WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE

2800 PALO PKWY, BOULDER, CO 80301 (303) 440-9100
For profit - Limited Liability company 150 Beds PACS GROUP Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#208 of 208 in CO
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Winding Trails Post Acute in Boulder, Colorado has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's quality of care. It ranks #208 out of 208 nursing homes in Colorado, placing it in the bottom tier of facilities statewide, and #10 out of 10 in Boulder County, meaning it has no local competitors that are rated better. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 19 in 2023 to 23 in 2024, and it has accumulated $101,829 in fines, which is concerning as it exceeds fines imposed on 87% of other Colorado facilities. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 57%, while RN coverage remains at an average level; however, there are serious deficiencies in infection control practices, including failure to properly test staff for COVID-19 and a lack of vaccination compliance among contracted staff, leading to multiple COVID-19 outbreaks. While staffing levels may seem stable, the facility's serious issues highlight significant weaknesses that families should consider when researching care options.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Colorado
#208/208
Bottom 1%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
19 → 23 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
57% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$101,829 in fines. Lower than most Colorado facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Colorado. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
68 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 19 issues
2024: 23 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Colorado average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 57%

11pts above Colorado avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $101,829

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: PACS GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (57%)

9 points above Colorado average of 48%

The Ugly 68 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening 8 actual harm
Nov 2024 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the self-administration of medications was cl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the self-administration of medications was clinically appropriate for two (#4 and #60) of two out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to appropriately assess Resident #4 and Resident #60 for self-administration of medications. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to [NAME], P.A., [NAME], A.G., et.al., Fundamentals of Nursing, 10 ed. (2020), E.[NAME], St. Louis Missouri, pp. 2016, was retrieved on 11/27/24, Do not leave medications at the bedside. If you leave the medication on the bedside table, how do you know they took the medication? Someone else could come in and take or discard the medication. II. Facility policy and procedure The Storage of Medications policy, updated November 2020, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 11/21/24 at 3:57 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Drugs and biologicals used in the facility are stored in locked compartments under proper temperature, light and humidity controls. Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications have access to locked medications.The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. III. Resident #4 A. Resident status Resident #4, age greater than age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included sepsis, asthma, chronic heart failure, lymphedema (fluid retention), chronic kidney disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), cognitive communication deficit, and stage four pressure ulcer of sacral region. The 8/20/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. According to the assessment, the resident needed setup or clean up assistance with eating, oral hygiene and showering. B. Observations and record review On 11/18/24 at 11:03 a.m., during an interview with Resident #4, a tube of three percent lidocaine was found on the resident's bedside table. On 11/20/24 at 9:13 a.m., during a follow-up interview with Resident #4, a tube of three percent lidocaine was found on the resident's bedside table and a tube of five percent lidocaine was located in a rack a few feet away from the resident's bed. -Review of the November 2024 CPO did not reveal physician's orders for either of the tubes of lidocaine for Resident #4. -There were no assessments completed that indicated the resident was able to self administer medications. -The care plan, updated 11/12/24, did not reveal the resident wanted to self administer medications. IV. Resident #60 A. Resident status Resident #60, age greater than age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2024 CPO, diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, type two diabetes mellitus, gastro esophageal reflux disease, hypotension (low blood pressure), and altered mental status. The 9/4/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. According to the assessment, the resident was dependent on staff for showers, lower body dressing and personal hygiene. The resident was able to eat independently. B. Observations and record review On 11/20/24 at 7:50 a.m., during observation of medication pass with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2, the following medications were left on the Resident #60's bedside table: Vitamin C, Tums (used to treat heartburn and indigestion), Glimepiride (used to treat high blood sugar), Ocuvite (a vitamin for eye health), and Protonix (used to treat excessive stomach acid causing heartburn). -A review of the November 2024 CPO revealed there were no physician's orders for self administration of medication. -There were no assessments completed that indicated the resident was able to self administer medications. -The care plan, updated 10/31/24, did not reveal the resident wanted to self administer medications. V. Staff interviews The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/20/24 at 9:14 a.m. The DON said she did not assess or allow any residents in the facility to self administer medications. She said it was important for the nursing staff to observe the residents as they took their medications to ensure the medications were taken correctly and on time. The DON said there were not any residents in the facility that were permitted to keep any medications or topical treatments at their bedside. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 10:48 a.m. RN #1 said medications should not ever be left at the bedside. She said there were not any residents in the facility that were permitted to self administer their medications. RN #1 said medications that were left at the beside could be used incorrectly by the resident, get thrown away and not taken at all, hoarded and taken all at once causing an overdose or other residents could take the medications that were not prescribed for them.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the preadmission screening an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) Level II determination and evaluation report into the assessment, care planning and transition of care for one (#63) of three residents out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Take steps to ensure services were provided as recommended in Resident #63's PASRR Level II report; and, -Ensure the PASRR Level II recommendations were included in Resident #63's care plan. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring policy, revised March 2019, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/20/24 at 4:00 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The facility will provide and residents will receive behavioral health services as needed to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care.Behavioral symptoms will be identified using facility-approved behavioral screening tools and the comprehensive assessment. The care plan will incorporate findings from the comprehensive assessment and PASARR Level II determinations (as appropriate), and be consistent with current standards of practice. II. Resident status Resident #63, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included renal insufficiency, dementia, anxiety disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder (mental illness that causes unusual shifts in behavior). The 10/8/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairments with a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of ten out of 15. The assessment indicated the resident required setup assistance with oral hygiene and personal hygiene. The assessment indicated the resident had been evaluated for a PASRR Level II and had recommendations (see record review below). III. Record review A review of the Resident #63's PASRR Level II, dated 9/14/24, revealed the resident had depression, anxiety and behaviors. The PASRR Level II documented the services were to be provided by a qualified community mental health professional such as individual therapy. The facility was to offer psychotherapy to Resident #63, per his recent neuropsychological report, to monitor symptoms and to provide support for him and facility staff in dealing with depression and behaviors. -A review of the comprehensive care plan, dated revised 10/14/24, did not reveal the resident's PASRR Level II screening and specialized services recommendations for his mental illness. -A review of Resident #63's electronic medical record (EMR) did not reveal documentation that indicated services were requested or established recommended on the Level II PASRR. -A review of the November 2024 CPO did not reveal a physician's order for the resident to be seen for psychotherapy. However, it did reveal orders for an antidepressant, antipsychotic and antianxiety medications. IV. Staff interviews Social services director (SSD) #1 was interviewed on 11/20/24 at 12:42 p.m. SSD #1 said the PASRR Level II recommendations were not followed up on according to her review of Resident #63's EMR. She said the reason the facility did not identify that Resident #63 was not receiving the care and services that were recommended in the Level II PASRR was because the facility did not do a whole house audit to identify which resident's had Level II PASRR recommendations until today (11/20/24). She said she was in the process of auditing all residents' PASRRs to ensure all recommendations were followed and maintained a spreadsheet to track those with PASRRs Level II recommendations and if the residents were receiving therapy, were offered therapy or had refused. SSD #1 said she believed the social services department had a lot of holes in the program and she had been working to identify gaps and make the process more seamless. She said she had been working in the facility for one month. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 10:10 a.m. The DON said the recommendations from the PASRR Level II were maintained by the SSD. She said they had recently lost the SSD and hired a new SSD about a month ago. She was not sure where the current SSD was in the process of identifying or obtaining services for residents with recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#278) of three residents reviewed for ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#278) of three residents reviewed for activities out of 35 sample residents received individualized activities in accordance with standards of care. Specifically, the facility failed to provide person centered comforting activities for Resident #278 who was at end of life. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Safe and Homelike Environment policy, revised August 2024, was provided by the regional clinical resource (RCR) on 11/21/24 at 3:57 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, allowing the resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. A homelike environment is one that de-emphasizes the institutional character of the setting, to the extent possible, and allows the resident to use those personal belongings that support a homelike environment. A determination of homelike should include the resident's opinion of the living environment. The Activity Programs policy, revised June 2018, was provided by the RCR on 11/21/24 at 3:57 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Activities offered are based on the comprehensive resident-centered assessment and the preferences of each resident. Our activity programs are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and are geared to the individual resident's needs. Adequate space and equipment are provided to ensure that needed services identified in the resident's plan of care are met. II. Resident #278 A. Resident status Resident #278, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and passed away at the facility on 11/21/24 According to the November 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, malnutrition and dementia with agitation. The 11/12/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairments with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of zero out of 15. Resident #278 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS assessment revealed it was very important for Resident #278 to listen to music she likes, be around animals such as pets and keep up with the news. B. Record review Resident #278's activity care plan, initiated 11/20/24, included inviting the resident's family members to attend activities with the resident to encourage resident participation. -The care plan did not reveal any of the resident's identified preferences or how to implement them with the resident current status. C. Observations On 11/18/24 at 2:00 p.m. Resident #278 was lying in bed with a hospital gown on. There was no decor or personal belongings in her room and the room was quiet. On 11/19/24 at 11:26 a.m., Resident #278 was in bed sleeping with a hospital gown on. The room was quiet and there were no personal belongings identified other than a small stuffed animal next to the resident. There was a foul odor in the room. On 11/19/24 at 1:09 p.m Resident #278 was lying in bed with her eyes closed. There were no personal belongings in the resident's room. D. Resident representative Resident #278's representative was interviewed on 11/19/24 at 11:24 a.m. The representative said the resident was receiving hospice care and required comfort care measures. E. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 was interviewed on 11/19/24 at 2:45 p.m. CNA #2 said she did not know if Resident #278 would respond to music or television. She said the staff had not tried to play music for the resident. CNA #2 said the resident often yelled and cried. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 11/19/24 at 2:50 p.m. LPN #4 said Resident #278 was receiving comfort care. LPN #4 said Resident #278's room was not personalized and he would not want to stay in the room if he were a resident. LPN #4 said he did not know if anyone had tried to play music for the resident and he did not know Resident #278's activity preferences. The activities director (AD) was interviewed on 11/19/24 at 2:58 p.m. The AD said Resident #278 was not willing to be interviewed when the AD initially attempted, but was able to determine the resident's preferences by 11/12/24. The AD said she did not have supplies to play music for the residents and did not know if the televisions in resident rooms had this capability. The director of nursing (DON) and the RCR were interviewed on 11/19/24 at 4:00 p.m. The DON said Resident #278's room was dull and there were very few items in the room to make it personalized. The DON said the facility had equipment available to play music. The RCR said the expectation at the facility was that anyone could initiate care that was identified by resident preferences as very important to the resident. The RCR said the AD should communicate to the rest of the nursing staff if an assessment was completed. The RCR said the facility team was going to evaluate all resident rooms to ensure other rooms had an appropriate environment. The hospice nurse (RNH) was interviewed on 11/20/24 at 12:54 p.m. The RNH said if Resident #278 had indicated music was important to her, she would expect staff to implement this. The RNH said there could be a change in resident preferences and it was important to continue to assess this. The AD was interviewed again on 11/20/24 at 4:18 p.m. The AD said she had not had training regarding the needs and preferences of residents who received hospice care. She said she read about the needs of hospice residents on 11/20/24 and implemented a more homelike atmosphere on the morning of 11/20/24 (during the survey). The AD said she provided a blanket, music and aromatherapy. The AD said the resident preferences were identified on 11/12/24 but the preferences had not been added to the care plan or provided to the resident.
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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#39) of three residents with limited mob...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#39) of three residents with limited mobility reviewed for range of motion (ROM) received appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and/or to prevent further decrease in range of motion out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to establish a consistent restorative nursing program within the facility to ensure Resident #39 did not have a potential decline in activities of daily living (ADL). Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Restorative Nursing Services policy, revised July 2017, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 11/21/24 at 3:57 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Restorative nursing care consists of nursing intervention that may or may not be accompanied by formalized rehabilitative services (physical, occupational or speech therapies). Restorative goals and objectives are individualized, resident-centered, and are outlined in the resident's plan of care. Restorative goals may include, but are not limited to supporting and assisting the resident in: -Adjusting or adapting to changing abilities; -Developing, maintaining or strengthening his/her physiological and psychological resources; -Maintaining his/her dignity, independence and self-esteem; and, -Participating in the development and implementation of his/her plan of care. II. Resident #39 A. Resident status Resident #39, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2024 computerized physicians orders (CPO), the diagnoses included heart disease, chronic respiratory failure and muscle weakness. The 9/7/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of 14 out of 15. She had no behaviors and did not reject care. According to the MDS assessment, the resident did not receive restorative nursing services. B. Resident interview Resident #39 was interviewed on 9/26/22 at 11:23 a.m. Resident #39 said she was supposed to get ROM therapy every day but that did not happen. She said she felt like she was getting weaker and losing strength. C. Record review A review of the November 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: -Restorative nursing to perform ROM to bilateral lower extremities daily, ordered on 10/4/23. A review of the task sheet for restorative nurse assistant (RNA) services for the past 30 days revealed the following: -Resident #39 received RNA services on 11/15/24, 11/16/24, 11/17/24, 11/18/24, 11/19/24 and 11/20/24 for a total of six days out of 30 days. D. Staff interviews The physical therapist (PT) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 9:06 a.m. The PT said the facility has not had a restorative nursing program since October 2024. He said he recently put a book together for the certified nurse aides (CNA) with instructions on how to use splints for residents with contractures. PT said the CNA's were able to perform range of motion exercises with residents if they had time. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 9:51 a.m. The NHA said there was a restorative nursing program at the facility and it was the responsibility of the DON to oversee it. He said the floor staff were all trained to perform restorative nursing therapy. The therapy consultant (TC) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 12:36 p.m. The TC said the facility did not have a restorative nursing program and he was asked to help them establish one in November 2024. He said he trained one staff member so that person would be able to train the rest of the CNA staff. CNA #3 was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 1:00 p.m. CNA #3 said she was trained by the PT on 11/18/24 (during the survey) on how to complete restorative services. She said the facility started the restorative program the week prior to the survey start. The staffing coordinator (SC) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 1:17 p.m. The SC said she was trained by the TC on 11/13/24. She said the TC taught her how to train the CNA staff to perform restorative nursing exercises. The SC said she has trained about 75% of the staff so far.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility's binding arbitration agreement was thoroughly...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility's binding arbitration agreement was thoroughly and accurately explained to the residents and or resident representatives before signing the agreement for two (#60 and #63) of three residents out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Thoroughly explain the binding arbitration agreement in a form and in a manner to ensure Resident #60 and Resident #63 understood the agreement before signing the arbitration agreement; and, -Ensure staff reviewing the arbitration agreement with Resident #60 and Resident #63 had knowledge and skills to assess cognitive ability of residents to ensure residents understood the components of the agreement at the time it was presented to them. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Binding Arbitration Agreements policy, revised November 2023, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/20/24. It read in pertinent part, Residents (or representatives) are informed of the nature and implications of any proposed binding arbitration agreements so as to make informed decisions on whether to enter into such agreements. Residents (or their representatives) have the right to make informed decisions about important aspects of their health, welfare and safety. Upon admission, or any time during the resident's stay, the resident (or representative) may be presented with the opportunity to utilize a binding arbitration agreement to resolve disputes as long as the terms and conditions of the agreement comply with federal regulations. Binding arbitration agreements may be offered either before (pre-dispute) or after (post-dispute) a dispute arises. Binding arbitration agreements are voluntary for the residents. Residents are not compelled, pressured, or coerced to enter into a binding arbitration agreement. It is unambiguously communicated to residents (or representatives) that binding arbitration agreements are optional and not required as a condition of admission or to receive care at this facility. The terms and conditions of a binding arbitration agreement are explained to the resident (or representative) in a way that ensures his or her understanding of the agreement, including that the resident may be giving up his or her right to have a dispute decided in a court proceeding (litigation). The terms and conditions of a binding arbitration agreement are explained to the resident (or representative) in a form and manner that he or she understands, taking into consideration the resident's (or representative's) language, literacy and stated preference for learning. After the terms and conditions of the agreement are explained, the resident or representative must acknowledge that he or she understands the agreement before being asked to sign the document. A signature alone is not sufficient acknowledgement of understanding. The resident (or representative) must verbally acknowledge understanding, and the verbal acknowledgement documented by the staff member who explains the agreement. Any facility personnel who are responsible for explaining the terms and conditions of binding arbitration agreements to the residents (or representatives) are trained in the specifics of this policy. II. Resident #60 A. Resident status Resident #60, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, diabetes and altered mental status. The 9/4/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. B. Resident interview Resident #60 was interviewed on 11/20/24 at 2:14 p.m. He said he understood what the arbitration agreement was and was able to summarize the main points of the agreement. -However, he said he did not recall signing it with this facility. He said when he was admitted to the facility, he was in a haze, and I did not remember anything. C. Record review and additional resident interview Review of the admission records revealed Resident #60 signed binding arbitration agreement on 9/1/23 in the presence of marketing coordinator (MC). The resident #60 requested a copy of the arbitration agreement. The signed copy of the binding arbitration agreement was provided to the resident in the presence of NHA on 11/20/24 at 3:35 p.m. The resident reviewed the document and stated: this is not my signature, I did not sign this. III. Resident #63 A. Resident status Resident #63, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2024 CPO, diagnoses included frontotemporal neurocognitive disorder (progressive brain disease), bipolar disorder (mental disorder that causes unusual behavior shifts), major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. The 10/8/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairments with a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. B. Resident interview Resident #63 was interviewed on 11/20/24 at 2:25 p.m. He said he did not know what a binding arbitration agreement was. He said he did not recall signing such an agreement. C. Record review Review of the admission records revealed Resident #63 signed a binding arbitration agreement on 10/3/24 in the presence of MC. IV. Staff interviews The MC was interviewed on 11/20/24 at 1:14 p.m. The MC said he was the marketing coordinator and part of his responsibilities was to go over the admission package that included arbitration agreement. The MC said the arbitration agreement was presented at the same time as the admission packet. He said he explained the details of the agreement to the residents before they signed it. He said the residents could rescind the agreement within 30 days of signing, by telling him so. The MC said there was no formal process to document the process. The NHA was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 10:43 a.m. The NHA said Resident #60 did say he was in a haze when he signed the document. He said he contacted his legal team for advice and since Resident #60 was cognitively intact per the BIMS assessment, the agreement was valid. The MC was interviewed a second time on 11/21/24 at 2:30 p.m. The MNC said he did not recall the time or any details of the events when he witnessed Resident #60 and Resident #63 signing the binding arbitration agreement. He said his background was in business and marketing. He said he did not have a nursing/medical or clinical background. He said he assumed residents understood the legal terminology if they did not ask any questions. Primary care provider (PCP) #1 was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 1:27 p.m. PCP #1 said she was the physician for Resident #60 and Resident #63. She said there were different levels of cognition. She said being able to make decisions about daily routine was a different type of cognition than understanding legal terminology. She said even individuals with good cognition might not fully understand legal terminology. She said when the residents admitted they could be under the influence of medications and have limited judgement. She said for an individual who was not a clinical medical professional it would be difficult to determine if the resident had the full mental capacity to make a legal decision at a certain time. PCP #1 said when Resident #60 was admitted , he was under the influence of medications and could not recall all the events that occurred to him in the hospital and after. She said she had several conversations with him where she went over his medical situation and treatments he received in the hospital. She said Resident #60's cognition was improving, but it was not at its full capacity when he was admitted . PCP #1 said Resident #63 had a neurocognitive disorder that damaged nerve cells in the frontal and temporal lobes of his brain. She said it would take a clinical medical professional to determine Resident #60's cognitive capacity to understand the legal terminology at the time it was offered to him.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a response, action and rationale to residents involved in group grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a respon...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide a response, action and rationale to residents involved in group grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to provide a response, action and rationale for food concerns brought up in the resident council meetings. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The grievances and complaints filing policy, revised April 2017, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/21/24 at 3:32 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, All grievances, complaints or recommendations stemming from resident or family groups concerning issues of resident care in the facility will be considered. Actions on such issues will be responded to in writing, including a rationale for the response. II. Resident group interview A group interview was conducted on 11/19/24 at 1:01 p.m. with five residents (Resident #10, #12, #21, #46 and #68) who were identified as alert and oriented through facility and assessment. Resident #10 said he wanted different snacks than half of a ham sandwich. He said he was told this was what the facility offered as snacks. Resident #12 said she bought her own snacks because she did not like the snacks offered by the facility. Resident #21 said he did not like the snacks offered by the facility. Resident #21 said when he had bagels brought in by a resident representative an unknown nurse would not reheat the bagel. Resident #21 said he was trying to elevate his snacks because he did not like the facility's snacks. The residents said they did not feel the facility provided prompt resolutions to their concerns. III. Resident council notes The June 2024 resident council notes were reviewed. It revealed residents wanted infused water and the residents said the food was occasionally too spicy. The residents wanted fresh snacks and did not want as many processed foods. The residents asked to cook on the barbeque grills and wanted more slow cook methods like cooking and smoking for more tender meats. The 7/23/24 resident council notes were reviewed. -There was no documentation on the 7/23/24 resident council notes that the concerns the residents brought up in the June 2024 resident council meeting were reviewed or approved by the residents. The 10/21/24 resident council notes were reviewed. The residents asked for more protein at breakfast and said the eggs were not good. The residents asked for more fresh fruit, asked for sliced oranges and wanted easy to peel oranges like cuties. The residents also said the portion sizes were small and they felt hungry. The 11/18/24 resident council notes were reviewed. -There was no documentation on the 11/18/24 resident council notes that the concerns the resident brought up in the October 2024 resident council meeting were reviewed or approved by the residents. V. Staff interview The NHA was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 9:50 a.m. The NHA said the activities director (AD) was the interim AD and was hired on 8/5/24. The NHA said the AD had a consultant to monitor and support the AD. The NHA said the consultant started on 8/12/24. The NHA said the AD was responsible for coordinating the resident council meeting. The NHA said the resident council agenda was driven by the residents. The NHA said the agenda covered old topics and new business. The NHA said the residents knew when the resident council occurred because they had an activities calendar in their room. The NHA said when a resident brought up a concern at resident council, the AD told the department either verbally or through a text message. The NHA said he assumed the AD followed up with the department. The NHA said the AD asked the resident if they needed help to fill out a grievance form or if the resident wanted the AD to fill out the grievance form. The NHA said he did not know the AD did not go over concerns with the resident council to ensure the residents approved of the resolution. The NHA said there was no documentation that the staff responded to the residents' concerns for the June 2024 or October 2024 resident council. The NHA was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 3:45 p.m. The NHA said a performance improvement project (PIP) for activity services was identified on 10/30/24. VI. Facility follow up The NHA provided the activity services PIP on 11/22/24 at 11:50 a.m. It revealed the PIP addressed the facilities activities program. The PIP was identified on 10/30/24. The facility was in the process of reconfiguring the activity program to better meet the residents' needs. The activity changes included weekend activities, residents directed activities and one on one activities. -However, the PIP did not address how the facility would provide a response, action and rationale for concerns discussed at resident council.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attractive. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident food was pa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attractive. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident food was palatable in taste and texture. Findings include: I. Resident interviews Resident #13 was interviewed on 11/18/24 at 1:31 p.m. He said the food was served cold. He said cold eggs were terrible. Resident #9 was interviewed on 11/18/24 2:21 p.m. She said the food was terrible and not nutritious. She said the food was served cold. She said the facility served what they like and not what she likes. Resident #39 was interviewed on 11/18/24 at 2:40 p.m. She said the food was terrible, because the food was either undercooked and raw or overcooked. Resident #29 was interviewed on 11/18/24 at 2:52 p.m. He said the texture of the food was terrible. He said it was hard to cut the food. He said once the food was chopped it was hard to chew. He said the meat was the hardest to chew but most of the food was hard to chop and chew. Resident #68 was interviewed on 11/18/24 at 4:05 p.m. He said the food was not good and was not fresh. He said he ordered from a food delivery service to replace the food the facility provided to him. II. Record review The June 2024 resident council meeting notes were reviewed. It revealed the food was sometimes too spicy. The residents said there were too many processed foods. -There was no documentation of what the facility did to resolve the grievance. The October 2024 resident council meeting notes were reviewed. It revealed a resident said the eggs were not good. -There was no documentation of what the facility did to resolve the grievance. IV. Observations A test tray for a regular diet was evaluated by four surveyors immediately after the last resident had been served their meal for lunch on 11/21/24 at 12:18 p.m. The test tray consisted of cheese pizza, tossed salad with ranch dressing, a dinner roll and peaches. -The cheese pizza was dry, crunchy and tasted bland. The pizza was difficult to cut. -The tossed salad consisted of leafy greens. No other vegetables were on the salad. III. Staff interviews The dietary manager (DM) and the corporate dietary director (CDD) were interviewed together on 11/21/24 at 2:36 p.m. The CDD said pizza should not be crunchy and hard to eat. The CDD said she would revisit having pizza on the menu because residents either loved or disliked pizza. The DM said CK #1 had a difficult time slicing the pizza during meal service because the crust was hard. The DM said the salad should have had cucumber as a garnish. The DM said the pork chop was seasoned with garlic, spices, and salt. The DM said the pork chop was baked in the oven and then stored in hot water in a metal tin during meal service. The CDD said the pork chop was stored in hot water to prevent the meat from drying out. The DM and the CDD said they did not know residents said the meat was hard to slice. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 3:45 p.m. The NHA did not know the residents did not like the taste of the food. The NHA said a performance improvement project (PIP) for dietary services was implemented on 11/1/24. The NHA said the PIP did not include the palatability of the food. The NHA said a food satisfaction survey was completed for each resident. VI. Facility follow up The NHA provided the dietary services PIP on 11/22/24 at 11:50 a.m. It revealed the PIP addressed a food satisfaction survey was completed on 11/1/24. The survey asked residents if the resident liked snack options, how to order alternative meal options, meal portion sizes and meal choices. -The survey did not include if the residents liked the taste, texture, and consistency of food served during meals.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0570 (Tag F0570)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a surety bond or otherwise provide assurance satisfactory to the secretary to assure the security of all personal funds of resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a surety bond or otherwise provide assurance satisfactory to the secretary to assure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility. Specifically the facility failed to ensure the surety bond had the correct amount to cover the entire balance for the residents' personal needs account at the facility. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Management of Residents' Personal Funds policy, revised April 2017, was provided by the regional clinical resource (RCR) on 11/21/24 at 3:57 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Should the facility manage the resident's funds, the facility will act as a fiduciary of the resident funds and hold, safeguard, manage and account for the personal funds of the resident. Such funds will be managed in accordance with established policies outlined in this chapter that relate to financial management. II. Record review The surety bond letter was provided by the business office manager (BOM) on 11/20/24 at 3:00 p.m. It was dated 5/8/24 and signed by the facility's principal representative and the surety representative attorney-in-fact and documented the surety bond #30220042 patient funds were for the amount of $14,000.00. The certificate was effective 9/1/2023 at 12:01 a.m. and shall continue in full force and effect until 9/1/24, unless renewed by continuation certificate. The facility statements for resident personal funds were provided by the BOM on 11/21/24 at 1:00 p.m. and revealed the account balance was greater than $14,000.00 on multiple occasions in May 2024, June 2024, July 2024, August 2024, September 2024 and October 2024. III. Staff interviews The business office manager (BOM) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 9:18 a.m. The BOM said the amount of coverage for the surety bond was increased on 11/20/24 to $50,000.00 (during the survey). The BOM said the bonding company had added the $50,000.00 coverage retroactive to 10/1/24. The BOM said the facility recognized on 11/20/24 (during the survey) the need to increase the personal funds coverage because the balance totals had been greater than $14,000.00 at times over the past several months. The BOM said he was told by the facility's corporate business office that the facility had surety bond coverage for September 2024. -However, the BOM said the letter did not provide coverage retroactive to 9/1/24, the ending date of previous coverage. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 11/21/24 at 1:41 p.m. The NHA said the facility should have had a surety bond which covered the total balance in resident personal funds at all times. IV. Facility follow up The BOM provided an updated surety bond on 11/21/24 at 1:00 p.m. (during the survey). The BOM provided a document titled Bond Increase Rider which increased the #30220042 bond from $14,000.00 to $50,000.00 effective 9/1/24. The rider was signed on 11/20/24 by a facility principal representative and the surety company attorney-in-fact.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan for one (#3) of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement an effective discharge plan for one (#3) of three residents out of three sample residents reviewed for discharge planning. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide an appropriate discharge process for Resident #3; and, -Notify the family that Resident #3 was transferred to another skilled nursing facility until after the resident had already been transferred. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Discharge Summary and Plan policy, revised October 2022, was provided via email by the director of nursing (DON) on 10/14/24 at 11:33 a.m. It read in pertinent part, When a resident's discharge is anticipated, a discharge summary and post-discharge plan is developed to assist the resident with discharge. Policy Interpretation and Implementation The discharge summary includes a recapitulation of the resident's stay at the facility and a final summary of the resident's status at the time of the discharge in accordance with established regulations governing release of resident information and as permitted by the resident. Discharge potential (the expectation of discharging the resident from the facility within the next three months. Every resident is evaluated for his or her discharge needs and has an individualized post-discharge plan. The post-discharge plan is developed by the care planning/interdisciplinary team with the assistance of the resident and his or her family and includes: -Where the individual plans to reside; -Arrangements that have been made for follow-up care and services; -A description of the resident's stated discharge goals; -The degree of caregiver/support person availability, capacity and capability to perform required care; and, -How the IDT (interdisciplinary team) will support the resident or representative in the transition to post-discharge care. The resident/representative is involved in the post-discharge planning process and informed of the final post-discharge plan. The resident or representative (sponsor) is asked to provide the facility with a minimum of a seventy-two (72) hour notice of a discharge to assure that an adequate discharge evaluation and post-discharge plan can be developed. A member of the IDT reviews the final post-discharge plan with the resident and family at least twenty four (24) hours before the discharge is to take place. II. Resident #3 A. Resident status Resident #3, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the May 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included acute kidney failure, dementia without behavioral disturbances, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension (high blood pressure), anemia, unsteadiness on feet and acute kidney failure. The 4/4/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of three out of 15. He required partial to moderate assistance with showers, supervision with toileting, and was independent with oral hygiene and eating. He had an indwelling catheter, and was always incontinent with bowel. The assessment indicated the resident did not have any physical or verbal behaviors directed towards others. He did not reject care from staff. He did not wander and did not have a wander elopement guard. -However, record review and interviews indicated the resident did have a wander elopement guard (see below). B. Resident #3's family member interviews One of Resident #3's family members was interviewed on 10/10/24 at 1:48 p.m. The family member said all of the resident's family members were very involved with the care of Resident #3. She said Resident #3 was a gentle soul and did not have negative behaviors. The family member said he did wander throughout the facility looking for sunlight to sit in. The family member said a social worker approached another family member on Wednesday 5/29/24, in the afternoon, and asked if the family would consider transferring Resident #3 to a facility with a secured unit because the facility staff felt Resident #1 was exit seeking. The family member said the other family told the social worker that the family would consider transferring Resident #3 to another facility with the request that the family be allowed to tour a few secured facilities in order to choose which facility the family felt was best for their loved one. The family member said the conversation on 5/29/24 was the first time the facility staff had spoken with the family about possibly moving Resident #3. The family member said on Friday 5/31/24 in the afternoon, just 48 hours after the conversation about possibly transferring the resident to another facility, the family was informed Resident #3 had been transferred to a different facility. The family member said the family was shocked Resident #3 had been transferred and a family member left work to go to the facility to see what had happened. The family member said by the time the family member got there, Resident #3 was already gone. The family member said the other family member gathered Resident #3's belongings and headed to the new facility where Resident #3 had been transferred. Another family member of Resident #3 was interviewed on 10/15/24 at 3:00 p.m. The family member said the family was not afforded the privilege to look at places for Resident #3 before the facility moved him. The family member said the resident was a gentle soul and he believed the situation brought the family and the resident trauma. The family member said the new facility where Resident #3 was transferred was costing the family more money than the original facility cost. The family member said no one should live through what their family had gone through because of how Resident #3 had been transferred from the facility. C. Record review On 3/4/24 a family member signed a consent form for Resident #3 to have a wander guard placed. The comprehensive care plan, initiated 10/9/23, revealed Resident #3 was an elopement risk/wanderer, was disoriented to place, had a history of attempts to leave the facility unattended, had impaired safety awareness and wandered aimlessly. The resident had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes with dementia and wandered with no purpose. Pertinent interventions included a wander guard to alert staff to the resident's attempts to leave through the doors (initiated 5/23/24), one-to-one supervision at all times (initiated 5/24/24) and discussing concerns regarding the resident's overall status/health with the resident/family as needed (initiated 5/25/24). A 5/31/24 at 12:32 p.m. social services progress note revealed, the social service worker received an email from the receiving facility for Resident #3 that they were able to accept the resident. -However, according to family interviews (see above) and staff interviews (see below), the family was not notified until after the resident had already been transferred to the other facility. A 5/31/24 at 5:10 p.m. social service progress note revealed the former social service director (SSD), who was now one of the facility's social service assistants (SSA), left a voicemail for the family in regards to Resident #3's discharge. The progress note documented in pertinent part, (SSD) Apologized for how social services handled the discharge by not providing proper notice and the proper documentation support in the efforts of finding proper placement for (Resident #3). SSD stated that there will be reeducation and training regarding how SSA can better and appropriately handle future discharges. Furthermore, SSD outlined the reasons for discharge regarding safety concerns with wandering around the facility. SSD explained that the new facility will be safer for the resident and that they were able to accept him in a placement in (the same city). SSD accepted full responsibility of the actions of the social services team and will ensure the proper training and education is completed. -There was no further documentation in Resident #3's electronic medical record (EMR) regarding the resident's transfer to the new facility on 5/31/24. III. Staff interviews The DON and the corporate consultant (CC) were interviewed together on 10/14/24 at 12:15 p.m. The DON and the CC said Resident #3 was a sweet person who had a wander guard and often tried to wander out the door. Both the DON and the CC said the discharge for Resident #3 was not done correctly. The DON and the CC said the facility did not call the family, nor did they provide the family with other facility names to go and look at before the resident was discharged to a new facility. The DON and the CC said the facility cut the family out and did not tell the family about the place or let the family go visit the new place ahead of time. The DON and the CC said the facility had a breakdown in their process for discharge. The DON and the CC said since the incident happened to Resident #3, the facility management developed a better way to ensure individuals would be discharged properly. The DON and the CC said discharges were now discussed in morning meetings and, if there would be a discharge, everyone on the interdisciplinary team (IDT) team would be involved in the discharge planning. The SSA (who was the facility's former SSD) was interviewed on 10/15/24 at 1:00 p.m. The SSA said he was the SSD at the time of Resident #3's discharge. The SSA said he was not involved in the situation until the end of the day on 5/31/24. The SSA said the resident was exit seeking and did have a wander guard on for many months. The SSA said there was a lot of miscommunication between the former nursing home administrator (FNHA) and the family of Resident #3. The SSA said as soon as the FNHA got word the receiving facility approved the resident's transfer, the FNHA sent Resident #3 there immediately. The SSA said the family was not given notice nor was the family given any choices of places to visit for Resident #3. The SSA said the situation did not happen the way a discharge was supposed to happen. The SSA said the family was not called until late afternoon on 5/31/24, after Resident #3 had already been transferred to the new facility. The SSA said he did not write any discharge care plans or a discharge summary before or after Resident #3 was discharged .
Mar 2024 14 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** OTHER ACCIDENT HAZARDS I. Smoking A. Facility policy and admission Agreement 1. The DON provided the facility's smoking policy o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** OTHER ACCIDENT HAZARDS I. Smoking A. Facility policy and admission Agreement 1. The DON provided the facility's smoking policy on 3/6/24 at 10:32 a.m. It read in pertinent part: Resident smoking status is evaluated upon admission. The evaluation includes [the] ability to smoke safely with or without supervision. The staff consults with the attending physician and the DON to determine if safety restrictions need to be placed on a resident's smoking privileges based on the Safe Smoking Evaluation. 2. The facility admission Agreement was provided by the marketing director (MKD) on 3/7/24 at 2:32 p.m. It read in pertinent part: Each resident who wishes to smoke will be assessed for safety during smoking. B. Facility failure to ensure safe smoking through smoking apron use (Resident #33 and #34) and timely smoking assessment (Resident #34 and #38). 1. Resident #33 Resident status: Resident #33, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included multiple sclerosis, leg cellulitis (infection), and bipolar disorder. The 2/5/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed Resident #33 was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. She required set-up assistance for eating, moderate assistance with hygiene, and had lower extremity impairment which required the use of a wheelchair. Observations: On 3/6/24 at 10:12 a.m. Resident #33 was observed in a smoking area, sitting in a wheelchair. She smoked a cigarette and was not wearing a protective smoking apron. One smoking apron was observed hanging on a wall in the room adjacent to the smoking area. On 3/6/24 at 2:44 p.m., Resident #33 requested cigarettes and a lighter. She was provided with two cigarettes and was assisted to the smoking area by certified nurse aide (CNA) #7. The resident remained in the smoking area, smoking the cigarettes she had been provided. She was neither offered nor donned a smoking apron. Record review: The most recent Smoking Observation/Assessment form for Resident #33 was completed on 3/5/24 at 8:48 a.m. The assessment revealed Resident #33 required adaptive equipment for smoking which was identified as a smoking apron. The form also revealed Resident #33 was able to smoke independently, but had to return all lighters to the nurse on shift. Resident and staff interviews: Resident #33 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 4:10 p.m. She said she tried to smoke independently, but she required assistance from staff to open the door to the smoking area. Resident #33 said staff did not stay outside with her while she smoked. Resident #33 said she had not used a smoking apron when she smoked. CNA #8 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:11 p.m. She said residents were able to smoke any time of the day. She said Resident #33 required a smoking apron to smoke. She said she knew the residents and what they required when smoking; however, she said an agency CNA might not know them or their needs and would need to ask a nurse about the residents. CNA #7 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:44 p.m. She said she had taken Resident #33 outside to smoke previously and the resident did not require a smoking apron to smoke outside. She said she was never told Resident #33 needed to wear a smoking apron while smoking. LPN #6 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:50 p.m. LPN #6 said Resident #33 did not wear a protective apron when smoking. LPN #6 said she did not know what smoking assessments revealed about Resident #33. 2. Resident #34 Resident status: Resident #34, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included hemiplegia (paralysis) of the right side, heart disease, and anxiety disorder. The 10/18/23 MDS assessment revealed Resident #34 had a moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of nine out of 15. Resident #34 required set-up assistance for eating, moderate assistance with hygiene, and had lower extremity impairment which required the use of a wheelchair. Observation: On 3/6/24 at 10:31 a.m., Resident #34 was observed smoking a cigarette in a smoking area. Resident #34 was outside without supervision and was not wearing a smoking apron. Record review: The only Smoking Observation/Assessment form for Resident #34 was completed on 3/5/24 at 9:45 a.m. The assessment revealed Resident #34 required adaptive equipment for smoking which was identified as a smoking apron. The form also revealed that Resident #34 may smoke independently, but had to return all lighters to the nurse on the shift. Interviews: An individual who wished to remain anonymous was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 11:45 a.m. They said Resident #34 puts cigarette butts in his pockets. The individual said Resident #34 had been smoking independently in the smoking area for the past month and they had never seen Resident #34 wearing a smoking apron when he was smoking. CNA #8 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:11 p.m. She said Resident #34 required a smoking apron when smoking. CNA #7 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:44 p.m. She said Resident #34 did not require a smoking apron to smoke. She said she was never told Resident #34 needed to wear a smoking apron while smoking. LPN #6 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:50 p.m. She said Resident #34 did not wear a smoking apron for smoking. LPN #6 said she did not know what smoking assessments revealed about Resident #34. 3. Resident #38 Resident status: Resident #38, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included stroke, high blood pressure, and joint pain. The 1/27/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had a moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. He required supervision with eating, moderate assistance with hygiene, and had one-sided impairment requiring the use of a wheelchair. Record review: A review of Resident #38's care plan revealed a plan for smoking was initiated on 1/25/24 which said the resident needed an assessment for his ability to smoke safely. It also read he may smoke unsupervised. However, the only Smoking Observation/Assessment form in the resident's record was dated 3/1/24 at 4:58 p.m. It, too, read the resident could smoke without supervision. The form contained a comment that Resident #38 just started to smoke. Yet, (see below), staff indicated Resident #38 had been smoking for a month before the assessment. Interview: LPN #6 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:50 p.m. LPN #6 said Resident #38 had been going out to smoke since the smoking area opened several months ago. She said he moved to his present room about a month ago and said before his move, she saw him go outside to smoke. C. Additional staff interviews 1. CNA #2 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 3:51 p.m. CNA #2 said she did not have a list of people who smoked in the unit. She said she thought she knew two residents on the unit who smoked. 2. LPN #5 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 3:55 p.m. She said she did not have a list of smokers. She said she thought three residents in her unit were smokers. 3. CNA #6 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 4:03 p.m. She said she did not know which residents smoked. 4. LPN #4 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 4:37 p.m. She said she did not know the facility's rules on smoking. She said she did not know if residents required supervision. She said she would like to know the rules. 5. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 1:47 p.m. She said a smoking evaluation was done to determine if residents were independent to smoke. She said she did not know if any of the residents used smoking aprons, as she had never seen one used. She said she did not know what a smoking apron was. 6. The DON was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 3:57 p.m. regarding Residents #33, #34, and #38 -She said both Resident #33 and #34 were independent with smoking and that both Resident #33 and #34 needed to wear a smoking apron when they were smoking. -She said the facility was supposed to have three smoking aprons, but had one, as two of them were missing. Therefore, she said one resident needing a smoking apron could go outside to smoke at a time. She said she was not aware Resident #33 and #34 had not been using a smoking apron. -She said she was not aware Resident #34 had been smoking independently for the past month. The DON said she also was not aware that Resident #34 had been putting cigarette butts in his pockets. She said the danger of doing this included the possibility of Resident #34 getting a burn. She said she did not know why Resident #34's smoking assessment was not done until 3/5/24. -She said a smoking evaluation was completed for Resident #38 on 3/1/24. She said he was not smoking on admission, and she was not aware that the resident was smoking before the evaluation on 3/1/24. 7. The DON was interviewed again on 3/7/24 at 11:20 a.m. The DON said residents were supposed to wear smoking aprons so they did not get holes in clothing, burn themselves, or set themselves on fire. The DON said Resident #34's smoking had not been care planned but it should have been. 8. The assistant director of nursing (ADON) was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 2:40 p.m. -He said residents who needed to wear smoking aprons did so to protect them from burning themselves. He said Resident #33 needed an apron, as ashes could fall on her due to her limited mobility. He said he was not aware Resident #33 was not using an apron. Contrary to observation on 3/6/24 at 10:12 a.m. and DON interview on 3/6/24 at 3:57 p.m., the ADON said two smoking aprons were hanging up in the smoking area. -He said he was not aware Resident #38 had been smoking and said the DON had completed Resident #38's smoking assessment. -He said he was not aware Resident #34 was not using the smoking apron. He said the CNA or nurse should direct the residents to use protective aprons. He said he instructed CNAs and nurses to use protective aprons for Residents #33 and #34. He said he did not document this instruction. II. CHEMICALS AND USED RAZORS The facility failed to ensure chemicals and used razors were stored appropriately and inaccessible to Resident #14. I. Resident #14 A. Resident status Resident #14, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, the resident's diagnoses included aphasia (impairment in the ability to speak), paranoid personality disorder, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy (brain did not receive enough oxygen or blood flow for a period of time), and dementia. The 12/20/23 MDS assessment revealed BIMS scoring had not been completed for Resident #14; however cognitive patterns revealed he had a memory problem and his cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired. The resident's functional abilities revealed the resident was able to eat independently and he required partial assistance or supervision for hygiene and for walking. B. Observations and interviews On 3/6/24 at 3:20 p.m., Resident #14 was observed. He opened and entered a door labeled central bath. The door had a keypad lock and Resident #14 entered without using the keypad. LPN #6 was notified that Resident #14 entered the room. LPN #6 went to the room. Resident #14 opened the door and walked into the hallway. He did not say anything. LPN #6 said the keypad had not worked for a while. She did not know if this had been reported. On 3/6/24 at 3:30 p.m., contents of the central bath were observed with CNA #7. The following items were found: -11 used razors on top of the plastic sharps container -a bottle labeled carpet cleaner containing 128 ounces of liquid on the bottom shelf of an open cabinet -a bottle labeled multi-surface disinfectant containing 750 milliliters of yellow liquid. CNA #7, interviewed on 3/6/24 at 3:30 p.m. said the lock on the door had not worked since she began working at the facility, at least four months ago. C. Staff interviews The DON was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 3:51 p.m. The DON said she was not aware the keypad lock to the central bath was not working. She said staff had been trained to report a broken lock. She said she did not know how long the lock had not worked. She said seven residents in the unit had cognitive impairment and dementia issues and were ambulatory. The DON said Resident #14 had cognitive issues and dementia and was ambulatory. She said open razors, disinfectant, and carpet cleaner were considered hazardous items. The DON said Resident #14 could have cut himself or swallowed a toxic substance. She said the room should have been locked and disinfectant and carpet cleaner should not be stored in the room. The maintenance supervisor (MS) was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 4:08 p.m. He said staff had not reported the keypad lock was not functioning on the central bath door to the facilities department. He said he performed regular rounds on the building's main core doors to check locks, but not the central bath door. D. Facility follow-up The keypad lock to the central bath was repaired by MS on 3/6/24 at 3:32 p.m. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment as free of accident hazards as possible and failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for nine (#1, #2, #3 #14, #15, #21, #33, #34 and #38) of 17 residents reviewed for accident hazards out of 38 sample residents. I. Facility failure to prevent elopement and implement a comprehensive and effective approach to prevent further elopement created a situation of immediate jeopardy for serious harm. Resident #1 and Resident #2 eloped from the facility together on 2/19/24 between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. Both residents were assessed by the facility to be at risk for elopement and had orders to wear a wander-prevention device. The residents were found in a neighborhood two and a half blocks away from the facility when a good Samaritan called the police. Resident #1 had fallen and was transferred to the hospital with a broken hip. Resident #2 returned to the facility. She was not wearing a wander-prevention device as ordered. On 2/29/24, Resident #2 was observed. As on 2/19/24, and without facility knowledge, the resident was not wearing a wander-prevention device. Further observations revealed the front doors to the facility failed to alarm with the approach of a wander-prevention device and the door was open. The facility did not have a plan to monitor the doors 24 hours per day. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure that the wander-prevention devices worn by Resident #14, #15, and #21 were checked for function each shift, that Resident #3, assessed and care planned for a wander-prevention device, had orders for use of the device; and that the facility policy addressed the prevention of elopement. The facility's failure to prevent elopement and implement a systemic and effective approach to prevent further elopement created a situation of immediate jeopardy for serious harm. II. Facility failure to take steps to address other accident hazards. Observations, record review, and interview revealed the facility failed to: Timely complete smoking assessments; failed to provide assistive smoking devices; and failed to securely store chemicals and used razors. Findings include: ELOPEMENT I. Immediate jeopardy A. Findings of immediate jeopardy On 2/19/24 at approximately 10:00 a.m., two residents, Resident #1 and Resident #2, with known exit-seeking wandering behaviors, left the facility together without the facility's knowledge. Both residents had physician orders for the use of a wander-prevention device. The residents left the building through the front door of the facility which was equipped with a wander-prevention system but did not lock or alarm. Resident #1 and Resident #2 were found by the police on 2/19/24 at approximately 10:15 a.m. in a neighborhood two and a half blocks away from the facility. Resident #1 had fallen and sustained a fractured hip. Resident #2 returned to the facility. Record review revealed Resident #2 was not wearing a wander-prevention device on the day of the elopement as ordered or when observed during the survey on 2/29/24 at 12:34 p.m. Record review further revealed three of the residents with orders for wander-prevention devices (Resident#14, #15, and #21) had no ongoing monitoring to ensure their devices were functioning properly. The facility's response following Residents #1 and #2's' elopement through the front door was to have the receptionist monitor the area during the day. However, the facility did not have a plan to monitor the front door when there was not a receptionist on duty. Further, on 2/29/24 at 9:00 a.m., there was no receptionist observed for several minutes at the front entrance. Staff reported the doors were locked after 5:00 p.m. There were mixed reports on how the doors could be opened after 5:00 p.m. The facility had not implemented a comprehensive and effective process to ensure the front entrance was not left unsecured or unattended to prevent additional resident elopements. The facility was located in the proximity of heavy road traffic, making further serious harm or serious injury likely. Furthermore, the facility was not checking the function of all of the wander prevention devices routinely. B. Facility notice of immediate jeopardy On 2/29/2024 at 2:22 p.m., the nursing home administrator (NHA) was informed that the facility's failure to prevent elopement and implement a comprehensive and effective approach to prevent further resident elopement created a situation of immediate jeopardy for serious harm. C. Temporary plan to keep residents safe On 2/29/24 at 5:40 p.m., the NHA provided a temporary plan to keep residents safe from elopement. The plan included that Resident #2 was placed on one-to-one supervision with a staff member at all times, and a staff person would be at the front desk 24 hours per day, seven days per week until the front door functioned properly - locking and alarming when in a closed position with the approach of a wander-prevention device and alarmed if a resident with a wander-prevention device approached and the door was in the open position. Residents with wander-prevention devices would all be checked for function each shift. D. Facility plan to remove immediate jeopardy The Plan to remove immediate jeopardy read: Beginning on 2/29/24, the Elopement and wandering policy was reviewed/revised by the director of nursing (DON) or Designee to ensure the facility is following policy. The DON or designee educated staff beginning on 2/29/24 on the policy for Wandering, Elopement and Resident safety with a plan to complete 3/6/24. The DON or designee educated staff beginning 3/5/24 on a new Elopement prevention policy, with a plan to complete staff in-service on 3/6/24. Staff not educated, including agency staff, will be educated by the NHA or designee before their next shift. Resident #1 is discharged . Resident #2 was discharged from the facility and admitted to [another facility] on 3/1/24 due to [a] history of removing wander guard and elopement. Her son agreed, and she was transported to a new facility on 3/1/24. The NHA or Designee called the door company [that] services the wander guard system. They came out on 3/1/2024 to adjust doors. However, as of 3/5/24, doors continue to not consistently lock and alarm with a wander guard. On 3/5/24 the door company was contacted to return and further evaluate and repair the front door. Beginning on 2/29/24, 24 hours, seven day per week, a staff member has been stationed at the door until the door can be adjusted to decrease the time it takes the door to close once opened, ensure the door locks and alarms when a resident approaches with a wander guard, ensure the door alarms if the door was already open and a person with a wander guard approaches. The staff person will remain at the front desk 24 hours per day, seven days per week until the front door, alarms and locks as a resident with a wander guard approaches, and when the front door still alarms if open already and a resident with a wander guard approaches. The NHA will verify the door is working properly by checking the door with a wander-prevention device prior to discontinuing the front desk person monitoring the door. The door will alarm and lock when a resident with a wander-prevention device approaches. When the door is open, the door will alarm if a resident with a wander prevention device approaches. As of 2/29/24, the elopement management binder, which includes pictures of residents with elopement risks, will be available at the front desk. The person stationed at the door was educated on the elopement management binder by the NHA on 2/29/24. Plan: On 2/29/24, All residents were reevaluated for elopement risk utilizing the elopement risk assessment form or evaluation in electronic record. Residents found to be at risk of elopement were evaluated by the IDT (interdisciplinary team) to determine appropriate interventions. Residents determined to require a wander guard have a consent, care plan, orders were updated to include placement of device monitoring every shift for function and placement completed 3/4/24. On 2/29/24, The DON or designee audited the elopement risk evaluations to match the care plans, completed on 3/4/24. On 2/29/24, the facility revised its pre-admission screening intake form to include a question about history and frequency of wandering and elopement by the Admissions Director. This will be an ongoing process and interventions will be put in place on admission as appropriate for wandering/elopement risk. Beginning on 2/29/24, The DON or designee will audit new admissions for elopement risk and ensure appropriate interventions are in place by the next business day. This will be ongoing. The licensed nurses will be educated beginning 3/5/24 to implement elopement interventions if a resident was assessed at risk for elopement on admission. The IDT will review the assessment the next business day for further intervention or continued risk. Beginning 2/29/24, new hires will receive education on wandering and prevention, wander guards, elopement procedure, and resident safety on day one of employment by the DON, Director of Social Services, or designee(s). On 3/5/24 the facility revised the Elopement policy to include prevention of elopement. Facility staff were educated on the new policy beginning 3/5/24. Staff who have not been educated will be educated prior to the start of their next shift. A Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) Performance Improvement Project (PIP) was implemented to review and interpret all audit findings. All findings will be discussed at the monthly QAA meeting for at least three months or until the pattern of compliance is maintained. A QAPI meeting was completed on 3/1/24. The QAPI committee reviewed the elopement, policies and procedures and reviewed interventions that can be used for residents attempting to elope, including utilizing outdoor areas. E. Removal of immediate jeopardy The immediate jeopardy situation was removed on 3/7/24 at 2:50 p.m., based on the implementation of the actions set out in the plan to prevent elopements and to maintain resident safety. However, the deficient practice remained at a G level, isolated, actual harm. II. Facility policy on 2/29/24 when the survey began The Elopement policy, revised in December 2007, was received from the NHA on 2/29/24 at 10:00 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Staff shall promptly report any resident who tries to leave the premises or is suspected of being missing to the Charge Nurse or Director of Nursing (DON). If an employee observes a resident leaving the premises, he or she should attempt to prevent the departure in a courteous manner, get help from other staff members in the immediate vicinity, instruct another staff member to inform the charge nurse or the DON that a resident left the premises. When a departing individual returns to the facility, the Director of Nursing Services or Charge Nurse shall examine the resident for injuries, notify the attending physician, and notify the resident's legal representative (sponsor) of the incident. The policy did not include any procedures to prevent resident elopement. III. Facility failure to prevent resident elopement and to implement a comprehensive and effective approach to prevent further elopements. Observations on 2/29/24 at 9:15 a.m. revealed the facility was located next to a main highway with heavy road traffic. A. Resident #1 1. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on 2/19/24 following an elopement, fall, and hip fracture on 2/19/24. The resident did not return to the facility. According to the February 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety, muscle weakness, and abnormal gait. The 1/10/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of two out of 15. He was independent with personal hygiene and required supervision with toileting, partial staff assistance with dressing, and supervision with transfers and ambulation. The assessment documented the resident did not wander and did not have a wander-prevention device. 2. Record review On 1/3/24, a wandering assessment documented the resident was at risk of wandering with a wander risk score of 30 due to being fully ambulatory, disorientated and confused, wandering aimlessly, voicing a desire to leave, and history of elopement attempts. A score of 10 or higher was a wandering risk. On 10/13/23, the resident had orders for a wanderguard (wander-prevention device) due to a lack of safety awareness. There were no orders to check the placement or function of the wander-prevention device. The elopement care plan initiated on 10/13/23 documented the resident was at risk of elopement due to elopement/exit-seeking related to altered cognitive status, dementia, exit-seeking behaviors, and forgetfulness. Interventions, dated 10/13/23, included allowing wandering in safe areas, attempting to refocus when exhibiting behavior, checking door alarms promptly to ensure safety, elopement bracelet at all times, and check placement every shift. The progress notes were reviewed on 2/29/24 at 4:00 p.m. -On 2/19/24 at 2:03 p.m., the nursing progress notes documented the nurse spoke to the resident's son and told the resident's son the resident did have a wander-protection device on when he eloped from the facility that morning. On 2/19/24 at 3:21 p.m. the nursing notes documented the resident eloped from the facility that morning with another resident around 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The resident was admitted to the hospital with a possible hip fracture after falling outside. B. Resident #2 1. Resident status Resident #2, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 3/1/24. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included major depression and a history of delirium. The 1/10/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of six out of 15. She required set-up assistance with personal hygiene and toileting and required supervision with dressing and transfers. The assessment documented she did not wander and did not wear a wander-prevention device. 2. Record review On 1/3/24, a wandering assessment documented the resident was at risk of wandering with a wander risk score of 16 due to confusion, medications, and cognitive impairment. On 1/23/24, the resident had orders for a wander bracelet to the right wrist due to wandering and exit-seeking behaviors. Instructions were to check placement and function every shift. The elopement care plan initiated 1/3/24, documented the resident was at risk of elopement related to delirium and dementia. Wanderguard placed for safety. On 1/3/24, the interventions were to allow wandering in safe areas, approach in calm non threatening manner, attempt to refocus when exhibiting behavior, check door alarms to ensure safety, wander prevention device bracelet to right wrist, encourage expression of feelings, and redirection. On 1/23/24 a wander-prevention device was again added to the care plan. On 2/25/24, five days after the resident eloped, the care plan documented administer medications as ordered, assure identification band is in place, keep photograph in risk for elopement binder, assess for placement in specially designed therapeutic unit, monitor whereabouts frequently, reassure the family or significant other knows where they are. The progress notes were reviewed on 2/29/23 at 2:30 p.m. The nursing progress notes documented the following: -On 1/28/24 at 5:06 p.m. the progress notes documented the resident was very confused and exit-seeking all day. The resident was trying to open every door and looking for her car to go home. -On 2/1/24 at 2:26 p.m., a social service note documented the resident occasionally exit seeks and wanders. On 2/19/24 at 1:24 p.m., a nursing progress note documented a new wander-prevention device was placed on the resident's right ankle. On 2/19/24 at 2:34 p.m. the nursing notes documented the resident eloped the building today around 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The resident came back to the building around 11:00 a.m. The resident was missing her wander-prevention device from her right wrist. She had no injury. IV. Facility investigation A. Investigation file The NHA provided an investigation file of the 2/19/24 elopements on 2/29/24 at 10:00 a.m. The file contained the following: A timeline documented on 2/19/24 at 7:30 a.m., the residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) got up at 7:30 a.m. They ate breakfast at 8:15 a.m. in the 400 hall dining room. At 9:00 a.m. the nurse administered medication. Between 9:15 a.m. and 9:30 a.m., certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 escorted the residents to the activity room for group activities. Between 10:00 a.m. and 10:13 a.m., the residents left the activity room and went walking in the neighborhood. At 10:15 a.m., a call was received from the police that they had two of the facility's residents. The residents were two and a half blocks away from the building. Two facility leadership members went to escort the residents back to the facility. One resident came back, and the other went to the emergency room. A separate timeline dated 2/29/24, signed by the director of nursing (DON) documented the DON arrived at the facility on 2/19/24 around 10:10 a.m. There was no receptionist at the desk. The business office manager (BOM) notified the DON the police had called and said they had found two of [the facility's] residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2). That was around 10:13 a.m. The DON went to the 400 hall where both residents resided to look for them. LPN (licensed practical nurse) #5 told the DON some residents had gone to activities. CNA #1 was sent to the activities area to look for Resident #1 and Resident #2. They were not there. CNA #1 said he had taken both residents to the activity area around 9:30 a.m. The two admissions office staff got in their car and went to the hospital. The admissions staff brought Resident #2 back to the facility, and Resident #1 had been admitted to the hospital. The police came to the facility and took a report. A document titled, Elopement Contributing Factors, undated, documente[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure four (#18, #7, #3 and #15) out of four residents reviewed o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure four (#18, #7, #3 and #15) out of four residents reviewed out of 38 sample residents were protected from resident to resident physical abuse by Resident #6 and Resident #14. Resident #6 admitted on [DATE] with a history of aggression. Between 1/17/24 and 1/18/24, Resident #6 was involved in at least three altercations with Residents #18, #7 and #3. The altercation with Resident #3 resulted in Resident #3 being transferred to the hospital for head trauma where he received twelve staples to his head. The facility was aware Resident #6 was wandering into other residents' rooms but failed to implement a plan to monitor the resident and redirect her from other residents. Additionally, the facility failed to implement a plan to prevent physical abuse to Resident #15, by Resident #14 who had known aggressive behavior. