WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC

7926 S PAINTER AVE, WHITTIER, CA 90602 (562) 693-5618
For profit - Corporation 36 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
66/100
#271 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Whittier Nursing and Wellness Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #271 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half, and #42 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, meaning only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of reported issues increasing from 8 to 13 in just one year. Staffing is rated as average, with a turnover rate of 36%, which is better than the state average, but there is concerningly less RN coverage than 90% of California facilities. The center has faced some significant deficiencies, including failing to develop appropriate care plans for a resident with a history of substance abuse, which could lead to serious health risks. Additionally, residents reported issues with not receiving their personal mail on Saturdays, which could result in missed important correspondence. There was also a failure to post accurate staffing data in an easily visible location, potentially compromising care quality. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering Whittier Nursing and Wellness Center for their loved ones.

Trust Score
C+
66/100
In California
#271/1155
Top 23%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
8 → 13 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$13,627 in fines. Higher than 90% of California facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2024: 13 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (36%)

    12 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 36%

10pts below California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $13,627

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment to one of thirteen sampled residents (Resident 2) by failing to provide the re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment to one of thirteen sampled residents (Resident 2) by failing to provide the resident an extra blanket when the resident was cold at night. This deficient practice had the potential to expose the resident to an increased risk of hypothermia, discomfort, chills, worsening of existing medical conditions, and potential for skin breakdown from cold exposure. Findings: A review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record indicated that the facility admitted the resident on 3/16/2023 and readmitted the resident on 1/29/2024 with diagnoses that include generalized muscle weakness and depression (a serious mental health condition that can impact how a person feels, thinks, and acts). A review of Resident 45 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a resident assessment tool), dated 11/18/2024, indicated that the resident ' s cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and senses) was moderately impaired. During an interview with Resident 2 on 12/13/2024 at 12:22 PM, he stated that since the cold nights have started, the staff did not provide him an additional blanket when he requested for another one on several occasions. He stated that he felt irritated and neglected when the staff told him that they did not have a blanket available. During an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) on 12/13/2024 at 12:30 PM, who has been working in this facility for nine years, he stated that the laundry department is under his supervision. The MS stated that if there are no available blankets in the linen cart, the staff should check the laundry room and tell him if they still could not find a blanket so he could get a new blanket in the storage room. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 12/13/2024 at 12:45 PM, LVN 1 stated that the Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) go to the charge nurse when they could not find a blanket in the linen cart or the laundry room. LVN 1 stated that the charge nurse would then go to the MS to request for a new blanket; however, LVN 1 stated that the MS is not available during the night shift, which leaves the charge nurse and the CNA helpless. During an interview with CNA 3 on 12/16/2024 at 5:55 AM, CNA 3 stated that Resident 2 asked for a blanket last November, but a blanket was not available in the linen cart. CNA 3 stated she asked LVN 2 where she could get a blanket for a resident, but LVN 2 told her We do not have any. A review of the facility ' s undated policy titled, Quality of Life – Homelike Environment revised in 5/2017 indicated that the facility staff and management should maximize to the extent possible the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized homelike setting which includes the provision of extra blankets upon the request of a resident.
Nov 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the professional standard of practice and t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the professional standard of practice and the facility ' s policy and procedure titled Emergency Management Codes and Procedures for medical emergency (Code Blue- is a hospital code to alert the facility staffs of a medical emergency) by failing to ensure: 1. Call Code Blue was announced on the facility ' s paging system when Resident 27 was found unresponsive to verbal stimuli and responsive to painful stimuli with decreased heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure (the measurement of the pressure in the blood vessels when the heart relaxes or contracts the force of blood pushing against artery walls as the heart pumps blood throughout the body). 2. Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR-a lifesaving emergency procedure for a victim who has signs of cardiac arrest [a situation when a victim becomes unresponsive, no normal breathing, and no pulse]) was initiated immediately and not wait until full code (the patient required resuscitation and all life saving measures during a medical emergency) status of Resident 27 was determined. 3. Rescue breaths (a part of CPR, or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, that involves blowing air into a victim's mouth to deliver oxygen to their lungs) were provided after 30 chest compression (the application of pressure to the chest to prevent it from expanding, used in cardiopulmonary resuscitation) during CPR was performed. These deficient practices resulted in the delayed in providing CPR and/or provisions of emergency care to Resident 27 who was found unresponsive, and the resident could not be revived by the paramedics (emergency medical personnel). Resident 27 was pronounced expired by the paramedics on [DATE] at 10:45 PM in the facility. Findings: During a review of Resident 27 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), dated [DATE], the face sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident 27 on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (elevated sugar in the blood), hypertension (a long-term medical condition in which the blood pressure in the arteries is persistently elevated), and history of falling. During a review of Resident 27 ' s Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST- a medical order that allows residents or their representative indicate their preferences for end-of-life care) signed by Resident 27 ' s Family Member 1 (FM 1) on [DATE] and signed and dated by the Resident 27 ' s Physician on 10 /15/2024, indicated to attempt CPR to Resident 27 to restore breathing and heart circulation and heartbeat. During a review of Resident 27 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated [DATE] indicated, Resident 27 had the capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated [DATE], indicated the cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired, and required supervision and extensive assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 27 ' s Change of Condition (COC) record, dated [DATE] indicated at 10:25 PM, during a facility round Certified Nursing Assistance 3 (CNA 3) observed that Resident 27 Did not look good. CNA 3 then called charge nurse to check Resident 27 right away. License Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 observed Resident 27 unresponsive to verbal stimuli but responsive to painful stimuli. The COC indicated vital signs (measurements of the body ' s basic functions such as the heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure) check respiratory rate 8 pulse 30/min blood pressure (BP) 80/59 Oxygen (O2) absent, O2 inhalation initiated 5 Liters/minute, then bp and carotid pulse diminish, CPR initiated right away. The COC indicated 911 was called and paramedics (person trained to give emergency medical care to people who are injured or ill, typically in a setting outside of a hospital) was notified immediately, the paramedics arrived within 5 minutes and took over resident. The COC indicated on [DATE] at 10:50 PM the paramedics could not revive the resident and pronounced Resident 27 diseased by the paramedics. The COC indicated Resident 27s family and doctor was notified that Resident 27 expired. During a review of the paramedics run sheet (a report from the paramedics) dated [DATE] timed at 10:20 PM, indicated paramedics arrived at facility at 10:25PM and assessed Resident 27. The report indicated the paramedics found Resident 27 unresponsive and placed the resident on [NAME] device (a device used compress the resident ' s chest to resume blood circulation) and established intraosseous insertion (method of administering medications through the bone) per CPR protocol (a system of rules that explain the correct conduct and procedures to be followed in correct situations). Resident 27 ' s electrocardiogram (EKG- a reading of the electrical activity of the heart) showed asystole (an EKG reading that indicates the heart to stopped pumping) at 10:26 PM. The report indicated TOR (Termination of Resuscitation) and pronounced Resident 27 expired at 10:46 PM During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 4:58 PM with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated he was notified by the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3 that Resident 27 was found unresponsive. LVN 2 stated he assessed Resident 27 ' s vital signs but was not able to check resident ' s oxygen blood level. LVN 2 stated he instructed CNA 3 to go to Nursing Station (located in front of the Resident 27 ' s room) to get Resident 27 ' s chart and look for the POLST. LVN 2 stated he did not start CPR until CNA 3 informed him that Resident 27 ' s POLST indicated the resident was a full code (full support which includes CPR if the resident has no heartbeat and is not breathing). During an interview on [DATE] at 5:30 PM with CNA 3, stated when she entered Resident 27 ' s room, CNA 3 observed Resident 27 lying in bed and not breathing. CNA 3 stated she went outside Resident 27 ' s room to call the charge nurse for help and returned to Resident 27 ' s bedside. She stated LVN 2 instructed her to check Resident 27 ' s chart for code status. Then CNA 3 stated I went to grab the backboard (a flat piece of platform that is placed under a person ' s body for the purpose of providing effective CPR). CNA 3 stated, CNA 4 helped her place the backboard under Resident 27 ' s back. LVN 2 instructed CNA 3 and CNA 4 to take over CPR, as LVN 2 went to the Nursing Station to call 911. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:40 PM with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated on [DATE] she was working inside another resident ' s room when CNA 3 ask her for help. CNA 4 stated LVN 2 was performing CPR to Resident 27. CNA 4 She stated that on [DATE] she did not hear a Code Blue announced in the facility ' s paging system. CNA 4 stated that she and CNA 3 was performing CPR while LVN 2 was on the phone in the Nursing Station, calling 911. CNA 4 stated that after they took over the CPR, LVN 2 placed Resident 27 on oxygen delivered via face mask. CNA 4 stated he CNA 3 only performed chest compressions and did not provide rescue breaths to Resident 27. CNA 4 stated she and CNA 3 continued to perform CPR until paramedics arrived. During a follow up telephone interview on [DATE] at 6:11 PM with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated that he cannot remember if he called out a code blue when Resident 27 was found unresponsive to verbal stimuli and vital signs were checked, LVN 2 stated he stepped out from the room to get the mouthpiece from the crash cart to use to give the two breaths Resident 27, then he started the chest compressions. LVN 2 stated that after completing about one set of CPR (consisting of 2 rescue breaths and 30 chest compressions), LVN 2 stated that he went to grab a mask and deliver oxygen to Resident 27. LVN 2 stated I stepped outside the room to call 911 and the Director of Nurses (DON) and ask for help. I don ' t remember if I called the doctor. LVN 2 stated he only checked the vital signs once when he started the CPR. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:45 AM with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD stated to call for medical emergency in the facility, the staff should overpage Code blue in the facility ' s paging system three times to alert other staff members so they can come to assist. The charge nurse is in charge of assigning roles during the code. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:15 AM with the DON, DON stated in a medical emergency the staff need to page Code Blue and state the room number so everyone could help. The DON stated, CPR should be initiated by facility any staff that comes first to the room and there should be a designated team leader, which is usually the charge nurse. The DON stated any available staff can call 911 in an emergency. DON stated that procedures should be delegated, and the resident should not be left alone. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Emergency Procedure-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, revised 2018, indicated if an individual is found unresponsive, briefly assess for abnormal or absence of breathing. If sudden cardiac arrest is likely, begin CPR: the P&P indicated the facility will: 1. Instruct a staff member to activate the emergency response system (code) and call 911. 2. During CPR rescue breaths will be provided after providing 30 chest compression provide via ambu bag or manually (Manual resuscitator) with CPR shield. 3. If an individual (resident, visitor, or staff member) is found unresponsive and not breathing normally, a licensed staff member who is certified in CPR/BLS shall initiate CPR unless: a. It is known that a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order that specifically prohibits CPR and/or external defibrillation exists for that individual; or b. There are obvious signs of irreversible death (e.g., rigor mortis). 4. If the resident's DNR status is unclear, CPR will be initiated until it is determined that there is a DNR or a physician's order not to administer CPR. 5. If the first responder is not CPR-certified, that person will call 911 and follow the 911 operator's instructions until a CPR-certified staff member arrives. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Emergency Management Codes and Procedures, revised 2014, indicated Medical Emergency (Code Blue).
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure title Administering Medications for one of 3 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure title Administering Medications for one of 3 sampled residents (Resident 27), who was administered Amlodipine (medication used to treat high blood pressure) when the resident ' s blood pressure was below the parameters (a fixed limit) set by the physician's order. These deficient practices had the potential to result in unintended complications such as dizziness, drowsiness, syncope (loss of consciousness) due hypotension (abnormally low blood pressure) that could lead to falls and injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 27 ' s admission Record, dated 10/23/2021, the face sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident 27 on 10/14/2024 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (elevated sugar in the blood), hypertension (a long-term medical condition in which the blood pressure in the arteries is persistently elevated), and history of falling. During a review of Resident 27 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/16/2024 indicated, Resident 27 had the mental capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/20/2024, indicated the cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired, and needed supervision to extensive assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 27 ' s physician's order, dated 10/16/2024, indicated to administer Amlodipine Besylate Oral Tablet 2.5 milligrams (mg-a unit of measurement) one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension, and to hold if systolic blood pressure (SBP - the amount of pressure in the arteries during contraction of the heart muscle) is less than 110 mm Hg (millimeter mercury) or if heart rate is less than 60. During a record review of Resident 27 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR), for the month of October 2024, the MAR indicated, to administer Amlodipine 2.5 mg one tablet was administered to the resident on 10/29/2024, at 9AM, and 10/30/2024, at 9AM when the systolic blood pressure was below 110 mm Hg and had a BP systolic readings ranged 102 mm Hg to 108 mm Hg. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/06/2024 at 12:36 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), stated Amlodipine 2.5 mg should have not been administered to Resident 27 when systolic blood pressure was less than 110 mmHg according to the physician ' s order. A review of the facility's policy of Administering Medications revised in April 2019 indicated the medications must be administered in accordance with the physician ' s orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was in good functioning conditi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was in good functioning condition for one of sixteen sampled residents (Resident 23). This failure had the potential for Resident 23 not being able to call for assistance especially during emergency that could result in fall and injury. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/4/2024 at 10:25 AM, in Resident 23's room, Resident 23 stated the call light system was not working then pressed the call light button to show the call light was not working. The call light did not make an audible sound and the call light above Resident 23's door did not turn on. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/4/2024 at 10:45 AM with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, in Resident 23's room, CNA 1 pressed the call light, but the call light did not make an audible sound and the light above Resident 23's door did not turn on. CNA 1 stated the call light was not working due to a loose plug on the wall, and she would report to the charge nurse and the maintenance. CNA 1 stated if the call light was not working the resident would not be able to call for assistance and accident like fall could happen. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/4/2024 at 10:58 AM with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, the Maintenance Repair Log Sheet for October and November 2024 were reviewed. The Maintenance Repair Log Sheet indicated Resident 23's call light had no sound on 10/14/2024 at 10 AM and was repaired. LVN 1 stated the facility should make sure the call light was functioning. LVN 1 stated the charge nurse should inform maintenance if they found the call light was not working, and the maintenance should fix it right away. LVN 1 stated the facility should ensure the residents were able to call for help at all times to help prevent accidents like falls. During an interview on 11/6/2024 at 10:41 AM with Maintenance Supervisor (MS), the MS stated Resident 23's call light was not functioning because the call light plug on the wall was loose, and he fixed it on 11/4/2024 after the nurse reported the call light was not working. The MS stated every morning he checked the Maintenance Repair Log Sheet and made rounds to ensure the call lights were functioning to ensure to residents' needs were met. During an interview on 11/6/2024 at 11:47 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was important to ensure the call light was working and ensure resident get assistance on time to meet resident's needs. During a review of Resident 23's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated that Resident 23 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including left ankle, right ankle, left knee, and right knee contracture (a stiffening or shortening at any joint, that reduces the joint's range of motion), muscle weakness, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), benign prostatic hyperplasia (a condition in which the prostate gland grows larger than normal), primary hypertension (high blood pressure), depression, bipolar disorder (a mental illness that causes extreme mood swings, along with changes in energy, sleep, thinking, and behavior), anxiety disorder (a mental illness that causes people to experience excessive and uncontrollable feelings of fear or anxiety), schizophrenia (a mental illness that is characterized by disturbances in thought), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 23's History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/29/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 23 could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 23's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 8/20/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 23 had moderate impairment in cognitive (ability to remember things, solve problems, or make decisions) skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 23 needed partial/moderate assistance (another person provided less than half of the effort) to complete the activities including oral hygiene, roll left and right, sit to lying, and lying to sitting on side bed. The MDS indicated Resident 23 was dependent and needed two or more helpers do all the effort for the resident to complete the toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, shower/bathe, lower body dressing, and bed to chair transfer activity. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Maintenance Service, dated revised December 2009, the P&P indicated the Maintenance department was responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times. Functions of maintenance personnel include but are not limited to maintaining the paging system in good working order. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Answering the Call Light, dated 2001, revised October 2010, the P&P indicated the facility should ensure to respond to the resident's request and needs. The facility should ensure that the call light be plugged in at all times and report all defective call lights to the nurse supervisor promptly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

