order by checking the resident's MAR and did not follow the five rights of medication administration (right drug, right dosage, right patient, right route, right time). During a review of Resident 699's clinical record the form titled Medications and Treatments, dated April 3, 2019, indicated ipratropium-albuterol 2.5mg-0.5mg/3ml SOB. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on April 12, 2019, at 8:25 AM, the ADON reviewed Resident 68's monthly recap dated April 1 through April 30, 2019, and stated Resident 68 did not have an order for ipratropium bromide and albuterol sulfate inhalation and staff are not supposed to administer medications to any resident other than who it was prescribed for. She further stated staff are expected to check the MAR against the physician's order prior to administering the medications. The ADON further reviewed the facility's policy and procedure titled Medication and treatment administration, dated October 2014, and stated the staff did not follow the policy and procedure. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Medication Administration and Treatment dated October 2014, indicated .16. Before administering medication, check every medication against physician's order and transcription in the medication administration or treatment record . 17. No medication shall be used for any resident other than the resident for whom the medication was prescribed .
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** 4. a. During an observation on [DATE], at 5:07 AM, LVN 1 was preparing to perform Resident 703's finger stick blood sugar test. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. a. During an observation on [DATE], at 5:07 AM, LVN 1 was preparing to perform Resident 703's finger stick blood sugar test. LVN 1 then removed the glucometer from Nursing Station 3's medication cart and placed it on a white towel kept on the medication cart. LVN 1 then proceeded to perform Resident 703's finger stick blood sugar test without disinfecting the glucometer prior to resident use. A review of the clinical record for Resident 703, the admission Record (a document containing demographic and medical information) indicated, Resident 703 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, Hypertension (high blood pressure), and Type 2 diabetes Mellitus (DM- elevated blood sugar). During a review of Resident 703's clinical record, the document titled Medications and Treatments dated [DATE], indicated order for an accucheck (finger stick blood test) AC meals (before meals) . During an observation on [DATE], at 5:40 AM, LVN 1 was preparing to perform Resident 96's finger stick blood sugar test. LVN 1 then removed the glucometer from Nursing Station 3's medication cart and placed it on a white towel kept on the medication cart. LVN 1 then proceeded to perform Resident 96's finger stick blood sugar test without disinfecting the glucometer prior to resident use. A review of the clinical record for Resident 96, the admission Record, indicated Resident 96 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnosis of sepsis (presence of bacteria or other infectious organisms in the blood). A review of Resident 96's History and physical (H&P), dated [DATE], indicated Resident 96 had diabetes Mellitus (DM- Elevated blood sugar). During a review Resident 96's Physician's orders, dated [DATE], indicated finger stick QID (medical abbreviation -four times each day) AC (before) meals and HS (bedtime) . During an observation on [DATE], at 6:00 AM, LVN 1 was preparing to perform Resident 77's finger stick blood sugar test. LVN 1 then removed the glucometer from Nursing Station 3's medication cart and placed it on a white towel kept on the medication cart. LVN 1 then proceeded to perform Resident 77's finger stick blood sugar test without disinfecting the glucometer prior to resident use. A review of the clinical record for Resident 77, the admission Record (a document containing demographic and medical information), indicated Resident 77 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included End stage renal disease (ESRD- a disease which causes irreversible kidney failure), and Dialysis ((process of cleaning and purifying the blood). During a further review of Resident 77's Physician's orders dated [DATE], indicated QID (medical abbreviation -four times each day) AC (before) meals and HS (bedtime) . During an interview with LVN 1 on [DATE], at 6:05 AM, LVN 1 stated she disinfects the glucometers with the facility's approved disinfectant wipe [BRAND NAME] after each resident's use and waits for 3 minutes to air dry. LVN 1 stated she did not disinfect the glucometer before resident's use. 4b. During an observation on [DATE], at 6:15 AM, LVN 2 removed the glucometer from the first drawer of the Station 2's medication cart 2B and placed it on top of the medication cart, wore gloves and attached the strip to the glucometer and placed the glucometer on Resident 249's bed and pricked the left index finger with a lancet and obtained blood sample. LVN 2 disinfected the glucometer with [BRAND NAME] wipes after finger stick read was completed and placed the glucometer on the medication cart. LVN 2 did not disinfect the glucometer before use on Resident 249. A review of the clinical record for Resident 249, the admission Record (a document containing demographic and medical information) indicated, Resident 249 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnosis of diabetes Mellitus (DM- elevated blood sugar). During a further review of Resident 249's Physician's orders dated [DATE], indicated QID (medical abbreviation -four times each day) AC (before) meals and HS (bedtime) . During an interview with LVN 2 on [DATE], at 6:19 AM, LVN 2 stated her practice of disinfecting the glucometer was always after use with the residents. LVN 2 further stated [BRAND NAME] wipes were the facility approved disinfectant and it needed to air dry for 3 minutes. 