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse and Neglect policy, revised March 2018, was received from the regional director of clinical services (RDCS) #1 on 3/7/24 at 10:55 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. The nurse will assess the individual and document related findings. The nurse will report findings to the physician. The staff, with the physician's input as needed, will investigate alleged abuse and neglect to clarify what happened and identify possible causes. The facility management and staff will institute measures to address the needs of residents and minimize the possibility of abuse and neglect. The management and staff, with physician support, will address situations of suspected or identified abuse and report them in a timely manner to appropriate agencies, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. The medical director will advise facility management and staff about ways to ensure that basic medical, functional, and psychosocial needs are being met and that potentially preventable or treatable conditions affecting function and quality of life are addressed appropriately. The physician will advise the facility and help review and address abuse and neglect issues as part of the quality assurance process. II. Resident to resident physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #18 A. Incident on 1/17/24 On 1/17/24 at 11:20 a.m., the nursing progress notes for Resident #6 documented Resident #18 was sitting in his room calmly when Resident #6 repeatedly went into Resident #18's room. Resident #18 asked her to stop coming into his room. When Resident #18 was not looking, Resident #6 took his cane. Resident #18 yelled for the nurse. When the nurse went into the room Resident #18 was pulling Resident #6's hair. The residents were separated, and the facility had decided to move Resident #6's room for safety concerns. Resident #6 was encouraged to socialize with residents in common areas and not in resident rooms. On 1/17/24 at 11:34 a.m. the nursing progress notes for Resident #6 documented Resident #18 was sitting in his room and calm. Resident #6 repeatedly went in Resident #18's room even though the nurse asked her not to. Resident #6 took Resident #18's cane. When the nurse arrived Resident #18 was pulling Resident #6's hair. Resident #6 said she was punched. The NHA recovered Resident #18's cane. There were no injuries noted for either resident and Resident #6 agreed to a room move for safety concerns. On 1/17/24 at 4:57 p.m. a Change of Condition Evaluation documented Resident #6 was involved in a physical and verbal altercation. The evaluation documented Resident #6 was verbally and physically aggressive. The 1/17/24 facility investigation was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. The investigation documented the Resident #6 and Resident #18 were immediately separated and there were no injuries to either resident. The investigation file contained a follow up statement from Resident #18 on 1/18/24 stating he was doing better and no longer upset. The investigation contained two resident interviews. One resident said they had heard about residents fighting on 1/17/24 and one resident said another resident had tried to punch her wheelchair and she had to tell him to stop. -There were no further resident interviews and no staff interviews found in the facility's investigation file. -The investigation documented that no agencies were notified such as the police, ombudsman or State Agency (cross reference F609 for failure to report an alleged violation). B. Resident #6 1. Resident status Resident #6, less than age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on 1/18/24. According to the January 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included traumatic brain injury (TBI), alcohol abuse, bulimia nervosa (eating disorder), encephalopathy (alteration in brain function or structure), borderline personality and major depression with severe psychotic symptoms. According to the 1/12/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. She was independent with personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. The assessment documented the resident had symptoms of feeling down, hopeless, trouble concentrating with little pleasure in doing things. The assessment documented the resident did not wander but had a wander prevention device. 2. Record review A Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II Notice of Determination (NOD) for Mental Illness (MI), dated 12/18/24, documented Resident #6 had an open legal case for felony menacing and Resident #6's representative reported Resident #6 had been exhibiting aggressive behavior. The PASRR Level II was in the facility medical record for Resident #6 and had a printed date in the corner of 1/12/24. Resident #6's behavior care plan, initiated 1/15/24, documented Resident #6 wandered into other resident rooms and took or touched their belongings. The goal was the resident would accept supportive strategies and demonstrate adequate control of emotions which would not result in injury to self or others. Interventions included, administer medications as ordered, document behavior, encourage resident to verbalize feelings, establish rapport, maintain a calm, slow, understandable approach, notify the physician, responsible party of aggression and abusive behavior, observe and document changes in behavior, including frequency of occurrence and potential triggers, observe for clinical factors influencing behavioral indicators, observe resident's mood and response to medication, referred for psychiatry services -The care plan did not have interventions to address the resident's known behavior of wandering into other resident rooms and taking their belongings. C. Resident #18 1. Resident status Resident #18, less than age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, major depression, personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). According to the 1/12/24 MDS assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. He was independent with personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. D. Staff interviews The NHA and the director of nursing (DON) were interviewed on 3/5/24 at 10:23 a.m. The NHA said she remembered Resident #6 took Resident #18's cane. The NHA said Resident #6 did take Resident #18's cane and the NHA found it and returned it to Resident #18. The NHA said Resident #18 then pulled Resident #6's hair. The NHA said there were no further interviews of residents because the residents on that unit could not tell staff what was going on. She said the facility had to look for non verbal things. -However, the NHA could not describe what non verbal things were looked for. The NHA said she did not notify the police because she did not have time to. She said she would notify them. The NHA said she notified the ombudsman after the second incident (see below). The NHA said Resident #6 agreed to a room move. She moved to a room on the 300 hall. III. Resident to resident physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #7 A. Interviews regarding the incident on 1/17/24 A frequent visitor (FV) was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 2:38 p.m. The FV said she had several serious complaints regarding the facility. She said she was told Resident #6 placed a blanket around Resident #7's face. She said Resident #7 had been unable to move to protect herself. The FV said Resident #6 was then moved to a new hall where she assaulted Resident #3, resulting in 12 stitches to his face and his entire face was black and blue (see below). The FV reported that residents and staff were feeling unsafe and afraid to report facility issues such as abuse. The FV said the staff were told not to report the abuse by the DON and that she would handle it. The FV said she called the police as well as other resident family members and reported the incidents. The FV further said staff were told not to speak to the State Agency by the NHA or there would be consequences. A restorative nurse aide (RNA) was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 1:00 p.m. He said he was present the day Resident #6 assaulted Resident #7. He could not remember the exact day it occurred. He said he remembered staff were scrambling around to keep Resident #6 out of Resident #7's room because Resident #6 had turned off Resident #7's oxygen and was holding a blanket over her face. He said a staff member had to block the door so Resident #6 would not go back in the room with Resident #7. He said Resident #6 was moved to the 100 hall. The RNA said staff told him they were not to report the incident as abuse or that Resident #6 assaulted Resident #7, but to report it as a fall. The RNA said the facility had not provided any training in mental health or dementia (cross-reference F940 for failure to develop and implement an effective staff training program). The DON was interviewed again on 3/7/24 at 12:37 p.m. The DON said she was told Resident #6 was holding a blanket around Resident #7's face around 1/17/24. She said she was not at the facility that day. The DON said the NHA was at the facility and handled the situation. The DON said the NHA should have done an investigation but she did not (cross-reference F610 for failure to investigate an alleged violation). She said the nurse on duty witnessed the assault but she was an agency nurse and had not returned the DON's calls. The DON said she found out about the incident a few days after it occurred. The DON looked at her computer and said there was no assessment of Resident #7. She said Resident #6 was then moved to a new room and that was when she assaulted Resident #3 (see below). -The phone number and name of the agency nurse was requested and not received by the end of the survey on 3/7/24. -The NHA was unavailable for an interview. B. Resident #7 1. Resident status Resident #7, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses include Parkinson's disease, major depression and dementia. According to the 1/30/24 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of four out of 15. She was totally dependent on staff for transfers and toileting. She required substantial to maximal staff assistance with bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene. C. Record review -There were no progress notes in Resident #6 or Resident #7's medical record regarding the alleged assault. -There was no investigation and the alleged assault was not reported to the State Agency or the ombudsman (cross-reference F609 for failure to report an alleged violation and F610 for failure to investigate an alleged violation). IV. Resident to Resident physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #3 A. Incident on 1/18/24 On 1/18/24 at 10:28 a.m., an interdisciplinary team (IDT) note documented Resident #3 was pushed by another resident and obtained a laceration to the right eyebrow. -There were no recommendations by the IDT team. On 1/18/24 at 11:54 a.m., the nursing notes documented the nurse heard Resident #3 fighting with the same female resident he had been fighting with all day (Resident #6). The nurse observed arms flying at each other and Resident #3 lost his balance and fell hitting his face on the ground. There was a deep head wound from his glasses. Resident #3 complained of chin pain. On 1/18/24 at 3:38 p.m., the nurse note documented 911(emergency services) was called because the laceration to the right eyebrow area on Resident #3 was too large to steri-strip. On 1/18/24 at 3:52 p.m., a change of condition form documented that at approximately 11:30 a.m., Resident #3 was pushed by another female resident. The nurse documented she heard screams and ran to the hall to see Resident #6 push Resident #3. Resident #3 was bleeding from the right eyebrow and it was too large to apply steri-strips to. On 1/18/24 at 4:33 p.m., the nursing notes documented Resident #3 returned to the facility from the emergency room with 12 staples above his right eye. On 1/19/24 at 11:30 a.m., a provider note documented Resident #3 was involved in an altercation with another resident causing him to fall and strike his head. He presented to the ER (emergency room) with jaw pain and a large forehead laceration. On 1/20/24 at 11:30 a.m., the nursing notes documented Resident #3 continued with discoloration to his face after an altercation with another resident. The other resident had since been removed from the facility. On 1/21/24 at 3:53 a.m., the nursing notes documented Resident #3 continued with sutures to his head and bruising to the right eye, forehead and chin. The 1/18/24 facility investigation was received from the NHA on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. The investigation documented Resident #3 and Resident #6 were immediately separated and Resident #6 was sent to the ER for a psychiatric evaluation. A social services interview in the investigation file, dated 1/18/24, documented Resident #3 said Resident #6 pushed him and was trying to do harm to me. A second social services note documented that, per staff, Resident #6 had been continuously wandering to Resident #3's unit. Staff had redirected her back to her own unit. Five resident interviews dated 1/19/24 did not document further abuse. -There were no further staff interviews. -There was no documentation the State Agency, police or ombudsman were notified. (cross-reference F609 for failure to report an alleged violation). B. Resident #3 1. Resident status Resident #3, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included intracranial hemorrhage (brain bleed), schizoaffective disorder and dementia. According to the 2/21/24 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of seven out of 15. He required supervision with dressing and transfers, and was independent with personal hygiene, bed mobility and toileting. C. Interviews Resident #8 was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 10:15 a.m. He said a female resident had assaulted a male resident and the police were not notified. He said the staff, a frequent visitor and a resident representative had called the police and there was now a detective involved. He provided a case number and the name of a detective. The NHA and the DON were interviewed together on 3/5/24 at 10:23 a.m. The DON said Resident #6 wandered into other resident rooms. She said she wandered into Resident #3's room and she pushed him. Resident #3 fell and cut his right eyebrow. Resident #6 was removed from the area. Resident #3 went to the ER and received seven or eight sutures. He had bruises on the right side of his face. The DON said Resident #6 was taken to the ER in the facility van for a psychiatric evaluation. The NHA said the resident wandered into other resident rooms. She wandered into the room of Resident #3. She pushed Resident #3 and he fell cutting his face. Resident #6 was then taken in the facility van to the hospital. However, Resident #6 jumped out of the facility van on the way to the hospital and was then taken by ambulance to the hospital and the facility discharged her. The NHA said the facility was not aware of the resident's history of aggression. She said the facility would be looking at referrals for new admissions more in depth. She said she would start approving residents with a history of aggression herself. The NHA said she did not know what the plan was to keep Resident #6 from wandering into other residents' rooms. She said the facility should have had a plan to monitor Resident #6 more closely. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 11:00 a.m. The SSD said he had not read Resident #6's PASRR Level II and was not familiar with her history. He said she was not here very long but shortly after she admitted she walked to the doorways of other residents and stared at them. This went on for a week. She had arguments with other residents, including Resident #18. The SSD did not recall exactly what happened with Resident #3. He said he remembered the residents were yelling at each other. He did not witness the altercation. He said he had noticed an increase in residents with mental health conditions coming into the facility since December 2023. The SSD said the facility had not provided any training in mental health, though he thought there should have been training. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 1:50 p.m. LPN #4 said she was told by other staff members Resident #6 assaulted Resident #3. She said the police had not been notified by the facility but a resident's family member had notified the police. LPN #4 said she was familiar with Resident #6. She said Resident #6 kept wandering into Resident #3's doorway. Resident #3 would tell her to leave, but Resident #6 would say I do not have to The RNA was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 1:00 p.m.The RNA said shortly after he heard a female yelling come on, come on, he went to the hall and saw Resident #3 on the floor with a gash in his head, bleeding all over. He said he was told by other staff member that Resident #6 had a rock in her hand and hit Resident #3 with it. V. Resident to resident physical abuse by Resident #14 to Resident #15 A. Incident on 1/12/24 The 1/12/24 facility investigation was received from the NHA on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. A staff witness statement, dated 1/12/24, documented Resident #15 was pushing a chair and mistakenly hit Resident #14's foot. Resident #14 pushed Resident #15 who fell on the floor. Resident #14 then began hitting Resident #15 in the face before being pulled off of the resident. Three residents who witnessed the event were interviewed. The residents were asked: -How are you feeling? -How do you feel after the incident? -Would you like to speak to your family or friends? -Is there anything I can do to help you cope with the incident? -There were no resident interviews about abuse. -There were no staff interviews about abuse. -There was no documentation the State Agency or police were notified (cross-reference F609 for failure to report an alleged violation). B. Resident #14 1. Resident status Resident #14, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included paranoid personality disorder, restlessness and agitation, cerebral infarction (stroke), aphasia (speech disorder) and vascular dementia. According to the 12/20/23 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment and could not complete the BIMS assessment. The staff assessment for mental status documented the resident had long and short term memory loss. He required supervision with dressing, transfer and toileting. He required setup assistance with personal hygiene and was independent with bed mobility. The assessment documented the resident had delusions and verbal behaviors directed towards others. The assessment documented the resident's behavior had gotten worse and disrupted care, the living environment and interfered with social interactions. 2. Record review On 1/10/24 at 3:00 p.m., the progress notes for Resident #14 documented he was hit with a chair on the right side. There were no injuries. Resident #14's care plan, initiated 12/19/23, documented the resident was at risk for behavioral symptoms due to dementia and paranoid personality disorder. He had punched another resident at another facility. Interventions were to anticipate needs and meet promptly, document and record behavioral episodes, establish a rapport with the resident, maintain a calm, slow, understandable approach, manage environmental factors to optimize comfort, observe and document changes in behavior, including frequency of occurrence and potential triggers and observe resident's mood and response to medication. -There were no changes made to Resident #14's care plan after the altercation with Resident #15 on 1/10/24. C. Resident #15 1. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included vascular dementia, anxiety and psychotic disorder with hallucinations According to the 12/4/23 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment and could not complete the BIMS assessment. The staff assessment for mental status documented the resident had long and short term memory loss. He was independent with bed mobility, and required supervision for dressing, transfers and toileting. He required set up assistance from staff with personal hygiene. The assessment documented he had physical and verbal behavior directed towards others. 2. Record review On 1/10/24 at 3:00 p.m., the nursing progress notes for Resident #15 documented Resident #15 was pushing furniture and accidentally ran into Resident #14 who then pushed Resident #15. Resident #14 continued to swat and hit Resident #15 with his hat. The residents were separated by staff. -There was no documentation about injuries. On 1/10/24 at 7:08 p.m., the nursing notes documented that Resident #15 had no injury. C. Staff interviews The NHA and DON were interviewed together on 3/25/24 at 10:23 a.m. The DON said Resident #15 was moving a chair around the nursing station. She said he used to be a janitor. He bumped into Resident #14 and Resident #14 pushed Resident #15 to the ground and began hitting him with his hat. The staff separated them. The DON said there were no injuries to either resident. The DON looked at both residents' electronic medical records(EMR) and said no changes were made to the residents' care plans following the incident. She said Resident #15 did have a history of aggression. She said he had post traumatic stress disorder from being assaulted by his wife. The NHA said she thought she notified the police and ombudsman around 1/12/24. -However, there was no documentation provided to indicate the NHA had notified the ombudsman about the incident.
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide an effective pain management regimen in a manner consisten...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide an effective pain management regimen in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice, resident-centered care plans and resident preferences for two (#17 and #8) of three residents reviewed for pain management out of 38 sample residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #17 and Resident #8, both with a diagnosis of chronic pain, were assessed for pain accurately and administered pain medications as ordered. Both residents reported increased levels of pain. Resident #17's 2/19/24 pain assessment documented the resident had pain which affected her day to day activity. On 2/29/24, the resident reported she did not always get her pain medication as ordered. She said her pain affected her sleep and her ability to get around. Resident #8's 2/21/24 pain assessment documented the resident had pain which affected his sleep and his day to day activity. On 2/29/24, the resident reported he had gone without pain medications on several occasions. He said he was not able to sleep or move around much when he had increased pain. Due to the facility's failures to ensure Resident #17 and Resident #8's pain medications were consistently administered as ordered, both residents sustained increased pain. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Pain policy, revised October 2022, was received from the director of nursing (DON) on 3/5/24 at 4:09 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The physician and staff will identify individuals who have pain or who are at risk for having pain. This includes reviewing known diagnoses and conditions that commonly cause pain; for example, degenerative joint disease, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis (with or without vertebral compression fractures), diabetic neuropathy, oral or dental pathology, and post-stroke syndromes). It also includes a review for any treatments that the resident currently is receiving for pain. With input from the resident to the extent possible, the physician and staff will establish goals of pain treatment; for example, freedom from pain with minimal medication side effects, less frequent headaches, or improved functioning, mood, and sleep. The nursing staff will identify any situations or interventions where an increase in the resident's pain may be anticipated. II. Resident #17 A. Resident status Resident #17, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included septic right knee, lumbar abscess and chronic pain syndrome. According to the 2/19/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. She required substantial maximal assistance from staff with transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. She required moderate assistance from staff with bed mobility. The assessment documented she had pain which affected day to day activity. B. Resident interview Resident #17 was interviewed on 2/29/24 at 2:54 p.m. Resident #17 said the facility would run out of her scheduled and PRN (as needed) pain medication Norco (opioid pain medication). Resident #17 said the nurse would try to offer her muscle relaxers when the facility ran out of the Norco, however, she told them the muscle relaxer was not as effective as the pain medication. Resident #17 said she had two back surgeries for infections in her back, however, she continued to have back pain and chronic pain in her knees. Her pain level was 6 to 8 (on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being the worst pain) when she did not get the pain medication. She said it affected her sleep and her ability to get around when she had pain. Resident #17 said the lowest her pain level got was a two out of 10. C. Record review Review of Resident #17's February 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet (Norco) 5-325 milligrams (mg). Give one tablet by mouth every four hours PRN for pain, ordered 1/30/24. -There were no parameters for when to give the medication. Celebrex capsule (Celecoxib) 100 mg. Give one capsule by mouth two times a day for pain, give with meals, ordered 2/19/24. Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet (Norco) 5-325 mg. Give one tablet orally three times a day for chronic pain, ordered 2/20/24. The January 2024 and February 2024 medication administration records (MAR) documented the resident had received the Norco PRN pain medication for pain levels of 0 to 8 out of 10. The February 2024 MAR further revealed the resident was given Norco PRN two to three times per day from 2/1/24 until the order was changed to scheduled three times per day on 2/20/24. -Despite nursing staff documenting Resident #17 was administered Norco two to three times per day PRN, the resident's pain assessment levels on the MAR for the administration of the Norco were frequently documented at a 0 out of 10. From 2/20/24 (after the Norco PRN physician's order was changed to scheduled Norco) until 2/24/24, the Norco medication was signed off as administered on the February 2024 MAR each day, including three doses on 2/24/24. -However, review of the Norco narcotic count sheet revealed no Norco was administered on 2/24/24. -On 2/20/24, at 8:31 a.m. and 4:49 p.m., Resident #17's Celebrex was documented as not administered for pain because it was not available. D. Staff interview The DON was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 10:23 a.m. She said she had compared the Norco narcotic count sheet to the February 2024 MAR. She said the resident had missed doses of Norco despite being signed off on the MAR as given. The DON said she found no evidence the Norco was taken from the facility's emergency medication supply which meant the pain medication was not administered to the resident. The DON said PRN pain medications should have parameters for when to give them. The DON said she would not expect Norco to be given for pain levels of zero. The DON said she would begin in-servicing the licensed nurses on pain control and medication administration. III. Resident #8 A. Resident status Resident #8, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included osteoarthritis and chronic pain. According to the 2/21/24 MDS assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. He was independent with bed mobility and transfers. He required set up assistance for the staff with toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene. He had pain and was on pain medication. The assessment documented pain affected the resident's sleep and day to day activity. B. Resident interview Resident #8 was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 10:15 a.m. Resident #8 said the nurses documented his pain medications (Oxycodone) and neurontin were given but they did not give him the medications. Resident #8 said sometimes the nurse would say they did not have the medications. He said he had gone without his pain medications for several days before. He said when he did not receive his pain medications he had increased pain at a pain level of 8 out of 10 and was not able to sleep or move around as much. Resident #8 said he had reported not receiving his pain medications consistently to the DON but he said he had never heard anything back from her. He said his pain levels were consistently at a level of 4 out of 10 when he received his pain medication but he always had pain. Resident #8 said his pain was never a pain level of 0 out of 10. C. Record review Review of Resident #8's February 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Gabapentin oral capsule 300 mg. Give 600 mg by mouth at bedtime for neuropathic pain, ordered 8/17/23. Tizanidine oral tablet 2 mg. Give one tablet by mouth two times a day for muscle spasms, ordered 1/25/24. Oxycodone oral capsule (Oxycodone HCl) 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth four times a day for right knee pain, ordered 8/22/24. Review of Resident #8's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the following progress notes: On 1/12/24 at 9:35 a.m. the nursing progress notes documented the resident did not get his oxycodone because it was on order. On 1/16/24 at 11:31 a.m., 3:02 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. the nursing progress notes documented Resident #8 did not get his scheduled oxycodone because it was on order from the pharmacy. On 1/26/24 at 4:05 p.m. the nursing progress notes documented the resident's Tizanidine for muscle spasms was not given because it was on order. On 1/28/24 at 4:40 p.m. the nursing progress notes documented the resident's Tizanidine for muscle spasms was not given because it was on order. On 2/1/24 at 7:30 p.m. the nursing progress notes documented the resident did not receive his gabapentin for nerve pain because it was on order. On 2/2/24 at 4:45 a.m. the nursing progress notes documented in a behavior note, the resident said I want all my medications. The nurse responded, If it is not on my cart, I can not give it to you. -The missing medications were not documented. -There were no further progress notes regarding action taken to get the medication or that the physician was notified for further orders. The oxycodone narcotic count sheets were reviewed for January 2024. -There was no oxycodone signed out for any of the four dose administration times on 1/12/24, and only one of the four dose administration times (8:00 a.m.) was signed out on 1/16/24. The January 2024 MAR documented the resident had a pain level of five on 1/16/24 at 10:00 p.m. when he did not receive his oxycodone. -The resident's pain levels for the rest of January 2024 and February 2024 were frequently documented as a 0 out of 10, despite the resident's report that his pain level was never below a 4 out of 10, even when he received pain medication (see resident's interview above). -However, Resident #8 reported his pain level never went below a 4 out of 10, even when he received pain medication (see resident's interview above). -The last comprehensive pain assessment completed for Resident #8, other than the 2/21/24 MDS assessment, was on 8/17/23, six months prior to the survey. The assessment documented that the resident had frequent pain at a level of 6 out of 10. -There was no documentation of the resident's pain goals or things that made pain worse or relieved pain. D. Staff interview The DON was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 2:06 p.m. The DON said the licensed nurses should have notified her when they did not have the pain medication for Resident #8. She said the medication could be received from the pharmacy within two hours when requested STAT (urgent) from the pharmacy. The DON said comprehensive pain assessments were completed on admission, quarterly and as needed. She said pain was assessed every shift and documented on the MAR. She said PRN pain medication should have parameters for when to administer the medication. IV. Additional interviews The DON was interviewed again on 3/5/24 at 4:01 p.m. She said the regional nurses had reviewed the MARs and progress notes for Resident #17 and Resident #8 and said the residents did not receive their pain medications as ordered. She said this was an issue. The DON said she would investigate further to see if there was a trend with specific nurses. She said the facility had an emergency medication system where the medication could have been obtained. The DON said the nurses should have notified the provider for further orders when the pain medication was not available. The DON said she would begin educating the staff on steps to take when a narcotic pain medication was not available and obtaining parameters for when to administer pain medication. The DON said she was not sure if the frequent pain level of 0 out of 10 documented on the MARs for both residents was accurate.
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 F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the right to refuse treatment for one (#14) o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the right to refuse treatment for one (#14) of three residents reviewed out of 25 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #14 was not treated and administered medications against his wishes. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Residents Rights policy, revised December 2016, was provided by regional director of clinical services (RDCS) #1 on 5/9/24 at 1:14 p.m. It read in pertinent part, These rights include the right to exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal from the facility, be informed about his or her rights and responsibilities and be informed of, and participate in his or her care planning and treatment. The Administering Medications policy, revised April 2019, was provided by RDCS #1 on 5/9/24 at 1:14 p.m. It read in pertinent part, If a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication shall initial and circle the MAR (medication administration record) space provided for that drug and dose. II. Resident #14 A. Resident status Resident #14, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the May 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included aphasia (inability to communicate effectively) following cerebral infarction (stroke), diabetes, pulmonary embolism (blood clot), paranoid personality disorder (mental illness with pattern of distrust and suspicion of others) and dementia. The 3/20/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed Resident #14 had short and long term memory problems according to staff interviews. He was independent with eating, oral and personal hygiene and required supervision with showering and dressing. B. Observation On 5/9/24 at 11:40 a.m., Resident #14 was observed walking in the hallway. He was dressed and well-groomed. Resident #14 was accompanied by a staff member (had one to one supervision). The resident was speaking, however his speech was difficult to understand. C. Record review The psychosocial/behavior care plan, revised 3/8/24, revealed a plan for medication as ordered, which specified may mix medications in resident's food as resident has increased paranoia and aggression when attempting to give in pill form. On 4/17/24 at 8:00 a.m. a physician order was initiated for Risperidone 4 milligrams (mg) by mouth one time a day for irritation. The order instructed to mix medication with Resident #14's meal. On 4/26/24 at 8:00 a.m.,a physician order was initiated for Sertraline 50 mg, oral concentrate (liquid), one time per day for depression. The order was discontinued on 5/3/24. On 4/27/24 at 8:00 a.m. a physician order was initiated for Lamictal 25 mg oral solution (liquid), one time per day for 14 days, for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The order was discontinued on 5/3/24 at 10:51 a.m. On 4/28/24 at 1:37 p.m. the primary care physician (PCP) note revealed Resident #14 was taking medications mixed into his hot chocolate. On 4/30/24 at 10:31 a.m. a nursing note revealed Resident #14 refused medication. The note documented the nurse tried two different times mixing the medication with his drink. The resident got suspicious and did not accept the drink containing the medications. On 5/1/24 at 12:30 p.m. a psychiatric progress note revealed the nursing staff told the physician that the resident may be catching on to medication-masking and had refused several doses. It was recommended to consider switching to flavorless Risperidone oral solution. On 5/1/24 at 5:19 p.m. the PCP note revealed Resident #14 was taking his medications in hot chocolate until 4/28/24. The resident was now refusing. He was not taking any of his medications for days and was very irritable. The note documented that the staff felt that the resident could taste the Lamictal and that was why he was refusing his medications and was now eating less. On 5/6/24 a certified nurse aide (CNA) note documented for the 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. shift revealed Resident #14 did not eat breakfast or lunch. -A review of Resident #14's meal intake record from 4/10/24 to 5/8/24 revealed he refused to eat or ate less than 50% of meals on 4/28/24, 4/29/24, 4/30/24, 5/1/24, 5/4/24 and 5/6/24. Prior to 4/28/24, Resident #14 ate more than 50% of breakfast and lunch 90% of the time during the 4/10/24 to 5/8/24 period D. Interviews The detective from the police department (DPD) was interviewed on 5/9/24 at 10:28 a.m. The DPD said he received a report the facility had forced Resident #14 to take medications by putting it into his food, possibly a chocolate shake, for the previous two weeks. The DPD said he was told the facility had contacted a mental health worker for assistance with alternate placement. He said the mental health worker reported the facility had reported hiding a prescribed medication, Risperidone, in Resident #14's food. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 5/9/24 at 11:54 a.m. LPN #1 said Resident #14 loved mocha coffee and enjoyed making the drink. She said the nursing staff put his medications in his drink to get him to accept the medications. LPN #1 said Resident #14 did not like pills in his mouth or handed to him and often refused medications. She said the licensed nurses had been giving medications to Resident #14 in his drink for about a month. LPN #1 said nurses spoke to the doctor about giving medications in his drink and it seemed to work. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 5/9/24 at 12:55 p.m. The DON said nursing staff were crushing medication and putting it into Resident #14's hot chocolate without his knowledge. She said Resident #14 did not notice the medication was in the drink until the addition of the Lamictal and Sertraline medications were added. The DON said the new medications had an aftertaste and Resident #14 would no longer take them. She said Resident #14 began wanting to make his drink himself as he did not trust the staff and knew staff were hiding his medications in his drink. The DON said she knew staff were not supposed to disguise or mask medications and residents should always be informed what medications were being administered to them. The contract nurse consultant (CNC) was interviewed on 5/9/24 at 1:30 p.m. The CNC said she realized the facility was not to mask or disguise medications per the regulation. She said the guardian consented to hiding the medication in the resident's drink. The CNC said the team developed a plan to administer the medication without Resident #14's knowledge in order to minimize risk of harm to himself and others. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 5/9/24 at 2:47 p.m. The NHA said he was aware that staff were masking medications from Resident #14 and did not tell Resident #14 he was receiving the medications. He said the process of disguising the medication was care planned and Resident #14's guardian was aware. He said the resident had a right to refuse medication. Resident #14's representative was interviewed on 5/10/24 at 9:40 a.m. The representative said the facility had spoken with him about Resident #14's medications and they were hiding Resident #14's medications in his beverages. He said he did consent to the administration of medications without Resident #14's knowledge. He said the facility did not say anything to him about Resident #14's right to refuse administration of medications.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent retaliation for abuse reporting. Specifically...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent retaliation for abuse reporting. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Post a conspicuous notice of employee rights, including the right of staff to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse; and, -Include protection for employees against retaliation for reporting in its abuse policy. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Elder Justice Act notice, undated, retrieved online 3/11/24 from https://lms.healthcareacademy.com/courses/HCA_Annual/ElderJusticeAct1d/EJA_poster.pdf: The Elder Justice Act (the Act) is a federal law passed as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Its aim is to combat abuse, neglect and exploitation of elders by promoting the discovery of crimes against residents of long term care facilities. It does this by requiring that specific individuals report any reasonable suspicion of a crime against anyone who is a resident of, or is receiving care from, a long term care facility. A long term care facility may not retaliate against an employee for making a report, or for causing a report to be made. This means that a facility may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or deny a promotion or other employment-related benefit to an employee or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of lawful acts done the employee; or file a complaint or a report against a nurse or other employee with the appropriate State professional disciplinary agency because of lawful acts done by the nurse or employee. II. Observation The facility was observed on 3/7/24 at 11:43 a.m. for signage regarding employees' right to non-retaliation. This signage was not found in the facility. II. Record review The Abuse and Neglect policy, revised March 2018, was provided by the regional director of clinical services (RDCS) #1 on 3/7/24 at 10:55 a.m. -The policy did not address retaliation for reporting abuse or neglect. III. Staff interviews The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 12:37 p.m. The DON said she did not know where the notice was posted that indicated the facility would not retaliate against employees for reporting abuse. She said a notice against retaliation should have been posted. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #8 was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 3:00 p.m. CNA #8 said she had never seen signage that notified staff of their right to be free from retaliation for reporting abuse.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to report alleged violations of potential abuse to the proper a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to report alleged violations of potential abuse to the proper authority in accordance with State law for alleged violations involving eight (#4, #17, #6, #7, #3, #18, #14 and #15) of eight residents reviewed for allegations of abuse out of 38 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Report an allegation of verbal abuse by Resident #4 to Resident #17 to the nursing home administrator (NHA), director of nursing (DON), local police or the State Agency; -Report an allegation of physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #7 and Resident #3; -Report an allegation of physical abuse between Resident #6 and Resident #18; and, -Report an allegation of physical abuse by Resident #14 to Resident #15. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse and Neglect policy, revised March 2018, was received from the regional director of clinical services (RDCS) #1 on 3/7/24 at 10:55 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish.The management and staff, with physician support, will address situations of suspected or identified abuse and report them in a timely manner to appropriate agencies, consistent with applicable laws and regulations. II. Verbal abuse by Resident #4 to Resident #17 A. Resident #4 1. Resident status Resident #4, [AGE] years old, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included alcohol abuse. The 2/19/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. He was independent with all activities of daily living. 2. Record review -Review of Resident #4's nursing progress notes revealed there was no documentation about any verbal altercations with Resident #17. B. Resident #17 1. Resident status Resident #17, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included septic right knee, lumbar abscess and chronic pain syndrome. According to the 2/19/24 MDS assessment, the resident had mild cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. She required substantial maximal assistance from staff with transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. She required moderate assistance from staff with bed mobility. 2. Resident interview Resident #17 was interviewed on 2/29/24 at 2:54 p.m. Resident #17 said a couple months ago she was talking to one of the nurses at the nurses station. She said they were talking loudly and laughing. She said Resident #4 came out of his room, rolling fast in his wheelchair. Resident #17 said Resident #4 came up to her at the desk and threatened to harm her and hit her. Resident #17 said Resident #4 smelled of alcohol and said something about harming her if she was rude to his favorite nurse. Resident #17 said Resident #4 drank alcohol in his room. She said she had seen him hide beer cans in his clothes and the beer cans were found in the residents' computer room at night. Resident #17 said maybe Resident #4 thought she and the nurse were arguing because they were talking loudly. Resident #17 said she tried to stay away from Resident #4 now. 3. Record review -Review of Resident #17's nursing progress notes revealed there was no documentation about any verbal altercations with Resident #4. C. Staff interviews The NHA was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 10:24 a.m. The NHA said the nurse had not reported to her or the DON the threats made by Resident #4 to Resident #17. She said the nurse should have reported the threats as verbal abuse. The NHA was interviewed again on 3/6/24 at 9:11 a.m. The NHA said the nurse said she was having a friendly conversation with Resident #17 and having fun. The nurse said Resident #4 came out of his room and said to Resident #17 If you do something to my friend, I am going to do something to you. The NHA said she did not ask Resident #17 if she was fearful of Resident #4. The NHA said Resident #17 said she just tried to stay away from Resident #4. III. Physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #7 A. Resident #6 1. Resident status Resident #6, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on 1/18/24. According to the January 2024 CPO, diagnoses included traumatic brain injury (TBI), alcohol abuse, Bulimia Nervosa (eating disorder), encephalopathy (alteration in brain function or structure), borderline personality disorder and major depression with severe psychotic symptoms. According to the 1/12/24 MDS assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. She was independent with personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation. The assessment documented the resident had symptoms of feeling down, hopeless, trouble concentrating with little pleasure in doing things. The assessment documented the resident did not wander but had a wander prevention device. B. Resident #7 1. Resident status Resident #7, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, major depression and dementia. According to the 1/30/24 minimum data set MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of four out of 15. She was totally dependent on staff for transfers and toileting. She required substantial to maximal staff assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene. C. Staff interviews The DON was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 12:37 p.m. The DON said she was told Resident #6 was holding a blanket around Resident #7's face around 1/17/24. She said she was not at the facility that day. The DON said the NHA was at the facility and handled the situation. The DON said the NHA should have done an investigation and reported it to the police and the State Agency but she did not. She said the nurse on duty witnessed the assault, but she was an agency nurse and had not returned the DON's calls. The DON said she found out about the incident a few days after it occurred. -The NHA was unavailable for an interview on 3/7/24. D. Record review -There was no facility investigation provided for the incident (cross-reference F610 for failure to investigate abuse allegations) and no evidence the State Agency or police were notified of the allegation. IV. Physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #3 A. Resident #3 1. Resident status Resident #3, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included intracranial hemorrhage (brain bleed), schizoaffective disorder and dementia. According to the 2/21/24 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS) score of seven out of 15. He required supervision with dressing and transfers, and was independent with personal hygiene, bed mobility and toileting. 2. Record review On 1/18/24 at 10:28 a.m., an interdisciplinary team (IDT) note documented Resident #3 was pushed by another resident and obtained a laceration to the right eyebrow. On 1/18/24 at 11:54 a.m., the nursing notes documented the nurse heard Resident #3 fighting with the same female resident he had been fighting with all day (Resident #6). The nurse observed arms flying at each other and Resident #3 lost his balance and fell hitting his face on the ground. There was a deep head wound from his glasses. Resident #3 complained of chin pain. B. Facility investigation The facility investigation of the incident was received from the NHA on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. -The facility investigation did not contain documentation to indicate the State Agency and police were notified of the incident. V. Physical abuse between Resident #6 to Resident #18 A. Resident #18 Resident #18, age less than age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, major depression, personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). According to the 1/12/24 MDS) assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. He was independent with personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. B. Record review On 1/17/24 at 11:20 a.m. the nursing progress notes for Resident #6 documented Resident #18 was sitting in his room calmly when Resident #6 repeatedly went into Resident #18's room. Resident #18 asked her to stop coming into his room. When Resident #18 was not looking, Resident #6 took his cane. Resident #18 yelled for the nurse. When the nurse went into the room Resident #18 was pulling Resident #6's hair. The residents were separated, and the facility had decided to move Resident #6's room for safety concerns. Resident #6 was encouraged to socialize with residents in common areas and not in resident rooms. The facility investigation of the incident was received from the nursing home administrator on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. -There was no documentation the State Agency or police were notified of the incident. VI. Physical abuse by Resident #14 to Resident #15 A. Resident #14 1. Resident status Resident #14, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2024 CPO, diagnoses included paranoid personality disorder, restlessness and agitation, cerebral infarction (stroke), aphasia (speech disorder) and vascular dementia. According to the 12/20/23 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment and could not complete a BIMS. The staff assessment for mental status documented the resident had long and short term memory loss. He required supervision with dressing, transfer, and toileting. He required setup assistance with personal hygiene and was independent with bed mobility. The assessment documented the resident had delusions and verbal behaviors directed towards others. The assessment documented the resident's behavior had gotten worse and disrupted care, the living environment and interfered with social interactions. B. Resident #15 1. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included vascular dementia, anxiety and psychotic disorder with hallucinations. According to the 12/4/23 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment and could not complete a BIMS. The staff assessment for mental status documented the resident had long and short term memory loss. He was independent with bed mobility, and required supervision for dressing, transfers and toileting. He required set up assistance from staff with personal hygiene. The assessment documented the resident had physical and verbal behavior directed towards others. C. Record review On 1/10/24 at 3:00 p.m., the nursing progress notes for Resident #15 documented Resident #15 was pushing furniture and accidentally ran into Resident #14 who then pushed Resident #15. Resident #14 continued to swat and hit Resident #15 with his hat. The residents were separated by staff. -There was no documentation about injuries. The facility investigation of the incident was received from the NHA on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. -There was no documentation the State Agency or police were notified of the incident. VII. Staff interview The NHA and the DON were interviewed on 3/5/24 at 10:23 a.m. The NHA said she did not recall if the abuse incidents involving Resident #4 and Resident #17, Resident #6 and Resident #7, Resident #6 and Resident #3, Resident #6 and Resident #18 or Resident #14 and Resident #15 were reported to the State Agency or the police. VIII. Additional record review The State Agency system was reviewed and there were no reports submitted by the facility for the abuse incidents involving Resident #4 and Resident #17, Resident #6 and Resident #7, Resident #6 and Resident #3, Resident #6 and Resident #18 or Resident #14 and Resident #15.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure incidents of potential abuse were thoroughly investigated f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure incidents of potential abuse were thoroughly investigated for three (#6, #18 and #7) of four residents out of 38 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure a known physical abuse incident between Resident #6 and Resident #18 was thoroughly investigated; and, -Ensure reports of physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #7 were followed up on and investigated. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse and Neglect policy, revised March 2018, was received from the regional director of clinical services (RDCS) #1 on 3/7/24 at 10:55 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. The nurse will assess the individual and document related findings. The nurse will report findings to the physician. The staff, with the physician's input as needed, will investigate alleged abuse and neglect to clarify what happened and identify possible causes. II. Physical abuse between Resident #6 and Resident #18 A. Resident #6 1. Resident status Resident #6, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to the hospital on 1/18/24. According to the January 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included traumatic brain injury (TBI), alcohol abuse, bulimia nervosa (an eating disorder), encephalopathy (alteration in brain function or structure), borderline personality disorder and major depression with severe psychotic symptoms. According to the 1/12/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. She was independent with personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. The assessment documented the resident had symptoms of feeling down, hopeless, trouble concentrating with little pleasure in doing things. The assessment documented the resident did not wander but had a wander prevention device. B. Resident #18 1. Resident status Resident #18, less than age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, major depression, personality disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI). According to the 1/12/24 MDS assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. He was independent with personal hygiene, toileting, dressing, bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. C. Record review On 1/17/24 at 11:20 a.m., the nursing progress notes for Resident #6 documented Resident #18 was sitting in his room calmly when Resident #6 repeatedly went into Resident #18's room. Resident #18 asked her to stop coming into his room. When Resident #18 was not looking, Resident #6 took his cane. Resident #18 yelled for the nurse. When the nurse went into the room Resident #18 was pulling Resident #6's hair. The residents were separated, and the facility had decided to move Resident #6's room for safety concerns. Resident #6 was encouraged to socialize with residents in common areas and not in resident rooms. On 1/17/24 at 11:34 a.m. the nursing progress notes for Resident #6 documented Resident #18 was sitting in his room and calm. Resident #6 repeatedly went in Resident #18's room even though the nurse asked her not to. Resident #6 took Resident #18's cane. When the nurse arrived Resident #18 was pulling Resident #6's hair. Resident #6 said she was punched. The nursing home administrator (NHA) recovered Resident #18's cane. There were no injuries noted for either resident and Resident #6 agreed to a room move for safety concerns. On 1/17/24 at 4:57 p.m. a Change of Condition Evaluation documented Resident #6 was involved in a physical and verbal altercation. The evaluation documented Resident #6 was verbally and physically aggressive. The 1/17/24 facility investigation was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/4/24 at 10:00 a.m. The investigation documented Resident #6 and Resident #18 were immediately separated and there were no injuries to either resident. The investigation file contained a follow up statement from Resident #18 on 1/18/24 stating he was doing better and no longer upset. The investigation contained two resident interviews. One resident said they had heard about residents fighting on 1/17/24 and one resident said another resident had tried to punch her wheelchair and she had to tell him to stop. -There were no further resident interviews and no staff interviews found in the facility's investigation file. D. Staff interview The NHA and the director of nursing (DON) on 3/5/24 at 10:23 a.m. The NHA said there were no further interviews of residents because the residents on that unit could not tell staff what was going on. She said the facility had to look for non verbal things. -However, the NHA could not describe what non verbal things were looked for. -The NHA had no explanation for the lack of staff interviews in the investigation. III. Physical abuse by Resident #6 to Resident #7 (cross-reference F600 for abuse) A. Resident #7 1. Resident status Resident #7, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, major depression and dementia. According to the 1/30/24 minimum data set MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of four out of 15. She was totally dependent on staff for transfers and toileting. She required substantial to maximal staff assistance with bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene. B. Record review -There were no progress notes in Resident #6 or Resident #7's medical records regarding the alleged assault. The facility investigation of the alleged incident was requested from the DON on 3/7/24 at 12:37 p.m. -The DON was unable to provide an investigation file for the incident between Resident #6 and Resident #7. C. Staff interviews The DON was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 12:37 p.m. The DON said she was told Resident #6 was holding a blanket around Resident #7's face around 1/17/24. She said she was not at the facility that day. The DON said the NHA was at the facility and handled the situation. The DON said the NHA should have done an investigation and reported it to the police and the State Agency (SA) but she did not. She said the nurse on duty witnessed the assault, but she was an agency nurse and had not returned the DON's calls. The DON said she found out about the incident a few days after it occurred. -The NHA was unavailable for an interview on 3/7/24.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were kept free from significant medication errors...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents were kept free from significant medication errors for five (#8, #9, #3, #17 and #21) of five residents reviewed out of 38 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Residents #8, #9, #3, #17 and #21 received all prescribed medications, which resulted in significant medication errors of omission. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Unavailable Medication policy, revised February 2023, was received on 3/6/23 at 10:32 a.m. from the director of nursing (DON). The policy documented in pertinent part, Medications may be unavailable for a number of reasons. Staff shall take immediate action when it is known that the medication is unavailable. Determine reason for unavailability, length of time medication is unavailable, and what efforts have been attempted by the facility or pharmacy provider to obtain the medication. Notify physician of inability to obtain medication upon notification or awareness that medication is not available. Obtain alternative treatment orders and/or specific orders for monitoring residents while medication is on hold. Determine whether a resident has home supply. Obtain orders to use home supply. Administer first dose after the pharmacist has verified that the medication is correct with respect to name, dose, and form of medication. If a resident misses a scheduled dose of the medication, staff shall follow procedures for medication errors, including physician/family notification, completion of a medication error report, and monitoring the resident for adverse reactions to omission of the medication. II. Resident #8 A. Resident status Resident #8, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included osteoarthritis and chronic pain, diabetes, major depression and bipolar disorder. According to the 2/21/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. B. Resident interview Resident #8 was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 9:34 a.m. Resident #8 said he frequently did not get all his medications. He said the nurses signed it off on the MAR but he did not really get the medications. He said he had gone without medications such as clonazepam and oxycodone. C. Record review Review of Resident #8's March 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) oral tablet 200 milligrams (mg). Give 200 mg by mouth at bedtime for bipolar disorder, ordered 8/17/23. Oxycodone oral capsule (Oxycodone HCl) 5 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth four times a day for right knee pain, ordered 8/22/24. Clonazepam 1 mg, give one tablet at bedtime for bipolar disorder, ordered 8/17/23. Tizanidine oral tablet 2 mg. Give one tablet by mouth two times a day for muscle spasms, ordered 1/25/24. Glipizide 10 mg by mouth one time per day for diabetes, ordered 8/18/23. Loratadine 10 mg, give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for allergies, ordered 12/28/23. Gabapentin oral capsule 300 mg. Give 600 mg by mouth at bedtime for neuropathic pain, ordered 8/17/23. Review of Resident #8's nursing progress notes revealed multiple medications were not administered due to the medications being unavailable or on order from the pharmacy. Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) oral tablet 200 milligrams was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/7/24 at 8:43 p.m.; -1/11/24 at 8:19 p.m.; and, -1/15/23 at 9:17 p.m. Oxycodone oral capsule 5 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/12/24 at 9:35 a.m.; -1/16/24 at 11:31 a.m.; -1/16/24 at 3:02 p.m.; and, -1/16/24 at 8:03 p.m. Cross-reference F697 for failure to manage pain. Clonazepam 1 mg was documented as not given because the medication was not available or was on order on: -1/23/24 at 11:20 p.m.; -1/24/24 at 9:28 p.m.; and, -1/25/24 at 10:04 p.m. Tizanidine oral tablet 2 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/26/24 at 8:38 a.m.; -1/26/24 at 4:05 p.m.; -1/28/24 at 7:51 a.m.; and, -1/28/24 at 4:40 p.m. Glipizide 10 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/27/24 at 8:13 a.m.; -1/28/24 at 7:50 a.m.; -2/4/24 at 7:28 a.m.,; and, - 2/26/24 at 9:38 a.m. Loratadine 10 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/28/24 at 4:40 p.m.; -1/30/24 at 7:51 p.m.; and, -1/31/24 at 7:51 p.m. Gabapentin 600 mg was documented as not given because the medication was not available on: -2/1/24 at 7:30 p.m. On 2/2/24 at 4:45 a.m. a behavior progress note documented the resident said I want all my medications and the nurse responded if it is not on my cart I can not give it to you. The resident requested a copy of his medication administration records (MAR). -There was no documentation in the progress notes the provider was notified for further orders when the medications were not available or on order from the pharmacy. III. Resident #9 A. Resident status Resident #9, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included chronic pain and edema (swelling). The 1/17/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had mild cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. B. Record review Review of Resident #9's March 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Potassium chloride extended release tablet 20 meq (milliequivalent). Give one tablet by mouth for hypokalemia (low potassium), ordered 6/14/23. Lasix 40 mg by mouth one time per day for edema (swelling), ordered 1/5/24. Cymbalta delayed release capsule 60 mg. Give one capsule one time per day for pain, ordered 1/5/24. Review of Resident #9's nursing progress notes revealed multiple medications were not administered due to the medications being unavailable or on order from the pharmacy. Potassium chloride extended release tablet 20 meq was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/1/24 at 2:04 p.m.; -1/3/24 at 10:54 a.m.; -1/4/24 at 8:19 a.m.; -1/7/24 at 7:14 a.m.; -1/10/24 at 7:27 a.m.; -1/19/24 at 7:31 a.m.; -1/20/24 at 7:16 a.m.; -1/21/24 at 7:46 a.m.; -1/22/24 at 12:15 p.m.; -1/23/24 at 2:49 p.m.; -1/24/24 at 7:14 a.m.; -1/25/24 at 7:23 a.m.; -1/26/24 at 8:14 a.m.; -1/29/24 at 7:54 a.m.; -1/30/24 at 9:27 a.m.; -1/31/24 at 7:38 a.m.; and, -2/4/24 at 8:27 a.m. Lasix 40 mg was documented as not given because the medication was unavailable or on order on: -1/10/24 at 7:29 a.m.; -1/18/24 at 8:29 a.m.; and, -1/20/24 at 7:15 a.m. Cymbalta delayed release capsule 60 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -2/23/24 at 10:40 a.m. -There was no documentation in the progress notes the provider was notified for further orders when the medications were not available or on order from the pharmacy. IV. Resident #3 A. Resident status Resident #3, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2024 CPO, diagnoses included intracranial hemorrhage, schizoaffective disorder, hypertension and COVID-19. According to the 2/21/24 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of seven out of 15. B. Record review Review of Resident #3's March 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Ingrezza 80 mg. One capsule at bedtime for dyskinesia (uncontrolled involuntary muscle movement), ordered 12/6/21. Atenolol 25 mg by mouth one time per day for hypertension (high blood pressure), ordered 12/1/21. Omeprazole 20 mg one time per day for gastric reflux disease (GERD), ordered 12/1/21. Ipratropium albuterol solution 0.5 to 2.5 mg per 3 milliliters (ml). Inhale one dose every six hours for RSV (respiratory syncytial virus ) and COVID-19 for 7 days, ordered 2/22/24. Review of Resident #3's nursing progress notes revealed multiple medications were not administered due to the medications being unavailable or on order from the pharmacy. Ingrezza 80 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/16/24 at 10:53 p.m.; and, -1/17/24 at 7:39 p.m. Atenolol 25 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/22/24 at 7:33 a.m.; -1/26/24 at 7:09 a.m.; and, -2/6/24 at 11:49 a.m. Omeprazole 20 mg was documented as not given because the medication was not available on: -2/16/24 at 9:09 p.m. Ipratropium albuterol solution 0.5 to 2.5 mg per 3 ml was documented as not given because the medication was not available on: -2/28/24 at 4:46 a.m. -There was no documentation in the progress notes the provider was notified for further orders when the medications were not available or on order from the pharmacy. V. Resident #17 A. Resident status Resident #17, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included septic right knee, lumbar abscess and chronic pain syndrome. According to the 2/19/24 MDS assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. B. Resident interview Resident #17 was interviewed on 2/29/24 at 2:54 p.m. Resident #17 said she did not always get her prescribed medications such as Norco. C. Record review Review of Resident #17's March 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Potassium extended release 20 meq. Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypokalemia (low potassium), ordered 9/12/23. Celebrex capsule (Celecoxib) 100 mg. Give one capsule by mouth two times a day for pain, give with meals, ordered 2/19/24. Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet (Norco) 5-325 mg. Give one tablet orally three times a day for chronic pain, ordered 2/20/24. Review of Resident #17's nursing progress notes revealed multiple medications were not administered due to the medications being unavailable or on order from the pharmacy. Potassium extended release 20 meq was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/1/24 at 8:49 a.m.; - 2/4/24 at 8:53 a.m.; and, -3/1/24 at 7:49 a.m. Celebrex capsule (Celecoxib) 100 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on 2/20/24 at 4:49 p.m. Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral tablet (Norco) 5-325 mg was documented as being given for all three doses on 2/24/24. -However, review of the Norco narcotic count sheet revealed no Norco was given on 2/24/24. -There was no documentation in the progress notes the provider was notified for further orders when the medications were not available or on order from the pharmacy. VI. Resident #21 A. Resident status Resident #21, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included Alzheimer's dementia, bipolar disorder and drug induced dyskinesia (involuntary movement). The 12/18/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of four out of 15. B. Record review Review of Resident #21's February 2024 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Propranolol 10 mg. Give 10 mg by mouth two times a day for Tardive dyskinesia, ordered 6/7/23. Zyprexa 5 mg. Give 5 mg by mouth in the afternoon for delusions, aggressive behaviors and false beliefs, ordered 1/12/24. Venlafaxine extended release 24 hours, 37.5 mg. Give 37.5 mg by mouth one time daily for inappropriate sexual behavior and manic mood swings, ordered 8/17/23. Review of Resident #21's nursing progress notes revealed multiple medications were not administered due to the medications being on order from the pharmacy. Propranolol 10 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/5/24 at 7:41 a.m.; and, -1/6/24 at 8:02 a.m. Zyprexa 5 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/27/24 at 4:26 p.m.; -1/28/24 at 5:11 p.m.; and, -1/29/24 4:45 p.m. Venlafaxine extended release 24 hours, 37.5 mg was documented as not given because the medication was on order on: -1/31/24 at 6:32 a.m.; and, -2/1/24 at 8:11 a.m. -There was no documentation in the progress notes the provider was notified for further orders when the medications were not available or on order from the pharmacy. VII. Facility record review The 2/29/24 resident council minutes were received from the NHA on 2/29/24 at 10:00 a.m. The notes documented the residents had concerns with missing medications. -There was no follow up on the concern. VIII. Staff interviews A frequent visitor (FV) was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 2:38 p.m. The FV said she had heard many complaints from residents regarding medications not being available. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #5 was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 2:40 p.m. LPN #5 said if a medication was not available the nurse should see if it was available in the emergency medication kit. She said if it was not in the emergency medication kit the nurse should notify the provider. LPN #5 said there were many issues with the pharmacy. She said if staff reordered a medication and the pharmacy could not refill it for some reason the pharmacy did not notify the facility. She said if a refill request was sent to the pharmacy five days before a medication ran out, sometimes the facility did not receive the medication for seven days. LPN #5 said she had expressed concerns to the pharmacy consultant who visited but there had been no resolution. LPN #4 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 1:50 p.m. LPN #4 said medications were reordered by faxing the pharmacy the medication that was needed when the medication had a few doses remaining. She said there had been many issues with medications not being available and other licensed nurses told her they had been borrowing medications from other residents. LPN #4 said the medication refills did not come timely. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 1:59 p.m. The DON said she was not aware of an issue with medications not being available. She said if a medication was not available the nurse should call her, the pharmacy and the provider. The DON said nurses should not borrow medications from other residents. -A voice mail message was left for the account manager of the pharmacy on 3/6/24 at 1:33 p.m., however, the phone call was not returned during the survey.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nurse aides received 12 hours of training based on annual performance evaluations and facility assessment. Specifically, the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure nurse aides received 12 hours of training based on annual performance evaluations and facility assessment. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure certified nurse aides (CNAs) #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 received at least 12 hours of training. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The In-Service Training, All Staff policy, revised August 2022, was provided by the regional director of clinical services (RDCS #1) on 3/11/24 at 11:44 a.m. It read in pertinent part: All staff are required to participate in regular in-service education. The primary objective of the in-service training is to ensure that staff are able to interact in a manner that enhances the resident's quality of life and quality of care and can demonstrate competency in the topic areas of the training. Required training topics include the following: -Effective communication with residents and family (direct care staff) -Resident rights and responsibilities, preventing abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property including: (1) activities that constitute abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property; (2) procedures for reporting incidences of abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property; and (3) dementia management and resident abuse prevention. -Elements and goals of the facility QAPI (quality assurance performance improvement) program; -The infection prevention and control program standards, policies and procedures; -Behavioral health; and -The compliance and ethics program standards, policies and procedures. (Compliance and ethics training is conducted annually when this organization is operating five or more facilities.) -Training requirements are met prior to staff providing services to residents, annually, and as necessary based on the facility assessment. II. Record review The Abuse reporting in-service training dated 7/6/23 for CNAs #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6 was provided by RDCS #1 on 3/7/24 at 10:46 a.m. -CNA #2 was hired 8/14/89; -CNA #3 was hired 4/7/08; -CNA #4 was hired 6/24/10; -CNA #5 was hired 11/14/16; and, -CNA #6 was hired 7/20/22. -The training document did not include the length of abuse training. -Additional annual training documentation was not provided for these CNAs by exit on 3/7/24. III. Staff interviews RDCS #1 was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 10:46 a.m. She said she she did not have documentation for the five CNAs requested (#2, #3, #4, #5 and #6) for completion of 12 hours of annual training. RDCS #1 was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 11:10 a.m. She said the building had new ownership and annual evaluations had not been done for CNAs. She said she was not able to obtain annual evaluations and training records from the previous owner. She said the new company would begin tracking the CNAs' education.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored and served under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored and served under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure staff correctly and accurately tested for the correct parts per million (ppm) of the chemical sanitizer used to clean equipment and surfaces where food was prepared. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2019) The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, retrieved on 3/13/24 from: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/DEHS_RetailFd_6CCR10102_RFFC_EffJan2019.pdf, read in pertinent part, Chemical sanitizers that are used to sanitize equipment and utensils shall be provided and available for use during all hours of operation. A chemical sanitizer used in a sanitizing solution for a manual or mechanical operation at contact times and be used in accordance with the EPA registered label use instructions. Concentration of the sanitizing solution shall be accurately determined by using a test kit or other device. II. Observations and interviews On 3/7/24 at 11:31 a.m., two red tubs of quat (benzalkonium chloride) solution were sitting on tables in the main kitchen. The dietary director (DD) said the solution was used to clean equipment and the metal tables where food was prepared. She said the staff checked the quat solution each shift and it should register 200 ppm. The DD said there was a machine that automatically mixed the solution with water and the staff only needed to refill the red buckets with it. -The solution was tested with test strips by the DD. The solution did not register on the strip. It remained at 0 ppm. -The DD dumped out the solution and retested the new solution with a new test strip. The new test strip continued to read 0 ppm. -The DD obtained a new package of test strips and tested the quat solution again. The solution tested 0 ppm again. The DD manager said she would call the company that installed the machine which dispensed the quat solution and have them come check the machine to figure out if there was an issue. She said she would use microkill wipes to clean the equipment and food preparation services in the meantime. She said she did not know if the wipes were food safe but she would find out. On 3/7/24 at 2:31 p.m., the DD said she was going to the store to purchase food safe wipes and would not use the microkill wipes because they were not food safe. The DD was interviewed again on 3/7/24 at 3:20 p.m. She said the company that installed the machine which dispensed the quat solution had come to inspect the machine. She said the problem was the facility had been using the wrong test strips to test the solution. The DD said the correct test strips had been obtained and the quat solution now tested at 200 ppm. -The test logs for February 2024 documented the quat solution tested at 200 ppm each shift. The DD said the test logs could not be accurate given the facility had the wrong test strips. She said she would be educating the dietary staff on how to test the quat solution. The DD did not know how long the facility had been using the wrong test strips.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to effectively administer its resources to attain the highest practicable wellbeing for each resident. Specifically, the facility failed to: -...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to effectively administer its resources to attain the highest practicable wellbeing for each resident. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Implement and maintain safety measures to prevent elopements with significant injury; -Prevent, report and investigate allegations of resident to resident abuse; and, -Provide sufficient leadership to address and/or avoid multiple significant concerns. Findings include I. Quality of care -Cross reference F689 for failure to ensure residents were free from accidents and elopement which caused major injury. -Cross reference F697 for failure to implement an effective pain management program. II. Freedom from abuse -Cross-reference F600 for failure to protect residents from physical abuse. -Cross-reference F609 for failure to report alleged violations. -Cross-reference F610 for failure to investigate alleged violations. III. Nursing services -Cross-reference F760 for failure to ensure residents were free from significant medication errors. IV. Training requirements -Cross-reference F730 for failure to ensure certified nurse aides (CNA) had completed required 12 hour training based on their date of hire and annual performance review. -Cross reference F940 for failure to ensure all direct and indirect care staff were trained in dementia care, mental health diagnoses and substance abuse. V. Quality assurance and performance improvement -Cross reference F867 for failure to implement effective systems to obtain feedback, use data, and take action to conduct structured, systematic investigations and analysis of underlying causes or contributing factors of problems affecting facility-wide processes that impact quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. VI. Interviews A frequent visitor (FV) was interviewed on 3/4/24 2:38 p.m. The FV said she had several serious complaints regarding the facility. She said she had heard many residents complain about not getting their medications and that the environment was bad. She said residents and staff were afraid of retaliation from the administration for reporting things such as abuse. The FV said the facility had had a large influx of admissions with mental health and substance abuse diagnoses but the staff had not been offered any training in those areas. The FV said many residents had complained about roommates with mental health issues and requested to be moved to a new room, however, she said the residents' requests to move rooms were not being honored. The FV said Resident #7 was found with a blanket being held around her head by Resident #6. The resident could not defend herself due to her immobility. She said Resident #6 was then moved to another hall where she pushed Resident #3 down. She said the resident had head trauma and had to get 12 stitches. The FV said she saw his face which was completely black and blue. The FV said the facility staff told her they should report the abuse as a fall by the DON. The FV said neither she nor the police were notified of the incident. (Cross-reference F600 and F610). The FV said she was concerned for the safety of the residents and the staff were being intimidated and afraid to speak up. The FV was interviewed again on 3/6/24 at 11:43 a.m. The FV said the NHA led the facility by fear and retribution. The staff had been told during the current survey there would be consequences for talking to the state. She said the NHA dismissed what the staff and residents told her. Resident #17 was interviewed on 2/29/24 at 2:54 p.m. Resident #17 said Resident #4 threatened to harm her but there was no follow up by the administration. She said she had missed multiple doses of medication including pain medication (cross reference F697 and F760 significant medication errors). Resident #17 said the NHA and DON were aware of her concerns but there was no follow up. She said when NHA was dismissive of her concerns when she reported them and Resident #17 was made to feel like she was the problem. Resident #8 was interviewed on 3/4/24 at 10:15 a.m. He said he was told many staff had resigned due to poor management. He said he had missed several doses of his medications including pain medications. He said he had reported this to the DON but there was no follow up. He said a resident was beaten up by a female resident and the staff told him they were instructed by the DON not to call the police. He said there was a resident who drank alcohol and smoked in his room. He said residents and staff were fearful of him but nothing had been done to address the concerns. Resident #8 said the NHA did not follow up on concerns with abuse or other resident behaviors. He said she dismissed things and talked down to people. He said the corporation that provided oversight to the building needed to know what was happening at the facility. The restorative nurse aide (RNA) was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 1:00 p.m. The RNA said he was afraid to be seen talking to the state. He said the staff had been threatened and feared retaliation if they spoke up and he needed his job. He said one of the main problems was the lack of communication by the DON and the NHA. He said the NHA was overpowering conversations, and shutting down concerns reported by the staff. The RNA said things were falling apart. He said roommates were often put together who were not appropriate such as putting those with behaviors in with residents who were unhappy with the behaviors. He said abuse by Resident #6 had not been thoroughly investigated and the staff had been told to document the abuse as a fall by the DON. The RNA said there had been an increase in admissions of residents who had mental health conditions and behaviors but no training had been provided to the staff (cross reference F940). He said many staff were afraid of retaliation by the facility and were not going to say anything Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 1:50 p.m. LPN #1 said she was concerned about the NHA finding out she was discussing things with the state surveyors. She said Resident #6 beat up Resident #3. She said the police were never called but a family member had heard about the abuse and called the police. She said the facility was admitting a lot more residents with mental health issues and behaviors but the staff had not received any training on how to handle the residents' behaviors. The NHA and DON were interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:12 p.m. The NHA said the elopements were discussed but not in enough detail to identify and correct all of the issues such as Resident #2 removing her wanderguard. The NHA said she was not aware the smoking assessments had not been completed timely, and smoking assistive devices were not provided. She said they started accepting residents who smoked a few months ago but had not reviewed what the smoking program would entail. The NHA said the multiple missed medications and unavailability of medications was not identified. The NHA said the abuse investigations needed to be more thorough and she could not recall if she had reported them to the state or police.