SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure two (#93 and #62) of three out of 51 sampled 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 ensure two (#93 and #62) of three out of 51 sampled residents with a pressure ulcer received the necessary treatment and services according to professional standards of practice.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
Resident #93, who was at high risk for developing pressure wounds and an increased risk for developing infections, developed a sacral skin wound on 5/25/23 that progressed to a stage 4 sacral pressure wound.
The facility failed to ensure effective and timely interventions were in place to prevent Resident #63 from the development of pressure wounds. The facility failed to assess, monitor and document skin assessments and pressure wounds. The facility failed to place timely interventions in the prevention of the development and progression of the pressure wound.
-Due to facility failures, the resident experienced a stage 4 sacral pressure wound that became infected and required hospitalization and a surgical washout and debridement.
Resident #62, who was on hospice and had an increased risk of developing pressure wounds experienced the the following worsening wounds: A pressure wound on the left heel started on 6/22/23 that progressed to an unstageable wound, a stage 2 pressure wound on the left buttock started on 8/28/23, and a pressure wound to the right buttock on started on 10/18/23 which progressed to a stage 3 pressure wound.
The facility failed to ensure effective and timely interventions were in place to prevent Resident #62 from the development of pressure wounds. The facility failed to accurately assess and monitor and document skin assessment and pressure wounds. The facility failed to communicate and coordinate with hospice in assessing, monitoring, documenting and treating the pressure wounds.
-Due to the facility failures, the resident experienced a worsening of her pressure wounds and the formation of new pressure wounds.
Findings included:
I. Professional reference
According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, European Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline, third edition, [NAME] Haesler (Ed.), EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA: 2019, retrieved from https://www.internationalguideline.com/guideline on 11/29/23, Pressure ulcer classification is as follows:
Category/Stage 1: Nonblanchable Erythema (discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed, early sign of tissue damage)
Intact skin with nonblanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have visible blanching; its color may differ from the surrounding area. The area may be painful, firm, soft, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. Category/Stage 1 may be difficult to detect in individuals with dark skin tones. May indicate 'at risk' individuals (a heralding sign of risk).
Category/Stage 2: Partial Thickness Skin Loss
Partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed, without slough. May also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum filled blister. Presents as a shiny or dry shallow ulcer without slough or bruising.This Category/Stage should not be used to describe skin tears, tape burns, perineal dermatitis, maceration or excoriation.
Category/Stage 3: Full Thickness Skin Loss
Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon or muscle are not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling. The depth of a Category/ Stage 3 pressure ulcer varies by anatomical location. The bridge of the nose, ear, occiput and malleolus do not have subcutaneous tissue and Category/ Stage 3 ulcers can be shallow. In contrast, areas of significant adiposity can develop extremely deep Category/Stage 3 pressure ulcers. Bone/tendon is not visible or directly palpable.
Category/Stage 4: Full Thickness Tissue Loss
Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often include undermining and tunneling. The depth of a Category/Stage 4 pressure ulcer varies by anatomical location. The bridge of the nose, ear, occiput and malleolus do not have subcutaneous tissue and these ulcers can be shallow. Category/ Stage 4 ulcers can extend into muscle and/ or supporting structures ( fascia, tendon or joint capsule) making osteomyelitis possible. Exposed bone/tendon is visible or directly palpable
Unstageable: Depth Unknown
Full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown or black) in the wound bed. Until enough slough and/or eschar is removed to expose the base of the wound, the true depth, and therefore Category/ Stage, cannot be determined. Stable (dry, adherent, intact without erythema or fluctuance) eschar on the heels serves as 'the body's natural (biological) cover' and should not be removed.
Suspected Deep Tissue Injury: Depth Unknown
Purple or maroon localized area of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear. The area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. Deep tissue injury may be difficult to detect in individuals with dark skin tones. Evolution may include a thin blister over a dark wound bed. The wound may further evolve and become covered by thin eschar. Evolution may be rapid, exposing additional layers of tissue even with optimal treatment.
II. Facility policy and procedure
The Prevention of Pressure Injuries policy, revised April 2020, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/15/23 at 4:34 p.m., read in pertinent part,
Inspect the skin on a daily basis when performing or assisting with personal care or activities of daily living (ADL).
Select appropriate support surfaces based on the resident ' s risk factors, in accordance with current clinical practice.
Evaluate, report and document potential changes in the skin. Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
The Pressure Ulcer/Skin Breakdown Clinical Protocol policy and procedure, last revised April 2018), was provided by the NHA on 11/15/23 at 4:34 p.m., read in pertinent part,
The nursing staff and practitioner will assess and document an individual ' s significant risk factors for developing pressure ulcer; for example, immobility, recent weight loss, and a history of pressure ulcers.
In addition the nurse shall describe and document/report the following: a. Full assessment of pressure sore including location, stage, length, width and depth, presence of exudates or necrotic tissue; Pain assessment; Resident ' s mobility status; Current treatment, including support surfaces; and All active diagnoses.
III. Resident #93
A. Resident status
Resident #93, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician ' s orders (CPO), the diagnoses included stage 4 sacral pressure ulcer acquired during stay, chronic leukemia and dementia.
The 10/2/23 minimus data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. He was dependent, needing staff assistance with toileting and transfers, required substantial/maximal assistance with personal hygiene and bed mobility and was independent with eating.
The MDS indicated the resident had an unhealed stage 4 pressure ulcer not present upon admission and was at risk for developing pressure ulcers.
B. Observations
On 11/15/23 at 1:30 p.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #6 was observed removing the old dressing on the sacral wound. The sacral wound bed was difficult to visualize due to the depth of the wound. There was no redness or drainage noted around the wound site. Resident #93 was observed on an air mattress.
C. Record review
The skin breakdown care plan, initiated on 5/10/23 revised on 9/12/23, documented Resident #93 had actual skin breakdown related to decreased mobility, morbid obesity, edema and respiratory failure. It documented Resident #93 had a stage 4 pressure wound to the sacrum (triangular bone in the lower back formed from fused vertebrae and situated between the two hip bones of the pelvis) with a history of infection and debridement. Interventions included preventative skin care, assist the resident to turning and repositioning frequently, encourage fluids, observe skin condition daily with ADL care, obtain dietician consult, pressure redistribution surface to bed and chair, wound treatment, weekly skin checks, weekly wound assessment to include measurements and description of wound.
A comprehensive review of the care documented that not all of the care plan interventions were in place had not been initiated on the care plan until 7/27/23 after the resident returned from the hospital from sepsis and surgical debridement of an infected sacral stage 4 pressure wound that he developed in the facility prior to going to the hospital. The documentation failed to reveal personalized interventions that were in place prior to the development of the stage 4 pressure wound.
The CPO documented an order for a pressure redistribution mattress to bed, ordered 4/6/23.
The 5/25/23 nursing progress notes revealed a change of condition note with an open skin wound or ulcer noted on Resident #93 ' s lower back. The wound nurse assessed the area and cleansed with wound cleanser, medihoney (a wound dressing gel or paste treatment that promotes wound healing) was applied to the wound bed and covered with bordered foam dressing. No documentation of the resident ' s physician being notified.
The 5/25/23 physician order documented to cleanse sacral skin tear with wound cleanser, pat dry with gauze, apply medihoney cover with foam border once a day, ordered 5/25/23.
The 5/31/23 Braden score (an assessment tool used to predict pressure ulcers) was 12 out of 23 the lower score indicated Resident #93 was at high risk for developing pressure ulcers.
The CPO documented an order for resident to be followed by the facility wound specialist, ordered 6/7/23.
The 6/8/23 wound care physician note revealed the resident had a stage 4 pressure ulcer on the sacrum. The wound measurements were 6.8 x 9.4 x 2.5 centimeters (cm). with 20% slough and 80% eschar.
The 6/12/23 nutrition progress note revealed resident was complaining of his butt being sore with the 6/7/23 and documented that Resident #93 ' s skin and wound had moisture associated skin damage (MASD).
The 6/13/23 at 7:30 p.m. the change of condition nursing progress notes documented the resident ' s pressure wound had , foul smelling drainage coming from the sacral wound, the resident ' s skin was cold and clammy, and the resident ' s labs (bloodwork) showed an elevated white blood cell count (indicating a likely infection) The resident was transferred to the hospital.
On 6/14/23 hospital admission and surgical records revealed Resident #93 was admitted to the hospital with septic shock secondary to an unhealed infected stage 4 pressure wound and a urinary tract infection (UTI).
On 6/16/23 hospital records revealed Resident #93 underwent a surgical washout and debridement of sacral wound with application of wound vac (vacuum) therapy (a dressing connected to a vacuum pump to pull fluid, bacteria and debris out of the wound).
The 6/22/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 9.2 x 11.5 x 4.5 cm with 80% granulation and 20% slough and was documented as improved.
The CPO documented an order for an air mattress, ordered on 6/28/23 discontinued on 7/3/23
The CPO documented an order for a low air mattress, ordered on 7/5/23.
-A comprehensive review of the medical record revealed an order for an air mattress on 6/28/23, after the resident had been hospitalized for sepsis and underwent surgical debridement of his stage 4 sacral pressure wound.
The 7/11/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 6 x 8.5 x 2 cm with 100% granulation and was documented as improved.
The 7/18/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 6 x 8 x 1.7 cm with 60% granulation and 40% slough.
The 8/7/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 5.9 x 4.6 x 1.5 cm with 100% granulation and was documented as improved.
The 8/25/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 5.6 x 4.2 x 1 cm with 80% granulation and 20% slough and was documented as improved.
The 8/29/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 5.6 x 3.2 x 1.2 cm and was documented as improved .
The 9/12/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 4.5 x 3.5 x 0.8 cm and was documented as improved.
The 9/19/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 4.5 x 3.5 x 0.8 cm and was documented as improved.
The 9/26/23 wound care physician note revealed the wound measurements were 3.9 x 3.1 0.8 cm and was documented as improved.
A comprehensive review of the medical record revealed an order for the resident to be followed by a wound care specialist until 6/7/23, 12 days after the wound was identified on 5/25/23.
A comprehensive review of the wound physician notes revealed no documentation by the wound care physician before 7/11/23.
D. Staff interviews
LPN #6 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 1:30 p.m. LPN #6 said the wound had improved over the last several months. He said wound care has been following the resident and is seen weekly by the wound physician. He said Resident #93 had been on a different air mattress but had switched to a pump air mattress within the last two months.
LPN #4 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:00 a.m. LPN #4 said when a new skin condition was identified an incident report and a change of condition needed to be completed. She said nurses do a weekly skin condition assessment and documented the findings on the skin assessment form. She said after a skin issue was identified the wound nurse, the DON and the physician were notified.
The wound care nurse (WD) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 2:15 p.m. The WD said Resident #93 ' s stage 4 pressure wound had improved and had started as a skin tear that progressed to MASD then to a stage 4 pressure wound. She said she was unable to recall the timeline. She said the previous wound nurse had indicated that the resident had refused dressing changes and repositioning. She said she did not know what interventions were in place when the pressure wound started. She said the resident eventually had to be hospitalized for the pressure wound and had returned with a wound vacuum. She said he had improved since the wound vacuum was removed.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:12 p.m. She said when a new skin condition was identified staff would notify wound care and the DON by phone or text. She said staff would then notify the physician to obtain orders. Nursing should do weekly formal skin checks and certified nurse aides do daily skin checks with daily care.
IV. Resident #62
A. Resident status
Resident #62, age [AGE]. was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, the diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), epilepsy and malignant breast cancer.
The 8/15/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with deficits in short and long term memory. She was dependent with bed mobility, toileting, personal hygiene, transfers and eating.
The MDS documented that the resident was at risk of developing pressure ulcers and had no unhealed pressure ulcers.
B. Observations
On 11/15/23 at 3:00 p.m. LPN #6 was observed removing dressings from wounds on the left heel and over sacrum and right buttock.
-Left heel had eschar noted on the medial (inside) aspect of heel. Heel boots were in place.
-Right buttock was observed with an area covered in slough
-Coccyx/sacral area with an abrasion and pink wound bed.
Resident #62 was observed on a regular non air mattress.
C. Record review
The skin bruising and skin tear care plan, initiated on 7/18/18 revised 10/25/18, revealed Resident #62 was at risk for bruising and skin tears due to a seizure disorder. Interventions included observe skin daily with ADL care, provide skin tear treatment per physician order and report changes, and weekly skin assessment by licensed nursing personnel.
The skin breakdown care plan, initiated 6/3/19 revised 3/23/23, documented Resident #62 was at risk for breakdown due to limited mobility and a splint to hand. Interventions included check frequently under splint, pat skin when drying, encourage resident to consume all fluids, observe skin for signs of skin breakdown, observe skin condition daily with ADL care and report abnormalities, off load/float heels while in bed, obtain dietician consult, pressure redistribution surface to bed and chair, provide supplements, weekly skin assessment by licensed nurse.
The nutrition care plan, initiated on 7/31/18 revised 11/6/23, documented Resident #62 was on hospice services on 3/1/21 and hospice was following the resident for skin care.
A comprehensive review of the care plan failed to document personalized interventions or coordination with hospice services for pressure ulcer monitoring, prevention or interventions.
The 10/1/23 nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment documented no new skin wounds or concerns. It documented no additional interventions were in place in the prevention of wounds.
The 10/8/23 nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment documented a pressure ulcer at left gluteal fold (crease under buttock). It did not document the appearance of the wound. It documented no interventions were in place. It documented notification was not required.
The 10/15/23 nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment documented a pressure wound on the left gluteal fold. It did not document the appearance, stage or size of the wound. It documented no additional interventions were in place. It documented no notification was required.
The 10/22/23 nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment documented a wound in the right gluteal area. It did not document the appearance, stage or size of the wound. It documented that hospice had a preventative treatment in place for sacral area for protection and that hospice was notified on 10/17/23. It documented that hospice was in to evaluate on 10/18/23. It documented dietary interventions were in place for treatment.
The 10/29/23 nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment documented an open area at sacrum and left heel. It did not document the appearance, stage or size of the wounds. It did not document additional interventions were in place. It documented no notification was required.
The 11/6/23 nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment documented a pressure wound on sacrum and left heel. It did not document the appearance, stage or size of the wounds. It did not document additional interventions were in place. It documented no notification was required.
A comprehensive review of the nursing weekly comprehensive skin evaluation assessment did not consistently or accurately document the presence, location, appearance, interventions or notification of appropriate providers.
The 11/8/23 Braden scale documented that Resident #62 had a score of 13 and was at a moderate risk for pressure ulcer injury.
The hospice progress notes documented a left medial heel pressure wound.
-On 6/22/23 it was documented as a new onset and the stage was not documented. was documented as red and the size was 4 x 3.75 centimeters (cm).
-On 7/6/23 the stage and appearance was not documented and the size was 3.5 x 3.5 cm.
-On 7/13/23 the stage and appearance was not documented and the size was 3.5 x 3.5 cm.
-On 7/20/23 the stage and appearance was not documented and the size was 3.5 x 3.5 x 0.1 cm.
-On 7/24/23 the stage, appearance and size were not documented.
-On 8/2/23 the stage, appearance was not documented and the size was 3 x 3 x 0.1 cm.
-On 8/7/23 the stage and size was documented and the appearance was black and necrotic.
-On 8/15/23 the stage was not documented, the appearance was black and the size was 2 x 2.5 x 0.2 cm.
-On 8/24/23 the stage and appearance was not documented and the size was 2 x 2 x 0.1 cm.
-On 8/28/23 the stage, appearance and size was not documented.
-On 9/5/23 the stage was not documented, the appearance was black and the size was 2 x 2 x 0.2 cm.
-On 9/11/23 the stage and size was not documented, the appearance was black and necrotic.
-On 11/3/23 the stage was not documented the wound bed was black and necrotic and the size was 3 x 3 x 3 cm.
-There was no documentation of the left heel wound between 9/11/23 and 11/3/23.
A comprehensive review of the residents medical record including available hospice notes failed to t reveal consistent or accurate documentation of the wound staging, appearance, measurements or response to treatments.
The hospice progress notes documented a left buttock pressure wound.
-On 8/28/23 it was documented as a new onset stage 2 pressure wound with the wound bed appearing pink and pale and the size was 1 x 0.75 x 0 cm.
-On 8/31/23 it was documented as stage 2 with a red wound bed and 3 x 2 cm in size.
-On 9/5/23 it was documented as stage 2 with a red and bloody wound bed and 4.5 x 1 x 0.2 cm in size.
-On 11/3/23 the wound bed was documented as pink and healthy with a size of 1.5 x 0.75 x 0 cm.
There was no further documentation of the left buttock pressure wound between 9/5/23 and 11/3/23.
The hospice progress notes documented a right buttock wound.
-On 10/18/23 it was documented as stage 1 and new in onset. The appearance and size was not documented.
-On 10/25/23 it was documented as a stage 3 and the size was 2 x 2 cm.
There was no further documentation of the right buttock pressure wound after 10/25/23.
The 11/15/23 hospice wound care orders documented
-Right gluteal fold (crease in buttock) twice weekly and as necessary cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, skin prep peri wound, apply medihoney to wound bed and cover with foam dressing.
-Left medial heel apply betadine and cover with foam dressing every other day and as necessary for dislodgement.
There was no documentation of wound care order for coccyx/sacral or left buttock area.
The November 2023 CPO documented wound care and prevention orders
-Pressure redistribution mattress, ordered 11/25/22.
-Apply optifoam dressing over sacrum every other day and as needed for the prevention of skin breakdown, ordered 1/19/23.
-Float heels and apply heel boots, ordered 6/24/23.
-Betadine left heel for deep tissue injury every day and as necessary, ordered 6/24/23.
There was no documentation of additional interventions put into place after the left heel was identified was identified as black and necrotic on 8/7/23, after a stage 2 left buttock or coccyx wound was identified on 8/28/23 and a right buttock pressure wound was identified on 10/18/23.
D. Staff interviews
LPN #6 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:00 p.m. He said that hospice nurse had been rounding on Resident #62 for wound care and dressing changes. He said the staff changed the dressing over the sacrum every other day and also when it became dislodged. He said the staff changed the dressing change on the left heel every day. He said the resident wore heel boots at all times. He said that the resident was on a regular pressure reduction mattress. He said they had not tried any other mattress for the resident after she developed the current pressure wounds. He said that the facility nursing skin documentation should match the hospice wound documentation notes. He said hospice provider should upload their notes into the medical record for staging and measurements and should be documented on the facility skin tracking form.
The hospice nurse (HN) was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:14 p.m. The HN said the Resident #62 ' s right buttock wound was healed on 11/3/23 and found again on 11/10/23 and was assessed and documented as unstageable. Wound care ordered medihoney and covered it with foam dressing. She said the left heel pressure wound had been present for a period of time but it was documented as improving. She said the wound care orders were to paint the left heel with betadine and cover with a foam dressing and application of heel boots. She said she was not aware of a coccyx/sacral or right buttock wound. She said that the hospice noted for the resident had to be requested by the facility. She said the resident had a history of previous pressure wounds and with the development of the current pressure wounds put the resident at a higher risk of developing pressure wounds. She said additional interventions such as an air mattress would be appropriate to help heal and prevent further formation of pressure wounds. She said she was unaware the resident was not on an air mattress. She said the resident should be on an air mattress and would order one for the resident.
The WD was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 2:08 p.m. The WD said that she had not been aware of any pressure wounds for Resident #62. She said nursing staff and the hospice staff had not reported any to her. She said when any resident was identified with pressure wounds or skin issues it needed to be documented in the comprehensive skin assessment and reported to the wound care nurse and the appropriate provider.
The DON was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 2:15 p.m. The DON said when a resident was on hospice with hospice doing the nursing skin assessments and wound care for a resident with pressure wounds or skin issues the facility skin assessment documentation should reflect the hospice documentation. She said that the facility and hospice should be in direct communication regarding the assessment and the care of the pressure wounds. She said that the communication between hospice and the facility about the pressure wounds was done informally with the nurses on the unit.
The NHA was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 2:20 p.m. The NHA said there was not a good process between the facility and hospice regarding communication on the assessment and care of the pressure wounds for Resident #62.
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** V. Resident #111
A. Resident status
Resident #111, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO the dia...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** V. Resident #111
A. Resident status
Resident #111, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO the diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), heart failure and moderate protein calorie malnutrition.
The 9/4/23 (MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of three out of 15. He was dependent on staff assistance for toileting, personal hygiene, transfers and required substantial to maximal assistance with bed mobility and eating.
The MDS documented that Resident #111 had or was at risk for malnutrition. It did not indicate that he had a weight loss of 5% or more in one month or a weight loss of 10% in 6 months.
B. Record review
The nutrition care plan, initiated on 6/5/23 and revised on 11/7/23, indicated that Resident #111 had increased nutritional risk related to dementia and dysphagia, Interventions included fortified foods, honoring food preferences, weigh and alert the dietician and physician to any significant loss or gain, monitor for changes in nutritional status, including changes in intake and ability to feed self, monitor intake at all meals, offer alternate choices, alert dietician and physician to any decline in intake, total assistance required at meals (initiated 6/5/23), and offer alternative food choices if less than 50% consumed at mealtime.
A comprehensive review of the care plan failed to reveal personalized interventions for weight loss for Resident #111 until 11/7/23 with a loss of 5.1% in one month.
The resident ' s weights were documented as follows:
-6/2/23 165 lbs (pounds)
-7/11/23 152 lbs
-8/1/23 142.7 lbs
-8/4/23 142.4 lbs
-9/1/23 137.7 lbs
-10/6/23 136.8 lbs
-11/3/23 130.1 lbs
-11/13/23 131.4 lbs
A comprehensive review of the resident ' s weights revealed a weight loss of 7.88% in one month (6/2/23-7/11/23) and a loss of 16.55% in three months (6/2/23-9/1/23).
The November CPO indicated an order for weekly weights every Monday, ordered on 6/5/23 and reordered on 11/6/23.
A comprehensive review of the CPO and the medical record failed to reveal documentation of weekly weights from 6/5/23 until 11/7/23.
The November CPO indicated an order for the resident to be assisted with every meal, ordered on 8/10/23.
The November CPO indicated an occupational therapy order for staff to continue to provide the resident feeding assistance for all meals, ordered on 8/11/23.
The 9/1/23 quarterly nutritional risk review documented that Resident #111 had a weight loss trend and triggered significant weight loss of 16.5% in three months.
A comprehensive review of the interdisciplinary team weight variance documentation did not indicate any further documentation before 9/1/23.
A comprehensive review of the CPO revealed the following diet and supplementation orders:
-House supplement once a day for weight loss for poor oral intake with weight loss, ordered 7/12/23 discontinued 9/1/23.
-Med pass (fortified nutritional shake) twice a day for three months, ordered on 8/10/23, discontinued on 9/1/23.
-Liquid protein supplement for low protein labs for two months ordered 9/1/23
-House supplement twice a day for weight loss for three months, ordered 9/2/23
-Health shake PRN (as necessary), Ensure provided by family, if resident consumes less than 50% of his meal, ordered on 9/1/23 discontinued 11/8/23. No documentation of it being given in October or November.