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 six of 6 sampled residents (Resident 28, 20, 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure six of 6 sampled residents (Resident 28, 20, 21, 2, 5, and 81), received personal mails when delivered on Saturdays at the facility. This failure resulted in violating Resident 28, Resident 20, Resident 21, Resident 2, Resident 5, and Resident 81 rights to received mail on Saturdays which could result of missing important and timely correspondence. Findings: During an interview on 11/5/2024 at 10:00 AM, during Resident Council Meeting, Resident 28, Resident 20, Resident 21, Resident 2, Resident 5, and Resident 81 stated they received mail unopened on Monday through Friday but did not receive mails on Saturdays. During an interview on 11/5/2024 at 10:45 AM with the Business Office Manager (BOM), the BOM stated she was responsible for releasing the mail from Monday through Friday to Social Service Director (SSD-also was the Activity Director in the facility) or Activity Assistant. The BOM stated the SSD or Activity Assistant were responsible to deliver the mails to the residents. The BOM stated the facility did not deliver mails to resident on Saturdays. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/6/2024 at 10:51 AM, at the nurse station, a locked mailbox was noted hanging on the wall. The SSD stated the activity staff delivered the mails to residents on Monday through Friday after they (SSD or AA) received the mail from the business office. The SSD stated mails delivered on Saturdays would be placed in the locked mailbox at the nurse station. The SSD stated the business office staff would check the mailbox on Monday and give the residents' mail to activity staff on Monday to deliver to the residents. During an interview on 11/6/2024 at 11:47 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was the resident's right to receive the mail timely, and the facility should ensure the residents received the mail on Saturdays. During a review of Resident 28's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 28 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (a change in how the brain works due to an underlying condition), polyneuropathy (damage to multiple nerves outside of the brain and central nervous system), congestive heart failure (a heart disorder which causes the heart to not pump the blood efficiently), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), muscle weakness, benign prostatic hyperplasia ( a condition in which the prostate gland grows larger than normal), schizophrenia (a mental illness that is characterized by disturbances in thought), bipolar disorder (a mental illness that causes extreme mood swings, along with changes in energy, sleep, thinking, and behavior). During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 10/9/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 28 had moderate impairment in cognitive (ability to remember things, solve problems, or make decisions) skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 28 needed substantial/maximal assistance (another person does more than half the effort) to complete the activity. During a review of Resident 20's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 20 on 8/19/2024 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), dysphagia, primary hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure), depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder (a mental illness that causes people to experience excessive and uncontrollable feelings of fear or anxiety), schizophrenia, acute kidney failure (a sudden and often reversible reduction in kidney function). During a review of Resident 20's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 20 had moderate impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 20 needed partial/moderate assistance (another person does less than half the effort) to complete the activity. During a review of Resident 21's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident 21 on 7/21/2022 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), dysphagia, muscle weakness, chronic kidney disease (progressive damage and loss of function in the kidneys), moderate dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), anemia (a condition where the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells), schizophrenia, and anxiety disorder. During a review of Resident 21's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/29/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 21 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 21's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 21 had moderate impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 21 needed setup or clean-up assistance (another person sets up or cleans up and resident completes the activity). During a review of Resident 2's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident 2 on 3/23/2024 with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia, malignant neoplasm of cerebral ventricle (a cancerous brain tumor that develops in the brain's cavities), epilepsy (happens as a result of abnormal electrical brain activity, also known as a seizure), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (complete or partial weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain), primary hypertension, schizophrenia. During a review of Resident 2's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/25/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 2 could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 2's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had no impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 2 needed supervision or touching assistance (another person provided verbal cues and/or touching/steadying assistance) to walk 50 feet with two turns. During a review of Resident 5's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic lung disease causing difficulty breathing), epilepsy (happens as a result of abnormal electrical brain activity, also known as a seizure), primary hypertension, schizophrenia, dysphagia, psychosis (a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality). During a review of Resident 5's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/15/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 5 could make decisions for activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 5's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 5 had no impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 5 needed supervision or touching assistance to walk 50 feet with two turns. During a review of Resident 81's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 81 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), muscle weakness, heart failure, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, moderate dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). During a review of Resident 81's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/15/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 81 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 81's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 81 had moderate impairment in cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 81 needed supervision or touching assistance to walk 50 feet with two turns. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident [NAME] of Right, undated, the P&P indicated the facility should ensure resident have the right to associate and communicate privately with person of the resident's choice, and to send and receive his or her personal mail unopened. The residents should have ready access to letter writing materials, including stamps, and to mail and received unopened correspondence. The resident has the right to privacy in written communications, including
CONCERN (E)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post an accurate facility staffing data in a prominent place where 32 of 32 residents and their representaives and visitors c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post an accurate facility staffing data in a prominent place where 32 of 32 residents and their representaives and visitors could easily view. This deficient practice had the potential to compromise the quality of care the residents receive due to potential insufficient staffing in the facility. Findings: During an observation on 11/04/24 at 04:28 PM, a staffing data dated 11/04/24 was posted to a wall behind the counter of the facility's nurse's station. The staffing data was not easily visible to read from the countertop in the nursing station that was approximately 10 feet away and was not accessible to the residents or visitors. During a concurrent review of the staffing data, the form indicated that the census was 41 for 11/04/24. A review of the facility's census dated 11/4/24 indicated that the resident census was 32. During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) on 11/06/24 at 01:07 PM, she stated that the staffing data that she posted on the wall at the Nurses Station in the beginning of the day shift on 11/04/24, indicated that the resident census was 32. She stated she does not know who scribbled over the resident census and wrote 41. A review of the facility's policy titled, Posting Direct Care Daily Staffing Numbers, Version 1.1, revised in 7/2016, indicated that within two hours of the beginning of each shift, the number of licensed nurses (Registered Nurses and Licensed Vocational Nurses) and the number of unlicensed nursing personnel (Certified Nurse Assistants) directly responsible for resident care will be posted in a prominent location (accessible to residents and visitors) and in a clear and readable format.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 27 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), dated 10/23/2021, the face sheet indicated the facility adm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 27 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), dated 10/23/2021, the face sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident 27 on 10/14/2024 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (elevated sugar in the blood), hypertension (a long-term medical condition in which the blood pressure in the arteries is persistently elevated), and history of falling. During a review of Resident 27 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/16/2024 indicated, Resident 27 had the mental capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/20/2024, indicated the cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired, and needed supervision to extensive assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/7/2024 at 11:15 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed Resident 27 ' s Progress Notes and Change of Condition (COC), both dated 10/30/2024. The DON stated that she documented the progress notes on behalf of the charge nurse, who was busy, but the charting did not include the name or title of the person who provided the care. The DON also stated she documented the COC based on information provided by the charge nurse, but the entry was written as if she herself had performed the procedures, when it was the charge nurse who implemented the interventions. The DON stated that she should have included the charge nurse ' s name and title in both instances to accurately reflect who provided the care. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Charting and Documentation, revised 2017, indicated: Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: The date and time the procedure/treatment was provided; The name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care; The assessment data and/or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment; How the resident tolerated the procedure/treatment; Whether the resident refused the procedure/treatment; Notification of family, physician or other staff, if indicated; and The signature and title of the individual documenting. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately and complete the medical information for 3 of 3 sampled residents (Residents 2, 25, and 27) by failing to: 1. For Residents 2 and 25, the facility did not ensure that the responsible party who signed the Advance Directive (a legal document indicating resident preference on end-of-life treatment decisions) indicated his relationship to the resident and facility representative who signed the form indicated her title. 2. For Resident 27, the facility did not follow its own policy and procedure in documenting the resident's change of condition and nursing notes. These deficient practices can lead to misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatment, and gaps in patient care that could ultimately result to adverse health outcomes. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 2's admission Record indicated that the facility admitted the resident on 12/01/2010 and readmitted the resident on 03/23/2024 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a mental illness that is characterized by disturbances in thought). A review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 08/30/2024, indicated that the resident's cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and senses) was intact. A review of Resident 2's Advance Directive indicated that he was not capable of making medical decisions. The resident's representative signed the Advance Directive on but did not indicate his relationship to the resident. The facility representative signed the same Advance Directive on 3/23/24 but did not indicate her title. During an interview on 11/4/24 at 1:11 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated that Resident 2 was not capable of making medical decisions for himself. During a concurrent review of his chart with RN 1, she stated that the representative of the resident signed the resident's Advance Directive on 3/23/24 but did not indicate his relationship to the resident. RN 1 stated that not knowing the relationship of the person who signed the form could result in a delay in treatment in case of an emergency. A review of Resident 25's admission Record indicated that the facility admitted the resident on 10/22/2024 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia. A review of Resident 25's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that the resident's cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and senses) was impaired. A review of Resident 25's records indicated that her representative signed her Advance Directive on 10/22/24 but did not indicate his relationship to the resident. The facility representative signed the same Advance Directive on 10/22/24 but did not indicate her title. During an interview on 11/5/24 at 9:10 AM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated that the purpose of the Advance Directive is for the facility to know the resident's choice during an emergency. She stated that not knowing the relationship of the representative to the resident could result to a delay in treatment in case of an emergency. During a concurrent review of the Advance Directive of Resident 2 and Resident 25 with the SSD, she stated that the representatives for Residents 2 and 25 signed the form but did not indicate their relationship to the resident. She stated that she also signed the Advance Directive forms for Residents 2 and 25 but she forgot to put her title. A review of the facility's policy titled, Charting and Documentation, Version 1.2, revised in 7/2017, indicated that documentation in the medical record should be complete and accurate.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s infection control policy and procedure for three of 3 sampled residents (Resident 11, 16, and 19) by ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s infection control policy and procedure for three of 3 sampled residents (Resident 11, 16, and 19) by failing to: Ensure that Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP-a set of infection control measures that use personal protective equipment (PPE) to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) were implemented by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1, and 2 ) for three of 3 sampled Residents (Resident 11, 16, and 19) who all have indwelling catheter (a medical device that remains inside the body and provides a direct path for pathogens [any organism that causes disease] to enter the body and cause infection) and were at risk for Multi-Drug Resistant Organisms (MDRO, disease causing organism that have become resistant to certain antibiotics). These deficient practices had the potential to result in the spread of diseases and infections among the residents, visitors and staffs. Findings: During an observation on 11/4/2024 at 2 PM, a Stop sign on the door indicated all who enter the Enhanced Barrier Precautions room should clean their hands and wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), (gown and gloves), and wash hands with soap and water. The sign also indicated to Do not wear the same gown and gloves for the care of more than one person. During an observation on 11/4/2024 at 2 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 and CNA 2 were observed donning (putting) on gloves and into Resident 16 ' s room to reposition Resident 16. During an observation on 11/4/2024 at 2:05 PM, CNA 1 and CNA 2 were observed sanitizing hands and donned new gloves. CNA 1 and CNA 2 did not change isolation gown and proceed to repositioning Resident 11 with the same gown. During an interview on 11/4/2024 at 2:15 PM with the CNA 2, CNA 2 stated he should not wear the same gown and should have change the isolation gown because it was important for preventing infection from spreading. During an interview on 11/4/2024 at 2:16 PM with the CNA 1, CNA 1 stated l should have changed my isolation gown in between residents to prevent possible spread of infection. During an observation on 11/5/2024 at 8:45 AM, License Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 was observed administering medications for Resident 19 via Gastrostomy-Tube (G-tube, a tube that is inserted through the abdominal wall and into the stomach to provide nutrition and medication) without donning an isolation gown. During an interview on 11/5/2024 at 8:45 AM License Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN), LVN 1 stated she should have put on an isolation gown to administer medications, because it is important to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview on 11/7/2024 at 1:45 PM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) Nurse stated the IP ' s expectation was for all staff to wear proper PPE, such as a gown, during medication administration via G-tube due to the high potential risk of bodily fluid exposure. The IP Nurse stated EBP ensures staff reduce the risk of MDRO transmission. The IP Nurse stated the facility should have ensured that all staff members have a clear knowledge of EBP practices and are in accordance with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) EBP guidelines. The IP nurse stated the facility tries to keep up with CDC guidelines and always seek guidance from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health regarding changes in Infection Prevention and Control practices and guidelines.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of measurement) per resident for fourteen (14) out of sixteen (16) resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER],2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,13,15 and 16). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the quality-of-care and the ability of the nursing care to safely provide care and privacy to the residents. Findings: During the entrance conference interview with the Administrator (ADM) on 11/6/2024 at 9:06 AM, the ADM stated there were fourteen rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER],2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,13,15 and 16) in the facility that did not meet the federal regulation [a regulation that the Long-Term Facilities was required to follow to meet federal requirement of by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)] to ensure at least 80 square feet of space per resident in each room. The ADM stated the facility would like to request a room waiver (a document recording the waiving of a right or claim) this year. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/5/2024 at 11:10 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER] had 2 beds, each bed had their own drawers. Resident 23 stated, he had no concern with the room size, and stated, the facility staffs and him were able to move around freely. During an observation on 11/6/2024 at 9 AM, Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 had adequate space, provide privacy, comfort, and nursing care to the residents. The residents residing in the affected rooms were observed to have enough space for the residents to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds an During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/6/2024 at 9:40 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER], Certified Nurse Assistant 2 (CNA 2) stated he had no concern with the room size, and stated, he can perform task such as transferring residents with a Hoyer lift (is a mobility tool designed to help individuals with mobility challenges) from the bed to the wheelchair without any issues. and is able to move around freely. During a review of the facility ' s request letter for room waiver, dated 11/6/2024, indicated the following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 146.52 sq ft 73 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 146.52 sq ft 73 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 143.88 sq ft 71.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 143.88 sq ft 71.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 149.16 sq ft 74.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 141.21 sq ft 70.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 119.92 sq ft 59.96 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 119.92 sq ft 59.96 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 147.84 sq ft 73.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 147.84 sq ft 73.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 147.84 sq ft 73.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 119.92. sq ft 59.96 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 119.92 sq ft 59.96 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 147.84 sq ft 73.5 sq. ft. The room waiver indicated; the facility will ensure: That the approval of the waiver will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of each resident that we care for as the waiver is in accordance with meeting the special needs of each resident.