4c. During an observation on [DATE], at 11:42 AM, LVN 3 removed the glucometer from the first drawer of the Station 3's medication cart and placed it on a white plastic tray on top of the medication cart, placed the white tray with glucometer, alcohol wipe and lancet (tiny needle to obtain blood) on the bedside table and obtained blood sample. LVN 3 Disinfected the glucometer after use and placed on the medication cart in a clear disposable cup to dry. A review of the clinical record for Resident 704, the admission Record (a document containing demographic and medical information) indicated, Resident 704 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnosis of type 2 diabetes Mellitus (DM- elevated blood sugar). A review of resident 704's Physician's telephone orders dated [DATE], indicated accucheck (finger stick blood test) AC meals (before meals) . During an interview with LVN 3, on [DATE], at 12:16 PM, LVN 3 stated she usually disinfects the glucometer after each residents use with the facility's approved wipes [BRAND NAME] and lets it air dry for 2-3 minutes. During an interview with Infection Preventionist (ICP) on [DATE], at 2:41 PM, the ICP stated staff are expected to disinfect the glucometer before and after use with the residents in order to prevent further cross contamination (transfer of bacteria or other contaminants from one surface or another due to improper disinfection). During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on [DATE], at 2:53 PM, the ADON stated staff are expected to disinfect the glucometer before and after each resident use with the facility approved disinfectant [BRAND NAME] wipes and wait for three minutes contact time and let air dry. The [BRAND NAME] Blood Glucose Monitoring System User Instruction Manual under cleaning and disinfection guidelines indicated, we suggest cleaning and disinfecting the meter between patient use. To use a wipe, remove from container and follow product label instructions to disinfect the meter. A review of the disinfectant wipe [BRAND NAME] product label indicated the kill time was three minutes. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their policy and procedure on infection control and prevention when: 1. Twenty-seven expired peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC- a tube inserted into the vein to deliver medication, nutrition, and fluids) were stored on Station 3's intravenous (into the vein) medication room were available for use and had a manufacturer' expiration date (a date placed on medical supplies noting when the items should no longer be used) of [DATE]. 2. One expired sacrum dressing (a germ-free wound dressing) was stored in Station 3's treatment cart and had a manufacturer's expiration date of [DATE]. The dressing was available for use. 3. One box of expired hydrocolloid tegaderm dressings (a germ-free wound dressing) were stored in the central supply room and had a manufacturer's expiration date of 2015, Three boxes of expired hydrocolloid tegaderm dressings were stored in the central supply room and had a manufacturer's expiration date of [DATE], and Two individual wafer dressings (a germ-free wound dressing) were observed in the central supply room and stored in open packaging. The dressings were available for use. 4. Two glucometers (glucometer - a device used to perform a finger stick blood sugar test) were not disinfected with the specified Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved disinfectant (a chemical agent that destroy bacteria, virus, and fungi) in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines, for five of 22 sampled residents (Resident 77, 96, 249, 703 and 704) in the universe of 103 residents. 4a. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) did not disinfect the glucometer before use on Resident 703, 96 and 77. 4b. LVN 2 did not disinfect the glucometer before use on Resident 249. 4c. LVN 3 did not disinfect the glucometer before use on Resident 704. These failures placed the facility's residents at a greater risk for exposure to germs and had the potential to result in a preventable infection. Findings: 1. During an observation with the Registered Nurse (RN 1), on [DATE], at 5:05 AM, PIVCs were observed stored in Station 3's medication room. The PIVCs had a manufacturer's expiration date of [DATE], and were available for use. During an interview with RN 1, on [DATE], at 5:13 AM, RN 1 counted the PIVCs and stated there were 27 expired PIVCs. RN 1 stated the expired PIVCs should have been removed from the medication room on or before the manufacturer's expiration date. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on [DATE], at 7:05 AM, the ADON stated expired items should not be stored in the medication room. During an interview with the Central Supply Supervisor (CSS), on [DATE], at 9:10 AM, the CSS stated the expired PIVCs should have been discarded in accordance to the manufacturer's expiration date. 2. During observation with the treatment nurse (LVN 7), on [DATE], at 7:09 AM, a sterile sacrum dressing was observed in Station 3's treatment cart. The dressing had a manufacturer's expiration date of [DATE], and was available for use. During an interview with LVN 7, on [DATE], at 7:15 AM, LVN 7 stated the expired dressing should have been discarded on or before [DATE], in accordance to the manufacturer's expiration date and directions. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on [DATE], at 8:05 AM, the ADON stated expired items should not be stored in the treatment cart. 3. During an observation with the CSS, on [DATE], at 9:48 AM, in the central supply room, there was one box of hydrocolloid tegaderm dressings with a manufacturer's expiration date of 2015, three boxes of hydrocolloid tegaderm dressings with a manufacturer's expiration date of [DATE], and two opened wafer dressings. The dressings were available for use. During an interview with the CSS, on [DATE], at 10:02 AM, the CSS stated one box of dressings expired 2015 and three boxes of dressings expired [DATE]. The CSS stated, There should not be expired supplies stored in the central supply room. The CSS stated opened wafer dressings are not germ-free and should have been discarded to prevent cross-contamination (the transfer of harmful bacteria). A review of the policy and procedure titled Central Supply dated [DATE], indicated Policy: The facility will have an area designated for central supplies and personnel designated to monitor and maintain central supply. Procedure: .Central supply will be audited monthly and nothing outdated will be maintained. Expired supplies will be discarded in the trash or as recommended by the manufacturer.