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during bot...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a facility assessment which included all resources, education, staff competencies and facility based risk assessments. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure -The Facility Assessment policy was requested from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/6/24 at 8:45 a.m. and was not received by the end of the survey on 3/7/24. II. Record review The Facility Assessment, last reviewed by the facility on 3/1/24 (during the survey), was received from the NHA on 3/6/24 at 8:45 a.m. The facility assessment failed to include the following: -Staff competencies that were necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population or include the staff training program to ensure any training needs were met for all new and existing staff including those presidents with substance abuse or who where exit seeking, wandered; -Staff trainings/education necessary to provide the level and types of support and care needed for the resident population; and, -Identify facility resources needed and equipment to provide competent resident support during day-to-day operations and emergencies including the facility's wander prevention system. III. Staff interviews The NHA was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 8:45 a.m. The NHA said the facility assessment had many missing components. She said the facility assessment had several areas that were missing and had not been completed on the template used. The NHA said the facility assessment did not include trainings or competencies for the different staff members, information on the facility wander prevention system, facility or community risk assessment using an all hazards risk approach, description of the infection prevention and control program, list of contracts, recruitment and retention of medical practitioners, technology resources, ethnic, cultural, or religious considerations. The NHA said the emergency preparedness portion of the facility assessment had missing components such as a facility map. The NHA said she was not aware all of these items needed to be in the facility assessment.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented in order to facilitate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to quality of life and quality of care. Findings include: I. Cross-reference citations Cross-reference F689: The facility failed to ensure resident safety with accident hazards. The facility failed to ensure residents were assessed accurately and interventions were in place to prevent further elopements after two residents eloped, resulting in one resident sustaining a fracture. The facility's failure to protect residents from accident hazards created an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed timely for smoking safety and provided smoking assistive devices. Furthermore, the facility failed to keep chemicals and used razors secured safely. Cross-reference F600: The facility failed to prevent abuse resulting in actual harm. Cross reference F697: The facility failed to manage residents' pain resulting in actual harm. Cross-reference F607: The facility failed to notify staff of their right to be free of retaliation for reporting abuse. Cross-reference F609: The facility failed to report allegations of abuse to officials including the State Survey Agency. Cross-reference F610: The facility failed to thoroughly investigate allegations of resident verbal and physical abuse. Cross-reference F760: The facility failed to prevent significant medication errors. Cross-reference F835: The facility failed to provide adequate administration and follow up through action and inaction. Cross-reference F838: The facility failed to ensure an accurate and complete facility assessment was completed to determine what resources were necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. Cross reference F940: The facility failed to ensure all staff received training to care for the resident population including dementia care, substance abuse and mental health. Cross reference F947: The facility failed to ensure nurse aides had 12 hours of education annually based on their date of hire and annual performance review. II. Facility policy and procedure The QAPI policy was requested from the NHA on 3/6/24 at 2:12 p.m. -The policy was not received by the end of the survey on 3/7/24. III. Repeat deficiencies Review of the facility's regulatory record revealed it failed to operate a QAPI program in a manner to prevent repeat deficiencies. F689 for Accident hazards During a recertification survey on 4/19/22, F689 was cited at a D level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, isolated. During an abbreviated survey on 3/23/23, F689 was cited at a G level scope and severity, actual harm. During a recertification survey on 6/15/23, F689 was cited at an E level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, pattern. During an abbreviated survey on 11/20/23, F689 was cited at a D level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, isolated. During an abbreviated survey on 3/7/24, cited at a J level scope and severity, immediate jeopardy to resident health and safety, isolated. F697 Pain management During a recertification survey on 6/15/23, F697 was cited at an E level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, pattern. During an abbreviated survey on 3/7/24, F697 was cited at a G level scope and severity, actual harm. F838 Facility assessment During a recertification survey on 4/19/22, F838 was cited at a F level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, widespread. During an abbreviated survey on 3/7/24, F838 was cited at a F level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, widespread. F835 Administration During a recertification survey on 4/19/22, F835 was cited at a G level scope and severity, actual harm. During an abbreviated survey on 3/7/24, F835 was cited at a F level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, widespread. F867 QAPI During a recertification survey on 6/15/23, F867 was cited at a F level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, widespread. During a recertification survey on 4/19/22, F867 was cited at a G level scope and severity, actual harm. During an abbreviated survey on 3/7/24, F867 was cited at a F level scope and severity, a potential for more than minimal harm, widespread. IV. Interviews The nursing home administrator (NHA) and the director of nursing (DON) were interviewed together on 3/6/24 at 2:12 p.m. The NHA said the elopements were discussed at QAPI, but not in enough detail to identify and correct all of the issues such as Resident #2 removing her wanderguard. The NHA said she was not aware the smoking assessments had not been completed timely and smoking assistive devices were not provided. She said they started accepting residents who smoked a few months ago but the QAPI committee had not reviewed what the smoking program would entail. The NHA said the multiple missed medications and unavailability of medications was not identified or reviewed at QAPI. The NHA said the abuse investigations needed to be more thorough, however, she said that was not identified or reviewed at the QAPI meetings. The medical director (MD) was interviewed on 3/11/24 at 11:44 a.m. The MD said he thought the QAPI committee talked briefly, on 2/22/24, about the elopements that had occurred on 2/19/24. The MD said he did not realize the facility was now accepting residents who smoked. He said the facility had been a smoke free facility and he had not been informed of the change. The MD said he had not been advised of the multiple abuse allegations and altercations that had occured in the last two months. He said he should have been notified and the abuse should have been reviewed at QAPI. The MD said he was not aware the facility was having issues obtaining medications timely for residents resulting in missed doses. He said this should have been discussed at QAPI. The MD was not aware the facility had not done training on substance abuse or dementia care despite the increased admission of residents with those diagnoses.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0940 (Tag F0940)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop, implement and maintain an effective training program for all staff based on the facility assessment and resident population. Spec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop, implement and maintain an effective training program for all staff based on the facility assessment and resident population. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure all direct and non-direct care staff received training in dementia care, substance abuse and behavior management. Findings include: I. Facility policy The In-Service Training Policy, revised August 2022, was received from the regional director of clinical services (RDCS) #1 on 3/11/24 at 11:44 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Required training topics include the following: Behavioral health, dementia management. Training requirements are met prior to staff providing services to residents, annually, and as necessary based on the facility assessment. Based on the outcome of the facility assessment, additional training may include substance abuse. II. Record review Staff training records related to behavior management, dementia and substance abuse were requested from RDCS #1 on 3/7/24 at 10:46 a.m. -RDCS #1 said she was unable to find any documentation indicating the facility had provided the staff with training for behaviors, substance abuse or dementia. The Facility Assessment, last reviewed 3/1/24 (during the survey), was received from the NHA on 3/6/24 at 8:45 a.m. -The facility assessment did not identify substance abuse as part of the resident population served, despite the multiple residents with known current or history of substance abuse (cross-reference F838 for failure to complete a comprehensive facility assessment). III. Interviews A frequent visitor (FV) was interviewed on 3/4/24 2:38 p.m. The frequent visitor said there had been a large influx of admissions for residents with mental health diagnoses with behaviors and substance abuse diagnoses but the staff had not been offered any training in how to work with the residents. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 3/5/24 at 11:00 a.m. The SSD said the facility had been accepting an increased number of residents with behaviors and substance abuse issues in the last few months. He said the facility had not provided any education on mental health care and behaviors or substance abuse to the staff. He said he would have thought the facility would have provided training on behavior management and things to look for and do for substance abuse but no training had been offered. The restorative nurse aide (RNA) was interviewed on 3/7/24 at 1:00 p.m. The RNA said there had been an increase in admissions of residents who had mental health conditions and behaviors but no training had been provided to him or the other staff.
Nov 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and or their representatives were p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and or their representatives were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances for one (#1) of one resident out of six sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to address, resolve, document and follow up on grievances expressed by Resident #1 regarding missing and late meals, missed showers, being left alone in the shower, wound dressing changes and lack of bed linen changes. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Grievances policy, revised December 2009, was received on 11/16/23 at 3:32 p.m. from the NHA. -The policy addressed staff grievances, but did not address resident grievances. II. Resident #1 A. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included, congestive heart failure (CHF), fistula (abnormal connection of tissue due to surgery or injury) of the abdomen and large intestine and osteoarthritis. The 9/8/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident did not complete a brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The assessment documented the resident had no concerns with long or short term memory. The resident was independent with bed mobility and required supervision with toileting, dressing and personal hygiene. He required partial to moderate assistance with bathing. The assessment documented the resident had no surgical wounds. B. Observations and resident interviews Resident #1 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 12:02 p.m. Resident #1said he was concerned he frequently missed his showers. He said he had to go to the nurses station and remind them several times before he got a shower. Resident #1 said he was left alone in the shower many times. He said he could wash himself except for his back and feet. He said a staff member would wash his back and feet and leave him alone in the shower. He said he was afraid of falling. Resident #1 said his clothes were placed on his walker out of his reach in the shower room. Resident #1 said he was afraid he would fall walking from the shower chair to his walker (cross reference F-677 ADL's for dependent residents and F-689 accident prevention). Resident #1 said he ate in his room and meals were often late, 30 minutes or more. He said sometimes he did not get a meal tray at all. Resident #1 said the staff did not change his linens so he had begun doing it himself. He pointed to a pile of folded linen, sheets and a blanket on a chair. He said the staff left him clean linen to change his linens himself. Resident #1 said the staff did not change his wound dressing as ordered. He said the orders used to be to change it daily and now it was every other day. He said they did not change it daily when they were supposed to. He said the wound had begun leaking more and the staff just left it. Resident #1 was interviewed again on 11/16/23 at 9:45 a.m. Upon entering the room the resident stated, Am I stinking up the place? Resident #1 said he still had not had a shower. His facial hair was longer than the previous day, the room had a strong musky foul odor, and the resident had multiple dried rings of brown drainage on his gown. He lifted his gown and a wound dressing on his abdomen was saturated in brown drainage with multiple dried rings of drainage on the skin around the outside of the bandage. The bandage was dated 11/15/23. The resident said he was hoping the nurse would change the dressing when he had a shower, but he still had not had a shower. Resident #1 said the wound was a fistula from a hernia repair surgery and the wound had not healed. C. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3:33 p.m. LPN #1said she knew Resident #1 and was frequently assigned to be his nurse. She said he had reported meal trays were late or missed. She said she had two residents this morning who also did not get room trays. LPN #1 said she thought the agency staff did not always get the resident's menu order and then a tray was not provided. LPN #1 said Resident #1 did report missed showers. She said nursing staff were supposed to shave him but they did not do that either. She said the agency staff would not do the showers. She said she did not know why the agency staff did not do showers. She did not know if the resident had been left alone in the shower. She said he was a fall risk and should not be left alone. LPN #1 said she knew Resident #1's abdominal wound was leaking more and smelled bad. She said it was cauterized at one point and did not leak but it had started leaking again. LPN #1 said a grievance form had not been completed for Resident #1's concerns. The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed with the physical therapy assistant (PTA) and occupational therapist (OT) on 11/20/23 at 10:10 a.m. The PTA said he was working with Resident #1 on balance and Resident #1 was not safe to be making his bed alone in his room without supervision. The OT said she was working with the resident on balance and the resident had issues with stepping backwards. She said he was not safe to be making his bed alone in his room. She said she had showered him and he should not be left alone in the shower because he was impulsive, a fall risk and needed assistance with his feet and back. The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 11/20/23 at 10:22 a.m. She said the certified nurse aides (CNA) took the resident's meal orders on the evening shift for the following day. She said she did not know how trays were missed. The DM said nursing staff were responsible for taking the resident's orders and should notify the kitchen if a resident did not get a meal tray. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 11:01 a.m. He said the staff wrote grievances for residents but a resident could write their own. He said when a grievance was written it was given to social services. Social services would then give it to the appropriate department head and keep a copy to track completion. He said grievances should be followed up on in 48 hours or less and follow up should be communicated to the resident or person who had reported the concern. The SSD said he had no grievances related to late or missing meals, missed showers, linen changes or wound care for Resident #1. He said he was not aware of the resident's concerns regarding being left alone in the shower. The director of nursing (DON) and NHA were interviewed on 11/20/23 at 9:35 a.m. The DON said bed linen should be changed on shower days and as needed. She was not aware Resident #1 changed his own linen or had concerns with linen not being changed. She said she was aware of missed showers, but there were no grievances filled out. The DON said she was aware wound care had not been signed off on the treatment administration record (TAR). She said it was due to the use of agency staff and she could not verify it had been done. She said she was not aware the wound had an odor. The NHA said the grievance process involved the staff writing a grievance form for a resident with a concern and then they slid it under the department manager's door, whichever manager was appropriate for the grievance. The manager showed it to the NHA and had 72 hours to take action and follow up. The NHA said she was not aware of grievances related to lack of bed linen changes, missed showers, missed meal trays or missed wound care. The resident's representative was interviewed via phone on 11/20/23 at 9:59 a.m. He said he had reported to the nurses and the business office manager (BOM) multiple concerns. He said the BOM was very involved with residents and not just their finances. He said she knew the residents well but had recently separated her employment with the facility. The resident's representative said he reported Resident #1 often did not get meals or got the wrong items on his tray that were not ordered. The resident's representative said the abdominal wound had been cauterized at one point but that did not work. He said his abdominal wound had been leaking a lot and smelled but the facility had not followed up with an appointment with the surgeon or dermatologist. He said the wound smelled worse now than it did before it was cauterized. The resident's representative said Resident #1 had reported missed showers and being left alone in the shower and feared falling. He said Resident #1 told him the staff told him to hurry up when he was in the shower. He said these concerns were all reported to the BOM and to the licensed nurses who were on duty at the time of the concern. A frequent visitor was interviewed on 11/27/23 at 11:56 a.m. She said she met with Resident #1, his representative, the NHA, DON and SSD on 9/26/23. She said multiple concerns were discussed including the resident being left alone in the shower with his walker and clothes out of reach and meal trays that were not delivered. C. Record review There were no grievances to review related to late or missing meals, missed showers, linen changes or wound care. The November 2023 TAR was reviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:02 a.m. -The TAR revealed no treatment to the abdominal fistula wound was signed off for 11/2/23, 11/7/23, 11/8/23, or 11/12/23. On 11/16/23 at 10:00 p.m., during the survey, an order was written for Resident #1 to have a dermatology consultation related to the abdominal wound. On 11/16/23 at 2:26 p.m. The CNA task sheet shower records documented the last shower the resident had was on 11/4/23 at 3:47 p.m. Resident #1 required partial to moderate assistance. IV. Facility follow up On 11/21/23 at 8:50 a.m., an email was received from the DONregarding a follow up appointment for the resident's wound. The email contained a progress note dated 11/20/23 at 1:40 p.m. and documented, Resident has fistula to right upper abdomen with excessive drainage and odor present, appointment made with his general surgeon for further evaluation on December 8, 2023 at 9:30 a.m.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure two (#3 and #1) of three residents reviewed for accidents ou...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure two (#3 and #1) of three residents reviewed for accidents out of six sample residents remained as free from accident hazards as possible. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Resident #3 received immediate interventions including increased supervision during a change of condition to prevent falls; -Resident #3 was assessed for injury, including neurological checks, after witnessed falls with head injury and unwitnessed falls; and, -Resident #1 had a resident centered care plan to prevent falls. I. Facility policy and procedure The Fall Risk policy, revised March 2018, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/20/23 at 10:16 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, The nursing staff, attending physician, and consultant pharmacist will review medications or medication combinations that could relate to falls or fall risk, such as those that have side effects of dizziness, ataxia, or hypotension. The staff will look for evidence of a possible link between the onset of falling (or an increase in falling episodes) and recent changes in the current medication regimen. The attending physician and nursing staff will evaluate the resident's vital signs, assess the resident for medical conditions (such as those that cause dizziness or vertigo) or sensory impairments (such as decreased vision and peripheral neuropathy) that may predispose to falls. Assessment data shall be used to identify underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of injury from falls (such as osteoporosis). The staff, with the support of the attending physician, will evaluate functional and psychological factors that may increase fall risk, including ambulation, mobility, gait, balance, excessive motor activity, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) capabilities, activity tolerance, continence, and cognition. The staff will seek to identify environmental factors that may contribute to falling, such as lighting and room layout. The staff and attending physician will collaborate to identify and address modifiable fall risk factors and interventions to try to minimize the consequences of risk factors that are not modifiable. The Neurological Assessment policy, revised October 2010, was received from the NHA on 11/20/23 at 10:16 a.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Neurological assessments are indicated: Upon physician order, following an unwitnessed fall, following a fall or other accident/injury involving head trauma, or when indicated by resident's condition. II. Resident #3 A. Resident status Resident #3, age less than 65, admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included Lewy Body dementia, chronic pain, and major depression. The 9/28/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident could not complete a brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The assessment documented he had long and short term memory loss. His ability to make daily decisions was severely impaired. Resident #3 required limited one person assistance with bed mobility and dressing. He required supervision with transfers and toileting. Resident #3 required extensive one person assistance with personal hygiene. The assessment documented the resident had no falls. B. Record review On 10/14/23 at 5:50 p.m., the nursing progress notes documented the resident was lethargic and sleepy. The physician gave orders to hold Norco (pain medication) and Haloperidol (antipsychotic medication). On 10/14/23 at 7:39 p.m., the nursing notes documented the resident was sleeping and not feeling well most of the day. The resident got up after dinner and was standing at the nurses desk and fell backwards hitting his head on the handrail. The physician was called and gave orders for laboratory tests, urine analysis and to increase fluids. On 10/14/23 at 7:00 p.m., an SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation) assessment documented the resident fell and had a contusion (bruise). -There was no further description of the contusion or the location of the contusion. On 10/14/23 at 8:02 p.m., a Post Fall assessmentScreen documented the resident had not been eating and staying in bed prior to the fall. -There was no documentation regarding an injury. -There was no description of whether an injury had occurred. -There were no interventions to attempt to keep the resident safe such as increased supervision while the laboratory results were pending. -There were no neurological checks located in the medical record. On 10/20/23 at 1:05 p.m., an SBAR assessment documented the resident had a fall. -There was no further information provided regarding injury or interventions to keep the resident safe. It was unclear if the resident hit his head, and no neurological checks were found in the medical record. -There were no immediate interventions such as increased supervision implemented to keep the resident safe from falls. On 10/23/23 at 10:55 a.m., an IDT progress note documented the resident was on the floor in the dining room on 10/20/23. It did not indicate if the fall was witnessed. Interventions were to encourage the resident to walk slowly and staff to check to see where he was on the unit. -There was no investigation as to how the resident fell. On 11/2/23 at 10:00 a.m., the nurse practitioner (NP) documented the resident had a laceration (cut) above his left eye brow and yellow bruising to his left cheek. On 11/2/23 at 10:15 a.m., an SBAR assessment documented the resident fell and had a laceration. The new intervention was to encourage him to wear shoes. -There was no description of the fall or whether it was witnessed. -There was no description by the nurse of the laceration, location of the laceration, or treatment provided. -There were no neurological checks. On 11/3/2023 at 9:46 a.m., an IDT progress note documented the resident fell in the dining room and was non-compliant with footwear. The plan was to encourage footwear. On 11/3/23 at 10:34 a.m., a Rehabilitation Screening form recommended speech therapy. No other therapy was recommended. The form documented the resident was not experiencing a change that would require therapy intervention. On 11/6/23 at 6:55 a.m., the nursing notes documented Resident #3 fell in his room at 6:26 a.m. His body was on the floor but his legs were still on the bed. -There was no documentation of whether an injury had occurred, no neurological checks and no new interventions to keep the resident safe. On 11/6/23 at 9:01 a.m., a Rehabilitation Screen form documented the resident was experiencing a change that may require therapy intervention. Speech therapy was the only recommendation. On 11/7/23 at 10:37 a.m. a registered nurse (RN) assessment documented she was notified by the licensed practical nurse (LPN) on duty that the resident was on the floor. Upon entry to the resident's room he was lying on the floor with his legs still on the bed. The RN documented the resident had scattered abrasions (scrapes) and bruises on his torso and back, as well as both upper extremities. The resident's lower extremities were stiff and contracting causing shortening. -It was unclear if this was a new fall or in reference to the fall on 11/6/23. On 11/9/23, the November 2023 CPO documented hospice care was ordered. On 11/10/23 at 7:00 a.m., the nursing progress notes documented Resident #3 passed away at 6:45 a.m. The fall care plan, initiated 9/16/23, documented Resident #3 had an actual fall. On 10/19/23 the care plan documented to continue current interventions. On 10/20/23 the care plan documented to monitor for pain and bruising, changes in mental status and neurological checks, pharmacy review of medications, physical therapy consultation and activities that promoted exercise and strength. -There were no changes to the care plan after 10/20/23, until the survey began. -There were no interventions related to the resident's footwear. C. Interviews The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:21 p.m. She said the nurse should implement an intervention after a fall to keep the resident safe. She said neurological checks should be done if the resident had a witnessed fall with head injury or unwitnessed fall. She said after Resident #3's fall on 10/20/23 the intervention was to encourage him to walk slowly. She acknowledged the resident would not remember to walk slowly due to his dementia. She said she had no neurological checks for the falls on 10/14/23 10/20/23, 11/2/23 or 11/6/23. She said neurological checks should have been done after each fall due to head injury or because it was not witnessessed. The DON said there was a lack of interventions to prevent falls after each occurence. She said the staff did encourage the resident to wear shoes after the fall on 11/2/23. The DON said the resident had the foot wound, present on admission, and did not like to wear shoes. The foot wound and lack of shoes was not a new issue and he should have already been wearing non-skid socks or shoes. The DON said the care plan did not address encouraging the resident to wear non-skid footwear. III. Resident #1 A. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), fistula (abnormal connection of tissue due to surgery or injury) of the abdomen and large intestine and osteoarthritis. The 9/8/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident did not complete a brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The assessment documented the resident had no concerns with long or short term memory. The resident was independent with bed mobility and required supervision with toileting, dressing and personal hygiene. He required partial to moderate assistance with bathing. The assessment documented the resident had no falls. B. Resident interview Resident #1 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 12:02 p.m. Resident #1 said he was left alone in the shower many times. He said he was afraid of falling. Resident #1 said his clothes were placed on his walker out of his reach in the shower room. Resident #1 said he was afraid he would fall walking from the shower chair to his walker in the shower room (cross reference F-585 grievances). Resident #1 said the staff did not change his linens so he had begun doing it himself. He pointed to a pile of folded linen, sheets and a blanket on a chair. He said the staff left him clean linen to change his linens himself. Resident #1 said he fell a couple weeks ago when he had COVID-19. C. Record review On 10/31/23 at 6:00 p.m., the nursing notes documented the resident was on the bathroom floor at 4:30 p.m. He said he tripped. He had no injuries and was barefoot. On 10/31/23 at 5:45 p.m., the resident was on the floor next to his bed. He had non-skid socks on. He said he was just walking in his room and fell. On 10/31/23 at 6:44 p.m., the nursing progress notes documented that two male certified nurse aides (CNA) assessed the resident after his fall and helped him up. There was no injury. There were no neurological checks. The nurse further documented the resident complained of back pain. -The resident was on Coumadin (blood thinner medication) which increased his risk of bleeding in the brain and there was no monitoring of his neurological status. On 11/1/23 at 11:25 a.m., the nursing progress notes documented the resident complained of back pain. Tylenol and a back x-ray were ordered. The x-ray report on 11/1/23 showed no acute fractures. On 11/1/23 at 10:25 a.m., the IDT documented in the progress notes the resident fell in the bathroom while trying to get up from the toilet holding the towel bar. The towel bar came off the wall. The IDT documented the resident had some new mild confusion and recommended a urine analysis. -There was no further documentation regarding the towel bar, or use of grab bars in the bathroom. The fall care plan, initiated 4/6/22, documented the resident was at risk for falls due to peripheral vascular disease (compromised circulation due to narrow blood vessels) and atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rate). The care plan documented to encourage the resident to change position slowly -, have common articles in reach, assist to transfer or ambulate as needed, reinforce use of call light 7/25/23, use wheelchair for outings, report pain, bruises and change in mental status per facility guidelines after a fall. Therapy evaluation and treatment was ordered 7/25/23. -There were no changes to the resident's care plan after his falls. -There were no interventions in the care plan related to the resident making his own bed, or checking the bathroom for grab bars. D. Staff interviews The DON was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:21 p.m. She said she did not have any neurological checks for Resident #1's falls on 10/31/23 (see below). The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed with the physical therapy assistant (PTA) and occupational therapist (OT) on 11/20/23 at 10:10 a.m. The PTA said he was working with Resident #1 on balance and Resident #1 was not safe to be making his bed alone in his room without supervision. The OT said she was working with the resident on balance and the resident had issues with stepping backwards. She said he was not safe to be making his bed alone in his room. She said she had showered him and he should not be left alone in the shower because he was impulsive, a fall risk and needed assistance with his feet and back.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain mobility for two (#1 and #2) of three residents out of six sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2, who required assistance with bathing, were showered or bathed per the resident's preference. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Shower Bath policy, revised February 2018, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/20/23 at 10:16 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Documentation, The date and time the shower/tub bath was performed. The name and title of the individual(s) who assisted the resident with the shower or bath. All assessment data (e.g., any reddened areas, sores, etc., on the resident's skin) obtained during the shower/tub bath. How the resident tolerated the shower or bath. If the resident refused the shower or bath, the reason(s) why and the intervention taken. The signature and title of the person recording the data. Notify the supervisor if the resident refuses the shower or bath. II. Resident #1 A. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included, congestive heart failure (CHF), fistula (abnormal connection of tissue due to surgery or injury) of the abdomen and large intestine and osteoarthritis. The 9/8/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident did not complete a brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The assessment documented the resident had no concerns with long or short term memory. The resident was independent with bed mobility and required supervision with toileting, dressing and personal hygiene. He required partial to moderate assistance with bathing. The assessment documented the resident had no surgical wounds. B. Observations and interviews Resident #1 was observed in his room on 11/15/23 at 12:02 p.m. The room had a musky odor of a wound. The resident was unshaven, and there was a brown dried ring of fluid on the front of his gown. Resident #1 said he was upset that he had not had a shower today. He said the staff frequently told him they were too busy to give him a shower. He said if he went out to the nurses station and complained multiple times then sometimes he would get a shower. Resident #1 said he was supposed to get showers on Wednesdays and Saturdays and today (11/15/23) was Wednesday. Resident #1 said when he did get a shower he was frequently left alone in the shower. He said his walker and clothes were often out of his reach and he worried about falling alone in the shower. He said he could shower himself except for his feet and back. He said the staff would wash those areas and leave him alone in the shower room. Resident #1 was interviewed again on 11/16/23 at 9:45 a.m. Upon entering the room the resident stated, Am I stinking up the place? Resident #1 said he still had not had a shower. His facial hair was longer than the previous day, the room had a strong musky foul odor and the resident had multiple dried rings of brown drainage on his gown. He lifted his gown and a wound dressing on his abdomen was saturated in brown drainage with multiple dried rings of drainage on the skin around the outside of the bandage. The bandage was dated 11/15/23. The resident said he was hoping the nurse would change the dressing when he had a shower, but he still had not had a shower. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 1:24 p.m. She said showers were done according to a schedule. She said they were all done on day shift, not per resident preference. CNA #2 said if the day shift missed some of the showers the evening shift was supposed to do them. She said the showers were documented in the electronic medical record. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3:22 p.m. She said she knew Resident #1 and was frequently assigned to be his nurse. She said she was not assigned to him today (11/16/23). LPN #1 said Resident #1 was supposed to have a shower yesterday (11/15/23) according to the shower schedule. She said showers were done per a schedule, all of them on days and not per resident preference. LPN #1 said if the day shift missed a shower the evening shift was supposed to do the shower. LPN #1 said Resident #1 complained frequently of not getting his showers. She did not know if a grievance had been completed regarding his concern. (cross reference F 685 grievances). LPN #1 said showers were not done due to a lot of contract agency staff use. She said they did not do the showers. She said the CNAs were supposed to help Resident #1 shave when he needed to. She said he had an electric razor but needed some setup and cueing. C. Record review The shower schedule at the nurses station was reviewed on 11/16/23 at 1:30 p.m. The schedule documented Resident #1 was scheduled for a shower on Saturdays and Wednesdays There were no times listed for the showers. On 11/16/23 at 2:26 p.m., the CNA task sheet shower records documented the last shower the resident had was on 11/4/23 at 3:47 p.m. Resident #1 required partial to moderate assistance. D. Administrative interview The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/20/23 at 9:35 a.m She said the nursing staff were supposed to document showers in the medical record. The DON said it was true showers had not been done and had been missed. She said the facility recently had started a new tracking system that had the CNAs sign off daily on showers. She said if a shower was not done that day the CNAs should document N/A for not applicable but the nursing staff had not done that. She said she could not tell, based on the lack of documentation, which day a shower was given or not. The DON said she knew missed showers were a concern. The DON looked at her laptop and said the CNA task sheets documented 11/4/23 was the last time Resident #1 had a shower. She said the nursing staff should have completed a handwritten skin monitoring sheet for each shower but she did not have any for November 2023 for Resident #1. III. Resident #2 A. Resident status Resident #2, age less than 65, admitted on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO diagnoses included, hemiparesis (muscle weakness or paralysis on one side) and hemiplegia (paralysis) of the right side of the body due to cerebral infarction (stroke), major depression and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. The 10/20/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of 11 out of 15. The resident required supervision with transfers and was independent with bed mobility, toileting, and personal hygiene. He required moderate assistance with dressing and bathing. He required partial to moderate assistance with bathing. B. Record review On 11/20/23 at 9:35 a.m. the CNA task sheet for Resident #2's shower documentation was reviewed from 10/17/23 through 11/20/23. -There were no showers documented for the resident during the 30 day time period from 10/17/23 through 11/20/23. The new CNA task sheet in the computer was provided by the DON on 11/20/23 at 9:35 a.m. It documented the resident had a shower almost daily. The DON again said this was not accurate. She said the nursing staff should have documented when Resident #2 had a shower and documented N/A when he did not have a shower or document if he refused. The skin monitoring handwritten sheets were provided by the DON on 11/20/23 at 9:35 a.m. The Skin Monitoring sheets documented the resident had a bed bath on 10/5/23 and 10/14/23. There was no further documentation of showers for Resident #2 for October 2023.There were no monitoring sheets for November 2023. C. Interviews The DON was interviewed on 11/20/23 at 9:35 a.m. She said she had no documentation indicating Resident #2 had received a shower or bath in November 2023.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the possible development and transmission of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on two of two units out of four units. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure staff had access to and wore PPE in COVID-19 positive resident rooms; -Provide education to staff on use of PPE and disinfection of multi use equipment; and, -Test and document results of staff who had been potentially exposed to COVID-19. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), revised 5/8/23, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During Coronavirus Disease 2019, retrieved 11/19/23 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html Ensure everyone is aware of recommended IPC (infection prevention and control) practices in the facility. Post visual alerts like signs or posters at the entrance and in strategic places, (waiting areas, elevators, cafeterias). These alerts should include instructions about current IPC recommendations (when to use source control and perform hand hygiene), dating these alerts can help ensure people know that they reflect current recommendations. Source control options for HCP (healthcare personnel) include a NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) approved particulate respirator with N95 filter or higher. Source control is recommended for individuals in healthcare settings who: Had close contact (patients and visitors) or a higher-risk exposure (HCP) with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection, for 10 days after their exposure. Source control is recommended more broadly as described in CDC's Core IPC Practices in the following circumstances: By those residing or working on a unit or area of the facility experiencing a SARS-CoV-2 or other outbreak of respiratory infection; universal use of source control could be discontinued as a mitigation measure once the outbreak is over ( no new cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection have been identified for 14 days); Eye protection (goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face) worn during all patient care encounters. A single new case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in any HCP or resident should be evaluated to determine if others in the facility could have been exposed. Perform testing for all residents and HCP identified as close contacts or on the affected unit(s) if using a broad-based approach, regardless of vaccination status. Testing is recommended immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day one (where day of exposure is day zero), day three, and day five. II. Facility policy The COVID-19 policies including PPE usage and testing was requested from the director of nursing (DON) on 11/16/23 at 9:00 a.m. The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Staff Testing policy revised May 2023, was received from the DON on 11/16/23 at 10:43 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Testing for Staff Exposed to Individuals with COVID-19. Following a higher risk exposure staff will, have a series of three viral tests for SARS-Co V-2 infection. Testing is done immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. Testing Asymptomatic Staff during an Outbreak Investigation. An outbreak investigation is initiated when a single new case of COVID-19 occurs among residents or staff to determine if others have been exposed. Outbreak response is guided by the infection preventionist, in conjunction with the public health authority for the facility jurisdiction. Viral testing of all staff (regardless of vaccination status) is conducted if there is an outbreak in the facility. Testing approaches may consist of contact tracing (focused testing) or broad-based (facility-wide or group level) testing. If there is the ability to identify close contacts of the individual with SARS-CoV-2 infection, contact tracing and focused testing are conducted. Testing is conducted immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. Testing is generally not done for asymptomatic people who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection in the prior 30 days. Testing is considered for those who have recovered in the prior 31-90 days; however, an antigen test instead of NAAT is recommended. If testing of close contacts reveals additional cases of SARS-Co V-2 infection, contact tracing is continued to identify residents with close contact to the newly identified individual(s) with SARS-CoV-2 infection. If all potential contacts cannot be identified or managed with contact tracing or if contact tracing fails to halt transmission, broad-based testing is conducted. Broad-Based Testing. When utilizing broad-based testing, all residents and staff identified as close contacts or on the affected unit(s) are tested, regardless of vaccination status. Testing is done immediately (but not earlier than 24 hours after the exposure) and, if negative, again 48 hours after the first negative test and, if negative, again 48 hours after the second negative test. This will typically be at day 1 (where day of exposure is day 0), day 3, and day 5. Additional Measures during Outbreak Investigation. In the event of ongoing transmission within a facility that is not controlled with initial interventions, strong consideration is given to use of empiric use of transmission-based precautions for residents and work restriction of staff with higher-risk exposures. If no additional cases are identified during contact tracing or the broad-based testing, no further testing is indicated. Empiric use of transmission-based precautions for residents and work restrictions for staff who meet criteria are discontinued. If additional cases are identified, strong consideration is given to shifting to the broad-based approach if not already being performed and implementing quarantine for residents in affected areas of the facility. As part of the broad-based approach, testing will continue on affected unit(s) or facility-wide every 3-7 days until there are no new cases for 14 days. If antigen testing is used, more frequent testing ( every 3 days) will be considered. III. Observations The 100 hall was observed on 11/15/23 at 9:40 a.m. One resident room, at the beginning of the hall, had a droplet isolation sign. The sign indicated an N95 mask, eye protection, gown and gloves were required to enter the room. There were no other rooms with droplet isolation signs. An isolation cart was observed outside the door of the resident room. -The cart did not contain N95 masks, eye protection or alcohol based hand rub (ABHR). The only ABHR available for hand hygiene was midway down the hall on the opposite side from the resident's room. The 300 hall was observed on 11/15/23 at 10:01 a.m. Two rooms had droplet isolation signs on the doors with isolation carts outside the door in the hallway. -There were no N95 masks, face shields or ABHR on the isolation carts. On 11/16/23 at 12:28 p.m., a visitor came through the front door without a mask. The receptionist at the front desk greeted her, but did not offer the visitor a mask. The visitor proceeded down the hallway into resident care areas. On 11/16/23 at 3:32 p.m., the receptionist was observed at the front desk of the facility speaking to residents without a mask. The receptionist said she thought the masks were optional, and she had not received any education on mask use. IV. Record review The COVID-19 line listing was received on 11/15/23 at 5:30 p.m. from the NHA. The line listing revealed the outbreak began on 10/26/23, with a total of 29 cases by 11/7/23. Symptoms included fevers up to 101.2, low oxygen saturation levels, congestion, lethargy, and shortness of breath. Four residents required hospitalization. V. Interviews The DON was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 8:55 a.m. She said the facility had 29 cases of COVID-19 in the last two weeks. The DON said currently the facility had three residents who were still on droplet isolation for COVID-19 and all three resided on the 100 hall. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 9:52 a.m. She said the resident in the room with the droplet isolation sign had COVID-19. RN #1 said the staff should have worn an N95 mask, gown, face shield and gloves before entering the room. She looked in the isolation cart and said there were no N95 masks, face shields or ABHR for hand hygiene. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 approached and joined the interview with RN #1. She said she had been wearing a surgical mask because there were no N95 masks all morning. She said there used to be N95 masks in the carts but there had never been eye protection available or ABHR on the isolation cart. CNA #1 said there was no ABHR on any of the isolation carts that she could remember. RN #1 said she too had been wearing a surgical mask in the room to provide care because there were no N95 masks available on the cart. She said she had not worn eye protection. She said the only ABHR available was down the hall midway on the opposite side or in the resident's room. CNA #1 had a vital sign tower she plugged into the wall. She said the vital sign equipment was shared with all residents including those in isolation for COVID-19. CNA #1 said she cleaned the vital sign equipment with disinfecting wipes after each use. However, she could not remember the dwell or contact time for the disinfecting wipes. She went to the nurse's station and looked around for a container of the wipes and could not find any. CNA #2 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 10:06 a.m, She said vital sign equipment and mechanical lifts were shared by all residents, including those in isolation. She said the equipment was cleaned with alcohol wipes after use. She could not find any alcohol wipes, and said they must be in the supply room. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 10:16 a.m. She said the facility had three residents who were still in isolation for COVID-19. She said the facility had 29 positive residents at one time on halls 100, 200, and 300. She said the outbreak began around 10/26/23 and the virus was thought to be spread from a resident who was admitted to the facility a few days prior with known COVID-19. She said the resident who admitted with COVID-19 was put on droplet isolation on admission. The IP said an N95 mask, gown, gloves and face shield were required to enter the COVID-19 positive rooms. She said a surgical mask was required to be worn by staff throughout the facility and recommended for visitors. If staff did not have the supplies they should have asked someone. The IP said she checked the isolation carts for supplies when she was here during the week but she did not know who was responsible for checking to ensure they were stocked on the weekends. The IP said each isolation cart should have a bottle of ABHR for hand hygiene. She said she had checked the carts prior to the interview for PPE but she had not checked to see if they had ABHR available on the carts. The IP said she thought she provided staff education on hand hygiene and PPE use for COVID-19 during the outbreak. However, she said she had no documentation of any education provided. The IP said all staff and residents were tested at the beginning of the outbreak. She said there was no documentation of the staff testing. She said the resident's tests were located in their medical record. The IP said equipment such as vital sign equipment and lifts were shared by all residents including those in isolation. She said the equipment was supposed to be cleaned with disinfecting wipes after every use. She said alcohol wipes would not be effective for various equipment surface areas and types of viruses and bacteria. She did not recall if she had done education on cleaning equipment during the outbreak. The DON was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 1:08 p.m. She said all staff, regardless of exposure, were tested during the outbreak one time and if they had symptoms. She said there was no documentation of the staff testing. The DON said staff were educated on PPE use during the outbreak. She said she did not have any documentation of education provided. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3:40 p.m. She said surgical masks should have been worn by the staff throughout the facility and an N95 mask should be worn in COVID-19 positive rooms. The NHA said she would provide education to the receptionist.
Jun 2023 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to promote and maintain resident's dignity for one (#3...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to promote and maintain resident's dignity for one (#302) of three residents reviewed for meal assistance out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #302 was offered his breakfast and lunch in a timely manner. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #302, over the age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnosis included muscle weakness, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 2 diabetes and chronic pain syndrome. According to the 5/25/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had moderate impaired cognitive function with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of ten out of 15. He required extensive assistance with two person physical assistance with bed mobility, transfers and one person physical assistance with dressing. He required supervision with set up assistance for eating. The resident had no behaviors and no rejection of care. II. Observations On 6/11/23 at 12:25 p.m. the resident was lying awake in bed. He had his lunch tray set up by the bedside and was able to reach for items from the bedside table. -At 12:30 p.m. certified nurse aide (CNA) #9 entered the resident's room and asked him if he was done with his lunch. The CNA left the room with the lunch tray with the resident not consuming any part of the meal. CNA #9 did not offer the resident any alternative meal. A continuous observation was conducted on 6/13/23 at 9:19 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. revealed Resident #302 did not receive his breakfast. -The resident confirmed he had not eaten breakfast and was still waiting for the staff to bring his meal. -At 12:00 p.m. the resident said he had not eaten any meal except a bottle of Ensure supplement registered nurse (RN) #1 gave him. -At 12:15 p.m. the room tray cart arrived into the unit hall. The resident remained in his room in bed. -At 1:00 p.m. the staff completed passing the room trays and Resident #302 did not receive a lunch meal. -At 1:30 the resident used the telephone in his bedroom to call the front desk to request food, however no staff answered the telephone. The resident remained in bed attempting several times to call the front desk for assistance. -At 2:40 p.m. the resident informed RN #1 about him not receiving any breakfast and lunch. -At approximately 2:57 p.m. the social service director arrived with the resident's lunch tray. III. Staff interview CNA #4 was interviewed on 6/13/23 at 3:00 p.m. The CNA said she did not notice the resident did not get his tray as there were too many staff assisting with the passing of the room trays. CNA #4 said the meal tickets were distributed the previous day and some of the residents take their time in deciding what they prefer to eat therefore it was possible the CNAs could forget to go back for the remaining tickets resulting in missing room trays. RN #1 was interviewed on 6/13/23 at 3:15 p.m. The RN acknowledged that she did not see the resident eating breakfast. The RN said was unaware that the resident had not been given any food since the beginning of her shift. She said she would ensure the CNAs double checked to make sure everyone who eats in their room was served their meal. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:20 a.m. The SSD said he was told to deliver the lunch tray to Resident #302. He said he was assisting the CNAs who were busy with other tasks. The SSD said the resident refused a lot of the meals they provided him and would usually ask for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The dietary manager (DM) and the registered dietitian (RD) were both interviewed 6/15/23 at 1:00 p.m on how meal tickets were printed. The DM said meal tickets were printed in the kitchen then sent to the nurses station a day before the meal. The tickets went back to the DM the night before. There were two residents that held out and had a hard time deciding what they wanted. The RD said it would be up to the nursing staff to tell the kitchen there was a missing tray. When the DM got the tickets back she highlighted them so she knew they had all the residents' meal tickets. If a tray was missing, the nursing staff would need to notify the dietary staff that a resident did not get a tray.
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 observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide services for two (#8 and #29) out of 3...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide services for two (#8 and #29) out of 36 sample residents according to professional standards of practice Specifically, the failed to: -Ensure Resident #8's vital signs, specifically the resident's blood pressure, was monitored prior to the administration of a blood pressure medication; and, -Notify the physician when Resident #29's blood sugars were out of parameters and follow physician's orders for insulin. Findings include: I. Resident #29 A. Professional reference According to Khashayar, F., [NAME], J. (2022) Beta Blockers. Stat Pears. National Library of Medicine, retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532906 on 6/24/23. Beta receptors are found all over the body and induce a broad range of physiologic effects. The blockade of these receptors with beta-blocker medications can lead to many adverse effects. Bradycardia (low heart rate) and hypotension (low blood pressure) are two adverse effects that may commonly occur. The patient's heart rate and blood pressure require monitoring while using beta-blockers. According to Kizior, R. J., [NAME], K. J. (2023). Labetalol. [NAME] Nursing Drug Handbook. Elsevier. P. 651. Assess B/P (blood pressure), heart rate immediately before drug administration (if pulse is 60 beats per minute or less or systolic B/P is lower than 90 mmHg, withhold medications and contact physician. B. Resident status Resident #8, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) the diagnosis included atrial fibrillation and hypertensive (high blood pressure) chronic kidney disease. The 3/8/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. The resident required the extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, the limited assistance of one person for transfers and supervision with eating. C. Observations On 6/13/23 at 3:48 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was observed dispensing Labetalol (an alpha and beta blocker blood pressure medication) 300 milligrams (mg) for Resident #4. LPN #4 did not check the record for the resident's most recent vital signs and did not obtain a blood pressure or pulse prior to administration. LPN #4 then administered the Labetalol medication to Resident #8. D. Record review The June 2023 CPO documented a physician order of Labetalol 300 mg twice daily, ordered 11/25/22. -The CPO did not document any vital signs parameters for when to hold the Labetalol medication or when to notify the physician of irregular vital sign results. The June 2023 medication and treatment administration record (MAR/TAR) did not document how often the resident's vital signs should be checked. The June 2023 vital signs summary revealed Resident #8's blood pressure and pulse were not assessed or documented on 6/6/23, 6/7/23, 6/8/23, 6/9/23, 6/10/23, 6/11/23, 6/12/23 and 6/13/23. E Staff interviews LPN #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 2:30 p.m. She said blood pressure, pulse and vital signs needed to be assessed prior to the administration of blood pressure medication. She said ordered parameters were then followed. She said if there were no parameters and the blood pressure and pulse were below a resident's baseline then the physician should be notified. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 4:24 p.m. He said blood pressure and pulse should be monitored prior to the administration of a blood pressure medication. He said physician ordered parameters were followed. He said when blood pressure parameters were not ordered, monitoring for signs and symptoms of low pressure, including an assessment of vital signs should be done. II. Resident #29 A. Professional reference National Library of Medicine. (2022, February 1). Low Blood Sugar-Self Care. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Health. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000085.htm#:~:text=Low%20blood%20sugar%20is%20called,a%20cause%20for%20immediate%20action retrieved on 6/26/23. Low blood sugar is called hypoglycemia. A blood sugar level below 70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL) can harm you. A blood sugar level below 54 mg.dL is cause for immediate action. Symptoms can include: weakness, shaking, sweating, headache, hunger, feeling uneasy, cranky, trouble thinking, double or blurry vision, fast heart beat. Sometimes blood sugar may be too low even if there are no symptoms: fainting, seizure and coma. Mouri, M., Badireddy, M. (2023, April 24). Hyperglycemia. Stat Pearls. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institute of Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430900/ retrieved on 6/26/23. The prognosis of individuals with hyperglycemia depends on how well the levels of blood glucose are controlled. Chronic hyperglycemia can cause severe life and limb threatening complications. Countless studies have shown that untreated hyperglycemia shortens lifespan and worsens the quality of life. B. Resident status Resident #29, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, the diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes mellitus. The 4/20/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 13 out of 15. She required the limited assistance of two people for transfers, the limited assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene, the supervision of one person for toileting and set up only for eating. C. Record review The insulin dependent care plan was initiated on 8/10/22. Interventions included administer medication per physician order, obtain glucometer readings and report abnormalities as ordered, obtain lab results and notify physician of results, report symptoms of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and report symptoms of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). The June 2023 CPO revealed a physician order of Humalog 20 units subcutaneously three times a day, hold if insulin was less than 110, notify physician if greater than 400, discontinued on 6/3/23. The June 2023 MAR documented the blood glucose reading of 435 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL) on 6/1/23 at 12:00 p.m. The June medication and administration record (MAR/TAR) documented the administration of 20 units of Humalog on 6/1/23 at 12:00 p.m. -A review of the MAR and progress notes failed to reveal documentation that the physician was notified of blood glucose according to ordered parameters. The June 2023 CPO revealed a physician order of Humalog 40 units subcutaneously at dinnertime, hold insulin if blood glucose was less than 110, ordered on 6/3/23. The June 2023 MAR documented the blood glucose reading of 90 mg/dL on 6/6/23 at 5:00 p.m. The June 2023 MAR/TAR documented the administration of 40 units of Humalog on 6/6/23 at 5:00 p.m. -A review of the MAR and progress notes failed to reveal documentation that Humalog insulin was held according to ordered physician parameters. D. Staff interviews LPN #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:38 a.m. She said Resident #29's blood sugars had been running high and the resident had parameters for when to hold and when to notify the physician. She said the resident had parameters to hold insulin if blood sugar was less than 110 and to notify the physician of greater than 400. She said if a resident was exhibiting signs of low or high blood sugar, such as lethargy, diaphoresis (sweating) or confusion she said a blood sugar should be checked and the physician notified. The DON was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:00 p.m. He said resident blood sugars were monitored based on physician ordered parameters. He said insulin should be held and physician notified, according to the ordered parameters. He said if a resident was exhibiting symptoms of a low or high blood sugar, such as confusion and change in mental status, a blood sugar should be obtained and physician notified.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#27) of five out of 36 sample residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#27) of five out of 36 sample residents with a pressure ulcer had preventative measures and received the necessary treatment and services according to professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Have consistent skin assessments documented in Resident #27's electronic medical record; and, -When Resident #27 developed a stage 2 pressure ulcer to his right ankle, interventions for his feet and ankles were not implemented until nine days after the wound developed. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Joint Commision (March 2022). Quick Safety 25: Preventing pressure injuries. The European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel (EPUAP) and the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPIAP), and the Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance (PPPIA) (2019). The International Guideline (Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline). https://www.jointcommission.org/resources/news-and-multimedia/newsletters/newsletters/quick-safety/quick-safety-issue-25-preventing-pressure-injuries/preventing-pressure-injuries/#.Y9gDenbMI2w retrieved on 6/21/23 at 9:35 a.m. Risk Assessment should be considered as the starting point. The earlier a risk is identified the more quickly it can be addressed. Use the structured risk assessment tool to identify patients at risk as early as possible. Refine the assessment by identifying other risk factors, including existing pressure injuries, and other diseases such as diabetes and vascular problems. Stage 2 Pressure Injury: Partial thickness loss of skin with exposed derms. The wound bed is viable, pin or red, moist and may represent as an intact or ruptured serum-filled blister. Adipose is not visible and deeper tissues are not visible. Stage 4 Pressure Injury: Full thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone in the ulcer. Slough and/or eschar may be visible Epibole, undermining and/or tunneling often occur. Depth varies by anatomical location. If slough or eschar obscure the extent of tissue loss, this is unstageable pressure injury. II. Facility policy and procedure The Skin Integrity and Wound Management policy procedure, revised on 2/1/23, was provided by the nursing home administration (NHA) on 6/15/23 at 10:38 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Identify the patient's skin integrity status and need for prevention or treatment interventions through review of all appropriate assessment information. Document newly identified skin/wound impairments as a change in condition. Perform and document skin inspection on all newly admitted /readmitted patients weekly thereafter and with any significant change of condition. III. Resident #27 A. Resident status Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the computerized physician orders (CPO) the diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 2 pressure ulcer. The 4/24/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was not at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The 5/19/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of seven out 15 and required the extensive assistance of two people with dressing, toileting, extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, personal hygiene and supervision with set up for eating. The resident had one pressure ulcer at stage 2 and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. B. Record review The skin integrity care plan, initiated on 11/16/2020 revised on 2/1/22, indicated the resident was at risk of alteration in skin integrity related to diabetes. Intervention included elevate heels and utilize heel boots, encourage repositioning as needed, observe skin condition with activities of daily living, report abnormalities and pressure reduction mattress. The stage 2 pressure ulcer care plan to right lateral malleolus (right outside ankle bone) was initiated on 4/18/23. Interventions included administer analgesics, bilateral ankle protectors with padding to the lateral side of ankle and skid socks over, encourage repositioning from side to back during the night shift, Prevalon boots to bilateral feet on at bedtime from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. and wound team to follow until resolved. -A comprehensive review of the care plan revealed no further interventions were added after the wound was identified as unstageable on 5/25/23 and when the wound was identified as stage 4 on 6/8/23. The 11/5/22 nursing skin assessment progress notes revealed no new skin issues. The 2/24/23 Braden assessment revealed a score of 19 which indicated the resident was not at risk for developing a pressure injury. -However, according to the wound physician (see below) residents with diabetes were at risk for pressure wounds, especially to their feet. The 4/18/23 nursing skin assessment progress notes revealed a small pressure wound on the right lateral ankle which was tender and reddened. -The last skin assessment prior to 4/18/23 was done 11/5/22. The 4/19/23 Braden assessment revealed a score of 16 which indicated the resident was at risk for developing a pressure injury, after the resident had been identified with a pressure injury. The 4/19/23 nursing skin assessment progress notes documented a root cause analysis was completed for the new wound on right lateral ankle stage 2. Risk factors identified were resident lying on the right side exclusively while in bed, difficult to education related to poor cognition, diabetes and weakness. Interventions were to encourage to lay on back while in bed, add a derma float mattress, supplements for wound healthing and involvement of the wound care physician. It revealed that he was not currently a candidate for Prevalon boots due to his fall risk and attempting to get out of bed on his own. The 4/20/23 wound physician notes documented a stage 2 pressure wound of the right lateral ankle measuring 0.4 x 0.6 x0.1 centimeters (cm). The 4/26/23 wound physician notes documented a stage 2 pressure wound of the right lateral ankle measuring 0.4 x 0.4 x 0.1 cm. The 4/27/23 nursing skin assessment progress notes revealed derma float mattress (alternating pressure air mattress) was removed secondary resident was falling out of it, continued education to keep of his right side and wearing Prevalon boots from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m and the addition of heel protectors above ankle to offload pressure. -A comprehensive review of the nursing skin assessment progress notes revealed no documentation of an assessment between 11/5/22 and 4/18/23 when the stage 2 pressure ulcer was identified. The derma flo mattress and Prevalon boots were not documented as in place progress notes until after the identification of the stage 2 pressure injury. The 6/8/23 wound physician notes documented a stage 4 pressure wound of the right lateral ankle full thickness measuring 0.3 x 0.4 x 0.2 cm. -The wound progressed to a stage 4, however it was healing and measures were place (see wound physician interview). -A comprehensive review of the nursing skin assessment progress notes revealed no documentation of an assessment between 11/5/22 and 4/18/23 when the stage 2 pressure ulcer was identified. The Prevalon boots were not implemented until after the identification of the stage 2 pressure injury. IV Staff interviews The wound nurse (WN) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:15 a.m. She said residents with diabetes were automatically considered a high risk for developing pressure ulcers. She said she did a skin assessment every week and it was documented every week on a form and given to the director of nursing (DON). She said the resident was on a regular pressure relieving mattress prior to the identification of the pressure wound. She said a derma float mattress was placed after the identification of the pressure wound but it was removed due to the resident falling out of bed while he was on it. She said they initiated the Prevalon boots and he wore these when he was in bed at bedtime because he would not stay off of his right side while he was sleeping. She said they have placed padded heel protectors. She said the resident had difficulty remembering to stay off of his right side due to his low BIMS score. The wound care physician was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:45 p.m. He said that Resident #27 had a stage 4 pressure injury due to the injury over a bony area and the appearance of a ligament in the wound bed but he said it was healing. He said residents that were diabetic were at a higher risk, regardless of Braden assessment scores, for developing pressure wounds, specifically on their feet. He said preventative measures should be in place for these residents. These interventions included elevation of feet off of bed and application of heel boots while in bed. He said a weekly skin assessment should be performed to help identify potential or existing skin problems. He said preventative measures that should be in place in the future included use of the heel boots, protective padding in the wheelchair and awareness of the staff to protect his feet and right ankle at all times. The DON was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:15 p.m. He said he had recently started at the facility less than a month ago and was not familiar with Resident #27's pressure ulcer. He said weekly skin assessments should be completed and documented on the resident's medical record. He said diabetics were at a high risk for developing pressure wounds, specifically wounds on feet. He said when a wound was first identified a root cause analysis should be performed and documented again if the wound progresses. He said preventative measures for diabetic residents were foot check during skin assessment, dietary assessments for supplements, keeping skin clean and dry, podiatry involvement and use of heel boots.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure one (#50) of reviewed for hydration out ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure one (#50) of reviewed for hydration out of 36 sample residents was provided sufficient fluids to maintain hydration health. Specifically, the facility failed to provide and offer fluids to Resident #50, who had a history of dementia and was dependent resident, outside of mealtimes. Findings include: I. Professional reference [NAME], C., [NAME], A., Holyday, M., [NAME], K. (2021, October 13). Interventions to Improve Hydration in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrition. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8537864/ retrieved on 6/27/23. Dehydration is the most common fluid and electrolyte complication amongst the elderly. It is highly prevalent in hospitalized and institutionalized settings. Nursing homes have also identified inadequate fluid intake amongst 50-90% of residents. Dehydration increases risk of morbidity and mortality. This is because lower hydration levels are associated with incidences of acute confusion, constipation, urinary tract infections (UTI ' s), exhaustion, falls and delayed wound healing. Older adults are at increased risk of dehydration due to age related physiological changes, such as decreased thirst sensation and impaired renal function. This risk is often exacerbated in those with mental illness or stroke. II. Resident #50 A. Resident status Resident #50, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included Alzheimer ' s disease with early onset, intracranial injury and symptomatic epilepsy. The 4/5/23 minimum data set ( MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with deficits in short and long term memory. She had severe cognitive impairment with decisions of daily decision making. She required the extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and the extensive assistance of one person for eating. B. Observations On 6/13/23 at 12:50 p.m. the resident was lying in bed and a caregiver was observed assisting the resident with lunch and offering fluids from a styrofoam lidded container. At 2:00 p.m. the caregiver was gone, the bedside table was pushed to the far wall from the resident ' s bed with the same styrofoam lidded container. No additional fluids were at the bedside or within reach of the resident. At 3:00 p.m. an unidentified staff member entered the room to check on the resident. The bedside table continued to be on the far wall with the styrofoam lidded container. The staff member was observed not bringing any additional fluids into the room or offering the resident fluids. On 6/14/23 at 8:42 a.m. the resident was observed lying on back and an unidentified staff member was observed assisting the resident with breakfast. On a continuous observation of the resident on 6/14/23 starting at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 12:15 p.m. At 9:00 a.m. the staff member removed the breakfast tray from the room. The bedside table was pushed away from the bed out of reach from the resident with a lidded styrofoam cup. At 9:45 a.m. unidentified staff entered the room and provided incontinence care and repositioned the resident. Staff did not bring in or offer any fluids during the encounter. At 12:15 p.m. the resident was lying in bed and the bedside table positioned out of reach of the resident with the lidded styrofoam container. No additional fluids were observed being brought in or offered. B. Record review The nutrition care plan, initiated on 1/9/23 revised 4/3/23, indicated that the resident was at risk for alterations in nutritional status due to a history of seizures, assistance needed for activities of daily living (ADL), non verbal, dementia and on hospice. Interventions included collaborating care with hospice, provide required assistance for meals, provide verbal cues and encouragement, provide snacks and alternatives. The hydration care plan was initiated on 7/19/22. Interventions included collaborate care with hospice, honor advanced directors for nutritional and hydration support, report changes and signs of fluid deficit, report signs of fluid overload, report edema. A comprehensive review of the care plan failed to reveal person centered approaches for maintaining hydration related to the resident's requirement for extensive assistance for nutrition and hydration. The June 2023 CPO revealed a physician order of regular diet with regular texture, thin fluids, ordered 7/18/22. The 7/22/22 nutritional registered dietitian (RD) assessment revealed the resident had a daily fluid requirement of 1,650 milliliters (mls) per day. The hydration and fluids offered record, including meals, was reviewed from 6/1/23 to 6/15/23 the following times when fluids were offered: -6/1/23 at 12:25 a.m, 1:03 p.m. and 8:26 p.m. -6/2/23 at 1:58 a.m., 1:59 p.m. and 9:33 p.m. -6/3/23 at 1:41 a.m., 1:59 p.m. and 9:59 p.m. -6/4/23 at 3:53 a.m., 9:27 a.m. and 9:53 p.m. -6/5/23 at 5:59 a.m., 1:59 p.m, and 9:59 p.m. -6/6/23 at 12:10 a.m., 12:58 p.m., 9:59 p.m. 11:35 p.m. -6/7/23 at 1:59 p.m. and 6:35 p.m. -6/8/23 at 12:30 a.m., 7:58 a.m., 6:00 p.m. and 11:03 p.m. -6/9/23 at 11:25 a.m. and 6:54 p.m. -6/10/23 at 1:02 p.m. and 9:59 p.m. -6/11/23 at 1:41 a.m., 12:11 p.m. and 3:22 p.m. -6/12/23 at 5:59 a.m, 1:59 p.m. -6/13/23 at 1:59 p.m., 9:53 p.m., 10:54 p.m. -6/14/23 at 9:34 a.m. and 9:59 p.m. -6/15/23 at 5:59 a.m., 1:47 p.m. 2:24 p.m. -A comprehensive review of the hydration record and the medical record failed to reveal fluid amounts that were offered during these times. The hydration record failed to document consistent offering of fluids at meal time and between meals. III. Interviews Certified nursing assistant (CNA) #2 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:45 a.m. She said fluids should be offered in between meals for all residents and Resident #50, who was a dependent resident, should be assisted with her fluid intake. She said water and additional fluids should be within reach and styrofoam water cups should be refilled if empty. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 12:15 p.m. She said residents should be offered fluids frequently between mealtimes and fluids should be placed within reach. She said Resident #50, who was a dependent resident, should be offered and assisted with her fluid intake. She said the styrofoam cup was refilled with water every shift. She said the facility did not have a beverage cart and staff did not make rounds to offer fluids. She said there was a limited supply of alternative beverages available on the unit. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:15 p.m. He said water should be passed every shift to residents. He said staff would refill the styrofoam cups with water and residents did not have a measured water pitcher. He said the certified nurse aides should be making rounds and offering additional fluids between meals depending on the resident's preference for additional fluids.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medicat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure that residents were free of unnecessary psychotropic medications for two (#33 and #50) of five residents reviewed for psychotropic medications out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure that Resident #50 had behavior monitoring for target behaviors in place while on an antipsychotic and failing to conduct a gradual dose reduction (GDR); and, -Ensure that Resident #33 had behavior monitoring for target behaviors and followed through on recommendation for GDR for a psychotropic medication. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The facility was unable to provide a Psychotropic Medication or Behavioral Monitoring policy when requested on 6/15/23. II. Professional reference [NAME]. S. L., Cations, M, et al. (12/11/18). Approaches to Deprescribing Psychotropic Medications for Changed Behaviors in Long Term Care Resident Living with Dementia. Drugs & Aging. https://link.[NAME].com/article/10.1007/s40266-018-0623-6 retrieved on 6/22/23. It read in pertinent part, Non-pharmacological approaches are recommended as first line treatment for changed behaviors, yet psychotropic medications remain highly prevalent in long term aged care settings. Interventions to deprescribe psychotropic medications should be multifactorial, including lowering the dose of the medication over time, educational interventions and psychological support. Desprescribing practices should be person centered, and an individualized desprescribing protocol should be in place, followed by careful monitoring of the individual. III. Resident #50 A. Resident status Resident #50, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease with early onset, intracranial injury (closed head injury) and epilepsy (seizure disorder). The 4/5/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with deficits in short and long term memory. She had severe cognitive impairment with decisions of daily decision making. She required the extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and the extensive assistance of one person for eating. The resident was not exhibiting hallucinations, delusions, physical or verbal behavioral symptoms or behaviors rejecting direct care. B. Record review The behavior care plan, initiated 7/21/22 revised 1/9/23, indicated that resident was at risk for behavioral symptoms due to Alzheimer's disease and had exhibited behaviors of smearing bodily waste, agitation with staff and combative during care. Interventions included assisting resident to floor when she attempts, bed kept in lowest position to the floor, collaborate care with hospice, observe for mental status and behavior changes with new medication or changes in dosage, provide sensory items for comfort, non-pharmacological interventions such as approach calmly, consistent approaches to care attempt to minimize stimulation with hand massage, provide sensory items. On 11/3/22 the physician orders revealed an order for Seroquel 50 milligrams (mg) at bedtime. On 11/4/22 the physician orders revealed an order for Seroquel 25 mg twice daily (50 mg). The June 2023 medication and treatment administration record (MAR/TAR) revealed documentation for monitoring side effects of antipsychotic medications. -The MAR and TAR failed to reveal documentation of behavioral monitoring. -A review of the CPO failed to reveal orders for behavioral monitoring. -A comprehensive review of the medical record failed to reveal behavioral monitoring to include defined behaviors. The 4/12/23 pharmacist medication regimen review revealed recommendations for monitoring of dyskinesia (abnormality or impairment for voluntary movement) for Seroquel. C. Interviews Certified nursing assistant #2 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:30 p.m. She said she has not witnessed any physical or verbally disruptive behaviors and she had not refused care. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:35 p.m. She said Resident #50 spent her day lying in bed and was nonverbal. She said she would occasionally verbalize amen. She said when she was in pain she would tap her chest and head. She said in November 2022 she had exhibited behaviors by getting out of bed and smearing bodily waste on the floor and wall and taking off her clothes. She said she had not been exhibiting any behaviors recently. She said she was not aware of any behavior documentation monitoring and was not aware of any discussion of a gradual dose reduction for Seroquel. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:30 p.m. He said behavior monitoring should be conducted for residents on antipsychotic medications. He said behavior monitoring was usually documented on the resident's TAR as a checkmark and documented on the progress notes for the identified behaviors The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 4:10 p.m. He said if there were observed behaviors from a resident, they were documented in the resident's progress notes. He said the care plan would have the defined behaviors or they would be outlined in the antipsychotic medication order. The psychotropic drug committee reviewed resident's psychotropic drugs every three months. He said Resident #50 had a past history of smearing bodily waste and other behaviors. He said she was not currently exhibiting these behaviors.IV. Resident #33 A. Resident status Resident #33, over the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, diagnoses included osteoporosis, vascular dementia with other behavioral disturbances, muscle weakness, right hand muscle contracture and osteoarthritis. The 4/5/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate impaired cognitive ability with a BIMS score of eleven out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two-person with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing and personal care. Rejection of care was not exhibited by the resident. B. Record review The June 2023 CPO documented the following: Quetiapine fumarate tab 25 milligrams (mg) by mouth three times daily for vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances with a start date of 11/25/22. Lexapro 20 (mg) by mouth one time a day for delusion, seeing spiders crawling and boxes on her chest related to vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances with a start date of 2/17/23. -The MAR and TAR did not include behavioral tracking for the use of Seroquel and Lexapro. Diazepam 2 (mg) by mouth one time a day for anxiety and paranoid delusion for 30 days with a start date 5/12/23. The social services note documented on 5/23/23 at 10:59 a.m. revealed a review of psychotropic medications. The recommendation was a potential taper off Quetiapine. The social services note further revealed that it was agreed upon to revisit the recommendation at the June 2023 medication review meeting. -Records indicate new medication Diazepam was started on 5/12/23 before the medication review date of 5/23/23. There was no indication of any dosage reduction for the Quetiapine even though a new psychotropic medication was added. C. Staff interviews CNA #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 6:25 p.m. The CNA said the resident continued to hallucinate despite the added medication. The CNA said the resident usually hallucinated when she woke up from a nap saying there were spiders crawling through her window, however with staff reassurance the resident was able to return to baseline. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:46 p.m. The DON said the facility was in the process of adding behavior tracking and non-pharmacological interventions for residents on psychotropic medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to establish a communication process that included how t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to establish a communication process that included how the communication would be documented between the facility and the provider for one (#24) of two residents reviewed for hospicare care out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to establish a communication process according to the hospice agreement that included documentation of care and services provided by hospice filed and maintained for Resident #24. Findings include: I. Facility and hospice agreement The Nursing Facility Agreement with Resident #24's hospice agency, dated 3/9/22, read in pertinent part, Medical Chart: Facility and hospice will prepare and maintain complete medical records for hospice patients receiving facility services in accordance with this agreement and will include all treatments, progress notes, authorizations, physician orders and other pertinent information. Documentation of care and services provided by hospice will be filed and maintained in the facility chart. The facility and hospice will each have access to the hospice patients records maintained by the other party for verification of patient care and financial information pertinent to the agreement. The facility will designate a member of the facility's interdisciplinary group (IDG) who is responsible to work with hospice personnel to coordinate care provided to the hospice patient. The IDG is responsible for establishing the manner of how communication will be documented between hospice and the facility to ensure the needs of the hospice patient are addressed and met 24 hours per day. II. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia, senile degeneration of the brain, anxiety, chronic kidney disease stage one, chronic constipation, stage two pressure ulcer, spondylosis (spinal degeneration) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 6/7/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) was not conducted, with the resident indicated by the response marked that she was rarely to never understood or understands. Resident #24 needed extensive assistance with two person assistance for her bed mobility, transfers, movement on and off the unit, dressing and toilet use. She needed assistance from one person for eating and personal hygiene. She was totally dependent on staff for bathing and needed the assistance of one person. She was receiving hospice care and services. III. Resident representative interview Resident #24's daughter was interviewed on 6/12/23 at 11:11 a.m. She said her mom was on hospice and it seemed hospice staff used to see her mom daily but now the hospice staff only come once a week and she felt the reports from the facility were inaccurate. She said the hospice chaplain did call her but she did not think the hospice staff were doing what she thought they initially agreed upon, which included one-to-one companionship. She said she thought her mom was getting a bed bath instead of a shower. IV. Record review The June 2023 CPO revealed the resident was admitted to hospice services on 6/23/22 with a primary diagnosis of senile dementia of the brain. A review of Resident #24's hospice care plan focus resident was on hospice care related to a diagnosis of senile dementia of the brain; created on 5/20/22 and revised 3/3/23. Pertinent inventions were as follows: -Certified nurse aide (CNA) schedule Tuesday and Thursday (two times/week). Nurse scheduled Wednesdays (one time/week). Social worker scheduled one time a month and PRN (as needed). Chaplain scheduled one time a month and PRN; initiated 5/20/22 and revised 9/26/22. -Administer medication per physician orders; initiated 6/23/22. -Assist the resident to reposition; initiated 6/23/22 -Assist with ADL (activities of daily living) care and pain management as needed; initiated 6/23/22. -Collaborate care with hospice; initiated 5/22/22 and revised 6/23/22. -Report skin breakdown, lack of analgesia (pain reliever) effectiveness, unexpected weight loss or decline in appetite; created 6/23/22. -Honor advanced directives; initiated 6/23/22. A review of Resident #24's medical chart revealed hospice CNA communication logs were present from 2/28/23 to 4/27/23 with visits happening twice a week during. A review of Resident #24's 4/18/23 nursing progress note at 6:09 p.m. documented, Resident wound cares provided by hospice nurse, no changes reported, resident tolerated well. No signs of nonverbal pain cues. -There were no nurse progress notes provided by hospice in Resident #24's chart from the 4/18/23 visit. A review of Resident #24's 3/16/23 social services progress note at 8:52 a.m. documented, It was determined at the conclusion of the meeting that there will no longer be monthly meetings and hospice will just attend quarterly care conferences. -There were no progress notes provided by the hospice nurse, social worker or chaplain included in Resident #24's medical chart. There were no CNA visit progress notes in Resident #24's medical chart before 2/28/23 or after 4/27/23. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:41 a.m. She said said the hospice staff for Resident #24 check out with a facility nurse post visit and hospice nurse aides fill out a bath sheet after a visit with Resident #24. She said there was no hospice form to sign, the hospice agency did not use any hand held electronic devices for their visits and left no documentation at the time of their visit. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at approximately 3:30 p.m. He said the hospice staff only checked out with a facility nurse and he would clarify where the hospice notes were so staff could see the plan of care and if hospice was fulfilling their duties. He said hospice notes were supposed to be sent to him via email but he was not yet on the distribution list and had not been receiving them since he had started at the facility about three weeks previous.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0574 (Tag F0574)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received notices orally and in writing which included a written description of their legal rights. Specifically, the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received notices orally and in writing which included a written description of their legal rights. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Include the email address of the State Survey agency so a resident may file a care complaint; and, -Post the information in a manner accessible and understandable to all residents. Findings include: I. Resident group interview The group interview was conducted on 6/14/23 at 10:00 a.m. with four residents (#36, #19, #41 and #6) identified by assessment and facility as interviewable. All four residents said they did not know where the facility posted information in regard to pertinent State Agencies' contact information and was not reviewed in the resident council meeting. Resident #19 said she was provided a website address for complaints by the facility ombudsman, but did not have a phone number or email address. Resident #6 said he had not been informed of his right to or provided information on how to formally complain to State Agencies about the care he was receiving. III. Staff interviews and observation The social service director (SSD) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 10:30 a.m. He said he did not know who posted the contact information for State Agencies currently, but said the previous nursing home administrator (NHA) used to post them. The NHA was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 11:30 a.m. She said she was unsure where the State Agency contact information was posted but would find out. The NHA followed up at 12:36 p.m. on 6/15/23 and stated the mandatory postings for the State Agencies were at the entrance to the administrative offices. On 6/15/23 at 12:36 p.m. observation of the mandatory posting for the State Agency was made in the lobby entrance of the facility. An eight inch by 11 inch frame was hung on the wall next to the administrative offices hallway, and was hung approximately 60 inches up from the floor. The frame contained a paper with the names, addresses and phone numbers of State Agencies. The font of the contact information was approximately size 12 font with some areas that were bold but it would be hard to read with a visual impairment. The complaint intake email address was not included for the State Survey Agency on the posting. The posting was not accessible at wheelchair height so a resident could not read the sign without assistance. The posting was in an area that was not easily accessible to residents that were not mobile.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** V. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, over age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, the dia...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** V. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, over age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, the diagnoses included a compression fracture of lumbar vertebrae, low back pain, dementia, acute and chronic respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, gout, chronic kidney disease stage 3 and the need for assistance with personal care. The 4/21/23 MDS assessment revealed a BIMS was not completed and the resident marked as rarely/never understood. The resident had a short term and long term memory problem, her cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired and she rarely/never made decisions and was easily distracted. She required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, transfers, mobility on and off the unit, dressing, eating, toileting and personal hygiene. Resident #44 held food in her mouth or had residual food in her mouth after meals. B. Observations 6/13/23 evening meal -At 4:50 p.m., the resident was assisted to the dining room. -At 4:55 p.m., the assistant director of nurses (ADON) served the resident two 240 milliliters (ml) of juice. -At 5:11 p.m., the resident was served her meal. She was served Mexican meatballs over rice, squash, cottage cheese, yogurt and pears. -At 5:16 p.m., an unidentified certified nurse aide (CNA) sat next to the resident and began to assist the resident to eat. She started with cottage cheese. The resident was not provided the opportunity to feed herself, as the CNA started to assist the resident. -At 5:22 p.m., the CNA then started to provide spoonfuls of the yogurt. The resident had not been offered any of her main meal. -At 5:30 p.m., the CNA asked the resident if she was full. The resident responded yes. The resident was not offered the main meal and was not provided any additional assistance. 6/14/23 breakfast -At 8:02 a.m., the resident received her meal. The CNA put jelly on her toast. The resident started to eat the yogurt. -At 8:07 a.m., she received 280 ml of coffee. -At 8:08 a.m., the business office manager said hi to the resident and asked if she was doing ok. The resident was eating the toast independently. -At 8:20 a.m., she had not received any encouragement to eat. -At 8:31 a.m., the resident was sleeping at the table, no staff had approached her to provide encouragement. -At 8:33 a.m, she was asked by CNA #10 if she was done and if she was full. However, the resident had only eaten a few bites of yogurt and half of the slice of toast. She was not offered an alternative. -At 8:44 a.m., the social service director asked the resident if she wanted some toast. She responded yes and she ate a few bites of the toast. -At 8:50 a.m., she was assisted out of the dining room. She ate half of the toast which was served to her. C. Record review Resident #44's activities of daily living (ADL) care plan documented a self care deficit related to bilateral lower extremity weakness, acute and chronic respiratory failure, oxygen use, a history of right hip fracture, dementia, copd (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), high blood pressure, retinopathy (eye damage), osteoarthritis, gout, acute lumbar compression fracture, and chronic compression fracture; initiated 4/1/22 and revised on 4/7/23. Her care plan goal was to receive assistance necessary to meet needs of her ADLs; initiated 4/1/22. Pertinent interventions included the need for one person assistance with bed mobility, hygiene, toileting, set up assistance for meals, oral care, locomotion on and unit as needed; initiated 6/27/22 and revised 2/13/23. Resident #44's care plan for a potential for alteration in nutritional status was related to her history of dementia with memory impairments; the resident took an extended length of time to complete meals related to cognitive deficits. The patient had a recent fracture and a recent decline in ADLs and needed to be fed meals on occasion; initiated 4/17/23. Pertinent care plan interventions included to provide meal set up assistance as necessary. When the patient was unable or unwilling to feed herself, she needed to be fed by staff; initiated 4/17/23. The 4/17/23 nutritional assessment documented the resident with a recently reported need for increased feeding assistance and she often needed to be fed meals more than she previously had. Resident #44's [NAME] (resident care overview) dated 6/14/23 documented Resident #44 needed one person assist with bed mobility, hygiene, toileting and set up assist for meals. -The [NAME] did not include that resident needed to be assisted with meals on occasion. The 3/2/23 registered dietitian (RD) nutrition note written 1:04 p.m. documented, during lunch meal today in the dining room, pt (patient) observed to be able to feed self intermittently but needed frequent cues/prompting/encouragement. Pt (patient) did need to be fed at various times during the meal related to her becoming distracted and loss of focus on meal. D. Staff interviews The registered dietitian (RD) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:35 p.m. She said residents who needed meal assistance should have that information in the [NAME] in the resident's electronic medical record as it was not printed on the resident's meal ticket. Certified nurses aide (CNA) #2 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 4:20 p.m. She said she knew what assistance residents needed at meals had because there was a binder right against a cabinet wall that provided her the information she needed. She also used the resident's [NAME]. Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#9, #33 and #44) of six residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition and hygiene out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #9 was provided consistent bed baths according to the plan of care; -Ensure Resident #33 was provided timely meal assistance, consistent nail care and frequent toothbrushing; and, -Provide eating assistance for Resident #44, who required extensive assistance with eating. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Activity of Daily Living (ADLs) policy, revised May 2023, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/15/23 at 10:38 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident and consistent with the resident's needs and choices, the facility must provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident's activities of daily living (ADL) abilities are maintained or improved and do not diminish. Activities of daily living include; hygiene, bathing, oral care, dining, feeding. II. Resident #9 A. Resident status Resident #9, over the age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnosis included, atherosclerosis, osteoarthritis, chronic pain, unspecified skin changes and paraplegia (paralysis of lower body). The minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. The resident was dependent on staff for her ADL care and required extensive assistance with two person physical assistance with bed mobility, and transfers. The resident had no display of behaviors during care and no rejection of care. B. Resident interview and observation Resident #9 was interviewed on 6/11/23 at 11:30 a.m. The resident said she had not received a bed bath in three weeks. Resident #9 said there was a particular staff member that always found an excuse not to provide her a bed bath. The resident said she came to the facility with a skin issue which had been resolved and would like to maintain proper hygiene to avoid any skin breakdown. The resident said she had been receiving bed baths since she could not stand. Resident #9 was observed in her bed on 6/12/23 at 9:50 a.m. and at 4:15 p.m. the resident said she had not received her bedbath. Resident #9 was observed in bed on 6/13/23 at 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 2:15 p.m. she did not leave her room. -However, it was documented that she received a shower at 1:59 p.m. on 6/13/23. Resident #9 was observed in bed on 6/14/23 at 10:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. She said she was not given a bed bath. C. Record review The resident ADL care plan, initiated on 3/3022 and revised on 2/2/23, revealed the resident had self care deficit due to impaired mobility with a diagnosis of paraplegia and history of pressure ulcers. The care plan indicated Resident #9 required a two-person assist with bathing, bed mobility and dressing. Further record review revealed that Resident #9 prefer bed baths. A 30 day review of the facility shower and bath records revealed Resident #9 had one shower and a bed bath within the 30 day period. -The facility failed to provide a requested three months of bathing documentation for Resident #9. III. Resident #33 A. Resident status Resident #33, over the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, diagnosis included, osteoporosis, vascular dementia with other behavioral disturbances, muscle weakness, right hand muscle contracture and osteoarthritis. The 4/5/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate impaired cognitive ability with a BIMS score of eleven out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two-person with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing and personal care. The resident required one person physical assistance with eating. Rejection of care was not exhibited by the resident. B. Resident representative interview and observation On 6/12/23 at approximately 10:05 a.m. Resident #33 was in bed. She had food stains around her mouth and hue near her gum line which appeared to be plague and tartar. The resident had discoloration of teeth as she spoke. Her fingernails were half an inch long and jagged. On 6/13/23 at 3:54 p.m. the resident was observed in bed with her daughter visiting. The resident fingernails remain half an inch long. The resident's representative was interviewed at 4:00 p.m. She said her mother was not receiving consistent ADL care such as nail care, toothbrushing and timely meal assistance. She said her mother sometimes had to wait a long period of time in order to receive assistance with her meals. The resident representative said Resident #33 had contractures and she was worried there were not adequate interventions currently in place to prevent the resident's fingernails from growing into the resident's skin which could result in skin breakdown. On 6/14/23 at 5:20 p.m. CNA#1 delivered Resident #33 dinner and immediately left to continue passing other diner trays. The resident waited for ten minutes and began yelling for help, however there were not staff close enough to be able to hear the resident. At 5:50 p.m. CNA #5 arrived to assist the resident with eating, which was 30 minutes after the tray arrived to her room. C. Record review Resident #33 care plan revealed the resident has ADL self care deficit related to weakness, impaired mobility, contractures to the left and right hand. The resident comprehensive care plan, last revised 9/29/22, documented a care focus for meal assistance. The care focus revealed Resident #33 was dependent on staff for all ADLs. The interventions included, one person physical assistance with meals, oral care and nail care. IV. Staff interview CNA #5 was interviewed on 6/14/23 at 8:06 a.m. CNA #5 said Resident #33 required one person physical assistance with ADLs such as bathing, oral care, meals and fingernail care. CNA #5 said the staff usually finish passing all room trays before they could provide meal assistance to those who required it. CNA #7 was interviewed on 6/14/23 at 8:15 a.m. CNA #7 said the facility did not utilize shower and bath aides. She said all showers were performed by the floor CNAs and sometimes it was difficult to meet the residents' needs. CNA #7 said Resident #9 preferred bed baths and did not refuse. The assistant director of nursing (ADON) was interviewed on 6/14/23 at 8:25 a.m. The ADON said toothbrushing was provided according to residents' preference and the plan of care. The ADON said Resident #33 fingernails were difficult to trim and cut as it required a special tool to be able to provide nail care. She said the only staff who was trained to provide nail care for Resident #33 was no longer working at the facility. The ADON said she contacted the staff member who was no longer employed with the facility to see if she could help her locate the device for the fingernail care for Resident #33.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment was free from...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the resident's environment was free from accident hazards for four (#15, #28, #29, #39 and #47) of six out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Conduct a post fall investigation after Resident #29 had fallen and consistently implement fall measures; -Resident #15 and #39 had effective fall interventions in place; -Resident #28 fall interventions in place and the care plan was updated with appropriate post fall interventions; and, -Resident #47 fall interventions were consistently implemented. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Falls Management policy and procedure, reviewed 6/15/22, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/14/23 at 11:21 a.m. It revealed in pertinent part, All patients will be assessed for risk of falls upon admission, with reassessments routinely (quarterly, post-fall) performed to determine ongoing need for fall prevention precautions. In the event a fall occurs, an assessment will be completed to determine possible injury. Implement and document patient-centered interventions according to individual risk factors in the patient's plan of care. Adjust and document individualized intervention strategies as patient condition changes. II. Resident #29 A. Resident status Resident #29, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes mellitus. The 4/20/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 13 out of 15. She required the limited assistance of two people for transfers, the limited assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene, the supervision of one person for toileting and set up only for eating. It indicated the resident had two or more falls since admission with one injury. B. Observations On 6/14/23 at 11:00 a.m. Resident #29 was sitting in a wheelchair. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 entered the room and caught the resident attempting to get up out of wheelchair on her own without calling for assistance. After LPN #1 exited the room, Resident #29 was observed without footwear or non-skid socks, extra long oxygen tubing curled up next to resident on floor could be a trip hazard and the call light attached to drawer on bedside night stand behind resident's wheelchair, out of reach. On 6/15/23 at 9:35 a.m. Resident #29 was sitting in a wheelchair wearing one non-skid sock and the call light was out of reach of the resident's wheelchair on the bedside nightstand. C. Record review The fall care plan, initiated 8/3/22 revised 1/10/23, indicated the resident was at risk for falls due to weakness, shortness of breath, diabetes mellitus and chronic pain. Interventions included midline positioning in bed, automatic brakes on wheelchair, encourage resident to call for assistance before using the restroom, encourage resident to wear non skid socks at bedtime, encourage transfer and changing positions slowly, ensure grabber is in reach and report development of pain, bruises, change in mental status, activities of daily living (ADL) function, appetite or neurological status post fall. -A comprehensive review of the care plan did not reveal additional interventions after the 6/3/23 fall (see below). The 6/3/23 at 5:33 a.m. nursing progress notes revealed Resident #29 was found lying next to the foot of the bed. The resident was assessed to have a skin tear to the back of left arm and unable to get off of the floor due to back, left arm and leg pain. The resident was transferred to hospital for further evaluation. The 6/3/23 at 9:50 a.m. nursing progress notes revealed the resident was returned from hospital with a neck sprain and skin tear to left elbow requiring steri-strips. Neurological checks were initiated. -The 6/3/23 fall investigation was not conducted by the interdisciplinary team after the fall. D. Staff interviews Certified nursing assistant (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:15 a.m. She said Resident #29 who was at a risk or had a history of falling, should be checked frequently, call light should be within reach at all times, wear non-slip socks or footwear and those residents on oxygen therapy with extra long tubing should have tubing kept off of the floor to avoid trip hazards. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 11:35 a.m. She said Resident #29, who was at risk and a history of falling should be checked frequently, slip strips on floor, non-skid socks, call light should be in reach and oxygen and other trip hazards should be kept off of the floor. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:35 p.m. He said after a fall, a review by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) in a post fall huddle and a post fall investigation should be conducted to identify possible contributing factors with a review of medications, the environment in the resident's room, a screening and evaluation by physical therapy and least restrictive interventions including non-skid socks. Once mitigating factors were identified interventions should be implemented and care planned. He said post fall assessments and investigations were in need of improvement at the facility. VI. Resident #28 A. Resident status Resident #28, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, diagnoses included acute systolic (congestive) heart failure, weakness, vascular dementia, chronic atrial fibrillation (irregular rapid heartbeat), heart disease, cataracts, high blood pressure and history of falls. The 3/15/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of six out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance from one person for bed mobility, transfers, moving on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. She needed supervision and set up help only for eating. Her balance during transitions and walking was marked as not steady and she used a wheelchair as a mobility device. The MDS assessment revealed the resident had a history of multiple falls that included injury. B. Resident observations and interview Resident #28 was interviewed on 6/12/23 at 1:42 p.m. She said she could not remember exactly when she fell but thought it was a couple days ago. She said she typically used her walker to walk to the restroom by herself. Resident #28 had green bruising to her cheeks and forehead. Her call light was out of reach on her nightstand. She sat in her wheelchair and was not wearing non-skid socks. On 6/13/23 at 10:21 a.m., Resident #28 was in her room, asleep and leaning forward in her wheelchair. She was not wearing non-skid socks and her call light was on her night stand in the drawer. The call light was not within reach. At 1:59 p.m. Resident #28 was in her room asleep in her wheelchair. Her call light was on her nightstand and out of reach. She was not wearing non-skid socks. At 2:27 p.m. Resident #28 was in her room, asleep and leaning forward in her wheelchair. At 2:32 p.m. a certified nurse aide (CNA) removed Resident #28's roommate's lunch tray while Resident #28 was asleep in her wheelchair and leaning forward. On 6/14/23 at 1:30 p.m Resident #28 was reading while in her wheelchair. She was not wearing non-skid socks. C. Record review Resident #28's fall care plan was initiated on 6/28/18. She was identified as a fall risk due to her history of a fall with fracture, history of stroke, unsteady gait, confusion and impulsiveness. The goal, initiated 6/28/18, was to minimize falls with an injury. The most recent and pertinent fall interventions included: -Reinforce need to call for assistance; initiated and revised on 12/21/22. -Encourage resident to wear non-skid socks when resident up and out of bed; initiated 12/22/22. -Offer to lay down between meals; initiated 3/6/23. -Have commonly used articles within easy reach; initiated 4/23/18 and revised 3/16/23. -Implement use of preventative device wheelchair, ensure that brakes were in working condition; initiated 2/25/21 and revised 3/16/23. -There were no interventions added to Resident #28's care plan after the fall on 5/21/23. A physician progress note 5/21/23 at 12:34 p.m. documented a request to be seen by nursing, and the staff reported the patient fell out of her wheelchair and did strike her forehead. A general progress note on 5/21/23 at 1:16 p.m. documented, This nurse heard a loud thump and a resident yell 'help me' this nurse ran to resident's room and found her laying on the floor on her right side in front of her wc (wheelchair) with blood slowly dripping for (sic) her forehead. At this time another aid came into room and went for the RN (registered nurse) supervisor who assessed the resident for further injuries. Resident has skin tear to her right outer elbow measuring approx one and a half inches. Resident picked up from the floor with assist from aids and nurse, resident able to stand, ROM WNL (range of motion within normal limits). Pressure applied to forehead and dressed with pressure guaze (sic) and taped. Tear approximated, steri-strips applied and covered with telfa bandage. Neuros (neurological check) and vitals started. Resident's son informed via voicemail, nurse practitioner (NP) informed of fall via phone conversation. Resident was dressed and wearing non-slips socks at the time of fall. Patient states she just fell out of her wc (wheelchair). She believes she fell asleep and fell forward hitting her head on the wood floor. Pt (patient) denied pain at this time. -The fall investigation was requested from the facility for the fall and the progress note (see above) was provided. A general progress note on 5/21/23 at 2:35 p.m. documented, This nurse was notified by the assigned CNA (certified nurse aide) that res (resident) had a fall. Res (resident) was found laying on the floor on her right side in front of the wheelchair near by her bed. Res (resident) was slowly bleeding from the forehead and from right outer elbow. Res (resident) was alert and oriented and mentioned that she did not hit her hip and denied pain, VSS (vital signs stable), ROM (range of motion)-baseline. Res (resident) was picked up from the floor with other 2 staffs (two staff members). Res (resident) stated that she fell asleep and just fell out of her wheelchair on the floor. Dressing done to the skin tear at right elbow and pressure applied on the forehead. Neuros (neurological exam) initiated. A general progress note on 5/22/23 at 12:38 a.m. documented, Resident continues with bruising and abrasion to forehead. No bleeding noted or increased swelling noted to forehead, slight discoloration and swelling to the upper bridge of the nose. The resident was able to tell a nurse that she had fallen onto the floor earlier today. -There was no documentation of an IDT (interdisciplinary team) review of the 5/21/23 fall. -A review of the progress notes from 4/1/23 to 6/11/23 revealed there was no documentation of fall interventions attempted for Resident #28 during this time frame, although it was documented she was wearing non-skid socks on 5/21/23, the day of her fall. D. Staff Interviews The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:00 p.m. He said it would have been appropriate for the staff to ask Resident #28 if she preferred to sit differently or wake her up if she was observed in her wheelchair sleeping and leaning forward. He said the facility was working on their fall investigation process and investigations should include witness reports and the resident's story of what happened. The regional clinical consultant (RCC) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:00 p.m. He said every fall was reviewed by the IDT team and appropriate interventions would be put in place; a resident's fall interventions were based on cause and care planned. CNA #2 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 4:20 p.m. She said she knew what interventions residents had if they were at fall risk because there was a binder right against a cabinet wall that provided her the information she needed. She used the residents' [NAME] (resident care overview) and knew fall interventions could include non-skid socks and a low bed. E. Facility follow-up The facility provided follow up information on 6/20/23 at 11:52 a.m. The follow up documented, Resident #28's most recent fall was 03/04/2023 and that the state agency is unable to consider these falls during this recertification survey. (The facility was cited for falls previous to the survey on 6/15/23) -However, according to Resident #28's progress notes revealed she had a fall on 5/21/23. In addition, the resident did have prior falls, fall interventions were not consistently implemented (see observations above). VII. Resident #47 A. Resident status Resident #47, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, diagnoses included left femur fracture, joint replacement surgery, moderate protein calorie malnutrition, dementia, legal blindness, low BMI (body mass index), history of falling, high blood pressure and glaucoma. The 3/23/23 MDS assessment revealed the BIMS score was six out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident required extensive assistance from one person for bed mobility and transfers, dressing and personal hygiene. She was totally dependent and needed one person assistance with mobility on and off the unit and supervision with set up only for eating. Her balance during transitions and moving on and off the toilet was not steady and she was able to stabilize only with assistance. The MDS assessment revealed Resident #47's vision was severely impaired and she had functional limitation in her range of motion due to impairment in her upper and lower extremities on one side. B. Resident observations and interviews Resident #47 was interviewed on 6/12/23 at 10:14 a.m. She said she did not know where her call light was and she had a hard time finding her call light because she could not see. The resident's bed was not in a low position. On 6/13/23 at 10:11 a.m. Resident #47 was in her bed; the bed was not in a low position. At 1:50 p.m. Resident #47 was in her bed; the bed not was in a low position. On 6/14/23 at 9:27 a.m. Resident #47 was in her bed eating breakfast; the bed was not in a low position. At 9:52 a.m. Resident #47 was in her bed, her breakfast tray had been removed and the bed was in a low position. On 6/15/23 at 9:42 a.m. Resident #47 said she was a mess and was holding her hands up. She said she did not know where her call light was and she said it's on and off if they (the staff) answer it.' The call light was observed on the floor and her bed was not in a low position. At 4:00 p.m. Resident #47's bed was not in a low position. C. Record review Resident #47's fall care plan revealed the resident was at risk for falls due to a history of falls, unsteady gait, legal blindness, history of fainting, and a fall with a left hip fracture; initiated 12/10/21 and revised on 3/20/23. Pertinent interventions included for Resident #28's bed to be in a low position; initiated on 3/20/23. Resident #47's [NAME] safety interventions were listed as follows: bed in a low position, fall risk, have commonly used items within easy reach and reorient the resident to the room and placement of personal items as the resident was blind. D. Staff interviews The DON was interviewed at 3:00 p.m. He said care plan interventions printed to the resident's [NAME]. The RCC was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 3:00 p.m. He said a bed in a low position could be different for each resident and the staff go over specifics for each resident at the shift report. -Information was requested to see the documentation so the staff knew the various low positions assigned to different residents but it was not provided. CNA #8 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 4:24 p.m. He said he used a resident's [NAME] for fall interventions. He observed Resident #47's bed at this time and said it was not in a low position, he said that low position was supposed to be close to the floor. CNA #2 was interviewed at 4:30 p.m. She said she used the resident's [NAME] for fall interventions. She observed Resident #47's bed and said the bed was not in a low position. III. Resident #15 A. Resident status Resident #15, over the age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, diagnoses included need for assistance with personal care, muscle weakness, history of falling,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, right shoulder pain, major depressive disorder, primary osteoarthritis and fracture of nasal bones. The 3/15/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15 with no behaviors. The resident required extensive staff assistance with two person physical assist for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. The MDS also revealed the resident had fallen since the last assessment and she had no rejection of care. B. Resident observations On 6/12/23 at 10:22 a.m. the resident sat in a wheelchair in her room. She used her feet and hands to assist in moving around in her wheelchair. On 6/13/23 at 11:30 a.m. and at 4:15 p.m. the resident was self propelling herself going to the dinning room for lunch and dinner in her wheelchair. She leaned forward using her feet to assist her movement in the wheelchair. On 6/14/23 at 8:30 a.m. the resident was observed in bed with her call light approximately five feet away from the resident's reach. The resident was trying to get assistance getting out of bed but could not reach her call light. She attempted to reach her call light from her bed but could not reach. Resident #15 started yelling for help. Resident #15 was on the edge of her bed almost about to fall out of bed attempting to reach her call light so licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3 was alerted and she immediately went into the resident's room and realized the resident was trying to get up by herself since she was unable to reach her call light to call for assistance. C. Resident interview The resident was interviewed on 6/14/23 at 11:15 a.m. Resident #15 said she had a big fall about a month ago and hit her face on the floor. Resident #15 said the fall was so bad that her entire face was bruised up and swollen. The resident said she was reaching out to pick an item from the floor and fell forward out of her wheelchair hitting her face on the ground. D. Record review The resident care plan, last revised on 3/16/23, identified the resident was at high risk for falls due to history of falls. Pertinent interventions included for staff to reinforce wheelchair safety as needed such as locking brakes, staff to encourage anti slip socks or shoes at all times as resident allows, staff to have commonly used articles within easy reach, staff to provide resident with a reacher to facilitate picking objects up of the floor and staff to reinforce the to call for assistance and wait for staff assistance. Progress note event reported by the charge registered nurse dated 4/21/23 at 3:15 p.m., documented Note Text: RN assessment: This nurse was called to the resident's room by another staff nurse stating the resident had a fall. Upon entering the room this nurse noted multiple staff assisting the resident. Resident was sitting on the floor with the left side of body leaning against the wall. Staff member holding tissue to resident's nose bleeding and bruising noted, and a small hematoma to the left side of forehead. Resident states it hurts a little bit but wanted to know if her nose was broken. Resident was able to sit upright on the floor by herself with no complaints of pain to any other areas excepther nose. This nurse assessed the resident for injuries besides those mentioned above. Small abrasion to right knee noted. Range of motion to all extremities no pain or resistance met. Vital signs taken B/P 123/78,HR 69, Resp 18, O2 stat 90% on room air. Resident states she was trying to propel herself in a wheelchair then went flying out of her chair. Resident had shoes and the area was clear of clutter. Resident's chart was assessed for any blood thinners before assisting her back to her wheelchair. Resident is on blood thinners at this time. Resident was able to assist staff with being transferred back to her wheelchair. Staffnurse will follow all other fall protocols. -After the resident fall on 4/21/23, there was no subsequent education with staff or preventative measures put in place to prevent a recurrence. The care plan did not have added or new interventions such as frequent checks on the resident by staff, resident's call light within reach at all times. E. Staff Interview LPN #3 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 8:30 a.m. The LPN said Resident #15's call light was on the floor out of the resident's reach. The LPN said the resident was at risk for falls and should have had her call light within reach. The LPN said Resident #15 could have fallen and injured herself as she was trying to reach for her call light. IV. Resident #39 A. Resident status Resident #39, over the age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO, diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, repeated falls, need for assistance with personal care, muscle weakness, major depressive disorder, dementia, age related osteoporosis and psychotic, mood, and anxiety disturbances. The 5/2/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively impaired with a BIMS of six out of 15 with no rejection of care. The resident required extensive staff assistance with two person physical assist for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. She required one person's physical assistance with meals.The MDS also revealed the resident had fallen since the last assessment and she had no rejection of care. B. Resident observations On 6/12/23 at 10:00 a.m. the resident was lying in bed. Her call light was on the floor next to the left bedside drawer in her room. The right side bedroom drawer was approximately four feet away from her bed. On the right side of her bed was the resident's reacher on the floor out of the resident's reach. On 6/13/23 at 4:22 p.m. the resident was in bed with her body tilted to her left side of the mattress. The resident's reacher was located on the floor at the right side of the resident's bed with part of the reacher underneath the resident's bedroom drawer. Her bed was in a midline position with no floor mat available in the resident's room. On 6/14/23 at approximately 9:25 a.m. Resident #39 was in her bed with her upper body leaning to the right side of the mattress with no floor mat available in the room. The bed was in midline position which appeared to have been left in that position for staff comfort during care. The resident's reacher was still on the floor at the right side of the resident's bed out of the resident's reach. C. Record review A review of Resident #39 medical records revealed the cause of the last two fall episodes were as a result of the resident reaching for her phone to answer a call and reaching for other items from her bedside table/drawer. The resident's care plan, initiated on 8/2/22 and last revised on 10/20/22, documented that the resident was at high risk for falls due to diagnosis of Parkinson's disease, generalized muscle weakness, spinal stenosis, osteoporosis, antidepressant use and tremors. Pertinent interventions included, staff to always check with resident prior to leaving resident room, ask if they could get the resident anything she needs in her bedside drawers or ensuring the drawer was accessible to the resident. Staff to ensure environment checks and review use of reacher with resident and return demonstration by the resident, staff to have commonly used articles within resident's easy reach, having reacher in reach of resident to assist resident with grabbing items. The nursing progress note documented by the charge registered nurse on 5/23/23 at 2:30 p.m., Called to the resident's room following an unwitnessed fall. Upon arrival, the resident was observed on the floor on her left side. Resident stated that she was trying to reach for her phone that was on the nightstand and slid off the bed. Contributing factors for the fall include the bed was not in the low position, and phone was out of reach. She reported having hit the left side of her head. The resident complained of mild local discomfort to head from the fall. An assessment was completed and range of motion was at her baseline and showed no injury. The resident was assisted back to bed utilizing a hoyer lift with assistance from other staff. Bed returned to the low position, call light device within reach as well as bedside table within reach. The Resident was reminded to use call light when needing assistance and demonstrated its use. V. Staff interviews CNA #3 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:25 a.m. The CNA confirmed Resident #39's reacher was on the floor out of the resident's reach. The CNA said the resident required two person assistance for repositioning and dressing. The CNA said the resident had fallen out of her bed trying to reach her phone from her bedside table. She said the resident was provided a reacher to assist with grabbing items. The CNA said the resident could not get to her reacher as it was located on the floor. She said the resident might fall and hurt herself trying to get her reacher from the floor. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 2:39 p.m. The DON said the interdisciplinary team would look into various ways after a resident's fall and identify potential causes for the fall and implement interventions to prevent future fall. The DON said the nursing team were to follow the interventions such as ensuring resident's call lights and reachers were within resident's reach. The DON said Resident #15 and #39 could have fallen out of their bed and caused potential injury to themselves trying to reach items with the call light not accessible.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #24 A. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized phys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #24 A. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia, senile degeneration of the brain, anxiety, chronic kidney disease stage one, chronic constipation, stage two pressure ulcer, spondylosis (spinal degeneration) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 6/7/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) was not conducted, with the resident indicated by the response marked she was rarely to never understood or understands. Resident #24 needed extensive assistance with two person assistance for her bed mobility, transfers, movement on and off the unit, dressing and toilet use. She needed assistance from one person for eating and personal hygiene. She was totally dependent on staff for bathing and needed the assistance of one person. The MDS assessment coded the resident as having a scheduled pain regimen and but did not receive an as needed pain regimen. The MDS indicated a pain assessment interview should be conducted; the staff assessment for pain should not be conducted. B. Resident representative interview Resident #24's daughter was interviewed on 6/12/23 at 11:11 a.m. She said her mom would answer a yes or no question inappropriately. She said a question had to be asked in two different ways just to make sure Resident #24 was giving an appropriate answer. She said her mom had a harder time communicating recently and her mom did put mixtures of random words together. C. Resident observations and interview Resident #24 was interviewed on 6/13/23 at 3:50 p.m. Resident #24 was asked if her hip hurt, and she responded yes.Resident #24 was then asked if her hip felt good and she responded yes. Resident #24 was unable to answer open-ended questions without jumbling random words together and continued pleasant conversation with random words and sentences. D. Record review Resident #24's care plan for pain documented pain at left leg, history related to tibial and fibular (leg bones) fractures, history of left hip related to a history of fall with a fracture, diagnosis of spondylosis (spinal degeneration) cervical region and lumbar region and osteoarthritis; initiated 2/2/23 and revised on: 3/22/23 Resident #24's care plan pain goal was zero (out of 10) and pain or analgesia were not to affect participation in activities of choice or daily care; initiated 2/1/23. Pertinent care plan interventions included: -Administer pain medication per physician orders; initiated 2/1/23. -Implement non-pharmacological interventions such as music, massage, a warm/cool compress, and positioning to assist with pain and monitor for effectiveness; initiated 2/1/23. -Notify the physician if pain frequency/ intensity was worsening or if current analgesia (pain relief) regimen has become ineffective; initiated 2/1/23. The pain assessment in advanced dementia (PAINAD) dated 3/11/23 documented the pain rating eduction was completed for the resident, her most recent pain level was zero (out of 10). The PAINAD read in pertinent part, The pain assessment in advanced dementia (PAINAD) scale is used for patients who cannot verbally communicate about their pain. This may include patients who are unable to complete the pain interview section of the MDS, have cognitive impairment or cannot verbally communicate. The PAINAD scale evaluates the realms of breathing, independent of vocalization; negative vocalizations; facial expression; body language; and consolability. -The pain assessment dated [DATE] failed to identify the potential for pain, recognizing the onset, presence of pain and failed to assess the characteristics of pain used for this resident. It failed to include the history of pain and factors which precipitate or exacerbate pain. The medical practitioner note on 5/19/23 at 4:30 p.m. documented, on Tylenol for pain.Will monitor for extremity weakness. Will consider opioid for worsening pain. The pain assessment dated [DATE] asked the resident if she had pain or hurting any time in the last 5 days? The answer no was checked. -The pain assessment dated [DATE] failed to identify the potential for pain, recognizing the onset, presence of pain and failed to assess the characteristics of pain. It failed to include the history of pain and factors which precipitate or exacerbate pain. The assessment used was not the pain assessment for advanced dementia. E. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #7 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:55 a.m. She said Resident #24 moaned or changed how she sat if she was in pain. She said Resident #24's facial expression changed so when she was transferred you could see by the look on her face if she was in pain; sometimes she could say yes or no if she was in pain but she typically did not express pain verbally. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:41 a.m. She said Resident #24 indicated pain through her facial expression and her body became tight and tense. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:45 p.m. He said in general pain was assessed daily and prior to any as needed (PRN) medications and could be numerical or facial. A pain assessment for the resident should have been completed upon admission, quarterly and with a change of condition. He said non-pharmacological pain interventions would be implemented for all residents. He said Resident #24 should have had a pain assessment on 6/12/23 using the pain assessment for advanced dementia. 3. Resident #303 A. Resident status Resident #303, over the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 CPO diagnoses included chronic pain, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), muscle weakness, chronic kidney disease and osteoarthritis. The 6/6/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. She required two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, personal hygiene and toileting. She required set-up assistance with supervision for meals. The resident had no behaviors and rejection of care. Resident #303 received scheduled with no as needed pain medication. B. Record review The care plan, revised on 10/25/22, documented the resident had pain at her left hip and shoulder related to history of fall with fracture. The care plan revealed the resident refused non pharmacological interventions such as repositioning, offering chamomile tea, distraction, and activities. Other interventions included anticipating the resident's need for pain medication, notify the physician of any nonverbal expressions of pain such as moaning, striking out, grimacing, crying and change in breathing. -According to the June 2023 CPO, Resident #303 was prescribed Percocet 5-325 (milligrams), 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for pain with a start date of 1/26/22. -The June 2023 medication administration and treatment records revealed no pain level to be obtained prior to administering pain medication. The pain assessment evaluation completed on 3/3/23 revealed a pain numeric number to be obtained prior to administering pain medication. -There was no record of pain level documented in the resident's medical chart. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #303 was properly assessed for pain and the administration of pain medication. C. Staff interviews LPN #3 was interviewed on 6/14/23 at 10:41 a.m. The LPN said the resident was on scheduled pain medication (percocet 5-325) two times a day for back pain. The LPN said she obtains the resident's pain scale usually 45 minutes after the administration of the pain medication. Based on record review, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to manage pain in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice for three (#2, #303 and #24) of three residents reviewed for pain out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete a thorough pain assessment for Resident #2, #24 and #303 which included, recognizing the onset, presence of and characteristics of pain. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Pain Management policy, dated 10/24/22, received from the nursing home administrator on 5/14/23 read in pertinent part, Patients will be evaluated as part of the nursing process for the presence of pain upon admission/readmission, quarterly, with change in condition or change in pain status, and as required by state regulations. Assess and identify the presence of pain and need for pain management. Assessment components include, but we are not limited to: -Pain locations -Pain level, -Pain onset -Pain descriptions, -Factors that worsen pain, -Factors that improve pain -Pain medication history including medication assisted treatment for opioid use. II. Failure to complete a thorough pain assessment 1. Resident #2 A. Resident status Resident #2, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included, fibromyalgia, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. The 1/4/23 minimum data set (MDS) showed the resident had no cognitive impairments with a score of 15 out of 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) assessment. The resident required extensive assistance from one staff member for activities of daily living. The resident had a scheduled pain regimen and received a non-pharmaceutical pain regimen. B. Resident interview Resident #2 was interviewed on 6/12/23 at 2:27 p.m. The resident said she had chronic pain from fibromyalgia. She said she had been on different medicines, however, she continued to have uncontrolled pain. She said the pain was in her shoulders. C. Pain management plan The June 2023 CPO showed an order for the resident's pain level to be checked every shift. -The physician order failed to show what pain scale was to be used. The June 2023 CPO and recent physician telephone orders revealed current orders for pain control include: -Gabapentin 800 milligrams (mg) capsule by mouth three times a day for diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy with a start date of 4/1/23; -Morphine Sulfate ER (extended release) oral tablet 30 mg. Give 30 mg by mouth every eight hours related to pain in right shoulder, fibromyalgia with a start date of 3/31/23; and, -Morphine Sulfate ER oral tablet 15 mg. Give 15 mg by mouth as needed 30 minutes prior to therapy PRN (as needed) once in a 24 hour period with a start date of 3/31/23. D. Pain assessment and care plan The care plan, last reviewed on 4/26/23, identified the resident had potential for pain related to impaired mobility, fibromyalgia, and history of chronic pain. Pertinent approaches included to implement non pharmacological interventions, positioning, chamomile tea, distraction and activity such as reading a book and notify the physician if pain worsens. -The medical record failed to show a pain assessment was completed to identify the potential for pain, recognizing the onset, presence of pain and failed to assess the characteristics of pain. -There was no assessment to include the history of pain and factors which precipitate or exacerbate pain and pain goal. The daily pain assessment completed on the MAR failed to show the pain scale to be used. The pain assessment documented both the numerical and the pain assessment in advanced dementia scale (PAINAD) were used interchangeably. From 5/13/23 to 6/13/23 showed PAINAD was used 10 times and the numeric was used 20 times. -However, there was no direction as to which pain scale should be used. E. Staff nterview Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 6/14/23 at 2:00 p.m. The LPN said the resident did have pain from fibromyalgia. She said they check her pain one time a day. She said she used the numeric pain scale. She said the resident had prescribed pain medication and repositioning helped with her pain. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 1:47 p.m. The DON said the resident should be evaluated with a complete pain assessment on admission, quarterly and with a change of condition. He said the resident's pain level was checked daily. He reviewed the record and said there was no complete assessment to determine the resident's pain level. He said because the resident was cognitively intact a numeric pain scale was to be used.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption for two residents (#2 and #49) out of 36 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure resident refrigerator temperatures were monitored for refrigerated food storage; and, -Provide the resident and/or resident representative with information on their right to store food and the process for doing so. I. Facility policy The Refrigerators: Patient In-Room policy, dated 9/1/22, was provided by the NHA on 6/15/23 at 1:00 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Food supplied by the patient/responsible party that required refrigeration must be labeled with the date the food was placed in the refrigerator. Food considered unsafe for consumption or beyond the expiration date will be discarded by staff upon notification to the patient or patient representative. The patient and/or patient representative will be provided with the In Room Refrigerator Acknowledgement form. A refrigerator /freezer temperature log will be maintained for every patient refrigerator. Nursing will observe and record temperatures of the refrigerator on a daily basis using the refrigerator/freezer temperature log. Housekeeping will clean refrigerators inside and out including walls, door and shelves, and will defrost the freezer when applicable. Nursing will monitor for proper food labeling and the date food was placed in the refrigerator. Staff will discard food beyond expiration or perishable food held in the refrigerator three days following the date on the label. II. Resident interview and observation Resident #2 was interviewed on 6/12/23 at 2:15 p.m. The resident said she kept food in her personal refrigerator in her room. She said that she needed some help taking care of it. She said she was unable to, however, and no staff would help her. The refrigerator was overfilled with undated food items and food containers. The refrigerator had food spills and was sticky. A thermometer was not located inside. There was no log for the refrigerator temperatures. The progress note dated 5/21/23 documented, Resident was very rude and demanding of nurse while in her room for nightly med (medication) pass. Became agitated when told nurse was unable to rearrange her refrigerator at this time d/t (due to) passing hs (hour of sleep) meds. Resident #49 was interviewed on 6/13/23 at 10:51 a.m. The resident said that she had a personalized refrigerator to keep snacks. She asked who could help her to keep the refrigerator clean. The resident said no staff maintained the refrigerator for her. The refrigerator contained candy, undated pudding and soda. There was no thermometer which could be located. There was no log for the refrigerator temperatures. On 6/15/23 at approximately 2:00 p.m., the dietary manager observed Resident #2 and Resident #49's personal refrigerator in their rooms. She said there were no temperature logs and they needed to be cleaned. Two other personal refrigerators on the 400 hall were observed to not have temperature logs. III. Record review Temperatures were not recorded and temperature logs were not used for resident refrigerators. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN)#1 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 10:55 a.m. She said there used to be a binder the night shift nurse used to record resident refrigerator temperatures in and the night shift was responsible for checking the log. The temperature logs now were supposed to be in the resident's room and the night shift nurse should record the refrigerator temperature on the log. The logs were supposed to be on the resident refrigerator and be in the resident room. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 12:25 p.m. She said they did not have the temperature logs for resident refrigerators but the dietary department would manage the logs going forward. She said they did not have the previous logs for the resident refrigerators or a performance improvement plan in place. The social services director was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 12:30 p.m. He said he was not sure who did the education for resident refrigerators but to ask the registered dietitian (RD). The RD said there was education in the resident admission packet. She said there were no temperature logs and no education provided to the family. V. Facility follow-up The RD was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 2:00 p.m. She said the facility had updated the resident refrigerator temperature logs, educated the residents and had them sign their In Room Refrigerator Acknowledgement form.
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 observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control and prevention program designed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control and prevention program designed to provide a sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections in one out of three units. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that toiletry items were marked in the shared bathroom. Findings include: I. Observations An observation of residents' shared bathrooms was completed on 6/13/23 at 11:15 a.m. There were about eight shared resident bathrooms with personal hygiene items such as toothbrushes, toothpaste, hair comb, razors, urinal containers and deodorant were not marked. A second observation of the residents' shared bathrooms and central bathroom was completed on 6/14/23 at 3:20 p.m. Toothbrushes and deodorant at the central bathroom were not labeled. The call light string of the call light device had brown stains around the string. Towels in shared bathrooms were not marked and some rooms did not have any towels at all. II. Residents interview Resident #28 was interviewed on 6/15/23 at 9:50 a.m. The resident said her and her roommate did not really know which towel belonged to who. She said both her and the roommate just use whichever towel they grab. III. Staff Interview An environmental walk through was conducted with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 6/15/23 at 10:10 a.m. The ADON confirmed the hygiene items were not labeled and said it was an infection control issue. She said the overnight staff were supposed to complete bathroom checks each night to ensure that toiletry items were available and labeled for all residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0923 (Tag F0923)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident bathrooms ventilation fans were functioning o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident bathrooms ventilation fans were functioning on three of four resident bathrooms. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure vents were properly working in residents bathrooms. Findings include: I. Observations An observation of the residents' environment was completed on 6/13/23 at 3:20 p.m. There were exhaust fans installed in the ceiling of each resident's bathrooms.The exhaust fans in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER], 107 and 304 did not generate air movement with the switch turned on. As a measure of checking the function of each fan, a small square of single ply toilet paper was placed against the vent. The exhaust fans were unable to hold the toilet tissue in place which indicated the fans were not functioning at that moment. II. Staff Interview An environmental walk through was conducted with the maintenance director (MTD) on 6/14/23 at 3:20 p.m. The MTD checked the ventilation systems in each of the above bathrooms and confirmed that they were not functioning. The MTD said he had the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) company outside and would ask them to check the motors of the ventilation system. The MTD came back at 3:45 p.m. and said the ventilation motors on the west and east side of the building as well as two air handlers were out and not working, explaining why those vents in some bathrooms were not working. He said the HVAC company has given the facility a quote to fix the motors.