-Two gram sodium dysphagia advanced texture diet, with large portions of protein ordered 9/26/23.
The October 2023 medication and treatment administration record (MAR/TAR) indicated an order for a health shake as needed for weight loss, provided the resident consumes less than 50% of his meals. There was no documentation if a health shake was provided.
The 10/6/23 interdisciplinary team weight variance assessment documented Resident #111 ' s weight of 136.8 pounds (lbs) with a previous weight of 152 lbs and indicated a weight loss of 10% in three months.
The November 2023 MAR/TAR indicated an order for health shakes as needed for weight loss. There was no documentation to show if the health shake was provided.
The 11/8/23 IDT (interdisciplinary team) weight variance assessment documented Resident #111 ' s weight of 130.1 lbs with a weight loss of 5.1% in one month.
The 11/10/23 nutrition progress notes documented communication with the resident ' s daughter regarding updating the resident ' s food preferences and reviewing current supplementation.
-There was no detail on the outcome of the communication.
A comprehensive review of the nutrition progress notes did not indicate any further documentation before 11/10/23.
A comprehensive review of meal intakes revealed inconsistent documentation of the resident food intake. There were several days when staff failed to record the resident's meal intake including:
-On 10/17/23 no documentation of intake for breakfast
-On 10/19/23 documentation of lunch refusal by resident
-On 10/20/23 no documentation of intake for breakfast or lunch
-On 10/25/23 no documentation of intake for breakfast or lunch
-On 11/4/23 no documentation of intake for breakfast or lunch
-On 11/5/23 documentation of 25% or less for breakfast, less than 50% for lunch
-On 11/6/23 no documentation of intake for dinner
-On 11/7/23 no documentation of intake for dinner
-On 11/9/23 documentation of 25% or less for breakfast, no documentation of intake for dinner
A comprehensive review of diet and supplementation orders and oral intake indicated that house supplementation was not increased to twice a day until 9/2/23 after Resident #111 had triggered a weight loss of 16.55% for three months. The medical record indicated no documentation of the health shake (Ensure) being provided or the amount when the resident refused meals or had an intake of 50% or less. It indicated that oral intake was not being consistently documented.
C. Staff interviews
Certified nurse assistant (CNA) #3 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 9:50 a.m. She said residents with weight loss or significant weight loss have an order to be weighed weekly, other residents were weighed monthly. She said Resident #111 was a resident that required one to one assistance with meals.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:00 a.m. She said residents were usually weighed monthly. Residents with weight loss or significant weight loss had an order to be weighed weekly.
The registered dietician (RD) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 9:00 a.m. She said that Resident #111 was on a dysphagia advanced diet with additional portions of protein and required one to one assistance while eating. She said he had inconsistent intakes for meals. She said that he was on a house supplement twice a day, a Boost shake once a day, and his daughter brought in Ensure, which the daughter offered. She said that he had been on the Med Pass fortified shake, but was discontinued because he did not like it. She said he has had a significant weight loss of 20.4% over the past five months. She said his current supplements were started in September, with one being started in November. She said they discussed significant weight loss daily in morning meetings. She said weekly weights had not been done until they had been ordered in November.
The corporate nurse consultant (CNC) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 9:10 a.m. She said it was an expectation that all residents who triggered for significant weight loss were to be weighed weekly and the IDT was to conduct a weekly nutrition review and conduct a quarterly IDT review.
Based on observations, record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure for four (#75, #79, and #111) of five residents reviewed received the care and services necessary to meet their nutrition needs and to maintain their highest level of physical well-being, out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to follow physician orders for significant weight loss, consistently put interventions in place and timely address Resident #75 nutritional needs.
Specifically, the facility failed to follow physician orders for weight loss, consistently put interventions in place and timely address Resident #79 nutritional needs.
Resident #75 experienced a significant, unplanned weight loss of 12 % in three months. Resident #79 experienced an unplanned weight loss of 5.56 % in one month.
Record review and interviews revealed the facility failed to ensure supplements ordered by the physician were being provided to Resident #75 and Resident #79 and additional interventions were assessed for the resident ' s weight loss.
Interviews confirmed the facility lacked a system to ensure supplements were being consistently given, change of condition for feeding assistance was being assessed, and potential swallowing difficulties were being evaluated related to significant weight loss.
The facility's failure to have a system that ensured physician orders were followed, changes in resident ' s assistance needs and dietary needs were monitored contributed to Resident #75 and Resident #79's weight loss.
Resident #111 who was identified as had increased nutritional risk related to dementia and dysphagia experienced a significant weight loss of 7.88% in a one months period of time; however the facility did not initiate timely interventions to prevent the resident from experiencing and additional significant weight loss o 16.55% weight loss in a three months time frame.
The facility failed to ensure effective and timely interventions were in place to prevent Resident #111, initially when the resident triggered with significant weight loss. The facility failed to monitor weekly weights, failed to consistently monitor meal intakes, failed to increase a house supplement until after triggering a significant weight loss of 16.55% three months after the resident experienced a significant weight loss of 16.55%. Addidioally, the facility failed to consistently monitor the resident ' s intake of prescribed health nutritional shake supplements when intakes were mostly less than 50%; failed to monitor as necessary health shakes were provided by the nursing staff; and, failed to conduct weekly interdisciplinary (IDT) nutrition assessments.
-Due to the facility failures, the resident experienced continued downward trending weight loss.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Nutrition/Unplanned Weight Loss policy and procedure, revised September 2017, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/18/23 at 3:51 p.m. It revealed, in pertinent part, The physician will consider whether any assessment including additional diagnostic testing is indicated to help clarify the severity or consequences of weight loss and/or impaired nutrition.
The physician will review and rule out medical causes of oral or swallowing problems before authorizing other consults or interventions to modify diet consistency.
The staff and physician will identify pertinent interventions based on identified causes and overall resident condition, prognosis, and wishes
II. Resident #75
A. Resident status
Resident #75, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included unspecified dementia, anorexia, and dysphagia oropharyngeal phase (difficulty initiating swallowing).
The 9/27/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the brief interview of mental status (BIMS) because the resident rarely understood conversation and communication. Staff interview section showed the resident had short and long term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities.
The assessment documented that the resident was independent with eating and did not require assistance from staff. The resident was coded for being at risk for malnutrition with no swallowing issues.
B. Observation
Resident #75 was observed on 11/14/23 from 12:21 p.m. to 12:59 p.m. The resident was sitting in bed in her room when certified nursing aide (CNA) #7 brought in the meal tray. The CNA adjusted the resident ' s bed to a 135 degree angle and repositioned the resident so she was in front of the meal tray on the bedside table. The resident was not able to participate in repositioning. The CNA uncovered the resident ' s food but did not cut up the meal.
After the CNA exited the room, Resident #75 took one of the whole meatballs on her plate and put the entire meatball in her mouth. She accompanied the meatball with fluids and began to cough and expressed difficulty breathing. After a minute, the resident stopped coughing but still had not swallowed the meatball in her mouth.
Resident #75 finished chewing the meatball at 12:40 p.m. She then picked up a cup of peaches and attempted using her knife in the position of a chopstick to eat the peaches. The resident was able to consume the entire cup of peaches in this manner. The resident attempted to cut up the remaining meatball and put pieces in her mouth while still chewing on the peaches. She took sips of fluids while still chewing peaches and meatballs. At 12:54 p.m. the resident spit the pieces of meatball she had been trying to eat into her hand. She placed the pieces onto her plate. She attempted to drink her milk, but because of the angle of the bed, she spilled the whole cup of milk onto her bed. At 12:59 p.m. the resident tried to eat more of the meatball she had cut up but began coughing while eating. The resident spit out the meatball pieces into her hand and pushed the plate away.
C. Representative interview
Resident #75 ' s representative was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 3:34 p.m. She stated the resident did not have family involvement and she was a longtime friend of the resident. The representative stated the resident had not been eating well and the facility asked her to prepare and bring in Korean food for the resident but she was not able to come in often enough. The facility kitchen used to make more noodles and rice and Resident #75 would eat those.
D. Record review
Resident #75's weight record revealed she experienced a significant, unplanned weight loss of 12 lbs (pounds) and 12 % from 9/3/23 to 11/3/23 (a two month period).
The weight and vital record revealed:
The resident weighed 100 lbs on 9/1/23.
The resident weighed 92 lbs on 10/1/23, a loss of 8% in 30 days.
The resident weighed 88 lbs on 11/3/23, a loss of 12% in 60 days.
The comprehensive care plan, revised 10/01/23, revealed the resident was at nutritional risk due to dementia and varying appetite. Interventions were to honor the residents' food preferences. The resident liked Korean food and the facility was to prepare preferred Korean food as capable. Provide supplements as ordered and monitor for changes in nutritional status (changes in intake, ability to feed self, unplanned weight loss, and abnormal labs) and report to nutritionist and physician.
The November 2023 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
Regular diet with regular texture- ordered on 9/25/23;
House supplement- two times a day for weight maintenance- ordered on 9/22/23 discontinued 11/3/23;
House supplement- three times a day for weight maintenance- ordered on 11/3/23;
Speech assessment with swallow study to ensure correct diet- ordered on 11/14/23 (during survey); and,
Regular diet, dysphagia texture advanced texture- ordered on 11/14/23 (during survey).
The September 2023 medication administration record (MAR) reviewed from 9/22/23 through 9/30/23 revealed:
The resident drank 50% of the house supplement two times.
The resident drank 25% of the house supplement one time.
The resident drank 0% of the house supplement one time.
The resident did not receive the house supplement two times.
The October 2023 MAR reviewed from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 revealed:
The resident drank 50% of the house supplement two times.
The resident drank 25% of the house supplement two times.
The resident drank 0% of the house supplement five times.
The resident did not receive the house supplement six times.
The November 2023 MAR reviewed from 11/1/23 through 11/16/23 revealed:
The resident drank 50% of the house supplement eight times.
The resident drank 25% of the house supplement one time.
The resident drank 0% of the house supplement three times.
The resident did not receive the house supplement two times.
A review of the progress notes dated 9/3/23 through 11/16/23 revealed:
Nutrition narrative note dated 11/14/23 (during survey) at 6:20 p.m. revealed the registered dietitian (RD) spoke with speech therapy and requested resident being assessed with swallow study to ensure resident had the safest and most effective diet.
Nutrition narrative note dated 11/14/23 (during survey) at 8:01 p.m. revealed the RD observed the resident during dinner with downgraded diet texture. The resident ate 75% of her meal independently with initial prompting.
-There were no prior nutrition notes between 9/3/23 to 11/13/23.
-According to medication administration notes reviewed from 9/3/23 through 11/16/23, the resident did not receive the house supplement nine times in September 2023 due to the supplement not being available.
-The resident did not receive the house supplement six times in October 2023 due to the supplement not being available.
-The resident did not receive the house supplement one time in November 2023 due to the supplement not being available.
Nutritional assessments reviewed from 9/3/23 through 11/16/23 revealed:
-No nutritional assessments conducted after 8/7/23.
Weight variance assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a 8 % weight loss and was attributed by nursing to varying meal intake and dementia. The resident showed a preference to sugary food so the staff held the dessert from meals to encourage the resident to eat more of the regular meal. RD to trail Mirtazapine 7.5 milligram (mg) for thirty days to stimulate appetite. RD asked the resident ' s power of attorney (POA) to bring in Korean foods for the resident to increase intake.The Mirtazapine was discontinued after 10/31/23 without further information.
Weight variance assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a 12% weight loss and was attributed by nursing to varying meal intake and refusing meals. The resident had increased sleeping and was refusing meals. Weight loss was determined to be due to furthering dementia. Residents POA was bringing in Korean food for the resident which the resident frequently refused.
-However, record review showed the facility failed to put further interventions in place to mitigate weight loss beyond house supplement drinks which were provided inconsistently. The resident was not assessed for changes in feeding needs or changes in swallowing or chewing functioning until the survey observations were brought to staff's attention.
III. Resident #79
A. Resident status
Resident #79, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included unspecified dementia.
The 8/17/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the BIMS because she was rarely understood. Staff interview section showed the resident had short and long term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. She was assessed to be independent with eating and did not require assistance from staff.
B. Observation
On 11/14/23 at 11:40 a.m. Resident #79 was observed sitting in the memory care dining room. The resident sat at her table and did not have any drinks. Resident #79 was served her meal at 12:12 p.m. The resident did not eat or attempt to eat her meal. Resident #79 did not receive any encouragement from staff to eat. She was not offered an alternative since she was not eating her meal. At 12:39 Resident #79 still had not eaten any of her meals. At 12:51 CNA #7 came and took the resident ' s meal without offering any alternative.
C. Record review
Resident #79's weight record revealed she experienced an unplanned weight loss of six lbs and 5.56% from 9/1/23 to 11/3/23 (a two month period).
The weight and vital record revealed:
The resident weighed 108 lbs on 9/1/23.
The resident weighed 102 lbs on 10/1/23, a loss of 5.56% in 30 days.
The resident weighed 102 lbs on 11/3/23.
The comprehensive care plan, revised 5/25/23, revealed the resident was at nutritional risk due to dementia. The resident had increased nutrient needs related to excess energy expenditure, constant wandering and pacing. Interventions were to provide nourishment as ordered, offer finger foods, staff assistance at meals to cut food into smaller pieces, supplements as ordered and monitor for changes in nutritional status (changes in intake, ability to feed self, unplanned weight loss, and abnormal labs) and report to nutritionist and physician.
The November 2023 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
Regular diet with regular texture- ordered on 11/3/2020;
House nourishment- two times a day for weight stability. Chocolate pudding or equivalent offered by kitchen- ordered on 10/6/23;
House supplement- one time a day for weight stability- ordered on 10/7/23;
Speech assessment for evaluation only- ordered on 11/15/23 (during survey).
The September 2023 MAR reviewed from 9/1/23 through 9/30/23 revealed:
The resident did not receive house supplements or house nourishments in the month of September 2023.
The October 2023 MAR reviewed from 10/7/23 through 10/31/23 revealed:
The resident drank 50% of the house supplement five times.
The resident drank 0% of the house supplement two times.
The resident did not receive the house supplement ten times.
The resident consumed 25% of the house nourishment one time.
The resident consumed 0% of the house nourishment four times.
The resident did not receive the house nourishment nine times.
The November 2023 MAR reviewed from 11/1/23 through 11/16/23 revealed:
The resident drank 0% of the house supplement three times.
The resident did not receive the house supplement three times.
The resident consumed 50% of the house nourishment three times.
The resident consumed 0% of the house nourishment four times.
The resident did not receive the house nourishment four times.
A review of the progress notes dated 9/3/23 through 11/14/23 revealed:
-The resident did not receive the house nourishment fourteen times in September 2023 due to the nourishment not being available.
-The resident did not receive the house nourishment four times in October 2023 due to the nourishment not being available. The resident did not receive the house supplement three times in October 2023 due to the supplement not being available.
-The resident did not receive the house nourishment three times in November 2023 due to the nourishment not being available. The resident did not receive the house supplement two times in November 2023 due to the supplement not being available.
Assessments reviewed from 9/3/23 through 11/16/23 revealed:
-No nutritional assessments conducted after 8/14/23.
Weight variance assessment dated [DATE] documented the resident had a 5.6 % weight loss in one month and was attributed by nursing to varying meal intake and falling asleep during meals. When the resident was offered a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for a snack, she would consume 100 %. The resident slept through breakfast so the RD ordered peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for a snack and supplement drinks.
Nutritional risk review dated 11/6/23 documented the resident would eat sandwiches offered but not the entire sandwich. The resident liked cheeseburgers and the RD would add cheeseburgers to her meals once a week and change snacks from sandwiches to pudding. The RD had reviewed the care plan for the risk review.
-However, record review showed the facility failed to put further interventions in place to mitigate weight loss beyond house supplement drinks and nourishment snacks which were provided inconsistently. The facility failed to follow the care plan interventions of cutting the resident ' s food and providing finger foods.
IV. Staff interviews
CNA #7 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:30 p.m. She stated Resident #75 ate a regular diet. Resident #75 could be selective with the food she ate but if she liked the food she would eat a lot of it. She preferred rice and noodles.
CNA #7 said Resident #79 wandered the unit frequently and sometimes would not sit down for a meal. If the staff provided her food inside of a cup with a utensil and allowed her to walk with it, she would eat the food. When the resident did sit down for meals, she preferred finger foods but did not receive these often from the kitchen.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #5 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:45 p.m. She said Resident #75 and Resident #79 were prescribed house supplement drinks for weight loss but the unit often did not get the supplements from the kitchen. When the nurse requested the supplements from the kitchen, they would be told the kitchen was too short staffed to bring any over or the kitchen had run out of supplements.
The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:51 p.m. She stated the kitchen sent supplements to Resident #75 and Resident #79 ' s unit three times a day. She did not know if the nursing staff passed the supplements to the residents. The DM had been receiving the drink buckets with the unopened supplements sent back from nurses and let the RD know.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 2:09 p.m. The DON said Resident #75 needed staff to set up her meals, with additional encouragement and reminders to eat. The facility had not requested a speech evaluation after the resident ' s significant weight loss because the resident ' s daughter did not want an evaluation. The resident ' s code status was do not resuscitate (DNR) or withhold cardiopulmonary resuscitation if found without a pulse or heartbeat. The daughter did not want any changes to her diet preferences or diet texture due to this.
-However, there was no family involvement according to the resident's representative who was trying to help the facility find food the resident liked to eat (see interview above). The DON was not aware if the resident was at risk for choking or had difficulty swallowing.
The DON said Resident #79 required set up for her meals. The resident was at nutritional risk but there had not been a speech evaluation ordered for possible changes in eating assistance or eating abilities. The resident preferred finger foods but there was no order to ensure the resident received finger foods. The DON had not heard from the nurses the residents had not been receiving house supplements consistently as ordered. If a resident had significant weight loss, the RD would complete an observation of the resident when eating to see if additional interventions were needed.
The RD was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 2:36 p.m. The RD said Resident #75 was receiving a regular diet with regular textures. The resident was to receive supplement shakes three times a day, hot chocolate with milk, chocolate pudding and cookies to add calories. The RD did not observe residents while eating, instead she relied on feedback about the resident eating habits and ability from the nurses. The nurses had told the RD that Resident #75 sometimes consumed her supplements and meals and sometimes she did not and attributed this to her advancing dementia. The RD had not evaluated if the resident required more eating assistance and was no longer appropriate or able to be eating independently.
The RD said Resident #79 was to receive house nourishments three times a day and these consisted of pudding or snacks. The resident was to be given a supplement shake for weight management. The RD had ordered the resident a burger once a week. She did not know why the resident was not being provided more finger foods and had not observed the resident eating. The RD said she relied on the nurses for feedback and had not followed up with any additional evaluations or assessments to address her weight loss.
The RD was aware there was a discrepancy between the nursing and the kitchen staff over whether or not the kitchen was failing to send supplements or if the nurses were failing to pass out the supplements. This had been going on for two months and the RD had not taken any action to resolve the discrepancy.
The RD said if a resident had weight loss with snacks and supplements ordered and it was not impacting their weight loss, the RD would look into changes in swallowing or cognitive ability to eat without increased assistance.
-However, there was not record of these approaches being attempted with either Resident #75 or Resident #79.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to assist one (#38) of two residents reviewed for prefe...
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 (#38) of two residents reviewed for preferences out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure staff provided assistance and encouragement for the resident (#38) to treat the edema in both of his lower legs;
-Ensure the resident could comfortably elevate his legs while in his bed and in his room;
-Ensure resident was treated with kindness, respect and dignity when he practiced self advocacy to alter his environment to meet his needs; and,
-Ensure the resident ' s care plan was updated timely to reflect the Resident #38 ' s unique needs and preferences within his environment that facilitated the treatment of the edema in his legs.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy
A. The Statement of Resident Rights, undated, included with each admission packet was received on 11/15/23 by the nursing home administrator (NHA). The document read in pertinent part:
You have the right to be informed on, and participate in your treatment.
You have the right to participate in the development and implementation of your person-centered plan of care, including the right to participate in the planning process, the right to participate in establishing the expected goals and outcomes of care, the type, amount, frequency and duration of care, the right to be informed, in advance, of changes to the plan of care, the right to receive services and items included in the plan of care and the right to see the plan of care.
You have the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of your needs and preferences.
You have the right to and the facility must promote and facilitate, your self-determination through support of resident choice, including but not limited to;
-The right to make choices about aspects of your life in the facility that are significant to you,
-The right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and support for daily living safety.
-You have the right to privacy in treatment and caring for personal needs, confidentiality in the treatment.
B. The Resident Rights policy, revised December 2016, was received on 11/15/23 by the NHA. The policy read in pertinent part:
Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity;
Federal and state law guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident ' s right to;
-A dignified existence;
-Be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity;
-Self-determination;
-Be informed of, and participate in his or her care planning and treatment;
-Orientation and in-service training programs are conducted quarterly to assist our employees in understanding our residents ' rights.
II. Resident status
Resident #38, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included hypertension, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, shortness of breath, diabetes, venous insufficiency, atrial fibrillation and stroke.
The 10/11/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was not cognitively impaired impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score 15 out of 15. He was independent with all of his activities of daily living.
III. Resident observation and interview
On 11/14/23 at 11:12 a.m., Resident #38 was observed The resident resided in a semi-private room. His bed was positioned perpendicular to the doorway. The curtain was drawn between roommates. The resident had a chest of drawers, night stand, wheelchair and rollator walker positioned on his side of the room. Personal belongings were stored in the closet, in laundry baskets, and under the bed. The bed was unmade and bedding was rolled up against the wall. The resident ' s breakfast tray was on his bed. The room smelled musty and of body odors. There was not a stationary chair or recliner in the resident ' s living space and the head of the resident ' s bed was elevated to a sitting position and the foot of the bed was flat.
Resident #38 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 11:12 a.m. He said the care in the facility was poor. He was frustrated at the significant edema in his lower legs that was caused by his heart and kidney failure but told by staff it was because he drank too many beverages. The resident said he knew he could elevate his legs to help reduce the edema and said he would elevate his legs but his bed did not adjust to elevate the foot of the bed. He said to use the bed, he had to flip around in the bed, placing his feet at the head of the bed. He said turning in his bed was a problem because then his upper body was flat and made it more difficult to breathe because of his heart failure and high blood pressure. The resident said a recliner was available in the atrium but the facility had a COVID-19 outbreak and did not feel comfortable sitting in a common area for an extended time and using furniture not sanitized after use by others.
The resident said he felt staff did not care and did only what was required to check their boxes. The resident said his bedding had not been changed in five days and the room was dirty. He said the room was not cleaned well which made it less appealing to spend time in his bed.
IV. Record review
On 10/25/23 the resident ' s care plan was updated and included a treatment goal to monitor for side effects, complications, or adverse reaction to diuretic medications. The resident was prescribed Bumetanide for treatment of congestive heart failure, hypertension and edema. The interventions included monitoring for medication side effects. The care plan failed to include specific treatment, goals and interventions for the resident ' s bilateral edema.