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 ensure: 1. For Resident 47, Norco ( a controlled 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: 1. For Resident 47, Norco ( a controlled medications {medications regulated by the government for use and possession} used to treat pain was labeled for the resident was stored separately from facility stock; 2. For Residents 33 and 351, medications discontinued by the physician were properly marked and disposed of in accordance to the facility's policy and procedure and, 3. For Residents 94, 348, 349, 350, and 5, medications labeled for individual residents were stored separately from facility stock medications in accordance to the facility's policy and procedure. These failed practices placed the facility's residents at a greater risk for medication error affecting eight of 26 sampled residents. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 47's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 47 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (swollen, painful joints), muscle weakness, and diabetes (abnormal blood sugar control). During an observation with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on April 10, 2019, at 8:10 AM, in Station 2's medication room, a bottle containing sixteen Norco (controlled pain reliever) 5-325 mg (milligrams-unit of measurement) tablets were stored with the facility's stock medications (non-controlled medications). The sixteen Norco tablets were labeled for Resident 47. During an interview with the ADON, on April 10, 2019, at 8:20 AM, the ADON stated she did not know Resident 47's Norco tablets were stored with the facility's stock medications. The ADON stated the Norco tablets should not have been stored with the stock medication. The ADON further stated controlled medications should not have been stored unsupervised. 2a. During a review of Resident 33's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 33 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary (lung disease), chronic viral hepatitis (liver disease), and muscle weakness. During an observation with the Registered Nurse (RN 1), on April 10, 2019, at 5:40 AM, in Station 3's intravenous medication room, Levofloxacin (medication used to treat infections) 500 mg was labeled for Resident 33 and was available for use. During an interview with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:42 AM, RN 1 stated Levofloxacin was discontinued on April 4, 2019, and the medication should have been removed from the medication room. RN 1 stated when a physician discontinues a medication, the medication is flagged (marked) on the medication container. RN 1 stated there was no sticker or handwritten note indicating Levofloxacin was discontinued on April 4, 2019. 2b. During a review of Resident 351's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 351 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of paraplegia (not able to move the legs and lower body), open wound to right lower leg, open wound to left lower leg, and methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA-bacterial infection). During an observation with RN 2, on April 10, 2019, at 7:26 AM, on Station 3 in the intravenous cart, two vials of vancomycin 1gm (medication to treat infections) were labeled for Resident 351 and were available for use. During an interview with RN 2, on April 10, 2019, at 7:31 AM, RN 2 stated the two doses of vancomycin were discontinued on April 9, 2019, and the medication should have been removed from the intravenous medication cart. 3a. During a review of Resident 94's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis-unable to move one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness affecting one side of the body), muscle weakness, hypertension (high blood pressure), upper respiratory infection (lung infection), and peripheral autonomic neuropathy (nerve damage). During an observation with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:15 AM, in Station 3's intravenous medication room, quetiapine (medicine to treat mental disease) tablets 50 mg, gabapentin (seizure medication) 100 mg tablets, Lisinopril (blood pressure medication) 5 mg tablets, spironolactone (medicine to treat blood pressure and to reduce body fluid) 25 mg tablets, carvedilol (medicine to treat heart failure) 6.25 mg tablets, Furosemide (medicine to reduce body fluid) 40 mg tablets, and potassium chloride (mineral supplement) 10 mg tablets were labeled for Resident 94 and were available for use. During an interview with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:26 AM, RN 1 stated Resident 94 was discharged on March 30, 2019. RN 1 stated Resident 94's medications should have been sent home with Resident 94 or discarded on March 30, 2019. RN 1 stated Resident 94's medications should not have been stored in Station 3's medication room with intravenous medications and supplies. 3b. During a review of Resident 348's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 348 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of diverticulosis (bulging pouches in the digestive tract), peripheral autonomic neuropathy (nerve damage), abnormal gait (difficulty in walking), and muscle weakness. During an observation with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:09 AM, in Station 3's medication room, erythromycin (medicine to treat infections) .5% (percent-unit of measurement) ointment was labeled for Resident 348 and was available for use. During an interview with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:12 AM, RN 1 stated Resident 348 was discharged on March 23, 2019. RN 1 stated the medication should have been discarded on March 23, 2019. 3c. During a review of Resident 349's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 349 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes mellitus (abnormal blood glucose control), and hypothyroidism (an underproduction of chemicals in the blood that convert food into energy). During an observation with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:21 AM, in Station 3's intravenous medication room, levothyroxine (medicine to treat hypothyroidism) 100 mg was labeled for Resident 349 and was available for use. During an interview with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:24 AM, RN 1 reviewed the medication label and stated Resident 349 was discharged on March 5, 2019. RN 1 stated the levothyroxine should have been properly marked and disposed in accordance to the facility's policy and procedure on March 5, 2019. 3d. During a review of Resident 350's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 350 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease), diabetes (abnormal blood glucose control), and shortness of breath (difficult breathing). During an observation with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:26 AM, in Station 3's intravenous medication room, Lactulose (medicine to treat constipation) 10 gm/15 ml (milliliter-unit of measurement) was labeled for Resident 350 and was available for use. During an interview with RN 1, on April 10, 2019, at 5:30 AM, RN 1 stated Resident 350 expired (died) on April 5, 2019. RN 1 stated the medication should have been properly marked and disposed on April 5, 2019. 