CONCERN (F)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented, in order to facilitate...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented, in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents, through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to resident rights, quality of life, quality of care and infection control. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Plan, revised June 2023, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/12/23. The plan read in pertinent parts, All staff and stake holders are involved in QAPI to improve the quality of life and quality of care that our patients and residents experience. The Center's approach to QAPI culture and processes is standardized by implementing the following key elements: data driven and comprehensive, addressing all aspects of care, quality of life and resident centered rights and choice. Review, analyze trends and identify potential improvement opportunities for the following, based on the Analysis and Action plan process completed prior to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee (QAPIC) performance data where trends are worsening or levels have exceeded targets are completed prior to the quality assurance performance improvement committee. II. Review of the facility's regulatory record revealed it failed to operate a QA program in a manner to prevent repeat deficiencies and initiate a plan to correct F 550 During the recertification on 4/19/22 (Resident rights/dignity) was cited at a D scope and severity. During the recertification survey on 6/15/23, the facility was cited at a D scope and severity. F 677 During the recertification on 4/19/22 (ADL care provided to dependent residents) was cited at a D and severity. During the recertification survey on 6/15/23, the facility was cited at E scope and severity. F 686 During the recertification on 4/19/22 (Pressure injury) was cited at a J scope and severity. During the recertification survey on 6/15/23, the facility was cited at a D scope and severity. F 689 During the recertification on 4/19/22 (accident hazard) was cited at a D scope and severity. During an abbreviated survey on 3/23/23, the facility was cited at harm level of a G. During the recertification survey on 6/15/23, the facility was cited at E scope and severity. F867 During the recertification survey on 4/19/22 (quality assurance) was cited at a F scope and severity. During the recertification survey on 6/15/23, the facility was cited at a F scope and severity. F 880 During the recertification survey on 4/19/23 (infection control) was cited at a L scope and severity. During the abbreviated survey on 2/9/22 F 880 (infection control) was cited at a E scope and severity. During the recertification survey on 4/24/23, the facility was cited at a F scope and severity. III. Cross-reference citations F550 Cross-reference F550 Dignity: The facility failed to ensure residents were treated with respect and dignity. F658 Cross-reference F658 Professional standards: The facility failed to ensure residents received care in accordance with professional standards of practice. F686 Cross-reference F686 Pressure injury: The facility failed to ensure residents were free from pressure injury. F689 Cross-reference F689 accident hazard: The facility failed to ensure residents were safe from falls. F697 Cross-reference F697 Pain: The facility failed to manage pain in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice IV. Interview The nursing home administrator (NHA) and the corporate executive director were interviewed on 6/15/23 at 5:46 p.m. The NHA said she had been employed at the facility for the last three weeks. She said she had not been through a QAPI committee meeting, however she had reviewed the minutes. She said the interdisciplinary team (IDT) met monthly. The pharmacist and the medical director. The NHA said the meeting had an agenda. She said the agenda changed monthly. She said from the meeting outside committees would be formed. She said resident council, grievances and any happenings in the building were used to identify issues. The NHA said resident falls were discussed in the daily meeting. She said all falls or near misses. She said the committee needed to build safety committees and risk management. She said they needed to talk more in depth about the falls. She said a root cause for each fall needed to be determined. The NHA said the facility had a wound physician and an outside consulting company was involved with the pressure injuries. The registered nurse from the outside consulting company did the wound rounds with the wound nurse. She said the facility discussed the wounds regularly. The NHA said the facility had not gotten too in depth on pain discussions. She said they had adjusted pain parameters in assessments. The NHA said the director of nursing should be involved with the parameters for insulin and blood sugars. The NHA was aware there were areas in quality of care which needed to be addressed. The corporate executive said the facility needed to work on follow through, as processes and interventions had fallen through the cracks.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of two residents reviewed for accidents out of fou...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of two residents reviewed for accidents out of four sample residents received adequate supervision to prevent an accident/hazard. Resident #1, who had a diagnosis of medically complex conditions, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The facility failed to follow standards of practice in providing incontinence care by not having all supplies ready and letting go of the resident after rolling her to her side. The facility failed to timely implement appropriate interventions, including assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL) as documented in her significant change 11/17/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment. The facility failed to provide and implement two person bed mobility/toileting assistance and failed to consistently provide two person bed mobility/toileting assistance after the fall according to record review, interviews and in accordance with the resident's care plan. Due to the facility's failures, and the staff's failure to take proper and reasonable care when providing bed mobility/toileting assistance resulted in a fall from the bed that resulted in the resident sustaining injuries of a right and left femur (thigh) fractures, a right head laceration requiring seven staples, and required hospitalization for three days. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Falls Practice Guide policy, dated December 2011, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/23/23 at 3:50 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The purpose of the Falls Practice Guide is to describe the process steps for identification of patient fall risk factors and interventions and systems that may be used to manage falls. Comprehensive care plan: Based upon the findings of the MDS (minimum data set) and CAAs (care area assessment) and following review of risk factors, environmental factors and other clinical conditions, the patient's initial care plan is updated or a comprehensive care plan is developed to include individualized patient interventions that focus on the patient's risk factors. II. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], was admitted initially on 1/29/19, and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included left femur fracture, right femur fracture, muscle weakness, and anxiety disorder. The significant change 11/17/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. She required extensive assistance with two persons physical assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, bathing and personal hygiene. Transfers did not occur over the entire seven day period. There were no behavioral symptoms or rejection of care. The significant change 1/25/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 14 out of 15. She required extensive assistance with two persons physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, bathing and personal hygiene. There were no behavioral symptoms or rejection of care. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder. III. Resident interview Resident #1 was interviewed on 3/21/23 at 11:39 a.m. She said certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was going to change her and she rolled her to the side. Resident #1 said she was in a position that made her slip out of the bed and she fell to the wood floor. Resident #1 said she was in a state of shock and the police came and helped to calm her on the floor. Resident #1 said she was moved from the floor and put on a stretcher; she felt shocked, scared and stunned. Resident #1 said she felt numb at first and she did not feel like screaming when it happened. Resident #1 said she started feeling the pain on the way to the hospital. Resident #1 said now she had two people to change her, before the fall she had one person help with bed mobility. Resident #1 said her legs hurt now if she moved them and there was a large black scab on the top/back of her head. Resident #1 said there were certain places on her body that were still tender and she still had a fear of falling. IV. Record review Care plan: Review of the ADL care plan established prior to the 1/17/23 fall revealed that it had not been developed to include two persons physical assistance for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, bathing and personal hygiene although the 11/17/22 MDS had been coded as requiring such care, which was the highest level of care needed during the seven day period. The ADL care plan was updated after the 1/17/23 fall and added two assist with bed mobility, toileting, daily hygiene, dressing, date initiated 2/13/23. -The resident had returned to the facility on 1/19/23, after her hospitalization. The care plan was not updated and revised to include two person assistance with bed mobility until 2/13/23, 28 days after the resident's fall on 1/17/23. Review of the urinary incontinence care plan revealed it was updated and added after the 1/17/23 fall two person assist during incontinence care date initiated 1/19/23. Review of Resident #1's medical record (EMR) revealed the following progress notes documented in pertinent part: 1/17/23 at 2:45 p.m., Registered nurse (RN) assessment: This nurse was called to resident's room by staff nurse stating resident had fallen out of bed while being changed by certified nursing aide (CNA). Upon entering the room noted resident laying on the floor faced down with a towel under her face. Bleeding noted from gash on the right side of resident's head. Had a small skin tear to right shoulder. Resident was able to state her name and state she was in pain and wanted to get off the floor. Another RN obtaining vital signs at this time. Clear area around resident for safety. While RN applied gauze to gash in head for pressure this nurse, head neck in alignment with assistance of CNA to turn resident over. Upon turning resident over noted a skin tear to resident right knee and right foot. Resident was still alert and oriented upon assessment. EMS (emergency medical services) arrives to take over. Fall protocol in place. 1/17/23 at 3:31 p.m., CNA was turning resident and rolled her over and let go for just a second and she rolled off the bed. The bed was in the high position. Resident was laying on her right side on her stomach. Called RN #1 and RN #2 to come assist. Call to 911 was placed and paramedics with (name) came at once. This writer called the daughter of resident and left her message of what was happening with her mother. Call and message was also left with RN at (provider) to inform medical doctor (MD) #1 and nurse practitioner (NP) #1. Resident received a laceration to right side of her (head) also scraped her knees and tore scabs off as well off her toes. She also had marks to her upper back and mid back on right side. Paramedics here and took at 3:25 p.m. 1/17/23 at 3:39 p.m., This RN responded to resident's reported fall while LPN (licensed practical nurse) called 911. Resident observed to be lying on the floor with a bleeding laceration to her head. The resident and CNA both reported that the resident fell while being turned in bed. Initial assessment showed that resident's vital signs were within her baseline limits (pulse 85, O2 (oxygen saturation) 90, BP (blood pressure) 143/93). A/O (alert and oriented) x4. Resident reported 10/10 pain, generalized, on her buttocks, and on her head. Tenderness to palpation in bilateral pelvic area. PERRLA (pupils equal, round, reactive to light and accommodation). Resident had a laceration to the right side of her head. Scabs on bilateral knees and toes opened during the fall and were bleeding. New small open area on buttocks resulting from the fall. Abrasions on the right shoulder and mid-back were also observed. EMT's arrived and took over resident care and transfer. 1/18/23 at 10:06 a.m.,IDT (interdisciplinary team) met to review fall from bed yesterday, remains in hospital. Was sent to hospital and remains there. Will review when returns. 1/19/23 at 1:17 p.m., Resident readmitted to the facility from community hospital via stretcher with (name) at 11:15 a.m. following post fall with diagnosis of bilateral femur fractures. Medication regimen reviewed with physician assistant (PA) #1, no issues found. Resident was A & O (alert and oriented) x3 (person, place and time), able to make her needs known. Resident was on a regular diet, regular texture, poor appetite, and eats meals by herself with a setup tray. Incontinence with bowel and bladder. Resident was on 2 L (liters) O2 (oxygen) via NC (nasal cannula). Dressing was changed on the bilateral lower leg today as per a report given by hospital RN. Resident had bruises on the back of bilateral hands and right forearm from the IV (intravenous) site. Resident was admitted to hospice at the hospital. Hospice admission nurse was in the building today to see the resident. Resident denies any pain at this time, states she was only in pain when her leg was moved. The resident had a new order for PRN (as needed) oxycodone. NP from optum informed about readmission and new order. Daughter updated about patient's condition and new order. Call light placed within reach. Bed was in the lowest position. V/S (vital signs) 120/54, 97.5, 63, 92% on 2L O2 via NC. 1/20/23 at 10:38 a.m., Update: Patient was sent out to hospital on 1/17/23 status post (s/p) fall with increased pain and laceration to right side of head. Pt was admitted to hospital where she was diagnosed with bilateral femur fractures. Pt was admitted to hospice services for end of life care. Patient readmitted to this facility on 1/19/23. Upon admission, per nursing note, patient with seven staples on right side of her scalp with crusted blood/OTA (open to air), bruise on back of both hands and RFA (right forearm) from IV site. Recent weight not available. Continue diet per order. Will restart supplements. 1/21/23 at 1:06 p.m., Resident continues on charting for readmission s/p fall. Resident had seven staples to head that are clean, dry and intact.Resident's bed in low position and requires the assistance of two persons to assist with changing. Resident had not complained of any pain or discomfort related to fall. Hospital records: The 1/17/23 emergency room physician note revealed in pertinent part, Reason for consult: Fall at nursing home. History of present illness: Resident #1 is an [AGE] year old female presenting with traumatic injuries sustained after falling at a skilled nursing facility. She was sent to the ED by medical transport for evaluation with her advanced directive documents and medication list. She was found to have bilateral distal femur fractures on plain film. Trauma surgery consultation was requested. Resident #1 was unable to provide history due to advanced dementia and was moaning in pain. Physical exam: Elderly female moaning in pain. Laceration right parietal (near the top of head) region. The 1/18/23 hospitalist progress note revealed in pertinent part, Assessment and Plan: This is an [AGE] year old female with a history of chronic lymphedema with chronic venous stasis ulcerations and wounds presenting to the emergency department after a fall during transfer resulting in bilateral distal femoral fractures. Toe abrasion; closed head injury; mechanical fall-laceration clean, dry, repaired in ED (emergency department), trauma surgery following. Mental status: She was disoriented. Psychiatric: comments: Moaning in pain. Review of the bed mobility task support provided for the past 30 days documentation revealed the following: -2/22/23 at 5:02 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/22/23 at 10:08 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/24/23 at 1:51 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/25/23 at 1:59 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/26/23 at 1:59 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/27/23 at 1:24 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/1/23 at 1:59 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/5/23 at 1:09 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/5/23 at 1:40 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/6/23 at 5:53 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/6/23 at 4:45 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/8/23 at 1:59 p.m. on person physical assistance was provided. -3/9/23 at 1:36 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/10/23 at 6:45 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/13/23 at 12:42 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/13/23 at 1:59 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/17/23 at 1:59 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/18/23 at 2:41 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/22/23 at 2:38 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/23/23 at 4:15 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -Although the newly revised care plan read, two assist with bed mobility updated after Resident #1's fall, the staff continued to provide one person assistance, placing Resident #1 at a continued risk of another fall. Review of the toileting task support provided for the past 30 days documentation revealed the following. -2/20/23 at 5:16 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/22/23 at 8:17 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -2/24/23 at 6:28 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/3/23 at 11:40 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/5/23 at 1:18 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/9/23 at 1:36 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/10/23 at 11:37 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/18/23 at 2:59 a.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/18/23 at 1:26 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -3/18/23 at 2:42 p.m. one person physical assistance was provided. -Although the newly revised care plan read, two person assist during incontinence care updated after Resident #1's fall, the staff continued to provide one person assistance, placing Resident #1 at a continued risk of another fall. V. Facility's investigation of Resident #1's fall The post fall investigation noted, Incident report: date of incident 1/17/23 at 3:00 p.m. Location: resident's room. Description of incident: CNA #1 was turning to change her and she rolled her over too far and she fell off the bed which was in the high position. Describe care provided to the patient following incident: CNA #1 was turning the resident and rolled her over and let her go for just a second and she rolled off the bed. The bed was in a high position. Resident was laying on her right side on her stomach. RN #1 and RN #2 were called to come assist. Call to 911 was placed and paramedics came at once. The resident's daughter was called and a message was left of what was happening with her mother. Call and message the physician. Resident received a laceration to the right side of head, scraped her knees and tore scabs off her toes. She had marks on her upper back and mid back on right side. Paramedics arrived and took at 3:25 p.m. Patient was taken to the hospital 1/17/23 at 3:35 p.m. Summary of alleged incident: CNA #1 was turning resident to change her, and she rolled her over too far and she fell off the bed which was in the high position. Disposition by NHA: After a thorough investigation, neglect was unsubstantiated. It was determined that the CNA followed the patient's care plan/task list related to ADL cares. Employee (CNA #1) was brought back from suspension. Patient returned from the hospital on 1/19/23 with bilateral fractures to the femur. Care plan was reviewed and updated to two-person assistance related to bed positioning/mobility and ADL cares due to change in resident condition. Education was initiated with CNAs related to positioning, fall prevention and reviewing tasks lists prior to caring for a patient. An audit was put into place to monitor the position of patients when providing cares and monitoring correct transfer status. This will be monitored weekly for 4 weeks. Statements: Resident #1 on 1/19/23 at 11:30 a.m. I have never felt abused or neglected by CNA #1. I am absolutely certain, I love that gal. It wasn't her fault. She's one of my best friends. I know how to report abuse or neglect. Multiple residents interviewed and all had no problems with CNA #1. CNA #1 on 1/17/23 and 1/18/23 (time not documented), the person conducting the interview was the NHA. Around 2:20 pm I went to the room to perform vitals. At this time, she (Resident #1) requested to be changed. I started cares. She (Resident #1) was rolled onto her left side, per patient request and care plan. I let go of the patient to turn to grab her brief on the side of me, at this time the patient started to roll off the bed. I tried to catch her but was unsuccessful. I immediately notified my nurse for assistance. Multiple staff members interviewed and all had no problems with CNA #1. RN #2 on 1/30/23 (time not documented), LPN #1 notified her of the fall. She instructed LPN #1 to call 911 while RN #1 and she assessed and stabilized the resident. VI. Staff interviews The NHA was interviewed on 3/23/23 at 2:00 p.m. She said CNA #1 was not suspended until 1/20/23 (the fall occurred 1/17/23) as they were not aware of the extent of Resident #1's injuries until later and as they got into the investigation for the fall it was determined there could be a suspicion of neglect so that was when they suspended her for three days (1/20/23, 1/21/23, and 1/22/23). The NHA said she was the abuse coordinator, but it was collaborative with the IDT. The NHA said after the fall they met as a team and put in three corrective plans-staff education, a skills fair with hand on return demonstration, and monitoring/auditing. The NHA said she addressed having the MDS assessment match the care plan to make sure it matched the required assistance levels. She said the team was monitoring staff to see if they were transferring according to the [NAME] (brief overview of individual patient care). The NHA said prior to the fall the MDS assessment did not match the care plan and the [NAME] but that was how she wanted it completed now. The NHA said if the MDS assessment said a resident needed two person assistance then it needed to be two person assistance on the care plan. The NHA said a CNA could not change how much assistance a resident needs. She said if the [NAME] said the resident needed two person assistance then that's what should be given. The NHA said it was important for CNAs to document correctly the level of assistance given to a resident in order to follow the proper transfer status, and important for safety of the patient and staff. The NHA said she would start immediate education on proper documentation and monitoring of incontinence care and bed mobility since it was brought to her attention, during the survey, that currently CNAs were documenting one person assistance with bed mobility and incontinence care on residents who required two person assistance including Resident #1. CNA #1 was interviewed on 3/23/23 at 2:39 p.m. She said she went to change Resident #1 and she was rolled to her side, and when she got the brief, Resident #1 fell off the bed. CNA #1 said Resident #1 was panicky and upset and thought she was going to die. CNA #1 said Resident #1 was in a lot of pain when the paramedics picked her up, she was crying, moaning in pain and scared. CNA #1 said the bed was too high, her mattress was too small in width, and Resident #2 should have been a two person assist with bed mobility and incontinence care. CNA #1 said her usual incontinence care techniques were to get everything ready, roll the resident over, clean them, and put on a new brief. CNA #1 said she failed to have all of her supplies ready and she just got herself out of order and she let go of the resident and just was not thinking. CNA #1 said mainly Resident #1 should have been a two person assistance. RN #2 was interviewed on 3/23/23 at 2:50 p.m. She said she was the facility's infection preventionist and nurse educator. She said since Resident #1's fall she had been conducting audits related to transfers (but not specifically to bed mobility and toileting). RN #2 said the questions on the audit read, Did staff follow the care plan related to transfers? Residents positioned safely in bed during and after transfer? Staff able to verbalize the correct transfer status and position? RN #2 said the audits came after Resident #1's fall and was designed to capture bed mobility and transfer status. RN #2 said she was now doing the audit one time per month. RN #2 said since it was brought to her attention, during the survey, that staff were not following the care plan related to bed mobility and incontinence care and were documenting one person assistance with bed mobility and incontinence care on residents who required two person assistance including Resident #1, she would now rewrite the audit and redo the education. The MDS coordinator (MDS #1) and director of nursing (DON) were interviewed on 3/23/23 at 12:48 p.m. MDS #1 said she did a quarterly MDS assessment every three months, and annual MDS assessment (every 365 days). MDS #1 said if there was a significant change MDS assessment then that was a new starting date and it included a full assessment. MDS #1 said the full MDS assessments trigger the care plan to be updated and different departments contribute to the care plan. MDS #1 said she did the ADL, continence and falls sections of the assessment. MDS #1 said she decided what went to the [NAME] and she hand made the [NAME] from the care plan. MDS #1 said Resident #1's 11/17/22 MDS assessment was the last full assessment before the fall on 1/17/23 and that was the MDS assessment her care plan came from. MDS #1 said the 11/17/22 MDS assessment read that Resident #1's bed mobility was extensive assistance with two persons but that was not what she had put on the care plan, but with the audits she would start doing that now. MDS #1 said she would now put residents who required two person assistance on the MDS assessment with two person assistance on the care plan. MDS #1 said before the fall if the MDS assessment said the resident required two person assistance she would not put that on the care plan. MDS #1 said she had put down care in pairs on the care plan for Resident #1. MDS #1 said she did not put it on the care plan prior because a resident often would need one person assistance usually with occasional two persons assistance. MDS #1 and the DON said that Resident #1 should have two person assistance at all times for bed mobility and incontinence care, it was now on the resident's care plan and on the [NAME]. The MDS #1 and DON said it was important to follow for the resident's safety and health. MDS #1 and the DON said they would find out which CNAs were not providing two person assistance and write them up, since it was brought to their attention during the survey, that currently CNAs were documenting one person assistance with bed mobility and incontinence care on residents who required two person assistance including Resident #1. MDS #1 and the DON said it was important to have accurate documentation for best resident care and safety. CNA #2 was interviewed on 3/23/23 at 3:45 p.m. She said her process for incontinence care for a resident in bed was to first sanitize hands, get a brief, peri care spray and other supplies. She cleaned the resident in the front first, then rolled them to the side and held the resident while cleaning the backside. CNA #2 said after completion of incontinence care, she put a brief under the resident and centered it and rolled the resident onto their back and pulled the brief up and tabs it, checking to make sure it was straight. CNA #3 was interviewed on 3/23/23 at 3:53 p.m. She said staff should round every two hours to check on the residents. She said her process for incontinence care was to first close the door or curtain, sanitize hands, get supplies ready such as brief, wipe, and peri spray. CNA #3 said she would tell the resident what she was going to do, wipe the front first, then roll resident to the side holding them, and pull out the old brief, put on a new brief, and roll to the middle to get them situated and connect tabs, then roll to the other side to straighten brief. The DON was interviewed on 3/23/23 at 4:06 p.m. She said when staff provided incontinence care they were to first knock, tell the resident why they were there. She said they should gather equipment and supplies such as wipes, and a brief. She said the staff then provided peri-care and undo one side of the brief and tuck under, roll back and pull the dirty brief out and pull the new brief up and reposition. The DON said the staff should be touching and holding the resident when they were rolled. The DON said what went wrong with Resident #1 during incontinence care and the fall on 1/17/23 was CNA #1 reached for something and let go of Resident #1 and because the bed was positioned so high it led to an injury. The DON said it was important for resident safety for the staff to know how to provide proper incontinence care.
Apr 2022 26 deficiencies 4 IJ (3 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #282-Failure to prevent two stage 3 pressure injuries A. Resident #282 status Resident #282, age [AGE], was admitt...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #282-Failure to prevent two stage 3 pressure injuries A. Resident #282 status Resident #282, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, unspecified dementia, and long term use of anticoagulant medication. The 1/3/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment; the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) was not conducted. She had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. She required extensive assistance from one person with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. She was at risk of developing pressure injuries as of 7/4/21 and had pressure reducing devices for her bed. B. Wound care observation Wound care observations were conducted on 4/12/22 at 11:09 a.m. CNA #10 had just completed showering the resident and said that there were no bandages present on Resident #282 prior to her shower. The resident was transported into her bathroom by LPN #1 and CNA #10 where she could use the grab bar to stand. The resident had a 2.5 centimeter (cm) long by 1 cm wide reddened skin tear on her right buttock. A pressure injury on her coccyx (see below) was not visible while the resident was standing during observation. The resident was dressed and returned to her wheelchair without any treatment or bandages applied. On 4/12/22 at 2:30 p.m. the wound care physician (WCP) #1 was observed performing wound care for Resident #282, accompanied by the MDS coordinator and RN #5. The WCP applied betadine solution to a triangular shaped wound on the resident's left calf measuring 2.5 cm by 2.5cm. The WCP then had the nurses position the resident to treat wounds on the coccyx and buttock area. He treated a 1 cm by 0.5 cm pressure ulcer on the resident's coccyx with calcium alginate, covered with an optifoam dressing. The skin tear to the right buttock was left open to air. The physician then had the nurses raise the resident's left leg to apply betadine to her left heel. The resident grimaced when the WCP attempted to remove hardened skin from the area. A quarter size pressure injury was observed on the resident's left heel. The pressure injury was left open to air and a Prevalon boot was placed on the resident's foot. C. Record review The Braden Scale Observation/Assessment (for predicting pressure sore risk) dated 7/4/21 revealed a score of 16, which indicated the resident was at risk for the development of pressure injuries. No specific interventions were noted in the assessment. An additional Braden Scale Observation/assessment dated [DATE] was completed and revealed a score of 17, which indicated the resident was at risk for the development of pressure injuries. No specific interventions were noted in the assessment. Another Braden Scale Observation/Assessment was completed on 4/15/22 and revealed a score of 16, which indicated the resident was at risk for the development of pressure injuries. No specific interventions were noted in the assessment. The comprehensive care plan for activities of daily living (ADLs), initiated on 7/5/21 and revised 1/14/22 revealed the resident required assistance with ADLs due to a history of falls with left hip fracture and impaired mobility. Interventions included to provide assistance with mobility, bathing, transfers, dressing, and incontinence care. The care plan for skin integrity, initiated on 7/5/21, revealed the resident was at risk for alteration in skin integrity related to impaired mobility, and incontinence. Interventions included barrier cream to peri area/buttocks as needed, elevate heels as able, observe skin condition daily, and pressure redistributing device on bed. -The care plan did not mention any existing skin problems on admission. On 3/10/22, the care plan was updated with the following interventions for deep tissue injury (DTI) to left heel: administer treatment per physician orders, Prevalon boot to left foot while in bed and report evidence of infection to physician. On 3/15/22, the care plan was updated with the following interventions: to administer analgesics as needed, administer treatment per physician orders, daily body audit, friction reducing transfer surface, and repositioning during ADLs. -Both interventions were added to the care plan after the Resident #282 developed DTI. The treatment administration record (TAR) for April 2022 revealed the resident was receiving daily body audits and the following wound care treatment: -Coccyx stage 3: Clean and apply alginate and foam dressing every day and as needed beginning 3/23/22. -Left foot DTI: cleanse with wound cleanser or normal saline and apply betadine twice daily and as needed beginning 3/10/22. D. Staff interviews LPN #1 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 11:09 a.m. She had CNA #10 assist her to undress the resident from the waist down so that the wounds on the resident's buttocks could be observed. There was no bandage present on the resident's coccyx. She said that she was not certain of the treatment for the pressure injury or skin tear. She said the treatments were usually completed on the night shift. The LPN did not complete any treatments during observation and asked the CNA to redress the resident and return her to her wheelchair. WCP #1 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:10 p.m. He said the resident developed a wound on her leg (etiology unknown), a possible shearing injury to her right buttock, and two stage 3 pressure injuries; one to her left heel and one to her coccyx. The WCP said that the pressure injuries were avoidable for Resident #282, and preventative measures should have been taken, especially for residents, such as Resident #282, with altered mental status and residents that were incontinent. Preventative measures included a low air loss mattress, offloading of heels, Prevalon boots or heel cups, appropriate padding for chairs, nutrition support, and regular skin checks. Incontinent residents should receive brief checks every two hours, and regular peri-care including the application of barrier cream. He said that pressure injuries can be avoided. Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement interventions and provide appropriate treatments to prevent the development and worsening of pressure injuries for three (#6, #40 and #282) of six residents reviewed for pressure injuries out of 33 sample residents. Resident #6 had resided in the facility since 2017 for long term care. The resident had Parkinson's disease, venous insufficiency, and diabetes type 2. He wore custom modified orthopedic boots on both legs due to the acquired absence of his right foot. Record review revealed the facility did not ensure the resident's feet were monitored daily before and after a boot modification for tissue damage or signs of pressure or rubbing to prevent skin breakdown. -On 3/10/22, Resident #6 attended a scheduled physical therapy session with an outside provider when two wounds on his left leg were discovered. During his therapy session, the resident's left boot was removed and upon the removal of the sock, a long piece of skin came with. The sock was covered in serosanguinous, foul smelling drainage. The wound bed was red, and took up the entirety of the heel. Resident was sent back to the facility with dressing change orders. However, the dressing changes were not completed as ordered and the resident's wounds deteriorated. -On 3/29/22, Resident #6 attended another scheduled physical therapy session with an outside provider. Upon removal of the wound dressings, profound macerated and peeling skin was noted on 90% of the left foot, severe redness over top of the foot, increased swelling up to below the knee and several new open areas. The resident's primary care provider (PCP) was contacted and instructed that the resident be sent to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation. Resident #6 was evaluated and admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of cellulitis secondary to wound infection. He received antibiotic treatments and debridement of the wound. Furthermore, after the resident developed tissue injury from his orthotpedic boot, the facility did not develop or complete a performance improvement plan or implement prevention measures to prevent this from happening again to other residents. There was no evidence staff had been educated on the use and placement of orthopedic devices. Cross-reference F867. The facility's failure to assess and monitor Resident #6 for pressure injuries due to his orthopedic devices created an immediate jeopardy situation for serious injury to reoccur if immediate corrective action was not taken. In addition to Resident #6, the facility failed to put interventions in place to prevent the development of stage 3 pressure injuries for Resident #40 and #282. Resident #40 had a left sided weakness on upper and lower extremities and required assistance with turning and repositioning. The resident was not consistently assisted with repositioning, his heels were not elevated and he developed a stage 3 pressure injury on his left heel. Resident #282 was admitted to the facility with no pressure injuries and developed two stage 3 pressure injuries during her stay. Findings include: I. Immediate Jeopardy A. Findings of immediate jeopardy Resident #6, diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, venous insufficiency, and diabetes type 2, wore custom modified orthopedic boots. He developed a pressure injury to his left heel on 3/10/22, which progressed to an unstageable 7 centimeters (cm) by 11 cm wound, and by 3/29/22, had become infected. The resident required hospitalization and evaluation by a wound care specialist. He was diagnosed with cellulitis due to wound infection. The resident underwent wound debridement and antibiotic treatments. The facility did not ensure the daily skin checks were completed before a boot modification to monitor for tissue damage. The facility further failed to complete skin assessments after boot modifications to ensure the resident's skin was consistently monitored for signs of pressure, rubbing or breakdown. Furthermore, after the resident developed tissue injury, the facility did not develop or complete a performance improvement plan or implement measures to prevent this from happening again to other residents. Cross-reference F867. The facility's failure to assess, monitor and treat Resident #6 for pressure injuries created an immediate jeopardy situation for serious injury to reoccur if immediate corrective action was not taken. On 4/13/22 at 2:20 p.m., the nursing home administrator (NHA) was notified that the findings regarding Resident #6 created a situation of immediate jeopardy for serious harm. B. Plan to remove immediate jeopardy On 4/14/22 at 1:35 p.m., the facility submitted the following plan to remove the immediate jeopardy situation: 1. Immediate actions -On 4/13/22, a skin assessment was completed by Director of Nursing and nursing team for every resident in the facility. All new findings and worsening of wounds were documented in the resident's medical record, the physician was notified and new treatment orders were obtained. -On 4/14/22, all current treatment orders were observed to ensure accuracy and frequency of treatments were being completed according to physician orders. All negative observations were immediately corrected and on the spot education was provided to the nursing staff. -On 4/13/22, a sweep was completed by Director of Nursing to identify each resident with an orthopedic device. A review of each resident's medical record with an identified orthotic will be completed to ensure a physician order is in place to include the scheduled application of the orthotic device, daily monitoring of the resident's skin to which the orthotic device was applied, and the care plan updated. The review will be completed by 4/14/22. -All orthotic devices, including Prevalon boots that are used to offload heels, will be scheduled to be disinfected/cleaned daily by Director of Nursing or designee, and will be checked for proper functioning prior to application, -All residents who were identified with a diagnosis of diabetes or high risk for skin breakdown, skin checks will be completed by the licensed nurse every day. The skin checks will be documented in the resident's medical record. -The director of nursing and/or designee will complete daily audits of the treatment administration record to ensure wound care was completed according to physician orders. -The director of nursing and/or designee will complete treatment observations to ensure physician orders are being followed and appropriate infection control practice for all nurses. The director of nursing and/or designee will track the observations to ensure compliance. -The Nurse Practitioner or designee will be assigned as the wound nurse and will conduct weekly wound rounds, document the progress and any new findings of the wound, and track all wounds in the facility. -Each resident will have a skin assessment completed weekly and documented in the resident's medical record on the skin assessment form by a licensed nurse. The skin assessment will include any new, current, on-going and resolved skin concerns. It will indicate if the resident has no skin concerns. The physician will be notified of any new or worsening skin conditions and documented in the resident's medical record. The wound nurse will be notified of any new skin concerns via phone call or in person. -Residents with newly identified skin conditions will be assessed for a change of conditions and monitored for 72 hours on Alert Charting Log. -All wound care notes from all wound care providers will be scanned and kept in the resident's medical record. 2. Systemic Changes The director of nursing or designee will provide education to all licensed nurses on 4/14/22. The education will include: each nurse will conduct a skin assessment of the resident when a new skin condition is reported by other disciplines (CNAs during the shower, PT/OT, etc), the notification of the physician when new or worsening skin conditions/pressure injuries are observed, all new or worsening wounds should have treatment orders documented in the treatment administration record, ensuring all orthotic devices are removed and the skin is inspected daily and documented in the resident's medical record, and physician orders should be follow. The education will be monitored by the director of nursing and/or designee to ensure compliance. Any licensed nurse not educated on 4/14/22 will receive training prior to their next scheduled shift. 3. Monitoring Interdisciplinary team, to include the medical director, will conduct a root cause analysis to determine the progress of the corrective plan and will provide a report to the quality assurance performance improvement committee to discuss recommendations and additional corrective actions. C. Removal of immediate jeopardy On 4/14/22 at 1:35 p.m., the NHA was informed that the facility's plan to remove the immediate jeopardy was accepted, based on the review of the facility's plan to address systemic issues in pressure injury management. However, deficient practice remained at H level, actual harm at a pattern. II. Facility policy and procedure The Skin Management Guidelines policy and procedure, dated March 2022, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 4/18/22 at 3:25 p.m. In pertinent part, it read: -Skin alterations and pressure injuries are evaluated and documented by the licensed nurse. -Body audits are completed by the licensed nurse daily for patients with pressure injuries and documented on the TAR (treatment administration record); new findings are documented in the progress notes. -The Pressure Ulcer Scale for Healing (PUSH Tool) is used to document the healing status of pressure injuries. It is initiated upon identification of a pressure injury and is updated weekly by the wound team during wound rounds until wound heals. -Wound rounds are completed weekly on pressure injuries and complex wounds. IV. Resident #6-Multiple failures in assessment, monitoring and care, contributing to the development of pressure injuries that worsened. A. Resident #6 status Resident #6, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility 11/22/2017. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, venous insufficiency, diabetes type 2, and acquired absence of right foot. The 12/23/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. He had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. He required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. He was at risk of developing pressure injuries and had no pressure injuries at the time of admission. He had pressure reducing devices for his bed. He was marked as not having any functional limitations in his arms or legs. Record review revealed that due to the absence of his right foot, the resident wore orthopedic boots for mobility and had done so since admission. The Braden scale assessment on 12/23/21 revealed a score of 18, indicating mild risk for pressure injuries. B. Resident interview and observations Resident #6 was interviewed on on 4/12/22 at 12:10 p.m. Resident #6 was lying in bed on his back. He was displaying constant involuntary movement of his arms and legs. The resident had Prevalon boots on both of his legs. The stump of the right leg was partially sticking out of the Prevalon boot due to continuous involuntary movements. A large (about 7 cm by 2 cm) scab on the upper shin was rubbing against the strings of the boot. The Prevalon boot on the resident's left leg had visible curlex covering most of the ankle. Four toes with multiple black scabs on top of each toe were sticking out of the boot. Space between the toes was packed with red to black debris, possibly skin. There was no visible space between the toes. Resident #6 said his right foot was amputated a while ago and since then, he had been wearing custom made boots on both legs for ambulation. A few weeks ago, his left boot got modified and it was at about this time he started to develop wounds on his left foot. He said his wounds were discovered during a physical therapy session with an outside provider. He said the wound started as a small area and later deteriorated to a large wound. He said his wound dressings were not changed routinely and day and evening nurses would say the dressings were scheduled to be done during the night shift. However, the night shift nurses would not change the dressings either. He said he was seen by an outside physician for wound care at least once a week and that was almost the only time his dressings were changed. He said the lack of wound care in the facility contributed to the deterioration of his wounds and he was hospitalized a few weeks ago with cellulitis. He said since he returned from the hospital, the wound care in the facility had not improved and nurses continued to skip dressing changes. C. Wound care observation Wound care observations were conducted on 4/13/22 at 11:41 a.m. in the presence of licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 and the unit manager (UM). -Left leg: LPN #1 removed the velcro strip on the left Prevalon boot and opened it up. Upon opening, a large wound on the lateral side of the shin was observed. The wound was stuck to the inside of the Prevalon boot and saturated with red bloody drainage.The wound was about 3 cm by 6 cm with clear to bright red fluid seeping through its entire surface. The ankle was completely wrapped in curlex. The curlex on the heel area had a large black to red stain extending through the entire heel. It was partially dry and partially wet. The wet section of the curlex saturated the Prevalon boot and stained it with red to black drainage. Removal of the curlex revealed several foam dressings on the side and the top on the ankle. The foam dressings were saturated in dark red drainage and no longer were sticking to the tissue. The foam dressing on the heel was dated 4/12/22. [NAME] xeroform dressings were removed together with foam dressings, and revealed multiple open areas covering the entire ankle with the largest open area covering the entire bridge of the foot. All open areas were seeping clear to pink drainage. The entire area on the heel presented with unstageable black wet eschar. The tissue between the wounds was cleaned with skin prep solution. Xeroform dressing was applied to open areas. Treatment for the heel was conducted per physician orders. The rest of the ankle and open areas were covered by ABD pads (absorbent multi-layer pads) and curlex. E. Record review-Record review revealed multiple failures in assessment, monitoring, care planning and treatment, contributing to the development of pressure injuries that worsened, became infected, and required hospitalization. 1. Failure to properly assess and care plan Resident #6's risk for pressure injuries prior to orthopedic boot modification. a. Record review revealed the resident experienced trauma, the potential for pressure injuries and wounds in January 2022 and February. There was insufficient documentation that the resident's injuries and potential for injuries were assessed, monitored, and treated. According to a skin progress note 11/30/21, wound care physician (WCP) #1 rounded on patient on left skin tear and per his observations, resident did not have any skin tears or wounds. There were no additional skin/progress notes until 1/18/22. However, on 1/18/22, a skin/progress note documented resident acquired traumatic skin tear to left shin (2 cm by 1.6 cm). No redness or irritation of surrounding skin. Care plan in place to promote healing and to prevent additional ulceration and infections. Treatment orders were to clean with normal saline, and to apply foam dressing daily. The treatment administration record (TAR) for January 2022 revealed the resident had an order in place to apply skin prep to bilateral heels and left plantar (bottom foot) for prophylaxis every third day. The order was discontinued on 4/8/22 (during survey). The resident also had an order in place to use a leg elevating device for the left leg while in bed, to make sure the left heel was floating. The order read to cover the device with absorbent pad due to wound drainage. The order was consistently signed by nurses three times a day, and was discontinued on 4/11/22 (during survey). Yet, the care plan for skin integrity, initiated on 11/22/17 and revised 1/4/22, while noting the resident's risks associated with immobility and incontinence, did not address skin tears or his use of orthopedic devices on his feet. Further, there was no mention of a wound on the left heel on the TAR, in progress/skin notes or care plan in January 2022. 2. Record review revealed the resident received new orthopedic boots in February 2022. Although skin breakdown was documented thereafter, record review revealed no planned interventions to monitor the resident's lower extremities to prevent his skin breakdown from worsening. On 2/11/22, the resident was seen by a physical therapist (PT), outside of the facility, who documented in her notes that the resident received his new boots and has been wearing them for the last two months. He had no problems on the right leg. On the left leg he had several areas that have broken down skin with some wounds. Resident said the wounds were discovered at the wound care clinic that he went to and dressing was put on at that time. He had two areas on his shin that were open and appeared to be shear type areas from the front of the boot, and several other areas. On 2/15/22, a wound clinic note mentioned the resident had multiple open wounds to left leg. A total of four open areas were documented, two on the ankle and two on the shin. All open areas were measured less than 1 cm, with granulation tissue and small serosanguinous drainage. Recommendations included to maintain wound care appointments and notify the clinic of any changes to wounds. On 2/17/22, the wound clinic note documented a total of two wounds on the left lower leg. Wound #1 was on the left plantar side and wound #2 was on the left upper ankle. Both wounds measured less than 1 cm. Recommendations included to clean both wounds with wound cleanser, apply skin prep to peri wound, and apply optifoam. In addition, off-loading and taking shoes off during the day. On 2/24/22 wound clinic note documented wound #1 had thick serosanguinous drainage with foul odor. The wound was beefy red with well defined edges, measured 1 cm by 0.5 cm, and appeared to be pressure related. TAR review for February 2022 revealed the resident received: - two treatments to right shin skin tear on 2/1 and 2/2. The order was discontinued after 2/2/22; -skin prep to bilateral heels at bedtime every third day; -leg elevating device for left heel since last month. Notwithstanding documentation of the resident's wounds, review of the resident's care plan for skin integrity revealed no update to ensure daily monitoring of the resident's feet and no documentation in the progress notes that showed staff was assessing the resident's skin under the orthopedic boots. Further, there were no additional orders to address the wounds that were documented in the wound clinic notes. 3. Record review revealed the facility failed to consistently assess and monitor the resident's feet, as well as consistently treat the resident's skin breakdown, contributing to new wounds, infection, hospitalization, loss of mobility and left leg cellulitis. On 3/1/22, the resident attended a physical therapy session with an outside provider, who documented the following findings: old left shin wound is healed, however new wounds are on left dorsum of the foot near ankle. On 3/1/22, the wound clinic noted the resident had a wound on his right foot, measuring less than 1 cm, beefy red, pressure point related to boot. The wound notes did not mention the left leg. On 3/3/22 the wound clinic note documented the resident had wound #1 on his left foot, the wound measured less than 1 cm and was a skin breakdown in type. Treatment included to clean the wound and apply foam dressing. On 3/7/22, the wound clinic note read: we did not see much of anything on his left leg, except for an abrasion on his left upper leg from the boot that he had on. On 3/10/22, the resident attended a physical therapy session with an outside provider. The resident was not able to participate in therapy and said he did not feel great today. He shared with the therapist that nurses at the facility were not attending the areas on his feet. The PT inspected the left leg and observed left heel open area with bloody drainage on the sock and heel. The PT documented, the open area approximately near the area that the orthotic insert may be rubbing with the heel lift that was put in the boot on 3/8/22. PT notified the wound clinic and replaced his orthopedic boot with a large walking boot. On 3/10/22, a progress note by the facility nurse documented that she received a call from the wound clinic that the resident had pressure ulcers on his legs. She received an order for wound care treatments and completed an incident report. On 3/11/22, a progress/skin note by the facility nurse revealed the resident had two wounds. Wound #1 was on the left heel measuring 1.5 cm by 1.6 cm by 0.1 cm., Wound #2 located on the left shin and measuring 2 cm by 2 cm by 0.1 cm with serosanguinous drainage present. Report was received from the wound clinic indicating the pressure ulcer was a result of adjustment made to the boot. Two care plans were initiated 3/11/22. One documented the resident had an open wound on front of left lower leg related to orthopedic boots. The goal was to provide treatment for healing and keep it free from infection. Interventions include administering treatments per physician order, and applying Prevalon boot at night while in bed. The other care plan documented the resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer on the left heel related to orthopedic boot. Interventions included to administer treatment per physician orders and complete daily body audit. However, the walking boot that the resident now was using on his left leg after it was provided by therapy 3/10/22 was not mentioned in progress notes, TAR or the resident's care plan. There was no evidence that proper placement and care was completed. On 3/13/22, a progress/skin note by the facility nurse documented the same wound observations and measurements as above. Even though wound care treatment orders were initiated by the facility on 3/11/22 (after the wounds were discovered during the PT session on 3/10/22), notes from therapy sessions indicated skin assessments, monitoring and the treatments were not consistently completed by facility staff. Specifically: On 3/15/22, the resident attended the next scheduled therapy session. During the session, the nurse in the clinic was asked to assess his left heel. When (the nurse) took off the sock, a long piece of skin came with it. Patient's sock was covered in serosanguinous foul smelling drainage. The wound bed was red, and took up the entirety of the heel. The shin wound started to open up. A new wound was discovered on the back of the left calf. Resident #6 was sent to the PCP's clinic and seen by the nurse practitioner at that time due to a rapid change of condition. Blood tests and urine work were completed. On 3/17/22 during a physical therapy session, resident was not able to participate in ambulatory (walking) exercise due to a wound on the left heel. On 3/17/22, the resident was assessed in a wound care clinic; two wounds were observed. -Wound #1 located on the left heel: dressing was rolled up and it was saturated with serous drainage. Unstageable black eschar [was] covering most of the wound bed. Full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough and eschar in the wound bed. Treatments included to cleanse the left heel with wound cleanser or normal saline. Pat dry, and apply mepilex dressing. Change daily and off-load. -Wound #2 located on the left lower extremity below the knee and was caused by velcro from the walking boot. The wound was healing. Treatment order included to clean with wound cleanser and apply foam dressing. -The measurements for both wounds were not recorded on the notes. On 3/21/22, the resident attended a scheduled wound care clinic visit, new ulcerations on the left foot were noted. The exam revealed [O]bvious edema occurring in the left extremity that was not noticed at last visit. -Wound #1 Plantar (on the sole) posterior (back) aspect of the left calcaneus (heel) shows an unstageable pressure injury. Devitalized tissue around the site with large eschar formation in the center. Measurements of the wound were not included in the notes. -Wound #2 was very large unstageable pressure injury to the left heel caused by the boot. The wound was measuring 7.5 cm by 11 cm., with poorly defined wound edges and macerated moist peeling skin around it. Treatment consisted of sharp debridement, the area was cleaned and new dressing was applied. The wrap was applied to the left leg as well to control edema. Facility was [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were established ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the possible development and transmission of Coronavirus (COVID-19) and other communicable diseases and infections. Record review revealed the facility has been in outbreak status since late December 2021. Specifically, the facility was in outbreak status as of 12/23/21 when a staff member tested positive for COVID-19. On 12/27/21, another staff member tested positive for COVID-19. Thereafter, the following staff tested positive for COVID: one positive staff member (1/3/22), two positive staff members (1/11/22), one positive staff member (1/14/22), one positive staff member (1/20/22), two positive staff members (1/21/22), one positive staff member (2/15/22), one positive staff member (2/16/22), one positive staff member (3/8/22), one positive staff member (3/21/22), two positive staff members (3/22/22), two positive staff members (3/25/22), one positive member (3/29/22), one positive staff member (4/3/22), and one positive staff member (4/5/22). The current line listing on 4/6/22, showed 13 residents had tested positive for COVID-19. Results from the 4/8/22 tests showed two residents were positive. Results from the 4/12/22 test results included an additional five residents were positive. Results from the 4/18/22 revealed another three residents testing positive. Observations, record review and staff interviews, from 4/6/22 through 4/19/22, revealed multiple and repeated failures in the facility's infection control program. This created an immediate jeopardy situation with the likelihood of serious harm due to the potential for further transmission of the highly infectious COVID-19 virus to residents throughout the facility, staff, and others, if not corrected immediately. Specifically: -The facility failed to follow the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) outbreak testing guidance, beginning on 12/23/21, to routinely test staff bi-weekly while in outbreak status, creating a situation for the transmission of highly infectious COVID-19. Cross-reference F886L. -The facility failed to ensure staff properly wore personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the facility and when caring for residents in isolation rooms. -The facility failed to ensure staff followed proper hand hygiene procedures for themselves and for the residents. -The facility failed to ensure equipment was sanitized between residents and dining room tables were cleaned properly prior to the next meal. -The facility failed to ensure resident rooms were properly cleaned. Cross-reference F886 and F888. Findings include: I. The facility's COVID-19 status On 4/6/22, upon entry into the facility, the facility had the following confirmed positive cases of COVID-19: 13 residents in isolation; four residents in isolation who were roommates of residents who had tested positive; and nine positive staff members since 3/8/22. II. Immediate Jeopardy A. Findings of Immediate Jeopardy Record review revealed the facility has been in outbreak status since late December 2021. Specifically, the facility was in outbreak status as of 12/23/21 when a staff member tested positive for COVID-19. On 12/27/21, another staff member tested positive for COVID-19. Thereafter, the following staff tested positive for COVID: one positive staff member (1/3/22), two positive staff members (1/11/22), one positive staff member (1/14/22), one positive staff member (1/20/22), two positive staff members (1/21/22), one positive staff member (2/15/22), one positive staff member (2/16/22), one positive staff member (3/8/22), one positive staff member (3/21/22), two positive staff members (3/22/22), two positive staff members (3/25/22), one positive member (3/29/22), one positive staff member (4/3/22), and one positive staff member (4/5/22). The facility has had the following number of COVID positive residents since January 2022. Specifically, COVID positive residents were identified as follows: three residents (1/11/22), one resident (1/11/22), one resident (3/11/22), two residents (3/15/22), two residents (3/18/22), four residents (3/22/22), one resident (3/23/22), four residents (3/25/22), one resident (3/29/22), one resident (3/31/22), one resident (4/1/22), one resident (4/2/22), three residents (4/5/22), and two residents (4/8/22). Thereafter, during the survey, there were five residents positive on 4/12/22 and another three residents on 4/18/22. Observations, record review and staff interviews, from 4/6/22 through 4/19/22, revealed multiple and repeated failures in the facility's infection control program, including the facility's failure to follow outbreak testing guidance, failure to properly and appropriately use PPE and perform staff and resident hand hygiene, failure to clean equipment and sanitize the dining room tables using proper technique, and failure to properly clean resident rooms. The above failures in the facility's infection control program created an immediate jeopardy situation with the likelihood of serious harm and the potential for further transmission of the highly infectious COVID-19 virus to residents throughout the facility, staff, and others, if not corrected immediately. B. Facility notice of immediate jeopardy On 4/12/22 at 7:43 p.m. the nursing home administrator (NHA) was notified that the failures identified above in infection control created an immediate jeopardy situation that placed all residents in the facility at risk for serious harm (COVID-19). C. Facility plan to remove immediate jeopardy On 4/14/22 p.m. the NHA provided a plan to remove the immediate jeopardy. The plan read: Observations and monitoring of PPE usage (which included N95 respirator masks, eye protection, gowns and gloves) and handwashing was conducted by members of the interdisciplinary team (department managers) during the overnight shift on 4/12/22. On 4/12/22, the door code was changed by the maintenance director on the service hall door and a sign posted for all staff to enter the facility through the front door of the facility only to ensure screening is being conducted for every staff member prior to starting their shift and entering resident areas. The screening will be conducted by the supervisor on duty or receptionist and will ensure each staff member has donned an N95 respirator mask and eye protection prior to entering a resident area. All resident equipment was disinfected with Eco Lab's Peroxide Multi-Surface Cleaner disinfectant on 4/12/22 by the interdisciplinary team (department managers). All dining tables were disinfected with Eco Lab's Peroxide Multi-Surface Cleaner disinfectant on 4/12/22 by the interdisciplinary team. Housekeeping Supervisor or designee will observe for proper cleaning of the dining room tables after each meal, every shift. Housekeeping Supervisor or designee will monitor through audits the observation completed for proper cleaning of the dining room tables after each meal, every shift. Education with return demonstration was completed on 4/12/22 to 52 out of 71 total facility staff members regarding the facility policies and procedures for PPE use, including the requirement for N95 respirator masks and eye protection to be worn in all resident areas, the procedures for the donning and doffing of PPE, discarding single-use gowns after each use, sanitization of eye protection, proper handwashing procedures, equipment sanitization in between resident use, and providing residents with hand hygiene prior to meals. All staff will complete the education with return demonstration prior to the start of their next scheduled shift. The director of nursing and/or designee will track and monitor each staff member who has received or not yet received the training to ensure compliance. Education was started on 4/12/22 with the housekeeping staff regarding the disinfecting of dining room tables after each meal, performing hand hygiene in between resident rooms when delivering linen and personal laundry and performing hand hygiene prior to donning and after doffing gloves. Education will be provided to new staff during orientation. The education for all the housekeeping staff will be completed by 4/13/22. The director of nursing and/or designee will monitor facility staff for infection control practices 3 times every shift and on the spot education with return demonstration will be provided upon a negative observation. The interdisciplinary team to include the medical director will conduct a root cause analysis to determine the progress of the corrective action and will provide a report to the quality performance improvement committee to discuss recommendations and additional C. Removal of immediate jeopardy On 4/14/22 at 1:00 p.m. the NHA was notified that the immediate jeopardy was lifted based on the facility's plan to address the immediate jeopardy (see above). However, deficient practice remained at F level, widespread with the potential for more than minimal harm. II. Failure to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program A. The facility failed to follow CMS and CDC outbreak testing guidance, as well as the Residential Care Facility (RCF) Comprehensive Mitigation Guidance, revised on 4/8/22, to routinely test all staff bi-weekly, creating a situation for the transmission of highly infectious COVID-19. Cross-reference F886. Professional reference: Consistent with CMS and CDC testing guidance, the Residential Care Facility (RCF) Comprehensive Mitigation Guidance, revised on 4/8/22, read: When one or more positive tests are identified in a resident or health care professional (HCP) (regardless of vaccination status), the facility moves to outbreak testing and following additional response measures outlined below. -Asymptomatic HCP (including ancillary non-medical services providers) and residents who are up to date with all recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses should test twice weekly for SARS-CoV-2 using a lab-based PCR test. If HCP work infrequently at the facility, the lab-based PCR test should be performed within three days before their shift. -A HCP who tests positive, regardless of vaccination status, should be excluded from work and instructed to isolate at home. HCP should self-report positive results to any additional employer so that disease control measures can be implemented if necessary. Contrary to the above testing guidance, the facility failed to test all staff following notification of an outbreak as of 12/23/21. Specifically: -A line list, dated 4/12/22, was provided by the consultant director of nursing (DON) on 4/12/22 at 3:15 p.m. It documented that only 18 staff members had been tested for COVID-19 that day (4/12/22), out of 72 total staff members who worked at the facility. -A line list for Friday, 4/8/22, documented 32 staff members had a COVID-19 PCR test out of 72 total staff members. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the staff who were not PCR tested had been POC (point of care) tested (alternative testing that does not require sending the test to the lab) until the next testing date on 4/12/22. -A line list for Tuesday, 4/5/22, documented 22 staff members had a COVID-19 PCR test out of 72 total staff members. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the staff who were not PCR tested had been POC tested until the next testing date on 4/8/22. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the staff members who were not tested had been contacted, provided education, been removed from the schedule, or had disciplinary action to ensure compliance with the testing requirements. Moreover, the facility failed to ensure staff were conducting self-testing in accordance with testing guidelines and in a manner to prevent the spread of infection. Observations showed staff members failed to swab their nose with five circular motions in each nostril to ensure the testing was effective and would produce an accurate result. Staff failed to complete appropriate hand hygiene during and after the testing process and staff interviews showed that not all staff were aware of the testing day and admitted to not completing a PCR test. The last PCR test results were on 4/8/22, and 22 out of 70 staff were tested. Ten staff were within the 90 days of testing positive for COVID-19 and the facility had two staff members with religious exemptions. As a result of testing, three residents tested positive for COVID-19 and upon observation, a fourth resident had been placed in isolation after testing positive for COVID-19. B. The facility failed to ensure staff properly wore personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the facility and when caring for residents in isolation rooms. And, the facility failed to ensure staff followed proper hand hygiene procedures for themselves and for the residents. On 4/12/22 at 10:40 a.m., CNA #3 was interviewed. He said he had been working at the facility for a month and the facility had been in outbreak status the entire time. He said he had not been told by nursing management at the facility to wear a N95 respirator mask or eye protection until the survey process started. He said he had worn a surgical mask since his first day at the facility. CNA #3 said he said he had observed housekeeping staff entering COVID-19 positive rooms and not donning any PPE. He said when he arrived in the morning, the night shift never wore any masks or eye protection. 1. Professional References and facility infection control manual PPE: CDC and CMS Guidance on PPE when COVID-19 has been identified in the building: The CDC Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic (updated 2/2/22), retrieved on 4/22/22 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html, read in pertinent part, HCP (health care provider) who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to standard precautions and use a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, gown, gloves, and eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face). Facilities should provide instruction, before visitors enter the patient's room, on hand hygiene, limiting surfaces touched, and use of PPE according to current facility policy. According to the CDC guidance, Use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) When Caring for Patients with Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19, dated 2/2/22, retrieved on 4/22/22 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html: -PPE must be donned correctly before entering the patient area. - PPE must remain in place and be worn correctly for the duration of work in potentially contaminated areas. PPE should not be adjusted. - Face masks should be extended under the chin. - Both your mouth and nose should be protected . The facility infection control manual received on 4/6/22 from the NHA at a sister facility (NHA#1), read in pertinent part, If a center has the capability to accept a patient/resident who requires droplet/airborne transmission-based precautions and the patient/resident can be placed in a non-negative pressure room with the door kept closed with employees wearing at least an N95 fit tested respirator, as in the case of a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19, the employees caring for the patient/resident are required to be fit tested for an N95 or equivalent respirator before entering the patient's/resident's room. The Strategies for Optimizing the Supply of Isolation Gowns (updated 1/21/21, retrieved on 4/27/22 from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/ppe-strategy/isolation-gowns.html, Regarding Conventional Capacity Strategies, reads in pertinent part: In general, CDC does not recommend the use of more than one isolation gown at a time by HCP when providing care to patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Use isolation gown alternatives that offer equivalent or higher protection. Nonsterile, disposable patient isolation gowns, which are used for routine patient care in healthcare settings, are appropriate for use by HCP when caring for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. In times of gown shortages, surgical gowns should be prioritized for surgical and other sterile procedures . Once gown availability returns to normal, healthcare facilities should promptly resume conventional practices . The director of nursing from a sister facility (mobile DON) was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:47 p.m. The mobile DON said the facility was in conventional practice, which indicated they had no shortages of N 95 masks, surgical masks and gowns. Hand hygiene: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Hand Hygiene updated 1/30/2020, retrieved on 4/22/22 from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/hand-hygiene.html, revealed in part, Hand hygiene is an important part of the U.S. response to the international emergence of COVID-19. Practicing hand hygiene, which includes the use of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) or handwashing, is a simple yet effective way to prevent the spread of pathogens and infections in healthcare settings. CDC recommendations reflect this important role. The exact contribution of hand hygiene to the reduction of direct and indirect spread of coronaviruses between people is currently unknown. However, hand washing mechanically removes pathogens, and laboratory data demonstrate that ABHR formulations in the range of alcohol concentrations recommended by CDC, inactivate SARS-CoV-2. ABHR effectively reduces the number of pathogens that may be present on the hands of healthcare providers after brief interactions with patients or the care environment. The CDC recommends using ABHR with greater than 60% ethanol or 70% isopropanol in healthcare settings. Unless hands are visibly soiled, an alcohol-based hand rub is preferred over soap and water in most clinical situations due to evidence of better compliance compared to soap and water. Hand rubs are generally less irritating to hands and are effective in the absence of a sink. The facility infection control manual received on 4/6/22 from the NHA at a sister facility (NHA#1), read in pertinent part, Standard precaution principles are designed to reduce the risk of transmitting microorganisms from both recognized unrecognized sources of infection in healthcare settings. Standard precautions are designed to protect both healthcare personnel and patients from contact with infectious agents. Standard precautions include: -Hand hygiene (handwashing with soap and water or use of an alcohol-based sanitizer) before and after patient contact and after contact with the immediate patient care environment. -Perform hand hygiene between tasks and procedures on the same patient to prevent cross-contamination of different body sites, if necessary. -Wash hands or use alcohol-based hand sanitizer upon completion of patient contact and before caring for another patient -Perform hand hygiene before touching a patient, performing an invasive procedure or manipulating an invasive device. -Perform hand hygiene after contact with patient's intact or non-intact skin, after touching items or surfaces in the immediate care environment, even if you did not touch the patient. 2. Observations revealed staff failed to properly wear and dispose of PPE and perform hand hygiene to prevent the transmission of infectious COVID-19. a. Observations 4/6/22 - Hand hygiene failures (i) During a continuous observation on the 200 unit on 4/6/22 starting at 12:04 p.m. and ending at 12:44 p.m., the following was observed: -At 12:04 p.m. the lunch meal cart was delivered to the 200 unit nursing station. -At 12:16 p.m. CNA #3 opened the cart and started passing trays. He donned gloves and entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. He did not perform hand hygiene prior to donning the gloves. The CNA set up the resident's meal, asked her if she needed anything else and left the room. With the same gloved hands, he returned to the meal cart and picked up another tray for the same room. He entered the room and delivered the meal to the resident in bed B. He grabbed the bed controls and raised the head of the bed, then took the lids off the beverages and poured the beverages into a sippy cup. He set up her meal and left the room. He had not offered either resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] hand hygiene prior to the start of their meal. The CNA doffed his gloves, threw them into the trash, reached into his pocket, pulled out a new pair of gloves and donned the gloves. He did not perform hand hygiene prior to donning the gloves. The CNA returned to the meal cart, picked up another tray and entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. He delivered the meal tray to bed A. He placed the tray on the over bed table and left the room. He did not offer hand hygiene to the resident before leaving the room. He doffed his gloves, reached into his pocket and donned new gloves. He did not perform hand hygiene prior to donning the gloves. The CNA then entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and walked to bed B. He delivered the meal tray, took off the plate cover and the covers for the beverages. He did not offer the resident hand hygiene. He left the room and returned to the meal cart and picked up the meal tray for the resident in bed A. He placed the meal tray in front of the resident. He left the room, doffed his gloves, went to the nursing cart and took a handful of gloves and put them in his pocket. He donned a new pair of gloves. He did not perform hand hygiene prior to donning the gloves. -An unidentified CNA took a meal tray from the meal cart and entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. She did not offer the resident hand hygiene prior to the resident's meal. (ii) During a continuous observation on the 200 unit on 4/6/22 beginning at 12:15 p.m. and ending at 12:29 p.m., the following was observed: -CNA #2 delivered a meal tray to room [ROOM NUMBER], removed personal items from the bedside table, provided set-up meal assistance for the resident and upon exiting the room, she did not perform hand hygiene, but rather, went back to the food cart for another tray; -CNA #2 delivered two meal trays to bed A and B in room [ROOM NUMBER]. She did not perform hand hygiene upon exiting the room; and -CNA #2 put on a gown and gloves and entered room [ROOM NUMBER] to deliver the last meal tray. She did not sanitize her hands before donning her gloves. b. Observations 4/7/22 - Hand hygiene failures On 4/7/22 at 9:55 a.m. certified nurse aide (CNA) #4 failed to perform hand hygiene after doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) and upon leaving room [ROOM NUMBER], a Covid 19 isolation room. On 4/7/22 beginning at 9:45 a.m. and ending at 10:43 a.m., an unidentified CNA entered numerous resident rooms without performing hand hygiene before entering or after exiting. Observations were as follows: -The CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and removed the resident's breakfast tray. No hand hygiene was performed before entering the room or after exiting. -The CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] with a pen and paper to obtain the resident's lunch order. No hand hygiene was performed before entering the room or after exiting. -The CNA then entered and exited room [ROOM NUMBER] quickly, without performing hand hygiene, and immediately entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. The CNA exited room [ROOM NUMBER] with the resident's meal tray and returned to the room to obtain the resident's lunch order. No hand hygiene was performed before entering the room or after exiting. -The CNA entered and exited room [ROOM NUMBER]. No hand hygiene was performed. -The CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] with vital sign equipment. No hand hygiene or cleaning of vital sign equipment was performed. -The CNA entered and exited room [ROOM NUMBER] without performing hand hygiene. -The same CNA entered room [ROOM NUMBER] with vital sign equipment. No hand hygiene was performed after exiting room [ROOM NUMBER]. -The CNA then entered room [ROOM NUMBER]. No hand hygiene was performed before entering or after exiting room [ROOM NUMBER]. c. Observations 4/10/22, 4/11/22 and 4/12/22 - PPE and hand hygiene failures (100, 200 and 400 units) On 4/10/22 at 11:34 p.m. CNA #9 was observed in a resident area on the 400 unit, in the hallway near resident rooms, without wearing eye protection. On 4/10/22 at 11:34 p.m., upon entering the 200 nursing station, registered nurse (RN) #4 was observed putting a surgical mask on her face. She was not wearing a N95 respirator mask or eye protection. She said she was aware the facility was in outbreak status. She then doffed the surgical mask and donned a N95 respirator mask and goggles. On 4/10/22 at 11:35 p.m., RN #4 was observed at the nurses' station on the 200 unit. Her surgical mask was below her nose and mouth. An unidentified CNA also was observed in the area, wearing a surgical mask below her nose which was changed to a N95 at 11:53 p.m. On 4/10/22 at 11:38 p.m. an unidentified nurse and an unidentified CNA were observed at the 100 unit nursing station without a mask and face shield. Upon prompting, they began to don a N95 respirator mask and a face shield. On 4/11/22 at 10:30 a.m., CNA #11 was observed sitting at the 400 unit nurses' desk. She was not wearing a face mask. She said she had just sat down and she had to get a drink of water. She said a break room was available to use when she needed to remove her mask, although she had not gone there to remove her mask. On 4/11/22 at 11:12 a.m., the maintenance director (MTD) was in his office across from the 400 unit nurses' station. He did not have his mask on and his door was wide open. Residents walked by his office. At 11:30 a.m., he continued to sit at his desk with his mask off. On 4/11/22 beginning at 11:25 a.m., licensed practical nurse ( LPN) #4 was observed passing medications and providing care to residents wearing a N95 mask with the straps cut off and covered with a cloth mask. On 4/11/22 at 1:15 p.m., an unidentified laundry worker was observed to enter resident rooms on the 400 unit without sanitizing prior to entering rooms and upon exit. She was touching the doors, and removing hangers and other laundry from the rooms. On 4/12/22 at 9:05 a.m. an unidentified housekeeper was observed in the hallway of the 100 hall. Her mask was below her nose and mouth. d. Observation 4/11 and 4/12/22 on the 200 unit - isolation rooms - PPE and hand hygiene failures. On 4/11/22 at 10:32 a.m., LPN #2 was observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for COVID-19. She put on a gown, gloves, and booties. She then took off the gloves and put new gloves on without performing hand hygiene. She disposed of the gown, booties, and gloves in the room prior to exiting. However, she did not sanitize her face shield upon exiting the isolation room and returning to the nurses' station. On 4/11/22 at 10:43 a.m., LPN #2 was observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for potential norovirus. She put on a gown, booties, and gloves. She disposed of the gown, booties, and gloves in the room prior to exiting. However, she again did not sanitize her face shield. She also did not perform hand hygiene upon exiting the room. She returned to the nurses' station to chart. On 4/11/22 at 10:45 a.m., CNA #8 was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for presumptive COVID-19. She had a gown, gloves, N95 mask, and a face shield on. She was observed pulling down her mask to speak to the resident. On 4/11/22 at 10:57 a.m., an unidentified CNA was observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for COVID-19. She put on gloves, a gown, then booties. She did not change gloves or perform hand hygiene after touching her shoes to put the booties on. On 4/11/22 at 11:11 a.m., CNA #8 was observed leaving room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room. She disposed of the gown and gloves in the room. She replaced her mask in the hallway. She did not perform hand hygiene after leaving the isolation room. On 4/11/22 at 11:49 a.m., the director of rehabilitation (DOR) was observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for presumptive COVID-19. He put on a gown and gloves. He disposed of his gown and gloves inside the room. However, upon leaving the room, he did not sanitize his face shield or perform hand hygiene. On 4/11/22 at 12:18 p.m. CNA #8 was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for COVID-19. Her PPE gown was not tied and was falling off her shoulders. Upon exiting the room, she hung her gown in the room and stated she would use it again. She left the room, without sanitizing her face shield or performing hand hygiene. -CNA #8 then picked up a tray for room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for presumptive COVID-19. She entered the room and put on a used gown which she did not tie. The gown kept falling off while she was in the room. She did not put gloves on. She helped the resident set up the lunch tray, but did not encourage hand hygiene for the resident prior to eating. CNA #8 left her used gown in the room. She did not sanitize her face shield or perform hand hygiene upon leaving the room. On 4/11/22 at 12:25 p.m. LPN #2 put on a gown, booties, and gloves prior to entering room [ROOM NUMBER] which was an isolation room. Upon exiting the room, she disposed of the gown, booties, and gloves inside the room. She did not perform hand hygiene or sanitize her face shield upon exiting the room. On 4/11/22 at 2:18 p.m. CNA #8 entered COVID-19 isolation room [ROOM NUMBER] again, this time with a clipboard and pen. She put on the gown she had left hanging in the room earlier. She did not put on gloves. She held the clipboard and used the pen to take the resident's meal order. Thereafter, she exited the room, leaving the used gown hanging in the room. On 4/11/22 at 2:55 p.m. the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for COVID-19, activated her call light. CNA #8 knocked and opened the door. She stood in the doorway and asked the resident what she needed. A used gown was hanging on the wall. The CNA then entered the room and put on the used gown which was on the wall. She took the resident's meal order. Upon exiting the room, she hung her gown back up in the room. She then realized she had not turned off the call light. She re-entered the room and put the used gown back on but did not don gloves. Upon exiting the room, she hung up the gown. She did not sanitize her face shield. On 4/12/22 at 9:24 a.m. a small trash can was observed outside room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation room for COVID-19; it was overflowing with used PPE. On 4/12/22 at 9:34 a.m. LPN #4 was observed on the 200 unit in the hallways and entering resident rooms. While she was in the resident area, she was wearing a N95 mask with the straps cut off and covered with a cloth mask to hold the N95 in place. On 4/12/22 at 2:30 p.m. CNA #5 was observed wearing a N95 mask below her nose while sitting at the nurses' station near the 100 and 200 unit with residents in close proximity. On 4/12/22 at 7:54 p.m. LPN #5 was observed in the 200 hallway with her medication cart with a N95 mask on her chin, below her nose and mouth. On 4/12/22 at 7:59 p.m. CNA #7 was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER], an isolation for presumptive COVID-19. CNA #7 did not have a gown or gloves on. Her N95 mask was below her nose and mouth. On 4/12/22 at 8:01 p.m. an unidentified nurse was observed standing at the medication cart on the 300 unit. She was pulling medications out of the cart and checking the computer. She was not wearing a facial covering or eye protection. Upon prompting, she donned a N95 respirator mask and eye protection. Upon entering the 200 unit nursing station, LPN #3 and an unidentified CNA were observed sitting at the nursing station. The CNA was scrolling through her phone with [T