Sept 2024 4 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 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 F0740 (Tag F0740)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary services (drug counseling and surveillance [monit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary services (drug counseling and surveillance [monitoring of behavior; activities]) and develop person centered care plans for the behavioral healthcare needs for substance abuse for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), who had a history of drug abuse (the excessive or addictive use of drugs for nonmedical purposes) and prevent Resident 1 from experiencing a drug overdose (an excessive and dangerous dose of a drug) of opiate (a controlled drug used to treat pain or cause sleep) and fentanyl (a powerful, controlled drug that is used to treat severe pain) while residing in the facility by failing to: 1. Develop and implement behavior health care plans for drug abuse to meet the behavioral needs of Resident 1 ' s when Resident 1 was readmitted to the facility from the General Acute Care Hospital 2 (GACH) on [DATE] in accordance with the facility policies and procedures [P&P] titled Behavioral assessment, intervention and monitoring and Care plans, comprehensive person-centered. 2. Develop individualized interventions, which included drug abuse counseling and surveillance of a drug abuser, upon Resident 1 ' s readmission to the facility on [DATE], when Resident 1 was diagnosed with opiate and fentanyl overdose in GACH 3 on [DATE], in accordance with the facility P&P titled Behavioral assessment, intervention and monitoring and Care plans, comprehensive person-centered. 3. Assess and identify Resident 1 ' s behavioral needs for drug counseling and surveillance, upon readmission back to the facility from GACH 3 on [DATE], by identifying risk factors, causes and how Resident 1 was exposed to illicit (illegal) drug use, due to a recent opiate/fentanyl overdose incident in the facility, as indicated in the facility ' s policy and procedure [P&P] titled Management of Illicit Drug Use and Referrals, Social Services. 4. Attempt to perform voluntary inspections of Resident 1 ' s belongings, when facility staff had reasonable suspicion of possession of illicit drugs to prevent recurrence of illicit drug use and overdose. The facility did not conduct voluntary inspection of Resident 1 ' s belongings to ensure illicit drugs were no longer present in the resident ' s possession, upon readmission back to the facility, on [DATE], after being transferred to GACH 3 for opiate/fentanyl overdose, in accordance with the facility ' s P&P titled Behavioral assessment, intervention and monitoring and Management of Illicit Drug Use. On [DATE] at 6:56 PM, while onsite at the facility, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) identified an Immediate Jeopardy situation (IJ, a situation in which the provider ' s noncompliance [not following rules] with one or more requirements of participation has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death of a resident) regarding the failure to obtain necessary services, develop person centered care plans for the behavioral healthcare needs of a resident who had history of substance abuse and opiate/fentanyl overdose. The survey team notified the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator (ADM) of the IJ situation on [DATE] at 6:56 PM, due to the facility ' s failure to obtain necessary services, develop person centered care plans for the behavioral healthcare needs of Resident 1. On [DATE] at 1:30 PM, the ADM provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan (a detailed plan to address the IJ findings). On [DATE] at 2:27 PM, while onsite and after the surveyor verified/confirmed the facility ' s full implementation of the IJ Removal Plan, through observation, interview, and record reviews, and determined the IJ situation was no longer present, the IJ was removed onsite, in the presence of the ADM and the DON. The IJ Removal Plan dated [DATE], included the following: -On [DATE], the facility reviewed and developed a behavior care plan for drug abuse for Resident 1 ' s past history of drug abuse. The facility conducted an Interdisciplinary Team [IDT - a group of professionals from different disciplines who work together to provide personalized care)] meeting on [DATE], with Resident 1 regarding any drug use, which Resident 1 denied at the time. -The ADM conducted an investigation on [DATE], to determine the possibilities on how the incident on [DATE], could have happened. Based on ADM investigation (concluded on [DATE]) closer supervision could be needed by the gate. -On [DATE], the facility Security guards was immediately given in-service to be in close proximity (near) to the gate. The Security Guard was placed at the facility gate at 8 PM on [DATE]. Security Guards ' shifts are 7 AM to 3 PM and 3 PM to 11 PM, seven days a week. Security Guards will screen everyone they encounter, with an emphasis on looking for suspicious behavior and drug contraband [illicit goods] from all persons, including staff, residents and visitors. Security Guards will document all person interactions with time, date, and name. Security Guards will report abnormal findings to nursing supervisor. Staff will also have the responsibility for facility wide supervision and was in-serviced specifically for Fentanyl, regarding how to spot signs of active, potential usage and its physical form by the Director of Staff Development (DSD) on [DATE]. 48 staff out of 54 staff informed with an expected completion date [DATE]. ADM called the police to report the incident on [DATE], the call was placed at 1:55 PM, on [DATE]. In the ADM or DON ' s absence, the nursing supervisor can inform the police of any illicit activity. -On [DATE], the IDT reviewed all residents' charts to determine if there are other residents that have history of drug abuse, two residents found. The facility updated their behavior care plans to ensure their needs are met and completed. History of drug abuse created and placed at the Nursing Station with contents identifying all current residents that have a history of drug abuse, for staff reference. Staff informed regarding newly identified residents on [DATE]. -Developed an individualized intervention for Resident 1, which included scheduling of counseling from the facility Psychologist [a person who specializes in the study of mind and behavior] on [DATE], with a focus on opiate and fentanyl overdose and drug abuse. The Psychologist will visit Resident 1, two times a month. -Upon readmission, Resident 1 will be interviewed by Social Services, questions will include an emphasis on history of illicit drug abuse. -All nursing staff will review residents' records to establish if there is a history of drug abuse/use, care plans will be implemented for residents that are found to have a history of drug abuse. -Resident belongings will also be thoroughly checked (with the resident ' s permission) to ensure no contraband is present and brought into the facility. -Residents suspected of illicit drug usage (Fentanyl) will be drug tested in according to the facility ' s Illicit drug policy. Residents have the right to refuse drug testing as it is voluntary. -For ongoing suspicion of illicit drug use of residents, the IDT team will conduct and IDT meeting informing the resident of the facility policy, including that all drug testing is voluntary. -On [DATE], the facility staff conducted a search in Resident 1 ' s room with the resident ' s consent. This search was repeated on [DATE], no contraband found. The facility also conducted a whole facility search and no contraband was found on [DATE]. The facility will conduct weekly contraband searches every 4 weeks and them monthly for the next 6 months. -Resident 1 was prescribed Norco (a drug used to treat moderate to severe pain) every eight hours as needed for pain management. This is to prevent Resident 1 from seeking pain relief through illicit means. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 2 records titled History and Physical [H&P] Report dated [DATE], indicated the resident came to the emergency room for worsening left shoulder pain. The H&P indicated under Assessment and Plan to rule out stroke [a medical emergency that occurs when blood flow to the brain is disrupted, damaging or killing brain tissue], adjust psychiatric [relating to mental illness] medications and for pain management. The GACH 2 record indicated Resident 1 was discharged with Acetaminophen [over the counter pain medication] 325 mg oral tablet: two tablets orally every 4 hours, as needed, for mild pain (1-3) pain scale. The GACH 2 record indicated the resident was discharged to the facility on [DATE]. The H&P under Social History indicated, Resident 1 has a remote history of smoking. Resident 1 has a history of drug abuse. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled admission Record indicated a facility readmission on [DATE], with diagnoses that included flaccid hemiplegia (a neurological condition characterized by weakness or paralysis and reduced muscle tone) affecting left non dominant side, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD -a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Order summary Report indicated the following active medication orders for Resident 1 dated [DATE]: Amlodipine Besylate (medication for blood pressure) 10 milligram [mg – unit of measurement] one time a day. Aspirin 81 mg (medication for CVA) 81 milligram one time a day. Ativan (medication for anxiety) 0.5 mg two times a day. Folic Acid (medication for anemia) 1 mg one time a day. Gabapentin (medication for numbness and pain from nerve damage) 300 mg three times a day. Ibuprofen (medication for pain) 600 mg as needed every 12 hours. Lactulose (medication to prevent complication of liver disease) 10 grams in 15 mg, one time a day. Lidocaine patch (medication for pain) 5% apply for 12 hours. Lisinopril (medication for blood pressure) 5 mg one time a day Milk of Magnesia (medication for constipation) 30 ml as needed one time a day Olanzapine (medication for mental illness) 5 mg 1 time a day Tylenol (medication for mild pain) 325 mg give 1 as needed every 6 hours Tylenol (medication for pain level 4-6) 325 mg give 2 as needed every 6 hours Vitamin B1(supplement) 100 mg one time a day Vitamin C (supplement) 500 mg one time a day Zolpidem Tartrate (medication for inability to sleep) 5 mg give one tablet During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled History and Physical (H&P) dated [DATE], indicated the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Social Service History & Initial Assessment dated [DATE], authored by the Social Services Director [SSD] indicated under Social Factors and History of drug/alcohol abuse, was left unmarked. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Situation, Background Assessment, Recommendations [SBAR] dated [DATE] timed at 9:45 AM, indicated at 9:30 AM, Resident 1 was up in the wheelchair and conversing [talking] with the staff. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 started drooling (when saliva flows out of your mouth unintentionally) on the right side of his mouth. Resident 1 was non-verbal, non-responsive to pain and skin color was purple/clammy skin (skin that is wet from sweating). The SBAR further indicated Resident 1 ' s blood pressure was 111/74, pulse rate was 94, respirations was 12. Resident 1 ' s oxygen saturation (the amount of oxygen carried by red blood cells) was absent and a non-breather mask (a special medical device that helps provide you with oxygen in emergencies) oxygen inhalation at 10 Liters (metric unit of capacity) was placed on Resident 1. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 still remained unresponsive . The resident ' s pupil of eye constricted (to reduce the light entering the eye) and fixed (a pupil that does not respond to light). The resident ' s physician (Physician 1) was notified and made aware. The SBAR indicated 911 emergency services was notified and the resident was transferred to GACH 3. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 records titled History and Physical dated [DATE], indicated [Resident 1] was found slumped [sitting with the body leaning forward, for example, because a person was asleep or unconscious] over in the wheelchair, then became unresponsive. No seizure [a sudden, uncontrolled movement] activity noted. Resident 1 was started on CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, [an emergency treatment that's done when someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped]) when paramedics arrived. Resident 1 was noted with agonal breathing (when someone who is not getting enough oxygen is gasping for air) and pinpoint pupils [a condition where the pupils of the eyes appear unusually small] with Glasgow coma scale (used to objectively describe the extent of impaired consciousness) of 3 (is the lowest possible score and is associated with an extremely high mortality rate). Resident 1 was given Narcan (is a medicine that treat someone from fentanyl or prescription opioid medicine overdose) with improvement. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 Urine Drug Screen [UDS- used to detect illegal and some prescription drugs in the urine] dated [DATE] timed at 12:15 PM, the UDS indicated Resident 1 ' s urine indicated Presumptive Positive [shows a response, which is usually because a drug is present] for Fentanyl Urine and Opiates [a drug that contains opioids (a class of controlled drug used for moderate to severe pain)], Urine. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 Physician Progress Notes dated [DATE], the Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 ' s Chest X-ray [a way for providers to get pictures of the inside of your body] and CT [Computed Tomography - an imaging test that helps healthcare providers detect diseases and injuries] of the head did not indicate any acute abnormal process. The GACH 3 Physician Progress Notes indicated under Problem List, indicated Resident 1 had syncope (a loss of consciousness for a short period of time), unresponsiveness, opiate overdose, possible respiratory arrest [a condition that exists at any point a patient stops breathing] due to accidental fentanyl overdose, and fentanyl/opioid positive on UDS. The Progress Notes further indicated to continue monitoring Resident 1 ' s vital signs [clinical measurements, specifically pulse rate, temperature, respiration [breathing] rate, and blood pressure] and administer Narcan as needed. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled admission Record indicated another readmission back to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included syncope and collapse [fall down], personal history of other specified condition, flaccid hemiplegia affecting left non dominant side and COPD. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Nursing admission Screening/History dated [DATE] indicated Resident 1 was readmitted back to the facility from GACH 3 with the following reasons . Possible respiratory arrest . Unresponsive and Syncope. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled IDT /Comprehensive Care Plan Summary dated [DATE], indicated the IDT met with Resident 1 and reviewed Resident 1 ' s plan of care. The IDT record indicated Resident 1 was re-admitted from GACH 3 on [DATE] , under the care of Physician 1 with left flaccid paralysis/hemiplegia [loss of strength in the arm, leg, and sometimes face on one side of the body], cerebrovascular accident [CVA -caused by blood clots and broke vessels in the brain), hepatic encephalopathy (brain disfunction caused by liver disfunction), anxiety (condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls is too high) .and bipolar disorder (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings). The IDT record further indicated that the IDT had met with Resident 1 today [[DATE]] regarding GACH 3 reports of Fentanyl overdose. The IDT record indicated Resident 1 denied taking any medications other than what was prescribed for him. The IDT record indicated, Resident 1 denied taking opioids and/ or any other illegal substance. The IDT record indicated . Will continue to monitor Resident 1 ' s condition. Will provide frequent visual check for safety. Will continue current plan of care. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Telephone Order (TO) dated [DATE], the TO indicated Physician 1 ' s telephone orders to continue previous medications and treatments as ordered. During an interview and observation on [DATE] at 1:43 PM, with Resident 1, Resident 1 was observed sitting in the wheelchair at the facility ' s Dining Room. Resident 1 stated, The day ([DATE]) I went to the hospital [GACH 3] I took a pill my friend gave me; it was supposed to make me feel better. I don ' t remember what happened that day, I woke up in the hospital (GACH 3). Resident 1 stated his friend dropped off the pill in front of the facility through the gate. Resident 1 stated the facility ' s security guard was present outside, when his friend gave him the pill. Resident 1 stated the security guard was not paying attention when he was handed the pill through the facility gate. Resident 1 stated he did not want to say who the friend was who gave him the pill. Resident 1 further stated, I learned my lesson and I would not do that again. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:45 PM with the ADM and concurrent record review of the facility ' s investigation regarding the incident that happened with Resident 1 on [DATE], the ADM provided typewritten staff interview statements that indicated the following information: -Facility record titled Facility Interview dated [DATE] and signed by the facility ADM, indicated a typewritten statement from Registered Nurse [RN] 1. The interview statement indicated, Registered Nurse (RN 1) stated that on she saw Resident 1 ' s change of condition. Immediately went to help and call 911. Did not notice anything unusual during the shift. -Facility record titled Facility Interview dated [DATE] and signed by the facility ADM, indicated a typewritten statement from Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1. The interview statement indicated CNA 1 had [Resident 1] for an assignment. CNA 1 responded to the change of condition. Did not notice anything unusual during the shift. No visitors for Resident 1. No out on pass, aware of. -Facility record titled Facility Interview dated [DATE], and signed by the facility ADM, indicated [CNA 2] responded to the change of condition. Did not notice anything unusual during the shift. -Facility record titled Facility Interview dated [DATE], and signed by the facility ADM, indicated [CNA 3] night shift, did not notice anything unusual. No issues. -Facility record titled Facility Interview dated [DATE], and signed by the facility ADM, indicated [Resident 1] does not recall taking anything unusual. Felt fine until the incident, feels safe, no issues with facility. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 PM, CNA 1 stated she came in to work at 6:30 AM in the morning of [DATE] and remembered seeing Resident 1. CNA 1 stated before 8 AM, she helped Resident 1 get out of bed and up to the shower chair. CNA 1 stated that after the shower, CNA 1 took Resident 1 to the bathroom dressed him and helped him brush his teeth and get dressed. CNA 1 stated she recalled seeing Resident 1 wheeling himself out in his wheelchair into the hallway between 8:30 AM to 9:00 AM. CNA 1 stated a few minutes after that she heard RN 1 calling for help for Resident 1. CNA 1 stated she rushed over and saw Resident 1 looked pale and blue. CNA 1 stated, the paramedics arrived and took Resident 1 between 9:20 AM to 9:30 AM on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:15 PM, RN 1 stated she remembered in the morning of [DATE], Resident 1 came up to RN 1 to get his medications after breakfast around 8:50 AM to 9:00AM. RN 1 stated she gave Resident 1 an Ibuprofen (over the counter pain medication), for pain. RN 1 stated seeing Resident 1 wheeled himself away and was hanging out with the other residents in the hallway. RN 1 stated around 9:30 AM, she saw Resident 1 in the facility hallway in his wheelchair, drooling, with the head tilted to the side. RN 1 stated she called a Code Blue (a code that indicated that someone is experiencing a life-threatening medical emergency) and asked a CNA [unknown CNA] to assist her to put Resident 1 down to the floor. RN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s oxygen saturation level on [DATE] was around 91% to 92% [normal oxygen saturation levels are 95 % to 100%]. RN 1 stated she increased Resident 1 ' s oxygen level to 10 Liters (a unit of measurement) and instructed someone to call 911 emergency services. RN 1 stated Resident 1 would slightly open his eyes after he got oxygen but could not talk. During an interview with on [DATE] at 2:24 PM, with the DON, the DON stated Resident 1 was transferred to GACH 3 on [DATE], after being found unresponsive and drooling. The DON stated on [DATE], before Resident 1 arrived back at the facility, the DON spoke to a GACH 3 licensed nurse, who notified the facility that Resident 1 ' s urine drug test, tested positive for Fentanyl and other opiates. The DON stated the GACH 3 licensed nurse stated Resident 1 was admitted to GACH 3 for medication overdose. The DON stated there was no way he [Resident 1] can overdose . that did not happen. I think it was a stroke because of Resident 1 ' s history of CVA [cerebrovascular accident]. During the same interview on [DATE] at 2:24 PM and concurrent review of Resident 1 ' s Medication Administration Records (MAR) for [DATE] to [DATE], the DON stated that Resident 1 was not on Fentanyl or any types of opioid medications prior to the change in condition [syncope and unresponsiveness] on [DATE]. During another interview and concurrent record review on [DATE] at 2:45 PM, Resident 1 ' s active care plans was reviewed with the DON. During the interview, the DON stated there was no documented evidence that a care plan was developed for Resident 1 ' s history of drug abuse in the past as indicated in GACH 2 record dated [DATE] and GACH 3 records dated [DATE], or the recent fentanyl/opiate overdose on [DATE]. The DON stated, We [facility] did not do care plan because it [overdose] did not happen . that he [Resident 1] had an overdose (fentanyl or opioids). The DON further stated that the facility did not have any residents receiving fentanyl. During the same interview and concurrent record review on [DATE] at 2:45 PM, Resident 1 ' s IDT/Comprehensive care pan summary dated [DATE] was reviewed with the DON. When asked what the licensed nurses were monitoring for Resident 1, as indicated in the IDT care plan summary, the DON stated Resident 1 was being monitored for vitals sign abnormalities once a shift. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:24 PM, with the facility ' s security guard (SG 1), SG 1 stated that when someone comes to the facility gate, he would open the gate and inform the nurses. SG 1 stated he was never instructed to intervene or question if an unknown individual was seen outside the gate talking to a resident in the facility. During the same interview, on [DATE] at 3:24 PM, the SSD stated when a new resident is admitted or readmitted to the facility, the facility SSD and the licensed nurses would go over all of the resident ' s GACH records. The SSD stated that the SSD would complete a full social services assessment upon admission/readmission. The SSD stated the facility did not order or arrange any behavioral referrals for Resident 1 to see a psychologist or psychiatrist [a doctor specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness] for substance abuse counseling upon his readmission on [DATE], from GACH 3. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 1 ' s care plans developed from [DATE] to [DATE], with the facility ' s SSD on [DATE] at 2:22 PM, the SSD stated there was no care plan developed for Resident 1 ' s history of substance abuse from [DATE] and [DATE] facility readmissions. The SSD stated she did not know Resident 1 had a history of drug abuse as indicated in the GACH 2 Social History record, dated [DATE]. The SSD further stated Resident 1 did not have care plans developed for fentanyl overdose or drug abuse or any type of surveillance monitoring for substance abuse, because the facility did not believe Resident 1 ' s fentanyl and opiate overdose was real. The SSD stated the facility did not have any residents taking fentanyl medications. The SSD stated she did not search Resident 1 ' s entire room and belongings to search for illicit drugs, with Resident 1 ' s consent on [DATE] upon Resident 1 ' s readmission back to the facility from GACH 3 on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:29 PM with the DON, the DON stated there was no care plan developed to perform voluntary inspections of Resident 1 ' s room and belongings for possession of illicit drugs, upon Resident 1 ' s readmission from GACH 3 on [DATE]. The DON stated she searched Resident 1 ' s room on [DATE] with another facility staff but could not recall who the staff was and did not document the inspection. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Management of Illicit Drug Use [not dated], the P&P indicated the purpose of the policy was To establish a consistent, complaint, and legal response to the identification, prevention, and management of illicit drug use among residents to ensure safety . The aim is to ensure the safety of all residents, staff, and the facility. The P&P further indicated 1. Prevention and Education- All new resident ' s history and physical will be reviewed upon admission for substance abuse history. This information will guide care planning and the prevention of potential issues. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Referrals, Social Services revised on [DATE], the P&P indicated Social Services personnel shall coordinate most resident referrals with outside agencies . The P&P further indicated 3. Referrals for residents with psychological, history of alcohol or substance abuse related needs must be based on physician evaluation of resident need, after which Social Services will collaborate with the nursing department to arrange for recommended services. 4. Social services will collaborate with the nursing staff or other pertinent disciplines to arrange for services that have been ordered by the physician. 5. Social services will document the referral in the resident ' s medical record. 6. Social services and administration will maintain a listing of referral agencies that may provide assistance or therapy to residents with special problems and/or needs . During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Behavioral assessment, intervention and monitoring revised [DATE], the P&P indicated 1. The interdisciplinary team will thoroughly evaluate new or changing behavioral symptoms in order to identify underlying causes and address any modifiable factors that may have contributed to the resident ' s change in condition The care plan will incorporate findings from the comprehensive assessment and be consistent with current standards of practice. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Care plans, comprehensive person-centered, revised on [DATE], the P&P indicated, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident ' s physical and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident.
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 F0635 (Tag F0635)