3e. During a review of Resident 5's clinical record the Record of admission (demographic and medical information) indicated Resident 5 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of end stage renal disease (kidney disease), diabetes mellitus (abnormal blood glucose control), and muscle weakness. During an observation with the ADON, on April 10, 2019, at 6:32 AM, in Station 3's intravenous medication room, sertraline hydrochloride (medicine to treat depressive disorders) 50 mg tablets were labeled for Resident 5 and were available for use. During an interview with ADON, on April 10, 2019, at 6:35 AM, the ADON reviewed the label on the medication bottle and stated Resident 5's sertraline hydrochloride was labeled for home use and should not be stored with the intravenous medications and supplies. The facility policy and procedure titled IV (Intravenous) Medication Storage in the Facility undated, Policy: Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations or those of the supplier. Procedure: Medications labeled for individual residents are stored separately form floor stock medications when not in the medication cart . The facility policy and procedure titled Policy and Procedure on Drug Disposition dated October 2014, indicated Policy: Drugs discontinued by a physician order and outdated drugs cannot be returned to the pharmacy and are to be properly marked and disposed in accordance with California's Medical Waste Management Act. Documentation of the disposal is to be maintained. Procedures: If a physician discontinues a non-controlled drug or controlled drug, the drug container is to be flagged with a discontinued drug sticker or handwritten of a similar meaning.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of staff and adequate oversite of the kitchen when: 1. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM): a. Did not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of staff and adequate oversite of the kitchen when: 1. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM): a. Did not ensure dietary staff covered facial hair; b. Did not ensure the menu was followed for mechanical soft diet; c. Did not ensure proper cool down procedures for ambient temperature prepared food. 2. The Registered Dietician (RD): a. Did not ensure dietary staff covered facial hair; b. Did not ensure the menu was followed for mechanical soft diet; c. Did not know the cool down requirement for ambient temperature prepared food. These failures had the potential to lead to an inadequate nutrient intake as well as intake of food with an inappropriate texture; contamination of food, utensils, and equipment; and food borne illness to an already compromised universe of 103 residents who ate food from the kitchen out of a census of 104. 1. a. A review of the facility's Director of Food Services job description signed by the CDM on June 6, 2016, indicated his responsibilities included monitoring of food service personnel to assure that they are following established safety regulations in the use of equipment and supplies. During an observation in the kitchen on April 8, 2019, at 11:35 AM, the Dietary [NAME] (DC 1) was observed with an uncovered mustache and short beard while preparing resident meals during trayline (a preparation of meal trays in the kitchen to be delivered to residents). During an interview with the CDM on April 9, 2019, at 9:53 AM, the CDM stated all facial hair should be covered. The CDM further stated, Well if it's [the facial hair] thin, then that's okay. The facility document titled Competencies for Food and Nutrition Services Employees dated March 13, 2018, indicated DC 1 successfully completed the critical skill of Infection Control Practice/Employee Hygiene .Uses Hair restraints and beard guards properly . when the CDM; who is responsible for evaluating the competency of dietary staff regarding food and nutrition safety and regulations, signed off DC 1's competency evaluation. The Federal Food Code, dated 2017, indicated .food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food; clean equipment, utensils, and linens; and unwrapped single-serve and single-use articles. b. A review of the lunch Daily Spreadsheet dated Fall/Winter 2018/2019 Monday-Day 2 (April 8, 2019), indicated, wild rice blend or steamed white rice for a resident on a mechanical soft diet (a change in the texture of food). The menu also indicated Broth 1 oz [ounce]written under the rice. During an interview and concurrent observation on April 8, 2019, at 11:55 AM, DC 1 did not add broth to the mechanical soft rice. He stated he did not add broth because only white rice needed the broth and he served the wild rice. When the surveyor asked the CDM if the menu indicated that both types of rice were supposed to have 1 ounce of broth added, he stated he did not think so and he would get confirmation from the company that provided the menus. A review of the email correspondence from the company that provided the menu, dated April 9, 2019, at 3:38 PM, indicated We have spoken with our Menu Development team .we added 1 oz of broth to all rice for Mech [mechanical] Soft to add moisture and especially to cover instances with poorly rice execution . in response to the CDM asking why does the steam white rice require 1 oz of broth for mechanical soft diet. During an interview with the CDM on April 10, 2019, at 8:47 AM, after reviewing the e-mail from the menu company that stated all rice for mechanical soft diets receives broth, the CDM stated the dietary cooks make the decision to add or remove broth from the specified food item. The CDM stated the dietary cooks were trained by himself and the RD to know if the food was moist enough for a mechanical soft diet. The CDM further acknowledged DC 1 did not follow the menu by not having broth readily available to add to the rice for mechanical soft diets for lunch on 4/8/19. The facility's policy and procedure titled Facility Nutrition Program revised April 2007, indicated the CDM will oversee the activities and functions of the kitchen staff (i.e. those responsible for storing, preparing, and delivering meals), including food storage and preparation, sanitation issues, personnel matters, and menu planning and preparation. The facility was unable to provide documented evidence of dietary cook training and comprehensive evaluation/testing on determining appropriate moisture of mechanically altered food when dietary cooks are independently making the decision to omit a food item on the menu spreadsheet. The facility's policy and procedure titled Menus revised October 2008, indicated Menus shall .c) be followed. c. The facility's policy and procedure titled Facility Nutrition Program revised April 2007, indicated the CDM will oversee the activities and functions of the kitchen staff (i.e. those responsible for storing, preparing, and delivering meals), including food storage and preparation, sanitation issues, personnel matters, and menu planning and