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0886 (Tag F0886)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to test staff, including individuals providing services under arrangement for Coronavirus (COVID-19). Specifically, the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to test staff, including individuals providing services under arrangement for Coronavirus (COVID-19). Specifically, the facility had been in a COVID-19 outbreak status since 12/23/21 that included positive cases for both residents and staff. The facility failed to conduct bi weekly PCR testing for all staff per the CDC and CMS guidance due to outbreak status since 12/23/21, to ensure the virus did not spread to residents within the facility. The facility failed to protect individuals, equipment and supplies, allowing individual and testing items within six feet of the testing area and each other. Observations showed staff performing testing in front of the testing supplies, therefore not protecting the testing equipment from being contaminated. The testing area was shared by two individuals with the testing occurring within six feet of the individuals and their desk area. In addition, the facility failed to ensure staff were conducting self-testing in accordance with testing guidelines. Observations showed staff members failed to swab their nose with five circular motions in each nostril to ensure the testing was effective and would produce an accurate result. Nursing management, in the room during the testing process, failed to instruct and provide education to facility staff members who were testing themselves incorrectly. The facility staff failed to complete appropriate hand hygiene during and after the testing process and staff interviews showed that not all staff were aware of the testing day and admitted to not completing a PCR test. The last PCR test results were on 4/8/22 and 22 out of 70 staff were tested. Ten staff were within the 90 days of testing positive for COVID-19 and the facility had two staff members with religious exemptions. As a result of testing, three residents tested positive for COVID-19 and upon observation, a fourth resident had been placed in isolation after testing positive for COVID-19. In addition, observations revealed numerous infection control breaches which led to the facility's failure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Cross reference F880 (Infection control), F888 (COVID-19 vaccination), F835 (administration), F837 (governing body) and F867 (QAPI). Findings include: I. Immediate Jeopardy A. Findings of immediate jeopardy The facility had been in a COVID-19 outbreak status since 12/23/21 that included positive cases for both residents and staff. The facility failed to conduct bi weekly PCR testing for all staff per the CDC and CMS guidance due to outbreak status since 12/23/21, to ensure the virus did not spread to residents within the facility. The facility failed to protect individuals, equipment and supplies, allowing individuals and testing items within six feet of the testing area and each other. Observations showed staff performing testing in front of the testing supplies, therefore not protecting the testing equipment from being contaminated. The testing area was shared by two individuals with the testing occurring within six feet of the individuals and their desk area. The facility staff failed to complete appropriate hand hygiene during and after the testing process and staff interviews showed that not all staff were aware of the testing day and admitted to not completing a PCR test. The last PCR test results were on 4/8/22 and 22 out of 70 staff were tested. Ten staff were within the 90 days of testing positive for COVID-19 and the facility had two staff members with religious exemptions. As a result of testing, three residents tested positive for COVID-19 and upon observation at the facility, a fourth resident had been placed in isolation after testing positive for COVID-19. In addition, observations revealed numerous infection control breaches which led to the facility's failure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Cross-reference F880 and F888. B. Imposition of immediate jeopardy On 4/12/22 at 7:43 p.m., the nursing home administrator (NHA) and the regional nursing consultant (RNC) were notified of the immediate jeopardy situation created by the facility's failure to conduct COVID-19 testing as directed by the state health department, CMS and CDC guidelines while in outbreak since 12/23/21. C. Facility plan to remove immediate jeopardy On 4/14/22 at 11:15 a.m. the facility submitted a plan to remove the immediate jeopardy. The plan to remove the immediacy read: 1. Corrective action COVID-19 POC rapid testing (point of care) was completed on 4/12/22 for 22 of 72 employees. All staff members who did not complete the mandatory testing were contacted and educated that they were not able to work their shift without completing the mandatory COVID-19 POC test. All staff will complete the COVID-19 testing prior to the start of their scheduled shift. The supervisor on duty or designee will check each staff member before the start of their shift to ensure they have been tested. The supervisor on duty will contact the director of nursing and administrator for permission to remove a staff member from the facility if they refuse to comply with the mandatory COVID-19 POC test. Employee COVID-19 PCR testing will occur on Tuesdays and Fridays in the front entrance conference room. Notices will be posted at the time clock, on the director of nursing's office door and the employee bulletin board. On Monday and Thursday, the day prior to the testing day, reminders will be sent to all staff by utilizing a text messaging system. The testing room was moved to the front entrance conference room on 4/14/22: the emergency door will be kept open during testing to provide ventilation, distancing of six feet or more will occur during the testing process, surfaces will be disinfected before, in between and after testing with Eco Lab's Peroxide Multi-Surface Cleaner disinfectant. Monitoring of testing will be completed on each testing day by the director of nursing or designee, dressed in full PPE. Education was provided to all staff on the proper testing procedures such as hand hygiene prior to and following the swab test and accepted swab techniques of five circular motions in each nostril. Education was completed on 4/12/22 and 4/13/22. Testing requirements and frequency will be based on CMS/CDC and local public health authority guidance. 2. Systemic changes Education will be provided to all new staff, including agency, on the testing day's procedures and requirements, to include the proper testing procedures such as, hand hygiene prior to and following the swab test and accepted swab techniques of five circular motions in each nostril. Education will be provided to the director of nursing and/or designee on ensuring unused testing supplies and other PPE/equipment is removed from the testing room, ensuring social distancing of six feet or more during employee testing, disinfecting testing surfaces before, in-between, and after employee testing, ensuring the emergency door in the office will remain open during testing for ventilation, and proper testing procedures are completed such as hand hygiene prior to and following the swab test and swab techniques of five circular motions in each nostril. Education will be completed on 4/12/22. The nursing home administrator or designee will monitor CDC testing requirements and public health recommendations and implement any new changes to ensure testing compliance. 3. Monitoring The director of nursing and/or designee will monitor employee testing twice per week to ensure all staff have been tested. If a staff member fails to be tested, the director of nursing will remove the employee from the schedule and discipline action will follow. The interdisciplinary team, which includes department managers, will have access to the lab results for COVID-19 testing to review both resident and staff COVID-19 test results. The team member assigned will be responsible to notify the nursing home administrator and the director of nursing to create a plan of action. Each team member will have lab result access on 4/18/22. The interdisciplinary team, to include the medical director, will conduct a root cause analysis to determine the progress of the corrective plan and will provide a report to the quality assurance performance improvement committee to discuss recommendations and additional corrective actions. D. Removal of the immediate jeopardy The NHA and DON were notified on 4/14/22 that the above plan was accepted on 4/14/22 at 12:54 p.m. and the immediate jeopardy was removed based on the facility's plan set forth above. However, deficient practice remained at F level, widespread with the potential for more than minimal harm. II. Facility policy and procedure The Obtaining Anterior Nasal Specimen, dated 2/21/22, was provided by the assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) on 4/21/22 at 4:44 p.m. It revealed, in pertinent part, Procedure steps to conduct an anterior nasal specimen collection for COVID-19: -Perform hand hygiene. -DON required PPE in the following order: gown, N-95 mask, face shield or goggles and gloves. -To collect an anterior nasal specimen: remove the swab from the package, carefully insert the swab into the nostril, using gentle rotation, push the swab until resistance is met at the level of turbinates (approximately one centimeter or half an inch into the nostril), rotate the swab five time or more against the nasal wall, slowly remove the swab from the nostril, and using the same swab, repeat the process in the other nostril. -Process the swab in accordance with manufacturer recommendations. -Discard used testing materials in a biohazard container. -Remove and discard gloves. Perform hand hygiene. [NAME] clean gloves for the next test. III. Professional reference Consistent with CMS and CDC testing guidance, the Residential Care Facility (RCF) Comprehensive Mitigation Guidance, revised on 4/8/22, documented: When one or more positive tests are identified in a resident or health care professional (HCP) (regardless of vaccination status), the facility moves to outbreak testing and following additional response measures outlined below. -Asymptomatic HCP (including ancillary non-medical services providers) and residents who are up to date with all recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses should test twice weekly for SARS-CoV-2 using a lab-based PCR test. If HCP work infrequently at the facility, the lab-based PCR test should be performed within three days before their shift. -A HCP who tests positive, regardless of vaccination status, should be excluded from work and instructed to isolate at home. HCP should self-report positive results to any additional employer so that disease control measures can be implemented if necessary. IV. Failure to ensure all staff were tested for COVID-19 during an outbreak and failure to ensure staff were testing themselves in accordance with testing guidelines to achieve an accurate result. A. Record review A sign, undated, was posted on the director of nursing's (DON's) office door indicating COVID-19 testing was on Tuesdays and Fridays in the DON's office. It documented all staff were required to be tested by 2:00 p.m. A line list, dated 4/12/22, was provided by the consultant DON on 4/12/22 at 3:15 p.m. It documented that only 18 staff members had been tested for COVID-19, that day (4/12/22), out of 72 total staff members who worked at the facility. A line list for Friday, 4/8/22, documented 32 staff members had a COVID-19 PCR test out of 72 total staff members. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the staff who were not PCR tested had been POC (point of care) tested (alternative testing that does not require sending the test to the lab) until the next testing date on 4/12/22. A line list for Tuesday, 4/5/22, documented 22 staff members had a COVID-19 PCR test out of 72 total staff members. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the staff who were not PCR tested had been POC tested until the next testing date on 4/8/22. The facility was unable to provide documentation that the staff members who were not tested had been contacted, provided education, been removed from the schedule, or had disciplinary action to ensure compliance with the testing requirements. B. Observations On 4/12/22 at 1:43 p.m., facility staff COVID-19 testing was observed. The social services assistant (SSA) getting ready to self-test in the DON office. The DON told the SSA to write his name and birth date onto the testing tube and also the bag. The DON did not provide the SSA with any other instructions. -He used the swab in a circular motion three times in each nostril. He then proceeded to place the swab in the tube and then placed the tube in the bag. He pumped the container to obtain hand sanitizer, however it made a sputtering sound, which indicated the hand sanitizer container was almost empty. -The door in the office, which led to the outside of the facility, was not open for ventilation. -The SSA left the room. The DON was informed that the SSA did not perform the COVID-19 self PCR test correctly. The DON said the swab should be twirled in a round fashion, five times in each nostril. She said he would have to return to conduct the test correctly to ensure an accurate result. At approximately 1:55 p.m. certified nurse aide (CNA) #12 came into the DON's office to conduct her COVID-19 test. The DON told her to make sure she twirled the swab in five full circles. The DON and the regional nurse manager (RNM) were in the room; they did not watch CNA #12 perform the self-test. CNA #12 swabbed each nostril four times. V. Failure to ensure the testing location followed CDC guidance for source control and failure to protect individuals, equipment and supplies, by keeping individuals and items six feet from the testing area and from each other. In addition, the failure to ensure infection control practices were observed during the testing process. A. Observations On 4/12/22 at 11:15 a.m. an unidentified housekeeping staff member was observed entering the DON's office for the COVID-19 PCR self-test. She approached the table, labeled the testing tube with her name as directed by the DON. -The DON was observed sitting at her desk, closer than six feet from the housekeeping staff member, with her face shield on the top of her head and the N95 respirator mask pulled beneath her chin. She was not wearing any other form of PPE. -The RNM was sitting at another desk in the room. She was wearing a N95 respiratory mask and a face shield. She was not wearing any other form of PPE. -The housekeeper, while performing the swab self-test, was informed by the DON she needed to turn around. The housekeeper turned to the area directly behind her. The area had boxes and packages of unopened PPE and testing supplies. She performed the swab self-test, placed the tube into a bag and then left the room. She did not perform hand hygiene after performing the test. At approximately 1:50 p.m., the SSA returned to complete the PCR test. He removed his mask and faced the DON while he did the swab test. He removed his gloves and then wiped down the table. He did not perform hand hygiene after testing. At 1:55 p.m., CNA #12 entered the DON's office to perform the COVID-19 self-test. After she was finished, she placed the swab in the tube and the tube in the bag. She did not perform hand hygiene following the self-test. VI. Staff interviews CNA #2 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 3:43 p.m. She said staff were required to be tested twice a week on Tuesdays and Fridays. She said management informed staff they needed to be tested these days via the intercom system in the facility. She said testing was done in the DON's office. She said the testing supplies were set up and she tested herself each time. She said she used the swab in each nostril for three spins. She said she then placed the swab in a vial and handed it to the manager in the office. She said she then placed her mask back on and returned to work. She said she was required to get a rapid test prior to her shift when she had COVID-19 symptoms. The staffing coordinator (SC) was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:00 p.m. She said both direct hire and agency staff were notified in orientation that COVID-19 testing days were conducted on Tuesdays and Fridays. She aid then it was the staff' s responsibility to remember to get tested. She said agency staff signed a waiver prior to starting that stated they will be tested twice a week for COVID-19. She said if management noticed agency staff was not tested, that staff member would be reviewed in a compliance call on Thursdays with the agency. If agency staff continued to not get tested, the contract was terminated by the facility. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 3:36 p.m. She said COVID-19 testing days were on Tuesdays and Fridays. She said she got a notification via the phone as a reminder to get tested. She said she tested herself in the DON's office. She said hand hygiene should be performed prior to the test. She said the swab should be put into each nostril and twirled in a circular motion for a few seconds. She said she had only been rapid tested, not PCR tested, since starting at the facility three weeks ago. LPN #1 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 3:30 p.m. She said all staff were tested twice a week for COVID-19, on Tuesdays and Fridays. She said she recently had COVID-19, so she was not required to take the test for 90 days. She said staff were notified to be tested via posted signs, in-person meetings, on the facility intercom, or a phone call. She said testing occurred in the DON's office. She said during testing, first she took off her mask, put a sticker with her name and birth date on the vial, swabbed each nostril for five seconds, put the swab in in the vial, put the vial in a biohazard bag, and then performed hand hygiene. CNA #5 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 3:26 p.m. She said testing days were on Thursday and Friday afternoons before 2 p.m. She said if she had not completed her testing, she received a call from management to get tested. She said testing was conducted in the DON's office. She said a manager was in the office and conducted the test. The DON was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 2:14 p.m. She said the facility had completed 18 PCR COVID-19 tests for facility staff members. She said every staff member should be tested by 2:00 p.m. that day. She said the facility was in outbreak and staff were required to be tested twice a week. She confirmed the facility had a lot more employees than 18. She said she had been working at the facility for four days. She said based on the documentation she had seen and observations of staff being tested, she did not feel the facility was meeting the requirement of testing the facility staff as directed by the state health department. She said the testing location was not adequate because it was located in the DON's office. She said the office contained many boxes of PPE, testing supplies and other various items and paperwork. She confirmed the testing table was located in front of her desk and did not allow for her to be distanced by six feet. She confirmed boxes of PPE, testing supplies and documents on her desk were within fewer than six feet from the testing table. She confirmed the door, which led to the outside of the facility, was not open for ventilation. She confirmed she had not worn full PPE when facility staff members were performing the COVID-19 self-test. (See above) She said she wore an N95 respirator mask and a face shield but said she and the RNM should have donned full PPE while staff were in the office, testing. The RNM was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 3:45 p.m. She said they had been able to get 22 staff members tested today. She said the facility had over 70 employees. She said she was just made aware that not all the staff in the facility had been tested. She said the facility was only conducting rapid POC testing if the staff members were showing signs and symptoms of COVID-19, not if they missed the PCR testing on Tuesdays and Fridays. She said any residents or staff members who tested positive for COVID-19 went into a tracking system. She said after the testing occurred on Tuesdays and Fridays, the facility designated person could log into the laboratory system and get the results usually within 24 to 48 hours. She said the designated person at the facility had been the DON and the NHA. She said the DON resigned and the current DON did not have access to the laboratory system to obtain the test results. She said the facility would ensure the DON would have access to the laboratory system that day, 4/12/22. She said she looked at past test results and it appeared as though the facility had not been testing all 72 staff members, which was directed by the state health department because of the facility's outbreak status. The NHA was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:44 p.m. She said she had been out for a few weeks because her COVID-19 test had come back positive. She said the facility had been in outbreak status since 12/23/21. She said the facility conducted COVID-19 testing twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays. She said the facility utilized signs posted on the DON's office and time clock, text messaging system and word of mouth to remind staff of testing days. She said the facility had been having a difficult time keeping the agency staff accountable for coming and testing. She said the facility kept track of who had not been tested and had started compliance calls with the agencies approximately four weeks ago. She said there were 72 staff members who worked at the facility and were required to be tested. She said she was aware the facility had not been in compliance with testing all of the staff. She said she did not have any documentation to indicate staff members had completed rapid POC testing if they missed the required PCR test. She said staff should not be working if they did not get tested. She said she did not know what happened, but said the previous DON was allowing the staff to continue working without being tested. She said going forward, a new plan was being put into place for education, verbal and written warnings and termination for staff who missed testing.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0888 (Tag F0888)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a COVID-19 staff vaccination process to address all facility staff, including unvaccinated staff who p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a COVID-19 staff vaccination process to address all facility staff, including unvaccinated staff who provided care, treatment and other services to facility and/or residents. Specifically, the facility failed to monitor each contracted staff member's vaccination status to ensure proper advanced PPE (personal protective equipment) strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The facility was unable to provide a listing of the vaccination status of all contracted providers/staff who enter the facility on a regular basis and provide direct care to residents. The facility was non-compliant with the requirement of 100% vaccination rate, except those exempted, because of its failure to adequately track all employees (vendors and contractors) vaccination status to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A review of the facility vaccination policy and procedure revealed the facility did not require proof of vaccination for all contracted providers, but instead, required a generalized provider company attestation agreement which indicated the provider agreed to comply with the facility's vaccination policy. Cross-reference F880 (Infection control), F886 (COVID-19 testing), F835 (Administration), F837 (Governing body) and F867 (QAPI). The facility was non-compliant with infection control practices to protect residents from contracting COVID-19. Observations on 4/6/22 to 4/12/22 showed: -Facility staff did not consistently wear N95 or equivalent respirators while engaged in resident care and in resident areas and did not follow required use of eye protection in an outbreak. -Facility staff did not perform hand hygiene appropriately in between caring for residents and tasks; - Equipment (medical and non-medical) was not sanitized in between use; -Re-use of gowns in COVID-19 positive rooms and improper donning of gowns in COVID-19 positive rooms and lack of sanitization of face shields; -Facility staff not performing hand hygiene in between rooms/residents; -Facility staff were not providing residents with hand hygiene prior to meals; and, -Facility staff were not properly cleaning tables in the dining rooms after resident use. -Facility staff were not properly cleaning resident rooms. Since 3/22/22, 18 residents have tested positive for COVID-19. Findings include: I. Immediate Jeopardy A. Findings of immediate jeopardy The facility failed to monitor each contracted staff member's vaccination status to ensure proper advanced PPE strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. During the survey, 4/6 through 4/19/22, the facility was unable to provide a listing of the vaccination status of all contracted providers/staff who enter the facility on a regular basis and provide direct care to residents. The facility was non-compliant with the requirement of 100% vaccination rate except for those exempted, because of its failure to adequately track all employees (vendors and contractors) vaccination status to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A review of the facility vaccination policy and procedure revealed the facility did not require proof of vaccination for all contracted providers, but instead, required a generalized provider company attestation agreement, which indicated the provider agreed to comply with the facility's vaccination policy. Observations revealed the facility was non-compliant with infection control practices to protect residents from contracting COVID-19.(Cross-reference F880) Observations on 4/6/22 to 4/12/22 showed: -Facility staff did not consistently wear N95 or equivalent respirators while engaged in resident care and in resident areas and did not follow required use of eye protection in an outbreak. -Facility staff did not perform hand hygiene appropriately in between caring for residents and tasks; - Equipment (medical and non-medical) was not sanitized in between use from a COVID-19 positive resident to a negative and unvaccinated resident; -Facility staff re-using gowns in COVID-19 positive rooms and improper donning of gowns in COVID-19 positive rooms and sanitization of face shields; -Facility staff not providing residents with hand hygiene prior to meals; and, -Facility staff not properly cleaning tables in the dining rooms after resident use or properly cleaning resident rooms. Since 3/22/22, 18 residents have tested positive for COVID-19. B. Imposition of immediate jeopardy On 4/13/22 at 1:00 p.m., the nursing home administrator (NHA) and the regional nursing consultant (RNC) were notified of the immediate jeopardy situation created by the facility's failure to monitor each contracted staff member's vaccination status to ensure proper advanced PPE strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. C. Facility plan to remove immediate jeopardy On 4/14/22 at 2:32 p.m. the facility submitted a plan to remove the immediate jeopardy. The plan to remove the immediacy read: 1. Corrective action -On 4/14/22, the nursing home administrator and/or designee contacted all contracted providers to obtain verification of vaccination for all providers who enter the facility on a regular basis. This will be completed by 4/14/22 as any incoming vendor will be asked for proof of vaccination. The human resources director will continue to review and ensure outside contractors are fully vaccinated or have an approved exemption with a copy of their vaccination card and exemption on file. -On 4/14/22 a healthcare vaccine mandate vendor communication contract was developed and distributed to contracted vendors with the stipulations of the facility's requirements for verifying each provider's vaccination status, and the PPE strategies for those with accepted exemptions. Each contract will be signed and the facility will keep a copy by 4/14/22 or prior to allowing vendors into the facility. -All new contracted staff members' vaccination status and/or exemptions will be reviewed by the human resources director and documented on the vaccination log. -A list of contracted staff members' vaccination dates will be documented on the contracted staff member's vaccination log by the HRD or designee. -The receptionist or scheduler will validate the contracted staff member's vaccination status prior to having contact with the residents. -If a contracted staff member's vaccination status is unknown, the human resources director will request a copy from the contracted vendor prior to entering the facility. 2. Systemic changes -Education was provided to the nursing home administrator, director of nursing, and human resources director on the vaccination requirements and the Healthcare Vaccine Mandate Vendor Communication on 4/13/22. 3. Monitoring -Interdisciplinary team, to include the medical director, will conduct a root cause analysis to determine the progress of the corrective plan and will provide a report to the quality assurance performance improvement committee to discuss recommendations and additional corrective actions. D. Removal of the immediate jeopardy The NHA and DON were notified on 4/14/22 that the above plan was accepted on 4/14/22 at 3:13 p.m. based on the facility's plan above, and the immediate jeopardy was removed. However, deficient practice remained at F level, deficient practice that is widespread. II. Facility policy and procedure The Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and procedure, revised January 2022, was provided by the NHA on 4/6/22 at 2:00 p.m. It read, in pertinent part, This COVID-19 vaccination policy applies to all employees, resident providers, independent providers, volunteers, students, contractors, and vendors who work in a healthcare facility or provide healthcare services in a client's home. Senior care (includes skilled nursing): be fully vaccinated or have an approved medical or religious exemption. Employees are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after completing primary vaccination with a COVID-19 vaccine, with if applicable, at least the minimum recommended interval between doses. For example, this includes two weeks after a second dose in a two-dose series, such as the Pfizer or Moderna Vaccines, two weeks after a single-dose vaccine, such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, or two weeks after the second dose of any combination of two doses of different COVID-19 vaccines as part of one primary vaccination series. Employees and volunteers are required to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Employees and volunteers vaccinated by [the facility] already have proof of vaccination status. All other employees are required to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination to their local human resources designee. Acceptable proof of vaccination status is one of the following: the record of immunization from a healthcare provider or pharmacy; a copy of the COVID-19 vaccination record card; a copy of medical records documenting the vaccination; a copy of immunization records from a public health, state, or tribal immunization information system; and a copy of any other official documentation that contains the type of vaccine administered, dates of administration, and the name of the healthcare professionals or clinic site administering the vaccine. All contractors and business partners who have a recurring interaction with staff, patients, or residents, by contract or other arrangement, are required to comply with the vaccination requirements outlined in this policy prior to performing work in a facility. This includes but is not limited to licensed practitioners/independent medical staff, students, and trainees. III. Failure to monitor each contracted staff member's vaccination status to ensure proper advanced PPE strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. A. Record review The vaccination matrix, provided by the NHA on 4/6/22 at 4:00 p.m., documented a list of facility staff members, including agency staff. It indicated each staff member's vaccination status, including if any exemptions had been approved. It included 66 staff members in the nursing, housekeeping, dietary and administration departments. The vaccination matrix did not include any providers, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, or hospice staff. The Mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and procedure, revised January 2022, documented the following: Agencies, universities, and other contracted services who have employees or students present in our facilities that provide care, treatment, or other services for the healthcare location or patients must provide a signed attestation statement that all their employees or students are vaccinated or have a qualifying exemption. The Vendor Vaccination Attestation documented The [vendor organization's name] agrees to comply with [the facility's] vaccine requirements based on the interim final rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in the Department of Health and Human Services. Vendors who have employees or students present in our facilities who provide care, treatment, or other services must provide a signed attestation statement that all of those employees or students are vaccinated or have a qualifying exemption and will do the following: Upon request, and only upon request, provide additional data of vaccination status. The facility provided a binder of documented attestations during the survey process from different vendor agencies; however, the facility was unable to provide documentation of each specific provider's vaccination status who entered the facility and provided direct care to residents. The facility failed to have a monitoring system in place to ensure each provider who entered the facility and provided care to residents was fully vaccinated or had an exemption and was exercising the facility's PPE (personal protective equipment) requirements while in the facility. IV. Staff interviews The NHA was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:44 p.m. She said the facility kept track of the vaccination status of all of their staff, including agency staff. She said she had 66 staff members documented on the staff vaccination matrix, which included their vaccination status and any with approved exemptions. However, she confirmed the facility had 72 employees and acknowledged that not all facility staff members were included on the staff vaccination matrix. She also confirmed providers, such as physicians, nurse practitioners, or hospice staff, were not included on the staff vaccination matrix. She said the facility policy was to get an attestation from the provider's agency to ensure vaccination status. She said each physician's medical group or hospice agency should have an attestation on file indicating their staff was vaccinated. She said the facility did not have copies of each individual provider's vaccination card or exemption. She said the facility had not been tracking each individual provider's vaccination status. She said she thought the group or agency's attestation was enough.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0603 (Tag F0603)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and observations, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be free from in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and observations, the facility failed to ensure the resident had the right to be free from involuntary seclusion not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms for one (#59) of three out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #59 was kept free from involuntary seclusion which resulted in psychosocial harm. Resident #59, who had a documented history of anxiety, claustrophobia and was totally dependent upon staff, activated her call light on 3/19/22 to get staff assistance. The resident had a history of yelling out, after activating her call light, because of past experiences of staff not answering her call light timely. The facility staff closed the resident's door, against her wishes (which was documented in the resident's plan of care), because the resident was disturbing others, effectively secluding the resident against her will. The resident's wishes of keeping her door open while she was alone was well documented in the resident's medical record and staff interviews revealed the facility staff had been aware of the resident's wishes for over a year. The resident stated, in an interview with the psychologist four days after the incident, with the door shut, no one could hear her call for help. She felt the staff were punishing her, felt she was suffocating, her heart was racing and thought she might die. After the incident, an interview with the social services coordinator (SSC) documented Resident #59 replayed the event since it occurred, caused her emotional distress and had a continued negative psychological and emotional effect on the resident daily. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Patient Protection policy and procedure, dated October 2021, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/6/22 at 2:00 p.m. It revealed, in pertinent part, The most critical step toward detecting and preventing abuse is acknowledging that no one should be subjected to violent, abusive, humiliating, exploitative or neglectful behavior. -Abuse is the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. -Mental abuse includes, but is not limited to humiliation, threats of punishment or deprivation. -Involuntary seclusion is defined as separation of a patient from other patients or from his/her room or confinement to his/her room (with or without roommates) against the patient's will, or the will of the patient's legal representative. II. Failure to ensure the resident was kept free from psychological abuse A. Resident #59 status Resident #59, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), pressure ulcer, pressure induced deep tissue damage of unspecified site, type two diabetes, moderate persistent asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic pain, trigeminal neuralgia, fibromyalgia and generalized anxiety disorder. The 3/4/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. It indicated the resident did not exhibit physical or verbal behaviors during the assessment period. The resident rejected care for four to six days during the assessment period. B. Resident and frequent visitor interview Resident #59 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 2:49 p.m. She said she did not like it when the staff shut the door to her room. She said she was claustrophobic and with her diagnosis of COPD, she felt like she could not breathe when the staff shut her door. She said she was totally dependent upon staff for all of her care and was unable to get out of bed without assistance. She said she was not able to walk. She said she had been at the facility for quite a few years and felt the staff did not like her very much. She said there was a history of the staff not answering her call light timely so she had gotten into the practice of yelling out for help when she pushed her call light. She said she felt the facility staff would not answer her call light unless she yelled out. She said the staff at night were particularly bad about answering her call light. She said Saturday night, on 3/19/22, she had activated her call light because she needed to be changed because of a bowel movement. She said the staff did not answer, so she began to yell out, answer my call light and I need help. She said one of the certified nurse aides (CNA) came to her room, stood in the doorway, told her to stop screaming, told her she was being disruptive to other residents, and then shut the door. She said she felt like she was being punished. She felt like she could not catch her breath and started to panic. She said she screamed as loud as she could for help. She said she did not know how much later, after she started screaming, a nurse entered her room to help her. The nurse sat with her until the CNAs came back to provide incontinence care. She said she told the social services coordinator (SSC) about what happened and he completed a form (trauma informed care evaluation, see under record review). She said she did not feel as though anything was done. She said she still gets blamed for calling out when she activates her call light. She said she would not call out if she trusted they would answer her call light. A frequent visitor with knowledge of the resident was interviewed on 4/11/22 at 12:18 p.m. She said it was a known fact at the facility that Resident #59 did not want her door to be closed. She said the facility had been aware of this for at least over a year, if not longer. She said Resident #59 was afraid the facility staff would not answer her call light if she had an emergency. She said it caused distress to the resident, which was why when she pushed her call light, she would also yell out for help. She said the facility had a history of long call light time periods and felt the resident was justified in her concern. She said, in the past year, the facility had been using a lot of agency staff. She said many residents had reported an overall attitude with the staff toward the residents, felt they were overworked and when they entered a resident's room, the staff were quick to get in and out and not really addressing the resident's needs. C. Observations On 4/11/22 at 11:31 a.m. Resident #59 activated the call light. CNA #4 was walking down the hallway and entered the resident's room. CNA #4 turned off the call light and walked back to the nursing station. Resident #59 reactivated the call light and began yelling out, where did my aide go,and come back and I need to be changed. CNA #4 was observed grabbing towels, sheets and walking slowly down the hallway toward the resident's room. CNA #4 arrived at the doorway of Resident #59's room at 11:42 a.m. She pulled down her N95 respirator mask, and yelled from the doorway, I told you I was going to get supplies. What do you want me to do, slip and fall? CNA #4 then entered the room and shut the door. Another CNA entered the room to assist a few minutes later. Both CNAs exited the resident's room at 11:53 a.m. after providing the resident incontinence care. -At 11:54 a.m. Resident #59 activated her call light. After two minutes, the resident yelled out, I need a nurse. CNA #4 told licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 I have no idea what she needs. We just got out of there. Resident #59 began yelling out, I need Tylenol, and please answer my call light and please just answer my call light. LPN #2 opened the medication drawer, pulled out a medication and put it into a medication cup. She lifted her head toward the ceiling, let out a deep breath, locked the medication cart and entered the resident's room. -At 12:00 p.m. Resident #56 activated her call light. The CNAs were observed passing out meal trays for lunch and LPN #2 was standing at the medication cart in close proximity to the resident's room. Resident #59 yelled out, I need a blanket. LPN #2 shook her head, back and forth, looked up to the ceiling, let out a deep breath, locked the medication cart and entered the resident's room. LPN #2 turned off the call light and exited the room. She told CNA #4, Resident #59 needed a blanket and she had told her the CNAs were busy and she needed to wait. CNA #4 said she would get a blanket for the resident when she was finished passing meal trays. On 4/12/22 at 8:01 p.m. Resident #59's call light had been activated for an unknown amount of time. Resident #59 was not yelling out. Upon entering the 200 unit nursing station, LPN #3 and CNA #1 were observed sitting at the nursing station. CNA #1 was scrolling on her phone and LPN #3 was on the computer. The call light board was lit up and making an audible beeping noise with Resident #59's room highlighted. When CNA #1 looked up from her phone, she put her cell phone in her pocket, walked out of the nursing station and entered Resident #59's room. D. Documented history of the resident's claustrophobia, wish to not have the door closed and dependence upon staff The activities of daily living care plan, initiated on 11/21/17 and revised on 12/30/21, revealed the resident had a self-care deficit related to weakness, COPD, obesity, a contracture to the hand, foot drop to both feet and the resident's hospice status. It indicated the resident required two person assistance with a Hoyer lift for transfers and the resident required care in pairs. The claustrophobia care plan, initiated on 1/21/21, documented the resident had reported to the nurse and executive director that she was claustrophobic. The interventions included do not close the resident's door unless it is for short periods of time to provide privacy during care. The anxiety care plan, initiated on 2/25/21 and revised on 6/14/21, documented the resident was at risk for anxiety. The resident would call out for help despite using the call light. She would request for tissues to be picked up off the floor and to move her water. The interventions included: re-educating the resident that sometimes staff cannot be there right at the scheduled time to assist the resident with care due to having to assist other residents. The verbal agitation and aggression care plan, initiated on 3/4/21, documented the resident calling out for help from the nurses or CNAs after activating the call light. It indicated the resident would continue to yell after the staff told her someone would be in to help. The resident was very particular and rigid on what time she wanted care to be provided. If the staff was not in her room at the designated times, then the resident would yell out for help until someone comes to provide care. The [NAME] (a staff directive for care), undated, documented to leave the resident's door open at all times, except for privacy during care. If the resident requested to have her door shut when in the room by herself, get a witness to clarify the resident's request. E. Incident on 3/19/22 The 3/23/22 individual therapy notes documented the resident met with a psychologist. It indicated, in addition to being anxious the resident is claustrophobic. The Saturday night staff lost patience with her and shut her door. With the door shut, no one could hear her call for help. She felt the staff was punishing her. She felt she was suffocating, her heart was racing and thought she might die. Finally, the nurse came in and made sure she had the assistance she needed. The 3/23/22 nursing progress note documented the resident met with the psychologist. The resident reported that the staff shut her door on Saturday, 3/19/22. She said she felt this was done because the staff were punishing her. It indicated an investigation was started. The 3/23/22 abuse investigation revealed the resident reported to the director of nursing (DON) that her room door was closed on 3/19/22 by the facility staff. The resident said she was claustrophobic and did not want her door closed. The resident said she felt like the facility staff were punishing her. The resident statement documented, Saturday night was a nightmare for me. When I can ' t get anyone on the call light, I call out from my room and the staff does not like it so they closed the door which I think was to punish me. They say it's because my calling out disturbs other residents. But I ' m claustrophobic and I couldn ' t breathe. If I had my phone, I would have called 911 or the police because I panicked. Finally, a nurse came back approximately 30 minutes later but it felt like two hours. I don ' t report anyone unless I ' m fearful of them and I never want to see the staff member who closed the door on me ever again. The investigation documented the staff who worked on 3/19/22 were interviewed and said they had shut the door to the resident's room, but left it cracked because they were caring for another resident and Resident #59 was being disruptive and screaming out. It indicated all staff were educated to keep the resident's door open at all times unless they were providing care. The conclusion of the investigation documented neglect was unsubstantiated, the resident's care plan had been updated to keep the door open at all times unless providing care, a trauma assessment was completed and the resident would continue to have follow ups with social services. -However, based on the interviews with the staff documented in the investigation, the staff admitted to shutting the door to the resident's room and left it open a crack because she was disturbing other residents, which effectively secluded the resident against her will. The resident's wish of not having her door shut when she was by herself was well documented in the resident's medical record. F. Documentation of continued emotional distress from the incident on 3/19/22 The 3/24/22 social services progress note documented the SSC followed up with the resident who had reported a concern with her treatment by the facility staff. It indicated the resident frequently spoke of the incident on 3/19/22, appeared to still be distressed about what happened and appeared to still bother and affect the resident daily. The SSC indicated he ensured the resident's care plan indicated the resident's preference to never have her door shut, unless the staff were in the room providing care. The 3/24/22 trauma informed care evaluation revealed the incident on 3/19/22 was considered the worst event by the resident and the event that bothered her the most. It indicated the following: -The resident had quite a bit of episodes of disturbing and unwanted memories of the stressful experience; -The resident had episodes of suddenly feeling as though the stressful experience was happening again, as if she was reliving the incident; -Felt upset quite a bit when something reminded her of the incident; -Had quite a bit of strong physical reactions when something reminded her of the incident; -Avoided memories, thoughts, or feelings quite a bit related to the stressful experience and external reminders of the stressful experience; -Had quite a bit of negative beliefs about herself and negative feelings such as fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame; and, - Felt super alert, watchful or on guard, jumpy or easily startled quite a bit. III. Staff interviews The SSC was interviewed on 4/11/22 at 4:47 p.m. He said he had worked at the facility since October 2021. He said he was the social worker for Resident #59. He said the resident was overall a very pleasant person. He said she would call out when she needed help after activating her call light. He said she had told him there was a history of the staff not answering her call light timely. He said she felt helpless because she was totally dependent upon staff, so if they did not answer her call light, she would not get what she needed. He said the resident did not like her door to be shut. He said she was claustrophobic and it had been documented in the resident's care plan. He said he had updated the resident's care plan after the incident, but the resident's wishes had been documented in the resident's care plan for over a year. He said he spoke with the resident about the incident that occurred on 3/19/22. He said the facility staff had closed her door when she was calling out for help. He said Resident #59 was claustrophobic and was shook up after the incident. He said the resident's impression was the staff were trying to punish her because she called out. He said he was not aware of the results of the investigation. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #3 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 10:40 a.m. He said Resident #59 was totally dependent upon staff for assistance with all activities of daily living. He said she was not able to get out of the bed on her own without two person assistance and a mechanical lift. He said Resident #59 called out for assistance because she was afraid the call light would not be answered. He said she would call out for help even if the call light had only been activated for a minute. He said he thought this was because of a history of the staff not answering her call light timely. He said she did not like it when her door was closed unless someone was in the room with her. He said she was claustrophobic and had anxiety. He said Resident #59 wanting her door open was common knowledge and was not a new request by the resident. The NHA was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:44 p.m. She said Resident #59 had reported on 3/19/22 the night shift staff had shut her door because she was calling out for help. She said Resident #59 said she was claustrophobic and felt she was being punished by the facility staff for calling out for help. She said it was documented in the resident's chart for a long time that she did not want her door to be closed when someone else was not with her. She said the incident occurred on 3/19/22 and it was reported, by the resident, to the psychologist on 3/23/22. She said the facility conducted an investigation and reported the allegation of neglect to the State Agency. She said the SSA interviewed the resident and other nursing management interviewed the staff. She said she signed off on the final investigation. She said the investigation concluded the allegation of neglect was unsubstantiated because the staff did not have intent to harm the resident. She said she had not considered the potential of involuntary seclusion as a form of abuse from the incident. She confirmed in the interviews, the staff admitted to shutting the resident's door, but left it open a crack because she was disturbing other residents by calling out. She said she felt abuse was unsubstantiated because the staff did not intend to harm the resident. -However, the resident sustained psychosocial harm from the event on 3/19/22, when the facility staff, who were aware of the resident's claustrophobic tendencies and wishes to have her door kept open, closed her door because they felt she was disturbing other residents. The resident began to panic, screamed out for help and thought she was going to die.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Administration (Tag F0835)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility was not administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources efficiently and effectively to attain and maintain the highest p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility was not administered in a manner that enabled it to use its resources efficiently and effectively to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Specifically, the resources of the facility were not effectively and efficiently utilized as evidenced by findings that revealed in part: -The facility failed to protect residents from COVID-19 as evidenced by not having an effective infection control program. Cross-reference F880 -The facility failed to monitor each contracted staff member' vaccination status to ensure proper advanced personal protective equipment (PPE) strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Cross-reference F888 -The facility failed to follow the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) guidance on staff testing for COVID-19. Cross-reference F886 -The facility had multiple systemic failures in its management of pressure injuries. These included the failure to timely assess and monitor for pressure injuries, prevent the development and worsening of pressure injuries for one resident. Cross-reference F686 These failures contributed to an environment where residents were at risk of contracting COVID-19 and worsening of pressure injuries. Findings include: I. Quality of care F686 Cross-reference F686. Facility administration failed to have a system/plan to ensure residents received care and services to prevent residents from developing facility acquired pressure injuries and worsening of pressure injuries. The facility failed to ensure thorough assessments and timely implement treatments to prevent pressure injuries from worsening. Interview The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said the facility was cited with a harm citation in December 2021. She said the corrective plan of care was to have another company oversee the pressure injuries. She said the other company came in on Tuesdays for weekly rounds and report in quality assurance. She said there was not an issue. She said the wound care rounds were a team effort. She was not aware if the contracted company was observing and overseeing all wounds or just the ones that the wound physician followed. II. Infection control A. F880 Cross-reference F880. Facility administration failed to ensure staff were engaged in safe practices while care for residents to ensure residents received the care and services required to maintain their highest practicable level of well-being. Interview The NHA was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said she was aware the facility had been in a COVID-19 outbreak since 12/23/21. She said the facility has had a lot of staff turnover and that a lot of agency staff was being utilized. She said the agency staff did not have a lot of training, and were less informed. She said the agency staff were also quitting. She said that she was aware the building had infection control breaks, however, she was not aware of the extent it was. She said masks had been a challenge the entire pandemic. She said when the administration was not in the building the staff became lax in mask wearing. She said she was not aware of the problems with handwashing, and complete PPE. She said the regional governing body came into the facility to assist, however did not develop a plan to get out of outbreak. B. F886 Cross-reference F886. Facility administration failed to ensure all staff were tested bi-weekly as required by CMS while the facility was in a COVID-19 outbreak since 12/23/21 to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 to residents. Interview The NHA was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said she was aware all staff did not testing. The label system was put into effect, which would show which staff member did not get tested they would be aware. She said the director of nurses was keeping her eye on the system. However, the DON was not effective and was not completing all aspects of her job. The nurse consultant came in to help the DON, however, the testing continued to be a problem and then the DON resigned effective immediately. C. F888 Cross-reference F888. Facility administration failed to monitor each contracted staff member's vaccination status to ensure proper advanced personal protective equipment (PPE) strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Interview The NHA was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said the corporation received the QSO updates (from CMS) and then sent them out to the facilities. She said she read them when she received them. She said did not understand what was needed with the policy changes and it was difficult to keep up with. She did not know what was expected for the F888 regulation. She said she believed attestations were ok to be used. She said she did not know that outside vendors such as physicians, volunteers and frequent visitors needed to have vaccination status on record and tracked. III. Additional interviews The NHA was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said she would be out of the building for the next ten days and unavailable for further interviews. The NHA said she had left the building and recently returned to the facility in February 2022. The NHA said she was told by the county that an outbreak was three individuals. She was not aware that CMS called an outbreak of one individual. She said nursing administration has had a lot of turnover. She said the facility hired a staff development coordinator however, she was terminated. The DON position had turned over several times within the year. She said the current DON had started in October or November 2021. Unit managers were also terminated as they were not effective. She said they could not find unit managers and were currently looking for a permanent DON. She said it was difficult to hire unit managers when the building did not have a DON. She said the biggest issue was the trust she had given the DON and she failed to carry out the job. The vice president of the region was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 3:50 p.m. The vice president said that she was aware there were concerns with the building, however, not to the level of immediate jeopardy. She said that the NHA reported to her and would be expected to hear of concerns from the NHA. She said the NHA and the DON were responsible for the management of the building.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0837 (Tag F0837)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interviews, the governing body failed to implement policies regarding the management and operations of the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the governin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the governing body failed to implement policies regarding the management and operations of the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the governing body was providing effective oversight to the facility to ensure the facility was in compliance with state and federal regulations. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) practice guide was received from the assistant nursing home administrator from a sister facility on 4/21/22. The policy read in pertinent part, The governing body assures the QAPI program is adequately resourced to conduct its work. This included designation one or more persons to be accountable for QAPI; developing leadership and facility-wide training on QAPI; and ensuring staff time, equipment and technical trainings as needed for QAPI. They are responsible for etablings policings to sustain the QAPI program despite changes in personnel turnover. The governing body and executive leadership are also responsible for setting expectations around safety, quality, rights, choice and respect by balancing both a culture of safety and a culture of resident centered rights and choice. The governing body ensures that while staff are held accountable, there exists an atmosphere in which staff are not punished for errors and do not fear retaliation for reporting quality concerns. Cross-reference F867-failed to reassess and provide timely intervention to address repeated concerns related to quality of life and quality of care. II. Identified failures A. Findings in the area of abuse and neglect - failure of the facility to prevent abuse. Cross reference F603 at a harm level. Facility administration failed to have a system to ensure residents were kept free from involuntary seclusion which resulted in psychosocial harm. B. Findings in the area of skin integrity-failure to prevent facility acquired pressure injuries. This deficiency was cited previously during an abbreviated survey 12/21/21. Although the facility corrected the deficiency, based on the findings below, the facility has not maintained compliance with this regulatory requirement. Cross-reference F686. Facility administration failed to have a system/plan to ensure residents received care and services to prevent residents from developing facility acquired pressure injuries and worsening of pressure injuries. The facility failed to ensure thorough assessments and timely implement treatments to prevent pressure injuries from worsening.This citation was cited at immediate jeopardy. III. Findings in the area of infection control-failure to have a system to ensure an infection control program whereby residents were protected from COVID-19. The following citations were cited at immediate jeopardy. Cross-reference F880. Facility administration failed to ensure staff were engaged in safe practices while care for residents to ensure residents received the care and services required to maintain their highest practicable level of well-being. Cross-reference F886. Facility administration failed to ensure all staff were tested bi-weekly as required by Center for Medicare Services while the facility was in a COVID-19 outbreak since 12/23/21 to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 to residents. Cross-reference F888. Facility administration failed to monitor each contracted staff member's vaccination status to ensure proper advanced personal protective equipment (PPE) strategies (as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure) were used to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) from a sister facility was interviewed on 4/19/22 at approximately 1:30 p.m. She said the director of nurses (DON) was the person who was ultimately responsible for the infection control and skin integrity. A request to view the report from the clinical support registered nurse (RN) on the facility's findings, however, ANHA said a report was not written. The reports were only shared with the NHA and the DON. -However, the facility did not have a DON and the NHA was unavailable for an interview in regards to the clinical support RN. III. Leadership interviews A licensed nurse, who wished to remain anonymous, was interviewed on 4/12/22. The licensed nurse said the facility has had numerous changes in administration which included the director of nurses and the nursing home administrator. She said it made it difficult to receive direction and support. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/12/22 at approximately 1:30 p.m. The NHA said last week the DON had scheduled time off, however, she was informed the DON resigned the position effective immediately on 4/11/22. The NHA was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said she would be out of the building for the next ten days and unavailable for further interviews. The NHA said she had left the building and recently returned to the facility in February 2022. She said that she returned to the facility because of the vice president who was now over the region, she had a lot of respect for and wanted to work with her. She said the building had a lot of support and consultants from each department could be reached out to for assistance. She said the building had some restructuring when the two companies merged in either 2017 or 2018. She said the governing body was aware of the COVID-19 outbreak. She said they came to help with the outbreak but they did not help with the plan to get out of outbreak. The NHA said the other buildings within the company she worked for had a nurse practitioner (NP) for wound care. She said they had just extended an offer to a NP to be in charge of wounds. She said that having a NP for wound care depended on the regional director of the building. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:11 p.m. The IDON said she was a contracted registered nurse who was hired as a unit manager. However, when they no longer had a director of nurses, they offered her the contract position so she spoke to her agency and got the contract changed to the director of nurses. She said she had just started her contract on 4/11/22. The DON realized the facility had many care issues that needed attention. The DON acknowledged she had not yet been provided training on the corporate processes and was in the process of learning about the expectations of the corporate office. She said she received support from her agency company. The assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) from a sister facility was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 9:34 a.m. The ANHA said she worked in another state for the corporation. She said she had not worked at the facility in the past. She was sent out to help the facility, as the current nursing home administrator (NHA) was out on leave. She said the governing body was structured in a way to have business office support, rehabilitation, social services, activities and clinical support. She said the quality assurance consultants were contracted for each region. She said the schedule was not set as to when the clinical support would visit, as it depended on the building and the request. She said the regional director supervised the NHA. She said there was an registered nurse (RN) who was assigned to the facility for clinical support. She was unable to answer when the clinical support RN came to the facility. The medical director (MD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 1:41 p.m. The MD said he had been the medical director for the facility for the past two years. He said that the facility had a change in corporations about two years ago. He said that the administration has overturned numerous times. He said he had not met with the vice president since she took over several months ago. He said it had been a while since he had met with the governing body, approximately three years. The request to speak with the clinical support RN was denied on 4/19/22 at 2:00 p.m. by the ANHA. She said the clinical support RN was a contractor and not employed by the facility and she could not answer questions. The vice president of the region was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 3:50 p.m. The vice president said that she recently assumed the position of vice present in January 2022. She said she was previously the regional director. She said since January 2022 she had been in the building every other week. She said that she was aware there were concerns with the building, however, not to the level of immediate jeopardy. She said that the NHA reported to her and would be expected to hear of concerns from the NHA. She said the NHA and the DON were responsible for the management of the building. She said the DON ran the nursing department and occasionally if there was an issue then the governing body would meet with the medical director. She said she was not sure if the regional clinical support would write a report detailing the findings. The report was only shared with the DON and NHA. She said the expectation was if there were problems, then the NHA would phone her as the vice president. She said she did not participate in the QA meetings. The interdisciplinary team participated in the QA meetings.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0841 (Tag F0841)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff, medical director interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all responsibilities of the medical director were effectively performed, which had the potential to affect ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff, medical director interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure all responsibilities of the medical director were effectively performed, which had the potential to affect all residents of the facility. Specifically the facility failed to ensure: -The medical director fulfilled his responsibility for providing the implementation of resident care policies or the coordination of medical care in the facility; and, -Facility wide training in infection control. Cross- reference: F686-Treatment and services to prevent/heal pressure ulcers, F880-Infection control, F886-Testing resident and staff, and F888-COVID-19 vaccination. Findings include: I. Medical directors agreement The medical director (MD) independent contract agreement was signed on 8/28/17. The Medical director's duties and responsibilities were received on 4/18/22 at 10:00 a.m. which read in pertinent parts: Medical director shall be responsible for the implementation of resident care policies and the coordination of medical care in the facility. Medical director's specific duties and responsibilities shall include the following: 1.Overall coordination, execution and monitoring of physician services. Maintain effective liaison with attending physicians, and provides clinical guidance and oversight regarding the implementation of patient care policies. 2. In conjunction with the professional staff and consultants of facility, medical director collaborates in the development and implementation of written policies, procedures, rules and regulations to govern the skilled nursing care and related medical and other health services provided at the Facility and shall review the facility's policies, procedures, rules and regulations on an annual basis. Medical director is responsible for seeing that these policies reflect an awareness of and provisions for meeting the current needs of the patients of the facility. 5. Medical director shall actively participate as a member of the Facility's quality improvement process. Participation shall include regular attendance at, and reporting to the facility quality assessment and assurance committee. Monthly quality assurance meetings may include topics such as infection control, pharmaceutical services, dental care, patient care policies . 8. Participate in in-service training programs as needed on request by facility . 12. Advise the nursing facility staff regarding communicable diseases, infection control and isolation procedures, and serve as a liaison with local health officials and public health agencies that have policies and programs that may affect the nursing facility's care and services to residents. II. Failures The facility was in the current outbreak of COVID-19 since 12/23/21. Cross reference F880 During the recertification survey on 4/19/22 the facility was cited for infection control at a L (immediate jeopardy) level. Cross reference F888 During the recertification survey on 4/19/22 the facility was cited for COVID-19 vaccination of facility staff at a L (immediate jeopardy) level. Cross reference F886 During the recertification survey on 4/19/22 the facility was cited for failure to COVID-19 test staff at a L (immediate jeopardy) level. Cross reference F686 Prevention of pressure ulcers During an abbreviated survey on 12/21/21, the facility was cited for prevention of pressure ulcers at a G (harm) level. During the recertification survey on 4/19/22 the facility was cited for prevention of pressure ulcers at a J (immediate jeopardy) level. III. Record review The facility was unable to provide any documentation which showed the medical director had been involved in the management and treatment of the pressure injuries. IV. Interview The medical director (MD) was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 1:41 p.m. The MD said he was aware the facility was in an outbreak for several months. He said that they told him what they were doing with infection control and can go to their website to view the policies. He said the administration had not asked for much advice. He said he came to the building at least monthly. He said he walked around the facility from time to time depending on the outbreak status. He said the last few times he was in the building he had not walked the building. He said when he did walk the building he looked for proper use of personal protective equipment (PPE). He said about three or four months ago when he walked the building there were no issues. He said when he was asked by the facility for education on infection control he would provide, however, he had not been asked for quite some time. He said the facility was a corporation and they had their policies they followed and he was not asked. He said he understands that he needed to be more involved in questioning the administration. The MD said that he was not aware the facility was not tracking all staff which included the contracted staff. He said he was aware the facility used a lot of agency staff as they had a turnover with staff including administration. The MD said he was not aware the facility was not testing the staff bi-weekly. He said he was aware the facility was in outbreak status for the the past several months. He said the facility was good about notifying him of the COVID-19 outbreak. He said he was not aware the facility was not testing all staff bi-weekly as required. He has also not observed how the testing was being conducted. The MD also said he had instructed to follow CDC guidance on testing, however, he was not sure if the facility had listened, as the facility was a corporation. He said he had not pushed the issue like he should have. The MD said he had been the medical director since 2007. He said he came to the building at least monthly. He said during the pandemic he had completed some of the meetings remotely. He said he attended the quality assurance meeting (QA) and the psych-pharmaceutical meetings. He said he did review policies, however, the facility was a corporation and that they had their own policies. He said the facility did not ask him for much stuff. He said the corporation was structured with their protocol and they tell him what they were doing. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said the medical director was available for any questions. He participated in the quality assurance and the psych-pharmaceutical meeting. The medical director (MD) was interviewed again on 4/19/22 at 1:45 p.m. The MD said he was aware the facility received a directed plan of correction in December 2021 for the prevention of pressure injuries. He said he had not met with the hired consultant. He said a nurse practitioner had been hired to follow the wounds. However, he was not aware this nurse practitioner was hired as of 4/14/22. He said that he has not personally completed rounds on the wounds, as there were a lot of people rounding. He said he had not reached out to physicians about any concerns with the pressure ulcers.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented, in order to facilitate...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented, in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents, through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety. Specifically, the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to quality of life, quality of care and infection control. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program policy, issue date February 2019, read in pertinent parts, Quality assurance (QA) is a process of meeting quality standards and assuring that care reaches an acceptable level. Traditionally, we have a set thresholds to comply with the regulations. QA is a reactive, retrospective effort to look at why there was a system failure. QA activities do improve quality, but efforts frequently end once the compliance or standard has been met. Performance improvement (PI) is a proactive continuous process intending to prevent or decrease the likelihood of problems by identifying areas of opportunity and testing new approaches to fix underlying causes of persistent or systemic problems. II. Review of the facility's regulatory record revealed it failed to operate a QA program in a manner to prevent repeat deficiencies and initiate a plan to correct F686 Prevention of Pressure Ulcers During a recertification survey on 12/21/21, prevention of pressure ulcers was cited at a G (harm) level. During the revisit survey on 12/21/21, the facility was cited again for prevention of pressure ulcers at a K (immediate jeopardy) level. III. Cross-referenced citations that were all cited at immediate jeopardy level Cross-reference F686. Facility administration failed to have a system/plan to ensure residents received care and services to prevent residents from developing facility acquired pressure injuries and worsening of pressure injuries. The facility failed to ensure thorough assessments and timely implement treatments to prevent pressure injuries from worsening. Cross-reference F880: The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent infections, including the development and transmission of COVID-19. Cross-reference F886. Facility administration failed to ensure all staff were tested bi-weekly as required by Center for Medicare Services while the facility was in a COVID-19 outbreak since 12/23/21 to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 to residents. IV. Interviews The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said the facility was cited with a harm citation in December 2021. She said the corrective plan of care was to have another company oversee the pressure injuries. She said the other company came in on Tuesdays for weekly rounds and reported in quality assurance. She said there was not an issue. She said the wound care rounds were a team effort. She was not aware if the contracted company was observing and overseeing all wounds or just the ones that the wound physician followed. The NHA said she was aware the facility had been in a COVID-19 outbreak since 12/23/21. She said the facility has had a lot of staff turnover and that a lot of agency staff was being utilized. She said the agency staff did not have a lot of training, and were less informed. She said the agency staff were also quitting. She said that she was aware the building had infection control breaks, however, she was not aware of the extent it was. She said masks had been a challenge the entire pandemic. She said when the administration was not in the building the staff became lax in mask wearing. She said she was not aware of the problems with handwashing, and complete personal protective equipment (PPE). She said the regional governing body came into the facility to assist, however did not develop a plan to get out of outbreak. The NHA said she was aware all staff did not testing. The label system was put into effect, which would show which staff member did not get tested they would be aware. She said the director of nurses was keeping her eye on the system. However, the DON was not effective and was not completing all aspects of her job. The nurse consultant came in to help the DON, however, the testing continued to be a problem and then the DON resigned effective immediately. The NHA was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 3:18 p.m. The NHA said the corporation received the QSO updates (from Centers of Medicare & Medicaid) and then sent them out to the facilities. She said she read them when she received them. She said she did not understand what was needed with the policy changes and it was difficult to keep up with. She did not know what was expected for the F888 regulation. She said she believed attestations were ok to be used. She said she did not know that outside vendors such as physicians, volunteers and frequent visitors needed to have vaccination status on record and tracked. The medical director (MD) was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 1:41 p.m. The MD said he attended the monthly quality assurance (QA) meetings. He said during the meetings, he would review rehospitalizations, infections and antibiotics. He said the NHA and the director of nurses run the meeting. He said he did not review specific pressure wounds, he would review overall numbers. He said the QA was run as a corporation and they informed him of any changes, such as the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the facility did not seek his guidance. He said he had not pushed as much as he could for him to be more involved in the QA meetings. The vice president of the region was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 3:50 p.m. The vice president said she had not participated in a QA meeting. The assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) from a sister facility and a regional support nursing home administrator (SNHA) were interviewed on 4/19/22 at 4:16 p.m. The ANHA said the quality assurance (QA) committee met monthly. She said the interdisciplinary team, the medical director and the pharmacist were in attendance. The ANHA said she was from another facility and had not been involved with the QA at the facility. The ANHA said abuse was covered for patient protection and it was a focus area in the QA. She said that at each meeting the risk management reports were reviewed, which was where the abuse allegations were documented. She said the reports were reviewed to ensure a thorough abuse investigation was completed. The ANHA said a performance improvement plan was put into place when an action item had been identified.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#37) out of 33 sample residents had the right to a dign...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#37) out of 33 sample residents had the right to a dignified existence. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #37 was treated with dignity and respect by answering her call light timely and speaking to her in a respectful manner. Findings include: I. Resident #37 status Resident #37, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included major depressive disorder. The 2/8/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 14 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility and personal hygiene and extensive assistance of two people with toileting and transfers. A. Observations and resident interview On 4/10/22 at 11:32 p.m. Resident #37's call light was activated. -At 11:40 p.m. Resident #37 was observed walking with her front wheel walker from the nursing station down the hallway. Resident #37 said she had been waiting for 40 minutes for her call light to be answered. She said her mouth was very dry and she just wanted some ice water. She said her mouth was so dry, it was hard to talk. She said two certified nurse aides (CNAs) had been in her room and promised to bring her some ice water, but they never came back. She said she was just at the nursing station and the nurse manager gave her an ice water and potato chips. She said she did not understand why the nurse would give her potato chips which were high in salt when her mouth felt dry. She said she felt the nursing staff dinked around and did not do their job. She said the nurse was rude to her and she felt the nurse was disrespectful. Resident #37's lips were dry and cracked. The resident had white build up in the corners of her mouth and connected from her upper lip to her bottom lip. She was moving her tongue out of her mouth and back in. Her tongue had white residue on the top. Resident #37 walked back to the 200 unit nursing station. Registered nurse (RN) #4 was sitting at the nursing station. Resident #37 told RN #4 she felt the staff were not doing their job and she did not understand why she was given potato chips. RN #4 said, honey, that is all you get. Resident #37 became visibly upset and told RN #4 not to call her honey and said that was disrespectful. RN #4, in front of Resident #37, said the resident was confused. She said the resident had come to the nursing station asking for water and snacks. She said when she tried to give her the water, the resident refused and then pushed aside the potato chips. -However, Resident #37 was holding a large Styrofoam cup of water, which she had received from RN #4. Resident #37 responded saying she was not confused and she did not refuse the water because it was in her hand. She said RN #4 did not give her a straw like she had asked. RN #4 got up and gave the resident a straw. Resident #37 then walked to her room. A CNA assisted and calmed the resident down from being visibly upset. II. Staff interviews The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/11/22 at 4:00 p.m. She said RN #4 had called her around midnight and told her about an incident with Resident #37. She said she had started an investigation, but had yet to interview the resident because she had asked her to return later that evening. She said all residents deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. She said staff should not use terms such as honey and that could be construed as disrespectful. She said she had suspended RN #4 while the investigation was being completed. She said she reported an allegation of neglect to the State Agency.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to formulate advance directives by n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to formulate advance directives by not keeping advance directives updated and current for two (#27 and #44) of two residents reviewed for advance directives out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the medical orders for scope and treatment (MOST) forms matched Resident #27 and Resident #44's physician orders. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Social Services Guidelines policy and procedure, revised [DATE], was provided by the assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) on [DATE] at 3:00 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Advance care planning is defined as-A process used to identify and update the resident's preferences regarding care and treatment at a future time, including a situation in which the resident subsequently lacks capacity to do so. This is a comprehensive definition that includes decisions established by advance directives and decisions established through physician orders. III. Resident #27 A. Resident status Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus, bipolar disorder, diarrhea, hypothyroidism, depression, heart disease, morbid obesity, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, diverticulitis and dermatitis. The [DATE] minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for all activities of daily living (ADLs). B. Resident interview Resident #27 was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:07 p.m. He said he had reviewed his MOST form with the facility staff in a care conference. He said he wished to be a do not resuscitate (DNR). C. Record review The MOST form, dated [DATE], documented Resident #27 wished to be a do not resuscitate (DNR). The [DATE] CPO documented the following physician order: -Code status: full code-ordered [DATE] (indicating resuscitation an event of cardiac arrest) D. Staff interview Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:09 p.m. She said if she found a resident unresponsive she would check the physician orders for the resident 's code status. She confirmed the physician 's orders for Resident #27 's code status and the MOST form did not match. The social services coordinator (SSC) was interviewed on [DATE] at 4:02 p.m. He confirmed the MOST form documented Resident #27 wanted to be DNR, while the CPO indicated the resident was a full code. He said a staff member must have updated the MOST form with the resident and did not update the physician orders to ensure they matched. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 5:20 p.m. She said the physical MOST form should match the CPOs. She said if a resident was to become unresponsive, nursing staff could look at the physical MOST form or the physician's other; therefore, they should match. IV. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, age [AGE], was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] CPO, the diagnoses included hyponatremia, type two diabetes mellitus, dementia, hypertension, hearing loss and chronic kidney disease. The [DATE] MDS assessment revealed the resident had cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance with one person for dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and locomotion. B. Record review The [DATE] MOST form documented Resident #44 wished to be a DNR, but wished for a defibrillator to be used in a circumstance of cardiac arrest and not chest compressions. The physician order read DNR. The [DATE] (during the survey) physician order read: full code defibrillator only, no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). C. Staff interviews LPN #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 3:10 p.m. She said Resident #44 was a DNR, but the directions on the MOST form indicated the resident wanted to receive defibrillator treatment in the circumstance of a cardiac arrest. LPN #2 said if the resident was to receive defibrillator treatment she would be considered a full code. The IDON was interviewed on [DATE] at 5:10 p.m. She confirmed Resident #44 would be considered a full code if she wanted to receive a defibrillator treatment following cardiac arrest. She said the MOST form should have been reviewed with the power of attorney (POA) and the physician to clarify the order.