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 residents received treatment and care in accordance with pr...

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 residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the facility ' s policy and procedure [P&P] titled admission Assessment and Follow Up: Role of the Nurse, for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) when it failed to ensure all appropriate discharge orders from General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) 3 were verified with the attending physician (Physician 1) upon Resident 1 ' s readmission to the facility on [DATE]. This deficient practice could result in Resident 1 not receiving emergency medications such as Narcan (is a medicine that treat someone from fentanyl or prescription opioid medicine overdose) needed to treat opioid overdose. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 records titled History and Physical dated [DATE], indicated [Resident 1] was found slumped [sitting with the body leaning forward, for example, because a person was asleep or unconscious] over in the wheelchair, then became unresponsive. No seizure [a sudden, uncontrolled movement] activity noted. Resident 1 was started on CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, [an emergency treatment that's done when someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped]) when paramedics arrived. Resident 1 was noted with agonal breathing (when someone who is not getting enough oxygen is gasping for air) and pinpoint pupils [a condition where the pupils of the eyes appear unusually small] with Glasgow coma scale (used to objectively describe the extent of impaired consciousness) of 3 (is the lowest possible score and is associated with an extremely high mortality rate). Resident 1 was given Narcan (is a medicine that treat someone from fentanyl or prescription opioid medicine overdose) with improvement. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 Urine Drug Screen [UDS] dated [DATE] timed at 12:15 PM, the urine drug screen indicated Resident 1 ' s urine indicated Presumptive Positive for Fentanyl Urine and Opiates, Urine. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 Physician Progress Notes dated [DATE], the Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 ' s Chest X-ray [a way for providers to get pictures of the inside of your body] and CT [Computed Tomography - an imaging test that helps healthcare providers detect diseases and injuries] of the head did not indicate any acute abnormal process. The GACH 3 Physician Progress Notes indicated under Problem List, indicated Resident 1 syncope, unresponsiveness, opiate overdose, possible respiratory arrest due to accidental fentanyl overdose, and fentanyl/opioid positive on UDS. The Progress Notes further indicated, to continue to monitor Resident 1 ' s vital signs and administer Narcan as needed. A review of GACH 3 ' s Patient ' s Home Medications added during Discharge Reconciliation dated [DATE], indicated a list of Resident 1 ' s medications ordered from GACH 3. Narcan 4 milligrams/ 0.1 milliliters nasal spray, 1 spray intranasally every 8 hours as needed for opioid overdose. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled admission Record indicated a facility readmission on [DATE], with diagnoses that included flaccid hemiplegia (a neurological condition characterized by weakness or paralysis and reduced muscle tone) affecting left non dominant side, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD -a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive standardized assessment and screening tool) dated [DATE], the MDS indicated the Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognition (thought process). During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled History and Physical (H&P) dated [DATE], indicated the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Nursing admission Screening/History dated [DATE] indicated Resident 1 was readmitted back to the facility from GACH 3 with the following reasons . Possible respiratory arrest . Unresponsive and Syncope. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Telephone Order (TO) dated [DATE], the TO indicated Physician 1 ' s telephone orders to continue previous medications and treatments as ordered. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:29 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), and concurrent record review of Resident ' s 1 current Order Summary Report, the DON stated there was no documented evidence that Resident 1 ' s Narcan medication was ordered upon Resident ' s 1 readmission back to the facility on [DATE] by Resident 1 ' s primary physician, as indicated in the GACH 3 discharge orders. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:30 PM, the DON stated it is a standard of practice and expected that the admitting licensed nurse should review all GACH records and care plans when completing a resident admission or readmission to ensure all admission orders are addressed with the resident ' s Physician. The DON stated she was Resident 1 ' s admission nurse and did not see the Narcan order. The DON stated, if I would have seen I would have notified Resident 1 ' s physician and completed a drug regimen review for Resident 1. The DON stated she spoke to Resident 1 ' s physician and informed him there were no changes to Resident 1 ' s previous medications, she did not read each discharge medication orders one by one to Resident 1 ' s Physician over the phone. A review of facility policy and procedure titled admission Assessment and Follow Up: Role of the Nurse with a revision date of [DATE] indicated, 11. Reconcile the list of medications from the medication history, admitting orders, the previous medication administration review (if available), and the discharge summary from the previous institution, according to established procedures. 12. Contact attending Physician to communicate and review the findings of the initial assessment and any other pertinent information and obtain admission orders that are based on these findings.
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 F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to manage a resident ' s pain timely and effectively for ...