preparation. An interview with DC 2 on April 9, 2019 at 9:36 AM, she stated there is a cool down process but indicated the staff rarely perform the cool down procedure since they don't use leftovers. During a concurrent interview with the CDM and DC 2 on April 9, 2019, at 9:42 AM, the CDM stated that dietary staff will make large amounts of tuna from large cans of tuna stored in the refrigerator. Also, the dietary staff would get a small can of tuna from the dry storeroom when small quantities of tuna salad was made. The CDM further stated, any leftover tuna salad is stored in the refrigerator. The DC 2 stated when making tuna salad we use what we need, date it, then store it in the refrigerator for 3 days. During an interview with the Dietary Aide (DA 1) on April 9, 2019, at 9:45 AM, she stated both small and large cans of tuna are obtained from the dry storeroom to make tuna salad. The DA 1 stated she places leftover tuna salad made from the ambient temperature (room temperature) tuna in the refrigerator for up to 3 days. She acknowledged she does not take the temperature of the tuna salad to ensure safe cooldown. A review of the facility's Cool Down Log dated January 2019 through March 2019, indicated Examples of potentially hazardous food to be monitored .cold sandwich fillings such as tuna or egg salad . The Federal Food Code, dated 2017, indicated Time/Temperature control for safety food shall be cooled within 4 hours to 5°C [degrees Celsius-a unit of measurement] (41°F) [degrees Fahrenheit, a unit of measurement] or less if prepared from ingredients at ambient temperature, such as reconstituted foods and canned tuna. 2. a. A review of the facility's Dietitian job description signed by the RD on August 1, 2017, indicated the purpose of position was to plan, organize, develop and direct the overall operation of the Food Service Department in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards . her responsibilities included assuming the administrative authority, responsibility and accountability of directing the Food Services Department and to Be sure food service personnel are performing required duties and appropriate food service procedures are being rendered to meet the needs of the facility, in addition, ensure that food service work areas are maintained in a clean and sanitary manner. During an observation in the kitchen on April 8, 2019, at 11:35 AM, the Dietary [NAME] (DC 1) was observed with an uncovered mustache and short beard while preparing resident meals during trayline.(Cross-reference F801; 1,a) During an interview with the RD on April 10, 2019, at 10:08 AM, the RD stated she would not expect staff to wear a facial hair covering if the hair is thin. She further stated if there was a large amount of hair, like a full beard, then yes I would expect it to be covered. A review of The Federal Food Code,dated 2017, indicated .food employees shall wear hair restraints such as hats, hair coverings or nets, beard restraints, and clothing that covers body hair, that are designed and worn to effectively keep their hair from contacting exposed food; clean equipment, utensils, and linens; and unwrapped single-serve and single-use articles. A review of the email correspondence from the company that provided the menu, dated April 9, 2019, at 3:38 PM, indicated We have spoken with our Menu Development team .we added 1 oz of broth to all rice for Mech [mechanical] Soft to add moisture and especially to cover instances with poorly rice execution . in response to the CDM asking why does the steam white rice require 1 oz of broth for mechanical soft diet. A review of the email correspondence from the company that provided the menu, dated April 9, 2019, at 3:38 PM, indicated We have spoken with our Menu Development team .we added 1 oz of broth to all rice for Mech [mechanical] Soft to add moisture and especially to cover instances with poorly rice execution . in response to the CDM asking why does the steam white rice require 1 oz of broth for mechanical soft diet. During an interview with the RD on April 10, 2019, at 9:58 AM, when the surveyor reviewed the e-mail with her from the provider of the menus that indicated all mechanical soft diets received broth with rice, she stated she would let the cooks make the decision if rice needed broth or gravy and she trusted the CDM to ensure cooks were trained about the correct safe moisture of food for mechanical soft diets. She added there might not be documentation for this training. The facility was unable to provide documented evidence of dietary cook training and comprehensive evaluation/testing on determining appropriate moisture of mechanically altered food when dietary cooks are independently making the decision to omit a food item on the menu spreadsheet. The facility's policy and procedure titled Menus revised October 2008, indicated Menus shall .c) be followed. c. Over the course of the survey, it was found that ambient temperature tuna salad was made and not cooled safely (Cross-reference F801; 1,c) During an interview with the RD on April 10, 2019, at 10:04 AM, she stated she expected for dietary staff to know where to look if they are unsure of the cool down procedure. The RD further stated the facility rarely performs the cool down procedure as they discard any unused food items daily. She stated she would not expect staff to perform the cool down procedure on leftover tuna salad prepared with ambient temperature canned tuna that was placed in the refrigerator because it's not a hot item to begin with. A review of the facility's Cool Down Log dated January 2019 through March 2019 read Examples of potentially hazardous food to be monitored .cold sandwich fillings such as tuna or egg salad . The Federal Food Code, dated 2017, indicated Time/Temperature control for safety food shall be cooled within 4 hours to 5°C [degrees Celsius-a unit of measurement] (41°F) [degrees Fahrenheit, a unit of measurement] or less if prepared from ingredients at ambient temperature, such as reconstituted foods and canned tuna.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of staff when: 1. A Dietary Aide (DA 2) did not demonstrate appropriate knowledge on the use of the san...