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 record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services provided to three (#24, #32 and #13)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure services provided to three (#24, #32 and #13) of 33 sample residents met professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure an assessment was completed and documented by a registered nurse (RN) following a fall sustained by Resident #24, Resident #32 and Resident #13. Findings include: I. Resident #24 A. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPOs), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, adult failure to thrive, macular degeneration, muscle weakness, obsessive compulsive behavior, and history of falling. The 1/27/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, toileting and personal hygiene. She required limited assistance of one person with dressing, transfers, and walking in the resident's room. It indicated the resident had experienced falls since the prior assessment, one with a sustained injury. B. Observations On 4/11/22 at 4:52 p.m. Resident #24 was observed sitting on the floor. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was observed entering the resident's room. LPN #2 lifted the resident off the floor, by herself, prior to an assessment being conducted to determine if the resident sustained an injury. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 entered the room and asked if the resident was okay because Resident #24 was crying. CNA #1 told Resident #24 she fell because she did not have her socks on. LPN #2 got the vital signs machine and began obtaining the residents vital signs. LPN #2 did not call an RN to conduct an assessment of the resident to determine if the resident had sustained an injury. C. Record review The 1/26/22 nursing progress note documented Resident #24 sustained a fall at 8:20 a.m. LPN #1 documented the resident was walking around the bed with no shoes or socks on, when she plopped on the floor in the sitting position. LPN #1 documented she and the CNA lifted the resident up, checked the resident's bottom for injuries and placed the resident back in the wheelchair. LPN #1 educated the resident to wear non-skid socks and use the call light for assistance. The 1/26/22 fall investigation recounted the details of the fall documented in the nursing progress note. It indicated LPN #1 had assessed the resident and found no injury or bruising. It did not document LPN #1 contacted an RN to complete an assessment of the resident following the fall and prior to moving the resident off the ground. The 2/10/22 nursing progress note documented the resident had an unwitnessed fall at 4:00 p.m. The resident said she slid from the wheelchair. LPN #7 documented she assisted the resident off the floor and into the wheelchair. LPN #7 notified the resident's representative and the physician. It indicated the resident did not complain of pain. The 2/10/22 fall investigation documented a CNA found the resident on the floor after sliding off the wheelchair. It indicated no injuries were found. The fall investigation was completed by LPN #7. It did not indicate an RN had been contacted to complete an assessment of the resident following the fall and prior to being assisted off the ground by LPN #7. No RN assessment was found in the residents chart. The 4/2/22 nursing progress note documented Resident #24 was found sitting on the floor. The resident said she slipped off her chair and landed on the ground. LPN #1 documented she assessed the resident and found no injuries or wounds. LPN #1 indicated she assisted the resident up off the ground and into the wheelchair. The 4/2/22 fall investigation provided the same account of the fall as documented in the nursing progress notes. The fall investigation was completed by LPN #1. It did not indicate an RN had been contacted to complete an assessment for potential injury of the resident following the fall or prior to LPN #1 picking the resident up off the floor. The 4/11/22 nursing progress note documented the CNA reported to LPN #2 Resident #24 was on the ground in her room. The resident said she was getting up to go to bed and her wheelchair rolled backwards. LPN #2 and did call for an RN to assess the resident for an injury following the fall and prior to moving the resident off the ground (see observations above). No RN assessment was found in the residents chart. II. Resident #32 A.Resident status Resident #32, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPOs, the diagnoses included multiple sclerosis. The 3/22/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility and transfers and extensive assistance of one person with dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. It indicated the resident had not sustained any falls since the previous assessment period. B. Record review The fall risk care plan, initiated on 3/16/22, documented the resident had a history of falls. The interventions included to encourage the resident to transfer and change positions slowly, have commonly used articles within reach, provide assistance to transfer and ambulate as needed and reinforce to call for assistance. The 4/7/22 nursing progress note documented the CNA reported to LPN #2 that the resident was sitting on the floor with her back against the wheelchair. It indicated LPN #2 assessed before she got onto the bed after the fall. The resident said she fell asleep and slid out of the wheelchair. The 4/7/22 fall investigation provided the same recounting of the fall event as the nursing progress note. It indicated the resident did not sustain an injury. The fall investigation did not have any further information and was completed by LPN #2. It did not document an RN had completed an assessment of the resident following the fall to ensure the resident had not sustained an injury. The 4/17/22 nursing progress note documented at 6:20 a.m. the resident was found sitting on the floor in front of her wheelchair. The resident said she fell asleep and slid out of the wheelchair. LPN #1 documented she assessed the resident and with the help of a CNA, moved the resident back into her wheelchair. It did not document LPN #1 had called for an RN to complete an assessment following the fall and prior to moving the resident off the floor. No RN assessment was found in the residents chart. III. Resident #13 A.Resident status Resident #13, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO, the diagnoses included anxiety, heart disease, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, myalgia, and hypothyroidism. The 4/19/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of four out of 15. He required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and one person limited assistance for locomotion. B. Record review The fall risk care plan, initiated on 4/14/21, revealed the resident had a history of falls. The interventions included: placing dycem (non-slide mat) to the recliner chair, encourage the resident to transfer slowly, put commonly used items within reach, and to reinforce need to call for assistance. The 3/21/22 fall incident report documented LPN #1 found Resident #13 laying on the floor in his room when she went to administer his medications at 5:00 p.m. The resident sustained a laceration to the top of his head and was bleeding. It indicated LPN #1 assessed the resident and then assisted the resident from the floor to the bed. The resident' medical record did not indicate the resident was assessed by an RN) following the fall and prior to the resident being moved off the ground. The 4/19/22 nursing progress note documented Resident #13 was found by LPN #1 on the floor next to his bed on his left lateral side. The resident sustained a half dollar sized skin tear to his head and a 4 cm (centimeter) x 3 cm skin tear to his left arm. LPN #1 documented she notified the resident' family, the physician and the hospice agency. -It did not document Resident #13 was assessed by an RN following the fall and prior to being moved off the ground. IV. Staff interviews CNA #6 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 4:27 p.m. She said the nurse was responsible for assessing the resident for injuries following a fall. She said the CNAs assisted the nurse in moving the resident off the floor to the bed. LPN #2 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 5:42 p.m. She said when a resident had a fall, she would immediately check the resident' vital signs. She said she would conduct an assessment of the resident including a skin check after she transferred the resident from the ground back to bed. She said after the assessment was completed, she would notify the resident' family and the physician. She said an incident report was completed after the resident was assessed and neurological checks were initiated for all unwitnessed falls and if the resident hit their head. LPN #1 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 9:54 a.m. She said the assessment of a resident following a fall should occur immediately, prior to moving the resident off the floor, to determine if the resident sustained an injury. She said the nurse on duty should perform the assessment. She said it did not matter if the nurse was an LPN or an RN, both were able to conduct an assessment. LPN #2 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:43 a.m. She said a resident should be assessed immediately following a fall to determine if the resident sustained an injury. She said the nurse on duty, if an LPN, should contact the RN in the facility to conduct the assessment. She said assessments were not within the LPNs scope of practice. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:10 p.m. She said a RN must complete an assessment of a resident post fall and prior to moving the resident off the ground. She said it is not within a LPN' scope of practice to complete assessments. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:11 p.m. She said an RN assessment should be completed after each fall to determine if the resident sustained an injury. She said an LPN was not able to conduct an assessment because it was not within their scope of practice. She said the RN assessment should always be documented in the resident's medical record.
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** II. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, age [AGE], was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Accordin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** II. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, age [AGE], was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO, the diagnoses included hyponatremia, type two diabetes mellitus, dementia, hypertension, hearing loss, and chronic kidney disease. The 2/16/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident had cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance with two persons for bed mobility, transfer and extensive assistance with one person for dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and locomotion. B. Observations On 4/7/22 at 9:20 a.m. Resident #44 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in her room. She had hair on her chin and upper lip that were approximately one inch long. On 4/12/22 at 10:35 a.m. Resident #44 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in her room. She had hair on her chin and upper lip that were approximately one inch long. C. Staff interviews CNA #1 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 4:51 p.m. She said she assisted female residents with facial hair grooming when she noticed it needed to be attended to. She said Resident #44 was able to perform personal hygiene when cueing was provided. CNA #8 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:45 a.m. She said assisting females with grooming facial hair was a part of their ADLs. III. Resident #46 A. Resident status Resident #46, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, dementia, anxiety disorder and need for assistance with personal care. The 2/21/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of one or two persons with bed mobility, dressing toileting and personal hygiene. She required limited assistance of two persons for transfers, walking and supervision of one person for eating. B. Resident observation On 4/7/22 at 10:45 a.m. Resident #46 was observed coming out of her room in her wheelchair. The resident was wearing a denim nightshirt and no pants. The resident's hair had not been brushed and numerous approximately half an inch long gray curly hairs were observed on her chin. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #4 reminded the resident to wear a mask while out of her room, and helped her place a surgical mask over her nose and mouth, covering the long hairs on her chin. C. Record review The comprehensive care plan for activities of daily living (ADLs), initiated on 2/15/22 revealed the resident required assistance with ADLs due to a history of falls with left shoulder injury, weakness, degenerative disc disease, history of thoracic spine fracture and urinary tract infection. Interventions included one person assist with walker, assist to bathe/shower as needed, assist with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, daily hygiene, grooming, dressing, oral care and eating as needed, break ADL tasks into subtasks for easier patient performance, and care in pairs. The April 2022 point of care charting for personal hygiene documented that the resident was provided one person physical assistance for personal hygiene including combing hair, brushing teeth, shaving, applying makeup, and washing/drying face and hands. Assistance for these tasks was provided as follows: -4/6/22 at 5:53 a.m., 11:49 a.m. and 7:04 p.m. -However, based on observation (see above) on 4/7/22 the resident's hair was not groomed and she had hairs on her chin. Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#24, #46 and #44) of four residents reviewed out of 33 sample residents for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) received appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve his or her abilities. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure three female residents (Residents #24, #46 and #44) received grooming services to remove long facial hair from their chin. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Activities of Daily Living policy and procedure, revised October 2019, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/14/22 at 2:00 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Morning care should be individualized to each patient's preferred morning hygiene habits and routine. Apply deodorant and/or make-up, comb hair, and shave as applicable and as needed. II. Resident #24 A. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance, adult failure to thrive, macular degeneration, muscle weakness, obsessive compulsive behavior, and history of falling. The 1/27/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, toileting and personal hygiene. She required limited assistance of one person with dressing, transfers and walking in the resident's room. B. Observations On 4/7/22 at 10:24 a.m. Resident #24 was observed sitting in her wheelchair. She was not wearing a facial covering. Multiple one and half to two inch long hairs were observed on the resident's chin. On 4/12/22 at 10:26 a.m. Resident #24 was observed with a surgical mask tucked below her chin. The resident still had multiple one and half to two inch long hairs on her chin. C. Record review The activities of daily living (ADL) care plan, initiated on 7/2/19 and revised on 1/27/22, revealed the resident had a self-care deficit related to dementia and weakness. The resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. The cognitive loss care plan, initiated on 2/3/2020, documented the resident had cognitive loss related to a diagnosis of dementia. D. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #8 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:45 a.m. She said each resident should be provided personal hygiene and grooming every morning. She said grooming consisted of washing the resident's face, brushing the resident's hair, putting on deodorant, washing the resident's hands and providing incontinence care. She said facial hair was usually taken care of during the resident's shower. She said facial hair was difficult at times to notice because of the use of facial coverings, however it should be recognized during the morning grooming and personal hygiene. She said facial hair should be shaved off on a woman, especially a resident with dementia. She said she had not provided bathing for Resident #24 for a while. She confirmed Resident #24 had multiple pieces of hair on the resident's chin that were approximately two inches long. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:43 a.m. She said, during grooming and the resident's showers, the CNAs should assist the female residents with long facial hair. She said each resident's facial hair should be monitored every day by the CNAs when providing assistance with ADLs. She said hair on a female resident should take extra monitoring to ensure it was taken care of. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:11 p.m. She said each resident should be provided with grooming every day. She said that included facial hair for female residents. She said, whatever the facility staff do for themselves every day, they should do for the residents when providing grooming and personal hygiene. She said the chin should be groomed for all female residents to ensure a dignified existence.
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 observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for residents w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary care and services for residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living for two (#40 and #51) of six residents reviewed for activities of daily living of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide showers and personal care such as washing face and brushing teeth for Residents #40; and, -Offer and encourage oral care for Resident #51, who required assistance with personal hygiene. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The A.M. Care policy was provided by the nursing home administrator on 4/14/22 at 2:00 p.m., read in pertinent part, Assist with face and hand washing and oral hygiene. The H.S. (hour of sleep) Care P.M. read in pertinent part, Assist with mouth care. II. Resident 40 A. Resident status Resident #40, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility 2/9/21. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included contracture of the left shoulder, left wrist, neuromuscular disjunction of the bladder, epilepsy, hemiplegia hemiparesis of the left dominant side. The 2/9/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. He had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. He required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. B. Resident interview and observation Resident #40 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 2:43 p.m. He said he was in the facility long term for care because he was not able to move his left arm and his left leg. He said he did not recall when his last shower was. He said his preference was to receive shower, but it rarely occurred. He said aides were very busy and probably did not have time to transfer him to a chair for showers. He said he was able to brush his teeth with one hand, but he needed someone to bring him supplies or take him to the bathroom. He said he was not assisted with brushing his teeth. The resident's appearance was disheveled. He had below the chin long oily hair loosely hanging down with dandruff and skin flakes in his hair, forehead, neck and shoulders. His glasses were foggy with fingerprints on the glass. Yellow food debris was in his beard. The space between his teeth was packed with white debris. Bread crumbs with leftovers of food observed on juice stained gown on his chest. His nails were long and packed with brown substance under them. The resident had a strong body odor. The resident was observed on 4/7, 4/11, 4/12, 4/13 and 4/14/22. His appearance regarding his hair, glasses, teeth and nails did not change from the initial observation (see above). C. Record review The care plan for activities of daily living (ADLs) and self care deficit, was initiated on 2/9/21 and revised on 2/9/22, revealed the resident had self care deficit related to left sided weakness, left hand, wrist and elbow contracture, and left foot drop. Interventions included one person assistance with grooming, and dressing. Assistance with meals as needed. One person assistance with bathing and toileting. Extensive assistance with daily hygiene, grooming, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and oral care. The care plan for behavior was initiated on 2/15/21. The resident was refusing bed baths, showers, and shaving. He preferred to keep facial hair and his hair long. Interventions included to educate the resident on the importance of bathing, offer to assist with bed baths, offer to schedule bathing times to his preferences. -The care plan was not revised since it was initiated in 2021. There were no interventions to address the resident's refusals and maintain his hygiene. The care plan did not document the residents' bathing preference. The resident's [NAME] (a staff directive) documented he required the following care: One person extensive assistance for grooming, upper and lower body dressing, extensive one person assistance for bathing, and toileting. Extensive assistance with daily hygiene, grooming, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, oral care and eating as needed. Bathing preference was documented as Fridays and Tuesdays days (with no specification for shower, bath or bed bath). The resident required assistance from two people with mechanical lift for transfers. -The care plan did not include documentation for the residents' bathing preference and assistance. The shower log was reviewed for March 2022, the resident received three bed baths for the entire month (3/15, 3/22, and 3/29/22) out of 10 opportunities for month. -The resident's progress notes were reviewed for March 2022 and revealed no notes regarding resident's refusals, re-approaches or any alternatives that were offered to the resident. D. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 12:30 p.m. She said she did not know where preferences were documented. She said probably CNAs provided showers when residents asked and documented it on the computer. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #15 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 12:50 p.m. She said she did not recall giving the resident shower and did not know what his preferences were. CNA #16 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 1:29 p.m. She said she did not recall giving the resident a shower because it was not scheduled on her days. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:15 p.m. She said shower preferences should be documented on the resident's [NAME] and care plan. The CNAs were able to see the residents ' [NAME] and provide showers or baths per their preference. When showers or baths were refused, it was the CNAs responsibility to reproach the resident and try to accommodate preference. She said CNAs must document refusal on the computer and report it to the nurse. She said Resident #40 should have been assessed for his preferences to see why he was refusing and if CNAs were able to provide showers per his preferences. She said regarding brushing teeth and personal hygiene, she said all residents must be offered to brush teeth at least twice a day, wash their face and other basic needs. III. Resident #51 A. Resident status Resident #51, under age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician order (CPO) diagnoses included cerebral vascular accident (CVA), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right non-dominant side. The 2/22/22 MDS assessment coded the resident with a brief interview for mental status of 15 out of 15. The MDS showed the resident had impairment on one side for both upper and lower extremities. The resident required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. B. Resident interview The resident was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 10:32 a.m. The resident said he was unable to brush his teeth independently, and that he required assistance. He said that the staff did not offer him to brush his teeth but maybe once a week. The resident did have white substance on his front lower teeth. The resident was interviewed again on 4/12/21 at 10:00 a.m. The resident said he received a bed bath and they shaved him but the staff did not offer to brush his teeth. The white substance on the bottom of his teeth remained. The resident was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 3:00 p.m. The resident said he was not offered to have his teeth brushed with his morning care. The white substance remained on his bottom teeth. C. Record review The care plan, last updated on 2/22/22, identified the resident was dependent on staff for oral care related to the CVA. Pertinent approaches included to assist with daily hygiene, grooming, shaving, dressing and oral care. The [NAME] (a staff directive) dated 4/18/22 showed the resident required assistance with oral care. D. Staff interview Registered nurse (RN) #3 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 2:55 p.m. RN #3 said the resident was cooperative in care and that he was dependent on staff for all personal care. She said his teeth should be brushed in the morning during the a.m. (morning) care. She said that the certified nurse aides should offer and assist him with the brushing of his teeth. The interim director of nurses (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:39 p.m. The IDON said the resident's teeth should be brushed twice a day. Once in the morning and then again at bedtime. She said the staff should offer and assist when the resident was unable to perform the task.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to assist one (#20) of two residents out of 33 sample r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to assist one (#20) of two residents out of 33 sample residents with obtaining vision services. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #20 received her prescribed eye glasses timely. Findings include: I. Resident #20 A. Resident status Resident #20, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders diagnoses included chronic pain, anxiety disorder, personality disorder and heart failure. The 1/21/22 minimum data assessment (MDS) assessment showed the resident did not have any cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. The MDS showed the resident required limited assistance for activities of daily living. The resident had adequate vision and did not wear corrective lenses. B. Resident interview Resident #20 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 4:44 p.m. The resident said that she had an eye exam, however she has not received her glasses. She said that she was a member of program of all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE), and that the facility social worker was blaming the PACE program for not getting glasses. She said she was tired of asking for her glasses. C. Observations On 4/11/22 at approximately 11:00 a.m., licensed practical nurse #6 was observed telling the social service assistant that Resident #20 was asking why she had not received her glasses. D. Record review The 1/18/22 social service note documented the resident was seen by the eye doctor. The note documented the resident was seen on 1/10/22. The note indicated the PETI (post eligibility treatment of income) packet was completed. Nearly two months after the resident was seen by the eye doctor, a social service note dated 3/3/22 documented, the social service department contacted the PACE program to see who would submit the glasses request to PETI. The social worker from PACE said the PETI program did not need to be used. The PACE social worker requested the bill. The note documented the facility social service department was under the impression that PACE would order the glasses. An additional social service note was written on 3/3/22 which indicated the social worker from PACE contacted the eyeglass distributor and said to send bills to the PACE. The social service department documented that nothing further was needed by the facility social service department. The next note was nearly 30 days later which documented on 3/30/22 the social service assistant (SSA) contacted the eyeglass distributor to inquire about the whereabouts of the glasses. A voicemail left. The 4/4/22 social service note documented the social service department received a call back from the eyeglass distributor and said they had not received payment for the glasses, but would start fulfilling the order anticipating the payment. E. Interview The social service director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 10:08 a.m. The SSD said the social service assistance (SSA) handled all of the ancillary services. The SSA was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 11:00 a.m. The SSA said he did handle the ancillary items. He kept track of requests in a binder along with the consent forms. He said the nurses and residents would request to see the eye doctor to either himself or the SSD. The SSA said he sent the PETI application to the business office, and then he contacted the PACE social worker and found out that the PACE program paid for the glasses. The PACE social worker said the glasses would be paid for this week. The SSA said after reviewing the medical record, the resident was seen by the eye doctor on 1/10/22. The business office manager (BOM) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 4:15 p.m. The BOM said Colorado could be slow to pay with the PETI program. She said the facility could pay for the ancillary items such as glasses and then reimburse from the PETI program. The BOM said she was not notified of Resident #20 was waiting for glasses.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#13) of three residents received adequat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#13) of three residents received adequate supervision to prevent accidents out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to conduct a root cause analysis and implement person-centered interventions after Resident #13, who had five falls in four months. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Falls Practice guide, dated December 2011, was provided by the regional nurse manager (RNM) on 4/13/22 at 12:15 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Events considered to be a fall include when a patient: unintentionally comes to rest on the ground, floor or other lower level, but not as a result of an overwhelming external force; loses balance and would have fallen, if not for staff intervention; and is found on the floor, unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise. Fall reduction and injury prevention strategies that can be implemented upon admission may include, but are not limited to the following: orientation to surroundings and use of call light; placement of call light within reach and visible; placement of light cord within reach and visible; placement of personal care items within reach; provision of environmental modification, if clinically indicated (low bed, cushioned floor mats next to bed, removal of trip hazards); use of appropriate footwear; availability of eyeglasses and hearing aids within reach, if applicable; use of hip protector products, as clinically indicated; review of ordered medications for potential fall risk side effects; provision of assistive devices, as clinically indicated (wheelchair, cane, walker, crutches); and referral to physical, occupational and speech therapy. The interdisciplinary team designs the patient's care plan to focus on all of the patient's issues including those associated with fall prevention and fall risk management. Input from the patient, family or legal guardian is included to maintain consistency and build on past successes. Caregivers are also asked for suggestions about interventions they have successfully used in managing a patient's fall risk. The approaches for fall interventions are clear, specific and individualized for the patient's needs. Managing falls can be complex as many falls do not have a single cause but include a combination of risk factors and causes. Regardless of the interventions that are put in place, a key factor to success is the timely review of the interventions as the patient's condition and needs change. Some environmental factors which may be associated with falls or the risk of falling may need to be reviewed and considered as ongoing fall prevention strategies. These factors may include, but are not limited to: bed height; improper footwear; inadequate lighting levels; loose carpeting or moveable rugs; uneven flooring; use of side rails; wet floors; access to grab bars in the bathroom; and furniture arrangement. Upon the completion of the evaluation, the physician is notified and orders and documented, noted and implemented, as indicated. The family and responsible party is notified of the fall event of change in fall risk factors and the patient's current condition. The patient's condition, response to interventions and subsequent care provided is documented in the patient's clinical record. The interdisciplinary care plan team reviews the patients most currently falls or fall evaluation in PointClickCare (the electronic resident charting program) to determine if the patient's present condition or status has changed and therefore requires the completion of a new fall evaluation. If the current fall evaluation still describes the patient accurately, then a narrative summary of the patient's condition and circumstances surrounding the vent are documented in the patient's clinical record. The care plan is revised as clinically indicated to meet the patient's current needs. II. Resident #13 status Resident #13, over the age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included anxiety, heart disease, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, myalgia (muscle aches/pain) and hypothyroidism. The 4/19/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of four out of 15. He required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and one person limited assistance for locomotion. He had hospice services. It documented the resident had not had any falls since his prior admission. -However, record review revealed Resident #13 had sustained four falls in the last 90 days. A. Resident representative interview The resident's representative was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 3:37 p.m. He said the resident has had a couple falls. He said the only intervention the facility put into place was to keep his bed in a low position. He said he visited the resident everyday and sometimes when he entered the resident's room his bed was not in the lowest position. B. Record review The activities of daily living (ADL) care plan, initiated on 4/12/21 and revised on 7/27/21, revealed the resident required assistance with ADLs. The interventions included: assisting with showers as needed; providing extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, daily hygiene, and grooming; transfering the resident with one person assistance with a gait belt; and to use assistive/adaptive equipment (wheelchair and walker). The cognitive care plan, initiated on 4/16/21, revealed the resident had cognitive loss related to terminal illness. The interventions included: allowing extra time for the resident to respond to questions, to approach the resident in a calm manner, attempting to provide consistent routines, explaining care procedures prior to starting, and providing cueing and prompting as needed. The fall risk care plan, initiated on 4/14/21, documented the resident had a history of falls. The interventions included placing dycem (non-slide mat) to the recliner chair, encouraging the resident to transfer slowly, place commonly used items within reach, and to reinforce the need to call for assistance. 1. Fall incident on 1/10/22-unwitnessed The 1/10/22 nursing progress note documented at 1:48 p.m., Resident #13 had an unwitnessed fall. He was found on the floor next to his recliner trying to eat his lunch. The facility implemented a dycem pad to the resident's recliner following the fall. It indicated the resident did not sustain any injuries at this time. The 1/10/22 incident report indicated the resident was found on the floor near his recliner by a certified nurses assistant (CNA). The resident was assisted back to his recliner after a dycem pad was placed in the chair. The resident's family and physician were notified. The 1/10/22 fall assessment documented that the resident had difficulty maintaining a standing position and had impaired balance during transitions. It documented the resident was on cardiovascular medications and had multiple conditions that could relate to falls. It indicated the care plan was updated. The 1/10/22 investigation report indicated dycem was placed in the resident's wheelchair, the resident was to be monitored for positioning in his recliner during meals, and to provide frequent checks. According to the resident's plan of care, the intervention of placing a dycem pad in his recliner was initiated on 1/10/22, which was also reflected on the resident's [NAME] (staff directive). Frequent checks were documented on the [NAME]. -However, the facility was unable to provide documentation that the frequent checks had been completed or identified the parameters of the frequent checks. 2. Fall incident on 3/6/22-unwitnessed The 3/6/22 nursing progress note documented, licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3 heard a loud noise from the hallway. Upon entering the room with a CNA, the resident was found with his back laying on the ground and his feet on the bed. It indicated the resident was assessed by the charge nurse, neurological checks were initiated and the resident was assisted back to bed. The resident's family and physician were notified. It indicated the resident did not sustain any injuries from the fall. The 3/6/22 fall assessment revealed the resident did not have any physical performance limitations, medications that could relate to a potential fall, comorbidities, or environmental factors that were related to the fall. It indicated the care plan was not updated after the fall. -However, according to the 1/10/22 fall assessment, the resident had multiple physical performance limitations, medications and comorbidities that would have contributed to the resident's fall. The 3/7/22 incident report reviewed the fall documented the events of the fall as indicated in the nursing progress note. -It did not include any post-fall interventions put into place. -The resident's plan of care was not updated with any person-centered preventative fall intervention following the resident's fall on 3/6/22. -A review of the resident's EMR on 4/18/22 at 9:00 a.m. did not reveal documentation of an interdisciplinary team review of the unwitnessed fall or a root cause analysis completed to determine the nature of the unwitnessed fall and implementation of an effective intervention post-fall. 3. Fall incident on 3/21/22-unwitnessed The 3/21/22 fall assessment was documented by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 at 3:36 p.m., revealed the resident had difficulty maintaining a sitting balance, difficulty maintaining standing position, and had impaired balance during transitions. It documented he was on cardiovascular and diuretic medications, had a decline in function, incontinence, cognitive impairment, fatigue, muscle weakness, arthritis, depression, and impulsivity or poor safety awareness. It documented the care plan was not updated after the fall. The 3/21/22 fall incident report, revealed the resident was found on the floor when the LPN entered the resident's room to administer medications. The resident was laying on the floor next to his bed on his left side. It documented he fell out of his bed as he was leaning to the left while eating breakfast in bed. He sustained a half dollar size skin tear to the left side of his head. The family, hospice, and physician were notified of the fall. The 3/22/22 fall investigation report documented the interdisciplinary team recommended to continue with the current fall interventions, which included frequent checks (which was not defined nor documented in the resident's medical record) and ensuring the bed was in the lowest position. -Review of the resident's progress notes did not reveal the resident had a fall on 3/21/22. Cross-reference F658: the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for injury by a registered nurse (RN) immediately following a fall and prior to being moved off the ground. 4. Fall incident on 4/14//22-unwitnessed The 4/14/22 nursing progress note documented the resident was found by the hospice RN on the floor next to the bed, on the floor. It documented the resident did not sustain any injury from the fall. -It did not indicate how the resident fell out of the bed or any new interventions put into place. -A review of the resident's EMR on 4/18/22 at 9:00 a.m. did not reveal documentation of an interdisciplinary team review of the unwitnessed fall or a root cause analysis completed to determine the nature of the unwitnessed fall and implementation of an effective intervention post-fall. The care plan was not updated to ensure effective interventions were in place, especially since the resident now fell from the bed on three occasions. III. Staff interviews CNA #1 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 4:51 p.m. She said the nurse was responsible for assessing the resident for injuries following a fall. She said the CNAs assisted the nurse in moving the resident off the floor and onto the bed. She said fall interventions for Resident #13 included placing his bed in the lowest position and providing frequent checks every hour. She said the frequent checks were not documented. She said he also had a non-slip pad to his recliner, but he had not been sitting in his recliner recently as his mobility was declining. She said he preferred to spend more time in bed the last few weeks. LPN #2 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 5:42 p.m. She said when a resident sustained a fall, she would immediately check the resident's vital signs. She said an assessment should be conducted, including a skin check after she transferred the resident from the ground back to bed. She said after the assessment was completed, the physician and resident's family would be notified. She said an incident report was completed after each fall. She said Resident #13 did not have any current fall interventions in place. She said the resident had not sustained any recent falls. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:10 p.m. She said after a resident sustained a fall, the interdisciplinary team should meet to review the situation and place an intervention in place to prevent future falls. She said fall interventions should be reviewed for effectiveness and implemented. She said the resident's care plan should be reviewed to remove ineffective interventions She confirmed new interventions were not put into place after Resident #13 had sustained several falls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and record review the facility failed to assist a resident to obtain routine or emergency...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and record review the facility failed to assist a resident to obtain routine or emergency dental services, as needed, for one (#51) of two out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide dental services for Resident #51. Findings include: I. Resident #51 A. Resident status Resident #51, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician order (CPO) diagnoses included cerebral vascular accident (CVA), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right non- dominant side. The 2/22/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment coded the resident with a brief interview for mental status of 15 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The resident had his own teeth both upper and lower. B. Resident interview The resident was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 10:32 a.m. The resident said he needed to be seen by a dentist. He said he had a tooth on his lower jaw that was growing out.He attempted to show his tooth however, it was difficult to see. He said he had not seen a dentist. C. Record review A consent was signed on 1/8/21 which indicated the resident wanted to be seen by a dentist. -The resident's medical record failed to show that the resident was offered and seen by the dentist. D. Interview The social service director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 10:08 a.m. The SSD said the social service assistance (SSA) handled all of the ancillary services. The SSA was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 11:00 a.m. The SSA said he did handle the ancillary items. He kept track of requests in a binder along with the consent forms. He said the nurses and residents would request to see the dentist to either himself or the SSD. The SSA reviewed the medical record and confirmed the resident had not seen the dentist. He said that the resident slipped through the cracks.'' He said the dentist was scheduled to come on 4/7/22, however, had to be canceled due to the COVID-19 outbreak. He said he would put him on the list to see the dentist. Registered nurse (RN) #3 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 2:55 p.m. The RN said the social service department handled all of the ancillary tasks. She said they informed the social service department and then the social worker arranged for the dentist to come to the facility or if needed the resident went to see the dentist.
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to provide resolut...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to provide resolutions to food concerns voiced by residents in the food committee, resident council and reported directly to a staff member. I. Facility policy and procedure The Patient Protection policy, revised October 2021, was provided by the assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) on 4/18/22 at 2:30 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, The resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment, which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents; and other concerns regarding their long-term care (LTC) facility stay. The facility must make information on how to file a grievance or complaint available to the resident. The facility must establish a grievance policy to ensure the prompt resolution of all grievances regarding the residents' rights contained in this paragraph. Notifying resident individually or through postings in prominent locations throughout the facility of the right to file fiancés orally or in writing; the right to file grievances anonymously; the contact information for the grievance official with who a grievance can be filed, that is, his or her name, business address (mailing and email), and business phone number; a reasonable expected time frame for completing the review of the grievance; the right to obtain a written decision regarding his or her grievance; and the contact information of independent entities with whom grievances may be filed, that is, the pertinent State agency, Quality Improvement Organization, Status Survey Agency and State Long-Term Care ombudsman program or protection and advocacy system. Ensuring that all written grievance decisions include the date the grievance was received, a summary statement of the resident's grievance, the steps taken to investigate the grievance, a summary of the pertinent findings or conclusion regarding the resident's concern(s), a statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed, any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance, and the date the written decision was issued. II. Resident council president interview The resident council president was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:32 a.m. He said grievances were often voiced to him from other residents at the facility or during resident council meetings. He said residents rarely received acknowledgement when a grievance was filed. He said there was never follow-up that the concern had been investigated or the resolution. III. Resident interviews All residents were identified by the facility and assessment as interviewable Resident #64 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 12:10 p.m. The resident said the food was good half of the time and half of the time it was not good. The vegetables were cooked to death and the food in general need more seasoning, butter and salt would help the food. Resident #59 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 3:07 p.m. The resident said the food was not good. The meat was tough which made it hard to cut, and the vegetables were overcooked. She said she felt that the staff did not follow recipes. Resident #56 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 3:40 p.m. The resident said the food had no taste. The meat was hard and was difficult to chew. Resident #20 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 4:24 p.m. The resident said the food was not good. She said the eggs were not cooked right and they were super hard. She said the egg rolls which were served last night were not edible as they were hard. Resident #68 was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 9:49 a.m. The resident said the food looks good, however, it was too salty. Resident #51 was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 10:17 a.m. the resident that the food did not taste good. He said that the food needed to have more flavor. He said it was not always served hot. IV. Record review A. Resident council minutes The resident council minutes were provided by the activities director (AD) on 4/18/22 at 2:30 p.m. The minutes documented the following: -January 2022: the residents requested butter instead of margarine; -February 2022: the resident's reported their meals were being delivered late; and, -March 2022: the residents reported they did not like scrambled eggs or confetti eggs. B. Food committee minutes The AD provided the food committee minutes on 4/19/22 at 4:52 p.m. However, the minutes were individual progress notes from the medical records from three residents. The 3/22/22 progress notes documented the residents attending the food committee meeting, were able to review upcoming proposed menus and were able to ask questions, voice opines and make suggestions. Dietary provided residents with a copy of the menus and his name and contact information. -The committee minutes did not identify the concerns of the residents. V. Staff interviews The AD was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:50 p.m. She said about half of the residents voiced concerns about food. She said recently there were no concerns about the food in resident council meetings, except regarding the scrambled eggs. The AD said the food council had not met for a while. She said there had been a turnover in the food service director (FSD). She said that the menu cycle has been switched. She said when food complaints were received in the food committee or the resident council then they were presented to the FSD to follow up on. The AD was interviewed a second time on 4/18/22 at 4:52 p.m. The AD said after looking for the food committee minutes, it was identified that the food committee was not documented correctly for the grievance process. She said they would write a performance improvement plan (PIP). The FSD was interviewed on 4/19/22 at approximately 3:00 p.m. The FSD said he had heard some food complaints. He said he would talk to the resident if he knew someone was not happy with the meal. He said he had not received any grievance forms from either resident council or the food committee. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 10:38 a.m. He said the facility uses an electronic system for grievances. He said when residents reported grievances to a staff member, they were responsible for submitting the grievance into the electronic system. He said whoever entered the grievance was responsible for assigning it to the correct department. He said the nursing home administrator (NHA) was the only one that had the authority to resolve the grievance. He said he reported the amount of grievances and the areas of concern in the monthly quality assurance meeting. -A copy of the report was not provided before the survey exit on 4/19/22. Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances. Specifically, the facility failed to provide resolutions to food concerns voiced by residents in the food committee, resident council and reported directly to a staff member. I. Facility policy and procedure The Patient Protection policy, revised October 2021, was provided by the assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) on 4/18/22 at 2:30 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, The resident has the right to voice grievances to the facility or other agency or entity that hears grievances without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or repirsal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment, which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and of other residents; and other concerns regarding their long-term care (LTC) facility stay. The facility must make information on how to file a grievance or complaint available to the resident. The facility must establish a grievance policy to ensure the prompt resolution of all grievances regarding the residents ' rights contained in this paragraph. Notifying resident individually or through postings in prominent locations throughout the facility of the right to file frivances orally or in writing; the right to file grievances anonymously; the contact information for the grievance official with who a grievance can be filed, that is, his or her name, business address (mailing and email), and business phone number; a reasonable expected time frame for completing the review of the grievance; the right to obtain a written decision regarding his or her grievance; and the contact information of independent entities with whom grievances may be filed, that is, the pertinent State agency, Quality Improvement Organization, Status Survey Agency and State Long-Term Care ombudsman program or protection and advocacy system. Ensuring that all written grievance decisions include the date the grievance was received, a summary statement of the resident ' s grievance, the steps taken to investigate the grievance, a summary of the pertinent findings or conclusion regarding the resident ' s concern(s), a statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed, any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance, and the date the written decision was issued. II. Resident council president interview The resident council president was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:32 a.m. He said grievances were often voiced to him from other residents at the facility or during resident council meetings. He said residents rarely received acknowledgement when a grievance was filed. He said there was never follow-up that the concern had been investigated or the resolution. III. Record review The resident council minutes were provided by the activities director (AD) on 4/18/22 at 2:30 p.m. The minutes documented the following: -January 2022: the residents requested butter instead of margarine; -February 2022: the resident ' s reported their meals were being delivered late; and, -March 2022: the residents reported they did not like scrambled eggs or confetti eggs. IV. Staff interviews The AD was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:50 p.m. She said about half of the residents voiced concerns about food. She said recently there were no concerns about the food in resident council meetings, except regarding the scrambled eggs. She said the dietary team held a food committee meeting. She said this meeting had not been held regularly because there were staffing changes in the kitchen. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 10:38 a.m. He said the facility uses an electronic system for grievances. He said when residents reported grievances to a staff member, they were responsible for submitting the grievance into the electronic system. He said whoever entered the grievance was responsible for assigning it to the correct department. He said the nursing home administrator (NHA) was the only one that had the authority to resolve the grievance. He said he reported the amount of grievances and the areas of concern in the monthly quality assurance meeting. A copy of the report was not provided during the survey process.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to revise and review comprehensive care plans for four...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to revise and review comprehensive care plans for four (#51, #23, #68, and #22) of 18 residents out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #51's care plan was reviewed and revised to reflect the resident's range of motion needs; -Ensure Resident #23 care plan was integrated with hospice services; and, -Ensure Resident #68 and Resident #22 were invited and participated in their plan of care conference and care plan updated accordingly. Cross0reference F688 for range of motion Findings include: I. Professional reference According to [NAME], P., & [NAME], A., & Stockert, P., & Hall, A. (2017) Fundamentals of Nursing (9th ed.), pp. 248-249, which read in pertinent part, A nursing care plan includes nursing diagnoses, goals, and/or expected outcomes, specific nursing interventions, and a section for evaluations so any nurse is able to quickly identify a patient's clinical needs and situation. Nurses revise a plan when a patient's status changes. The plan gives all nurses a central document that outlines a patient's diagnoses/problems, the plan of care for each diagnosis/problem, and the outcomes for monitoring and evaluating patient progress. A well-planned comprehensive nursing care plan reduces the risk for incomplete, incorrect, or inaccurate care. As a patient's problems and status change, so does the plan. A nursing care plan is a guideline for coordinating nursing care, promoting continuity of care, and listing outcome criteria to be used later for evaluation. The plan of care communicates nursing priorities to nurses and other healthcare providers. II. Resident #51 A. Resident status Resident #51, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician order (CPO) diagnoses included cerebral vascular accident (CVA), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right non- dominant side. The 2/22/22 MDS assessment coded the resident with a brief interview for mental status of 15 out of 15. The MDS showed the resident had impairment on one side for both upper and lower extremities. The resident required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. B. Resident interview The resident was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 10:33 a.m. The resident said he did not receive range of motion on his right hand or his upper extremity or lower right extremity. C. Record review The care plan last updated on 2/1/22 identified the resident had self care deficit related to CVA to right hemiparesis and right hand contracture. Interventions included, to assist with grooming, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and oral care, encourage and assist to reposition. Transfers two person mechanical lift. The care plan did not include interventions to provide the range of motion to his upper extremity, and lower extremity. -No orders were revealed for Resident #51. The [NAME] last updated dated 4/18/22 failed to show range of motion to his hand contracture and his lower extremities. III. Resident #23 A. Resident status Resident #23, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO diagnoses included, major depressive disorder, hypertension and post polio syndrome. The 1/26/22 MDS assessment showed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a score of four out of 15 on the BIMS. The resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living. The resident was receiving hospice services. B. Record review The April 2022 CPO showed the resident had a physician order for hospice services with the associated diagnosis of post polio syndrome. The care plan last updated on 11/3/21, failed to include an integrated care plan with the hospice services. The care plan identified the resident was receiving hospice services, however, it did not identify the specifics of what services were provided. The hospice agency had developed an individual care plan which was in the medical record. However, it was not integrated with the facility care plan. C. Interview The licensed practical nurse (LPN) #6 was interviewed on 4/7/22 at approximately 2:00 p.m. The LPN #6 said Resident #23 was currently on hospice. She said the hospice agency sent in a licensed nurse and also a certified nurse aide, however, she was not sure when they came into the facility. IV. Resident #68 A. Resident status Resident #68, age [AGE], was admitted [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included hypertension, and major depressive disorder. The 3/17/22 MDS assessment coded the resident with moderate cognitive impairment with a score of 13 out of 15 on the brief interview for mental status. The resident required limited assistance with activities of daily living. B. Resident interview The resident was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 9:48 a.m. The resident said that she had not been invited to a care conference meeting. She said she wanted to be involved in her plan of care. C. Record review The care plan progress note dated 3/17/22 documented the resident was interviewed and the MDS assessment was completed by the MDS coordinator. The medical record from the resident's admission date to April 2022 failed to show a care conference was held for Resident #68. The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 12:03 p.m. The DOR said the range of motion and management of the contracture should be on the care plan and the [NAME]. V. Resident #22 A. Resident status Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory failure, quadriplegia, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and generalized muscle weakness. The 1/25/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. B. Resident interview The resident was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 11:17 a.m. The resident said she did not receive passive range of motion exercises on her upper extremities. She said that she had been asking for physical therapy, but had not received any therapy. The resident did not recall having a care conference. C. Record review The care plan last dated 7/23/21 identified the resident had self care deficit as evidenced by impaired mobility related to physical limitations, quadriplegia, right hand contracture, obesity, chronic pain, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Interventions included transfer with mechanical lift, assist to bathe/shower as needed, break activity of daily living (ADL) tasks into subtasks for easier patient performance, Extensive assist with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, daily hygiene, grooming, dressing, oral care and eating as needed and uses assistive/adaptive equipment (wheelchair). The care plan did not include interventions to provide the range of motion to her upper extremities. No orders were revealed. The [NAME] dated 4/12/22 failed to show range of motion to her bilateral hand contractures. No care conference was documented in the resident's medical records. The social services director (SSD) was unable to find any documentation of a completed care conference. VI. Interviews The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 12:03 p.m. The DOR said the range of motion and management of the contracture should be on the care plan and the [NAME]. The MDS coordinator (MDSC) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 4:03 p.m. The MDS coordinator said the progress note was her note she wrote when she completed the MDS assessment. It was not a care conference note. The MDSC said social services set the schedule and provided the invitations to residents. She said the care plans were reviewed and revised during the care conferences. The social service director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 10:37 a.m. The SSD said the standard procedure was to review in a care conference on a quarterly, change of condition or if the resident or family wanted to meet for a meeting. He said that the interdisciplinary team which included, social services, activities, nursing, registered dietitian. The resident and or family were invited. He said during the meeting the resident's plan of care and goals were discussed. The SSD said he and the SSA were recently hired within the past six months. He said the facility had identified in January 2022 that care conferences were not completed. He said an audit was done and he had written a performance improvement plan. He said that they did not have an overall goal set, but thought they could be caught up by the end of the month. The SSD reviewed the medical record and confirmed although the resident had an MDS assessment completed in March 2022, the resident did not have a care conference meeting. The ANHA was interviewed on 4/19/22 at approximately 2:00 p.m. The ANHA said the range of motion should be on the care plan. The ANHA reviewed the care plan and confirmed the range of motion and management of the contracture was not on the care plan
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure activities designed to support residents phys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure activities designed to support residents physical, mental and psychosocial well-being were provided for three (#44, #74 and #282) of four residents reviewed for activities out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #44, #74, and #282 were provided activities and developed a comprehensive care plan which addressed each resident's socialization and activity needs. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Program Types policy and procedure, dated July 2019, was provided by the activities director (AD) on 4/19/22 at 2:43 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Group programs involve a number of people in physical, mental and social interactions. By providing group programs, the center maximizes resources, encourages cohesiveness and promotes socialization. A one-to-one program is provided for patients unable or unwilling to participate in large group settings, meeting some or all of the following criteria: health and or disease status limits participation in group activities; isolation status, medically related or self-imposed isolation limits exposure to other patients; behavioral symptoms that limit tolerance and participation in group settings; patient chooses not to participate in group activities offered or seldom initiates own activities. The one-to-one program format is based upon the comprehensive assessment, interests and the physical, mental and psychosocial needs of the patient. Care plans reflect frequency and types of services provided. Visiting time frames vary according to individual patient needs. The activity/recreation director is responsible for scheduling specific days and providers for patients requiring a one-to-one visit. Programs presented in a group setting can be adapted or modified for a one-to-one activity. A one-to-one cart containing the appropriate supplies based on patient likes and interests can be utilized on the unit during scheduled visits. II. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included hyponatremia, type two diabetes mellitus, dementia, hypertension, hearing loss and chronic kidney disease. The 2/16/22 minimum data set (MSDS) assessment revealed the resident had cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance with two people with bed mobility and transfers and extensive assistance of one person with dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and locomotion. The 1/18/21 MDS assessment indicated it was important to the resident to be around animals, keep up on the news, do things with groups of people, do her favorite activities, and get fresh air. B. Observations During a continuous observation on 4/6/22 beginning at 9:58 a.m. and ended at 12:19 p.m The following was observed: -Resident #44 was in bed with the breakfast tray on her bedside table in front of her. -At 11:25 a.m. Resident #44 was observed still in bed. No staff members had entered the resident' room. -At 11:40 a.m. certified nurse aide (CNA) #3 entered the resident' room to verify the resident had oxygen. -At 12:19 p.m. CNA #3 entered the resident' room to deliver the lunch meal tray. The resident was not encouraged to go to the dining room to socialize with other residents. CNA #3 assisted the resident to sit up in bed. Resident #44 consumed her meal in bed. -During this observation, the facility staff did not enter the resident' room to invite her to the group activities. On 4/7/22 at 9:22 a.m. Resident #44 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room, conversing with herself. -At 10:06 a.m. Resident #44 sitting in her room in a wheelchair. The resident did not have any meaningful activities in her room. -At 3:04 p.m. Resident #44 was still sitting in her room in a wheelchair with no meaningful activities. On 4/11/22 at 10:36 a.m., Resident #44 was observed sitting in her wheelchair, in her room with no meaningful activities within reach. -At 11:01 a.m. she fell asleep while sitting in her wheelchair, with her head hanging downward. During a continuous observation on 4/11/22 beginning at 2:11 p.m. Resident #44 was sitting in her wheelchair, in her room, reading the daily chronicle. She continued to read the same page until 3:16 p.m. On 4/12/22 at 9:06 a.m. Resident #44 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. The lights were off and the resident was twiddling her thumbs staring at the wall. -At 9:22 a.m. an unidentified activity staff member entered Resident #44' room and handed the resident a copy of the newspaper and the daily chronicle. The activity staff member spent 30 seconds in the resident' room. She did not offer the resident the daily activities schedule. The blinds in the resident' room were shut. After the staff member left the room, the resident began singing to herself. -At 10:31 a.m. Resident #44 was still sitting in her wheelchair in her room with the lights off. -At 10:35 a.m. Resident #44 was laying in bed with no lights on or a meaningful activity. -At 11:49 a.m. Resident #44 remained in bed with the television on. C. Record review The activity care plan, initiated on 3/15/19 and revised on 11/19/21, revealed the resident enjoyes animals, music, spending time with family, reading the daily chronicle, watching movies, going outside and resting in her room. It documented that the resident needed to anticipate some of her needs and she is on the one-to-one program. The interventions included: one-to-one program for extra socialization; stimulation and sensory needs (initiated 1/22/21); encourage activity participation; assist the resident with calling her daughter; provide brief visits (as able), deliver the daily activity schedule and check on leisure materials, The cognitive loss care plan, initiated on 3/8/19 and revised on 8/11/19, revealed the resident exhibited cognitive impairment related to dementia. The interventions included: allowing the resident adequate time to respond, explaining care procedure prior to beginning, give the resident two choices when presenting options, provide access to a clock and calendar, and to provide cueing and prompting for activities. The 11/19/21 recreation/activity evaluation documented the resident liked to keep busy, spend time relaxing, enjoyed and participated in independent leisure activities, and enjoyed participating in outdoor leisure activities. It indicated she was not involved in group leisure activities. It documented that the resident enjoyed dogs, her family, music, facility parties, and the newspaper and daily chronicle. D. Staff interviews The activities director (AD) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:50 p.m. She said Resident #44 loved to play the personal piano in her room and had a baby doll that she treated as her own baby. -However, during the observations the baby doll was never within reach of the resident. She said the resident occasionally attended group activities, but required additional assistance because she was disruptive. She said the resident' family visited frequently. She said the activities staff had previously assisted in calling her two sons who lived outside the state. She said the activity department was no longer in control of video calls with resident families. She said she was not sure how frequently the resident received calls from her family. She said the activities staff entered the resident' room daily to provide her with the daily chronicle and the newspaper. She said the activity staff often did not provide the resident with the daily activities calendar as the resident was unable to recall the times. She said one-to-one activities included the resident attending group activities, talking to other residents in the dining room, and the activities staff members dropping off the newspaper daily. She said they attempted to conduct one-to-one activities with the resident two or three times per week, but were not always able to complete that amount of visits due to staffing shortages. III. Resident #74 A. Resident status Resident #74, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO, the diagnosis included bacterial pneumonia, dysphagia, dementia, hypokalemia, obesity, and heart disease. The 3/22/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident had cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of two out of 15. She required extensive assistance with one person for all activities of daily living (ADL). It indicated it was important for the resident to listen to music, be around animals, enjoy her favorite activities, get fresh air, do things with groups of people, and keep up on the news. B. Observations On 4/6/22 at 10:16 a.m. an unidentified therapy staff member assisted Resident #74 to her room. The therapist assisted the resident next to her bed, in her wheelchair. The television was on a cartoon channel. -At 10:22 a.m. the resident began falling asleep, leaning forward in her wheelchair. She caught herself from falling out of her wheelchair on several occasions. CNA #2 check on the resident from the hallway, but did not enter the resident' room. -At 11:05 a.m. Resident #74 remained asleep in her wheelchair. -At 11:14 a.m. CNA #2 entered the resident' room and asked the resident if she was sleeping. The resident responded, yes. CNA #2 then asked what she wanted to eat for lunch and left the room. She did not offer to lay the resident down in bed. -At 11:26 a.m. occupational therapist (OT) #1 entered the resident' room and began therapy. On 4/7/22 at 9:22 a.m. Resident #74 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. The television was on with cartoons playing. On 4/11/22 at 2:11 p.m. Resident #74 sitting in her wheelchair, in her room, with the television on. The volume was set very low. The resident was playing with the call light. -At 3:16 p.m. Resident #74 remained in her wheelchair looking out into the hallway. -At 4:44 p.m. the resident, still sitting in her wheelchair, was looking out into the hallway. She did not have any meaningful activities within reach. On 4/12/22 at 9:20 a.m. an unidentified activities staff member entered Resident #74' room. She handed the resident the daily activities schedule and the daily chronicle. She was in the room for 30 seconds. -At 10:30 a.m. Resident #74 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room with the lights off, curtains closed, and no meaningful activities in front of her. At 4:21 p.m. Resident #74 was sitting in the same position, with the lights off and no meaningful activities within reach. On 4/13/22 at 10:13 a.m. Resident #74 was laying in bed with no lights on or meaningful activity. -At 11:49 a.m. the resident remained in bed with no lights on. -At 4:25 p.m. the resident was still in bed with no meaningful activity. The resident kept looking into the hallway. C. Record review The activity care plan, initiated on 3/24/22, revealed the resident needed assistance with some independent activities. The interventions included: to allow time for the resident to respond, to encourage the resident to plan own activities, the family to provide items to make room home-like, to provide supplies for leisure activities as needed and to redirect as needed. The cognitive loss care plan, initiated on 3/17/22, revealed the resident had cognitive loss related to dementia. The interventions included: to allow adequate time for the resident to respond, to explain activities and care procedures prior to beginning, to give two choices when presenting options, to repeat as needed, and to use brief/simple words when speaking with the resident. The 3/24/22 recreation/activity evaluation revealed the resident enjoyed spending time relaxing, participating in independent and group leisure activities, and enjoyed the outdoors. The one-to-one activity/recreation program documentation for Resident #44 was provided by the activities director (AD) on 4/18/22 at 3:15 p.m. It documented she liked dogs, her grandkids, watching television, and listening to music. -The documentation did not indicate the resident had received any one-on- one activities from the facility activity staff. D. Staff interviews The AD was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:50 p.m. She said Resident #74 was not interviewable at the time of her admission to the facility. She said she conducted the activity's preference form with the resident' son. She said Resident #74 enjoyed music and attending group activities. The AD said cartoons were not age appropriate for the resident to watch. She said she would place a paper near the resident's television that provided age-appropriate channels. She said Resident #74 could have used more involvement from the activities department, especially when she was on isolation due to a COVID-19 positive test result. She said the activity department had not provided Resident #74 with any one-on-one activities or interactions. IV. Resident #282 A. Resident #282 Resident #282, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, and unspecified dementia The 3/4/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with an unscored brief interview for mental status. She had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. She required extensive assistance from one person with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. The 3/24/22 MDS activity assessment was unanswered by the resident and indicated that a family member or significant other would be interviewed. No record of additional interviews were documented. B. Observations The resident was observed participating in an activity one time during the survey. Observations are as follows: On 4/6/22 at 3:15 p.m., Resident #282 was in isolation after testing positive for COVID-19. She was in a private room, laying in the bed dressed in a hospital gown. The television was on and the resident was watching it. On 4/7/22 at 3:27 p.m., Resident #282 had returned to her room. She was laying awake in her bed on her back. There was no music playing and her television was not on. On 4/11/22 at 10:55 a.m., Resident #282 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room facing the television. The television was not on and there was no music playing in her room. -At 2:45 p.m. the resident was in the same position sleeping in her wheelchair with no music playing and the television was not on. On 4/12/22 at 8:44 a.m. the resident was lying in her bed awake. Her breakfast was sitting on her tray table next to her bed. -At 10:56 a.m., the resident had returned to her room after being given a shower. The resident was left in her wheelchair next to her bed looking toward the television. Her glasses were on the tray table. The television was not on and there was no music playing. -At 11:09 a.m., certified nurse aide (CNA) #10 and licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 provided wound care. After the wound observation was completed, the resident was returned to the same position in her wheelchair next to her bed facing the blank television. No activity was offered to the resident prior to staff leaving her room. -At 2:30 p.m.the resident was in the same position and the television was off and there was no music playing. On 4/14/22 at 8:47 a.m., Resident #282 was sitting up in bed in a hospital gown. The television was not on and there was no music playing. -At 11:34 a.m. the resident was still in bed in her hospital gown. There was no music and the television was not on. On 4/18/22 at 11:50 a.m., Resident #282 was sitting in her wheelchair next to her bed. The television was not on and there was no music playing. -At 2:22 p.m. the resident's door was closed, but voices could be heard from the room. -At 2:25 p.ml, the door opened and two staff members exited her room. The resident was in her wheelchair facing the doorway, looking out into the hallway. On 4/18/22 at 3:55 p.m., Resident #282 was observed sitting in her wheelchair under the television facing the doorway. The television was plugged into an outlet approximately two feet below the ceiling. The cord was dangling down. The activity director (AD) said that the resident unplugs her television. At 4:00 p.m. the director of maintenance (DOM) secured the television cord and the television was on, although the resident was sitting under the television facing the doorway. She was unable to see the television screen. C. Record review The activity care plan, dated 7/9/21 and revised 3/24/22, documented that the resident engaged in independent activities with assistance needed and typically did not attend group activities. Interventions included assist in planning and/or encourage activity participation, assist in transport to and from activities of interest, encouraging participation in group activities of interest including music and socials, offer redirection and diversion as needed, and provide a CD player and CDs for resident to borrow. The activity care plan also documented that the resident tested positive for COVID-19 on 3/24/22 and was placed on isolation. A recreation/activity evaluation was conducted on 7/9/21 and revealed that the resident liked to spend time relaxing, enjoyed independent leisure activities, group leisure activities and outdoor activities. The resident' interests included animals, music, arts/crafts, cards/games, children, current events/news, movies, parties/socials, reading/writing, talking/conversing, travel, and television/radio. The resident pursued recreation and leisure activities with assistance. Daily recreation/activity participation logs for January 2022 through April 2022 document activity as follows: January 2022 Movies 1/6/22 and 1/22/22; Music 1/1/22 and 1/13/22; Socializing everyday except 1/6/22, 1/9/22, 1/15/22, 1/16/22, 1/30/22 and 1/31/22; Television was marked as independent participation; and, Mail 1/3/22 and 1/20/22. February 2022 Movies 2/17/22; Music 2/1/22; Sensory stimulation 2/6/22, 2/12/22 and 2/16/22; Socializing everyday except 2/7/22, 2/14/22 and 2/27/22; Television was marked as independent participation; and, Mail 2/6/22, 2/11/22 and 2/15/22. March 2022 Movies 3/24/22; Music 3/8/22 and 3/22/22; Socializing everyday except 3/26/22, 3/27/22, 3/29/22, 3/30/22, 3/31/22; and, Television was marked as independent participation. April 2022 Music 4/14/22; Socializing 4/8/22, 4/13/22, 4/14/22, 4/15/22, 4/16/22 and 4/17/22; and, Television as independent participation. D. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:25 p.m. She said that the resident was unable to communicate to staff what she would like to do but had been seen pulling herself along the wall in her wheelchair. She said she liked to watch television and often talked to herself. An unidentified certified nurse aide (CNA) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:30 p.m. after disposing of trash removed from the resident's room. The CNA said that she did not know the resident or what the resident liked to do. The AD was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 3:00 p.m. She said that socializing with residents occured when staff talked to or had any interaction with residents, including delivering daily chronicles, meals, and activities with other residents. She said that it was difficult to include Resident #282 in group activities because the resident was disruptive and talked too much. She said that the resident enjoyed music programs but if she talked too much, then she had to be returned to her room. She said that the resident liked to watch television but often pulled the plug out of the wall. She said the resident could turn the television on and off, but could not change the channel. Immediately after the interview, the AD went to the resident's room at 4:05 p.m. and was unable to find the resident's television remote. The television was on and the resident was sitting under the television facing the doorway. She said that the resident probably threw the remote away. She acknowledged that the resident did not turn the television on, nor could the resident see the television from where she was sitting.
