CRITICAL
(K)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B. Resident #73
1. Resident status
Resident #73, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, d...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B. Resident #73
1. Resident status
Resident #73, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included monoplegia (paralysis) of upper limb affecting left non-dominant side, muscle weakness, generalized, and epileptic seizures related to external causes, not intractable, without status epilepticus.
The 2/14/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He required one-person limited assistance for dressing.
Review of Resident #73's comprehensive care plan, initiated 12/12/19, and revised 9/28/2020, revealed the resident was a smoker and had a smoking care plan to ensure his success with the facility smoking policy. Pertinent interventions included encouraging the resident to have his smoking materials in the smoking cart, reviewing the resident quarterly for a smoking assessment, ensuring the resident smoked during supervised smoking times, monitoring the resident's behaviors during smoke breaks, and noting times the resident was seen smoking in undesignated areas and times.
Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 12:26 p.m. RN #1 said Resident #73 was a supervised smoker. She said the facility had designated smoking times for the residents. She said there was a staff member with the residents during the smoking times to supervise them
2. Resident interview and observation
Resident #73 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:25 p.m. Resident #73 said he smoked a pack of cigarettes every two days. He said he had his own cigarettes and lighter, and the staff did not keep his smoking supplies for him. He said the staff did not supervise him when he smoked, and he did not wear any type of protective apron when he smoked. He said residents were supposed to smoke in the designated smoking gazebo outside the north entrance of the facility.
On 4/7/21 at 2:04 p.m., Resident #73 was observed sitting outside in the parking lot on the north side of the facility. He was sitting in his wheelchair smoking a cigarette. He was not in the designated gazebo smoking area. There was no staff member present for supervision while Resident #73 smoked his cigarette.
3. Review of Resident #73's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident had a known history of failing to comply with the facility's smoking policy and procedures. Progress notes read:
-2/13/2020: Resident was smoking a cigarette during nonsmoking time. He was unwilling to leave facility property.
-2/17/2020: Social services reviewed and obtained signature in regards to resident's violation of smoking agreement. The Notice of Formal Written Warning was signed by the resident.
-3/19/2020: NHA witnessed Resident #73 smoking unsupervised and during non-designated smoking times, which is a violation of the smoking agreement. NHA asked the resident to put out his cigarette and the resident refused. NHA reminded him that he has to smoke during designated times and be supervised. Also, that he is not allowed to have smoking paraphernalia on him. Resident replied he doesn't care.
-3/23/2020: Resident was noted smoking on property during a non smoking time. Resident asked to put it out and or to go off of property. Resident refused.
- 6/26/2020: Writer observed resident smoking during non-designated times and smoking in a non-designated smoking area. NHA asked the resident to go off property to smoke and not to smoke next to the entrance of the building. Resident told this writer in an aggressive tone, go on inside, I hear you and continued to smoke.
-9/2/2020: Social services coordinator (SSC) spoke to resident regarding his non-compliance with the facility smoking policy to discuss interventions that can be put into place in order to promote his success with said policy to avoid discharge.
-1/8/21: Resident refused to sign smoking agreement for the new year.
Review of Resident #73's EMR revealed a facility smoking agreement dated 1/8/21. It confirmed Resident #73 had refused to sign the smoking agreement.
Further review of the resident's EMR revealed the resident had received a Notice of Formal Written Warning on 2/17/2020 for violation of the facility's smoking policy. The warning read in pertinent part, The facility's policy is to issue one warning with the first violation of the smoking policy. This document serves as your formal warning. If subsequent violations occur, the next step will be to issue a 30-day discharge notice due to safety concerns. The signature below indicates you have received the written warning and understand the consequences related to your actions. Your signature also indicates your understanding that the next violation of the smoking policy will result in a 30-day discharge notice. Resident #73 signed the warning on 2/17/2020.
The Smoking Safety Screen assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #73 had dexterity problems and had been known to smoke in non-designated places. The assessment further documented the resident had been educated on correct areas and times for smoking.
3. Failure to take sufficient steps to address the resident's noncompliance and unsafe smoking.
Record review revealed no revisions to the resident's care plan to address his noncompliance or to promote his safety when smoking. His dexterity problems were not identified and addressed. Any interventions discussed with the SSC on 9/2/2020 were not incorporated into the resident's care plan, even though record review revealed current interventions were ineffective. There was no evidence the facility had considered new interventions such as increasing supervision.
C. Resident #67
1. Resident status
Resident #67, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included acquired absence of right leg below knee, other chronic osteomyelitis, unspecified site, polyneuropathy, unspecified, unspecified convulsions, and acquired absence of other left toes.
The 3/5/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene.
Review of Resident #67's comprehensive care plan, initiated 5/1/19, and revised 2/9/2020, revealed the resident was a smoker. The care plan further revealed the resident understood the smoking policy, but refused to follow it or sign the smoking agreement. The resident also kept his smoking materials with him. Pertinent interventions included conducting a smoking assessment quarterly, annually, with a significant change, and as needed, continuing to remind the resident of the smoking agreement and policy, encouraging the resident to keep his smoking materials locked up while he was in the building, and remind the resident of smoking times and the policy if he was seen smoking on the facility property.
RN #1 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 12:26 p.m. RN #1 said Resident #67 was a supervised smoker.
2. Resident interview and review of the resident's EMR revealed the resident had a known history of failing to comply with the facility's smoking policy and procedures.
Resident #67 was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 11:16 a.m. Resident #67 said he was not supervised when he was smoking. He said he usually took his wheelchair off facility property when he smoked. He said he kept his cigarettes and lighter in his room.
Review of Resident #67's EMR revealed the following progress notes:
-5/26/2020: Around 4:00 p.m., this nurse was informed that Resident #67 went to the smoking area and started having a seizure. 911 was called and the resident was sent to the emergency room.
-6/17/2020: Resident #67 is a smoker who has been noted to not be compliant with the facility smoking policy. Resident is currently seeking placement in the community.
-1/8/21: Resident refused to sign smoking agreement for the new year.
Further review of Resident #67's EMR revealed a facility smoking agreement dated 1/8/21. It confirmed Resident #67 had refused to sign the smoking agreement.
The Smoking Safety Screen assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #67 had dexterity problems. The assessment further documented the resident had been informed of and encouraged to safely follow the smoking policy.
3. Failure to take sufficient steps to address the resident's non-compliance with facility policy.
Record review revealed no revisions to the resident's care plan to address his noncompliance or to promote his safety when smoking, even though record review demonstrated current interventions were ineffective. There was no evidence the facility had considered new interventions to promote compliance with facility policy and procedure. Further, there were no interventions to increase the resident's supervision to address the safety concerns raised by his seizure while in the smoking area 5/26/2020. Finally, his dexterity problems were not identified and addressed.
D. Resident #46
1. Resident status
Resident #46, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included diffuse traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, post traumatic seizures, epilepsy, unspecified, not intractable without status epilepticus, vascular dementia without behavioral disturbances, and Parkinson's disease.
The 2/11/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 13 out of 15. He required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. He required one-person extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene.
Review of Resident #46's comprehensive care plan, initiated 8/17/2020, and revised 4/8/21 (during survey), revealed the resident was a smoker. Pertinent interventions included encouraging the resident to have his smoking materials in the smoking cart, reviewing the resident quarterly for a smoking assessment, the resident smoking during supervised smoking times, monitoring the resident's behaviors during smoke breaks and noting times he was seen smoking in undesignated areas and at undesignated times, and staff assessing the resident for any holes in his clothes and/or burns on his fingers related to smoking.
2. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 12:59 p.m., Resident #46 was observed sitting in his wheelchair outside the north entrance of the facility. He was smoking a cigarette in a non-smoking area. There were no staff members present outside while the resident was smoking.
3. Review of Resident #46's EMR revealed the following progress notes that the resident continued to smoke, although he was not an approved smoker and not allowed to smoke on facility property.
-8/17/2020: SSC educated resident on the smoking policy, helping him to understand that the facility is a non-smoking environment and the resident was not grandfathered into the facility to indulge in smoking. Resident expressed his understanding of this.
-9/1/2020: SSD observed resident smoking late yesterday while leaving the building. SSD educated resident that he was not an approved smoker and would not be allowed to smoke on the property. Resident #46 stated that he understood and would not smoke anymore.
-9/3/2020: Resident was observed smoking in the smoking area. Resident was not grandfathered in to be able to smoke on the facility grounds since we are a smoke free facility. NHA informed him that he is not allowed to smoke on grounds. Resident understood and put out his cigarette. Social Service will follow up.
-9/3/2020: SSC met with resident regarding recent sightings of him smoking. SSC drafted a written warning educating resident that he is not allowed to smoke because he is not a grandfathered smoker. SSC offered resident multiple means to help curb his craving including a nicotine patch which he openly expressed desire to have. SSC will collaborate with nursing staff and resident's DR. in order to provide him with materials that will promote his success.
-9/13/2020: Social services director (SSD) saw resident in the smoking area again today. SSD educated Resident #46 that he was not an approved smoker. Resident stated that he didn't care, but did put his cigarette out and toss it so that it could not be re-lit. SSD called up to the nurse to inquire about nicotine patch, nurse stated that patch has been ordered and is available, but resident has refused to put it on.
-9/22/2020: Resident continues to smoke despite interventions put in place to help curb his craving and continuous education on why he is unable to smoke. Interventions include having the nicotine patch ordered for him, as well as providing him with mints and gum. He continues to deny he ever started smoking but continues to be observed doing so. When the resident was asked what else SSC can do for him to help this, he is unable to express his needs at this time. SSC will continue to follow up and observe as needed.
-9/24/2020: Recently, resident has been noted to take up smoking and as he is not a grandfathered smoker he was educated by the interdisciplinary team as to why he is not allowed to smoke and given choices as to what his options are to help him quit. SSC will continue to follow resident as needed and will continue success with anti-smoking program.
-10/6/2020: Resident observed smoking in smoking area, outside of designated smoking times. Reminded the resident that he is not included in the smoking agreement and is not allowed to smoke at the facility. Resident voiced understanding and put out cigarette.
- 10/7/2020: SSC spoke with Resident #46 regarding creating a plan to help him stop smoking as he is not a grandfathered smoker in the facility. Resident made it abundantly clear to SSC that he did not want any rewards or incentives in order to help him stop smoking as he has no desire to stop.
-10/11/2020: Writer observed resident smoking in smoking area.
-3/12/21: Administration note: Nicotine Patch 24 hour 14 milligram/24 hours. Apply one patch transdermally one time a day for tobacco abuse. Resident is still smoking. Patch not recommended when smoking.
Review of Resident #46's EMR revealed a facility smoking agreement dated 4/8/21 (during the survey). Resident #46 had signed the smoking agreement, however, there were no previously signed smoking agreements found in the resident's EMR.
Further review of the resident's EMR revealed the resident had received a written smoking notice on 9/3/2020. The notice read in pertinent part, I, Resident #46, am receiving this written notice to acknowledge that I am not a smoker but have been recently noted to pick up smoking. I am signing this document to acknowledge that I have been educated twice now that I am not a grandfathered smoker and if I continue to do so, I will be given a 30-day notice. Resident #46 had signed the warning on 9/3/2020.
The Smoking Safety Screen assessment dated [DATE] (during the survey) documented Resident #46 had been informed of the smoking rules. The assessment further documented the resident stated he does not smoke and denied smoking within this last year. The assessment did not document that Resident #46 was not a grandfathered smoker.
C. Facility failures in addressing Resident #46's noncompliance.
See care plan above; the resident's care plan failed to identify the resident as not grandfathered in to smoke at any time at the facility. His repeated noncompliance was not noted or specifically addressed. When measures identified in the progress notes were not effective, the facility failed to consider a care conference or interdisciplinary team meeting to discuss additional ways to address his noncompliance.
Further, review of the schedule for Smoking Safety Screen assessments revealed Resident #46 had not had a Smoking Safety Screen assessment conducted prior to 4/8/21, despite the facility staff witnessing the resident smoking on several occasions.
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free from accident hazards as possible, affecting eight out of 15 sample residents (#65, #73, #67, #79, #46, #42, #22 and #10).
Specifically:
SMOKING FAILURES
The facility failed to develop and implement an effective system of oversight and safety interventions to prevent smoking accidents involving Residents #65, #73, #67, #79, #46, #42. Failures included a lack of identification and communication of residents' smoking risks and safe smoking needs, a failure to develop effective smoking interventions, and a failure to take steps to ensure the facility's smoking policy and procedures were implemented.
The facility's failures created a situation with the likelihood of serious harm for Residents #65, #73, #67, #79, #46, #42, all of whom smoked, if immediate action was not taken. Resident #65, who was moderately cognitively impaired and diagnosed with left hemiparesis (weakness), sustained multiple cigarette burns in various stages of healing to the left thigh and left upper extremity, as well as cigarette burns to his clothing and his wheelchair.
EQUIPMENT FAILURES
The facility failed to investigate the root cause and assess Resident #22 for injury when the Hoyer mechanical lift broke and tilted during a transfer, and failed to properly position the [NAME] lift for Resident #10 to prevent an accident.
Findings include:
SMOKING FAILURES
I. Immediate Jeopardy
A. Findings of Immediate Jeopardy
Observation, record review, and interviews with staff and Resident #65 demonstrated the facility did not have an effective system in place to implement safe smoking practices for residents who smoked. Interventions were not implemented to prevent cigarette burns to Resident #65. Resident #65, according to the electronic medical record, had a known history of burns to his wheelchair and upper extremities from cigarette smoking. On 6/3/20, the resident experienced burns to his left upper extremity. There were no new interventions put in place. On 1/7/21 the resident's wheelchair was documented in the electronic medical record to have burns in the seat. No new interventions were implemented.
Resident #65 was observed smoking on 4/7/21 at 4:33 p.m. without being encouraged to wear a smoking apron as his care plan indicated. On 4/8/21 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #65 was observed with three cigarette burns to his left upper extremity and burns to his wheelchair seat.
Interviews revealed staff were not knowledgeable about the safe smoking interventions needed for Resident #65. Record review indicated smoking assessments were not accurate or complete for Resident #65, failing to include his need for an apron or supervision while smoking.
Review of the facility policy revealed all residents who smoked were to be supervised; yet, staff interviews revealed not all were aware of this expectation in the policy. Further, contrary to facility policy, Residents #73, #67 #42 and #79 reported they kept their cigarettes, Residents #73, #67 and #42 kept both their cigarettes and lighter, and Residents #79 and #42 said they smoked when they chose to. Observations revealed Residents #73, #46, and #79 smoking on facility grounds in non designated areas; Residents #73 and #46 were not being supervised Finally, staff was not aware which residents had safe smoking interventions, such as smoking aprons, and unaware which residents currently smoked.