However, the care plan failed to document a care focus for the resident environmental preference focused on treating his edema.
On 11/8/23 Resident #38 was evaluated by the primary care physician for acute renal failure, diabetes and congestive heart failure. The physician noted the resident had edema in both of his lower legs. The physician referred the resident to see a kidney specialist which was scheduled for early December 2023.
On 11/10/23 the resident was evaluated by the facility provider for chronic and acute kidney injury. The plan to help manage the resident ' s leg edema was to have the staff encourage the resident to spend time in his bed each day to elevate his lower legs.
V. Staff Interviews
Certified nurse aide (CNA #1) was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 11:39 a.m. CNA #1 said she was uncertain about specific needs for the resident. She said she was agency staff but had cared for the resident for three days prior. She said the resident was independent and she provided assistance with activities when he requested.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 11:47 a.m. LPN #1 said he did not have specific orders or information on the resident ' s care plan to help the resident with his edema. He said the resident was able to elevate his legs in a recliner available in the atrium. He said the resident could also sit in his wheelchair and use his bed to elevate his legs. The LPN said he had not specifically encouraged the resident to elevate his legs because the resident was independent.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3:35 p.m The DON said the resident was independent and had the ability to use his bed to elevate his legs. She said he had been non-compliant with his diet and he had an upcoming appointment for his edema. She said she was unaware the foot of the bed did not rise and the resident had to flip around in his bed to elevate his legs. The DON said the resident could also use a recliner in the atrium. If he did not want to sit in the atrium, a recliner could be placed in his room. However, the resident was against rearranging his furniture to make space for a recliner. She said she will follow up on how to accommodate the resident so he could comfortably elevate his legs.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to investigate one allegation of resident to resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to investigate one allegation of resident to resident altercation physical abuse for two (#29, and #99) of five residents reviewed for abuse of 54 sample residents.
Findings include:
I. Facility Policy
The Abuse Prevention and Reporting Guideline, dated 12/31/15, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/15/23 at 3:54 p.m. It read in pertinent part:
Each resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical and mental abuse, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Residents will be free from verbal abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse, sexual abuse, and involuntary seclusion. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other resident consultants or volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the resident, family members, legal guardians, friend, or other individuals.
To ensure the resident ' s rights are protected by providing a method for prevention, reporting and investigation of any type of alleged resident abuse.
II. Resident #29
A. Resident status
Resident #29, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, acquired absence of right leg, absence of left leg above the knee, and history of falls.
According to the 11/8/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had no cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. He required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use.
B. Record Review
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 10/3/22 and revised on 9/27/23 identified the resident had the potential to demonstrate verbal behaviors related to a history of verbal outbursts directed toward others, use of abusive language toward staff members, and pattern of challenging/confrontational verbal behavior. Interventions include monitoring medical conditions that may contribute to verbal behaviors. Monitor medications, especially new/changed/discontinued medications, for side effects and Resident ' s response contributing to verbal behaviors.
Nursing note dated 9/27/24 at 12:32 p.m. read Nurse witnessed resident in an altercation with another resident at 10:30 a.m. Initially heard this resident yelling angrily in the 1300 hall. When this writer came around the corner he witnessed both residents hitting each other. This nurse intervened with the director of nursing (DON) and residents were separated and assessed with no injuries noted
III. Resident #99
A. Resident status
Resident #99, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included dementia, chronic kidney disease, senile degeneration of the brain, and diabetes mellitus.
According to the 11/3/23 MDS assessment, the resident was not administered the brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The resident had severe cognitive impairment with deficits in short and long-term memory. The resident displayed physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others on two days in the seven-day assessment period which put the resident at significant risk for physical injury; interfered with the resident's care and put another resident at significant risk for physical injury.
The resident had wandering behaviors. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use.
B. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, initiated on 8/4/23 and revised on 11/17/23, identified the resident had the potential to exhibit physical behaviors (hitting out) related to cognitive loss/dementia, and poor impulse control due to dementia. Interventions include evaluating the nature and circumstances (i.e., triggers) of the resident ' s physical behavior. Discuss findings with residents and family members/caregivers and adjust care delivery appropriately. Evaluate the need for psychiatric/behavioral health consult. Explain all care, including procedures (one step at a time), and the reason for performing the care before initiating. Observe for non-verbal signs of physical aggression (rigid body position, clenched fists, agitation, and pacing).
Nursing note dated 9/27/24 at 12:25 p.m. read: Nurse witnessed resident in an altercation with another resident at 10:30 a.m. Initially heard this resident yelling angrily in the 1300 hall. When this writer came around the corner he witnessed both residents hitting each other. This nurse intervened with the director of nursing (DON) and residents were separated and assessed with no injuries noted
On 11/15/23 at 3:10 p.m., a request was made for the facility ' s occurrence/abuse investigation for the incident on 9/27/23 between Resident #29 and Resident #99, the facility was unable to provide documentation of an investigation being conducted.
D. Staff interview
The corporate nurse consultant (CNC) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3:29 p.m. The CNC said the facility did not have an occurrence or investigation on the resident or resident physical abuse incident that occurred between Resident #99 and #29 on 9/27/23. The CNC said an investigation should have been completed and the incident should have been thoroughly investigated.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
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 complete and transmit encoded, accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) data...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to complete and transmit encoded, accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) data to the CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) system for one (#58) of three out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to complete MDS Discharge assessment upon Resident #58 ' s discharge from the facility to the community.
Findings included:
I. Facility policy
The Resident Assessment policy, revised in March 2022, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/15/23 at 11:30 a.m. The policy read in pertinent part: A comprehensive assessment of every resident ' s needs is made at intervals designated by OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) and PPS (prospective payment system) requirements.
OBRA-Required Assessments - are federally mandated, and therefore, must be performed for all residents of Medicare and/or Medicaid certified nursing homes.
The resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments and reviews according to the following requirements:
-a. OBRA required assessments - conducted for all residents in the facility: (7) Discharge Assessment (return anticipated and return not anticipated).
-b. PPS required assessments - conducted (in addition to the OBRA required assessments) for residents for whom the facility receives Medicare Part A SNF (skilled nursing facility) benefits: (3) Part A PPS Discharge Assessment.
II. Resident #58
A.Resident Status
Resident #58, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to the community on 8/31/23. According to the November 2023 computerized physician ' s orders (CPO) diagnoses included hypertension, diabetes, and kidney disease.
The last MDS admission assessment was conducted on 7/11/23 to meet the annual review requirement.
-There was no discharge (return not anticipated) assessment for the resident completed for the resident ' s 8/31/23 discharge.
B. Record review
According to the Discharge summary, dated [DATE], Resident #58 transitioned to the community to a home (address documented) with the help of (provider name) care transition services. The resident ' s discharge date was documented as 8/31/23.
III. Staff interviews
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:10 p.m. The DON said MDS assessments should be completed and transmitted on time per State and Federal time frames. The DON did not know why the resident ' s assessment had not been completed but said it would be completed.
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 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 one (#51) of four residents reviewed for meaningful activity programming activities out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-Resident #51 received individualized meaningful activities to meet her social, emotional and recreational needs;
-Resident #58 was consistently offered her eyeglasses so she could see fine details and possibly participate in preferred independent activities; and,
-Review with Resident #58 her activity preferences and update the resident ' s changes in activity preferences on a quarterly basis.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Activities Program policy, revised August 2006, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/14/23 at 3:30 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part: Our activity programs are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and are geared to the individual resident's needs. Activities are scheduled 7 (seven) days a week.
Individualized and group activities are provided that:
-Reflect the schedules, choices, and rights of the residents;
-Are offered at hours convenient to the residents, including evenings, holidays, and weekends;
-Reflect the cultural and religious interests, hobbies, life experiences, and personal preferences of the residents; and,
-Appeal to men and women as well as those of various age groups residing in the facility.
The Activities Evaluation policy, revised February 2023, was provided by the NHA on 11/16/23 at 3:30 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part: In order to promote the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of residents, an activity evaluation is conducted and maintained for each resident at least quarterly and with any change of condition that could affect their participation in planned activities.
An activity evaluation is conducted as part of the comprehensive assessment to help develop an activities plan that reflects the choices and interests of the resident.
The completed activity evaluation is part of the resident's medical record and is updated as necessary, but at least quarterly.
II. Resident #58
A. Resident status
Resident #58, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic pulmonary disease, anxiety and mild dementia.
The 8/22/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of three out of 15.
The resident had clear speech, was able to express ideas and wants and was able to understand verbal content with clear comprehension.
The resident had impaired vision requiring the use of corrective lenses.
The 12/14/22 admission MDS assessment documented that the resident said it was very important to listen to the music she liked, be around pets, participate in her favorite activities including religious services and it was somewhat important to go outside in good weather. The resident said it was not important to keep up with the news, have books, newspapers, or magazines to read or participate in group activities.
B. Resident observations
Resident #58 was observed throughout the survey from 11/13/23 to 11/16/23. The resident did not leave her room and did not have any independent activities within view and/or within the resident ' s reach in her room.
On 11/13/23 at 10:10 p.m., Resident #58 was lying in bed with the radio on. There were no items in the resident's reach or in view to facilitate the resident ' s participation in an independent activity while she was in isolation for coronavirus (SARS-CoV2 virus - COVID-19) illness (see below). She had no television in her room.
On 11/15/23 at 3:49 p.m., Resident #58 was lying in bed staring out the window. The resident ' s room was decorated nicely with many personal items and posters. The radio was playing in the resident ' s room. She had no items to engage in any type of independent activity. The resident was not wearing her eyeglasses.
C. Resident and resident representative interview
Resident #58 ' s friend and power of attorney (POA) legal representative was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 1:46 p.m. The resident ' s representative said he had been a friend of the resident's since her admission as her family was not involved in her life. The representative said he was concerned that the resident was not being offered any activity programming.
The representative said every time he visited, Resident #58 ' s biggest complaint was that she was not being assisted with activities and she was bored because there was nothing to do. The resident ' s representative said he had asked facility staff on numerous occasions to get her up for activities and to offer the resident opportunities to participate in meaningful activities but he did not believe staff were being responsive. The representative said since Resident #58 got sick she had not been receiving visits from the activities department.
Resident #58 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:49 p.m. Resident #58 said she had nothing to do and spent most of her time in bed looking at her posters. Resident #58 said she was in isolation due to a COVID-19 infection and was not able to leave the room even though she did not really feel sick. Resident #58 said no facility staff had offered her things to do in her room during her isolation. Resident #58 said prior to getting sick she had been asking staff to get her up so she could get out of her room and participate in activities but the staff did not get her up as much as she would have liked.
Resident #58 said she could not see fine detail and she did not think there was much she could do from her bed. She said she had eyeglasses but did not know where they were. She said she did not have a television nor did she like to watch television. Resident #58 said though staff turned the radio on for her, she really did not like to listen to the music but did so anyway. Resident #58 expressed some interest in learning more about books on tape and said she did not know much about them and had not been offered that as an option.
D. Record review
Resident #58 ' s comprehensive care plan activity focus, last revised on 6/29/23, revealed that Resident #58 said it was important that she has the opportunity to engage in daily routines that are meaningful relative to her preferences. She is of the Christian faith. She can make her activity needs known. She primarily prefers to be in her room and in bed. Leisure activities listening to music, coloring, resting, relaxing, napping taking care of her personal belongings talking on the phone and visits from friends. She accepts the Daily Chronicle (newsletter), verse of the day, puzzles, weekly portable carts of latte, refreshments and snacks. With encouragement, she will participate in gardening, music and an occasional food activity. Utilizes assistance in a wheelchair to and from activities of choice. Wears eyeglasses.
Care plan interventions included (last revised 6/28/23: Offer reminders of daily activities. Encourage and facilitate resident ' s activity preferences: listening to music, coloring, portable carts of refreshments, lattes, snacks, reading cart and mobile country store. Occasionally offer garden, music and food activities.
- Resident enjoys listening to music and prefers religious, 50's and country western.
-Resident likes to do crosswords/puzzles/games, look out the window, lay down/rest, pray, read, and think. Offer large print reading material and puzzles. Will accept verbal readings.
-Declined to have a personal television in her room.
-Resident #58 said she would benefit from accommodations for visual impairments by having someone to read to her and to be offered large print materials while wearing prescription eyeglasses. Declined talking book subscription but will accept verbal readings.
The resident medical record revealed the resident had been diagnosed with COVID-19 on 11/10/23 and had been confined to her room in isolation for 10 days, since that date.
The activities director (AD) provided the resident ' s activities participation records for October 2023 and November 2023. There was no record of the resident being offered any activity programming for November 2023.
The October 2023 activity participation record documented that the resident had been independently watching television and using a tablet/computer or electronic device every day; and had audio or large print books for independent use every Monday to Friday of October 2023
-However, the resident did not have a television, tablet/computer, or smartphone in her room.
-Additionally, the resident said she did not have access to books on tape or large print books and none were observed in her room during the survey days from 11/13/2 to 11/16/23 (see resident observation and care plan documentation above).
III. Staff interviews
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 12:33 p.m. CNA #2 said Resident #58 usually spent her day listening to music in her room and preferred to remain in bed most days. CNA #2 said the resident was in isolation and could not leave her room. CNA #2 said she did not know Resident #58 liked to do other activities.
The AD was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:27 a.m. The AD said he had only been working in his role for a couple of months and was still getting to know the resident The AD said he was not familiar with Resident #58 but thought she was very active in activities programming and that the resident participated in many craft programs and other group activities, went out with family, participated in daily television watching and used a personal computerized tablet independently.
-This information was in contradiction to the resident ' s care plan and resident and resident representative interview.
The AD said he would review the resident ' s record and speak to the resident to work with the resident to develop some creative in-room activities that the resident would enjoy.
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 observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure supervision and assistive devices to prevent a...
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 ensure supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents for one (#186) of three residents reviewed for falls of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to implement fall prevention care planned interventions for resident #186 who experienced several recent falls.
Findings included:
I. Facility policy
Assessing falls and their causes, dated March 2018, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/15/23 at 3:54 p.m. It read in pertinent part:The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for assessing a resident after a fall to assist staff in identifying causes of the fall.
II. Resident #186
A. Resident status
Resident #186, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included quadriplegia, dysphagia, anoxic brain injury, anxiety, and depression,
According to the 11/6/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident has impaired cognition and was not administered the brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The resident had [NAME] and longterm memory problems and had poor decision making skills with regard to making decisional about tasks of his daily life and had no behavioral symptoms. He required depenendt on staff to preform all activities of daily living including mobility tasks (transfering, sitting upland laying down. He did not walk.
The resident ' s fall history was unknown.
B. Record Review
The comprehensive care plan, initiated 10/27/23, documented that the resident was at risk for falls with or without injury related to altered mental status and a diagnosis of anoxic brain damage, quadriplegia, contractures, muscle spasms, and anxiety. Interventions include anticipating and meeting the resident ' s needs. Keep the bed in a low position with the brakes locked. Monitor for changes in condition affecting risk for falls and notify physicians if observed.
The November 2022 CPO included an order to keep the resident ' s bed in a low position when the resident was in bed. Start date 10/28/23.
B. Observations
On 11/14/23 at 1:50 p.m., Resident #186 was observed lying in his bed. The bed was in a high position with the resident legs hanging off the side of the bed.
D. Interviews
Registered nurse (RN) #5 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:56 p.m. RN #5 said the resident was at high risk for falls. RN #5 said that, as a result, the resident required frequent monitoring. She said the resident should always be in a low position while he was in his bed. RN #5 went to the resident's room and verified the resident was lying in bed in the highest position. RN #5 immediately lowered the resident ' s bed to the lowest position and repositioned Resident #186 feet on the bed and placed him in the middle of the bed.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:09 p.m. The DON said staff should place the resident in the middle of the bed and the bed in the lowest position. Staff should use the fall mat and keep the resident ' s call light cord within his reach. The DON said failing to provide care planned interventions could contribute to further falls for this high-risk resident.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper resp...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper respiratory treatment and care for two (#185, and #2) of four residents reviewed for supplemental oxygen use out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to administer oxygen therapy at the appropriate rate/ liter flow in accordance with the physician's order for Residents #185 and #2.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy
The Oxygen Administration Policy revised 4/14/23, was provided on 10/25/23 at 1:55 p.m. by the nursing home administrator (NHA). It read in pertinent part, Oxygen is administered and stored to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, comprehensive person centered care plans, and the resident ' s goal and preferences.
II. Resident #185
A. Resident status
Resident #185, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypoxemia, obstructive uropathy.
According to the 11/7/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had no cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use. The resident received oxygen therapy.
B. Observation
On 11/13/23 at 2:31 p.m. Resident #185 was sitting in his recliner with his oxygen cannula tubing hanging over his oxygen concentrator. The resident's oxygen concentrator was set on three liters per minute (LPM).
-However, the physician ' s order for oxygen therapy was for the resident to receive 2 LPM continuously (see below).
On 11/14/23 at 10:03 a.m. Resident #185 was sitting in his recliner in his room not wearing his oxygen. Resident #185 was coughing and was having difficulty catching his breath.
-Registered nurse (RN) was called to the resident ' s room.
-At 10:06 a.m. RN #2 entered Resident #185 ' s room. Resident #185 was sitting in his recliner without his oxygen on. The RN had a pulse oximeter and placed it on the resident ' s finger. RN #2 read the pulse oximeter which read 95% oxygen saturation rate. RN #2 put Resident #185 ' s cannula on and had him take several deep breaths. The resident continued to take deep breaths and was able to catch his breath.
C. Record review
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 11/2/23 identified the resident required the use of oxygen continuously related to hypoxia, hospice care, and end stage renal disease (ESRD). Interventions included: Administer oxygen per order via nasal cannula. Change and label humidification and oxygen (O2) tubing as indicated. Monitor and report signs of hypoxia (cyanosis, tachypnea, dyspnea, confusion, restlessness, nasal flaring, elevated blood pressure, increased respirations, and increased pulse) to physicians.
The November 2023 CPO included an order dated 11/2/23 for oxygen at 2 LPM continuously, via nasal cannula, every shift, due to diagnosis of hypoxia.
-The resident ' s medical record had no documentation that the resident refused to wear his oxygen or took his oxygen off.
D. Staff interviews
RN #2 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:09 a.m. RN #2 said she was familiar with Resident #185. She said Resident #185 did not like to wear his oxygen. She said if staff saw him not wearing his oxygen they should encourage the resident to put his oxygen on. She said oxygen was a medication and should be administered per the physician's order.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:09 p.m. The DON said oxygen was a medication. She was told of the observation above. She said staff should be encouraging the resident to wear his oxygen and report the refusal to wear his oxygen. She said staff should report the resident ' s refusal to wear his oxygen to his physician so he can assess the resident and change the order as needed.
-However, the resident's medical record did not have any documentation that the resident was refusing to wear his oxygen as ordered.
The DON said a negative outcome from not being administered oxygen when ordered could be altered mental status, dizziness, falls and hypoxic events and could have put the residents in respiratory distress.
III. Resident #2
A. Resident status
Resident #2, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included depression, diabetes mellitus, chronic atrial fibrillation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
According to the 9/27/23 MDS assessment, the resident had no cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. She required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use. The resident received oxygen therapy.
B. Observation and interview
On 11/13/23 at 10:09 a.m. Resident #2 was observed sitting on the edge of her bed reading a book with her oxygen cannula on. The resident's oxygen concentrator was set on 4LPM.
On 11/14/23 at 10:38 a.m. Resident #2 was observed lying down in her bed reading with her oxygen cannula on. Her oxygen concentrator was on 4 LPM. Resident #2 said she did not touch the oxygen concentrator or equipment she relied on nursing staff to set the machine and assist her with putting on and taking off the tubing.
-However, there was an order for 3 LPM continuously (see below).
C. Record review
The care plan, initiated on 11/7/22 and revised on 10/14/23, identified the resident exhibits or was at risk for respiratory complications related to asthma and COPD. Interventions include obtaining labs as ordered and reporting to physicians as indicated. Medicate as ordered and monitor for effectiveness and observe for signs/symptoms of side effects. Report to the resident ' s physician as indicated. Provide oxygen therapy as ordered via a nasal cannula.
The November 2023 CPO included an order dated 9/4/23 for oxygen at 3 LPM continuously via nasal cannula every shift due to a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
D. Staff interview
RN #1 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:40 a.m. RN #1 said oxygen was a medication. She said the resident was supposed to be on 3 LPM continuously. RN #1 said she adjusted Resident #2's LPM to three where it should have been. She said a negative outcome could be the resident receiving too much oxygen causing hypercapnia (too much carbon dioxide in the bloodstream).
The DON was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:09 p.m. She said oxygen was a medication. She said Resident #2's oxygen should have been administered at the rate that the provider ordered it.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dialysis receive s...
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 residents who require dialysis receive such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences, for one (#66) of two residents ' reviewed for dialysis out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility:
-Failed to ensure communication between the dialysis center and the facility;
-Failed to have a physician's order for dialysis treatment or orders to assess the shunt site for thrill and bruit (for blood flow);
-Failed to consistently assess the shunt site for thrill/bruit and the resident post dialysis; and,
-Failed to have an individualized person-centered dialysis care plan.
Findings included:
I. Facility policy
A request was made for the facility dialysis policy on 11/16/23 at 5:40 p.m., The dialysis policy was not provided at time of exit on 11/16/23.
II. Resident #66
A. Resident status
Resident #66, under the age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included cerebral infarction, end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis.
According to the 9/14/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had no cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use. MDS revealed the resident received dialysis treatments.
B. Resident interview
Resident #66 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 1:17 p.m. Residnet #66 said he went to dialysis three days a week. He stated he went to dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. He said his dialysis today was cut short because he had an accident while on dialysis and the facility was unable to provide care as the facility had no one who could change the resident. He said he told the transportation driver and a nurse but did not remember the name of the nurse he told. He said the dialysis provider would no longer transfer him, because they had a Hoyer lift which did not accommodate his size and they almost dropped him when transferring him.
C. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, initiated 9/11/23 and revised 10/10/23, identified the resident received dialysis by an arteriovenous fistula (AV) fistula graft. Interventions include ensuring clothing is not restricted over hemodialysis access sites. Follow physician orders for dialysis dressing care. Observe access/shunt/catheter site for signs or symptoms of complication, i.e., redness, pain, bleeding, unusual bruising, pus/drainage, absent thrill/bruit over graft site, complaints of coldness/numbness of hand/arm or chest pain and report abnormal findings to physician.
-The care plan failed to address assessment of thrill and bruit within the shunt for patency, failed to address the frequency of the assessment, failed to identify a communication system between the dialysis center and the facility, and failed to address the frequency of hemodialysis treatment.