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 manage a resident ' s pain timely and effectively for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), in accordance with the facility ' s policy and procedure titled Pain Assessment and Management, by failing to: 1. Follow the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) 1 recommendations on pain management and the physician ' s order for Norco as needed for severe pain dated 9/9/2024. 2. Follow up with the pharmacy to ensure the ordered pain medication [Norco] was received and delivered timely. 3. Notify the physician when Resident 1 ' s pain management regimen was ineffective, and the resident received pain medication for mild pain [Ibuprofen], almost daily. 4. Update Resident 1 ' s Pain Care Plan to reflect specific resident-centered interventions needed to relieve the resident ' s pain. 5. Implement the facility ' s policy & procedure (P&P) titled Pain Assessment and Management that included monitoring for the effectiveness of interventions and modifying approaches as necessary. Assessing pain consists of identifying characteristics of pain and the pattern of pain. Report the following information to the physician or practitioner: prolonged, unrelieved pain despite care plan interventions. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 taking an unknown medication to relieve moderate to severe pain and was sent to GACH for an overdose of Fentanyl (a potent synthetic opioid drug used as pain relief and anesthetic) with the potential of having a negative effect on the resident ' s physical comfort and psychosocial well-being. Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 1 record dated 8/21/2024, indicated the resident was evaluated for left arm pain and prescribed Norco 5-325 (Hydrocodone bitartrate 5 mg [unit of measurement] and Acetaminophen 325 mg) mg per tablet, take one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for severe pain (7-10) for up to five days. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 2 records titled History and Physical [H&P] Report dated 9/04/2024, indicated the resident came to the emergency room for worsening left shoulder pain. The H&P indicated under Assessment and Plan to rule out stroke [a medical emergency that occurs when blood flow to the brain is disrupted, damaging or killing brain tissue], adjust psychiatric [relating to mental illness] medications and for pain management. The GACH 2 record indicated Resident 1 was discharged with Acetaminophen [over the counter pain medication] 325 mg oral tablet: two tablets orally every 4 hours, as needed, for mild pain (1-3) pain scale. The GACH 2 record indicated the resident was discharged to the facility on 9/7/2024. The H&P under Social History indicated, Resident 1 has a remote history of smoking. Resident 1 has a history of drug abuse. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled admission Record indicated a facility readmission on [DATE], with diagnoses that included flaccid hemiplegia (a neurological condition characterized by weakness or paralysis and reduced muscle tone) affecting left non dominant side, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD -a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Change in Condition (COC) dated 8/21/2024 timed at 8:40 AM, indicated the resident had intractable pain to the left shoulder with a pain level of 8 on the pain scale (a way to measure how much pain someone was experiencing – a score of 0 meant no pain, and 10 meant the worse pain you have ever known) with increased left shoulder weakness, and left shoulder limitation. The COC indicated the current pain reliever – Ibuprofen was ineffective. The COC indicated the physician was notified and the facility received orders to transfer the resident to GACH 1 for further evaluation. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s PRN Pain Assessment Flowsheet dated from 8/1/2024 to 8/29/2024, the PRN Pain Assessment indicated the resident had generalized body pain with a pain level of 8 out of 10 on the pain scale. The PRN Pain Assessment Flowsheet indicated non-pharmacological interventions included repositioning, dim light/quiet environment, snack/drinks, 1:1 attention, re-direction, music, massage, or toileting. The PRN Pain Assessment Flowsheet indicated the non-pharmacological interventions were not effective and the resident ' s pain level was the same before the interventions were implemented, resulting in the resident receiving pain medication every time Resident 1 complained of pain. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated from 8/1/2024 to 8/31/2024, indicated the resident received Ibuprofen every day for the month of August 2024, except for four days. The MAR indicated for two of the four days Resident 1 did not receive Ibuprofen, the resident received Norco. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-planning tool) dated 9/3/2024, indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment (could not navigate to new places, and they have significant difficulty completing complex tasks such as managing finances). The MDS indicated the resident had impairment on both upper and lower extremity sides and utilized a walker and a wheelchair for mobility devices. The MDS indicated the resident received scheduled and as needed (PRN) pain medication. The MDS indicated the resident had the presence of pain occasionally, the pain did not affect the resident ' s sleep, and Resident 1 ' s pain rarely interfered with the resident ' s day-to-day activities. The MDS indicated the residents pain scale was a three from a zero to 10 pain scale. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 9/8/2024, indicated the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Drug Regimen Review on 9/7/2024 timed at 7:59 PM, indicated the resident ' s primary admission diagnosis was chronic pain syndrome. The Drug Regimen Review indicated new medications ordered on admission included Tylenol oral tablet 325 mg (Acetaminophen) two tablets on 4-6/10 pain scale every six hours, Tylenol oral tablet 325 mg (Acetaminophen) one tablet on 1-3/10 pain scale every six hours, and Ibuprofen 600 mg PRN every 12 hours for pain scale 7-10/10. The Drug Regimen Review indicated there were no potential medication issues noted, and the medications were reviewed by the pharmacist and the physician. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Pain Care Plan dated 9/7/2024, indicated the resident had neuropathic pain related to diagnoses. The Care Plan goal indicated the resident would verbalize and/or show decrease physical signs in pain with pain relieving strategies. The Care Plan interventions included assessing level of pain using the pain rating scale, implement non-pharmacological interventions of repositioning and dim lighting, and provide relaxation techniques. The Care Plan interventions continued with aromatherapy, reassuring words/gestures, administer pain medication as ordered, monitor response using pain scale related to medications, treatments, and procedures, and evaluate the need to provide medications prior to treatment or therapy. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Order summary Report indicated the following active medication orders for Resident 1 dated 9/07/2024: Amlodipine Besylate (medication for blood pressure) 10 milligram [mg – unit of measurement] one time a day. Aspirin 81 mg (medication for CVA) 81 milligram one time a day. Ativan (medication for anxiety) 0.5 mg two times a day. Folic Acid (medication for anemia) 1 mg one time a day. Gabapentin (medication for numbness and pain from nerve damage) 300 mg three times a day. Ibuprofen (medication for pain) 600 mg as needed every 12 hours. Lactulose (medication to prevent complication of liver disease) 10 grams in 15 mg, one time a day. Lidocaine patch (medication for pain) 5% apply for 12 hours. Lisinopril (medication for blood pressure) 5 mg one time a day Milk of Magnesia (medication for constipation) 30 ml as needed one time a day Olanzapine (medication for mental illness) 5 mg 1 time a day Tylenol (medication for mild pain) 325 mg give 1 as needed every 6 hours Tylenol (medication for pain level 4-6) 325 mg give 2 as needed every 6 hours Vitamin B1(supplement) 100 mg one time a day Vitamin C (supplement) 500 mg one time a day Zolpidem Tartrate (medication for inability to sleep) 5 mg give one tablet A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Progress Note dated 9/8/2024 timed at 12:52 PM, indicated the resident was complaining of pain to the left arm/shoulder with a 10/10 on the pain scale. The Progress Note indicated the resident received PRN pain medication as ordered. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Physician ' s Order dated 9/9/2024 timed at 2:39 PM, indicated Ibuprofen oral tablet 600 mg, give one tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain scale 4-6/10 and give with food/snack. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s Physician ' s Order dated 9/9/2024 timed at 2:50 PM, indicated Norco oral tablet 5-325 mg give 1 tablet my mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain 7-10/10, hold if respiration rate (the number of breaths a person takes in a minute) was less than 12 breaths/min and notify MD (Doctor of Medicine). Do not exceed 3G (grams, unit of measurement) APAP (acetaminophen, a common pain reliever and fever reducer)/24 hours. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s PRN Pain Assessment Flowsheet dated from 9/3/2024 to 9/16/2024, indicated the resident had left shoulder pain with a pain level ranging from six to eight on the pain scale. The PRN Pain Assessment Flowsheet indicated the non-pharmacological interventions were not effective and the residents pain level was the same before the interventions were implemented, resulting in the resident receiving pain medication every time Resident 1 complained of pain. A review of the facility records indicated Resident 1 ' s MAR dated from 9/1/2024 to 9/30/2024, indicated the resident received Ibuprofen on 9/3/2024, 9/9/2024 to 9/11/2024, and 9/14/2024 to 9/15/2024. The MAR indicated the resident received Norco on 9/15/2024 to 9/16/2024. During a review of Resident 1 ' s facility records titled Situation, Background Assessment, Recommendations [SBAR] dated 9/11/2024 timed at 9:45 AM, indicated at 9:30 AM, Resident 1 was up in the wheelchair and conversing [talking] with the staff. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 started drooling (when saliva flows out of your mouth unintentionally) on the right side of his mouth. Resident 1 was non-verbal, non-responsive to pain and skin color was purple/clammy skin (skin that is wet from sweating). The SBAR further indicated Resident 1 ' s blood pressure was 111/74, pulse rate was 94, respirations were 12. Resident 1 ' s oxygen saturation (the amount of oxygen carried by red blood cells) was absent and a non-breather mask (a special medical device that helps provide you with oxygen in emergencies) oxygen inhalation at 10 Liters (metric unit of capacity) was placed on Resident 1. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 still remained unresponsive . The resident ' s pupil of eye constricted (to reduce the light entering the eye) and fixed (a pupil that does not respond to light). The resident ' s physician (Physician 1) was notified and made aware. The SBAR indicated 911 emergency services was notified and the resident was transferred to GACH 3. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 records titled History and Physical dated 9/11/2024, indicated [Resident 1] was found slumped [sitting with the body leaning forward, for example, because a person was asleep or unconscious] over in the wheelchair, then became unresponsive. No seizure [a sudden, uncontrolled movement] activity noted. Resident 1 was started on CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, [an emergency treatment that's done when someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped]) when paramedics arrived. Resident 1 was noted with agonal breathing (when someone who is not getting enough oxygen is gasping for air) and pinpoint pupils [a condition where the pupils of the eyes appear unusually small] with Glasgow coma scale (used to objectively describe the extent of impaired consciousness) of 3 (is the lowest possible score and is associated with an extremely high mortality rate). Resident 1 was given Narcan (is a medicine that treat someone from fentanyl or prescription opioid medicine overdose) with improvement. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 3 Urine Drug Screen [UDS- used to detect illegal and some prescription drugs in the urine] dated 9/11/2024 timed at 12:15 PM, the UDS indicated Resident 1 ' s urine indicated Presumptive Positive [shows a response, which is usually because a drug is present] for Fentanyl Urine and Opiates [a drug that contains opioids (a class of controlled drug used for moderate to severe pain)], Urine. During an interview and observation on 9/16/2024 at 1:43 PM, with Resident 1, Resident 1 was observed sitting in the wheelchair at the facility ' s Dining Room. Resident 1 stated, The day (9/11/2024) I went to the hospital [GACH 3] I took a pill my friend gave me; it was supposed to make me feel better. I don ' t remember what happened that day, I woke up in the hospital (GACH 3). Resident 1 stated his friend dropped off the pill in front of the facility through the gate. Resident 1 stated the facility ' s security guard was present outside, when his friend gave him the pill. Resident 1 stated the security guard was not paying attention when he was handed the pill through the facility gate. Resident 1 stated he did not want to say who the friend was who gave him the pill. Resident 1 further stated, I learned my lesson and I would not do that again. During an interview on 9/17/2024 at 3:34 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated Resident 1 ' s pain was not being managed well in the facility, because the resident received pain medication daily. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was in pain every day and needed pain medication every day. LVN 1 stated she was unsure when to refer a resident for a pain evaluation and had not spoken with the physician regarding Resident 1 ' s pain. LVN 1 stated if the interventions were not working, the resident could be angry, and the pain could affect Resident 1 ' s mood and sleep. LVN 1 stated the facility should have been re-assessing and implementing new pain interventions when the previous pain interventions were not effective. During another interview on 9/17/2024 at 4:18 PM, Resident 1 stated the pain on his left arm/shoulder started three to four weeks ago and the resident was unable to lift up a fork or spoon. Resident 1 stated getting the order for Norco took two days after coming back to the facility from GACH 2 and when the resident asked the licensed nurses why getting the Norco was taking so long, the nurses did not know. Resident 1 stated because he was in so much pain, Resident 1 stated he took something because of the pain. Resident 1 stated he was unsure what medication he took, but thought the medication were pain killers. Resident 1 stated he did not want to go into details about the incident but probably would not have taken something if he had received appropriate pain medication from the facility because the Ibuprofen was not working. During an interview on 9/17/2024 at 6:03 PM, the Medical Director (MD) stated when a resident was in pain, the physician would assess the pain, check vital signs (measurements of the body ' s basic functions, such as breathing rate, temperature, blood pressure, and pulse rate), check the resident ' s medication list, and try to find out the cause of the pain. The MD stated if the pain was chronic, then a medication would be prescribed but if a new pain was present then the resident would be sent to the GACH emergency room (ER) to further evaluate the pain. The MD stated pain consults were sometimes ordered but the availability of pain doctors was very few and there would be a delay, so ordering a pain consult would be an alternative if the resident refused to go to the GACH ER. The MD stated if a resident was in continued pain, the physician should have re-assessed the resident, but trying to be appropriate with the pain medication was not easy because of dependency on residents. During an interview on 9/18/2024 at 11:48 AM, the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) stated once an order was obtained from the physician, the RNS would fax the order to the pharmacy and confirm the pharmacy had received the medication order. The RNS stated on 9/9/2024 an order for Norco was obtained for Resident 1. RNS stated she faxed the Norco order to the Pharmacy, and the RNS received a confirmation that the fax went through but did not get a verbal confirmation from the pharmacy. The RNS stated she endorsed the medication to the oncoming LVN for the next shift, but did not remember who the RNS endorsed the information to and also did not document the endorsement. The RNS stated there should have been documentation regarding the order and endorsement so there would not be any confusion if the medication was received or not because the resident should have been getting the Norco for pain. The RNS stated she also endorsed the Norco order to the DON, but there was no documentation regarding that endorsement. During an interview on 9/18/2024 at 12:13 PM, the Pharmacy Technician (PT) stated the pharmacy received the Norco order via fax on 9/9/2024. The PT stated on 9/10/2024 the pharmacy followed up with the ordering physician because the Norco order required an authorization to dispense the medication to the facility and the pharmacy had not received the authorization yet. The PT stated on 9/11/2024 the pharmacy was informed Resident 1 had been admitted to the acute hospital, therefore the Norco order was placed on hold. The PT stated when a resident was admitted to the acute hospital, the facility must inform the pharmacy of the admission date and the return to facility date to ensure the resident receives the ordered medication. The PT stated the pharmacy was unaware Resident 1 was re-admitted back to the facility on 9/13/2024. The PT stated the physician did not release the hold on the Norco order to the pharmacy which was what the physician was supposed to do. The PT stated on 9/15/2024 the physician re-sent the Norco order that was on hold from 9/9/2024, to be dispensed. The PT stated on 9/15/2024 [2 days from readmission] the facility received the Norco medication. During an interview on 9/18/2024 at 2:45 PM, the OT stated the resident receives occupational therapy five times a week. The OT stated the resident was never in pain during therapy, so the OT never addressed Resident 1 ' s pain and only focused on feeding and grooming. The OT stated he was aware of the resident ' s left shoulder pain and knew the resident went to the hospital recently due to the pain. The OT stated he had not provided any exercises to alleviate the resident ' s pain. The OT stated if the resident was in a good position, then that could help with the pain and would screen Resident 1 for any movements that would make him hurt. During a concurrent observation and interview in the Activities Room on 9/18/2024 at 3:20 PM, Resident 1 was observed bringing his face down to his hand to wipe his mouth. Resident 1 stated the worst pain level experienced was an eight or nine on the pain scale and the pain had affected him a lot. Resident 1 stated he tried to be more positive but was very frustrated because he was unable to use his arm to eat and raise his arm up. Resident 1 stated he was also frustrated because he was stuck in a wheelchair and could not walk to alleviate some of the pain. During a concurrent interview and record review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) revised 3/2020, titled Pain Assessment and Management on 9/18/2024 at 5:03 PM, the P&P stated Pain management was a multidisciplinary care process that included the following: monitoring for the effectiveness of interventions and modifying approaches as necessary. Assessing pain consists of identifying characteristics of pain and the pattern of pain. Report the following information to the physician or practitioner: prolonged, unrelieved pain despite care plan interventions. During the interview, the DON stated if the interventions were not working, the interventions should have been updated. The DON stated the resident should have been referred to a pain specialist so the resident could be treated properly because he was consistently in pain. The DON stated the facility did not document the characteristics of pain or the pattern of pain when assessing the resident for pain. The DON stated documenting the characteristics and pattern of pain were important to validate the effectiveness of the medication to provide different interventions as needed.
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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Smoking Schedule to ensure staff supervision during smoke breaks was...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Smoking Schedule to ensure staff supervision during smoke breaks was implemented to provide safety for each resident during smoking, for one of three sampled residents (Resident 2) by failing to: Provide Staff supervision for Resident 2 during the facility ' s smoke break on 9/18/2024. Provide in-service to facility staff about the facility ' s Smoking P&P and smoking care plan for each resident who smokes. Ensure the facility maintained an updated list of resident smokers for reference. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 2 and other resident smokers to be at risk for injury or burns without proper supervision and for the facility staff supervising not having the knowledge of what type of supervision are needed for each resident smoker. Findings: During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 9/9/2024, with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD – a common lung disease that makes breathing difficult), asthma (a chronic lung disease that makes breathing hard because the airways in the lungs become inflamed and narrow), and hypertension (a serious medical condition that occurs when blood pressure in the blood vessels was too high). During a review of Resident 2 ' s Smoking Safety Evaluation dated 9/9/2024 timed at 3:45 PM, indicated the resident utilized tobacco (a plant with leaves that have high levels of addictive chemical nicotine) and required supervision during designated smoking times. The Smoking Safety Evaluation indicated the resident would follow the facility ' s policy on location and time of smoking. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Smoking Care Plan dated 9/9/2024, indicated the resident was at high risk for injury related to smoking. The Care Plan goal included the resident to be safe, would not smoke in room/bed, and would only smoke in designated areas with supervision as needed. The Care Plan interventions included to provide supervision when the resident was smoking and to monitor the resident ' s compliance with the facility ' s smoking policy. During a review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 9/10/2024, indicated the resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-planning tool) dated 9/15/2024, indicated the resident ' s cognition was intact (sufficient judgement and self-control to manage the normal demands of the environment). The MDS indicated the resident was currently using tobacco. During an observation at the Smoking Patio on 9/18/2024 at 4:50 PM, Security Guard (SG) 1 was observed handing a cigarette to Resident 2, lighting the cigarette, and leaving the resident alone and unsupervised to smoke while SG 2 returned to sit and monitor the gate at the facility. During an interview on 9/18/2024 at 4:54 PM, SG 2 was sitting in front of the gate at the facility. SG 2 stated he was instructed to sit in front of the gate at all times to monitor who comes in and out of the facility. SG 2 was supposed to report any suspicious activity and was not informed to stay with the resident smokers once SG 2 handed the residents their cigarettes. During a concurrent observation and interview at the Smoking Patio on 9/18/2024 at 4:55 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) observed Resident 2 smoking in the Smoking Patio unsupervised. The DON stated residents should have been supervised and was not aware the resident was smoking unsupervised. During an interview on 9/19/2024 at 9 AM, SG 3 stated he was in charge of supervising the smoke breaks for the facility every two hours. SG 3 stated during the smoke break a nurse covered the front gate while SG 3 supervised the residents. SG 3 stated the residents were provided a cigarette and the cigarettes were lit by SG 3. SG 3 stated he was never in-serviced on smoke breaks and was told to get the nurse if something happened to the residents during a smoke break. SG 3 stated he did not know what type of supervision was needed for each resident who smokes. SG 3 stated the facility never informed SG 3 to provide a smoking apron to the residents. During an observation of the Smoking Patio on 9/19/2024 at 9:41 AM, the Smoking Patio had four metal smoking ash urns (receptacles for cigarette butts and ashes that could be stand-alone or attached to a trash bin). The Smoking Patio had aprons hanging, a fire extinguisher, and a fire blanket with a sign posted Designated Smoking Area. The Smoking Patio had the hours of smoking times as well as the smoking policy and procedure (P&P) posted. During an interview on 9/19/2024 at 9:44 AM, the Activities Assistant (AA) stated the facility had not provided her a list of residents who smoke. The AA stated she did not have information on the list of smokers or residents requiring an apron during smoke breaks. During an interview on 9/19/2024 at 11:34 AM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated she updated the AA on which residents who smoke. The SSD stated the AA should have been aware of the residents who smoke for the risk and safety of the residents. During a review of the facility ' s undated List of Residents who Smoke 2024, indicated there were seven smokers in the facility including Resident 2. During a review of the facility ' s Smoking Time, revised 8/21/2023, indicated smoking times were every two hours from 8 AM to 10 AM and from 2 PM to 10 PM. The Smoking Time indicated there was a three-hour break from 10 AM to 1PM and a one-hour break from 1 PM to 2 PM. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/19/2024 at 12:27 PM of the facility ' s undated P&P titled Smoking Schedule, the Administrator (ADM) stated facility staff who supervised smoke breaks should have been in-serviced to know which residents need certain items to smoke safely. The P&P indicated, Smoking schedule shall be monitored under staff supervision. Smoking should have only been allowed in designated areas and during scheduled hours. The ADM stated following the policy was important for the facility staff to be aware for the safety of all residents. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/19/2024 at 12:40 PM of the facility ' s undated P&P titled Smoking Schedule, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated providing supervision during smoke breaks was important to monitor and provide safety for each resident. The P&P indicated, Smoking schedule shall be monitored under staff supervision. Smoking should have only been allowed in designated areas and during scheduled hours. The DSD stated the P&P meant there should have always been a staff member when a resident was smoking. During a review of the facilities undated P&P titled Smoking Schedule, indicated A list of resident smokers shall be developed, maintained and updated on an as needed basis for reference.
Nov 2023 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess, monitor, inform the physician and provide necessary care and services in accordance with the facility's policy and pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to assess, monitor, inform the physician and provide necessary care and services in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure titled, Anticoagulation (medication for blood thinner) - Clinical Protocol and the resident's care plan for one (1) of one sampled resident (Resident 82), who was observed with bruises (skin discoloration due to bleeding underneath) while receiving Aspirin (a medication used to treat pain and reduce formation of blood clots). This deficient practice resulted in Resident 82's development of new bruises and skin tear that was undetected which could result in blood loss, infection and other side effects (unwanted effects of medication) and a decline in the resident's well being. Findings: During a review of Resident 82's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 82 on 11/7/2023 with diagnoses that included anemia (lack of red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to the body's tissues) and myocardial infarction cerebral infarction (occurs because of disrupted blood flow to the brain and deprives the brain cells with oxygen and vital nutrients which leads to brain cells death) During a review of Resident 82's Care Plan titled, Anticoagulant, initiated on 11/7/2023, indicated Resident 82 had a potential for bleeding due to anticoagulant therapy and was at risk for bruising and/or skin discoloration. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will monitor resident for bruising or bleeding every shift and notify Medical Doctor (MD) of signs of bleeding. During a review of Resident 82's Care Plan titled, Anticoagulant, initiated on 11/7/2023, indicated Resident 82 was at risk for easy bruising and bleeding related to Aspirin therapy. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will monitor/assess signs and symptoms of bleeding such as in stool, urine or vomitus and notify the MD, and will monitor injection sites for bruising. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will assess Resident 82 for other possible causes of bruising like blood draws. During a review of Resident 82's Physician Order, dated 11/7/2023, indicated to administer Eliquis (blood thinner - a medication that thins the blood and could cause bruising or bleeding) oral tablet 2.5 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth, twice daily for cerebral vascular accident (CVA or brain attack due to interruption in the flow of blood to cells in the brain) prophylaxis (prevention) or MI (Myocardial Infarction or heart attack due to lack of blood flow to the arteries in the heart) prevention. During a review of Resident 82's Physician Order, dated 11/7/2023, indicated to administer Aspirin (medication used a pain reliever and fever reducer, non-enteric coated formulation used to prevent blood clots during a heart attack) 81 mg one tablet given by mouth, once daily for CVA prevention. During a review of Resident 82's Physician Order, dated 11/7/2023, indicated to monitor Resident 82 for bleeding, bruising and skin discoloration every shift and notify MD if present. During a review of Resident 82's History and Physical, dated 11/9/2023, indicated Resident 82's had the fluctuating (varied or changing) capacity to understand and made decision. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/10/2023 at 11:21 AM, with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), Resident 82 was lying in bed with multiple sites of purplish discoloration on the right forearm. Resident 82 stated she got the multiple discolorations from previous injections at General Acute Hospital (GACH) and did not know where she sustained the other skin bruises and other skin discolorations. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/11/2023 at 10:29 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), LVN 2 stated Resident 82 was not assessed and monitored for skin discoloration on the forearm. LVN 2 stated there was no other clinical documentation to indicate that Resident 82 was assessed and monitored for skin discoloration on the right forearm. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/11/2023 at 10:29 AM, with LVN 2, Resident 82's had multiple purplish discoloration on the right forearm with the following measurements: 1. Three (3) centimeter (cm, unit of measurement) x two (2) cm 2. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm 3. 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm 4. 4 cm x 2.5 cm LVN 2 stated Resident 82 was receiving anticoagulant and Aspirin. LVN 2 states, it was important to monitor and assess Resident 82 for signs and symptoms of bleeding and bruising which is the side effects (unwanted effects of medication) of Aspirin. During an interview on 11/12/2023 at 11:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, it was important to assess and monitor residents who were receiving anticoagulants or Aspirin for signs and symptoms of bleeding because the residents skin could easily get discoloration or bleed. A review of the undated facility's policy and procedure titled, Anticoagulation - Clinical Protocol, indicated the facility will assess residents for any signs and symptoms related to adverse drug reactions due to medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent unnecessary use of medication for one of one sampled resident (Resident 24) who was not monitored for bruising and bleeding while r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent unnecessary use of medication for one of one sampled resident (Resident 24) who was not monitored for bruising and bleeding while receiving Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], a medication used to treat pain and reduce formation of blood clots). This deficient practice increased the risk of Resident 48 to experience adverse effects (unwanted and dangerous side effects of medication) that could lead to health complications, such as bleeding and bruising in the intestines and stomach, other parts of the body. Findings: A review of Resident 24's admission Record indicated an admission to the facility on 8/14/2023 with diagnoses of contracture (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue) to right and left knee, type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), and transient cerebral ischemic attack (a stroke due to temporary blockage of blood flow to the brain). A review of Resident 24's History and Physical, dated 8/14/2023, indicated Resident 24 could make needs known but cannot make medical decisions. A review of Resident 24's latest comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/22/2023, indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses). A review of Resident 24's Physician Order Summary indicated on 8/14/2023, indicated the physician prescribed Aspirin Oral (by mouth) tablet Delayed Release 325 milligrams (mg, unit of measure for mass) give one (1) tablet by mouth one time a day for cerebrovascular accident (CVA or stroke) prophylaxis (PPX, action taken to prevent disease). There was no physician's order written for Resident 24 to be monitored for the adverse effects of Aspirin. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 24's Physician Order Summary with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 11/12/2023 at 10:42 AM, indicated no physician order was written to monitor Resident 24 for the adverse effects of Aspirin. The LVN 1 stated it was important to monitor for the residents for discoloration of the skin, bleeding and bruising in the body. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 24's Medication Administration Record (MAR) with LVN 1 on 11/12/2023 at 11:43 AM, LVN 1 stated he could not find documented evidence in the MAR for the month November 2023 that licensed nurses monitored Resident 24 for bleeding/bruising. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 24's MAR with Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/12/2023 at 11:50 AM, the DON stated she could not find documented evidence in the MAR for the month of October and November 2023, that licensed nurses monitored the resident for adverse reaction of ASA such as bleeding/bruising. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled Anticoagulation- Clinical Protocol, indicated the physician and staff will assess residents for any signs or symptoms related to adverse drug reactions of medications due to the medication alone or in combination with other medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote and treat two of 2 residents (Resident 20 and 83) with respect, privacy and dignity by failing to ensure: 1. Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote and treat two of 2 residents (Resident 20 and 83) with respect, privacy and dignity by failing to ensure: 1. Resident 20's nephrostomy bag (a small flexible, rubber tube that is placed through your skin into the kidney to drain your urine) was covered to provide privacy. 2. Resident 83's privacy curtain was drawn close to provide privacy to the resident while Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) rendered care to Resident 83. These deficient practices had the potential to cause a psychosocial (mental and emotional well-being) decline, resident's individuality, self-esteem, and self-worth. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 20's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 20 on 9/27/2022 with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive disease (COPD- a long-term exposure to irritants that damage the lungs and airways), epilepsy (a neurological disorder marked by sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions, associated with abnormal electrical activity in the brain), and hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction (swelling of the kidney from urine build up due to blockage or obstruction). During a review of Resident 20's History and Physical dated 10/13/2022, the record indicated, Resident 20's could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 10/13/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 20 required total dependence with oral and toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. During a concurrent observation on 11/10/2023 at 11:31 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1), Resident 20 was lying in bed with nephrostomy bag hanging on the bed frame uncovered without a dignity bag (privacy cover). During an interview on 11/10/2023 at 11:40 AM, with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), she stated Resident 20's nephrostomy bag should have a privacy bag to provide Resident 20's with privacy, respect, and dignity. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dignity, revised on February 2021, the P&P indicated, staff were expected to promote privacy, respect and dignity by assisting resident's urinary catheter bags covered. b. During a review of Resident 83's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 83 on 10/31/2022 with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia (memory loss which interferes with daily functioning), difficulty of walking and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning). During a review of Resident 83's History and Physical dated 10/31/2022, the record indicated, Resident 83's could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 83's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 11/6/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 83 required total dependence with eating, oral and toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 83's Care Plan titled, Functional Abilities/Self Care Deficit, initiated on 10/31/2023, indicated resident had impaired cognition. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will maintain resident's privacy and talk to the resident while providing care and explain procedures even if resident is not responding. During an observation on 11/10/23 at 2:17 PM, Resident 83 was in the room lying in bed with the lower extremities exposed and uncovered. Then CNA 1 came in to Resident 83's room and did not close the privacy curtain to provide Resident 83 privacy while rendering care to the resident. During an observation on 11/10/2023 at 2:17 PM, Resident 83 was in the room, lying in bed exposed wearing incontinent brief with the privacy curtain not drawn closed. During an interview on 11/10/2023 at 2:21 PM, CNA 1 stated Resident 83's privacy curtain should be closed to provide Resident 83 privacy and dignity. During an interview on 11/10/2023 at 2:49 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), stated the privacy curtain should be drawn closed to maintain Resident 83 a privacy and to provide dignity to resident. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dignity, revised on February 2021, indicated, the facility staff will promote, maintain and protect resident's privacy, including bodily privacy during assistance with personal care during treatment procedures.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodation of need for three of ...