B. Imposition of Immediate Jeopardy
On 4/8/21 at 12:51 p.m., the nursing home administrator (NHA) was informed by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that the facility's failure to take steps to implement the facility's smoking policy, implement safe smoking interventions for residents who smoke and implement interventions to prevent multiple cigarette burns to Resident #65, created a situation of immediate jeopardy with the potential for serious resident harm.
C. Facility response
On 4/9/21 at 2:59 p.m., the facility submitted the following plan (draft #4) to remove the immediate jeopardy. The plan read:
Corrective Action:
On 4/8/2021 at 2:51 p.m., the community implemented one to one (1:1) with resident #65, 24 hours per day, seven days per week when the resident is on the facility's premises. Around the clock 1:1 will be reevaluated following discussion with MHCD (local mental health center).
The nurse practitioner (NP) assessed the resident on 4/8/2021. An NP Acute Progress note stated, Resident #65 has several superficial scattered wounds L (left) lower forearm and L (left) thigh. Patient denies pain or concern about them. Patient declines to have leg examined. Diagnostic Statement: Abrasion of left little finger, Blister (nonthermal) of left forearm, initial encounter, and scar condition and fibrosis of skin. Wound team to assess and follow until resolved. Abrasion to the left little finger is being treated with skin prep.
Assistant director of nursing (ADON) completed head to toe assessment of Resident #65 on 4/8/2021. The ADON observed:
Left Medial wrist
Wound # 1, l x 0.8 scab,
Wound # 2, 1x 0.8 scab,
Wound # 3, 0.7 x 0.7,
Left thumb cluster
Wound #4, 2.0 x 2.0,
Left Pinky
Wound #5, l.3 x 0.7,
Left thigh
Wound #6, left thigh 2 x l.7,
Wound #7, left thigh l.8 x 0.7.
All measurements listed in centimeters (cm). All wounds closed and not needing treatment.
Social Service Coordinator reviewed the smoking agreement with Resident #65 and provided a copy on 4/8/2021.
The community initiated smoking apron and cigarette extender for safety for Resident #65 by 4/8/2021. If resident #65 refused to wear a smoking apron and use cigarette extender resident will be observed 1:1 by Smoking Supervisor. Refusal to wear apron and use extender will be reported to Administrator or designee. Refusals may result in resident losing smoking privileges as designated by the care plan and per community smoking policy up to and including 30 day discharge from community.
Director of Rehab ordered Resident #65 a bag for his wheelchair to hold smoking adaptive equipment for when he leaves Saint [NAME]'s premises. Resident #65's 1:1 will ensure resident has his smoking adaptive equipment in the bag prior to resident leaving St. [NAME]'s premises.
The community ordered flame-resistant clothing for Resident #65 on 4/8/2021. The flame resistant clothing will arrive by Tuesday, April 13, 2021.
Director of Nursing educated resident on how to safely use cigarette extender and smoking apron on 4/8/2021.
Smoking supervisor/designee will load and unload Resident #65's cigarette extender during designated smoking times.
On 4/8/2021 Resident #65 agreed for Saint [NAME] Health Center to search his room if Saint [NAME] has probable cause. Community will request permission with resident each time a search may be indicated.
On 4/9/2021 the community will begin to collaborate with Resident #65's mental health provider to develop a behavior management program to keep Resident #65 safe.
On 4/9/2021, the Director of Nursing (DON) offered Resident #65 an e (electronic) cigarette. Resident refused intervention.
Social Service Coordinator/designee conducted a full house audit to identify residents that are smoking on 4/9/2021. 11 residents were identified as actively smoking. On 4/5/2021 it was initially reported that 15 residents were smoking however the audit conducted on 4/9/2021 indicated 4 residents have quit smoking.
Social Service Director/designee will audit all residents who are identified as a resident who smokes to confirm accurate and current smoking safety screens, smoking agreements, and care plans to be completed by 4/9/2021. On 4/9/2021 Director of Nursing reviewed smoking safety screens, smoking agreement and care plans for accuracy.
By 4/9/2021, Nurse/designee completed a skin observation tool for all residents who smoke. Nurse/designee documented results on Skin Observation tool. Results were communicated to IDT (Social Services, Nursing Administration, Administrator and Assistant Administrator) if burn marks were observed on resident's clothing, wheelchair, and cushion a high risk progress note would be completed. IDT will review the dash board during morning meeting for high risk progress notes.
Systemic Measures:
Director of Nursing/designee will provide education to all staff regarding smoking policy by 4/8/2021. Education includes the facility will provide a safe smoking environment that ensures the health and well-being of all members of the SPHC community. Smoking on campus is only allowed during the scheduled smoking times of: 7:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.,1:30 p.m. to 2:00 p.m., 4:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., 7:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
A staff member must be present during smoking times for residents. All residents are considered supervised for smoking.
If a staff member identifies burns, ashes, or holes in clothing on a resident, they will immediately report to the SS (social services), Nurse, and/or NHA. A skin assessment, a risk report, smoking safety screen and notifications to family will be completed.
Tobacco products, e-cigarettes and smoking materials must be stored in smoking cart. If smoking materials are visualized in room, the staff will request to move the materials to the smoking cart. If any resistance from resident a call must be placed to facility management to report concerns.
Residents are not to buy, borrow, trade, or give cigarettes/smoking materials to any other resident or visitors.
Smoking supervision will be provided by an assigned member of the interdisciplinary or direct care staff as follows:
Obtaining smoking materials and smoking products from the smoking cart.
-Escort the residents to the designated smoking area.
-Assistance with removal of oxygen apparatus, if applicable.
-Assistance with application of smoking apron, if applicable.
-Providing/lighting the tobacco product for the resident once they have arrived in the designated smoking area and/or loading their e-cigarette.
-Monitor the smoking process until the tobacco product is extinguished.
-Monitor the use of ashtrays and disposal of used tobacco products and e-cartridges.
If a resident does not follow the smoking safety rules, the resident will be reassessed by direct care staff with the interdisciplinary team. If unsafe, residents may lose smoking privileges as designated by the care plan.
If a resident is unable or unwilling to follow their safe smoking care plan, social services will coordinate additional education, assessment, and notifications to address smoking safety and residents' rights. This may include verbal or written warnings indicating the consequences of continued unsafe smoking, and family/responsible party, physician, and ombudsmen notification.
Smoking Interventions for resident #65:
-Must wear a smoking apron.
-Must use extender on cigarettes.
-Will have a one on one monitoring him.
Starting 4/9/2021 Director of Nursing/designee will train all staff on how to properly use smoking adaptive equipment.
Starting 4/9/2021 education is to be provided to resident by Social Services/designee about interventions identified on smoking safety screen.
Quality Improvement Specialist will complete education with social services on Smoking Safety Screen by 4/8/2021.
Director of Nursing/designee will educate all new employees on Saint [NAME]'s Smoking Policy prior to working the floor.
Starting on 4/9/2021, Social Service Coordinator/designee will develop and implement a tool, Smoking Cliff Note to have in the smoking cart for staff to reference on residents who have smoking adaptive equipment. Social Service Coordinator/designee will update as needed.