-The resident CPO failed to document physician's orders for the resident ' s dialysis access care, dialysis schedule, individualized dialysis prescription such as the number of treatments per week; length of treatment time, type of dialyzer, specific parameters of the dialysis delivery system (electrolyte composition of the dialysate, blood flow rate, and dialysate flow rate), anticoagulation; fluid restrictions, target weight, blood pressure monitoring), and pertinent diagnosis.
Review of the resident ' s medical records did not document any early release from dialysis on 11/13/23 or issues Resident #66 had regarding the ability to complete his dialysis treatment.
III. Staff interviews
Registered nurse (RN) #5 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:56 a.m. RN #5 said she had not heard of any issues with Resident #66 while he was at dialysis. She said she would check and report back.
-However, RN #5 never follow up with her findings.
The corporate nurse consultant (CNC) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:09 p.m. The CNCsaid when a resident was receiving dialysis they needed a physician ' s order, to order who was providing the dialysis and what days and times the resident was to go to dialysis. There should also be an order for nursing staff to check thrill/bruit, vital signs, weight among other things. The CNCpulled up the resident CPO and said all appropriate dialysis orders had just been updated (on 11/16/23).
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:15 a.m. The DON said the facility realized after record request during the survey (11/13/23 to 11/16/23) that Resident #66 did not have full physician ' s orders for dialysis treatments.
The DON was unaware that the resident did not get a full dialysis treatment due to having a bowel accident and the dialysis provider not being able to assist the resident with his toileting needs. The DON said this was the first time she heard of any problem with dialysis. The DON said her expectation would be better communication between the dialysis and facility to ensure the resident receives his full dialysis treatments.
The DON said the care plan should be person centered and individualized, and include a care focus for dialysis with all appropriate interventions documented in the plan. The DON said it would update the residents' care as soon as possible.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
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 food that accommodated resident allergies, i...
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 food that accommodated resident allergies, intolerances and preferences for three (#87, #84 and #53) of three residents out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure Resident #87 received an accommodation for a food allergy and food intolerance by receiving her preferred beverage for her morning cereal and coffee;
-Ensure Resident #84 received his preferred side of brown sugar with his morning oatmeal; and,
-Ensured that Resident #53 received his preferred breakfast meal.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Food Allergies and Intolerances policy, revised August 2017, was provided by the corporate nurse consultant (CNC) on 11/16/23 at 3:45 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part: Residents with food allergies and/or intolerances are identified upon admission and offered food substitutions of similar appeal and nutritional value. Steps are taken to prevent resident exposure to the allergen(s). Residents with food intolerances and allergies are offered appropriate substitutions for foods that they cannot eat.
The Food and Nutrition Services policy, revised October 2017, was provided by the dietary manager (DM) on 11/15/23 at 10:30 a.m. The policy read in pertinent part: Reasonable efforts will be made to accommodate resident choices and preferences.
If an incorrect meal is provided to a resident, or a meal does not appear palatable, nursing staff will report it to the Food Service Manager so that a new food tray can be issued.
II. Resident #87
A. Resident status
Resident #87, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis (swelling in the muscles between the stomach and intestines). Allergies included berries, milk and milk products.
The 9/24/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) with a score of 15 out of 15. The resident did not need any assistance with eating and drinking.
B. Interview
Resident #87 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 9:43 a.m. Resident #87 said the food was terrible and the one thing she liked to eat for breakfast she could not eat because they had not brought her apple juice again today. Resident #87 said she was allergic to berries and lactose intolerant. The only thing that tasted good on her cereal was apple juice and the staff frequently told her they ran out of it. Resident #87 said she would really like a cup of coffee but needed cream and sugar in her coffee but the kitchen did not accommodate her needs and did not ever offer lactose-free milk. Resident #87 said when she drank any milk product she had a lot of stomach and intestinal distress.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 9:46 a.m. CNA #1 said the kitchen never sent enough drinks to serve all residents in the unit. The unit had seven wings; the CNA said she started delivering drinks on the 1100 hall and by the time she was a little more than halfway through drink delivery she ran out of coffee and most of the juices. Many residents were unable to get their preferred drinks and had only the option of water to drink with the meal.
The CNA said she was agency staff and was not aware that Resident #87 had food intolerance and allergies, CNA #1 said yesterday she ran out of apple and orange juice by the time she got to Resident #87's room; so Resident #87 was not able to eat her cereal and she had no lactose free milk or coffee to provide the resident. CNA #1 said it was not unusual for the kitchen to run out of drink and food items leaving the resident to go without. Residents complaining of not getting sides, condiments, and drinks were a common occurrence. CNA #1 said she was out of drinks today as well but she had saved Resident #87 one cup of apple juice for her cereal.
Resident #87 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 11:00 a.m. Resident #87 said she had not been able to eat her cereal all week because the kitchen was still out of apple juice. Resident #87 said she found a baggie in her dresser and had been storing up her cereal for when the facility got some apple juice so she could eat the cereal. Resident #87 said if I could at least get apple juice daily for my morning cereal and lactose-free milk on occasion for a cup of coffee it would be great.
C. Record review
The resident's nutritional assessment, dated 6/22/23, documented that the resident was on a regular diet and had allergies to berries, strawberries, hot pepper, milk and milk products. The resident received large breakfast portions and her nutritional goal was to stop losing weight.
Resident #87 food preferences assessment, dated 11/16/23, documented an extensive list of dislikes and intolerances. The resident's special requests included daily cereal for breakfast.
-The assessment did not include specifications for apple juice to pour over the cereal. Additionally, there were several requested food items that contained milk products, like sherbet and pudding on the resident's list of requested items but the document did not specify that the resident needed a lactose-free version of that food item.
The resident's comprehensive care plan, last reviewed on 10/23/23, did not have a care focus to address the resident's specific food allergies and intolerances. However, nutritional interventions included honoring the resident's food preferences within the meal plan and offering fluids of choice.
III. Resident #53
A. Resident status
Resident #53, under the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included cerebral vascular disease (impaired blood flow in the brain), aphasia (difficulty communicating) and adjustment disorder.
The 9/1/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had impaired cognition and was not able to complete the BIMS exam. The resident had short and long-term memory problems but was able to recall the seasons, location of his room, staff names and knew he was in a nursing facility. The resident needed some supervision with eating.
B. Observations and interview
Resident #53's breakfast tray was delivered to his room on 11/14/23 at 8:46 a.m.
Resident #53 was observed on 11/14/23 at 9:08 a.m. Resident #53 was yelling out loudly and could be heard from down the hall. Several staff were observed walking past his room and not checking on the resident. The resident was sitting up in his wheelchair beside his bed. The resident's breakfast tray was on the bed beside him. Resident #53 had not started to eat his meal.
Resident #53 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 9:12 a.m. Resident #53 was pointing and waving at his food tray.
Resident #53 had difficulty speaking understandable words. He had two bowls of oatmeal on his food tray and picked up one bowl of oatmeal and began waving it around before he put it down and made a circular gesture with his thumb and pointer finger and tipped his hand as if pouring something into his oatmeal. After a couple of questions, the resident was able to give a thumbs up to wanting brown sugar for his oatmeal. The resident then held up three fingers to say he wanted three sides of brown sugar. Once this was repeated back to the resident he calmed and stopped yelling.
A passing CNA was alerted to the resident's need for brown sugar. Several minutes later the CNA returned with some brown sugar for the resident. The resident smiled and ate his food quietly.
Resident #53 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 10:45 a.m. The resident gestured that his breakfast was good and that he frequently did not get brown sugar with his oatmeal.
CNA #13 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 11:04 a.m. CNA #13 said Resident #53 was difficult to understand and he often yelled out when he wanted something.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #6 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 1:33 p.m. LPN #6 said Resident #53 often yelled when he was not happy about something or was waiting for staff to provide care.
C. Record review
The resident's nutritional risk review, dated 8/30/23, documented that the resident was on a regular diet with double portion sizes.
Resident #53 food preferences assessment, dated 11/16/23, documented a list of dislikes and intolerances. The resident's special requests included daily oatmeal.
-The assessment did not specify oatmeal toppings.
The resident's comprehensive care plan, last reviewed on 9/14/23, documented a nutrition care focus; interventions included honoring the resident's food preferences within the meal plan and offering fluids of choice.
IV. Resident #84
A. Resident status
Resident #84, under the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included hypertension, depression and diabetes.
The 8/22/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. He did not require assistance for eating or drinking.
B. Resident interview
Resident #84 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 4:26 p.m. Resident #84 said the facility food was terrible and mostly overcooked. He had asked facility staff to provide him with a breakfast alternative besides the daily pile of scrambled eggs he was served every morning for breakfast. The resident said he had asked for ham, bacon or sausage to be served with his breakfast for added protein to facilitate better wound healing but the facility never offered anything other than eggs and cold cereal for his breakfast. Resident #84 said he did not want scrambled eggs.
C. Record review
The resident's nutritional risk review, dated 11/13/23, documented that the resident was on a regular diet with double protein portions.
Resident #84's food preferences assessment, dated 11/16/23, documented a list of dislikes and intolerances. The list of dislikes included scrambled eggs while the special request list included scrambled eggs.
The resident's comprehensive care plan, reviewed on 9/7/23, documented a nutrition care focus; interventions included honoring the resident's food preferences within the meal plan and offering fluids of choice.
V. Other observations
On 11/14/23 at 11:39 a.m., CNA # 1 was observed serving drinks to residents on the Columbine unit during the lunch meal. CNA #1 offered Resident #29 a beverage for his lunch. When the resident asked what beverages were available, CNA #1 told him he could choose from water, coffee or watered down lemonade. Resident #29 asked why the lemonade was watered down and CNA #1 said the lemonade pitcher was nearly empty and did not have enough for other residents. The resident declined the watered down lemonade and just asked for water.
VII. Staff interviews
The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 12:30 p.m. The DM said the reason the facility was out of some food items was because the order delivery was late. The DM said if the staff serving meals ran out of drinks they could call the kitchen for more drinks.
The DM said menus were made up by the food services company, the facility recognized there was little variety in meal planning and residents were complaining so they had contracted with a new company to make changes in the facility menu and increase resident satisfaction.
The nursing home administrator (NHA) and CNC were interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:10 p.m. The CNC said each resident should be offered a choice between the main meal of the alternative meal and if the resident wanted something different from what they received staff should contact the kitchen for the meal alternative. The facility was working on educating the CNAs to deliver and offer alternative meals if the residents were not happy with the meals they received.
The NHA said the facility had identified mealtime concerns and they were looking at different programs and meal services.
The NHA and CNC said the CNAs could contact the kitchen for more drinks to service residents as needed and for items that were missing from the residents' meal orders.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0809
(Tag F0809)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure each resident received their meals, at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure each resident received their meals, at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with resident needs, preferences, requests, and plan of care.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the residents did not have prolonged wait times of 30 minutes or longer for their meal to be served; and that meals were served to the residents at the regular posted meal times.
Findings included:
I Facility policy and procedure
The Food and Preparation policy and procedure, no date, provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/16/23 at 4:14 p.m., read in pertinent part: Food and nutrition services employees prepare, distribute and serve food in a manner that complies with safe food and handling practices.
II. Posted mealtimes
The posted meal times for the main dining room were scheduled to begin breakfast at 7:15 a.m., lunch at 11:15 a.m. and dinner at 4:45 p.m.
III. Resident interviews
Resident #29 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 9:49 a.m. He said we still have a long wait for food.
Resident #2 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 10:07 a.m., Resident #2 said food delivery was still an issue for all meals.
Resident #66 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 1:19 p.m. Resident #66 said, the kitchen never delivered meals on time and the food was always cold. He said, I have dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday and I get back into my room after 2:00 p.m. and find my meal sitting on my bedside table and I don ' t know how long it had been there.
Resident #185 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 2:21 p.m. He said, It does take a long time to get our meals.
Resident #38 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:00 p.m. He said meal times have not gotten any better.
Resident #31 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:58 p.m. She said, Are we going to get our lunch today? She said, The kitchen is always late in getting us our food.
Resident # 28 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:02 p.m. She said the kitchen was always late in delivering our meals. She said supper was supposed to be at 4:45 or 5:00 p.m., but yesterday I didn ' t get my meal until 6:40 p.m.
Resident #87 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:25 a.m. She said she was always getting her meals late and she really didn ' t understand why because her room was so close to the dining room.
IV. Observations
Meal delivery was observed being delivered late on 11/15/23
-From 8:49 a.m. to 9:10 a.m., breakfast room trays were being delivered on the 1300, 1400, 1600, and 1700 hallways; over one hour and 30 minutes late.
-At 11:55 a.m., the first meal cart was sent out of the kitchen with the lunch meals to the resident floors for delivery; 40 minutes late.
-At 1:48 the last meal cart was sent out; over two and a half hours late.
Meal delivery was observed being delivered late on 11/16/23
-At 8:58 a.m. breakfast room trays were being delivered to Hall 1400 and 1500; over 30 minutes late.
V. Staff interview
The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:32 a.m. The DM was told of the observation above. She said the kitchen staff delivered the meal carts to each hall and notified nursing staff that the carts were there. She said delivery of the meals to the residents depended on how busy the floor staff were and how fast the meals could be delivered to the residents. She said there still was a miscommunication between nursing staff and getting the meals served in a timely manner.
The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:08 p.m. He said the facility was working on a new system and is working on a new meal program. The facility hired a new consultant and was working on getting some new equipment for the kitchen which would allow better delivery of food to the residents.
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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the hospice services provided meet profe...
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 hospice services provided meet professional standards and principles that applied to individuals providing services in the facility for one (#185) of three residents reviewed for hospice services out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Have a written plan of care for Resident #185, including both the most recent hospice plan of care and a description of the services furnished by the long-term care (LTC) facility; and
-Ensure that facility staff provided orientation regarding the policies and procedures of the facility, including patient rights, appropriate forms, and record keeping requirements, to hospice staff who provide resident care in the facility environment.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy
A request was made for the hospice policy on 11/16/23 at 5:40 p.m. The policy was not provided at the time of survey exit on 11/16/23.
II. Resident #185
A. Resident status
Resident #185, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included end stage renal disease, diabetes mellitus, and hypoxemia, obstructive uropathy.
According to the 11/7/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had no cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use. The resident received oxygen therapy and hospice services.
B. Record review
The comprehensive care plan initiated on 11/2/23, revealed that the resident required hospice care and was at risk for rapid decline in ADL function, sudden onset or worsening skin integrity, weight loss, nausea/vomiting, pain, abnormal breathing, and impaired psychosocial well-being related to terminal illness. Interventions included coordinating residents' needs with hospice staff. Provide emotional support to the resident and family as death comes near.
-The care plan failed to define the responsibilities of the facility versus what the hospice would provide in terms of services.
-The facility failed to have the hospice aide/nurse notes available in the resident's file for the nursing staff ' s reference.
-The facility failed to have a designated staff member with a clinical background, to coordinate care for the resident between the hospice agency and the facility.
C. Interviews
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #4 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:49 a.m. CNA #4 said she knew Resident #185 was on hospice but she said she didn ' t know when hospice came into the facility or what care they provided for Resident #185.
CNA #12 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:18 p.m. CNA #12 said she was not aware the resident was receiving hospice care.
The hospice nurse (HN) was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 3:47 p.m. The HN said she was the resident ' s hospice nurse. The HN said she was familiar with the facility but had not received an orientation to the facility's practices or procedures. She said her documentation about hospice care provided to the resident went to the hospice company and she gave facility staff a short verbal report if there were any issues that arose during the visit. The HN said she did not document in the facility software and she was not familiar with the facility's care plan but utilized the hospice care plan in her delivery of care to the resident. The HN said she was not aware of who the contact person was for the facility and resident care needs but relied on the floor nurse to pass relevant information along to facility leadership.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:15 p.m. She said she was not familiar with the regulations specific to hospice care. She said she thought social services was the coordinator between all hospice providers but she was not sure. She said she would check. She said the facility had no formal orientation for hospice aides.
The corporate nurse consultant (CNC) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:20 p.m. She said the nursing home administrator (NHA) would now be the facility coordinator for all hospice providers.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures related to pneumococcal im...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures related to pneumococcal immunizations for one (#43) of five residents reviewed for immunizations out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to offer and provide the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13) and or pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) to Resident #43.
Findings include:
I. Professional reference
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2024, retrieved on 11/15/23, from: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf, The document read in pertinent part: Routine vaccination - pneumococcal:
-For those over the age of 65 who meet age requirement and lack documentation of vaccination, or lack evidence of past infection was: One (1) dose PCV15 followed by PPSV23 or one (1) dose PCV20.
For guidance for patients who have already received a previous dose of PCV13 and/or PPSV23, see www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104a1.htm.
II. Facility policy
The Pneumococcal Vaccine policy, revised March 2023, was received by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/13/23. It read in pertinent part; All residents are offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia infections.
Upon admission residents are assessed for eligibility to receive the pneumococcal vaccine series, and when indicated, are offered the vaccine series within 30 days of admission.
III. Resident status
Resident #43, over the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included heart failure, respiratory failure, hypertension, renal failure, thyroid disease, anxiety, depression, and dementia.
The 9/12/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a score of 3 of 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The resident required supervision from one staff member for bed mobility and transfers, moderate assistance from one staff member for toileting, dressing, and hygiene and ate independently. The assessment documented the pneumonia vaccine had not been administered and was not offered.
IV. Record review
A review of the resident ' s record documented the resident ' s decision maker/legal representative signed the facility consent for the resident to receive the pneumonia vaccine on 7/15/21 and the vaccine was not administered. A second consent for the pneumonia vaccine was obtained on 11/6/23 and the vaccine again had not been administered.
V. Staff interviews
The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:15 a.m. The IP said when a resident was admitted to the facility, the admitting nurse was responsible to offer vaccines to residents and then was responsible to follow up on tracking for vaccine administration. The IP said she completed a facility-wide vaccine audit in October 2023, and determined Resident #43 had not received the pneumonia vaccine.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3:20 p.m. The DON said Resident #43 did not receive the pneumonia vaccine in 2021 and the vaccine was ordered from the pharmacy today, (on 11/16/23). The DON said the pneumonia vaccine would be delivered to the facility and administered to Resident # 43 later on in the day (on 11/16/23).
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 were treated with dignity for five ...
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 were treated with dignity for five (#29, #35, #45, 85 and #329) of six reviewed out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure residents were treated with dignity when staff failed to respond timely to call lights for Residents (#29, #35, #45, #85, #329);
-Ensure staff provided a structured daily routine when possible for dementia care; and,
-Ensure an adequate system was in place to provide meal services in a timely fashion to residents waiting to be served their meals.
Findings include:
I. Facility policies and procedures
The Resident Rights policy, dated December 2016, was requested and received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/15/23 and read in pertinent part:
Employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity.
Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident ' s right to:
-A dignified existence;
-Be treated with respect, kindness, and dignity;
-Self-determination;
-Be supported by the facility in exercising his or her rights;
-Exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal from the facility;
-Be informed about his or her rights and responsibilities;
-Voice grievances to the facility, or other agency that hears grievances, without discrimination or reprisal and without fear of discrimination or reprisal;
-Have the facility respond to his or her grievances;
-Privacy and confidentiality.
Orientation and in-service training programs are conducted quarterly to assist our employees in understanding our residents ' rights.
B. The Answering the Call Light policy, dated October 2010, was requested and received from the NHA on 11/15/23 and read in pertinent part: The purpose of this procedure is to respond to the resident ' s requests and needs.
General guidelines
-Be sure the call light is always plugged in;
-When the resident is in bed or confined to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident;
-Some residents may not be able to use their call light. Be sure to check these residents frequently;
-Report all defective call lights to the nurse supervisor promptly;
-Answer the resident ' s call as soon as possible;
-Be courteous in answering the resident ' s call.
Steps in the procedure
-Turn off the signal light;
-Identify yourself and call the resident by his/her name;
-Listen to the resident ' s request;
-Do what the resident asks of you if permitted. If you are uncertain as to whether or not a request can be fulfilled or if you cannot fulfill the resident ' s request, ask the nurse supervisor for assistance;
-If you promised the resident you will return with an item or information, do so promptly.
II. Observations
During a continuous observation on 11/14/23 beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 10:45 a.m., the following was observed:
A. Resident #329
-At 8:48 a.m., Resident #329 activated the call light.
-At 9:07 a.m. CNA #1 entered the room and turned the call light off. The CNA exited the room and left the hallway.
-At 10:39 CNA #1 returned to assist the resident.
Resident #329 waited 111 minutes for staff assistance.
Resident #329 was interviewed at 10:55 and he said that he called out for help getting out of bed. He was told he had to wait for the nurse to perform his wound dressing change and then the CNA would get a second staff to assist with getting him changed and getting out of bed
B. Resident #29
-At 9:38 a.m. Resident #29, activated the call light;
-At 10:03 a.m. Resident #29 self propelled his wheelchair into the hallway, towards the nurses' desk. He requested assistance from a CNA and returned to his room to wait. At 10:04 a.m The CNA entered the resident ' s room, turned off the call light, and told the resident she would return to assist him with his request. The CNA walk out of the resident ' s room and then left the unit hallway.
-At 10:19 a.m. Resident # 29 self propelled his wheelchair to the hallway. The LPN asked the resident what he needed and he said that he was told the CNA would return to change his wet brief and he was still waiting for help. The LPN told him he should not be in the hallway and told him to return to his room. The resident told the nurse he would stay in his room if he was not ignored and that he did not think he should wait so long for assistance. The LPN left the hallway.
-At 10:25 the LPN returned to the resident ' s room with a Hoyer lift and a CNA. They assisted the resident and changed the resident ' s brief.
Resident #29 waited 47 minutes for staff assistance to have his soiled brief changed.
C. Other observations
During the continuous observation, on 11/14/23, staff entered the hallway without checking on residents who had their call lights on and were waiting for staff assistance. Observations revealed:
-At 8:48 a.m., the call light for room [ROOM NUMBER] was activated;
-At 9:14 a.m., CNA and LPN walked by room [ROOM NUMBER] without acknowledgment of the Resident ' s call light;
-At 9:38 a.m., the call light for room [ROOM NUMBER] was activated;
-At 9:41 a.m., A CNA and LPN walked by rooms #1303 and #1308 without acknowledgment of the residents call light;
-At 9:54 a.m. the call light for room [ROOM NUMBER] was activated;
There were no staff members present in the #1300 hallway.
-At 10:04 a.m., a CNA entered the unit and walked by all rooms with call lights activated. She did not respond or open the doors to visualize the residents who were waiting for assistance.
-At 10:22 a.m., a CNA entered the hallway with a linen cart. The CNA glanced at the call lights and left the hallway without first checking on those waiting for assistance.
-At 10:25 a.m., an LPN and CNA responded to the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] - did not check other residents with their lights on.
-At 10:26 a.m. the dietician entered the 1300 hallway. She checked the supplies in the personal protective equipment drawers that were located outside the isolation rooms. She walked past every room with a call light activated, did not respond to the residents as they waited, and closed the door for room [ROOM NUMBER] without first speaking to the resident.