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** II. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, age [AGE], was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Accordi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** II. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, age [AGE], was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPOs, the diagnoses included hyponatremia, type two diabetes mellitus, dementia, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease. The 2/16/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident had cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, transfers and extensive assistance of one person for dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and locomotion. It indicated the resident was at risk for pressure injuries, but did not have any current skin issues. B. Record review The skin integrity care plan, initiated on 3/7/19 and revised on 2/16/22 revealed the resident was at risk for skin alteration related to frequent falls, impaired mobility, and incontinence. The interventions included: applying barrier cream to peri area and buttocks as needed, elevating the resident's heals as able, encourage fluids, encourage repositioning as needed, observe the resident's skin conditions with activities of daily living (ADL) care, and to provide preventative skin care routinely and as needed. The 2/16/22 Braden scale for predicting pressure ulcer risk documented Resident #44 was at risk for developing pressure injuries. A review of the resident's electronic medical record on 4/13/22 at 1:30 p.m. revealed the resident did not have a documented skin check in the last 90 days. C. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 10:15 a.m. She said certified nurse aides (CNA) were responsible for completing skin checks upon incontinence care and during showers. She said the skin check should be documented in the medical record, even if the skin was intact. She said licensed nurses did not complete skin checks. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 10:18 a.m. She said CNAs completed skin checks when providing incontinence care and during showers. She said she would look at the resident when a CNA reported a skin issue to her. She said skin issues were documented in a progress note as well as an incident report. She said she did not complete head to toe skin checks on a regular basis. RN #3 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 10:24 a.m. She said she was responsible to complete body audits, which included head to toe skin assessments, on every resident. She said if a resident had a current skin issue, such as a pressure ulcer, she would complete daily skin assessments. She said if there were no current skin issues, skin assessments were completed weekly. RN #3 said if a new skin issue was found an incident report was completed, which included notifying the physician, resident, and resident representative, obtaining treatment orders and updating the resident's care plan The regional nurse manager (RNM) was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 2:23 p.m. She said each resident at the facility had a physician's order for the licensed nurse to complete a body audit, which included a head to toe skin assessment, every week. She said most residents had body audits completed weekly and residents with current pressure injuries had body audits completed daily. She said the body audits were signed off on the treatment authorization request (TAR). She said if a newly identified skin concern was identified during the body audit, the nurse should document a progress note, notify the physician and obtain treatment orders. She said all residents with newly identified skin concerns should be referred to the wound physician, who rounded at the facility every week. The RNM said if a CNA noticed a new skin issue during incontinence care of a shower, they were responsible for reporting it to the licensed nurse on duty. The licensed nurse was then responsible to assess the area, notify the physician, obtain treatment orders, and document in the resident's medical record. III. Failure to ensure Resident #27 were administered medications as ordered by the physician A. Resident status Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPOs, the diagnoses included bipolar disorder with depression. The 1/28/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for all ADLs. B. Record review The March 2022 CPOs documented the following physician orders: -Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) 500 MG (milligram)-give two tablets by mouth at bedtime for Bipolar disorder-ordered on 10/23/21; -Metoprolol Succinate extended release 50 MG-give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for hypertension-ordered on 1/16/22; -Divalproex Sodium (Depakote) 500 MG-give two capsules by mouth in the morning for Bipolar disorder-ordered on 3/31/22; and -Divalproex Sodium (Depakote) 500 MG-give four capsules by mouth at bedtime for Bipolar disorder-ordered on 3/5/22. The March 2022 medication administration record (MAR) revealed the blanks, documenting the resident was not administered the Quetiapine on 3/5/22, the Divalproex Sodium four capsules at bedtime on 3/24/22 and 3/30/22, the Divalproex Sodium two capsules in the morning on 3/19/22 and the Metoprolol on 3/5/22 and 3/18/22. The April 2022 MAR revealed the blank, documenting the resident was not administered the Quetiapine on 4/8/22. A review of the resident's medical record did not reveal documentation of why the resident was not administered the medications as ordered by the physician. The resident's medical record did not document if the physician was notified of the missing medication doses. C. Resident interview Resident #27 was interviewed on 4/7/22 at 9:10 a.m. He said he had been told several times in the last two months his medications were on order from the pharmacy. He said he had missed doses of his medications. He said he had reported this to the director of nursing. At 4:48 p.m. Resident #27 said the nurses frequently brought him the wrong dose of his medications and he had to corrected them. He said he was supposed to receive two tablets of Depakote in the morning and four tablets at night. He said he had to correct the nurse that morning as she only brought him one. D. Staff interviews LPN #2 was interviewed on 4/13/22 at 5:42 p.m. She said nurses were responsible for filling medications via PointClickCare. She said when residents are down to two or three days of a medication, then the medication should be reordered. She said there was a machine at the 100 unit nursing station that had back up medications in it if needed. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 4:48 p.m. She said medications were automatically refilled, so she was unsure why medications were missed for Resident #27. She said if a resident missed a dose of a medication the licensed nurse should check the Pixis (medication machine backup) for the medication. If the Pixis contained the medication, the licensed nurse should contact the pharmacy to receive an authorization to dispense the medication and administer to the resident. She said if the Pixis did not contain the medication the licensed nurse should notify the physician and then contact the pharmacy. She said it could be extremely detrimental for a resident to miss a medication, especially a psychotropic medication. The medical director (MD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 2:07 p.m. He said the licensed nurse was responsible for notifying the primary physician if a medication dose was missed. He said if a dose of depakote or metoprolol were missed, negative side effects could occur. VII. Resident #282-Failure to provide dressing changes per physician and conduct weekly skin assessments. A. Resident #282 status Resident #282, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, unspecified dementia, long term use of anticoagulant medication, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of the left heel and stage three pressure ulcer of sacral region. The 1/3/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment, a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) was not conducted. She had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. She required extensive assistance from one person with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. B. Wound care observation and interview Wound care observations were conducted on 4/12/22 at 11:09 a.m. CNA #10 had just completed showering the resident and said that there were no bandages present on Resident #282 prior to her shower. The resident was transported into her bathroom by LPN #1 and CNA #10 where she could use the grab bar to stand. The resident had a 2.5 centimeter (cm) long by 1 cm wide reddened skin tear on her right buttock. There was no dressing on the wound and the LPN did not provide any wound care or apply a dressing during this observation. The pressure ulcer on her coccyx was not visible while the resident was standing during observation. There was no dressing on the resident's coccyx and the LPN did not provide any wound care or apply a dressing during this observation. The resident was dressed and returned to her wheelchair. -The observation did not witness the LPN assessing or providing wound care to the resident's left calf or heel. The resident's clothing covered these wounds and the LPN did not remove clothing from the left calf or right heel. -The orders for the residents' wounds are written for as needed as well, see orders below. LPN #1 was immediately interviewed. She had CNA #10 assisted her to undress the resident from the waist down so that the wounds on the resident's buttocks could be observed. She said that she was not certain of the treatment for the pressure ulcer or skin tear. She said the treatments were usually completed on the night shift. The LPN asked the CNA to redress the resident and return her to her wheelchair. The LPN did not look at or attempt to provide treatments to the wounds on the resident's left lower leg or left heel. On 4/12/22 at 2:30 p.m. the wound care physician (WCP) #1 was observed performing wound care for Resident #282 accompanied by the MDS coordinator and RN #5. WCP #1 applied betadine solution to a triangular shaped wound on the resident's left calf measuring 2.5 cm by 2.5cm. WCP #1 then had the nurses position the resident to treat wounds on the coccyx and buttock area. He treated a 1 cm by 0.5 cm stage three pressure ulcer on the resident's coccyx with calcium alginate covered with an optifoam dressing. The skin tear to the right buttock was left open to air. The physician then had the nurses raise the resident's left leg to apply betadine to her left heel. The resident grimaced when WCP #1 attempted to remove hardened skin from the area. A quarter size deep tissue pressure injury was observed on the resident's left heel. The pressure ulcer was left open to air and a prevalon boot was placed on the resident's foot. C. Record review The care plan for skin integrity initiated on 7/5/21 revealed the resident was at risk for alteration in skin integrity related to impaired mobility, and incontinence. Interventions included barrier cream to peri area/buttocks as needed, elevate heels as able, observe skin condition daily, and pressure redistributing device on bed. On 3/10/22 the care plan was updated with the following interventions for deep tissue injury (DTI) to left heel: to administer treatment per physician orders, prevalon boot to left foot while in bed and report evidence of infection to physician. On 3/15/22 the care plan was updated with the following interventions: to administer analgesics as needed, administer treatment per physician orders, daily body audit, friction reducing transfer surface, and repositioning during ADLs. On 3/23/22 the care plan was updated with the following interventions for trauma wound to right buttock: to administer analgesia per physician order (offer prior to treatment/therapy), administer treatment per physician orders, alternating pressure mattress for pressure relief, encourage and assist as needed to turn and reposition, use assistive devices as needed, report evidence of infection and notify physician as needed. On 4/5/22 the care plan was updated with the following interventions for trauma wound to the left calf: administer analgesia per physician order (offer prior to treatment/therapy) and report evidence of infection and notify physician as needed. -These interventions are duplicates to the interventions implemented 3/23/22 for the trauma wound to right buttock. Updates to the care plan were added after Resident #282 developed the wounds. The treatment administration record (TAR) for April 2022 revealed the resident was receiving daily body audits and the following wound care treatments: -Left calf trauma wound: Apply betadine every day until resolved beginning 4/6/22. -Coccyx stage three: Clean and apply alginate and foam dressing every day and as needed, beginning 3/23/22. The TAR had this daily treatment scheduled on the evening shift. -Trauma to right buttock: Clean with normal saline. Apply alginate and foam dressing every day and as needed beginning 3/22/22. The TAR had this daily treatment scheduled on the evening shift. -Left foot DTI: cleanse with wound cleanser or normal saline and apply betadine twice daily and as needed beginning 3/10/22. -No skin assessments were documented in the resident's medical record. D. Staff interviews The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:10 p.m. She said that treatment for wounds should follow the physician's order. In addition, the physician should be contacted for clarification if an order does not look correct. The IDON said that an outside company has been contracted to perform skin assessments and those results are reviewed by administration so that appropriate treatments can be initiated. IV. Resident #59 A. Resident status Resident #59, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPOs, the diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), pressure ulcer, pressure induced deep tissue damage of unspecified site, type two diabetes, moderate persistent asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic pain, trigeminal neuralgia, fibromyalgia and generalized anxiety disorder. The 3/4/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. It indicated the resident was at risk for developing pressure injuries and had a stage three pressure injury and an unstageable pressure injury. The resident had a pressure reducing device for the bed and was not on a turning or repositioning program. B. Observations On 4/11/22 at 3:07 p.m. LPN #2 was observed providing wound care for Resident #59. The observations were as follows: -After providing privacy for the resident, Resident #59 was repositioned to lay flat on her bed and turned to her left side. The resident said that this position was uncomfortable for her. The resident was not offered any pain medication. Resident #59 said the wound physician was unable to look at her wounds last week because she had a bowel movement and needed incontinence care. She said the wound physician did not come back to look at her wounds. -Two 5 cm diameter purple discolorations on each side of the resident's coccyx were observed. LPN #2 applied a white cream to these areas and had an unidentified CNA reapply the resident's briefs. No open areas were observed. LPN #2 did not clean the area, apply medihoney or cover the area with optifoam to the right side, or clean the right area with normal saline, pat dry or apply betadine which was indicated on the physician's treatment orders (see the CPOs below). LPN #2 did not perform the correct treatment at any other time that day. -The CNA then raised the resident's right leg so the wound on her right outer foot could be observed. The resident said this caused a great deal of pain to her knee and hip. No pain medication was offered. -A circular scab was observed on the right side of the resident's foot. After observing the wound, LPN #2 covered the resident with her sheet. LPN #2 did not perform a treatment, which should have been completed by the nurse on her shift. On 4/12/22 at 2:19 p.m. the wound care physician (WCP) was observed providing wound care to Resident #59 by the registered nurse (RN) surveyor. Observations were as follows: -The WCP removed a bandage from the resident's coccyx. A yellow colored ointment was removed with the gauze and normal saline from the resident's coccyx area. WCP said the wound was resolved and did not require further treatment. -WCP #1 cleaned the resident's right outer foot with gauze and normal saline. He measured the wound to be 0.5 centimeters (cm) by 0.5 cm. He described the wound as a scabbed over ulcer or deep tissue injury. He said the wound was healing. He applied betadine ointment and left the area open to air. C. Record review The pressure injury care plan, initiated on 2/8/22 and revised on 3/23/22, documented the resident had a stage three pressure injury to the left ischium related to impaired mobility. The interventions included to administer the treatment according to physician orders. The April 2022 CPOs revealed the following treatment orders: -Left buttocks pressure injury: cleanse with wound cleanser or normal saline, pat dry, apply medihoney, and cover with optifoam daily and as needed-ordered 3/4/22, and discontinued 4/12/22 (during the survey); -Right buttocks: clean the area with normal saline, pat dry and apply betadine daily and as needed-ordered 12/9/21. The April 2022 treatment administration record (TAR) indicated the treatment should be completed during the day shift. The wound round notes, documented under the skin progress note dated 4/5/22. It indicated the resident had a facility acquired stage three pressure ulcer to the left ischium which measured 1.5 cm (centimeters) x 1.5 cm x 0.1 cm. The measurements were taken on 3/29/22. It indicated the facility should continue the medihoney and optifoam treatment daily. The deep tissue injury (DTI) to the lateral right foot measured 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.1 cm, with no drainage, 100% epithelial, and the peri-wound was healthy. It indicated the facility should continue the betadine treatment daily. V. Resident #25 A. Resident status Resident #25, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPOs, the diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease. The 1/27/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. It did not indicate the resident had any identified pressure injuries. B. Observations On 4/7/22 at 10:14 a.m. a hospice certified nurse aide (CNA) was observed gathering supplies and entered Resident #25's room to provide the resident a bed bath and change the sheets to the bed. She exited the resident's room and went to the nurse at the 200 nursing station. She told the nurse the resident had redness to the coccyx and the bilateral heels. On 4/12/22 at 8:50 a.m. an observation of Resident #25's skin was completed with LPN #1 and certified nurse aide (CNA) #3. -On the resident's right ankle, a bandage was observed, dated 4/6/22. LPN #1 removed the bandage revealed a 7.5 cm L x 0.5 cm W open wound, that was pink and was healing; -The resident had multiple skin discolorations to the bilateral shins; -To the right calf, a dime size dark red and blackish wound was observed with scarring around the perimeter; -On the right forearm a 5 cm laceration with a scab was observed. No redness was observed around the scab. LPN #1 said it was an old skin tear; -Redness was observed, by the RN surveyor, to the coccyx and bilateral heels. LPN #1 said the wound physician was doing wound rounds that day, 4/12/22 and would put treatments in place, however she did not administer the physician ordered treatment to the right heel, as indicated in the CPOs. According to the resident's medical record, LPN#1 did not refer the resident to the wound physician. B. Record review The skin integrity care plan, initiated 12/30/19 and revised 2/1/22, documented the resident was at risk for skin breakdown due to impaired mobility and incontinence. The interventions included administering the treatment as ordered by the physician, applying barrier cream to the peri-area and buttocks as needed, elevate the heels as able and observe the resident's skin condition with ADL care daily and report any abnormalities. The April CPOs documented the following treatment orders: -Redness to the right heel: apply Marathon at bedtime every three days and as needed-ordered 1/3/22; -Body audit every week by the licensed nurse, write a progress note, update the skin sheets and care plan every Thursday for skin observation-ordered 4/9/2020. The 12/16/21 skin progress notes documented the resident had no open wounds. It indicated the resident had bruising to the right and left upper extremities from previous falls that were beginning to fade along with ecchymotic (common bruise) areas to the lower extremities. The skin alteration record, dated 1/24/22, documented the resident sustained a skin tear to the left shin that measured 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm with no drainage and reddened surrounding skin. -On 1/28/22 and 2/1/22 it documented the skin tear measurements changed to 2 cm x 1.5 cm. The resident's medical record did not include any additional progress notes or skin alteration records indicating a skin audit had been completed as was ordered by the physician to be documented as a progress note from 12/16/21 to the end of the survey process. A review of the resident's electronic medical record on 4/13/22 at 10:00 a.m. did not reveal documentation of physician treatment orders or nursing notes for identification of the redness to the resident's coccyx (which was reported by the hospice CNA on 4/7/22 and observed on 4/12/22), wound to the right ankle, skin tear to the right forearm and wound to the right calf (see above observations and LPN#1 interview below). VI. Staff interviews The WCP was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 4:00 p.m. He said Resident #59 had developed a stage three pressure injury on the ischium and a DTI to the right foot. He said the wounds were observed by staff during a skin sweep. He said on that day, 4/12/22, when he observed the wounds, the left ischium was healed. He said when he saw that wound, that day, it had the correct dressing. He said he had seen the wound, during previous visits, and it had an incorrect dressing. He said he expected the facility staff to provide the treatments as ordered to promote healing. He said he was an expert in wounds and in order for the wounds to have a healthy progression, the nursing staff needed to follow his treatment orders. He said skin checks should be completed at least weekly for every resident in the facility and documented in the resident's medical record. LPN #1 was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 9:55 a.m. She said skin checks should be completed weekly with a documented progress note. She said she was unable to find documentation that a skin check had been completed since 2/1/22 for Resident #25. She confirmed Resident #25 did not have any treatment orders for the wound to the right ankle, right calf and skin tear to the right forearm. She confirmed Resident #25's medical record did not have any documentation of the reported redness to the coccyx and heels by the hospice CNA on 4/6/22 and during the skin observations conducted on 4/12/22. She said it was her fault for not obtaining treatment orders for Resident #25 after the skin observations on 4/12/22. She said she did not notify the physician nor documented the findings from the skin observation. She said she should have immediately notified the physician, obtained treatment orders and documented the skin observations. She said treatment orders should always be followed as ordered and documented in the resident's medical record. LPN #1 said she felt the facility did not have an established system in place for skin and wounds. She said she doesn't know what direction to go when a new open area is observed. She said it was challenging to work at the facility. The nursing home administrator (NHA) and regional nurse manager (RNM) were interviewed on 4/13/22 at 2:22 p.m. The NHA said the facility had a system, it might not be perfect but it is a system. She said the nursing staff should sign off on the medication administration record (MAR) that a skin check was completed weekly. She said a corresponding progress note should be documented if the resident's skin was clear or any skin issues observed. She said if there was a new skin concern observed, the physician should be contacted, a treatment order obtained and a description should be documented in the progress notes of the resident's medical record. She said the skin check should be conducted weekly and should be on a different day than the resident's shower. She said only a licensed nurse or registered nurse could perform a skin check. The RNM said all treatments should be provided according to the physician's order in the medical record. She said it was never okay for the nurse to deviate from the physician's order. She said if the wound was resolved, then the nurse should continue to do the treatment as ordered and notify the physician to determine if the treatment orders should be changed. She said a nurse cannot change the treatment orders without direction from the physician. Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure six (#6, #25, #27, #44, #59 and #282) residents reviewed of 10 residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to assess Resident #6 for change of condition. Resident developed severe edema on his left lower leg and was sent to the emergency room for evaluation. In addition, Resident #6's skin assessments were not consistently and accurately documented to reflect the development of several wounds on his legs that led to infection and cellulitis. Resident #25-Failure to perform treatments as ordered by the physician, failure to notify the physician of newly developed skin concerns; Resident #27-Failure to ensure medications were administered according to physician orders and notify the physician was a medication was not administered; Resident #44-Failure to regularly monitor the resident's skin; Resident #59-Failure to perform treatments as ordered by the physician; and, Resident #282-Failure to provide dressing changes per physician and conduct weekly skin assessments. Findings include: I. Resident #6 A. Resident status Resident #6, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility 11/22/2017. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, venous insufficiency, diabetes type 2, and acquired absence of right foot. The 12/23/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. He had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. He required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. He was at risk of developing pressure injuries and had skin tears at the time of the assessment on 12/23/21. B. Failure to assess Resident #6 after a change of condition on 3/10/22 and 3/29/22 and accurately document his skin conditions On 3/10/22, the resident attended a physical therapy session with an outside provider. The resident was not able to participate in therapy and said he did not feel great today. He shared with the therapist that nurses at the facility were not attending the areas on his feet. The PT inspected the left leg and observed left heel open area with bloody drainage on the sock and heel. The PT documented, the open area approximately near the area that the orthotic insert may be rubbing with the heel lift that was put in the boot on 3/8/22. PT notified the wound clinic and replaced his orthopedic boot with a large walking boot. -Facility records review revealed no assessment after change of condition for resident on 3/10/22. No changes were implemented to the resident's care plan. The use of orthopedic boots were not mentioned under physician orders, residents care plan or treatment administration orders. On 3/21/22, the resident attended a scheduled wound care clinic visit, new ulcerations on the left foot were noted. The exam revealed Obvious edema occurring in the left extremity that was not noticed at last visit. -Wound #1 Plantar (on the sole) posterior (back) aspect of the left calcaneus (heel) shows an unstageable pressure injury. Devitalized tissue around the site with large eschar formation in the center. Measurements of the wound were not included in the notes. -Wound #2 was very large unstageable pressure injury to the left heel caused by the boot. The wound was measuring 7.5 cm by 11 cm., with poorly defined wound edges and macerated moist peeling skin around it. Treatment consisted of sharp debridement, the area was cleaned and new dressing was applied. The wrap was applied to the left leg as well to control edema. Facility was contacted over the phone and treatment orders for the resident were discussed with the nurse on duty. The facility was notified to watch for signs and symptoms of potential infection and plan to re-evaluate the resident in two weeks. -Facility records review revealed no assessment after change of condition for resident on 3/21/22. No changes were implemented to the resident's care plan to monitor his legs for edema and potential infection. On 3/29/21, the resident attended a regular PT session outside the facility. The nurse was called to the room to assess the wounds. Full removal of the dressings note worsening wounds, profoundly macerated and peeling skin on 90% of foot, severe redness over top of foot, that was taught and shiny. Also, increased swelling up to below knee with rubby skin and several new areas of concern that are open, with eshar areas to great toe, second toe and fourth toe. Resident reported that his dressings were changed but once since his appointment at the wound clinic over a week ago. The PCP was contacted and the order was received to send the resident to the emergency department for evaluation. According to the hospital admission records dated 3/29/22, the resident was seen in the emergency department on 3/29/22 for redness on his foot that got more red over the last two weeks. The resident was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of left lower extremity cellulitis with unstageable chronic wounds. Resident with cellulitis and multiple wounds on left foot. Left foot and lower leg are three times larger than the right leg. The resident was started on intravenous (IV) antibiotics and wound treatments with antimicrobial gel. Several open areas were located on residents legs, such as unstagea[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #22 A. Resident status Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #22 A. Resident status Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included adult failure to thrive, type 2 diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis, quadriplegia, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, and generalized muscle weakness. The 1/25/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance from two staff members for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. The resident had functional limitations in range of motion on both sides of her upper extremities. -Therapy and restorative minutes were not coded on the MDS assessment. B. Resident interview and observations Resident #22 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 11:17 a.m. The resident was positioned on her back in her bed. Her torso was slightly elevated and the tray table was in front of her. She had contractures to both hands and the left wrist was in a brace. The resident said she doesn't wear a brace on the right wrist because it is too painful. She said her range of motion (ROM) is limited because of her spinal cord injury and that she has asked for physical therapy since arriving at the facility, but said that she had not received any physical therapy. She said that she does not receive any passive ROM exercises either. Resident #22 was interviewed again on 4/13/22 at 11:33 a.m. The resident said that the certified nurse aides (CNAs) and nurses do not perform ROM exercises for her at any time. She repeated that she was not receiving any kind of therapy and believed that it would be beneficial for her. C. Record review The care plan for activity for daily living (ADLs), initiated on 7/23/21 and revised on 12/30/21, revealed the resident had self care deficit as evidenced by impaired mobility related to physical limitations related to quadriplegia, right hand contracture, obesity, chronic pain and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Interventions included transfer with mechanical lift, assist to bathe/shower, break ADL tasks into subtasks for easier patient performance, extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, toileting, daily hygiene, grooming, dressing, oral care, and eating as needed, prefers to have her bed in high position and uses assistive/adaptive equipment (wheelchair). -The care plan did not mention passive ROM or details on when passive ROM should be provided and for how long. -The resident did not have a care plan for the restorative program. Review of the medication administration records (MARs) and treatment administration records (TARs) for March 2022 and April 2022 revealed no records that passive ROM was documented by nurses. -There was no restorative program log. The discharge summary from occupational therapy dated 8/4/21 revealed recommendations were assistance with independent ADLs, assistive devices for safe functional mobility, environmental modifications, grab bars, remove environmental barriers, shower chair with back, and 24 hour care. The prognosis indicated that the resident would maintain current level of function with good and consistent staff follow-through. -There was no order documented in CPOs D. Staff interviews Occupational Therapist (OT) #1 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 11:55 a.m. She said that physical therapy and occupational therapy worked with Resident #22 for a while and then ran into insurance issues therefore the resident had to be discharged from therapy. OT #1 said that when the resident was discharged from therapy, a communication summary was presented to staff directing them to perform ROM to the resident during clothing changes and personal care. She said the completed form should be filed in the hard chart at the nurse's station. OT #1 said that discharge communication does have lapses because of travel staff so ROM exercises are not being performed as directed. She said that passive ROM is important for hygiene of the hand and to help prevent pain. She said that the restorative program in charge of passive ROM for residents was overseen by the charge nurse although she is not sure who is in charge of the restorative program now. CNA #14 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 1:45 p.m. The CNA said that she provides care for Resident #22 that includes checking the resident every two hours and providing personal care as needed. She said that during personal care, the resident uses her right arm to grab staff while changing and repositioning her which counts as passive ROM. CNA #15 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 1:51 p.m. The CNA said that she rarely worked with Resident #22, although she knows her hands are very contracted and she moves her arms as much as the resident can tolerate. LPN #6 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 11:35 a.m. She said that no one is specifically in charge of the restorative program. LPN #6 said that if a resident had contractures, that should be documented in the [NAME] for the CNA to perform. She said that she had restorative training in the past but wasn ' t sure who was offering training currently. She said that staff should be trained on passive ROM. LPN #2 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 11:45 a.m. She said that she has not heard of a restorative program at this facility. LPN #1 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 11:51 a.m. She said that the DOR provided oversight for the physical therapy program for residents but she was not aware of who provided oversight for the restorative nursing program. She said passive ROM should be performed by CNAs. The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed again on 4/18/22 at 12:00 p.m. He said he performs a thorough assessment after receiving an order from the physician. He said the discharge communication form relays basic recommendations for transfers, assistance needed, activity participation, ROM and activities of daily (ADL). He said that everyone gets a recommendation but everyone has the right to refuse to participate in the restorative program. - The DOR reviewed the recommendations for Resident #22 which consisted of being up in a chair and general ROM. He said that no contractures were noted in the records. The DOR said that long term consequences of a resident not receiving passive ROM include pain and loss of function. He said that contractures are never good but cannot always be prevented, although the process of loss of ROM can be slowed. The DOR completed a physical evaluation of Resident #22 on 4/18/22 at 12:40 p.m. and reported the following: -He said that he cannot fix problems that he doesn't know about. He said he feared that staff were being hired without proper training. His evaluation included that Resident #22 had incomplete quadriplegia and had use of her right hand sufficient for eating and using the television remote. He said she should be getting passive ROM in the morning and should be up in her chair. He said the resident was still in her nightgown and laying in bed so most likely has not received any passive ROM. The DOR concluded that it does not appear that Resident #22 is receiving restorative nursing services and that her ROM had declined. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed again on 4/18/22 at 5:10 p.m. She said that contracted hands should be opened and assessed by nurses, not CNAs. She said that restorative nursing services should be performed because the resident already had an issue and that passive ROM exercises help maintain current level of function and might prevent further loss of function. The IDON said that the CNAs should follow recommendations but that all staff should be offering restorative services, not just CNAs. The IDON said that it would be helpful if the facility had someone in charge of the restorative program and a team dedicated primarily to perform restorative services. V. Resident #59 A. Resident status Resident #59, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included congestive heart failure (CHF), pressure ulcer, pressure induced deep tissue damage of unspecified site, type two diabetes, moderate persistent asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic pain, trigeminal neuralgia, fibromyalgia and generalized anxiety disorder. The 3/4/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. It indicated the resident was at risk for developing pressure injuries and had a stage three pressure injury and an unstageable pressure injury. The resident had a pressure reducing device for the bed and was not on a turning or repositioning program. B. Resident interview Resident #59 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 3:03 p.m. She said her left hand was completely contracted. She said the facility staff did not provide anything to prevent her nails from digging into the palm of her hand. She said she would fit some tissues into her hand on her own in an attempt to prevent her nails from digging into her palm. C. Record review The activities of daily living care plan, initiated on 11/21/17 and revised on 12/30/21, revealed the resident had a self-care deficiency related to weakness, COPD, obesity, a contracture to the hand, foot drop to both feet and the resident's hospice status. It indicated the resident required two person assistance with a Hoyer lift for transfers and the resident required care in pairs. It did not address any preventative measures for the contracture to the resident's left hand. D. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #3 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 10:40 a.m. He said he had worked at the facility for a month. He said since he had worked at the facility, Resident #59 had not been able to move her left hand. He said her hand was fully contracted to where her fingers touched the palm of her hand. He said he was not aware of a brace or device to assist the resident in preventing skin breakdown. He said he had not provided the resident with any assistive devices since he had worked at the facility. The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 12:00 p.m. He said Resident #59 had a long time contracture to the left hand. He said he did not know the progress of the resident's contracture, but he thought her fingers touched the palm of her hand. He said the therapy department had not been consulted to put preventative skin breakdown measures in place for Resident #59's left hand contracture. He said the nursing staff should have contacted the therapy department to get an order for an intervention to ensure the resident's skin does not breakdown. He said rolled gauze was a good intervention to prevent skin breakdown. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:11 p.m. She said nursing should be observing Resident #59's skin on the left hand contracture every day. She said an intervention should be in place to prevent skin breakdown. She confirmed the resident's comprehensive care plan and physician orders did not address the resident's left hand contracture to provide interventions to prevent skin breakdown. She said it appeared as though there was no monitoring of the resident's skin related to her contracture. E. Additional information The April 2022 CPOs documented the physician ordered: rolled gauze to the left hand. Remove the gauze every shift, check the skin integrity of the resident's left hand, and document the findings every shift. This was ordered by the physician on 4/15/22, during the survey process. VI. Additonal inteviews The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 4:30 p.m. She said she did not know who was in charge of the restorative program in the building. Unit manager (UM) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 2:30 p.m. She said she did not know who was in charge of the restorative nursing program. Nursing home administrator (NHA) was not available for an interview on 4/19/22. Medical director (MD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 1:30 p.m. He said the restorative program was important for the maintenance of mobility. Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident with limited mobility receives appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility for four (#22, #40, #51 and #59) of five residents reviewed for activities of daily living of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide restorative care services to Resident #40 on a regular basis, and consistently apply wrist splint as recommended by an occupational therapist (OT), -Provide range of motion (ROM) exercises for Resident #22, and, -Ensure Resident #51 and #59 received range of motion services for impaired mobility. In addition, the facility failed to assign a licensed nurse responsible for the audit and maintenance of the restorative nursing program, and failed to provide education to certified nurses aides (CNAs) who were assigned to provide the restorative care. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Restorative Nursing Guideline policy and procedure, dated 2019 with no revision date, was provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 4/18/22. In pertinent part, it read: Restorative nursing care includes nursing interventions that help to maintain the patient's highest level of function and prevent unnecessary decline in function. Restorative nursing programs are individualized to specific patient needs and have many tangible positive effects. -The patient's plan of care is updated or a plan of care is developed to include patient -centered interventions supporting the patient's restorative nursing program. The care plan must include measurable objectives or goals and interventions. Objectives are measurable when a form of measurement is attached to it, such as a distance. Amount, percentage, or time frame. -Interventions are provided by nursing staff who have completed the appropriate competency evaluation. Both types of interventions are supervised by the licensed nurse and are specifically defined in the patient's plan of care. -The initial review for restorative nursing is completed by the licensed nurse. The licensed nurse determines the specific goals and interventions required to develop the patient specific restorative care plan. -The licensed nurse is responsible for evaluating the patients response to the restorative plan according to individual state requirements. -The restorative nursing process is routinely audited through the utilization of QAPI process tools to identify potential or actual system issues. II. Resident #40 A. Resident status Resident #40, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility 2/9/2021. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included contracture of the left shoulder, left wrist, neuromuscular disjunction of the bladder, epilepsy, hemiplegia hemiparesis of the left dominant side. The 2/9/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. He had no behavioral problems, psychosis, or rejection of care. He required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. B. Resident interview Resident #40 was interviewed on 4/6/22 at 12:43 p.m. He said he was in the facility long term for care because he was not able to move his left arm and his left leg. He said he was supposed to receive therapy for his left leg and left arm, but no one was providing such services. He said he voiced his concerns to the nurses on several occasions but it did not help. He said he was wearing a splint on his left hand to prevent the contracture. He pointed to the left hand that had spleen on and was positioned on a blue cushion. He said the splint was supposed to be on during the night hours, but nurses would forget to remove it and he was in it all day long. C. Observations On 4/6/22 Resident #40 was continuously observed between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Resident's left hand with a splint was on top of a small blue cushion under the blanket. The splint was not removed. On 4/7/22 resident was observed at 9:10 a.m. the resident was in bed, his left hand had a splint on. On 4/11/22 resident was observed at 11:09 a.m. CNA #13 provided incontinence care to the resident. Resident was wearing a splint on his left hand. -The facility staff failed to ensure the split was placed and removed according to the physician orders D. Record review The most recent occupational therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] recommended the splint during the night only. The care plan for activities of daily living (ADLs) and self care deficit was initiated on 2/9/21 and revised on 2/9/22 revealed resident had self care deficit related to left sided weakness, left hand, wrist and elbow contracture, and left foot drop. Interventions included one person assistance with grooming, and dressing. Assistance with meals as needed. One person assistance with bathing and toileting. Extensive assistance with daily hygiene, grooming, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and oral care. Transfers two person mechanical lift. WC for mobility. The care plan for loss of range of motion related to physical limitations was initiated on 3/10/21. Interventions included applying a splint/device for the left upper extremity during the night and taking it off during the day. -The resident did not have a care plan for the restorative program. According to the CPOs resident to wear a splint on his left wrist during the night. Review of the medication administration records (MARs) and treatment administration records (TARs) for March and April 18, 2022 revealed that the splint should have been applied only at night and should have been taken off during the day. Nurses consistently signed that the order was implemented. The most recent physical therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE] recommended daily restorative range of motion and a splint for the left wrist. The restorative program logs were requested for the last six months. The most recent log was for January 2022. The January restorative log showed that an active range of motion was provided to the resident on 16 out of 30 occasions. The passive range of motion appeared to be documented twice per day with random duration. Occasional refusals were documented on the log. However no supporting progress notes were located regarding what was done and why the resident refused. -No logs were provided for February, March and April of 2022. D. Staff interviews The director of rehabilitation (DOR) services was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 9:43 am. He said Resident #40 was discharged from OT/PT therapy last year (2021). He said recommendations from both therapies included daily range of motion when a resident is getting out of bed and should be provided daily by CNAs. He said at the moment he can not name a person who is responsible for the restorative program in nursing due to frequent rotation of staff. Occupational therapist (OT) was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 12:08 p.m. She said Resident #40 had a recommendation to wear a wrist splint during the night. She said it was changed from the day because he felt too uncomfortable and after discussing it with a resident the decision was made to wear it only at night. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 12:30 p.m. She said she did not know what a restorative program was and who was in charge of it. CNA #15 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 12:50 p.m. She said she assisted Resident #40 with cares, but he rarely got dressed, he always wore a gown. She said she moved his arms and legs when she provided the care but was careful with the left arm because it was painful for Resident #40 to move. She said she did not recall when was the last time she received training on range of motion. CNA #8 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 1:20 p.m. She said she moved the Resident #40's legs and arms when she was assisting a resident with incontinence care. She did not recall when was the last time she received training on the range of motion. She did not know where to look for how many minutes arms and legs should be moved. CNA #16 was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 1:29 p.m. She said she moved the Resident #40's legs and arms when she was assisting a resident with incontinence care. She did not recall when was the last time she received training on the range of motion. She did not know where to look for how many minutes Resident #40's arms and legs should be moved.IV. Resident #51 A. Resident status Resident #51, under age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician order (CPO) diagnoses included cerebral vascular accident (CVA), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right non-dominant side. The 2/22/22 MDS assessment coded the resident with a brief interview for mental status of 15 out of 15. The MDS showed the resident had impairment on one side for both upper and lower extremities. The resident required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. B. Observation and interview On 4/7/22 at 10:33 a.m., the resident's right hand was in a closed position. The resident said he was unable to open it any further. The resident said he had a CVA and it was affected by the stroke. He said he did not receive any range of motion on his right hand to help with the contracture or on his upper extremities or lower extremities. He said he did not get out of bed. C. Record review The occupational therapy (OT) evaluation dated 8/27/21 revealed the reason for the referral was for the change in self feeding abilities, to address decreased coordination, strength, range of motion and necessity of the residents right hand an upper extremity contracture. The evaluation also documented, the resident's right upper extremity, of range of motion, revealed that the shoulder, forearm, elbow, wrist and hand thumb index finger, middle finger, ring finger and little finger were all impaired. The facility had no follow-up to the OT evaluation on 8/27/21 which would develop a program for range of motion to include the areas identified that needed to be addressed. The care plan last updated on 2/1/22 identified the resident had a self care deficit related to CVA to right hemiparesis and right hand contracture. Interventions included, to assist with grooming, bed mobility, transfers, toileting, dressing, and oral care, encourage and assist in repositioning. Transfers two person mechanical lift. -The resident did not have a care plan for the restorative program, or range of motion to his right hand contracture or his lower extremities. The [NAME] last updated date of 4/18/22 failed to show range of motion to his right hand contracture and his lower extremities. -The medical record failed to show the resident had a restorative program where the passive range of motion could be done. -No refusals were documented. -No orders were revealed for range of motion to indicate it was ordered. D. Interview The director of rehabilitation (DOR) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 12:03 p.m. The DOR said the resident was not on a restorative program and one was not recommended from the evaluation on 8/21/21. He said when the resident was first admitted to the facility in 2017, a lot of physical therapy was provided, however, the resident did not want to do much on his own and therefore the therapy was discontinued. He said the range of motion should be completed by the CNA. He said it consisted of moving both his upper and lower extremities in passive repetition for eight to to repetitions. He said during the time staff helped the resident with dressing, it was a good time to do the passive range of motion. He reviewed the medical record and said the contracture was at 50 degrees and that since the resident had a hand contracture, the range of motion would not help improve, but could help with the prevention of worsening. CNA #2 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 2:00 p.m. The CNA said she did not perform passive range of motion for the Resident #51. She said Resident #51 did not get dressed on a regular basis. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:17 p.m. The DON said although she did not know Resident #51 that a hand contracture continued to need range of motion and a program to ensure that it did not worsen and that his upper and lower extremities also needed to have range of motion, especially because the resident did not get out of bed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure certified nurse aides (CNA) are able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure certified nurse aides (CNA) are able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through resident assessments, and described in the plan of care. Specifically, the facility failed to evaluate the competencies of certified nurse aides on restorative tasks such as brace/splint application, active and passive range of motion. Finding include: I. Facility assessment The facility assessment identified the facility accepted residents with contractures, and identified the facility could provide support and care for individuals with limited range of motion. II. Record review Records of five random CNAs working in the facility were reviewed. Out of five CNAs, three CNAs had no records of restorative skills checklist. Out of 30 plus CNAs that signed residents medical records indicating that range of motion was provided to residents with contractures, only six have completed the Skills and Techniques evaluation upon hire. The other CNAs had no records that restorative skills and techniques were evaluated. III. Interviews CNA #12 was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 10:12 a.m. She said she had not had to demonstrate care skills such as brace/splint application, active and passive range of motion during her employment with the facility. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 4:10 p.m. She said the facility did not have a staff development coordinator and competencies for aides were managed by a human resources director. She said she recently started the position and to her knowledge the facility did not have anyone in charge of the restorative nursing program. She said it would be important to have the competencies to ensure the aides were providing the best care to the residents and to ensure the techniques were current with best practices. CNA #2 was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 9:55 a.m. She said she had not had to demonstrate any skills to anyone for as long as she could recall. Human resources director (HRD) was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 10:30 a.m. She said upon hire CNAs were validated for certain skills and techniques, including restorative services such as bed mobility, splints and range of motion. She did not know the details on how exactly skills were validated. Agency staff who were not directly hired by the facility and constituted the majority of aides in the facility at the moment, completed a different check list of skills. She provided a copy of the checklist. The checklist did not include skills for a restorative nursing program.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure five (#27, #81, #25, #59, and #37) out of five residents re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure five (#27, #81, #25, #59, and #37) out of five residents reviewed out of 33 sample residents were free from unnecessary medications as possible. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Identify and monitor targeted behaviors for psychotropic medications for Resident #27; and, -Ensure consents were obtained and contained black box warnings for the usage of psychotropic medications for Resident #27, #81, #25, #59, and #37. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Behavior Management policy and procedure, dated March 2022, was provided by the assistant nursing home administrator (ANHA) on 4/18/22 and 3:00 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, The individualized comprehensive care plan addresses the behavior management program, the goal for behavior management, individualized interventions to address the patient's specific risk factors and the plan for the reduction of risk related to behaviors. Patients, families/responsible parties are educated regarding the risks/benefits of psychoactive medications prior to the first dose being administered. If required by the specific state, signed consents are obtained and retained in the clinical record. II. Resident #27 status Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included bipolar disorder with depression. The 1/28/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for all activities of daily living (ADL). The resident did not exhibit any behavioral symptoms during the assessment period. The patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) documented a score of 17 out of 27, which indicated the resident had moderately severe depression. A. Record review The mood care plan, initiated on 10/28/21 and revised on 1/13/22, revealed the resident was at risk for changes in mood related to bipolar disorder and depression. The interventions included administering medications per physician orders, assessing for physical and environmental changes that may precipitate change in mood, attempting a psychotropic drug reduction per physician orders, encouraging family and friends to increase support, and observing mental status/mood state changes. The April 2022 CPO revealed the following physician orders for psychotropic medications: -Divaloprex Sodium (Depakote ER) 500 MG (milligrams)-give four tablets by mouth at bedtime for depression-ordered on 3/30/22; -Divaloprex Sodium (Depakote) 500 MG-give two capsules by mouth one time a day for depression-ordered on 3/31/22; -Clonazepam 1 MG-give 1 mg by mouth at bedtime for anxiety-ordered 3/16/22; -Vraylar capsule 6 MG-give 6 mg by mouth one time a day for Bipolar disorder-ordered 10/24/21; and -Quetiapine Fumarate (Seroquel) 50 MG-give two tablets by mouth at bedtime for Bipolar disorder-ordered 10/23/21. The resident's medical record was reviewed on 4/13/22 at 3:00 p.m. There was no evidence the facility had identified behaviors for the Depakote, Clonazepam, Vraylar and Seroquel medications to track targeted behaviors for use of the medications ordered. The resident's medical record did not reveal consent for use of the medications had been obtained for the Depakote and the Clonazepam medications. The consent for the Vraylar and Seroquel was not signed by the resident or the resident's representative. -It did not document that the resident and/or resident's representative had been informed of the black box warnings for those medications. B. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 4/12/22 at 1:10 p.m. LPN #1 said she was not aware of any specific behaviors Resident #27 exhibited. She said she occasionally heard from the night staff that he had increased anxiety. She said she was not trained on the facility's process of obtaining consent forms for psychotropic medications. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/14/22 at 11:06 a.m. He said the nursing staff was responsible for obtaining consent forms for the residents that were admitted with psychotropic medications. He said the facility did not have a process for obtaining consent forms for psychotropic medications prescribed by the physician after the residents' admission to the facility. He said he should have taken the responsibility to ensure consent forms were being filled out for all psychotropic medications ordered since he was the head of the psychotropic/pharmacy committee. He said the consent forms did not have black box warning documentation. He said he would contact the pharmacy to obtain black box warning labels for all psychotropic medications. He confirmed Resident #27's CPO and care plan did not indicate specific targeted behaviors for the residents' multiple psychotropic medications. II. Resident #81 status Resident #81, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, chronic kidney disease and depressive disorder. The 3/26/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15. She required extensive assistance from one or two people with mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. The MDS documented that the resident had no hallucinations or delusions. The MDS documented no behaviors with a total severity score of zero. A. Record review The depression care plan, initiated on 3/20/22 and revised 3/22/22, documented that the resident was at risk for changes in mood related to depression. Interventions included administration of medications per physician orders, assess for physical/environmental changes that may precipitate change in mood, observe for mental status/mood changes when new medication is started or with dose adjustments and offer choices to enhance sense of control. The care plan also documented that the resident was at risk for adverse effects related to the use of anti-depression medication. Interventions included evaluation of medication effectiveness and monitoring for side effects of medication. The April 2022 CPO included the following orders for psychotropic medications: Fluoxetine Hcl Capsule 20 milligrams (mg), give 20 mg by mouth one time a day for depression. Order date of 3/21/22. Mirtazapine Tablet 7.5 mg, give 7.5 mg by mouth at bedtime for depression/poor appetite AEB (as evidenced by) isolation. Order date of 4/7/22. -The record did not have a signed consent for the use of psychoactive medication therapy. -A signed consent for use of psychoactive medication therapy was presented on 4/14/22 dated 4/13/22 (completed during the survey process). -Review of the resident's record did not include behavior tracking for signs and symptoms of depression or adverse effects of the psychotropic medication prescribed. B. Interview The SSD was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 2:50 p.m regarding behavior charting. He said that behavior tracking should be in the resident's medical record and that he would look for any documentation of behavior tracking for Resident #81. He was not able to find that any behavior tracking was completed for this resident. III. Resident #25 status Resident #25, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO, the diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease. The 1/27/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of five out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. A. Record review The April 2022 CPO revealed the following physician order: -Seroquel tablet (Quetiapine Fumarate): give 25 mg (milligram) by mouth at bedtime for dementia with behaviors-ordered 7/26/21. The psychotropic medication care plan, initiated on 11/5/2020 and revised on 3/16/21, documented the resident was on psychotropic medications related to the resident's diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances. The interventions included monitoring for signs/symptoms of side effects related to psychotropic medication use and reporting to the physician as indicated. The antipsychotic medication care plan, initiated on 1/9/2020 and revised on 5/21/21, documented the resident was at risk for adverse side effects related to the resident's use of antipsychotic medication. The psychotropic medication consent, undated, documented that the resident was taking Seroquel medication. The consent did not document any black box warnings. A review of the resident's medical record on 4/13/22 at 8:45 a.m. did not reveal documentation that the resident and/or resident representative was informed of the black box warnings for the Seroquel medication. IV. Resident #59 status Resident #59, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO, the diagnoses included generalized anxiety disorder. The 3/4/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and personal hygiene. It indicated the resident did not exhibit physical or verbal behaviors during the assessment period. The resident rejected care for four to six days during the assessment period. A. Record review The April 2022 CPO documented the following order: -Lorazepam tablet 0.5 mg-give one tablet by mouth four times per day for anxiety-ordered 3/31/22. The anxiety care plan, initiated on 2/25/21 and revised on 6/14/21, documented the resident was at risk for anxiety. The resident would call out for help despite using the call light. She would request for tissues to be picked up off the floor and to move her water. The interventions included: to administer medications as ordered by the physician, re-educate the resident that sometimes staff cannot be there right at the scheduled time to assist the resident with care due to having to assist other residents. The consent for the Lorazepam (Ativan) medication was completed on 1/4/18 and indicated the medication had been increased on 3/16/2020. The consent did not document any black box warnings. A review of the resident's medical record on 4/13/22 at 8:30 a.m. did not reveal documentation that the resident and/or resident's representative was informed of the black box warnings for the Lorazepam (Ativan) medication. V. Resident #37 status Resident #37, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2022 CPO, the diagnoses included major depressive disorder. The 2/8/22 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 14 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility and personal hygiene and extensive assistance of two people with toileting and transfers. A. Record review The April 2022 CPO documented the following order: -Duloxetine HCI capsule delayed release: give 60 mg by mouth one time per day for depression-ordered 2/3/22. The antidepressant care plan, initiated on 2/4/22, documented the resident was at risk for adverse effects related to the use of an antidepressant medication. The interventions included evaluating the effectiveness and side effects of the medication for a possible decrease or elimination of psychotropic drugs. A review of the resident's medical record on 4/13/22 at 11:50 p.m. did not reveal documentation that consent had been obtained for the Duloxetine medication by the resident and/or resident representative. VI. Staff interviews The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/11/22 at 5:20 p.m. She said consent forms for psychotropic medications were stored in the resident's medical record. She said the SSD had a binder which contained copies of all psychotropic medication consents. She said targeted behaviors for each psychotropic medication use were documented on the resident's care plan. The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:11 p.m. She said consents for psychotropic medications should be completed by the nurse upon the resident's admission to the facility. She said for any new medication order, the nurse who received the order should obtain consent for the medication from the resident and/or responsible party. She said every psychotropic medication required consent prior to administration and the consent should include the black box warnings for the medication. The SSD was interviewed on 4/19/22 at 2:49 p.m. He said it was the nurses' responsibility to document if a resident had behaviors. He said the targeted behaviors should be documented on the care plan and on the CPO.
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 observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, in three out of five medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Label insulin vials and pens with an open date and store them according to manufacturer's recommendation; -Label inhalers and eye drops with an open date; and, -Remove expired medication from the medication cart. Findings include: I. Manufacturer's recommendations Advair HFA package insert read in pertinent part: Discard after 12 months, or when the dose counter displays 0. Humalog (Insulin Lispro) package insert for Humalog (Insulin Lispro) (2019) read in pertinent part Unopened Humalog should be stored in a refrigerator (36° to 46°F), but not in the freezer. Do not use Humalog if it has been frozen. In-use Humalog vials, cartridges, pens, and Humalog KwikPen should be stored at room temperature, below 86°F and must be used within 28 days or be discarded, even if they still contain Humalog. Protect from direct heat and light. Insulin Glargine package insert read in pertinent part: Insulin Glargine pen should be stored at room temperature, below 86°F and must be used within 28 days or be discarded. Isopto tears 0.5% drops package insert read in pertinent part: Use within one month after opening. Latanoprost eye drops package insert read in pertinent part: Store the unopened bottle in the refrigerator. You may keep the opened bottle in the refrigerator or at room temperature for up to 6 weeks. Spiriva Respimat inhaler package insert read in pertinent part: Use within 3 months after assembly of device. Timolol eye drops package insert read in pertinent part: Keep the bottle in its outer carton to avoid exposure to light. Discard the eye drops 4 weeks after opening. Tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) package insert read in pertinent part: Date the tuberculin vial when opening and discard it after 30 days. Wixela inhaler package insert read in pertinent part: Throw away the inhaler 30 days after removing it from the foil pouch for the first time, when the dose counter displays 0, or after the expiration date on the package, whichever comes first. II. Observations of medications stored improperly and interviews 1.Cart #200 hallway On [DATE] at 3:13 p.m. the medication cart on 200 hallway was inspected in the presence of the licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1. The following observations were made: -One open pen of insulin, Humalog 100 units/milliliter (ml) was not labeled with the open date. -Two open pens of insulin, Glargine100 units/milliliter (ml) were not labeled with the open date. LPN #1 was interviewed during the observation and said she did not know why open insulin pens were not labeled with an open date and she said that there were already open pens in the medication cart for those residents. She said she always labeled medications when she opened them and it was important to label the medications above as these insulin pens expire after being open for 28 days. 2. Cart #300 hallway On [DATE] at 3:46 p.m., the medication cart on 300 hallway was inspected in the presence of the registered nurse (RN) #2. The following observations were made: -One open vial of insulin, Glargine (Lantus)100 units/milliliter (ml) was not labeled with the open date or the resident's name. -Two bottles of Isopto tears 0.5% drops were not labeled with the open date. -One unopened, unlabeled bottle of Latanoprost eye drops was in the cart. -Two Spiriva Respimat inhalers 2.5 micrograms (mcg) were not labeled with the open date. -One bottle of Timolol eye drops was not labeled with the open date. -Two open Wixela inhalers 250-50 micrograms (mcg) were not labeled with the open date. RN #2 was interviewed during the observation and said that she had no idea why medications needed to be dated when opened and would ask her unit manager for direction. She did not know why an unopened bottle of Latanoprost eye drops were in the cart and not stored in the refrigerator. 3. Cart #100 hallway On [DATE] at 4:00 p.m., the medication cart on 100 hallway was inspected in the presence of the RN #1. The following observations were made: -One Advair inhaler 230-21 micrograms (mcg) was not labeled with the open date. -One open vial of insulin, Humalog 100 units/milliliter (ml) was not labeled with the resident's name and the open date was [DATE]. -One open vial of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) the open date [DATE]. -Two open Wixela inhalers 250-50 micrograms (mcg) were not labeled with the open date. One of the Wixela inhalers was missing the medication box and stored in a plastic bag. RN #1 was interviewed during the observation and said that medications needed to be dated to know the timeframe in which they could be safely used. III. Administrative interview The interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 5:10 p.m. She said that nurses should label medications according to manufacturer recommendations and if they are not sure of the recommendations, every nurse has a cell phone to either look it up or seek direction from administration.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently dur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. Specifically, the facility failed to address and include in the facility assessment an evaluation of the restorative nursing program. Findings include: I. Record review Facility assessment was provided by the assisting nursing home administrator (ANHA) on 14/19/22 at 4:05 p.m. Facility assessment contained a blank skills and techniques evaluation for nursing assistants that included a section of restorative services. The evaluation was meant to be completed and evaluated by the nurse upon hiring a new nursing assistant. The facility assessment did not include the description of the restorative nursing services that were offered in the facility. It did not include who was in charge of the restorative program, how the program was evaluated for its effectiveness and what residents were receiving services. Cross-reference F688-Failed to provide restorative services. II. Staff interviews NHA was not available for an interview. Interim director of nursing (IDON) was interviewed on 4/18/22 at 5:30 p.m. She said she was recent to this position and did not participate in the facility assessment review. III. Follow-up On 4/19/22 at 5:32 p.m. facility submitted an email, stating that Facility Assessment included information about the restorative nursing program. Specifically, Page 30 of 182 starts discussions of ADLs during nurse aide orientation. Page 88 and page 94 is the nurse aide skills and techniques which discusses ADLS. Pages 90-91 is the nurse aide skills and techniques which discuss Restorative.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 5 life-threatening violation(s), 8 harm violation(s), $101,829 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 68 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $101,829 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Colorado. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 5 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Winding Trails Post Acute's CMS Rating?

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

How is Winding Trails Post Acute Staffed?

CMS rates WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 57%, which is 11 percentage points above the Colorado average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Winding Trails Post Acute?

State health inspectors documented 68 deficiencies at WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE during 2022 to 2024. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 8 that caused actual resident harm, and 55 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Winding Trails Post Acute?

WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PACS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 150 certified beds and approximately 84 residents (about 56% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BOULDER, Colorado.

How Does Winding Trails Post Acute Compare to Other Colorado Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Colorado, WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (57%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Winding Trails Post Acute?

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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Winding Trails Post Acute Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Winding Trails Post Acute Stick Around?

Staff turnover at WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE is high. At 57%, the facility is 11 percentage points above the Colorado average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Winding Trails Post Acute Ever Fined?

WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE has been fined $101,829 across 2 penalty actions. This is 3.0x the Colorado average of $34,097. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Winding Trails Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?

WINDING TRAILS POST ACUTE 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.