Social Service Director/designee will train all staff on Smoking Observation Form. Designated Smoking Supervisor will complete a Smoking Observation Form at every designated smoke time starting 4/9/2021.
Starting 4/9/2021, prior to locking the Smoking Safety Screen, Social Services/designee will review quarterly per MDS schedule the screen with IDT for accuracy and interventions, if indicated.
Starting 4/9/2021 SSC/designee will review Saint [NAME]'s Smoking Policy and Smoking Agreement with all residents who smoke as well as provide them a copy by 4/9/2021.
Starting 4/9/2021 the nurse is to notify nursing management if a resident refuses a weekly skin observation or bath. All refusals will be reassessed by nursing management.
Monitoring:
Social Services Director/designee will complete audits of all smoking safety screens, smoking agreements, and care plans weekly based off the (minimum data set (MDS) schedule, policy violations, and change of conditions starting 4/8/2021.
NHA/designee will review Smoking Observation Form in morning clinical meetings Monday Friday. On Saturday and Sunday the manager on duty will review Smoking Observation Form.
Screener/designee will monitor 24 hours/day via camera or in person the smoking area during unsupervised times for four weeks, and if no issue is identified, the IDT can determine how often going forward.
D. Removal of immediate jeopardy
On 4/9/21 at 3:54 p.m., the NHA was notified the immediate jeopardy had been removed based on observations that the facility was taking steps to begin implementation of the above correction action plan. However, based on observations, interviews, and record review, deficient practice remained at a G (actual harm that is isolated).
II. Facility policy and procedure
A. The Smoking Policy, reviewed 8/20/15, was received from the director of nursing (DON) on 4/8/21 at 12:49 p.m. The policy documented in pertinent part:
This policy includes the use of tobacco in cigarettes, pipes, cigars and vapors from electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). An illicit drug free environment will be maintained, including but not limited to medical marijuana. Colavria maintains smoke free facilities, with designated outdoor smoking areas. To sustain a safe environment, a smoking safety screen should be performed on admission, quarterly with a potential change of condition or behavior and as needed.
The facility may impose smoking restrictions on residents at any time if the resident cannot smoke safely with the available levels of support and supervision. The facility may also conduct room and body searches in situations of a resident not complying with smoking privileges and creating a safety risk to others. If resident behavior or choices place them or others at risk, it may be necessary to consider a 30-day or emergency discharge notice. However, every effort will be made to partner with residents to safely accommodate their preference to smoke.
Smoking times may be scheduled by the Community for all residents, or individualized as designated in a residents' care plan. Smoking paraphernalia will be kept at the nursing station for all residents. Residents may not manage or store their own cigarettes and lighters, and must follow the safety rules, including oxygen management.
Safety Rules: All residents that smoke must follow safety rules which include:
Tobacco products, e-cigarettes and smoking materials must be stored at the nursing station. Family members and visitors will be educated to leave tobacco products and smoking materials for these residents at the nursing station. Additional resident smoking interventions will be addressed on individual resident care plans.
Residents are not to buy, borrow, trade, or give cigarettes/smoking materials to any other resident or visitors.
Residents and resident rooms may be searched at any time by facility staff for[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#13) of seven residents reviewed for ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#13) of seven residents reviewed for activities of daily living out of 48 sample residents were provided appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve their abilities.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #13 was provided encouragement, cueing, and assistance with eating.
Findings include:
I. Resident #13
A. Resident status
Resident #13, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, cardiac arrhythmia, and anxiety disorder.
The 1/19/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident with severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of six out of 15. She required extensive assistance with one person for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. Extensive assistance of 2 persons for dressing and toilet use. The resident required supervision and encouragement and one person physical assistance with eating.
B. Observations
On 4/7/21 at 8:51a.m. Resident #13 was observed eating breakfast in the dining room, towel and washcloth on residents lap as a napkin and clothing protector. Resident #13 took a few bites and a few sips of juice and then wheeled very, very slowly away from the table in the dining area. The resident did not receive any cueing or encouragement to eat. When she began to wheel herself away from the table, the certified nurse aide did not ask the resident if sh wanted an alternative or offer encouragement to eat.
On 4/7/21 at 12:23 p.m., Resident #13 was observed at the noon meal. She had a towel in her lap, rather than a as a clothing protector. She was served apple juice, and water. She was observed to take a few sips but before food came the resident was trying to leave the table. Resident #13 was redirected back to the table and was still eating at 12:43 p.m. At 12:46 p.m. a staff member approached and said there was a visitor downstairs and did she want to go visit. She agreed and she left her meal and a staff member assisted her via wheelchair. The resident was not provided any encouragement No one-person physical assistance with eating was observed during this meal.
On 4/7/21 at 1:57 p.m., Resident #13 was observed in the dining room. A CNA asked Resident #13 if she would like some water and she agreed. No observation of snacks offered.
On 4/7/21 at 4:32 p.m., Resident #13 was observed in the dining room. Resident #13 was given an applesauce cup at her table, no assistance was provided, supervision only from the nurse ' s station. Later observed a CNA bring Resident #13 a shake in a carton. The resident received no encouragement or cueing to eat the applesauce.
4/8/21 at 11:48 a.m., Resident #13 was assisted the dining room for lunch. She was served a cup of water. The resident was served her meal, and the resident was beginning to eat, but was not eating, she was not provided any encouragement to eat.
4/12/21 at 8:48 a.m. observed Resident #13 eating breakfast in the dining area. The breakfast before the resident was one quarter eaten, no assistance by staff provided beyond set up and supervision from the nurse station. No encouragement, cueing, or assistance with eating observed.
C. Record review
The care plan last revised on 11/2/2020 identified the resident identified the resident had a potential for nutrition problems related to dementia, weight loss, protein-calorie malnutrition, and dysphagia. Pertinent interventions included, to provide setup assist at meals; cut-up food; encourage good intake; redirect as needed.
However, the care plan was not updated to include supervision and one person physical assistance with eating as assessed by the MDS on 1/19/21.
D. Staff interviews
CNA #13 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 1:59 p.m. She said for Resident #13 needed assistance with setting her up with her meals. She said the resident was able to feed herself, but she did need redirection, as she became distracted. She said she would benefit from encouragement, but she did not need to be fed as she fed herself.
ADON #2 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 3:52 p.m. ADON #2 said she was the charge nurse and unit manager. She said Resident #13 should be redirected, encouraged, and assisted during meals, as she got distracted and has not eaten very much of her meal. She said they should also offer alternatives if she was not eating.
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** II. Resident #13
A. Resident status
Resident #13, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized ph...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** II. Resident #13
A. Resident status
Resident #13, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, cardiac arrhythmia, and anxiety disorder.
The 1/19/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident with severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of six out of 15. She required extensive assistance with one person for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. Extensive assistance of two persons for dressing and toilet use. One person limited assistance with wheelchair mobility. Supervision and one person physical assistance with eating.
The preferences for customary routine and activity assessment from the 10/23/2020 MDS revealed the resident felt it was very important to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read, listen to preferred music, be around animals, do things with groups of people, and do her favorite activities. The assessment revealed it was very important for the resident to go outside when the weather was good and participate in religious services.
B. Resident observation
On 4/6/21 at 3:13 p.m. no activities observed for Resident #13. She sat in the dining room with no meaningful activities.