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 reasonable accommodation of need for three of three sampled resident (Resident 9, 6 and 20) who was at risk for fall, by failing to ensure the residents call light (a device attached to the wall used by residents to call for assistance from the staffs) was within reach as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure, titled Answering the Call Light and resident's Care Plan. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident not to receive or received delayed care to meet the necessary care and services that could result in fall and accident. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 9's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 9 on 9/21/2022 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease (an age-related degenerative brain condition that causes part of the brain to deteriorate causing slowed movements, tremors, balance problems and more) and lack of coordination. During a review of Resident 9's a Care Plan titled, Falls, revised on 3/1/2023, Resident 9 had impaired balance and at risk for falls. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will keep the call lights and bed controls within easy reach and encourage resident to call for assistance. During a review of Resident 9's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/9/2023, the record indicated, Resident 9 had fluctuating (varied or changing) capacity to understand and made decision. During a review of Resident 9's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/1/2023, indicated, Resident 9 required total dependence with one-person on physical assistance with bed mobility, transfer (how resident moves between surfaces including to or from bed, chair, wheelchair, standing position), dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 9's Fall Risk Assessment (method of assessing a patient's likelihood of falling), dated 8/21/2023, indicated Resident 9 was assessed as at high risk for fall. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/10/2023 at 11:07 AM, with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) Resident 9 was lying in bed with call light hanging on the wall that Resident 9 could not reach. RN 1 stated Resident 9 was unable to reach the call light because it was stuck at the wall. RN 1 stated it was important that call light should be within reach to attend the residents need in timely manner. 2. During a review of Resident 6's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 6 on 6/27/2023 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease and heart failure (heart disease that affects pumping action of the heart muscle). During a review of Resident 6's Care Plan titled, Falls, initiated on 6/27/2023, resident was at risk for falls and had impaired balance. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will keep the call lights and bed controls within easy reach and encourage resident to call for assistance. During a review of Resident 6's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/29/2023, the record indicated, Resident 6 was able to make decisions for activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 6's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated, Resident 6 required total dependence with toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper and lower body dressing and putting on/taking off footwear. During a review of Resident 6's Fall Risk Assessment (method of assessing a patient's likelihood of falling), dated 10/2/2023, indicated Resident 6 was assessed as at high risk for fall. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/10/2023 at 11:15 AM, with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), Resident 6 was lying in bed with call light placed on Resident 6's left lower leg that the resident could not reached. RN 1 stated Resident 6 was unable to reach the call light because it was all the way to her left lower leg. 3. During a review of Resident 20's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 20 on 9/27/2022 with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a long-term exposure to irritants that damage the lungs and airways), epilepsy (a neurological disorder marked by sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions, associated with abnormal electrical activity in the brain) and hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction (swelling of the kidney from urine build up due to blockage or obstruction). During a review of Resident 20's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/13/2022, the record indicated, Resident 20's could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 20's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated, Resident 20 required total dependence with oral and toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 20's Care Plan titled, Falls, initiated on 10/13/2023, resident had impaired balance and was at risk for falls. The interventions indicated the nursing staff will keep call lights and bed controls within easy reach. During a review of Resident 20's Fall Risk Assessment (method of assessing a patient's likelihood of falling), dated 10/13/2023, indicated Resident 20 was assessed as at high risk for fall. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/10/2023 at 11:34 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1), Resident 20 was lying in bed with call light hanging on the wall that the resident could not reach . LVN 1 stated Resident 20 was unable to reach the call light because it was all the way to the wall hanging. During an interview on 11/10/2023 at 2:33 PM with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, The call light should be in reach of the residents so that the staffs could attend to the residents needs and to maintain residents' safety. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Answering the Call Light, revised on March 2021, the P&P indicated to ensure the call light was within easy reach to the residents when the resident was in bed or confined to a chair.
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 three (3) opened bottles of Enulose (also known...

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 three (3) opened bottles of Enulose (also known as Lactulose-medication used to treat chronic constipation) solution stored in the medication cart which belonged to 3 of 3 residents (Resident 9, 8, and 21) were marked with the date that the bottles were first opened in accordance to the facility's policy and procedure for medication storage. This deficient practice had the potential to result in the loss of efficacy of medication due to unsafe storage of the medications. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 9's an admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 9 on 9/21/2022 with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease (an age-related degenerative brain condition that causes part of the brain to deteriorate causing slowed movements, tremors, balance problems and more) and metabolic encephalopathy (an alteration in consciousness caused due to brain dysfunction (due to impaired cerebral metabolism). During a review of Resident 9's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/9/2023, the record indicated, Resident 9 had fluctuating capacity to understand and made decision. During a review of Resident 9's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/1/2023, indicated, Resident 9 required total dependence with one-person physical assistance on bed mobility, transfer dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 9's physician order , dated 9/1/2023, indicated to administer Lactulose Oral Solution 20 gm/30 ml (milligrams-unit of measurement) give 30 ml via gastrostomy tube (GT, a tube inserted into the stomach to deliver nutritional formula, fluids and medications) two times a day for bowel management. During a medication cart observation on 11/12/2023, at 9:58 AM, together with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), an open bottle of Enulose prescribed to Resident 9 had no label or marked with the date when the bottle was first opened. 2. During a review of Resident 8's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 8 on 5/19/2023 with diagnoses that included hepatic encephalopathy (loss of brain function occurs when the liver is unable to remove toxins from the blood), and paraplegia (paralysis of the legs and lower body). During a review of Resident 8's Physician Order, dated 5/19/2023, indicated Lactulose Oral Solution 10 gm/15 ml give 45 ml by mouth three times a day for hepatic encephalopathy. During a review of Resident 8's History and Physical (H&P), dated 5/20/2023, the record indicated, Resident 8's did not have the capacity to understand and made decisions. During a review of Resident 8's MDS dated [DATE], indicated, Resident 8 required extensive assistance with one person assist for bed mobility and personal hygiene. MDS indicated Resident 8 required total dependence with one person assist for transfer, dressing and toilet use. During a medication cart observation on 11/12/2023, at 9:59 AM, with LVN 2, an open bottle of Enulose prescribed to Resident 8 was not dated as to when the bottle was first opened. 3. During a review of Resident 21's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 9 on 9/8/2021 with diagnoses that included hepatic failure (Liver failure occurs when your liver isn't working well enough to perform its functions) and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 21's MDS, dated [DATE] indicated, Resident 9 required total dependence with one person physical assistance with bed mobility, transfer (how resident moves between surfaces including to or from bed, chair, wheelchair, standing position), dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 21's Physician Order, dated 9/1/2023, indicated Lactulose Oral Solution 10 gm/15 ml give 45 ml by mouth one time a day for hepatic encephalopathy. During a medication cart observation on 11/12/2023, at 9:58 AM, with LVN 2, an open bottle of Enulose prescribed to Resident 21 was not dated as to when the bottle was first opened. During an observation and concurrent interview on 11/12/2023 at 10:01 AM, the LVN 2 stated, the Enulose bottles in the medication cart were stored in the medication cart without the date on when it first was opened. LVN 2 stated, it was important to label or mark the medication bottles when the bottles were first opened to know ensure the medication were still effective when used. During an interview on 11/12/2022 at 11:52 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON), stated it was important that the staff should labels the medications with the date the bottle was first opened to know the medication's effectivity. During a record review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Date Open Procedures, the P&P indicated, it will be the responsibility of the Nursing Staff to enter the opening date on all manufacturers' labels or blank pharmacy labels, . P&P indicated, on for the containers that do not have a space to record the opening date on the manufacturers' label, the pharmacy will affix a blank Date Opened sticker to the container.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to follow the facility's policy and procedure titled Confidentiality of Information and Personal Privacy by ensuring the resident's identifiable, personal and medical information were not exposed on the computer screens and left unattended while in view of unauthorized persons and access two out of 2 residents (Resident 16 and 17) confidential information without the resident's consent or knowledge. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 16 and 17's violation of resident's right for privacy to keep their personal and medical records confidential and not readily observable and accessible by others. Findings: A review of Resident 16's Face Sheet (a document that gives a patient's information at a quick glance) indicated the facility admitted the resident on 9/7/2023 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease (a progressive disorder that affects the nervous system and the part of the body controlled by nerves), epilepsy (a brain condition that causes recurring seizures), and encephalopathy (brain disease that alters brain function or structure). A review of Resident 16's History and Physical assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 16 had the fluctuating (changing or varied) capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 17's Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted the resident on 11/24/2022 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), morbid obesity (when one weighs 100 pounds over their recommended weight). A review of Resident 17's History and Physical Assessment, dated 8/28/2023, indicated Resident 17 had the fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During an observation of the facility's nursing station 11/10/2023 at 1:23 PM, two computer screens were observed unattended and logged on, exposing resident identifiable, personal, and medical information of Resident 16 and 17. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 on 11/10/2023 at 1:23 PM, LVN 2 returned to the nursing station and stated the computer screen should not have been left open because other people might see Resident 17's information. LVN 2 stated it was a violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act, a federal law that required the creation of national standards to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge). During a concurrent observation and interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) on 11/10/2023 at 1:26 PM, RNS returned to the nursing station and stated she usually closes the Window application when walking away from the computer. RNS stated she forgot my screen was open and the computer screen was exposing Resident 16's information. RNS stated it was important to keep resident's information confidential for privacy. RNS stated exposing resident information was a violation of HIPAA. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/10/2023 at 2:46 PM, the DON stated the purpose of logging out of the computer was to protect resident's information and the computer screen should never be left unattended. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled Confidentiality of Information and Personal Privacy dated 10/2017 indicated, the facility will safeguard the personal privacy and confidentiality of all resident personal and medical records. The policy indicated access to resident personal and medical records will be limited to authorized staff and business associates.
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** 2. A review of Resident 137's Face Sheet (a document that gives a patient's information at a quick glance) indicated a readmissi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 137's Face Sheet (a document that gives a patient's information at a quick glance) indicated a readmission to the facility on 4/26/2023 with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, lung disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems), pneumonia (infection that inflames the air sacs in one or both lungs), and metabolic encephalopathy (alteration in consciousness caused due to brain dysfunction). A review of Resident 137's History and Physical assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 137 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 137's Order Summary Report dated 9/29/2023, indicated a physician order for Oxygen therapy at 2 liters (L-unit of measurement) via nasal cannula when in bed every shift for shortness of breath when lying flat in bed may remove when resident is up. During an observation in Resident 137's room on 11/11/2023 at 3:32 PM, Resident 137's nasal cannula was observed outside of the clean bag and exposing nasal cannula prongs touching the humidifier bottle. During a concurrent observation and interview in Resident 137's room with the Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 11/12/2023 at 3:40 PM, the RN 1 confirmed Resident 137's nasal cannula was not in the clean bag and the nasal cannula prongs were exposed and touching the humidifier bottle connected to the oxygen machine. RN 1 stated the nasal cannula should be in the clean bag to control infection or contact with disease causing organism. During an interview with the infection prevention nurse (IPN) on 11/12/2023 at 3:58 PM, the IPN stated the nasal cannula should be placed in the bag when not in use to keep it clean and for infection control. The IPN stated when the nasal cannula or tubing is not in the clean bag or found touching the floor, it should be replaced with a new one. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe and sanitary environment to prevent the development and transmission of infections by ensuring the oxygen tubing or Nasal Cannula (NC-a device with two prongs inserted below the nose used to deliver supplemental oxygen directly into the nostrils or nares [opening of the nose]) was kept clean to prevent contact with disease causing organisms for for two of two residents (Resident 20 and 137) as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure by failing to ensure: 1. Resident 20's NC tube was not touching the floor. 2. Resident 137's NC was not touching the humidifier bottle (a bottle connected to the oxygen machine that moisturizes the air in the NC before breathing in the air) when not in use. These deficient practices had the potential for Residents 20 and 137 to contract infection when the NC when inserted into their nostrils which could increase the risk of the spread of infection to the residents, staff, and other visitors in the facility. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 20's admission Record, indicated the facility admitted Resident 20 on 9/27/2022 with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a long-term exposure to irritants that damage the lungs and airways), epilepsy (a neurological disorder marked by sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions, associated with abnormal electrical activity in the brain) and hydronephrosis with renal and ureteral calculous obstruction (swelling of the kidney from urine build up due to blockage or obstruction). During a review of Resident 20's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/13/2022, the record indicated, Resident 20's could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 10/13/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 20 required total dependence with oral and toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 90's Physician Order's, dated 9/1/2023, indicated to administer oxygen at two (2) liters per minute (L/min) via nasal cannula as needed for shortness of breath or wheezing (a high-pitched whistling sound made while breathing) or oxygen saturation (a percent of blood cells carrying oxygen in the body) is below 92% ( normal level 90-100%). During an observation on 11/10/2023 at 11:31 AM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) Resident 20 was awake lying in bed with oxygen NC on the floor. LVN 1 stepped on to the NC . LVN 1 stated NC should not be touching the floor because the floor was dirty, and the could get contaminated (soiled or stained) with germs and resident might possibly get infection . During an interview on 11/12/2023 at 11:53 PM with the facility's Director of Nurses (DON), stated oxygen tubing should not be touching the floor because the floor was dirty and could cause cross contamination (the process by which bacteria or other microorganisms are unintentionally transferred from one substance or object to another, with harmful effect). During a review of the undated facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Respiratory Therapy Prevention of Infection Level 1, P&P indicated, keep oxygen tubing from touching the floor.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of measurement) per resident area for fourteen (14) out of eighteen (18) resident rooms (Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16). The 14 resident rooms consisted of 14 -two (2) bed capacity rooms. This deficient practice had the potential to impact the ability to provide safe nursing care and privacy to the residents. Findings: During an interview with the Administrator (ADM) on 11/11/2023 at 12:44 PM, the ADM stated the facility would like to request a room waiver (a document recording the waiving of a right or claim) this year. A review of the facility's letter to request for additional room waiver dated 11/11/2023 indicated the size of the rooms caused no negative outcome with regards to the health, safety, and welfare of all the residents in the facility. The request indicated the following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 146.52 sq. ft. 73 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 146.52 sq. ft. 73 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 143.88 sq. ft. 71.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 143.88 sq. ft. 71.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 149.16 sq. ft. 74.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 141.21 sq. ft. 70.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 133.32 sq. ft. 62.6 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 133.32 sq. ft. 62.6 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 147.84 sq. ft. 73.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 147.84 sq. ft. 73.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 147.84 sq. ft. 73.5 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 133.32 sq. ft. 62.6 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 133.32 sq. ft. 62.6 sq. ft room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 147.84 sq. ft. 73.5 sq. ft. During an interview with the ADM on 11/12/2023 at 4:40 PM, the ADM stated there have been no complaints from residents, resident families, and staff about the room size. During an observation from 11/10/2023 to 11/12/2023, Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 had adequate space, nursing care, comfort, and privacy to the residents. The residents residing in the affected rooms were observed to have enough space for the residents to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and bedside tables with drawers. There was an adequate room for the operation and use of the wheelchairs (a chair fitted with wheels for use as a means of transport by a person who is unable to walk as a result of illness, injury, or disability), walkers (is a device that gives additional support to maintain balance or stability while walking,), or canes. The room size did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing care to the residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Accommodation of Needs, dated 1/1/2020 indicated the facility's environment and staff behaviors are directed toward assisting the resident in maintaining and/or achieving safe independent functioning, dignity and well-being.
Mar 2022 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0551 (Tag F0551)