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of staff when: 1. A Dietary Aide (DA 2) did not demonstrate appropriate knowledge on the use of the sanitization bucket; 2. A Dietary Aide (DA 3) did not know the correct procedure when using the three-compartment sink; and 3. A Dietary [NAME] (DC 1) did not know the appropriate cool down procedures. These failures had the potential to lead to food borne illness in an already compromised universe of 103 residents who ate food from the kitchen out of facility's total census of 104. Findings: 1. The Dietary Aide (DA 2) stated in the event the [Brand Name] multi-quat sanitizer solution (a sanitizer solution used to sanitize food-contact surface areas such as countertops) remained out of range after testing the strength twice, she would use the facility's backup method which consists of a bleach and water mixed concentration. The DA 2 demonstrated by filling the sanitizer bucket with hot water and stated the temperature of the water should be at least 110 degrees. The DA 2 added one capful of bleach to the sanitizer bucket and was observed testing the bleach and water mixed solution with a quaternary ammonia test strip (a test strip used to check the concentration of a quaternary ammonia sanitizer), the test strip showed no change in color. The DA 2 stated the test strip results should be at least 200 ppm (parts per million) and proceeded to add another two capfuls of bleach; for a total of three capfuls, to the solution in the sanitizer bucket. The DA 2 was observed retesting the solution with a quaternary ammonia test strip with the results indicating no change in color. During an interview with the Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS), on April 8, 2019, at 10:50 AM, she stated if the [Brand Name] multi-quat sanitizer is out of range, the dietary staff are to notify herself or the CDM immediately. She further stated if the [Brand Name] multi-quat sanitizer is out of range, the dietary staff use the facility's back-up method of a bleach and water mixed concentration. The ADS stated the sanitizer bucket is two gallons and the dietary staff would add only two capfuls of bleach indicating one capful of bleach per every ten gallons of water when this method is used. During an interview with the Registered Dietician (RD), on April 10, 2019, at 10:09 AM, she stated her expectation when the [Brand Name] multi-quat sanitizer is out of range is for dietary staff to add more solution to the sanitizer bucket then retest the solution with a quaternary ammonia test strip. She stated if the solution remained out of range, the dietary staff would first repeat the process and retest the solution. If the solution remained out of range after repeating the process, the dietary staff are to notify the ADS or CDM immediately. The RD further stated, she was not aware of another process being utilized by the dietary staff for the sanitizer buckets and she would not recommend the use of a bleach and water mixed concentration as a back-up method. A review of the facility's Competencies for Food and Nutrition Services Employees signed by DA 2 on March 9, 2018, indicated using appropriate equipment and supplies to evaluate the safe operation of . the washing of pots and pans (e.g . appropriate chemical test strips .) was a function that she was expected to be competent in. A review of the facility's Towel Sanitizing Solution dated May 2008, indicated Use 1 tablespoon (1 capful) bleach per gallon of warm water .Solution should be 100 parts per million (ppm) chlorine. You must use test strips for chlorine to verify the concentration. The facility was unable to provide a policy and procedure on the use of bleach and water mixed concentration as a back-up method for the sanitizer bucket. 2. During an observation and concurrent interview with the DA 3, on April 9, 2019, at 9:30 AM, the DA 3 described the process for the manual dishwashing procedure. DA 3 stood in front of the three-compartment sink for manual dishwashing and stated it is used when the low temperature dishwasher is out of order. She stated, the first step was to fill all three compartments with hot water. The first compartment is to wash, the second compartment is for rinsing, and third compartment is for sanitizing. The DA 3 further stated, each compartment holds ten gallons of liquid and she would add one capful of bleach per gallon in the third compartment to equal a total of ten capfuls of bleach. DA 3 stated, she does not check the strength of the solution concentration in the third compartment, she just adds the number of capfuls needed. A review of the facility's Competencies for Food and Nutrition Services Employees signed by DA 3 on March 9, 2018, indicated use of the 3-compartment sink was a function that she was expected to be competent in. During an interview with the ADS, on April 9, 2019 at 9:32 AM, she stated when the three-compartment sink is used for manual dishwashing, the third compartment used for sanitizing should be checked with a chlorine test strip to verify the concentration is at 100 ppm. During an interview with the RD, on April 10, 2019, at 10:09 AM, she stated when the three-compartment sink is used for manual dishwashing, her expectation is for the dietary staff to check the concentration of the sanitizing solution in the third compartment. A review of the facility's Three Sink Compartment Procedure undated, indicated .Step 3. Third sink add 10 tablespoon or 10 capfuls of beach. Check Bleach must be 100 PPM with chlorine . The facility's policy and procedure titled 3 Compartment sink procedures undated, .The third compartment is to be filled with hot water (170 degrees F [Fahrenheit, a unit of measurement]), and to the water will be added 2 oz [ounce, a unit of measurement] of bleach to 10 gallons of water to make a sanitizing solution equal to 100 ppm, periodically checking to make sure that the solution does not fall below 50 ppm. 3. During an interview with the Dietary [NAME] (DC 2), on April 9, 2019, at 9:36 AM, she stated if the cool down procedure was performed to cool food items such as a pot roast and the temperature did not reach 70 degrees or below in the first two hours, she would continue to cool the food item by using a cooling method such as ice. DC 2 further stated, if the food item did not reach the temperature of 41 degrees or below within the total six hour cool down process, she would quickly cool down the food item by using a cooling method such as ice. A review of the facility's Cool Down Log between January 2019 and February 2019 showed that staff cooled food items such as beef, sausage and shrimp. The document further indicated Food must be cooled down from 135 F (Fahrenheit) to 70 Degrees F or less within 2 hours and from 70 degrees F to 41 degrees F or lower in an additional four hours, for a total cooling time of six hours. If food has not reached 70 [degrees Fahrenheit] within two hours, it must be discarded or properly reheated to 165 [degrees Fahrenheit] for fifteen seconds and then cool it properly. During an interview with the RD, on April 10, 2019, at 10:04 AM, she stated the facility rarely uses left-over food items but she would expect the dietary cooks to know where to look in regards to following the cool down procedure. A review of the facility's Competencies for Food and Nutrition Services Employees signed by DC 2 on March 13, 2018, indicated cooling methods to achieve 135 degrees F to 70 degrees F in 2 hours, and 70 degrees F to 41 degrees F in 4 additional hours was a function she was expected to be competent in. The facility's policy and procedure titled Food Preparation and service revised July 2014, indicated: .Rapid Cooling: 1. Potentially hazardous foods should be cooled rapidly. This is defined as cooling from 135 [degrees Fahrenheit] to 70 [degrees Fahrenheit] within two hours and then to a temperature of below 41 [degrees Fahrenheit] within the next 4 hours. The total cooling time between 135 [degrees Fahrenheit] and below 41 [degrees Fahrenheit] is not to exceed 6 hours.