On 4/7/21 at 11:30 a.m. observed root-beer floats being offered to residents but Resident #13's door is closed. But the activities staff did not knock on her door and offer a snack.
On 4/7/21 at 4:32 p.m. observed Resident #13 in the dining room. No activities observed for the resident. Resident #13 was given an applesauce cup at her table in the dining area, no assistance provided, supervision only.
On 4/8/21 at 9:50 a.m. observed Resident #13 up in a wheelchair after breakfast, sitting by the nurse station, no activities observed.
On 4/8/21 at 10:01 a.m. observed group activity of hitting a balloon. Resident #13 was already in the dining room and so participated in the activity.
On 4/9/21 at 11:15 a.m. Resident #13's door is open, observed the resident awake in bed. Activity calendar says Creative coloring is at 11 am. No coloring activity observed in the residents room, no coloring activity observed in the dining area.
C. Family interview
Family member was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 2:28 p.m. He said COVID-19 shut everything down, it was very isolating, and his mom even had to eat in her room. He said he was able to visit one time per week. He said any type of activity stimulation would be good. He said his mom used to enjoy bingo but recently she has been too hard of hearing to participate. He said that she now enjoys music, and coloring. He said she used to be a teacher's aide and would like animal flashcards. He said I would like to see lots of activities going on.
D. Record review
The activity section of the comprehensive care plan revealed the resident needs reminders for activities. She has some limitations and benefits from assistance to activities of her interest. She has expressed interest in cafe social, music groups, going outdoors, bingo, exercise, and crafts. She would also like to receive weekly Catholic visits to accept communion.
The April 2021 activities calendar revealed no religious services or activities offered.
E. Staff interview
The AD was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 2:03 p.m. He said an activity assessment which included the residents history and activity preferences was completed at the time of the residents admission into the facility.
He said if a resident was unable to verbalize their preferences for activities, he attempted multiple activities on a trial and error basis. He said he would contact the residents' family for background information when necessary. He said conversations with family members were not documented.
He said all residents received a calendar of activities at the beginning of the month. He said all residents should be invited by activity staff before the start of each activity regardless of their health and cognitive status.
He said activities which involved food such as the snack carts should be tailored to meet the needs of residents with altered diets or those that required meal assistance. He said all residents should be invited to participate in these programs.
He confirmed Resident #13 used to like bingo but can no longer participate due to hearing loss. He said she likes music, especially from the 40's. He said he has a compact disc (CD) but no CD player to play it with. He said residents, including Resident #13 were not scheduled for one-to-one visits.
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure two (#30 and #13) of five residents reviewed for activities of 46 sample residents received an ongoing program of activities designed to meet their individual needs and interests.
Specifically, the facility failed to provide meaningful activities based on the resident's preferences to meet and support the physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for Resident # 30 and #13.
Findings include:
I. Resident #30
A. Resident status
Resident #30, age greater than 90, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included polyosteoarthritis, unspecified, Parkinson's disease, and vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance.
The 1/29/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. He required one-person extensive assistance for bed mobility, dressing, and personal hygiene. He was totally dependent on one staff person for toilet use. According to the MDS assessment, transfers did not occur.
The 11/3/2020 MDS assessment revealed that it was very important to the resident to listen to music he liked, to be around animals such as pets, to keep up with the news, to do his favorite activities, and to participate in religious services or practices. It was somewhat important to him to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read, to do things with groups of people, and to go outside to get fresh air when the weather was good.
B. Resident observations and interviews
On 4/5/21 at 4:01 p.m., Resident #30 was observed lying in bed. There was no music playing in his room, and the television (TV) was not on. Resident #30 said he didn ' t get to see many people. He said he would enjoy listening to some music. He said he would like to get up in his chair sometimes.
On 4/6/21 at 2:45 p.m., the resident was observed lying in bed with his eyes closed. There was no music playing in his room, and the TV was not on.
On 4/7/21 at 10:22 a.m., Resident #30 was observed lying on his back in bed. A comedy show was on the TV, however the resident said he was not paying attention to the TV show because it was not something he would watch. Resident #30 said he would like to watch a good murder mystery show. He said he enjoyed watching tennis or golf. He said golf was his favorite thing to watch on TV.
On 4/7/21 at 4:35 p.m., the resident was observed lying on his back in bed with his eyes closed. There was no music playing in his room, and the TV was not on.
On 4/8/21 at 10:00 a.m., Resident #30 was observed lying in bed. There was no music playing in his room, and the TV was not on. Resident #30 said he would like to watch TV or have some sort of noise in his room. He said it was too quiet, and some music would be nice.
On 4/12/21 at 9:01 a.m., the resident was observed lying in bed. There was no music playing in his room, and the TV was not on.
On 4/13/21 at 10:50 a.m., Resident #30 was again observed lying in bed. There was no music playing in his room, and the TV was not on.
C. Record review
Review of Resident #30's comprehensive care plan, initiated 12/4/2020, revealed the resident liked to do activities. He enjoyed having reading materials, music, animals and pet visits, religious services, and sometimes liked to be with others during an activity. Pertinent interventions included encouraging him to come out of his room at times, and providing one to one activities as needed.
The Activities-Quarterly/Annual Participation Review assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #84 received one to one visits because he did not want to participate in group activities and was always in his room watching TV. According to the assessment, the resident's favorite activities were self directed activities of his choice.
Review of Resident #30's April 2021 Individual Participation Record for activities, which was provided by the activity director (AD) on 4/14/21 at 2:04 p.m., documented the following:
-Participated independently in TV/radio/movies daily 4/1 through 4/14/21;
-Participated independently in relaxation daily 4/1 through 4/14/21;
-Participated independently in intellectual/current news events daily 4/1 through 4/14/21;
-Participated actively in talking/conversing/telephone daily 4/1 through 4/14/21; and
-Refused parties/socials/special events daily 4/1 through 4/14/21.
However, observations and interviews with Resident #30conducted during the survey did not confirm the activity documentation.
D. Staff interview
The AD was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 2:04 p.m. The AD said he was responsible for conducting assessments of the residents. He said he interviewed the residents to find out what types of activities they liked to participate in. He said if residents could not come out of their rooms, activity staff would sit with them. He said the activity staff also provided radios for residents if they wanted to listen to music. The AD said Resident #30 did not have a radio in his room. He said he would see about getting him one. He said the resident was provided one to one visits three times per week for approximately 10 minutes each visit. He said the visits were not a formalized one to one visit, he would just stop in the resident's room to ask him how he was doing. The AD said Resident #30 had a talking book beside his TV, however he was unable to turn it on himself. He said the CNA staff should be able to turn it on for him, however he did not know if they were doing that. The AD also said the resident could not turn on the TV himself, but the staff should be making sure it was on for him everyday. He said the independent intellectual/current news events section on the activity participation record was reading the newspaper. He said Resident #30 could not hold a newspaper up and read it himself. He said the activity staff would need to assist him with that. He said it was probably not occurring on a daily basis, and therefore should not be marked on Resident #30's activity participation record. The AD said Resident #30 had never been asked if he wanted to get up and go to an activity, and therefore his activity participation record should not be marked that he was refusing special events. He said he would need to provide some more training and education to his activity staff.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #66
A. Resident status
Resident #66, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Accordi...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #66
A. Resident status
Resident #66, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, acquired absence of other right toe(s), and acquired absence of other left toe(s).