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 three sampled residents (Resident 6), w...

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 three sampled residents (Resident 6), who had a diagnosis of dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) and fluctuating (rising and falling irregularly in number or amount) capacity to understand and make medical decisions, was assisted to exercise the resident's rights to have a legal representative to advocate on the resident's behalf when signing for consents for treatments and care. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident to receive care and/or treatments that was not consistent to the resident's wishes. Findings: A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated the resident re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, schizophrenia (mental disorder that affects mood and behavior), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 6's History and Physical, dated 12/10/21, indicated the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 6's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/17/21, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills (ability to make daily decisions) and required extensive assistance (resident involved with activity, staff provided weight-bearing support) from staff for dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 6's Informed Consents, dated 12/10/21, indicated the resident consented to the use of Seroquel (a medication used to treat depression) and Remeron (a medication used to treat depression). The consent indicated the resident was informed about the reason for treatment, the nature and seriousness of the illness, the frequency and duration of the treatment. The consent was not signed by the resident but was signed by the Director of Nursing (DON), the resident's physician, and there was no interpreter signature. During a facility tour on 3/7/22 at 11:43 AM, Resident 6 was observed in the room talking to self. Resident 6 was only able to respond with, Yah, Yah, and could not carry out a conversation. During an interview on 3/8/22 at 2:45 PM, a Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) stated the resident was confused but able to state yes or no when asked simple questions and could not carry a conversation. During an interview on 3/10/22 at 3:01 PM, a Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated Resident 6 could answer only simple questions and could not make medical decisions. During an interview and record review on 3/10/22 at 4:01 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and the MDS Nurse stated Resident 6 had no family or representative and was considered self-responsible. The DON explained Resident 6 had fluctuating ability to make decisions for self, spoke a foreign language, and was not presented to the Bioethics Committee (the facility staff was assigned to consider, study, take action, and/or report on ethical issues that arises in the resident's care) to determine the resident's need for a legal representative to advocate for the resident. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Acknowledgement of Resident's Rights, dated 4/2012, indicated the individual who has been formally declared incompetent or cannot make decisions in accordance with this state's laws, regulations, and guidelines, the resident's substitute decision maker (for example, legal guardian or surrogate) and or representative would be informed of the resident's rights and the representative would act on the resident's behalf. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Bio-Ethics Committee, dated 12/2015, indicated the committee would address, and appropriately review ethical issues concerning the residents in the facility.
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 record review, the facility failed to conduct a screening one of five sampled employees (Licensed Vocational Nurse 1) in accordance with the facility's abuse policy. The facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a screening one of five sampled employees (Licensed Vocational Nurse 1) in accordance with the facility's abuse policy. The facility did not call LVN 1's past employers for references. This deficient practice had the potential for the facility to hire employees with history of abuse, neglect or mistreatment of residents which could lead to possible harm and abuse of residents. Findings: During an interview and record review of LVN 1's employee file on 3/9/22 at 11:10 AM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated LVN 1 was hired on 1/16/22. The DSD stated there was no documentation indicating that the facility called LVN 1's previous employment for references prior to LVN 1's hiring. The DSD stated that it was important that the facility check the possible employees' references prior to hiring to know if they had any history of abuse in their previous workplace which could lead to possible abuse of (current) residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Abuse - Prevention Management, and Reporting Policies, revised 7/2021, indicated that individuals eligible for hire would be subject to background check and screening prior to or at time of hire; and work related and character references would be obtained from current associates and former employers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide one of three residents (Resident 13) with a c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide one of three residents (Resident 13) with a communication board (tool to assist the resident to communicate needs). Resident 13, who had a diagnosis of aphasia (unable to speak due to a brain damage) and slurred speech, did not have a communication board easily accessible to communicate with the facility staff. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident not to receive the necessary care and services needed. Findings: A review of Resident 13's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiphlegia (paralysis or unable to movement on one side of the body) and hemipharesis (partial weakness or loss of strength) following CVA (stroke or interruption of the blood flow in the brain that results in brain damage). A review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/14/22, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognition skills (ability to make daily decisions) and unclear speech (slurred or mumbled words). The MDS indicated Resident 13 required extensive assistance (resident involved with activity, staff provided weight-bearing support) from staff for activities of daily living. A review of Resident 13's care plan titled, Impaired Communication, hearing impairment manifested by slurred speech, revised on 1/17/22, indicated an intervention to assist the resident to communicate with others, the resident would be instructed to use non-verbal communication techniques such as a communication board. During a resident council group meeting on 3/8/22 at 10:37 AM, Resident 13 was observed sitting in a wheelchair and repeatedly lifting his left arm and gesturing that he needed a splint (a rigid material used for supporting and immobilizing a broken bone). Resident 13 had slurred speech that was difficult to understand. Resident 13 did not have a communication board attached to his wheelchair. During an observation on 3/8/22 at 2:45 PM, Resident 13 was observed lying in bed in his room watching television and Resident 13 was attempting to communicate but his speech was difficult to understand. A Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) walked into the room and was not able to understand what Resident 13 was trying to say. CNA 1 looked inside Resident 13's bedside drawer and stated that the resident did not have a communication board to use. During an interview on 3/8/22 at 3:41 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 13 should have a communication tool at the bedside that was easily accessible. The DON stated she found the communication packet in Resident 13's bedside drawer that was inside a coloring book. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Homelike-Environment, dated 5/2017, indicated the facility would provide person centered care that emphasized on resident's independence, personal care need which included language and communication.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide oral (mouth) care to one of 12 sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide oral (mouth) care to one of 12 sampled residents (Resident 6). Resident 6, who could not carry out activities of daily living (such as personal hygiene care), was observed with brown cracked teeth, swollen gums, and food particles stuck between her teeth. This deficient practice had the potential to result in worsening of gingivitis (infection of the gums due to poor oral hygiene) and potential for the resident to have poor self image. Findings: A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included depression (consistent feeling of severe sadness and hopelessness), schizophrenia (mental disorder that affects mood and behavior), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 6's History and Physical, dated 12/10/21, indicated the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 6's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/17/21, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills (ability to make daily decisions) and required required extensive assistance (resident involved with activity, staff provided weight-bearing support) from staff for dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 6's Onsite Skilled Dental Care, dated 2/2/22, indicated during the assessment the resident had multiple broken teeth, mild plaque, and having gingivitis. A review of Resident 6's care plan, dated 12/10/21, indicated the resident needed care with oral hygiene. The care plan indicated an intervention to prevent pain and discomfort by assisting the resident with oral hygiene. During an observation with a Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) on 3/10/22 at 3:01 PM, Resident 6 was observed with brown cracked decayed teeth, swollen gums, and food particles in between her teeth. LVN 1 stated Resident 6's teeth should have been cleaned. During an interview on 3/10/22 at 4:05 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nurses assigned to Resident 6 should provide oral/mouth care to prevent gingivitis, infection, and oral pain. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Mouth Care, dated 10/2010, indicated the facility would keep the resident's lips, oral tissues moist, clean, and freshen the mouth to prevent infections of the mouth.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide joint range of motion (ROM, full movement pote...