III. Residents
1. Resident #29
A. Resident status
Resident #29, age [AGE], admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) the diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (one-sided paralysis), right and left leg amputations, stroke, history of falling, muscle weakness, and lack of coordination.
The 8/17/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the was cognitively intact with a score of 15 of 15 on the brief interview for mental status (BIMS). The resident required extensive assistance from two or more staff members for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene. He was totally dependent on two or more staff members for transfers and toilet use and was independent with eating. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder and was not on a toileting program.
B. Resident interview
Resident #29 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:53 a.m. Resident #29 said he was upset about the long wait times when he activated his call light. He said wait times for a response from staff varied from 30 minutes to two hours. He said the wait times were worse on the night shift and weekends. He said he needed assistance from staff to change his wet brief and waiting two hours was not acceptable to him. The resident said that on the morning of 11/16/23, a certified nurse assistant (CNA) responded to his call light by standing in his doorway and yelling at him that she would be right back without first asking why he requested help. The resident said she did not return until after breakfast and he had to eat while wearing a soiled and wet brief. The resident said the staff often raised their voice when responding to his call light and when they did he felt tense and a need to be defensive. He said he is a calm man but he sometimes had to yell out in order to have staff respond to his requests for assistance. He said that he had been told his yelling behavior was not appropriate and he was frustrated because that is what it took for a timely response from staff.
2. Resident #35
A. Resident status
Resident #35, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023, CPO diagnoses included major depression disorder, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), bipolar disorder, muscle weakness, overactive bladder and cognitive communication deficit.
The 9/20/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact with a score of 15 of 15 BIMS. On the Resident Mood Interview (PHQ-9), the severity score for depression was minimal with a score of four out of 27. The resident required extensive assistance from one or more staff members for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene and was totally dependent on one or more staff members for transfers and toilet use. She was independent with eating. The resident was always incontinent of bowel and bladder.
B. Resident interview
Resident #35 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 9:18 a.m. She said she had multiple concerns about the nursing care in the facility. She said she has had poor care since she was admitted . She said facility staff did not respond to her call light for hours. She said she had recently called for assistance to have her wet brief changed. After she waited for two hours, she managed to remove the wet brief herself and then used her bedsheet as a new brief until staff responded to her call.
Resident #35 said while she waited she was naked, cold, and scared because no one checked on her. The resident said she called her son and asked him to contact staff on the telephone. She said he tried but the facility telephone was not answered. She said she tried using her own telephone to call the facility and no one answered her calls. The resident said she had called 911 for assistance because the staff had not responded. She said the 911 operator tried to contact staff in the facility and no one answered the telephone.
Resident #35 said staff were rude, and rushed her when she needed time and felt that was inhumane. The resident said the lack of caring concerned her and had contributed to her PTSD triggers. She said she took photographs of herself when she had to use the bedsheet as a new brief, on her electronic tablet and sent the pictures to her son, her therapist, and the facility administrator. She said she did not know why staff were allowed to not respond and why staff made her feel like she was the problem when she was persistent.
3. Resident #45
A. Resident status
Resident #45, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included stroke, lung disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (one-sided paralysis), dementia, depression, and hypertension.
The 10/24/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a score of 12 out of 15 on the BIMS. The resident had impairments with upper and lower extremity range of motion. The resident required moderate assistance from one or more staff for bed mobility, hygiene, toileting, and transfers, maximum assistance from one or more staff members for dressing, and was independent with eating. The resident was not ambulatory and used a wheelchair for mobility. The resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder.
B. Resident interview
Resident #45 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 10:08 a.m. He said that it took a very long time for staff to respond to call lights. He said waiting was longer on the weekends but it was never good. He said it sometimes took two hours for staff to provide him assistance to turn and reposition in his bed or to have his wet brief changed. He said he felt staff did not care about answering call lights and when they did staff were rude. He said he had become very frustrated and afraid to ask for assistance and said he hoped the care would improve.
4. Resident #329
A. Resident status
Resident #329, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, hypertension, pulmonary edema, congestive heart failure, kidney disease that required dialysis, presence of a cardiac pacemaker, dysphagia, pressure injury and muscle weakness.
The 10/24/23 MDS assessment documented the was cognitively intact with a score of 15 of 15 on the BIMS. The resident required extensive assistance from one or more staff members for bed mobility, dressing, hygiene, toileting and was dependent on two staff members for transfers using a Hoyer lift. The resident used a manual wheelchair and required assistance for mobility. The resident had a pressure ulcer on his coccyx that was present when admitted . The resident was at risk for cardiac complications and had a cardiac pacemaker.
B. Resident interview
The resident and his son were interviewed together on 11/15/23 at 11:23 a.m. The resident ' s son said staff take a long time to answer call lights and when they do they say they will return but then do not return timely or not at all. He said he was concerned because his father was weak and required assistance with a lot of his care, especially changing out of his soiled brief. He said he was also concerned staff would not respond timely in the event his father had cardiac distress. The resident said he did not know how long it took for help with staff but it was a long time. He said that he was frequently left in his soiled brief all day. He said he felt ignored by staff and said his only choice was to just wait until someone helped him.
5. Resident #85
A Resident status
Resident #85, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included Alzheimer ' s disease, dementia, stroke, hypertension and dysphagia.
The 8/28/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with BIMS score of six out of 15. The resident required substantial assistance from one or more staff members for toileting, dressing, bed mobility and hygiene.
B. Observations and interviews
Resident #85 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 1:42 p.m. The resident was in his bed, covered with bed linens and facing the hallway. The room was darkened by closed blinds and the lights were off. The resident appeared with a flat affect. When questioned about his care and routine, specifically if he wished to get out of bed, the resident said, maybe but they don ' t care.
During a continuous observation on 11/14/23 beginning at 8:30 a.m. and ending at 10:45 a.m. Residnet was yelling out, staff members walked by the residents room without entering, while the resident remained in bed waiting for staff to get him up. The door to the resident ' s room left open; the following was observed:
-At 9:14 and 9:41a.m. CNA #1 and LPN #2 walked by the resident ' s room and did not acknowledge or check on the resident;
-At 10:04 a.m. CNA #1 and #3 walked by the resident ' s room and failed to acknowledge or check on the resident;
-At 10:22 a.m. CNA #3 entered the hallway with a linen cart, placed the cart across the hallway from the resident ' s room and did not acknowledge the resident;
-At 10:24 a.m., the dietician walked by the resident ' s room twice and failed to greet or acknowledge the resident;
-At 10:25 a.m., LPN #2 and CNA #1 walked by the resident ' s room and did not acknowledge the resident.
IV. Staff interviews
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:40 a.m. CNA #1 said that she was employed by an agency and contracted to work in the facility. She said she answered call lights and helped residents when they asked for help. She said it took her longer to respond to call lights when she was helping other residents or when she needed to wait for another CNA to help with resident care when the resident required the assistance of two staff members. She said she also was called away from the hallway to assist other CNAs with their residents. CNA #1 said she asked the nurse for help with transfers but the nurse was also busy.
CNA #1 said she did not receive report or information about the resident ' s prior to her shift and was unaware of specific needs of the resident on the unit.
CNA #3 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 11:03 a.m. She said she worked at the facility for three years. She said she had not received training specific on how to care for a resident with dementia. She said it was her job to answer call lights as fast as possible and then she helped the resident. She said she Resident #85 did not use his call light so until he asked for help before she entered his room.
LPN #2 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 12:10 a.m. She said it was her first day working in the facility and was employed by a local staffing company. She said she did not receive orientation or training from the facility prior to the start of her shift. She said she received a nurse report prior to assuming care for the shift but the report did not include information about resident specific needs. LPN #2 said she did not know where the resident ' s care plan was located but she always treated elderly residents with respect.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:20 p.m. He said he worked for an agency. He said the CNAs tried to respond timely to call lights but they were in resident rooms for long periods of time because of isolation precautions due to a COVID-19 outbreak and some residents required assistance for several needs. He said when he saw call lights activated he checked on the resident.
The director of nursing (DON) and NHA were interviewed together on 11/14/23 at 3:33 p.m. The DON said staff receive orientation and education to respond promptly and politely when call lights are activated. She said if the CNA was unable to provide care at the time, an explanation should be given to the resident. She said that any staff member who noticed that a call light was activated should check on the resident and then notify the CNA or nurse if the resident required assistance. The DON said that she will evaluate frequently incontinent residents for a toileting program which might reduce resident incontinence.
The NHA said he had talked to Resident #35 regarding her complaints about her care concerns and had worked extensively with her to come up with a solution she would be satisfied with. The NHA even said he gave the resident his contact information so she could report her concerns directly to his attention for quicker resolution The NHA said the resident had specific preferences for her care and staff made attempts to anticipate her needs.
The NHA and DON were unaware of the resident calling 911 for assistance.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable environment for...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable environment for residents, in 22 of 105 resident rooms in six hallways.
Specifically, the facility failed to
-Ensure heating units in resident rooms and in common resident shared areas were in good repair; and,
-Ensure that the walls, baseboards, ceilings, counters, and doors in resident rooms and common resident areas were properly maintained.
Findings include:
I. Observations
Observations of the resident living environment were conducted on 11/15/23 at 9:11 a.m. revealed:
The heater in the main hallway had an area approximately five feet long by 14 inches high with an unfinished sheetrock patch area with several large copper pipes exposed and coming out of the side of the heater.
A second heater in the main hallway had the same damage and unfinished sheetrock; the copper pipes were covered.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall next to the resident ' s bed had deep scratches approximately seven feet long by four feet high from the bed scraping the wall as it was being lifted and lowered.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall behind the resident ' s recliner had deep scratches from the chair hitting the wall.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall heater had an area on top approximately 14 inches long by two inches wide with the outside visible through a hole. The entrance door had large chips, wood splinters and missing wood approximately seven inches high by three inches wide. There were several screws sticking out of the wall next to the resident bed. The sheetrock had peeling and damaged sheetrock.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall next to the bed had deep scratches approximately four feet long by two feet high from the bed being lifted and lowered. The corner next to the sink and area was approximately 12 inches high by two inches wide with chipped and peeling plaster with the metal corner piece being exposed. The laminate below the sink was missing a section approximately 36 inches long by five inches wide. The wood door frame had splintering and chipped wood approximately 24 inches high by four inches wide.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wood door frame into the restroom had an area approximately two feet high by four inches wide with chipped and splintering wood from the frame being hit by the wheelchair. The wall behind the recliner had deep scratches and gouges from the recliner hitting the wall. There were several wood screws sticking out of the wall next to the resident bed.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The light above the bathroom sink was not working. The bathroom door had areas of unpainted and matching paint. The wall behind the recliner was damaged from the recliner hitting the wall.
The wall in the memory care unit had a wall approximately 12 feet long by four feet high with damaged sheetrock. The door that leads into the kitchen area had a damaged corner and the corner wall had chipped and peeling sheetrock with the metal joints being visible.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: the wall behind the resident ' s bed had deep scratches from the bed scraping the wall as it was being lifted and lowered. The wall outlet in the middle of the room was missing.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall behind the resident's bed had deep scratches from the bed scraping the wall as it was being lifted and lowered. The resident oxygen concentrator was plugged into a non medical grade power strip.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall next to the sink had chipped and missing sheetrock with the metal exposed. The wall next to the bed had deep scratches from the bed scraping the wall as it was being lifted and lowered.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall next to the resident ' s entrance had peeling and missing sheetrock approximately four inches long by three inches wide. The wall next to the resident ' s bed had exposed peeling pipes sticking out of the walls. The corner next to the sink had damaged sheetrock with the metal corner piece exposed.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The heater next to the resident's bed had been removed with the outline approximately five feet long by four feet high with water damage on the floor and the wall.
The heater vents in the facility chapel, library and all residents ' rooms had a thick layer of black dirt and dust buildup on the external and removable internal filter.
The wall outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] had four nickel-sized [NAME].
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The heater cover was falling off the wall. The wall next to the resident ' s bed had four quarter-sized holes. The wall next to the resident ' s bed was damaged from the bed being lifted and lowered. There was an area approximately eight inches long by seven inches wide with missing sheetrock
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall behind the resident ' s recliner had deep scratches and gouges approximately 36 inches wide by four feet high. The wall next to the heater had several pipes exposed.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The entrance door had an area of peeling paint approximately 14 inches high by three inches wide. The wall behind the resident's bed was damaged from the bed being lifted and lowered.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall next to the resident ' s bed, had several quarter sized holes from a television bracket being removed. The wall behind the bed was damaged from the bed being lowered and lifted. The baseboard cove had an area approximately 14 inches long by four inches wide. The corner wall next to the restroom had damaged and peeling sheetrock with the internal metal corner piece exposed. The corner molding next to the entrance door was missing a section approximately four feet by four inches
The shower room on the 1400 hall had a large hole next to the tube which was approximately eight inches long by seven inches wide.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The wall next to the resident ' s bed was damaged from the bed scraping the wall as it was being lifted and lowered. The wall next to the door had an area approximately seven inches long by five inches wide.
The ceiling at the end of 1500 hall had water damage approximately seven feet long by six feet wide.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The resident ' s headboard was unattached from the bed and was leaning against the wall. There was a larger white spot approximately 35 inches in circumference next to the resident ' s bed. The wall next to the bed had deep scratches from the bed scraping the wall as it was being lifted and lowered.
Room # 1604: The heater had been removed with the outline of the old heater visible with five pipes exposed and sticking out of the wall.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The heating vents were dirty and had a thick layer of dark grey dust build-up.
room [ROOM NUMBER]: The room was cold with the resident utilizing towels on the window sill to keep the cold out.
II. Environmental tour and staff interview
The environmental tour was conducted with the maintenance director (MTD) and environment consultant on 11/16/23 at 9:25 a.m. The above detailed observations were reviewed. The MTD documented the environmental concerns. The MTD said the facility utilized work orders as well as a computer system to identify environmental issues. The MTD said he did not have work orders for the damage identified during the environmental tour. The MTD said the above-mentioned damage and other areas of concern should have been repaired and addressed in a timely manner.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that all residents were free from abuse, negle...
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 ensure that all residents were free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, for seven out of nine incidents of abuse involving 11 residents (#99, #27, #19 #230, #98, #61, #4, #78, #24, #79 and #60) out of 54 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure that Resident #27, Resident #19 and Resident #230 on the Columbine unit were not subject to physically abusive behavior by Resident #99;
-Ensure Resident #99, who had a history of dementia and physical aggression towards other residents, received adequate supervision and implementation of effective personalized interventions to prevent the resident from abuse other vulnerable residents;
-Ensure abuse prevention and protection interventions for Resident #27 and #19 were assessed, documented and implemented: and,
-Ensure that Resident #99 ' s care plan focus for physically aggressive behaviors and interventions to protect other residents from being victimized and abused was reassessed and up to date
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Abuse Prevention policy procedure last reviewed on 12/31/15 and provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/14/23 at 9:20 a.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Each resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents, consultants or volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the resident, family members or legal guardian, friend, or other individuals.
The facility shall make reasonable efforts to determine the cause of the alleged violation and take corrective action consistent with the investigation findings and to eliminate any ongoing dangers to the resident.
The Director of Nursing Services, or designee, shall initiate a care plan, where appropriate, to reflect the resident ' s condition and measures taken to prevent reoccurrence.
II. Columbine unit incidents
1. 8/10/23 - resident to resident physical abuse from Resident #99 to Resident #230
Incident description
The facility investigation dated 8/14/23 documented that a resident-to-resident physical altercation occurred on 8/10/23 at 11:54 p.m. Resident #230 told staff was on his side of the room in the bathroom he shared with Resident #99. Resident #99 was moving towards the bathroom when Resident #230 waved him away so he could exit the bathroom. Resident #99 responded by swinging at Resident #230 hitting Resident #230 in the back of the head with an open hand. There was no witness to this incident.
Resident # 230 reported the incident to the facility staff. Staff assessed Resident #230 for injury and found no signs and symptoms of injury and Resident #230 denied pain.
Resident #230 was interviewed immediately after reporting the incident. Resident #230 said he was attempting to have Resident #99 move back to his side of the room. He felt like Resident #99 was just standing there, hovering, which was making him uncomfortable. Resident #230 wanted Resident #99 to go back to his side. Resident #230 said he waved his arms at Resident #99 in a gesture to move and told Resident #99 to go back to his side. When he did this Resident #99 swung his arms back at him and hit him in the back of the head. Resident #230 said Resident #99 never said anything when he did this, but then Resident #99 never really said anything. Resident #230 said he immediately called for the nurse. The nursing staff walked with Resident #99 out of the room and down the hall.
Resident #99 was interviewed immediately after the incident. Resident #99 said he thought Resident #230 was trying to hit him and he felt the need to defend himself. When management attempted to interview the resident the next day, he was unable to recall the incident or answer any questions about the incident.
Interventions included separating the residents, providing a room change, and providing increased checks of residents when they were in close proximity to each other. Specific interventions for Resident #99 included completing a medication review, social and psychiatric review, and providing one-to-one supervision for increased adjustment needs to a new environment.
2. 8/31/23 - Resident to resident physical abuse from Resident #99 towards Resident #19
Incident description
The facility investigation dated 9/5/23 documented that a resident-to-resident physical altercation occurred on 8/31/23 at 5:45 a.m. Staff witnessed Resident #99 swinging his hand towards Resident #19 hitting her on the left upper arm.
Resident #19 was interviewed after the incident and said that Resident #99 bumped into her wheelchair and she told him to watch what he was doing, in response he pulled her hair and hit her on the arm. Resident #19 denied being hurt or being afraid of Resident #99.
Resident #99 was interviewed after the incident and he denied hitting Resident #19 and later said he could not remember any incident between him and Resident #19.
The staff witness was interviewed after the incident and said she did not see what precipitated the incident, but as she entered the common area she observed Resident #99 hit Resident #19 on the arm but from the distance and angle of her view of the event the staff was unable to tell how and how hard Resident #19 was hit on the arm.
Interventions: Staff immediately responded and separated the two residents and implemented visual checks of both residents while they were in common areas. Later the facility conducted a medication review for Resident #99 and held a care conference with his family. No other interventions were implemented at the time of the incident.
3. 9/7/23 - Resident to resident physical abuse from Resident #99 towards Resident #230
Incident description
The facility investigation dated 9/12/23 documented that a resident-to-resident physical altercation occurred on 9/7/23 at 3:45 p.m. Staff observed Resident #99 grabbing Resident #230 ' s hat off the dining room table. Resident #230 attempted to grab the hat back from Resident #99 and they struggled for possession of the hat. Resident #99 hit Resident #230 in the shoulder and the top of his head, during the struggle for the hat. Resident #230 was assessed for injury and had sustained an abrasion on his right hand that did not require treatment.
Resident #230 was interviewed immediately after the incident. Resident #230 said Resident #99 tried to take my hat so I grabbed the hat from him and Resident #99 hit me.
Resident #99 was interviewed immediately after the incident. Resident #99 had a flat affect and was not able to give the interviewer any details of the incident.
The nurse witnessing the incident was interviewed immediately after the incident and said he overheard Resident #230 saying, I don't want him sitting here. Then Resident #230 placed his hat on the table and when Resident #99 grabbed the hat Resident #230 grabbed it back. Resident #99 then hit Resident #230 on the right shoulder and the top of the head. The nurse said he immediately responded and redirected Resident #99 to his room reported the altercation.
Interventions included separating the residents, Specific interventions for Resident #99 included providing one-to-one supervision and rearranging the dining seating so that Resident #99 no longer sat at Resident #230 ' s table. Additionally, the facility sent out referrals to find Resident #99 a more appropriate placement.
4. 10/20/23 - Resident to resident physical abuse from Resident #99 towards
Resident #19 and, Resident #27
Incident description
The facility investigation dated 10/27/23 documented that a resident-to-resident physical altercation occurred on 10/20/23 at 10:15 p.m. Resident #99, Resident #19 and Resident #27 were sitting in the atrium in the long-term care hallway watching television with other residents. Multiple residents began to leave the atrium and Resident #99 stood up and walked toward Residents #19 and Resident #27. Resident #19 was in a wheelchair so Resident #27 stood up in front of Resident #19 to protect her from being injured. Resident #99 raised his arm, in response Resident #27 raised her arm to avoid contact and Resident #99 struck her on the right arm.
No staff witnessed the incident.
Resident #27 was interviewed immediately following the incident and said she was sitting in the atrium when Resident #99 got up out of his chair and walked toward her. Resident #99 raised his hand as if he was going to hit me so I put my right arm up in the air to avoid being hit; however, Resident #99 hit her on her right forearm. Resident #27 said she pushed Resident #99 away and yelled at him. Resident #27 denied being hurt or being afraid of Resident #99.
Resident #19 was interviewed at a later time. Resident #19 was present during the incident but could not accurately recall the incident.
Interventions: The resident was separated Resident #99 moved away from Residents #27 and #19 and was placed on one-to-one supervision with facility staff indefinitely. Resident #99 ' s psychotropic medication was reviewed and adjusted
The 10/20/23 abuse investigation conclusion documented on the physical abuse was substantiated. It indicated that Resident #27 was struck on the arm by Resident #99.
III. Resident ' s
1. Resident #99
A. Resident status
Resident #99, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia, hypertensive chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus.
The 8/10/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with deficits in short and long-term memory. The resident displayed physical behavioral symptoms directed towards others on two days in the seven day assessment period which put the resident at significant risk for physical injury; interfered with the resident's care and put another resident at significant risk for physical injury.
B. Observation and interview
Resident #99 was observed on 11/13/23 at 11:30 a.m. Resident #99 was sound asleep in his bed while being monitored by certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 who was also sleeping.
Resident #99 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 1:02 p.m. Resident #99 said things were terrible and then walked away. Resident #99 was being escorted by CNA #2 while in the common area.
CNA #2 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 1:10 p.m. CNA #2 said she was scheduled to spend her shift with Resident #99. All he liked to do was walk and sleep. She said her job was to make sure the resident did not get into altercations with other residents.
C. Record review
The comprehensive care plan had a documented care focus for physically aggressive behaviors last revised 9/6/23. The care focus read in part: Resident #99 exhibits, or has the potential to exhibit physical behaviors (hitting out). The goal Resident #99 will not harm others. Interventions included: Observe the resident for pain. Administer pain medication as ordered and document effectiveness/side effects. Evaluate the nature and circumstances (i.e., triggers) of the physical behavior with the resident. Discuss findings with resident and family members/caregivers and adjust care delivery appropriately. Evaluate the need for psychiatric or behavioral health consult. Explain all care, including procedures (one step at a time), and the reason for performing the care before initiating tasks with the resident. Observe for non-verbal signs of physical aggression, e.g., rigid body position, clenched fists, agitation, and pacing. Provide consistent, trusted caregiver and structured daily routine, when possible. If a resident becomes combative or resistive, postpone care/activity and allow time for care.
-It did not include updated effective personalized behavior interventions after the 9/7/23 and 10/20/23 incidents.
2. Resident #27
A. Resident status
Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included intervertebral disc displacement, diabetes mellitus and hypertension.