The 3/13/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. He required two-person extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers. He required one-person extensive assistance with dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He had adequate vision and did not require corrective lenses.
B. Resident interview
Resident #66 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 10:29 a.m. Resident #66 said he had been waiting for a long time to get his glasses. He said social worker (SW) #1 had told him on Friday (4/8/21) that it would be a while before he received his glasses. He said the information from SW #1 was the first time he had heard anything regarding his glasses since they were ordered in February 2021. He said SW #1 did not tell him how long he would be waiting for the glasses. Resident #66 said she did not tell him why it was taking so long to get his glasses.
C. Record review
Review of Resident #66's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an opthamologist consult note dated 2/17/21. The consult note documented the ophthalmologist had seen the resident on that date. It further documented eyeglasses were prescribed for the resident on 2/17/21, and would be delivered to the resident two weeks after payment was received.
Review of Resident #66's EMR revealed the following progress notes:
-2/18/21: Resident was seen by (name of vision care provider) on 2/17/2021.
-2/25/21: Resident signed medical necessity form for the eye exam that took place on 2/17/2021.
-3/12/21: Social services coordinator (SSC) submitted vision post eligibility treatment of income (PETI) to Medicaid portal.
-4/8/21: SSC informed Resident #66 that (name of vision care provider) noted to allow approximately ten business days for the glasses to arrive. Resident expressed his understanding of this.
An email correspondence dated 4/7/21 between SW #1 and the optical department manager for the vision care provider was provided by the social services director (SSD) on 4/12/21 at 9:30 a.m. The email correspondence read in pertinent part, Please allow 10 business days for the glasses to arrive. The order for Resident #66 may take slightly longer as that frame is on backorder, but should be in stock next week.
Review of Resident #66's comprehensive care plan, initiated on 5/8/18 and revised on 1/22/21, did not include an ancillary care plan for vision needs.
-Review of the EMR failed to demonstrate Resident #66 was kept informed timely of the progress toward obtaining his glasses and when the resident could expect to receive the glasses.
II. Resident #50
A. Resident status
Resident #50, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: quadriplegia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, history of falling, and chronic pain.
According to the 3/12/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident #50 required extensive two person assistance with bed mobility and transfers. She required extensive one person assistance with dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. She was visually impaired, and could only read large print. She did not have corrective lenses.
B. Resident interview
Resident #50 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 5:12 p.m. She said she had some trouble seeing things to read. Resident #50 said she had her eyes checked back in February (2021) and should be getting glasses. She said she was concerned because the social worker (SW) #2 was supposed to be following up, but she had not heard back from him.
Resident #50 was interviewed again on 4/13/21 at 12:12 p.m. She said she was able to see the television, but she was not able to read printed materials such as menus or calendars.
C. Staff interview
SW #2 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 10:15 a.m. He said requests for vision checks could come from the resident, nurse or family members. He said it was also discussed at resident care conferences. He said there was no formal process, the staff notified him by writing or phone, or any means necessary.
SW #2 was interviewed again on 4/9/21 at 12:14 p.m. He said Resident #50 was seen for her vision on 2/18/21 and glasses were recommended. He said he had been working on getting glasses for Resident #50. He said there had been a delay but he could not recall what the delay was. He said maybe they were back ordered. He said he had not updated Resident #50 on her glasses because she wasn't one of the ones who asked me for an update. SW #2 said he would provide proof of when the glasses had been ordered and documentation of his follow-up on obtaining the glasses.
On 4/12/21 at 10:40 a.m. SW #2 said he had no proof or documentation of follow up on Resident #50's glasses.
D. Record review
On 2/18/21 at 1:42 p.m., an ancillary note documented that the resident was seen for her vision.
On 3/12/21 at 3:54 p.m., an ancillary note documented a vision PETI (nursing facility post eligibility treatment of income medical necessity certification form) had been submitted to the Medicaid portal.
There was no further documentation in Resident #50s electronic medical record regarding her glasses. The resident had not received the glasses or an update from social services in two months.Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to assist three (#43, #50, #66) of four residents with obtaining services for vision.
Specifically, the facility failed to follow up on resident requests for glasses for Resident #43, #50 and #66.
Findings include:
I. Resident #43
A. Resident status
Resident #43, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the 2/7/21 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included hypertension, seizure disorder, depression and respiratory failure.
The 2/7/21 quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident needed corrective lenses and it was very important for the resident to have magazines, books and newspapers to read. The resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toilet use.
B. Record review
The 1/6/21 nurse practitioner progress note revealed the resident was seen for eye dryness. The nurse practitioner wrote that the resident said she was seen by the eye doctor, given eye drops, had a prescription for eyeglasses but had not obtained the glasses yet. The progress note revealed the resident had blurred vision, dry eyes, was seen by ophthalmology and a prescription was given for new glasses but the resident had not received the new glasses yet.
The medical record showed no indication that the glasses were purchased or any communication with the resident in regards to the status of the glasses.
C. Resident interview
Resident #43 was interviewed on 4/7/21 at approximately 2:00 p.m. The resident said that she was waiting on a pair of glasses. She said that she had a prescription and she had asked to get the glasses filled, however, had not heard anything back. The resident said she had spoken to a previous social worker who was no longer on her unit.
D. Interview
The social worker (SW) # 2 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 10:15 a.m. SW #2 said that he had record that the resident had requested the glasses.
SW #2 was interviewed a second time on 4/9/21 at approximately 11:00 a.m. SW #2 said he had not seen the note from the physician in regards to the glasses.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#58, #66, and #73) of five residents w...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure three (#58, #66, and #73) of five residents who entered the facility with limited mobility and range of motion received appropriate services and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence unless a reduction in mobility was demonstrated as unavoidable, out of 48 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-Resident #58 received restorative nursing services as ordered;
-Resident #66 was provided services to prevent possible worsening of contractures; and,
-Resident #73 was provided services to prevent possible worsening of contractures.
Findings included:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Restorative Nursing Care policy and procedure, revised 6/6/19, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) via email on 4/13/21 at 1:09 p.m. It read in pertinent part, It is the goal of the facility to maintain a residents functioning at the most optimal level .Restorative care provides nursing interventions by licensed nurses or certified nursing assistants that either restores a resident to their prior level of functioning or maintains them at their highest level of functioning possible.
II. Resident #58
A. Resident status
Resident #58, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included vascular dementia, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebrovascular disease affecting the left non-dominant side.
The 2/25/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident with moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of 11 out of 15. He required extensive assistance with one person for transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and set up with supervision for eating. The MDS coded the resident as having functional limitations in range of motion on the left upper extremity and left lower extremity. The assessment documented no therapy, restorative nursing was performed three out of the seven day look back period, and he was not coded for splint/brace.
B. Resident interview and observation
Resident #58 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:08 p.m. Resident #58 said that his left hand was clenched and contracted and said he had not received any services, and nothing was being done about it.
On 4/7/21 at 9:37 a.m., the resident was seated in his wheelchair, his hand was curled into a fist.
On 4/8/21 at 11:24 a.m., Resident #58 said his care plan indicated he was to be receiving a RNP six days per week. He said he was not receiving the RNP or range of motion (ROM) exercises with him.
On 4/9/21 at 11:29 a.m., Resident #58 was seated in his wheelchair, watching television (TV), left hand flexed in a fist position.