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 joint range of motion (ROM, full movement potential for a joint) exercises and left arm and left elbow wrist splint (a rigid material used for supporting and immobilizing a broken bone to reduce pain) placement for one of two sampled residents (Resident 13) who had limitations in joint mobility and a decline in ROM. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident to have a further decline in ROM which could result in worsened contractures (permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and nearby tissues that causes the joints to shorten and become very stiff) and lead to pain with movement and a decline in the quality of life. Findings: A review of Resident 13's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiphlegia (paralysis on one side of the body), hemipharesis (partial weakness or loss of strength) following CVA (stroke or interruption of the blood flow in the brain that results in brain damage). A review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set (MDS, standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/14/22, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills (ability to make daily decisions) and required extensive assistance (resident involved with activity, staff provided weight-bearing support) from staff for activities of daily living (ADL). A review of Resident 13's physician's order, dated 3/22/21 indicated to place the resident on a Restorative Nurse Program (RNP) and provide passive range of motion (PROM) to the left upper extremity (LUE) every day 7 times a week and apply left elbow wrist hinge splint for 4 to 6 hours a day 7 times a week. A review of Resident 13's care plan titled, Strength potential concern manifested by limitation in left upper extremity range of motion, dated 1/17/22, indicated an intervention to maintain current ROM the facility would provide left elbow wrist splint as ordered by the physician. A review of Resident 13's physician's order, dated 2/25/22, indicated to discontinue the RNP order and PROM to LUE and left elbow wrist splint. A review of Resident 13's Occupational Therapy (OT, a healthcare personal that help people increase their functional independence in daily life while preventing or minimizing disability) Plan of Care, dated 2/25/22, indicated the resident was referred to OT services due to functional decline in self-care and functional mobility skills. The OT note indicated that the resident currently presented with decreased strength, and reduced balance and endurance with impaired safety awareness greatly impeding the resident's self-care performance. A review of Resident 13's Physical Therapy (PT, a specialized care that aims to ease pain and help function, move, and live better) Plan of Care, dated 2/25/22, indicated Resident 13 was referred to PT due to a decline in function. The note indicated that the resident currently had minimal weakness, reduced balance, safety and coordination. A review of Resident 13's physician's order, dated 2/25/22, indicated an order for OT to provide treatment and skilled care for ADL, ROM, and orthothic therapy with RNP three times a week and as needed (PRN). During an observation with the resident council group on 3/8/22 at 10:37 AM, Resident 13 was observed sitting in the wheelchair and repeatedly lifting his left arm and gesturing he needed a splint. During an interview on 3/08/22 11:28 AM, a Physical Therapist 1 (PT 1) stated Resident 13 had a decline in joint mobility and was placed back on Rehabilitation Services for three times a week as ordered. PT 1 stated Resident 13 was supposed to perform the ROM exercises and the splint to the left arm placed but it (the splint) had not come yet. During an observation with PT 1 on 3/08/22 at 12 PM, Resident 13 was sitting in the wheelchair in the patio without a splint to the left arm and gesturing that he needed the splint to support his left arm. During an interview and record review of the RNA Book Log on 3/08/22 at 12:21 PM, a Restorative Nursing Assistant 1 (RNA 1) stated there was no record that Resident 13 was receiving ROM exercises from RNA services. RNA 1 explained she used to provide ROM exercises to Resident 13 but it was discontinued in February 2022. RNA 1 stated Resident 13 did not refuse ROM exercises. During an interview and record review on 3/9/22 at 1:42 PM, a Rehabilitation Coordinator (RC) stated Resident 13 had a decline in joint mobility and was receiving OT services three times week for only 4 to 6 hrs a day and have the left elbow wrist splint applied for 2 to 3 hours. RC stated the facility cannot provide the resident more days and hours (time) due to health insurance. RC stated Resident 13 should have been reassessed and reevaluated to see if the resident could get ROM services every day as previously ordered to prevent further decline in joint mobility if the resident tolerated. During an observation with RC on 3/9/22 at 1:45 PM, Resident 13 observed gesturing and touching the left wrist asking for the splint. RC stated she would inform the resident's physician to increase his time of using the splint. A review of the undated policy and procedure titled, Rehabilitation Nursing Care, dated 7/2013, indicated the facility would assist residents to adjust to their disabilities to use their prosthetic (artificial assistive device) device, carry out prescribed therapy exercises between visits of therapy and assist with ROM exercises.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** c. A review of Resident 15's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that incl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** c. A review of Resident 15's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included acute respiratory failure (is a condition in which not enough oxygen passes from the lungs into the blood) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 15's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills and required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transferring, dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. During an observation and interview with LVN 2 on 3/9/22 at 1:10 PM, Resident 15 was observed with a Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD, inflammation or skin erosion caused by prolonged exposure to a source of moisture) on both inner thighs. LVN 2 stated she did not know about it (the MASD). During an interview on 3/9/22 at 1:21 PM, CNA 1 stated she could not recall who she reported to over the weekend regarding Resident 15's redness to both inner thighs. During an interview and record review on 3/9/22 at 1:25 PM, LVN 2 stated there was no documentation indicating that the facility was monitoring or providing treatment to Resident 15 for MASD. LVN 2 stated she would notify the resident's physician to get an order for treatment for Resident 15's MASD. During an interview on 3/9/22 at 3:19 PM, DON stated the CNAs should report any skin issues observed and licensed nurses should assess immediately. DON stated Resident 15's skin should have been assessed by a licensed nurse to prevent skin breakdown and proper treatment should have been provided earlier. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Pressure Ulcers (injuries to the skin and underlying tissue, primarily caused by prolonged pressure on the skin)/Skin Breakdown, dated 3/2014, indicated that nursing staff and attending physician would assess and document an individual's significant risk factors for developing pressure ulcers. Based on observation, interview and record review with facility failed to provide necessary care and services for four of 12 sampled residents as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) and/or plan of care by failing to: a. Assess and provide treatment for Resident 6 for skin breakdown in the perineal area (the area between your vaginal opening and anus). b. Assess the apical pulse (the pulse heard or felt over the left side of the chest which is the lower point of the heart) for Resident 11 who had a pacemaker (a medical device that generates electrical impulses delivered by electrodes to cause the heart muscle chambers to contract and therefore pump blood). c. Assess and provide treatment for Resident 15 who had inner thigh rashes. These deficient practices had the potential for the residents to suffer adverse reactions for care services not provided such as worsening skin breakdown and heart attack. Findings: a. A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included depression (consistent feeling of severe sadness and hopelessness), schizophrenia (mental disorder that affects mood and behavior), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 6's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/17/21, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills (ability to make daily decisions) and required required extensive assistance (resident involved with activity, staff provided weight-bearing support) from staff for dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. During a facility tour on 3/7/22 at 11:43 AM, Resident 6 was observed in the room talking to self. Resident 6 was only able to respond with, Yah, Yah, and could not carry out a conversation. During an interview on 3/8/22 at 2:45 PM, a Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) stated Resident 6 was confused and was incontinent (having no control) of bowel and urine. Resident 6 was observed wearing an incontinent brief with bowel movement and redness to the perineal area. CNA 1 stated the charge nurse knows about the skin breakdown. A review of Resident 6's skin assessment, dated 3/8/22, indicated the resident did not have any skin breakdown and there was no documentation indicating that the facility provided treatment to the resident. During an observation and interview on 3/09/22 at 3:22 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she observed Resident 6 last night and noted she had skin redness and open skin to the perineal area. The DON stated the facility was not providing any treatment to Resident 6 for the skin breakdown. The DON stated that the charge nurse called the doctor to obtain an order for skin treatment. During an observation and interview on 03/10/22 3:01 PM, a Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated Resident 6 was incontinent of bowel and urine. Resident 6 was observed wearing an incontinent brief with bowel movement and redness and skin breakdown to the perineal and vaginal area. During an interview and record review on 3/11/22 at 9:01 AM, the DON stated Resident 6 was at high risk for skin breakdown and should be kept clean and dry at all times. DON stated the CNAs who performed body checks everyday for Resident 6 should have reported the skin breakdown to the charge nurse as soon as possible, so that the charge nurse could obtain a physician's order for treatment to prevent further skin breakdown. A review of Resident 6's care titled, Alteration in bowel and bladder related to bowel and urine incontinence, dated 12/22/21, indicated a goal for the resident to have intact skin in the perineal area with an intervention that the facility would monitor the resident for skin breakdown and keep the resident clean and dry. b. A review of Resident 11's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain syndrome (a condition in which the symptoms was beyond pain alone, and hypertension (having high blood pressure). A review of Resident 11's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderate impairment in cognitive skills and required extensive asssitance with bed mobility and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 11's monthly physician's order for March 2022, indicated the resident had pacemaker implanted on 8/15/16. A review of Resident 11's monthly physician's order for March 2022, indicated to monitor the resident's heart rate everyday (Pacemaker use). A review of Resident 11's care plan titled, At risk for pacemaker malfunction, dated 12/29/21, indicated an intervention to maintain the apical pulse between 60 to 80 beats per minute included to check the resident's apical pulse and rhythm every day. During an observation and interview on 3/7/22 at 11:43 AM, Resident 11 was observed sitting in the wheelchair at his bedside. Resident 11 stated he had a pacemaker on the left chest which was checked by the physician regularly. During an interview and concurrent record review on 3/8/22 at 10:48 AM, the DON stated Resident 11 had a pacemaker placed on August 2016 and that there was no documentation indicating that the facility staff had been checking Resident 11's apical heart rate (HR) every shift. The DON stated Resident 11's apical HR should be checked to make sure the pacemaker was in good functioning condition as indicated in the resident's care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food items were stored under sanitary conditions. During a general observation in the kitchen, the following were...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that food items were stored under sanitary conditions. During a general observation in the kitchen, the following were observed: a. Dented food can stored in the pantry with non-dented cans. b. Opened food items did not have an open date. These deficient practices had the potential for residents contracting food borne illnesses. Findings: a. During an initial tour of the kitchen with the Dietary Supervisor (DS) on 3/7/2022 at 9:50 AM, there was a dented can of mushroom pieces and stems, 454 gram (g, unit of weight), stored with other non-dented cans on the rack. DS stated that the product has a dent and it should be separated from the non-dented cans. DS also stated dented cans should be returned to the vendor. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Service Management, revised on 1/1/18, indicated damaged cans and packages should be returned to the vendor in accordance with the vendor guidelines b. During an observation with DS on 3/7/22 at 9:57 AM, there were several spices including ground clover, paprika, and curry powder that were opened and not dated when the spices were opened. DS stated she missed checking if they (the spices) were labeled. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Food Service Management, revised on 1/1/18, indicated all open food items would have an open date or utilize the use by date per manufacturer's guidelines.
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** b. During an observation and interview on 3/7/22 at 10:46 AM, a Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated that Resident 19's O2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** b. During an observation and interview on 3/7/22 at 10:46 AM, a Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated that Resident 19's O2 tubing and storage bag did not have a label with the date (when it was last changed). LVN 1 stated O2 tubing and storage bag should have a date and initial for the prevention of infection. During an interview on 3/8/22 at 10:55 AM, the DON stated the O2 tubing and plastic bag should be labeled with the date and initial of the facility every Monday. DON stated the O2 tubing and storage bag should be labeled to know when it was changed to prevent infection. A review of Resident 19's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified asthma (condition in which your airways narrow and swell and may produce extra mucus) with exacerbation (episodes of worsening asthma symptoms and lung function), acute pulmonary edema (a buildup of fluid in the lungs), and chronic respiratory failure (a condition in which not enough oxygen passes from the lungs into the blood). A review of Resident 19's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills and required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transferring, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 19's physician order, dated 2/20/22, indicated to administer oxygen (O2) at two (2) liters per minute (LPM) via NC continuously. c. During an observation and interview on 3/7/22, at 11:03 AM, LVN 1 stated Resident 29's O2 tubing was touching the floor. LVN 1 stated the O2 tubing should not be touching the floor because the floor was dirty and could cause infections to the resident. During an interview on 3/9/22 at 11:58 AM, the DON stated the O2 tubing should not be touching the floor because it was dirty and contaminated which could lead to an infection. A review of Resident 29's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive disease (COPD, a long term exposure to irritants that damage the lungs and airways) and acute respiratory disease with hypoxia (low oxygen level in the blood stream) A review of Resident 29's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderate impairment in cognitive skills and required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transferring, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 29's physician order, dated 2/20/22, indicated to administer O2 at 2 LPM via NC continuously. A review of the facility's undated P&P titled, Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection, indicated to change the O2 cannula and tubing every seven days or as needed and keep the oxygen cannula and tubing used PRN in a plastic bag when not in use. d. During an observation and interview on 3/7/22 at 10:56 AM, LVN 1 stated that Resident 18's nebulizer (piece of medical equipment that a person with asthma or another respiratory condition can use to administer medication directly and quickly to the lungs) and storage bag was not dated (when it was last changed) and should be to know when it was changed. During an interview on 3/8/22 at 10:55 AM, the DON stated the licensed nurses changed the breathing treatment (nebulizer) tubing and storage bags every Monday. DON also stated the breathing treatment tubing and storage bag should be labeled with the date when it was changed to prevent infection. A review of Resident 18's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included COPD and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 18's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderate impairment in cognitive skills and required extensive assistance from staff for bed mobility, transferring, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. A review of the facility's undated P&P titled, Hand Held Nebulizer, indicated all apparatuses shall be changed, labeled, and dated once a week on Mondays and as needed. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement infection control practices. The facility failed to: a. Implement the use of a surveillance tool (a tool used for recognizing the occurrence of infection and recording the number and frequency, detecting outbreaks and epidemics) and collect data that included residents with infections. Resident 6, who was on contact transmission based precaution (additional measures focused on the particular mode of transmission and are always in addition to standard precautions) related to Candida Aureus (a type of fungal infection), was not listed on the surveillance tool. b. Ensure Resident 19's nasal cannula (NC, a device used to deliver oxygen to a resident) tubing and storage bag was labeled. c. Ensure Resident 29's NC did not touch the floor. d . Ensure Resident 18's breathing treatment tubing was labeled. These deficient practices had the potential for cross contamination and result in an inaccurate reflection of infections in the facility and delay residents receiving treatment timely which could lead to the spread of infections to other residents, staff, and/or visitors. Findings: a. During a facility tour on 3/7/22 at 11:50 AM, Resident 6 was observed on contact (use of gown and gloves) transmission based precaution with personal protective equipment (PPE, such as gowns, gloves, goggles, and/or masks) at the doorway. During an interview and record review on 3/10/22 at 2:48 PM, the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) stated Resident 6 had a skin infection related to Candida Aureus. IPN stated that Resident 6 was not listed on the facility's surveillance tool because she developed the surveillance tool for residents who were receiving antibiotics and no other types of infection such as a fungal infection. During an interview and record review on 3/11/22 at 10:35 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated there was documented evidence that a surveillance and data analysis was conducted in the facility by the infection control committee to determine the occurrence of infections and recording the number and frequency, detecting outbreaks and epidemics. The DON stated it was important to ensure a surveillance and data analysis was conducted by the facility to identify the types, onset and frequency, and treatments provided to the residents with infections were identified. The DON stated that the facility needed documentation to identify if the facility had an outbreak. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 10/2018, indicated the infection prevention and control program included surveillance and data analysis. The P&P indicated the surveillance tool was used for recognizing the occurrence of infection and recording the number and frequency, detecting outbreaks and epidemics. The IP collected data from the nursing units, categorized each infection by body site or organisms or whether community or facility acquired and records the absolute number of infections. The monthly rates were then plotted graphically or otherwise compared side by side to allow for trends and comparison.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

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 three of three residents (Residents 1, 15 and 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure three of three residents (Residents 1, 15 and 17) were screened prior to administration of antibiotics (medication used to treat infection) as indicated in the facility's antibiotic stewardship (an effort to improve how antibiotics are prescribed by clinicians to effectively treat infections, protect patients from harms caused by unnecessary antibiotic use, and combat antibiotic resistance) to prevent the unnecesary use of antibiotics. a. Resident 1 was administered Levaquin (a medication used to treat an infection) after placement of a gastrostomy tube (GT, a tube surgically inserted into the stomach used for delivery of fluids, medications). b. Resident 15 was administered Amoxicillin (a medication used to treat an infection) for diverticulitis (an infection or inflammation of pouches that can form in your intestines). c. Resident 17 was administered Flagyl (a medication used to treat a fungal infection) for diverticulitis. These deficient practices had the potential for the overuse of antibiotics and for the residents to become resistant to medications and developing a severe infection due to bacteria that was resistant to antibiotics. Findings: a. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included Parkinson's disease (a progressive brain disorder that affects balance and movements). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 11/29/21, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills (ability to make daily decisions) and required one person assistance and supervision with activities of daily living (ADL). A review of Resident 1's physician's order, dated 1/14/22, indicated to administer Levaquin 500 milligram (mg, a unit of measure of weight) via intravenous (IV, tubing inserted into the veins to administer fluids, blood, and/or nutrition) every day (QDay) until 1/21/22. A review of Resident 1's physician's order, dated 1/16/22, indicated to discontinue Levaquin IV QDay and changed to Levaquin 500 mg tablet via GT daily until 1/21/22 for prophylaxis (preventative) for GT replacement. A review of Resident 1's Antibiotic Stewardship Form (form with criteria to meet the use of antibiotics) indicated the resident was treated with Levaquin 500 mg via GT until 1/21/22. The form did not indicate that the resident had signs and symptoms of infection requiring the use of antibiotics for treatment. b. A review of Resident 15's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included acute respiratory failure (failure of the lungs to meet the body's oxygen demand). A review of Resident 15's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had no impairment in cognitive skills and required limited assistance from staff for ADLs. A review of Resident 15's physician order, dated 2/11/22, indicated to administer Amoxacillin Clavulate 875 mg-125 mg tablet by mouth (PO) twice a day (BID) for seven (7) days to to treat diverticulitis. A review of Resident 15's Antibiotic Stewardship Form indicated the resident was treated with Amoxacillin 500 mg PO BID for diverticulitis starting on 2/11/22 for 7 days. The form did not indicate if Resident 15 had any signs and symptoms of infection requiring the use of antibiotics for treatment. c. A review of Resident 17's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included COPD (a progressive lung disease that makes it difficult to breath). A review of Resident 17's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had no impairment in cognitive skills and required limited supervision from staff for ADLs. A review of Resident 17's physician order, dated 1/13/22, indicated to administer Flagyl 500 mg tablet PO every eight (8) hours for four (4) days to treat diverticulitis. A review of Resident 17's Antibiotic Stewardship Form indicated the resident was treated with Flagyl 500 mg PO every 8 hours for 4 days for diverticulitis starting on 1/13/22. The form did not indicate the resident had signs and symptoms of infection requiring the use of antibiotics for treatment. During an interview and record review with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) on 3/10/22 at 1:30 PM, IPN stated she did not fully screen Residents 1, 15 and 17 prior to the administration of the antibiotics because the residents were admitted to the facility with the antibiotic therapy that started at the hospital. During an interview on 3/11/22 at 9:10 AM, the Director of Nurses (DON) stated the residents should have been screened before administering antibiotics to prevent the residents from developing resistance to the antibiotics and could make it difficult to treat infections. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program dated 7/2016, the facility would ensure the residents were prescribed and administered to residents under the guidance of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program. The prescriber would provide complete antibiotic orders that included the indication for use, when the residents were admitted from the emergency department, acute care facility or other care facility, the admitting nurse would review discharge and transfer paperwork for current antibiotic/anti-infective orders. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 10/2018, indicated the Antibiotic Stewardship Program ensured that the culture reports, sensitive data, and antibiotic usage reviews were included in the surveillance activities. Medical criteria and standardized definitions of intentions were used to help recognize and manage infections.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 14 of 18 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) met the minimum 80 square fe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 14 of 18 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) met the minimum 80 square feet (Sq. Ft.) per resident in multiple resident rooms requirement. This deficient practice had the potential for the residents to not have enough personal space which could lead to inadequate nursing care to the residents. Findings: During an observation and interview on 3/7/2022 at 11:55 AM, residents in Rooms 1, 2, 3 and 4 were observed with beds close to each other with a distance of about six (6) inches between the two beds. The residents in these rooms did not have any complaints about not having enough space in their rooms. During an interview on 3/7/22 at 12:39 PM, the Administrator (ADM) stated 14 of the 18 residents' rooms (Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) in the facility did not meet the 80 sq. ft. per resident requirement. ADM provided a room waiver request which indicated the room size as follows: Room # No. of Beds Total Ft. Sq. Ft. per Resident 1 2 146.52 sq ft. 73 sq ft. 2 2 146.52 sq ft. 73 sq ft. 3 2 143.88 sq ft. 71.5 sq ft. 4 2 143.88 sq ft. 71.5 sq ft. 5 2 149.16 sq ft. 74.7 sq ft. 6 2 141.21 sq ft. 70.5 sq ft. 7 2 147.84 sq ft. 73.5 sq ft. 8 2 133.32 sq ft. 62.6 sq ft. 14 2 133.32 sq ft. 62.6 sq ft. 10 2 147.84 sq ft. 73.5 sq ft. 12 2 147.84 sq ft. 73.5 sq ft. 13 2 147.84 sq ft. 73.5 sq ft. 15 2 147.84 sq ft. 73.5 sq ft. 16 2 147.84 sq ft. 73.5 sq ft. During multiple observations on 3/8/2022 at 9:13 AM, 1:40 PM and 3:05 PM, there were no observable evidence or issues with the facility staff and residents' ability to move around the residents' rooms that did not meet 80 sq. ft. per resident requirement. The facility requested a waiver for the rooms and indicated in the request, that granting of the room variance would not negatively impede or adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of each resident.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 36% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $13,627 in fines. Above average for California. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 66/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc's CMS Rating?

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

How is Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Staffed?

CMS rates WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc?

State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 28 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc?

WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 36 certified beds and approximately 31 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WHITTIER, California.

How Does Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Stick Around?

WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC has a staff turnover rate of 36%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Ever Fined?

WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC has been fined $13,627 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,215. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC 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.