The 8/18/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 15 out of 15. She was independent with completing activities of daily living (ADL).
B. Resident interview
Resident #27 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 3:37 p.m. Resident #27 said that Resident #99 had a history of hitting women (female residents) at the facility. She said Resident #99 had approached Resident #19 while she was sitting in the atrium with her, and she raised her arm to prevent Resident #99 from hitting Resident #19 and then Resident #99 hit her on the arm. Resident #27 said she was not afraid of Resident #99, but she was afraid that he would hit Resident #19 and had tried to prevent it.
C. Record review
Both the comprehensive care plan and the visual bedside kardex report for resident care needs failed to document an abuse care focus or personalized interventions to address preventive measures to protect the resident from being victimized by an aggressive resident.
3. Resident #19
A. Resident status
Resident #19, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, morbid obesity and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
The 9/28/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. She required substantial/maximal assistance with bed mobility, toileting, transfers and personal hygiene.
B. Resident interview
Resident #19 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:36 p.m. Resident #19 said that Resident #99 had approached her on at least three occasions and had tried to punch or kick her. She said she was unable to remember the incident from 10/20/23 clearly and was unable to remember details from previous incidents. Resident #19 said that when Resident #99 tried to hit her in the past and staff have to redirect Resident #99. She said staff were sometimes able to take Resident #99 back to his room for a while and then let him roam around again. Resident #19 said whenever she sees Resident #99 in the hall she tried to move away from the area to prevent anything from happening.
C. Record review
Both the comprehensive care plan and the visual bedside kardex report for resident care needs failed to document an abuse prevention care focus or personalized interventions to address preventative measures to protect the resident from being victimized by aggressive residents.
The resident medical record failed to document either incident of abuse which occurred on 8/31/23 and on 10/20/23.
4. Resident #230
A. Resident status
Resident #230, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 10/5/23. According to the October 2023 CPO, diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, respiratory failure, and visual disturbance.
The 9/20/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had intact cognition with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. He had no behavioral aggressions and required oversight, encouragement and cueing assistance to complete ADLs.
B. Resident interview
Resident #230 was no longer in the facility and was not available for an interview.
C. Record review
The comprehensive review of the care plan failed to document an abuse prevention care focus or personalized interventions to address preventative measures to protect the resident from being victimized by aggressive residents.
IV. Staff interviews
CNA #3 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 9:50 a.m. CNA #3 said that Resident #99 had been involved in multiple physical altercations. She said the staff had previously tried redirecting Resident #99 from the situation when he had been physically aggressive towards others but that was not always successful in preventing a resident-to-resident altercation. Resident #99 was placed on one-to-one monitoring. CNA #3 said that one-to-one monitoring was the most effective intervention to prevent Resident #99 from getting into physical altercations with other residents.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:15 a.m. LPN #4 said that when incidents of resident-to-resident physical abuse occurred the residents should be redirected from the situation, all residents should be assessed for injuries, and the incident should be documented for a change of condition and reported to management She said that interventions to prevent abuse should be documented in the care plan.
The director of nursing (DON) on 11/16/23 at 12:58 p.m. The DON said after any resident-to-resident physical altercation the first priority was safety. She said interventions to ensure safety included resident separation and redirection and whatever was calming for that particular resident. She said staff would know from that chart, kardexes and care plan triggers for behavior and interventions that were tried. She said that after any incident of resident-to-resident physical aggression a team discussion regarding the effectiveness of past interventions and current interventions. She said non-pharmacological interventions would be tried first, including activities, family and one-to-one observation before pharmacological approaches would be tried.
The DON said that the resident ' s comprehensive care plan should be updated for the assailant and the victim to prevent further behaviors and protect the victim. She said the visual bedside kardex accessible to the CNAs should also include interventions to keep residents safe from abuse if they had been either an assailant or a victim in a resident-to-resident altercation. The DON said none of the resident care plans Resident #99, #27 or #19 had been updated after resident-to-resident incidents, which made it more difficult for staff to intervene appropriately.
The DON said the leadership team was aware of the 10/20/23 incident between Resident #99, Resident #27 and Resident #19 and was aware of a prior incident between Resident #99 and Resident #19. She said the only intervention the facility had tried that had been effective in preventing physical aggression was one-to-one monitoring.
V. Memory support unit incidents
1. Incident 8/22/23 at 7:11 p.m. resident to resident physical altercation between Residents #79 and #61.
Facility investigation
The incident between Resident #79 and Resident #61 occurred in the common area of the memory support unit where both residents resided. Staff heard yelling and found Resident #61 grabbing the wrists of Resident #79 and then observed Resident #61 slapping Resident #79in the face before the residents could be separated. Resident #79 had bruises to the right and left forearms. Both residents were put on 15 minute checks for 72 hours. X-rays were taken of Resident #79 ' s wrists and arms and concluded the resident had no fractures.
Resident #61 was interviewable immediately after the incident and told staff she slapped Resident #79 because the resident would not move out of her way. Resident #79 was not interviewable due to cognitive impairment.
The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #61 did not intend harm to Resident #79 due to cognitive impairment.
-However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #61 grabbing and slapping Resident #79, causing bruises to Resident #79 ' s arms and wrists.
A. Residents
1. Resident #79 (victim)
a. Resident status
Resident #79, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician ' s orders (CPO), diagnoses included unspecified dementia.
The 8/17/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the brief interview for mental status (BIMS) because she was rarely understood. The staff interview section revealed the resident had short and long-term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. She was able to ambulate independently. She had no behaviors.
b. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 3/4/21, revealed the resident had the potential to display physical behaviors including destruction of inanimate objects and a history of wandering into other resident ' s rooms. Staff were to redirect the resident, observe for non-verbal signs of agitation and provide structured routines and activities.
-The care plan did not reflect the incident.
2. Resident #61 (assailant)
a. Resident status
Resident #61, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included dementia with agitation.
The 10/10/23 MDS assessment documented the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 11 out of 15. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. She had behaviors of inattention and becoming easily distracted.
b. Resident interview
Resident #61 was approached on 11/15/23 at 2:15 p.m. and refused to be interviewed.
c. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 8/12/22, identified the resident had behaviors of distress and depression related to loss of independence and placement. Staff were to encourage the resident to communicate with her pastor and family and provide activities of preference.
-The care plan did not document a care focus or interventions for aggressive behaviors or physical aggression and did not document that the resident was involved in resident-to-resident altercations.
-The medication administration records (MAR) and treatment administration records (TAR) reviewed for August,
September, October, and November 2023 failed to reveal the resident had behavior monitoring established for physical aggression toward other residents.
2. Incident 8/23/23 at 7:10 p.m., 7:15 p.m. and at 7:30 p.m., Resident-to-resident physical altercation between Resident #24, Resident #78, Resident #60 and Resident #98.
Facility investigation
The incident between Resident #24 and Resident #98 occurred in the doorway of the room the two residents shared in the memory support unit. Resident #98 tried to enter the room but Resident #24 was in the doorway and did not move so Resident #98 could enter the room. Staff heard yelling and witnessed Resident #98 trying to pull Resident #24 out of the doorway and then slapping her in the face. Resident #98 was removed from the area. Resident #24 had no injuries.
Neither resident was interviewable due to cognitive impairment.
The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #98 did not intend harm to Resident #24 due to cognitive impairment.
-However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #98 pulling on Resident #24 and slapping her in the face.
A second incident occurred on 8/23/23 at 7:15 p.m., between Resident #78 and Resident #98. The incident occurred in the common area of the memory support unit where both residents resided. Resident #98 tried to pull a blanket off the lap of Resident #78. When Resident #78 resisted, Resident #98 slapped Resident #78 in the face. Resident #98 was removed from the area and neither resident was injured.
Neither resident was interviewable due to cognitive impairment.
The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #98 did not intend harm to Resident #78 due to cognitive impairment.
-However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #98 slapping Resident #78 in the face.
A third incident occurred on 8/23/23 at 7:30 p.m., between Resident #60 and Resident #98. The incident occurred in the common area of the memory support unit where both residents resided. Resident #98 was sitting by the nurses' cart when Resident #60 passed by. Resident #98 grabbed the glasses from Resident #60 ' s face and broke them. The nurse took Resident #98 to the nurses ' station at which time, Resident #98 grabbed a stapler and threw it at Resident #60 hitting her in the lip. Resident #60 received a swollen lip and required an ice pack and pain relievers.
Neither resident was interviewable due to cognitive impairment.
The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #98 did not intend harm to Resident #60 due to cognitive impairment.
-However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #98 grabbing Resident #60 ' s glasses from her face and throwing a stapler hitting her in the face causing Resident #60 ' s lip to swell.
A. Residents
1. Resident #24 (victim)
a. Resident status
Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances.
The 10/12/23 MDS assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of one out of 15. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. She did not have any behaviors.
b. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 7/25/21, revealed the resident had anxiety and staff were to address the cause of the anxiety, reassure the resident and provide a different environment.
-The care plan did not document the resident was a victim of a resident-to-resident altercation.
2. Resident #78 (victim)
a. Resident status
Resident #78, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included aphasia and vascular dementia.
The 9/23/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the BIMS. Staff assessment of the resident ' s cognition revealed that the resident had short and long-term memory deficits, moderately impaired decision making abilities, behaviors of inattention, was easily distracted, had disorganized thinking and was rarely understood by others. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility.
b. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 8/26/22, revealed the resident had impaired communication due to aphasia and dementia. Staff were to use short sentences and allow the resident to respond.
-The care plan did not document the resident was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation.
3. Resident #60 (victim)
a. Resident status
Resident #60, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included dementia with agitation.
The 8/7/23 MDS assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of seven out of 15. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. She did not have any behaviors.
b. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 8/26/21, documented that the resident had behaviors of distress and depression related to loss of independence and placement. Staff were to offer person centered diversional activities and emotional support.
-The care plan did not document the resident was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation.
4. Resident #98 (assailant)
a. Resident status
Resident #98, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances.
The 9/19/23 MDS assessment documented the resident had been unable to complete the BIMS due to cognitive impairment. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. Staff assessment for cognition revealed the resident had short and long-term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. She had no behaviors.
b. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 5/10/23, identified the resident had behaviors of physical aggression towards staff during care. She would grab at staff when the staff passed by her and could be verbally abusive to staff and other residents. Staff were to redirect the resident, observe for non-verbal signs of agitation and provide a quiet environment.
-The care plan did not document the resident was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation.
The MAR and TAR reviewed for November 2023 revealed the resident had behavior monitoring established for physical and verbal aggression towards other residents. No behaviors were documented.
3. Incident 10/9/23 at 9:40 p.m. and 10/9/23 at 9:59 p.m., Resident-to-resident physical altercation between
Residents #79, #4 and #61.
Facility investigation
The incident between Resident #79 and Resident #4 occurred in the activity room of the memory support unit where both residents resided. Staff heard yelling and when staff arrived they found Resident #4 grabbing the wrists of Resident #79 and observed Resident #4 pulling on Resident #79. Resident #79 had no visible injuries; however, bruises on the right and left wrists were discovered the following day. The residents were separated upon the staff discovering the incident.
Neither resident was interviewable due to cognitive impairment.
The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #4 did not intend harm to Resident #79 due to cognitive impairment.
-However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #4 grabbing Resident #79, and causing bruises on Resident #4 ' s arms.
A second incident occurred on 10/9/23 at 9:59 p.m. The incident between Resident #79 and Resident #61 occurred in Resident #79 ' s room. Staff heard yelling and when staff arrived, found Resident #61 had grabbed the wrists of Resident #79 and was pushing her down onto the recliner while yelling at her. Resident #79 had no visible injuries however, bruises to the right and left wrists were observed the following day. The residents were separated.
The staff did not interview Resident #61. Resident #79 was not interviewable due to cognitive impairments.
The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #61 did not intend harm to Resident #79 due to cognitive impairment.
-However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #61 grabbing Resident #79, and causing bruises to Resident #79 ' s wrists.
1. Resident #79 (victim) (see resident information above)
2. Resident #61 (assailant) (see resident information above)
3. Resident #4 (assailant)
a. Resident status
Resident #4, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbances.
The 9/28/23 MDS assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of seven out of 15. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. She had behaviors of inattention and becoming easily distracted.
b. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 8/12/22, identified the resident had behaviors of verbal and physical aggression towards staff. Staff were to allow the resident to express her feelings and provide her time to compose herself before resuming activity/care.
-The care plan did not reflect behaviors of physical aggression towards other residents and did not document the resident was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation.
The MAR and TAR reviewed for November 2023 failed to reveal the resident had behavior monitoring established for physical aggression or verbal aggression.
VI. Staff interviews
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #5 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 1:15 p.m. She worked on the memory support unit and stated the resident care plans were not updated after an incident of a resident-to-resident altercation. If a new staff member came to work on the unit, the nurse on duty had to tell the staff member which residents needed to be supervised when near each other and who had prior incidents with each other.
The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed with the director[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
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 a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with dementia, 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 a resident who displayed or was diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for five (#90, #83, #42, #79, and #85) of 6 out of 51 sampled residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to consistently provide person-centered approaches to Residents #90, #83, #42, and #79, who had diagnoses of dementia, involved in resident to resident altercations on the secured unit (cross-reference F600 for abuse).
Findings include:
I. Memory support unit activities programming
The memory support unit activities calendar for 11/13/23 through 11/14/23 revealed the scheduled activities for those days included:
11/13/23 Activities programming schedule
8:45 a.m. daily chronicles
9:00 a.m. verse of the day
11/14/23 Activities programming schedule
1:00 p.m. bowling
1:00 group manicures
-However, none of the scheduled activities occurred. Music played in the background
II. Resident #90
A. Resident status
Resident #90, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 computerized physician ' s orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia with mood disturbance.
The 8/24/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the BIMS due to she was rarely understood. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. The staff interview section showed the resident had short and long-term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. She had behaviors of inattention and becoming easily distracted.
B. Observations
Resident #90 was observed on 11/13/23 at 8:38 a.m. to 10:58 a.m. propelling herself through the memory support unit hallways; Resident #90 was tearful. Staff did not stop to provide her reassurance or provide redirection or alternative activities. No recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident.
Resident #90 was observed on 11/14/23 at 1:20 p.m. propelling herself through the memory support unit hallway asking staff where she was supposed to be. Staff did not stop to provide her reassurance. No recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident.
C. Record review
The November 2023 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
-Behavior monitoring for yelling and striking out related to dementia with behaviors and excessive tearfulness- ordered on 4/27/23;
-Behavior monitoring for depression as evidenced by tearfulness, quiet, and withdrawal- ordered on 9/26/23.
The comprehensive care plan was initiated on 6/26/23, documenting it was important for the resident to engage in meaningful activities such as going outdoors, socializing, coloring, spiritual groups, reminiscing, and manicures. Interventions included providing the resident with daily reminders of activities. The resident is at risk for elopement and resides in a memory support unit. Interventions included offering the resident activities of preference and allowing her time to express her emotions. She had behaviors of yelling out at others and interventions included speaking gently to the resident and providing reassurance.
Activity participation notes or an activities assessment were not located in the resident ' s records.
III. Resident #83
A. Resident status
Resident #83, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included unspecified dementia with agitation.
The 10/12/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the BIMS due to he was rarely understood. He ambulated independently. Staff interview section showed the resident had short and long-term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. He had behaviors of inattention.
B. Observations
Resident #83 was observed from 11/13/23 at 8:38 a.m. to 10:58 a.m. sleeping on the sofa in the common area No recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident.
Resident #83 was observed on 11/14/23 from 8:45 a.m. to 10:28 a.m. sleeping on the sofa in the common area No recreational or therapeutic activities were offered to the resident.
C. Record review
The November 2023 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
-Behavior monitoring for anger, agitation, anxiety, and yelling at other residents. - ordered on 3/29/22.
The comprehensive care plan was initiated on 5/3/23, documenting it was important to the resident to engage in meaningful activities such as hand massages, reminiscing, religious activities of preference, snack cart, and the daily chronicles. Interventions included encouraging the resident ' s activity preferences and providing daily chronicles and other reading materials. The resident was at risk for elopement and resides in a memory support unit. Interventions included offering the resident activities of preference and allowing him time to express his emotions.
Activity assessment dated [DATE] revealed it was important to the resident to have snacks, be part of religious services, be around animals, and get fresh air outside.
Activity participation notes were not located in the resident ' s records.
IV. Resident #42
A. Resident status
Resident #42, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included unspecified dementia.
The 10/5/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the BIMS due to she was rarely understood. She was unable to walk and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. The staff interview section showed the resident had short and long-term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. She had no behaviors.
B. Observations
Resident #42 was observed on 11/13/23 from 12:30 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.Redidnet #42 was in the dining room sitting in her wheelchair She remained just sitting in the dining room until 2:20 p.m. when she propelled herself into the hallway and then fell asleep in her wheelchair and remained asleep until observations ended at 3:10 p.m. Staff did not interact with the resident and no recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) # 9 was observed at 1:43 p.m. on 11/13/23 entering the dining room but failed to acknowledge the resident.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #5 was observed at 1:57 p.m. on 11/13/23 entering the dining room but failed to acknowledge the resident.
CNA #10 was observed at 2:19 p.m. on 11/13/23 entering the dining room and asking the resident, in English, if she needed anything.
An unidentified housekeeper (HSK) was observed at 2:22 p.m. on 11/13/23 entering the dining room/ The HSK asked the resident, in English, if the resident was doing alright.
Resident #42 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway on 11/14/23 at 9:30 a.m. Staff were not interacting with the resident. She remained in the hallway until falling asleep in her wheelchair at 11:23 a.m. No recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident
C. Resident interview
Resident #42 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 9:48 a.m. The resident could not understand English; however, when provided with basic questions written in Korean, she was able to read and answer the questions. She was able to provide her name and age and said she was bored.
D. Record review
The comprehensive care plan was initiated on 5/3/23, documented it was important for the resident to engage in meaningful activities such as hand massages, exercise, arts and crafts, snack cart, reading magazines, and music. Interventions included encouraging the resident ' s activity preferences and providing reading material in Korean (the resident ' s first language). The resident used hand gestures and body language to express her needs.
The resident had impaired communication abilities related to dementia and a language barrier. Interventions included educating the staff on using an interpreter line, picture books, and hand gestures. The resident is at risk of experiencing adjustment issues due to communication barriers. Interventions included monitoring conditions contributing to social isolation and encouraging participation in activities of preference.
Activity assessment dated [DATE] revealed it was important to the resident to have snacks and be part of group activities.
Activity participation notes were not located in the resident ' s records.
IV. Resident #79
A. Resident #79, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2023 CPO, diagnoses included unspecified dementia.
The 8/17/23 MDS assessment documented the resident was unable to participate in the BIMS due to she was rarely understood. The staff interview section showed the resident had short and long-term memory deficits and moderately impaired decision making abilities. She was able to ambulate independently. She had no behaviors indicated.
B. Observations
Resident #79 was observed on 11/13/23 from 8:33 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. sleeping on a sofa in the common area. She then was taken to the dining room to eat her breakfast. At 10:25 a.m. the resident was asleep in the dining room. No recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident.
Resident #79 was observed on 11/14/23 from 8:45 a.m. to 10:19 a.m. wandering the hallways of the memory support unit without staff interaction. No recreational or therapeutic activities were provided to the resident.
C. Record review
The comprehensive care plan, revised 3/4/21, documented that it was important to the resident to engage in meaningful activities such as walking, listening to music, hand massages, snack carts, and pet visits. Interventions included encouraging the resident to listen to music, watch videos on the tablet, walk outside, and have staff read to her. encouraging the resident ' s activity. The resident was at risk for elopement and resides in a memory support unit. Interventions included offering the resident activities of preference and allowing him time to express her emotions. The resident had the potential to display physical behaviors including the destruction of inanimate objects. She also had a history of wandering into other resident ' s rooms. Staff were to redirect the resident, observe for nonverbal signs of agitation, and provide structured routines and activities.
Activity assessment dated [DATE] revealed it was important to the resident to have choices, snacks, be around animals, be part of group activities, be involved in activities of preference, and get fresh air outside.
Activity participation notes were not located in the resident ' s records.
V. Other resident interview
Resident #279 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 9:51 a.m. The resident said he was staying in the memory support unit because he had been quarantined for COVID-19 before moving to his permanent room. He had been on the unit for three days. He said he was concerned about the other residents on the unit because he only ever saw them sitting in the common area staring off and not speaking to anyone. Resident #279 said he never saw any activities or any staff doing any activities with the residents on the unit.
VI. Staff interviews
LPN #5 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 10:08 a.m. She said there have not been activities on the memory support unit since the summer of 2023. LPN #5 said the CNAs and nurses tried to do activities with the residents when possible, but with all the care needs of the residents, there was little opportunity to provide activities programming, and the activities department did not leave any activity supplies.
LPN #5 said the incidents or resident-to-resident altercations increased when the frequency of activities programming decreased due to a lack of activities. When they had activities on the unit the resident altercations decreased.
LPN #5 said this was the daily music playing in the background on the stero in the common area of the unit was considered the activity for the residents.
CNA #7 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 10:10 a.m. She said activities staff do not come to the memory support unit to provide activities.
Activities director (AD) was interviewed via phone call on 11/15/23 at 2:00 p.m. with NHA present. The AD said he and his two assistants were out of the facility due to contracting COVID-19, but he was all due back later in the week. Activities had been canceled during their absence.
The AD said had just started working at the facility at the end of August 2023 and was still unfamiliar with some of the resident ' s. The assistant hired to work with the memory unit residents had just started the second week of October 2023. She was to have started the resident one-on-one activities in the last three weeks. The AD was aware when he was hired at the facility the memory support unit needed improvements to the activity program.
The AD said typical memory support activities included exercise, arts and crafts, and the coffee/hot chocolate cart, among other things. The AD said activities programming maintained the residents' cognition and morale and without activities, the residents could experience increased depression, altercations, and increased negative behaviors. The memory support unit was intended for residents who required lower stimulation due to cognitive deficits. He said he was surprised the staff on the unit said there were no activities being provided.
The NHA said the facility did not have an established plan for how activities would continue in the event that the AD and both activities assistants were out of the facility. Going forward, the plan would be to attempt to borrow activity staff from the sister facility that was approximately thirty minutes away or from the next-door independent living community (also a part of the corporation).
The corporate nurse consultant (CNC) was interviewed on 11/16/2023 at 10:04 a.m. The CNC said the memory support unit was intended for residents who needed an environment with decreased stimulation. The facility management team needed to work on increasing activities on the unit and revising the plan for when activities staff were out of the building. The CNC said she would talk to the NHA to come up with a plan to train the CNAs on the memory support unit to assist with activities going forward.
The AD was interviewed with NHA on 11/16/23 at 10:30 a.m. AD was aware there were very few activities scheduled on the memory support unit after 1:00 p.m. when residents would have increased behaviors due to sundowning (a state of increased confusion later in the day and evening attributed to forms of dementia). The AD said he had just started working with a new staff member to provide activities in the evening.