On 4/13/21 at 10:49 a.m., Resident #58 told the assistant director of nursing (ADON) #2 the restorative CNAs were not doing the RNP exercises.
The director of therapy (DOT) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at approximately 2:00 p.m. The DOT reviewed the medical record and said that the RNP was initiated 9/22/2020. She said the resident had contracture in his left hand. She said he was at risk for further contracture because of his tone. She said he was on a restorative program.
The DOT observed the resident on 4/14/21 at approximately 2:15 p.m. She began ROM on Resident #58 left hand and noted the flexion tightness. After stretching his left hand rigoroughly (thorough and careful) she asked the resident if it hurt because she was really stretching it. He said no. Resident #58 told the DOT that he did not receive range of motion services. The DOT acknowledged that Resident #58 had contracture had formed on his left hand and he had an increase in his tone. She was unable to stretch left hand into full extension. The DOT said the resident had experienced his contracture could be worsened, due to the increase in tone, lack of flexibility, and being unable to get his hand to neutral position. She said she would need to try out a different splint with him. The DOT said she would get orders for a therapy evaluation.
C. Record review
The occupational therapy progress note written on 9/22/2020 at 2:07 p.m. read that the registered occupational therapist (OTR) completed a screening and updated the RNP for contracture management. It read in pertinent parts, resident continued to have risk for further contractures of the left hand and demonstrated tightness throughout the metacarpophalangeal joint (the finger and knuckle bones) of digits (fingers) 2-5 (index, middle, ring, and pinky) with negative 5 degrees of extension. Digit two (the index finger) demonstrates increased flexion of PIP (proximal interphalangeal joint,the joint in the middle of the finger) and DIP (distal interphalangeal joint, the joint near the end of the finger) at 90 degrees though able to extend to within functional limits with repetitive extension in AROM (active range of motion) with minimal AAROM (active assistive range of motion) at end ranges. Pt (patient) again offered resting hand splint to decrease risk for contractures and to facilitate keeping hand and fingers in extension, though resident continue to decline use. RNP had been updated to reflect changes to contracture of left hand including AROM and PROM programs.
-The OTR progress note above did not include reevaluating for a different splint if the resident refused use due to discomfort or interference in functional activities.
The physician orders initiated 10/21/2020 read, RNP six times per week for 15 minutes each: -Passive range of motion (PROM)/active assistive range of motion (AAROM)-Left shoulder & elbow, two sets of 10 repetitions and stretch of fingers and knuckles at end of range. -Active range of motion (AROM)- bilateral lower extremities (BLE) all planes & left wrist and hand, two sets of 10 repetitions; Right shoulder using three pound hand weights progressing to five pounds, two sets of 10 repetitions.
The care plan last revised on 11/1/2020, read the resident was on a RNP to maintain and /or improve function which includes PROM to the left shoulder and elbow and AROM to BLE, left wrist and hand and right shoulder. The goals were to maintain/increase upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) strength and ROM through the next review date; document participation in RNP; and decrease the risk for joint contractures through the next review date.
Interventions were listed as AROM six times per week-right shoulder. AROM was to be completed using three pound weight progressing to five pound weight, two sets of 10 repetitions. AROM six times per week BLE AROM to all planes. AROM six times per week -left wrist and left hand, two sets of 10 repetitions, including PROM stretch of fingers and knuckles at end range. PROM/AAROM six times per week for at least 15 minutes-left shoulder and elbow, two sets of 10 repetitions to include grabbing cones in shoulder flexion.
The care plan doucmented to monitor skin under the left hand resting splint and notify the medical doctor of changes or concerns. Date initiated 8/24/2020.
-However, there was not a physician's order to include applying the splint, the RNP did not include offering or applying the splint and the care plan was not updated when the resident refused the splint on 9/22/2020.
The restorative nursing notes were provided by the NHA on 4/13/21 at 11:15 a.m. The restorative notes were not available in the electronic medical record to view.
Resident #58 received RNP services in the month of January 2021 for 16 sessions, of 15 minutes each, with resident participation either actively, passively or with encouragement.
-The resident was supposed to receive an estimate of at least 24 sessions for January 2021, however only 16 sessions were conducted with no refusals documented.
Resident #58 received RNP services in the month of February 2021 for 13 sessions, of 15 minutes each, with resident participation either actively, passively or with encouragement.
-The resident was supposed to receive an estimate of at least 24 sessions for February 2021, however only 13 sessions were conducted with no refusals documented.
Resident #58 received RNP services in the month of March 2021 for 23 sessions, of 15 minutes each, with resident participation either actively, passively, or with encouragement.
-The resident was supposed to receive an estimate of at least 33 sessions for March 2021, however only 23 sessions were conducted with no refusals documented.
Resident #58 received RNP services in the month of April 2021 for seven sessions through 4/12/21, of 15 minutes each, with resident participation either actively, passively, or with encouragement.
-The resident was supposed to receive an estimate of at least 10 sessions for April 2021, however only seven sessions were conducted with no refusals documented.
-The 2/25/21 MDS revealed the restorative nursing was performed three out of the seven day look back period, not the six days per week as written in physician orders and recommended by the RNP (see above).
The facility failed to ensure that the resident received appropriate services and assistance so that the resident did not experience a reduction in range of motion.
E. Staff interviews
The ADON #2 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 9:37 a.m. The ADON #2 said she was the restorative nurse for the RNP. She said therapy wrote the RNP. She then initiated the program into the care plan. The restorative aides receive training from the physical or occupational therapist in regards to the specific program for the resident. She said the restorative aides document in the electronic medical record if AROM or PROM were performed, how much time was spent, and if the resident participated or refused.
The DOT was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 1:59 p.m. The DOT she said she was familiar with Resident #58. She said Resident #58 had a screening on 9/22/2020 by certified occupational therapy assistants (COTA) and the RNP was created. She said the RNP goal was to decrease the risk for joint contractures and maintain/increase upper extremity and lower extremity strength and ROM. III. Failure to provide services to prevent possible worsening of contractures
A. Resident #66
Resident #66, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, acquired absence of other right toe(s), and acquired absence of other left toe(s).
The 3/13/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. He required two-person extensive assistance with bed mobility and transfers. He required one-person extensive assistance with dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He had upper extremity and lower extremity impairment on one side.
B. Resident interview
Resident #66 was interviewed on 4/07/21 at 10:58 a.m. Resident #66 said he had a palm guard for his left hand which he wore at night. He said restorative staff did exercises with him, however, nobody did exercises with his left hand.
Resident #66 was interviewed again on 4/08/21 at 10:08 a.m. Resident #66 said nobody had done stretching exercises with his left hand. He said he felt like his hand had become more contracted.
Resident #66 was again interviewed on 4/12/21 at 10:29 a.m. He said restorative nurse aide (RNA) #1 had done exercises with him that morning, but RNA #1 did not work with his left hand.
Resident #66 was interviewed again on 4/13/21 at 10:44 a.m., with assistant director of nursing (ADON) #2 present. ADON #2 was also the facility's restorative nurse. Resident #66 said he put his palm guard on himself and removed it himself. He said he was not sure if he was supposed to wear it during the night or the day, or all the time. Resident #66 said RNA #1 had given him the palm guard.
C. Observations
On 4/06/21 at 11:45 a.m., Resident #66 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He had a palm guard on his left hand. The fingers of his left hand were contracted. Resident #66 could open his left thumb and index finger most of the way, however he was unable to open his middle finger, ring finger, and pinky finger.