CONCERN (F)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the approved menu when: 1. The Dietary [NAME] (DC 1) did not follow the portion sizes for the resident's lunch meal tr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the approved menu when: 1. The Dietary [NAME] (DC 1) did not follow the portion sizes for the resident's lunch meal tray for the following items: a. Puree chicken; b. Puree ham; c. Puree steamed white rice; d. Puree buttered zucchini; e. Mechanical soft chicken; and f. Mechanical soft ham. 2. Food listed on the menu was not prepared for the following items: a. Gravy for mechanical soft and puree ham; and b. Puree soft bread/roll. 3. The Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS) did not follow the portion sizes for the resident's lunch meal tray for the following items: a. Sour cream coffee cake; and b. Yellow cake. These failures had the potential for residents to receive inadequate nutrients and nutrients which could be harmful due to a medical condition or worsening of a medical condition for 103 residents who received food from the kitchen out of a census of 104. Findings: 1. A review of the lunch Daily Spreadsheet dated Fall/Winter 2018/2019 Monday-Day 2 (April 8, 2019), indicated puree ham, puree steamed white rice, mechanical soft chicken, and mechanical soft ham was to be served with a number 8 serving scoop (equates to one-half cup); puree chicken was to be served with a number 6 serving scoop (equates to two-thirds cup); and puree zucchini was to be served with a number ten serving scoop (equates to three-eighths cups). During an observation in the kitchen during trayline (a preparation of meal trays in the kitchen to be delivered to residents) on April 8, 2019, at 11:35 AM, the Dietary [NAME] (DC 1) was observed preparing resident's lunch meal trays with incorrect portion size serving scoops according to the approved menu for the following items: a. Puree chicken was served with a green number 12 serving scoop (that equates to one-third cup instead of a number 6 scoop (2/3 cup) so residents received half the amount that the menu indicated; b. Puree ham was served with a green number 12 serving scoop instead of a number 8 scoop so the resident received one-third of a cup of ham which was less than the half of cup of ham indicated on the menu; c. Puree steamed white rice was served with a green number 12 serving instead of a number 8 scoop so the resident received one-third of a cup of pureed rice which was less than the half of cup of rice that was indicated on the menu; d. Puree buttered zucchini was served with a green number 12 serving scoop instead of a number 10 scoop so residents received one-third of a cup of zucchini instead of three-eighths cup which was less than what was indicated on the menu; e. Mechanical soft chicken was served with a blue number 16 serving scoop (that equates to one-fourth cup) instead of a number 8 scoop so residents received half the amount of chicken than what was indicated on the menu; and f. Mechanical soft ham was served with a black ladle marked as 2 ounces (or one-fourth cup) instead of a number 8 scoop which was half the amount than what was indicated on the menu. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DC 1 and the Registered Dietitian (RD), on April 8, 2019, at 12:20 PM, they confirmed the serving scoops/ladle being utilized for the puree chicken, puree ham, puree steamed white rice, puree buttered zucchini, mechanical soft chicken, and the mechanical soft ham was an incorrect portion size based on the approved menu. During a follow-up interview with the RD, on April 10, 2019, at 9:54 AM, she stated she expected the dietary staff to follow the portion sizes listed on the approved menu. The facility's policy and procedure titled Menus revised October 2008, indicated Menus shall .c) be followed. 2. A review of the lunch Daily Spreadsheet dated Fall/Winter 2018/2019 Monday-Day 2 (April 8, 2019), indicated mechanical soft and puree spiral baked ham was to be served with one ounce of gravy, and a puree or slurry bread was to be served for puree meal trays. During an observation in the kitchen during trayline on April 8, 2019, at 11:55 AM, the following items were not readily available to be served on the resident's lunch meal tray: a. A review of the approved menu indicated the gravy for mechanical soft and puree prepared spiral baked ham was not readily available for use. When asked if gravy was to be served with the mechanical soft and puree prepared spiral baked ham, DC 1 stated I don't know, reviewed the approved menu, and then stated yes. DC 1 acknowledged the gravy was not prepared or readily available for use. b. An observation showed that DC 1 did not place pureed bread on the plates for pureed diets. A review of the approved menu indicated pureed diets received pureed bread. The DC 1 acknowledged the puree bread was not made according to the approved menu. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Registered Dietitian (RD) on April 10, 2019, at 9:43 AM, she reviewed the lunch menu spreadsheet from April 8, 2019 and stated the approved menu should have been followed. A review of the facility's Menu Substitution Record dated April 2019, showed no documented evidence of an omitted food item, a food item that was substituted, or the reason for a substitution for the date of April 8, 2019. The facility's policy and procedure titled Menus revised October 2008, indicated Menus shall .c) be followed .Deviations from menus that have already been posted will be noted (including the reason for the substitution and/or deviation) in the kitchen and/or in the record book used solely for recording such changes. 3. A review of the lunch Daily Spreadsheet dated Fall/Winter 2018/2019 Monday-Day 2 (April 8, 2019), indicated the sour cream coffee cake for regular diets and the yellow cake for all other diet types should be served in three by two-inch portion sized quantities. During an observation in the kitchen during trayline on April 8, 2019, at 12:34 PM, the Dietary Aide (DA 3) stated the dessert placed on the resident's lunch meal tray were either sour cream coffee cake or yellow cake depending on the resident's diet. The cakes were observed in a large plastic tray and differentiated in size when: a. The sour cream coffee cake designated for residents on a regular diet measured two by two inches and another piece measured two and one-quarter by two inches when the approved menu called for the sour cream coffee cake to be cut and served at three by two inches per piece; and b. The yellow cake designated for all other diet types measured one and three-fourths by one and one-half inches and another piece measured two and one-half by two and one-quarter inches when the approved menu called for the yellow cake to be cut and served at three by two inches per piece. During an interview with the Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS), on April 8, 2019 at 12:40 PM, she acknowledged the pieces of sour cream coffee cake and yellow cake differentiated in size. The ADS further stated yeah, I didn't cut them evenly. She stated she had problems cutting the pieces of cake to the correct size due to the knife she was using. During an interview with the RD, on April 10, 2019, at 9:54 AM, she stated she expected the dietary staff to follow the portion sizes listed on the approved menu. The facility's policy and procedure titled Menus revised October 2008, indicated Menus shall .c) be followed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Safe food storage and preparation when one of one ice machine was not clean for a highly vulnerable population of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Safe food storage and preparation when one of one ice machine was not clean for a highly vulnerable population of 103 residents. 2. Food was not disposed of by a use-by-date, and some food items did not have a use by date. 3. Containers used for food service were not air dried and were stacked wet. 4. Cracked and discolored food service containers were not discarded. 