The AD said most group activities that the facility provided occurred off of the memory support unit so the activity staff would take a few of the residents off of the unit to go to those group activities. Unfortunately, all group activities had been canceled since the facility was in outbreak status from a COVID-19 facility-wide outbreak (starting 11/4/23).
The AD said he had been working on developing a one-on-one activity program for the last three weeks. This would be intended for residents who are not able to participate in group or independent activities and needed one-on-one activities with one of the activity staff members.
The AD said the activities department provided the memory support unit with independent activities items that they could offer to residents on the memory support unit; such as copies of coloring materials, magazines, and books. The AD said the supplies were stored in an activities closet located in a sitting room on the memory support unit accessible to the unit nurses and CNA to offer the residents.
The AD attempted to show what independent items were in the closet, but the closet was locked and he did not have a key to unlock it. LPN #5, the unit nurse, was asked if she had a key and she said the staff on the unit did not have a key to open the closet. The closet remained locked.
VII. Training records
A request was made to the CNC for dementia training records for the staff working on the memory support unit including LPN #5, CNA #7, CNA #8, CNA #9, CNA #10, the director of nursing (DON), AD, and the two activity assistants (AA).
The CNC was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 11:40 a.m. The CNC said the facility did not have proof of dementia training for any of the staff records requested.
VII. Facility follow up
AD provided activity participation records on 11/16/23 at 10:30 a.m. The records included participation records for Residents #90, Resident #83, Resident #42, and Resident #79. The records documented the residents participated in some activities programming for September 2023 and October 2023, but there were no records of any of the residents (#90, #83, #42, or #79) receiving any activity programming in the month of November 2023.
September 2023 Resident #90 participated in independent activities such as watching television, socializing, arts/crafts, listening to music, exercising, and using electronics daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident participated in group activities such as music daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident was offered one-on-one room visits fifteen times and refused to participate. No activities were offered from 9/19/23 through 9/30/23.
October 2023 Resident #90 participated in independent activities such as watching television, socializing, arts/crafts, listening to music, exercising, and using electronics daily from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 with the exception of one day. The resident participated in group activities such as music daily from 10/1/23 through 10/15/23. She participated in one group activity on 10/19/23 but no other groups for the rest of the month. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits everyday with the exception of two days.
September 2023 Resident #83 participated in independent activities such as watching television, socializing, reading, exercising, and resting daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident participated in group activities such as music daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits everyday from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23 with the exception of three days. No activities were offered from 9/19/23 through 9/30/23.
October 2023 Resident #83 participated in independent activities such as watching television, socializing, reading, exercising, and resting daily from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 with the exception of two days. The resident did not participate in group activities for the month of October. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits everyday from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23.
September 2023 Resident #42 participated in independent activities such reading, exercising, and resting daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident participated in group activities such as music daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits everyday from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23 with the exception of three days. No activities were offered from 9/19/23 through 9/30/23.
October 2023 Resident #42 participated in independent activities such reading, exercising, and resting daily from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 with the exception of two days. The resident only participated in bingo for a group activity thirteen times for the month of October. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits everyday from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 with the exception of one day.
September 2023 Resident #79 participated in independent activities such exercising and resting daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident participated in group activities such as music daily from 9/1/23 through 9/19/23. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits one time in the month. No activities were offered from 9/19/23 through 9/30/23.
October 2023 Resident #79 participated in independent activities such exercising and resting daily from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 with the exception of two days. The resident only participated in bingo for a group activity five times for the month of October. The resident was active in one-on-one room visits everyday from 10/1/23 through 10/31/23 with the exception of two days.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews, observations and record review, ensure residents consistently receive food prepared by methods that conserved nutritive value, palatable in taste, texture, appearance and temperat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, observations and record review, ensure residents consistently receive food prepared by methods that conserved nutritive value, palatable in taste, texture, appearance and temperature.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure resident food was palatable in taste, temperature, texture and appearance; and,
-Address resident food complaints.
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Food and Nutritional Services policy, revised September 2017, was provided by the nursing home administrator on 11/16/23 at 4:34 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Each resident is provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident.
II. Resident and resident representative interviews
All residents were identified by facility and assessment as interviewable.
Resident #29 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 9:49 a.m. He said we still had a long wait for food and it was cold when I get it.
Resident #2 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 10:07 a.m., Resident #2 said, not only were mealtimes a problem, so was the kitchen taking our orders. She said I asked for two fried eggs but got scrambled instead and the toast was as hard as a rock. She said another issue was the food selection because all we have are scrambled eggs for breakfast and the kitchen was always running out of food.
Resident #111's representative was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 12:20 p.m. The representative said she visited often and observed that Resident #111 did not particularly like the facility and did not seem to eat well, so she stocked Resident #111 room with Ensure drinks that he likes (strawberry and vanilla). She states at least he drank one ensure a day. The representative said that the resident really enjoyed meat and potatoes.
Resident #66 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 1:19 p.m. Resident #66 said, I have dialysis on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and I get back into my room after 2:00 p.m. and my meal was on my bedside table and I don ' t know how long it had been there. He said the food was always dry and tough.
Resident #35 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 3:50 p.m. She said the food was awful and always cold. She said she ate a spoonful of cauliflower and one spoonful of broccoli and a stale piece of cake and could not eat anymore.
Resident #84 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 4:26 p.m. She said the food was always overcooked and the kitchen served too many scrambled eggs. They have no variety in the food selection
Resident #6 was interviewed on 11/13/23 at 4:33 p.m. She said the food was terrible.
Resident #38 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 10:00 p.m. He said meal times have not gotten any better. He said meals were always late and the food was always cold.
Resident #31 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 1:58 p.m. She said, Are we going to get our lunch today? She said they are always late in getting us our food.
Resident # 28 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:02 p.m. She said the kitchen was always late in delivering our meals. She said, I don ' t have a choice in what I get to eat because I get what they deliver and if I don ' t like it that is too bad.
Resident #87 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 3:25 a.m. She said, I am always asking for apple juice for my cereal because I cannot drink milk and the kitchen was always out of it and other things.
III. Observations
A test tray for a regular diet, puree, and mechanically altered meal was evaluated immediately after the last resident had been served their room tray for lunch on 11/16/23 at 1:39 p.m.
The CK and dietary staff were observed plating the last resident hall meal trays starting at 1:33 p.m. At the end of the service, a request was made for a test tray. The CK marked three plates with a black warmer lid to identify the test trays that were requested. The test trays of meals were placed on a large plastic open cart with four shelves. The meal cart was not heated. DA #1 was followed to the resident unit, with the resident meal trays and the test trays, where the DA delivered the resident's meal trays. DA #1 left the meal cart will all meal trays including the test tray on the unit next to the nursing station. CNA #11 started delivering meals along with two other unknown CNAs. CNA #11 delivered the last resident meal tray at 1:39 p.m., and the test tray meals were taken to the conference room for temperature and taste testing. The test trays were assessed promptly at 1:40 p.m.
A test tray of the main meal for a regular diet, puree and mechanically altered meal was evaluated immediately after the last resident had been served their room tray for lunch on 11/16/23 at 1:40 p.m.
-The kitchen ran out of alternate meals.
The test tray consisted of an open-faced roast pork sandwich, mashed potatoes, herbed green beans, and lemon cake with lemon icing. The alternative menu consisted of marinated chicken breast, buttered noodles, Brussel sprouts, and dinner roll/bread.
-The open-faced pork roast sandwich was dry and tough. The temperature was 123 degrees F.
-The green beans had no flavor and were bland. The temperature was 112 degrees F.
-The mashed potatoes were bland with no taste. The gravy had no flavor or seasoning. The temperature was 123 degrees F.
-The lemon cake was very dry and had burnt edges.
-The puree open-faced sandwich had no seasoning and was grainy in taste. The temperature was 111 degrees F.
-The green beans had no flavor and were bland. The temperature was 110 degrees F.
-The pureed bread was gummy and pasty and was stale.
-The mashed potatoes were bland with no taste. The gravy had no flavor or seasoning. The temperature was 115 degrees F.
-No pureed lemon cake was provided
-The mechanically altered open-faced sandwich had no seasoning and was dry. The temperature was 110 degrees F.
-The green beans had no flavor and were bland. The temperature was 106 degrees F.
-The mashed potatoes were bland with no taste. The gravy had no flavor or seasoning. The temperature was 109 degrees F.
IV. Staff Interview
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 11/14/23 at 9:47 a.m. The CNA was picking up residents ' breakfast trays. She showed five meal trays where the residents did not even eat their food. She said the residents told her that the food tasted so bad that they could not eat any of it. The resident also told her that they were tired of getting the same thing over and over again. She said the kitchen does not even give these residents a choice of what they want to eat, they are served the main meal and if they do not eat it they do not offer the resident an alternative meal.
The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:32 a.m. The DM was told of the observation above. She said the main issue was the lack of communication between the kitchen and the nursing staff; the kitchen sent out the meals and the nursing staff were not delivering the meals timely, which was affecting the temperature which then affected the flavor of the food.
The DM said there was also a lack of communication between the kitchen staff and the staff who were taking resident orders, which affected food choices and resident satisfaction with the meals they were served.
The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 12:08 p.m. He was told of the observations above. He said the facility was working on a performance improvement plan and a new system with a new meal program. The facility hired a new consultant and was working on getting some new equipment for the kitchen which would allow better delivery of food to the residents.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions in one kitchen.
Specifically, the facility fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions in one kitchen.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-Foods of modified consistency were reheated to safe temperatures following the use of a multi-step preparation process;
-Cutting boards were free from deep scratches and stains;
-Follow accepted hand hygiene practices during meal preparation; and,
-Kitchen and food service areas were kept clean
Findings include:
Facility policy
The Food Preparation and Service policy, revised November 2022, was provided by the corporate numse consultant (CNC)on 11/16/23 at 3:45 p.m. It read in pertinent part: Food and nutrition services employees prepare, distribute and serve food in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices.
I. Food temperatures
A. Professional reference
According to the United States Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2022 Food Code, current as of 11/7/23 retrieved 11/22/23 from https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/food-code-2022 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food (TCS) that is cooked, cooled, and reheated for hot holding shall be reheated so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at least 74 degrees C (165 degrees F) for 15 seconds.
Bacterial growth and/or toxin production can occur if time/temperature control for safety food remains in the temperature danger zone (41 degrees to 135 degrees F) too long.
B. Observations and staff interview
On 11/15/23 at 10:26 a.m., [NAME] (CK) had prepared the roasted pork for the lunch menu. The CK placed several pieces of roasted pork into the food processor and proceeded to puree the pork. The CK poured broth into the roasted pork until the puree reached the right consistency. The CK placed the pureed pork into a metal pan and proceeded to wrap it with aluminum foil. The CK was asked what the temperature of the pureed pork was. The CK stated the temperature of the pureed pork was 119 degrees F. She then wrapped the metal container and placed it into the warming oven.
The CK proceeded to complete the same process for the minced meat mechanical soft roasted pork. She then placed approximately 24 pieces of the roasted pork into the blender and proceeded to finish the minced meat mechanical soft pork. After getting it to the correct consistency she grabbed another metal pan and poured the pork into the pan. She placed it on the counter and took the temperature, which was 118 degrees F. She wrapped it with aluminum foil and placed it into the oven.
The CK pureed the green beans in the same process, with the temperature of the green beans being 121 degrees F. She then wrapped the metal container and placed it into the warming oven.
The CK placed several pieces of chicken breast into the food processor and proceeded to puree the chicken. The CK poured the broth into the chicken breasts until the puree reached the right consistency. The CK placed the pureed chicken into a metal pan and took the temperature, which was 117 degrees F. She then wrapped the metal container and placed it into the warming oven.
The CK was asked if he checked the temperature of the minced moist foods and pureed food after pureeing them. The CK said, No, I do not, but I would take the temperatures before serving them and they should be at 160 degrees F.
On11/15/23 at 11:44 a.m., the dietary manager (DM) again took the temperature of all items listed above. The roasted pork minced meat mechanical soft was at 163 degrees F, the pureed roasted pork was at 162 degrees F, and the pureed green beans were at 163 degrees F.
C. Additional interview
The DM was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:32 a.m. She said she spoke with the CK and the CK stated she took the temperatures of the food before she placed it in the warming oven. She said she was aware that the temperatures of the modified food dropped at times. She said, I thought that the food was okay as long as it reached 165 degrees F before serving. She said dietary staff would be educated immediately to ensure the modified consistency of food reached proper temperatures and time frames.
II. Cutting Boards
A. Professional reference
According to the State Board of Health Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations (updated 1/1/19), page 132, retrieved 11/23/23 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations Cutting surfaces that are scratched and scored must be resurfaced so as to be easily cleaned, or be discarded when these surfaces can no longer be effectively cleaned and sanitized.
B. Observation
The initial kitchen tour conducted on 11/13/23 at 8:41 n a.m. revealed eight large cutting boards. There was one green, one blue, two red, two white, three yellow, and one brown cutting board. All cutting boards were heavily scored and stained.
On 11/15/23 at 11:34 a.m., dietary aide (DA) #3 was cutting hot dogs on the white cutting board that was observed to be heavily scored and stained (see above).
-At 11:58 a.m., the DM was observed cutting tomatoes, cucumber, and ham on the green cutting board observed to be heavily scored and stained (see above).
C. Staff Interview
The DM was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:32 a.m. The DM was told of the observations of the cutting boards in the kitchen. She acknowledged the cutting boards were visibly stained and showed wear. She said he would replace them immediately. She said the deep scratches could be a potential for bacteria to grow.
III. Improper hand hygiene
A. Professional references
According to the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations (effective 1/1/19) pg.46-47, retrieved 8/23/23 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils, and unwrapped single-service items and:
-Before handling or putting on single use gloves for working with food, and between removing soiled gloves and putting on clean gloves.
Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms including surrogate prosthetic devices for hands or arms with soap and water for at least 20 seconds and shall use the following cleaning procedure:
1. Vigorous friction on the surfaces of the lathered fingers, fingertips, and areas between the fingers, hands, and arms for at least 15 seconds, followed by;
2. Thorough rinsing under clean, running warm water; and
3. Immediately follow the cleaning procedure with thorough drying of cleaned hands and arms with disposable or single use towels or a mechanical hand-drying device.
B. Observations
Observation of meal service was conducted on 11/15/23 at 10:30 a.m.
Dietary aide (DA) #1 placed the pan of lemon cake on the end of the counter, removed the plastic wrap, and proceeded to throw the plastic wrap into the trash can. DA #1 moved the trash can lid with his hand and pushed the plastic wrap into the trash can. DA #1 returned to the counter without performing hand hygiene DA#1 put on a pair of gloves and started cutting the cake using the metal spatula as a measuring device. DA #1 picked up each piece of cake with his gloved hand placed it into a desert dish and then covered it with plastic wrap. DA #1 would place the plastic dessert cups on a large metal tray and then place them on a metal rack. DA #1 picked up his pants with his gloved hands and returned to plating the deserts. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
DA #4 was observed doing dishes. DA #4 would grab the dirty dishes from the outside corner of the dishwashing room, rinse the dirty dishes, and then place them into the dishwasher. DA #4 then remove the clean dishes and place them on a metal rack. DA #4 would then return and rinse the dirty dishes. This process was done three more times. DA #4 did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
DA #1 was asked to get the bread for the opened faced sandwiches. DA #1 walked back to the storage area and returned with four loaves of bread. He grabbed a large metal container and proceeded to open the bags of bread. DA #1 picked up his pants and proceeded without performing hand hygiene to put on a pair of plastic gloves. DA #1 opened the bread, grabbed five slices of bread at a time, and placed the bread in the metal container until the bag was empty. He did this until he used all of the four loaves of bread. He then walked over to the trash can, lifted the lid with his gloved hand, placed the plastic bag into the trash can, and then returned to the counter with the bread. DA #1 would be adjusting his mask with his gloved hand. DA#1 then returned to the storage area, grabbed three more loaves of bread, and proceeded to open the bread and place the bread into the metal container. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
DA #2 was outside of the kitchen helping load the meal carts with the resident food trays. DA #2 was asked to come into the kitchen and assist on the serving line. DA #2 came into the kitchen and without performing hand hygiene proceeded to get the meal plates and place them on the tray as well as the service ware. DA #2 grabbed the plates and plate warmers and placed them onto the trays. DA #2 then grabbed a piece of green garnish with his bare unwashed hands hand and placed a piece on each resident's meal plate. While DA #2 was waiting for the cook to serve the meals he would wait with his bare hand pressing on the plate. DA #2 did this process through the whole meal process. DA #2s chef ' s coat was large and overhung on his wrist. The coat was dirty and particularly so on the sleeve and would hang touching the resident's meal plates. DA #2 would adjust his mask with his hands throughout the meal service. DA #2 did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
The DM was preparing chef salads for two meal orders. The DM entered the walk-in refrigerator and returned with a bag of cheese, tomatoes, cucumber, and a plastic container of ham. After touching the door handles and several other surfaces on the way to and from the walk-in refrigerator the DM without performing hand hygiene put on a pair of gloves and proceeded to open the bag of lettuce, grabbing several handfuls of lettuce and placing it on the plate. Some leaves of lettuce fell off the plate and the DM picked them up and placed them onto the plate. The DM then proceeded to go over to the counter and cut the tomatoes on the green cutting board. The DM did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
The DM then grabbed the cut tomato slices and placed them on the salad plate. The DM returned to the counter, removed the plastic wrap from the cucumber, and proceeded to cut the cucumber with the same knife. The DM grabbed several slices of the cucumber and placed them on the plate. The DM then opened the plastic container with her gloved hand reached in and grabbed two slices of ham. She proceeded to cut the ham with the same knife and placed the cut ham onto the salad plates. She wiped her hand on the side of her pants and continued to reach into the bag of cheese and pulled out a handful of chess and placed it onto the salad pressing down on the salad. She wrapped the chef's salads with plastic wrap and placed them onto a tray of ice. The DM did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
DA #1 was preparing several hot dogs for special meal orders. While he was warming the hotdogs he was asked to prepare two chefs salads. DA #1 placed the hotdogs into a metal container and placed them on the top shelf of the counter. Without performing hand hygiene he then grabbed two large handfuls of lettuce and placed them onto the plates. He then proceeded to walk over to the counter where he had placed the green cutting board (see cutting board section above) and cut tomato slices. He then grabbed the sliced tomatoes and placed them on the plates. He wiped his hands on the side of his pants. He then returned to the counter and cut cucumber slices and then placed them on the two plates. He grabbed four slices of ham and proceeded to cut them with the same knife used for the other vegetables. He held the ham in his cupped hands and placed them onto the two salads. He then would push down on the salad of the plates. He reached into the bag of cheese, grabbed two handfuls of cheese, and placed them on the salads. He picked up his pants with his gloved hands. He proceeded to wrap the salads with plastic wrap and then placed them onto the tray of ice. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process.
C. Staff Interview
The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:32 a.m. She said all kitchen staff needed to wash their hands when their hands became contaminated. She said all staff must wash their hands before handling or serving food. Staff should also wash their hands when they leave the kitchen and dining area. The DM said staff should wash their hands and change gloves before and after touching ready to eat foods. The DM said it was her expectation all dietary staff would wash their hands between tasks to avoid cross contamination
IV. Kitchen and Food Service Areas
Professional Reference
Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, effective 1/19/19, section 6-602-603 Nonfood-Contact Surfaces retrieved 11/23/23 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations read, Nonfood-contact surfaces of equipment, including transport vehicles, shall be cleaned as often as necessary to keep the equipment free from the accumulation of dust, dirt, food particles, and other debris.
Section 6-401 Cleaning Physical Facilities read, Floors, mats, duckboards, walls, ceilings, and attachments (e.g., light fixtures, vent covers, wall and ceiling mounted fans, and similar equipment), and decorative materials (e.g., signs and advertising materials), shall be kept clean.
2. Observations
A tour of the kitchen was completed on 11/13/23 at 8:41 a.m. and revealed the following:
-The walls above the hand washing sink and three-compartment sinks had peeling and damaged sheetrock.
-The refrigerator/freezer and other appliances were soiled with food debris on the handles, front, and sides of the units.
-Countertops and backsplash/walls were soiled with food debris.
-The oven and steamer doors including the front and sides of the stove contained an accumulation of dry food spills and grease
-Floors throughout the kitchen, storage room, and under appliances contained food crumbs and debris.
-The dishwasher had hard water deposits on the face and top of the dishwasher. The dishwasher had a buildup of rust and other water damage on top. There was a build-up of dried food and crumbs around the dishware. The wall around the dishwasher had food debris and rust. The caulking around the rinse sink was peeling with food debris.
A second observation of the kitchen was conducted on 11/14/23 from 8:40 a.m. to 8:53 a.m., during a daily kitchen tour and observations revealed the same concerns identified above during the initial tour of the kitchen.
A third observation of the kitchen was conducted on 11/15/23 from 110:30 a.m. to 1:28 p.m., during meal preparation when the mechanical and puree meals were being prepared for the residents' dinner, observations revealed the same concerns identified during the initial tour on 11/13/23.
A fourth observation of the kitchen was conducted on 11/16/23 at 8:25 a.m., in the presence of the DM observations identified the same concerns as identified on 11/13/23 during the initial tour.
3. Staff interviews.
The DM was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 8:32 a.m. The DM said the kitchen cleaning schedule included cleaning counters, backsplashes, and cabinets. The stove was to be cleaned daily. The floors were swept and mopped daily, and staff were supposed to clean up spills as they occurred or when noticed.
DM said the staff completed a deep cleaning weekly. The DM said she would provide a copy of the cleaning schedule and completed tasks; however, that documentation was not provided by the time of the survey ' s exit on 11/16/23.
The DM said the kitchen should be cleaned routinely to prevent illness to the residents.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Water testing failure
A. Professional reference
According to CDC, Legionella (Legionnaires 'Disease and Pontiac fever), la...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Water testing failure
A. Professional reference
According to CDC, Legionella (Legionnaires 'Disease and Pontiac fever), last reviewed 3/25/21, retrieved from on 11/28/23: https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/wmp/toolkit/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Flegionella%2Fmaintenance%2Fwmp-toolkit.html and https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/wmp/overview.html. It read in pertinent part, Many buildings need a water management program to reduce the risk for Legionella growing and spreading within their water system and devices.
Legionella bacteria are typically found naturally in [NAME] environments, but can become a health concern when they grow and spread in human-made water systems. Legionella can cause a serious type of pneumonia (lung infection) known as Legionnaires ' disease. Some water systems in buildings have a higher risk for Legionella growth and spread than others. Legionella water management programs are now an industry standard for many buildings in the United States.
Legionella bacteria can cause a serious type of pneumonia (lung infection) called Legionnaires' disease. Legionella bacteria can also cause a less serious illness called Pontiac fever.
The key to preventing Legionnaires' disease is to reduce the risk of Legionella growth and spread. Building owners and managers can do this by maintaining building water systems and implementing controls for Legionella.