5. Kitchen staff facial hair was not covered. These failures had the potential to contaminate resident food sources that can cause foodborne illness in vulnerable population, resulting in severe resident harm, and even death. Findings: 1. During an observation and concurrent interview on April 09, 2019 at 08:45 AM, of the ice machine with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), the inside of the machine had a significant amount of black and pink residue on the plastic that surrounded the evaporator plate (the part of the ice machine where water is frozen and made into ice). The residue had a shiny, slimy appearance and wiped off easily with a paper towel. Water that could be frozen into ice came into contact with the pink and black slimy residue. The plastic cover that fit over the evaporator plate also had brownish, orange residue on the inside surface that faced the evaporator plate. The residue came off when it was rubbed with a paper towel. MS confirmed there was residue on the evaporator plate cover and on the plastic surrounding the evaporator plate and stated he did not consider the ice machine clean and that it probably needed to be cleaned more often. He also stated this was how the ice machine looked, with black and pink slimy residue, before regular scheduled cleanings of the machine and stated it gets worse closer to the cleaning time. According to the 2017 Federal Food Code, equipment food-contact surfaces shall be kept clean to sight and nonfood-contact surfaces shall be kept free of an accumulation of debris. In addition equipment is to be cleaned at a frequency to prevent an accumulation of soil residue. 2. During an observation and concurrent interview on April 08, 2019 at 08:50 AM, with the Certified Diet Manager (CDM), cinnamon raisin bread was on a bread storage rack (outside of the freezer and refrigerator). The bread had a date of March 21, 2019 to September 21, 2019 on the package which CDM stated is the date for how long the bread may stay frozen. He then said once the bread was removed from the freezer it was good for four days. CDM also stated the bread should be dated when it was taken out of the freezer, and he confirmed it was not dated to show when it should be used or discarded. In a concurrent observation, one package of hamburger buns was had a significant amount of green fuzzy substance on four out of six buns. This package had one date on it which read, March 24, 2019. CDM stated I see mold growing on these hamburger buns and they do not have a use by date, they should have been thrown away. CDM also stated cooks and the grocery person were responsible for discarding the bread by the use by date. During record review of Dry Goods Storage Guideline, it revealed, bread opened and unopened on shelf five to seven days . An observation and concurrent interview on April 08, 2019 at 09:12 AM, with CDM during the initial kitchen tour, showed peanut butter and jelly sandwiches were wrapped and not dated. On one of the sandwiches, the peanut butter and jelly had soaked completely through the bread and it appeared soggy. CDM confirmed the sandwiches were not dated. During record review of Food Receiving and Storage, it revealed, 7. All foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled and dated by (use by date). Review of the document titled In-Service Topic Outline and Attendance Record dated December 24, 2018, showed a summary of the information presented during the in-service to kitchen staff, prepared food that was not used immediately needed to be labeled and dated and, food needed to be used within 3 days or discard in the morning. 3. During an observation on April 08, 2019 at 09:05 AM, in the kitchen, five of ten plastic containers were stacked wet. Upon interview with Diet Aide 4 (DA 4) and Diet Aide 3 (DA 3), they both confirmed the containers were stacked wet and stated they should be air dried. They also stated these containers were used for ice to keep drinks cold during tray line. During an interview with CDM, he stated these containers should not be stacked wet. During an interview on April 10, 2019 at 09:43 AM, with RD, she stated plastic containers should be air dried before they are stacked. During record review of Dishwashing Machine Use Policy Statement, 1. f. After running items through entire cycle, allow to air-dry. 4. During an observation and concurrent interview on April 08, 2019 at 09:05 AM, one plastic container was cracked and 3 plastic containers had a black residue covering the surface. DA 3, confirmed the containers were used to hold ice to keep drinks cold on the tray line and stated the crack and black residue was due to the old age of the containers. During an interview on April 08, 2019 at 09:10 AM, with CDM, he confirmed the containers were discolored and cracked and stated the cracked container should have been discarded and the discolored container should have been cleaned with bleach to remove the back residue. During an interview on April 10, 2019 at 09:43 AM, with RD, she stated the discolored and cracked plastic containers should have been thrown away. During record review of Sanitization Policy Statement it revealed, 2. All utensils ., and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, corrosions, open seams, cracked and chipped areas that may affect their use or proper cleaning . 5. During an observation on April 08, 2019, at 11:35 AM, DC 1, a cook did not have his beard and mustache covered when he prepared and served food for tray line. During an interview on April 09, 2019 at 09:53 AM, with CDM, he stated all facial hair should be covered but he was not concerned about the cooks' beard and mustache being uncovered because it was short. During an interview on April 10, 2019 at 10:08 AM, with RD, she stated her expectation was to cover facial hair if it is a large amount of hair, full beard not for thin amount of facial hair. During record review of Dietary Services - Meals and Service, 7. Dietary staff shall wear hair restrains (hair net, hat, beard restraint, etc.), so that hair does not contact food. According to the 2017 Federal Food Code, food employees are to wear hair restraints such as beard restraints that are designated and worn to effectively keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils .
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), $67,043 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 38 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $67,043 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Spring Valley Post Acute Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SPRING VALLEY POST ACUTE LLC an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Spring Valley Post Acute Llc Staffed?

CMS rates SPRING VALLEY 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 Spring Valley Post Acute Llc?

State health inspectors documented 38 deficiencies at SPRING VALLEY POST ACUTE LLC during 2019 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 35 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Spring Valley Post Acute Llc?

SPRING VALLEY 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 126 certified beds and approximately 106 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in VICTORVILLE, California.

How Does Spring Valley Post Acute Llc Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, SPRING VALLEY POST ACUTE LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Spring Valley Post Acute Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can 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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Spring Valley Post Acute Llc Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Spring Valley Post Acute Llc Stick Around?

SPRING VALLEY 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 Spring Valley Post Acute Llc Ever Fined?

SPRING VALLEY POST ACUTE LLC has been fined $67,043 across 15 penalty actions. This is above the California average of $33,749. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Spring Valley Post Acute Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

SPRING VALLEY 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.