Water management programs identify hazardous conditions and take steps to minimize the growth and transmission of Legionella and other waterborne pathogens in building water systems. Developing and maintaining a water management program is a multi-step process that requires continuous review.
Seven key elements of a Legionella water management program are to:
-Establish a water management program team
-Describe the building water systems using text and flow diagrams
-Identify areas where Legionella could grow and spread
-Decide where control measures should be applied and how to monitor them
-Establish ways to intervene when control limits are not met
-Make sure the program is running as designed (verification) and is effective (validation)
-Document and communicate all the activities.
Principles: In general, the principles of effective water management include:
-Maintaining water temperatures outside the ideal range for Legionella growth
- Preventing water stagnation
-Ensuring adequate disinfection
-Maintaining devices to prevent sediment, scale, corrosion, and biofilm, all of which provide a habitat and nutrients for Legionella.
Once established, water management programs require regular monitoring of key areas for potentially hazardous conditions and the use of predetermined responses to respond when control measures are not met.
A consultant with Legionella-specific environmental expertise may sometimes be helpful in implementing and operating water management programs.
B. Facility policy
The Water Management Program Plan, undated, was received by the maintenance director (MTD) on 11/16/23 and read in pertinent part: According to OSHA (2017), water conditions that tend to promote the growth of Legionella include: Stagnation; Temperature between 68 and 122 degrees Fahrenheit; Optimal growth temperature range between 95 and 115 degrees Fahrenheit; pH between 5.0 and 8.5; Sediment that tends to promote growth of associated microflora; and, Other microorganisms that supply nutrients.
Building water sources that frequently provide optimal conditions for the growth of Legionella include:
-Domestic hot water systems with water heaters that operate below 140 degrees Fahrenheit and deliver water to taps below 122 degrees Fahrenheit, components of these may include: Hot and cold water storage tanks; Water filters; Faucets; Showerheads; Aerators; Pipes; Valves; Plumbing fittings; Eyewash stations; and, Other sources of water.
Disease may occur through inhalation of an aerosol of water contaminated with organisms.
Water heating and storage at insufficient temperature may provide favorable growth conditions for Legionella and other bacteria. It is recommended that water be heated and stored above 140 degrees Fahrenheit. It is the practice of the facility to heat and store water at a minimum temperature of 158 degrees Fahrenheit to minimize the potential for insufficient heating due to tank sediment accumulation.
High-temperature hot water, greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit, is mixed with cold water to reduce temperature to a range of 105-120 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent potential scalding of users. Most adult water temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit will minimize the risk of scalding.
Tempered hot water, 105 - 120 degrees Fahrenheit, is circulated through a loop system to provide hot water at the end point of use within a reasonable time of demand. Hot water circulation should be maintained above the Legionella growth range at a temperature of 124 degrees Fahrenheit. The facility has evaluated this temperature recommendation and finds that it conflicts with the state regulation regarding temperature at the point of use and that it may pose an unacceptable risk of scalding. The circulation loop temperature of 105 to 120 degrees Fahrenheit reduces the potential for hot water injury, however, it increases the risk of potential bacterial growth as it is within the Legionella growth range.
Control measures
The following control measures and control limits are established for water heating, storage, and hot water distribution: check each location as listed;
-Hot water heater: check temperature weekly for a range of 155 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit;
-Hot water storage tank: check temperature weekly for a range of 155 to 160 degrees Fahrenheit;
- Unused shower fixtures in resident rooms and central showers: flow the water twice per week, run water until the hot faucet runs hot and the cold faucet runs cold.
Monitoring and corrective action:
Ongoing monitoring and documentation of control measures will be accomplished by the maintenance director. The results of the monitoring will be documented on logs contained in attachment four under the water management documentation tab. Corrective action will be taken for control measures that are outside of control limits.
The Legionella Water Management Program policy, dated September 2022, was received by the NHA on 11/16/23 and read in pertinent part: Our facility is committed to the prevention, detection, and control of water-borne contamination, including Legionella. As part of the infection prevention and control program, our facility has a water management program, which is overseen by the water management team.
The purpose of the water management program is to identify areas in the water system where Legionella bacteria can grow and spread and to reduce the risk of Legionnaires' disease.
The water management program used by our facility is based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for developing a Legionella water management program.
The identification of areas in the water system that could encourage the growth and spread of Legionella or other waterborne bacteria, including the following: Storage tanks; water heaters; filters; aerators; showerheads and hoses; misters, atomizers, air washers, and humidifiers; and medical devices.
Specific measures used to control the introduction and/or spread of Legionella.
C. Record review
The Water Treatment Program Agreement, dated 9/26/23, was received by the NHA on 11/16/23 and read in pertinent part: The Chem-Aqua Water Treatment Program is an important step in achieving efficient operation and extending the useful life of valuable cooling and heating equipment.
Chem-Aqua's treatment of biological growth is for the purpose of reducing the risk of that growth causing damage to the equipment, or otherwise interfering with the operation of the system, and is not meant to protect against the risks from exposure to biological growth.
This contract does not include Legionella risk assessments or a Legionella risk management program. Chem-Aqua is providing services described in this agreement only, and no services relating to Legionella Risk Management beyond normal minimization of biological fouling.
On 11/16/23, the maintenance director (MTD) provided the water temperature testing documentation from the direct supply electronic logbook. The logbook contained the following documentation:
1. Documentation of water temperature checks within the facility: The form documented that on 11/11/23, the water temperatures were tested in fifteen locations. The locations were faucets on each unit and two unit showers. The temperatures of the flowing water ranged from 106 to 109 degrees Fahrenheit.
-The temperature range of flowing water is effective in reducing hot temperature scalding but would increase the risk for legionella.
2. The Legionella Water Management Control Measure log sheet, dated 2023, revealed the hot water storage tank was flushed and drained in October 2023 (no day of the month date), and the unoccupied areas (not specified) were flushed monthly and before occupancy.
-The facility failed to follow up with additional monitoring for Legionella when the circulating water temperature was not hot enough to prevent the growth of Legionella.
D. Staff interviews
The MTD was interviewed on 11/16//23 at 11:37 a.m. He said the facility had a contract with a water treatment company to monitor and treat the facility's water. He said the water treatment company tested water temperatures and the pH level of the water to monitor for potential Legionella growth. He said he also monitored water temperatures in the facility and flushed lines of unoccupied rooms every month. The MTD said he was unaware the water temperatures entered on his logbook were in a range that increased the risk for the growth of Legionella. He said that he did not have additional water temperatures from the boiler or storage tanks.
The MTD said he was unaware the water treatment company contract did not include testing or treatments to prevent the growth of Legionella.
The NHA was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 3: 30 p.m. He said the water management program was multidisciplinary and included himself, the director of nursing, the medical director, and the MTD. The NHA said he was unfamiliar with specific water monitoring requirements or water temperature ranges and what areas of the facility required monitoring because he was recently hired. He said the water management program was reviewed monthly and was unaware of concerns with Legionella within the facility. The NHA said he would review the water management program, the contract with the water treatment company, and the MTD.
II. Standard precautions for resident glucometers
A. Professional reference
Institute for Safe Medical Practices. (July 2021). Infection transmission risk with shared glucometers, fingerstick devices, and insulin pens. https://www.ismp.org/resources/infection-transmission-risk-shared-glucometers-fingerstick-devices-and-insulin-pens retrieved on 11/7/23.
Whenever possible, blood glucometers should not be shared. If they must be shared, each device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per the manufacturer's instructions.
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Chemical Disinfectants Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, reviewed September 2016, retrieved on 11/28/23 from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-methods/chemical.html In the healthcare setting, alcohol refers to two water-soluble chemical compounds-ethyl alcohol and isopropyl alcohol-that have generally underrated germicidal characteristics. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has not cleared any liquid chemical sterilant or high-level disinfectant with alcohol as the main active ingredient. These alcohols are rapidly bactericidal rather than bacteriostatic against vegetative forms of bacteria; they also are tuberculocidal, fungicidal, and virucidal but do not destroy bacterial spores.
B. Manufacturer guidelines
Evencare G3 meter manufacturer cleaning and disinfecting procedure guidelines, provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 11/1/23 at 1:50 p.m, included the following guidelines,
The Evencare G3 meter should be cleaned and disinfected between each patient.
CaviWipes germicidal wipes manufacturer guidelines (2023), https://www.metrex.com/en-us/caviwipes1v retrieved on 11/22/23, included the following guidelines,
One minute contact time for virucidal, bactericidal (including tuberculosis) activity.
Medline Micro Kill germicidal bleach wipes manufacturer guidelines (2022), https://www.medline.com/media/catalog/Docs/MKT/LIT998_CAT_Healthcare%20Disinfectant%20W.pdf, retrieved on 11/22/23, included the following guidelines,
Thirty (30) second contact time for human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis A, B and C, with a contact time of one minute for Candida albicans, two minutes for Candida auris and three minutes for Clostridium difficile.
C. Observations
On 11/15/23 at 7:15 a.m. registered nurse (RN) #7 removed and unlabeled glucometer from the medication cart. The glucometer used to check blood glucose levels was not labeled for a particular resident.
RN #7 proceeded to check Resident #34's morning glucose level. After pricking the resident's finger to obtain a blood sample and applied the sample to a test strip which was then put into the glucometer. Once the procedure was completed the nurse returned the glucometer to the medication cart and removed the test strip from the device for disposal then she wiped down the glucometer with a small two-inch alcohol wipe.
Micro Kill Bleach wipes were observed sitting on hallway isolation carts throughout the facility.
D. Staff interviews
RN #7 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 7:20 a.m. She said she only had one glucometer for seven residents on her unit that required blood glucose. She said that blood glucometers needed to be wiped down with Clorox wipes. She said that the facility had run out of bleach wipes and she had used just an alcohol wipe. She said there may be bleach wipes stored in the central storage room. She said the dwell time for the bleach wipes was three minutes.
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 7:30 a.m. He said that his medication cart had designated individual glucometers for residents. He said he used CaviWipes and that the disinfectant contact time was 15-30 seconds.
LPN #3 was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 7:35 a.m. She said her medication cart had designated individual glucometers for residents. She said bleach germicidal wipes were used to clean the
Wipes had a contact disinfectant time of 15-20 seconds.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/15/23 at 8:29 a.m. She said residents should have their individual labeled glucometers. The glucometers should be cleaned after each using the CaviWipes or the Bleach wipes. She said the manufacturer's directions should be followed for the contact disinfectant time for the glucometers.
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.
Observations and record review revealed the facility was in outbreak status as of 10/29/23 when a resident presented with symptoms of and then tested positive for COVID-19.
On 11/13/23, at the start of the survey, the facility had 26 residents present with COVID-19 like symptoms, 25 tested positive with the rapid antigen test, and one tested positive with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.
There were 18 staff, most of whom had symptoms and some who did not, who tested positive for COVID-19.
Staff who tested positive for COVID-19 were placed on sick leave for 10 days and residents who tested positive were placed on isolation for 10 days. Some residents who were in isolation were observed out of their rooms wandering the halls without a mask covering their mouths or noses and/or sitting in their doorway facing the hallway without masks on. Staff were not encouraging the residents to remain in isolation and they were not encouraging the residents spending time in common areas to wear any type of face covering.
Staff were observed entering resident rooms where one or both residents were in isolation without putting on full protective personal equipment (PPE), including a procedure gown, gloves and eye protection. Staff were observed entering resident isolation rooms to collect resident meal trays without putting on PPE and placing the used meal trays back into the kitchen delivery cart. Those carts were observed in use and in transport throughout the survey (11/13/23 to 11/16/23) the carts were only cleaned on the outside and with no internal disinfection between meal service despite potentially contaminated trays with dirty dishes being placed back on the carts after use by residents diagnosed with COVID-19.
On 11/15/23, daily rapid tests revealed an additional 21 new cases of residents testing positive for COVID-19.
Observations, record review and staff interviews from 11/13/23 to 11/16/23 revealed multiple and repeated failures in the facility's infection control program, creating a situation for the likely transmission of COVID-19.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure staff encouraged and assisted residents to remain in isolation for the determined amount of time after testing positive for COVID-19;
-Ensure staff properly wore personal protective equipment (PPE) throughout the facility, and when caring for residents in isolation and quarantine;
-Ensure staff encouraged residents to wear masks when in common areas and to socially distance to prevent the spread of illness;
-Ensure shared equipment was properly disinfected between use (particularly with the food delivery carts and the shared mechanical lift);
-Ensure the staff followed proper hand hygiene procedures when moving from task to task;
-Ensure a shared glucometer (device used to test blood sugar levels) was properly sanitized between resident use; and,
-Ensure the facility monitored the water system for the growth of Legionella.
Findings include:
I. Professional references
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), updated 5/8/23, retrieved on 11/29/23, from https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/infection-control-recommendations.html#
Recommended infection prevention and control (IPC) practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.
-In general, asymptomatic patients do not require empiric use of Transmission-Based Precautions while being evaluated for SARS-CoV-2 following close contact with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection. These patients should still wear source control.
-Place a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in a single-person room. The door should be kept closed (if safe to do so). Ideally, the patient should have a dedicated bathroom.
-If cohorting, only patients with the same respiratory pathogen should be housed in the same room.
-Limit transport and movement of the patient outside of the room to medically essential purposes.
HCPs (health care professionals) who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use a NIOSH Approved particulate respirator with N95 filters or higher, gown, gloves, and eye protection (goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face).
In general, patients should continue to wear source control until symptoms resolve or, for those who never developed symptoms, until they meet the criteria to end isolation below. Then they should revert to the usual facility source control policies for patients.
-Patients with mild to moderate illness who are not moderately to severely immunocompromised:
At least 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared and
At least 24 hours have passed since last fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and
Symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath) have improved
-Patients who were asymptomatic throughout their infection and are not moderately to severely immunocompromised.
At least 10 days have passed since the date of their first positive viral test.
As SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the community increases, the potential for encountering asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection also likely increases. In these circumstances, healthcare facilities should consider implementing broader use of respirators and eye protection by HCP during patient care encounters as described below.
NIOSH Approved particulate respirators with N95 filters or higher used for:
-All aerosol-generating procedures.
-NIOSH-approved particulate respirators with N95 filters or higher can also be used by HCP working in other situations where additional risk factors for transmission are present, such as when the patient is unable to use source control and the area is poorly ventilated. They may also be considered if healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 transmission is identified and universal respirator use by HCP working in affected areas is not already in place.
-To simplify implementation, facilities in counties with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission may consider implementing universal use of NIOSH Approved particulate respirators with N95 filters or higher for HCP during all patient care encounters or in specific units or areas of the facility at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
-Eye protection (i.e., goggles or a face shield that covers the front and sides of the face) worn during all patient care encounters.
In the event of ongoing transmission within a facility that is not controlled with initial interventions, strong consideration should be given to use of Empiric use of Transmission-Based Precautions for residents and work restriction of HCP with higher-risk exposures.
II. Facility policy
The Infection Control policy, revised October 2018, was received on 11/13/23 from the nursing home administrator (NHA) and read in pertinent part: The facility's infection control policies and practices are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent and manage the transmission of diseases and infection.
The facility's infection control policies and practices apply equally to all personnel, residents, visitors and the general public.
The objectives of our infection control policies and practices are to:
-Prevent, detect, investigate and control infections in the facility;
-Maintain a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the general public;
-Establish guidelines for implementing Isolation Precautions including Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions;
-Establish guidelines for the availability and accessibility of supplies and equipment necessary for Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions;
-Maintain records of incidents and corrective actions related to infection; and,
-Provide guidelines for the safe cleaning and reprocessing of reusable resident-care equipment.
The Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, dated April 2019, was received on 11/13/23 from the NHA and read in pertinent part: The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections.
All personnel shall be trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in the prevention of the transmission of healthcare-associated infections.
All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors.
Wash hands with soap and water for the following situations: When hands are visibly soiled; and, after contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including, but not limited to infections caused by norovirus, salmonella, shigella and C. difficile.
Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol or soap and water for the following situations:
-Before and after coming on duty;
-Before and after direct contact with residents;
-Before donning sterile gloves;
-Before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care;
-After contact with a resident's intact skin;
-After contact with blood or bodily fluids;
-After handling use dressing, contaminated equipment, etc,;
-After contact with objects (medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the resident;
-After removing gloves;
-Before and after entering isolation isolation precaution settings;
-Before and after eating or handling food;
-Before and after assisting a resident with meals; and,
-After personal use of the toilet or conducting your personal hygiene.
Hand hygiene is the final step after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment.
The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene as the best practice for preventing healthcare-associated infections.
Single-use disposable gloves should be used: Before aseptic procedures; When anticipating contact with blood or bodily fluids; and, When in contact with a resident, or the equipment or environment of a resident, who is on contact precautions.
The Personal Protective Equipment policy, dated October 2018, was received on 11/15/23 from the NHA and read in pertinent part: Personal protective equipment appropriate to specific task requirements is available at all times.
PPE provided to our personnel includes but is not necessarily limited to: Gowns/aprons/lab coats; gloves; masks; and eyewear. A supply of protective clothing and equipment is maintained at each nurses' station. PPE required for transmission-based precautions is maintained outside and inside the resident's room, as needed.
The Isolation-Initiating Transmission-Based Precautions policy, dated August 2019, was received from the NHA on 11/15/23 and read in pertinent part: Transmission-based precautions are initiated when a resident develops signs and symptoms of a transmissible infection; arrives for admission with symptoms of an infection; or has a laboratory-confirmed infection; and is at risk of transmitting the infection to other residents. Transmission-based precautions may include contact precautions, droplet precautions, or airborne precautions. Transmission-based precautions remain in effect until the physician or infection preventionist discontinues them, which occurs after criteria for discontinuation are met.
III. Observations and resident interviews
The facility was observed on 11/13/23 from 8:30 a.m. to 11:33 a.m. The following observations were made:
Residents were observed in the hallways throughout the resident units without any masks or face coverings. Some residents had masks hanging on the armrest or back push handles of their wheelchairs. The staff did not encourage any of the residents to put on a mask for their protection.
Residents in the memory support unit were mingling in the common area without staff's assistance in wearing masks or social distancing.
Staff through the hallways of the Columbine unit were observed delivering and picking up meal trays and entering resident rooms that had signage indicating that resident(s) in the room were on isolation with droplet precautions in place and not putting on any additional PPE including procedure gloves, a procedure gown, or eye protection. Once the COVID-19 positive resident's meal tray was removed from the resident's room, the staff placed the tray on the meal cart and proceeded to gather the next resident's meal tray. Staff were not only observed not wearing full PPE when entering the room of a COVID-19 positive resident, staff were observed removing several room trays without performing hand hygiene in between entering resident rooms and handling resident trays.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was observed in the 1500 hallway collecting room trays from COVID-19 positive and non-COVID-19 positive resident rooms without full PPE and without performing hand hygiene in between each encounter with each resident.
CNA #6 was observed in the 1300 hallway collecting room trays from COVID-19 positive and non-COVID-19 positive resident rooms without full PPE and without performing hand hygiene in between each encounter with each resident.
CNA #3 was observed entering Resident #1701's room to deliver milk to the resident who was on isolation for COVID-19 without putting on any additional PPE or performing hand hygiene upon exiting the resident's room.
Resident #122 was interviewed at 9:51 a.m. Resident #122 said he had recently tested positive for COVID-19. His roommate (Resident #117) tested positive for COVID-19 days ago. Resident #122 said the staff never moved him from the room after his roommate tested positive. Resident #122 said he was compliant with the isolation restriction except for keeping his door closed because the bed was long and extended past the door frame. Resident #122 said his roommate was not compliant with the isolation restriction and was in and out of the room several times a day and he did not wear a mask.
At 11:33 a.m., CNA #1 was observed removing meal trays from a COVID-19 positive isolation room and placing the used tray on the hallway cart where the staff's unused PPE was stored.
At 11:49 a.m. a housekeeper (HSK) was observed cleaning a resident's room where the resident was on isolation due to a COVID-19 infection. The HSK did not put on protective eyewear while cleaning the resident's room.
Resident #117, who was COVID-19 positive and was still supposed to be on in-room isolation was observed in the hallway sitting in his wheelchair without a mask on. Resident #117 looked unwell and said he was not good.
Resident #29 was interviewed at 11:35 a.m. Resident #29 said the facility did not enforce COVID-19 restrictions with resident isolation. Resident #29 said residents who were supposed to be in isolation were allowed out of their rooms and not made to wear masks and other residents without COVID-19 were allowed to visit residents who were in isolation and did not have to wear a mask. Resident #29 said this concerned him because he did not want to get COVID-19.
At 12:32 p.m., CNA #14 delivered lunch trays to both residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] (both residents were COVID-19 positive). The residents' room had an isolation cart just outside the door but there was no signage to indicate that the two residents inside were on isolation or any type of transmission-based precautions. The CNA did not put on gloves or a gown to enter the residents' room.
At 12:32 p.m., an unidentified CNA was observed entering resident room [ROOM NUMBER] where the resident in the room was in isolation due to a diagnosis of COVID-19. The CNA did not put on the additional PPE (gloved, gown, or eye protection) that was supplied just outside of the resident's door in the isolation cart. The CNA assisted the resident with repositioning and then exited the resi[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional and comfortable environment for resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a backflow prevention device was installed on the hand held shower hose in room [ROOM NUMBER], #1308 and the shower room on 1400 hall, increasing the risk of contamination to the facility's main water supply.
Findings include:
I. Backflow prevention devices
A. Professional references
According to the Environmental Protection Agency's Distribution System Water Quality Protecting Water Quality through Cross-Connection Control and Backflow Prevention, October 2021 rerieved on line 11/22/23 from: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-12/ds-toolbox-fact-sheets_ccc.pdf, it read in pertinent part,
Cross-connections are actual or potential connections between a potable water supply and non-potable water plumbing. Backflow is the unintended reversal of water flow through a cross-connection, which can result in a potentially serious public health hazard. A cross-connection control and backflow prevention program helps prevent contaminants from entering a drinking water distribution system. This fact sheet is part of EPA's (Environmental Protection Agency) Distribution System Toolbox developed to summarize best management practices that public water systems (PWSs), particularly small systems, can use to maintain distribution system water quality and protect public health.
B. Observation
Observations of the resident living environment conducted on 11/15/23 at 3:30 p.m. revealed:
The hand held shower head on the 1400 hall shower room, showers in resident room [ROOM NUMBER], and #1308 did not have a backflow prevention valve on them. The hand held shower head was long enough to sit on the side on the floor next to the drain. There was visible standing water at the base of the shower pans.
II. Staff Interview
The maintenance director (MTD) was interviewed on 11/16/23 at 10:13 a.m. He acknowledged he was not familiar with the backflow valve protocol. The MTD was given a description of what the backflow prevention valve was and its purpose. The MTD said the hose on the 1400 hall shower and the hand held showers in resident room [ROOM NUMBER], and #1308 should have had a backflow prevention valve. He said he would check to see where he could get one.