On 4/06/21 3:16 p.m., Resident #66 was observed self propelling his wheelchair in the hallway. The palm guard was no longer on his left hand.
On 4/07/21 at 10:58 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He was not wearing the palm guard on his left hand. The fingers of his left hand continued to be tightly closed.
On 4/08/21 at 10:08 a.m., Resident #66 was observed in his room sitting in his wheelchair. The palm guard was not on his left hand. The fingers of his left hand continued to be tightly closed.
On 4/12/21 at 10:29 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He was not wearing the palm guard on his left hand. His fingers were contracted.
On 4/13/21 at 10:44 a.m., Resident #66 was observed with ADON #2, the facility's restorative nurse. The resident was sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He was wearing the palm guard on his left hand. His fingers continued to be tightly closed. ADON #2 attempted to range (move) the fingers of Resident #66's left hand. The resident visibly flinched when ADON #2 tried to gently open the fingers. The resident stated that the movement was painful.
D. Record review
The Contracture Risk Screen assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #66 did not have any observable evidence of joint distortion. It further documented an existing splint was not applicable.
Review of Resident #66's progress notes revealed the most recent therapy quarterly screen for the resident was on 12/3/2020. The therapist's progress note read in pertinent part, Resident reports compliance with left hand palm protector to maintain skin integrity. Left hand contractures unchanged. Resident participating in RNP.
Review of Resident #66's April 2021 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
-Patient to have a palm protector on at night and off during the day to decrease risk for skin breakdown. Patient is not appropriate for hand splint due to contracture positioning. Monitor skin under brace. Notify medical doctor (MD) with any breakdown. The start date for the order was 3/30/21. The order did not specify which hand the palm protector was to be worn on.
-Restorative nursing program (RNP) six times per week including AROM and transfer training to maintain/increase independence with slide board transfers and strength and ROM in all extremities. The start date for the order was 11/1/2020. The order was discontinued on 4/12/21 due to the RNP being updated. The order did not include any exercises for PROM to the left hand.
-RNP five times per week including AROM to bilateral lower extremities (BLE) and PROM to BLE to reduce risk of developing contractures. The start date for the order was 4/12/21. The order did not include any exercises for PROM to the left hand.
Review of Resident #66's comprehensive care plan, initiated 10/21/2020, revealed the resident had a RNP to maintain/increase bilateral upper extremity (BUE) and BLE strength and ROM for activities of daily living (ADLs) and mobility, and to increase independence with slide board transfers. Pertinent interventions included AROM six times per week to BUE shoulder, elbow, and wrist to end range two times for 10 repetitions, AROM six times per week to BLE working in all planes of motion 15 times for two repetitions, and transfer. training six times per week using a slide board for transfers at the edge of the mattress to and from the wheelchair.
The care plan interventions did not include PROM exercises for the resident's left hand, or the palm guard to be worn on his left hand.
Review of Resident #66's April 2021 medication administration record (MAR) and the resident's progress notes revealed there was no nursing documentation in regards to ensuring the resident was wearing his palm guard on his left hand.
Review of Resident #66's RNP participation record revealed the resident was participating each time the RNA saw him, however, he was not receiving PROM for his left hand contracture.
Review of the restorative progress notes revealed there had not been a monthly restorative progress note entered into Resident #66's EMR since 11/1/2020.
E. Staff interviews
RNA #1 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 11:10 a.m. RNA #1 said he did restorative exercises with Resident #66 several times a week. He said the resident used the arm bike, and did active range of motion (AROM) exercises with his arms. RNA #1 said he did not do passive range of motion (PROM) exercises with Resident #66's left hand. He said the resident had a palm guard he was supposed to wear on his left hand. He said putting the palm guard on the resident's hand was not part of the restorative program for the resident.
ADON #2, the facility's restorative nurse, was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 9:36 a.m. ADON #2 said she had been the restorative nurse at the facility since July 2020. She said she was responsible for managing the two RNAs, putting in restorative orders for residents from therapy, and care planning each resident's restorative program. She said if a resident was observed to have a decline in function, therapy would screen the resident and a restorative program would be written if it was appropriate. She said therapy would give the RNAs each resident's restorative program sheet. ADON #2 said after the RNAs were trained by therapy, they would sign the restorative program sheet, and then the programs were turned in to her so she could put the restorative orders in and care plan them. She said RNAs documented each time they worked with a resident. She said they documented how much time was spent on the restorative program and whether the resident participated or not. She said she usually documented a monthly progress note on the resident's restorative program, however she said she was behind on her progress notes, and she generally did not document a progress note if the resident was consistently participating in their restorative program. ADON #2 said Resident #66 had a restorative program which included AROM for his upper extremities. She said his restorative program did not include orders for PROM to his left hand. She said she felt that residents with contractures should have PROM to try to prevent worsening of the contractures. ADON #2 said Resident #66 had a physician's order for a left hand palm guard to be worn at night, however, she said it was not part of his restorative program for the RNAs to put the palm guard on. She said the floor staff should be putting the palm guard on and removing it daily for the resident, and nurses should be documenting that on the MAR. She said nurses conducted quarterly assessments on residents, and therapy evaluated everyone on a quarterly basis. ADON #2 said contractures, or contractures that were worsening, should be noticed by nurses or therapy during the quarterly assessments. She said if a contracture was observed, the nurses should be letting the resident's physician know so orders could be provided for therapy or a splint.
ADON #2 was again interviewed on 4/13/21 at 10:44 a.m., during an observation of Resident #66. She said his left hand was contracted when she attempted to range his fingers, and it was painful for the resident. She said she was unable to say if his contractures had gotten worse. ADON #2 said she would talk to therapy about his hand. She said she would also get an order to add putting Resident #66's palm guard on and taking it off to his restorative program.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 10:56 a.m. CNA #1 said therapy or restorative was responsible for telling the floor staff if a resident had a palm guard or splint they were supposed to wear. He said Resident #66 had a palm guard he was supposed to wear. He said the resident put on his own palm guard and removed it himself as well. He said Resident #66's palm guard was not part of the tasks the CNAs completed for the resident.
The director of therapy (DOT) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 3:43 p.m. The DOT said PROM of the upper extremity in all planes included the hand and fingers. She said Resident #66's left hand contracture was very rigid and therapy was unable to get a custom splint to fit him. She said the palm guard was the best option for him. She said his third finger was the most rigid. The DOT said his hand had been contracted for quite some time, and there was not much therapy was able to do to improve his contracture when he was receiving therapy services. She said she had not observed Resident #66's left hand recently, however if he was not receiving PROM to his hand, he would be at risk for his contractures to worsen and the rest of his fingers could become as rigid as his third finger was.
IV. Resident #73
A. Resident status
Resident #73, age younger than 70, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included monoplegia (paralysis) of upper limb affecting left non-dominant side, muscle weakness, generalized, difficulty in walking, not elsewhere classified, sprain of tibiofibular ligament of unspecified ankle, and personal history of other (healed) physical injury and trauma.
The 2/14/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He required one-person limited assistance for dressing. He had upper extremity and lower extremity impairment on one side.
B. Resident interview
Resident #73 was interviewed on 4/05/21 at 2:59 p.m. Resident #73 said he had been unable to open his left hand for a long time. He said the facility had provided him with an arm/hand splint that he was supposed to wear at night but it was rarely put on him. He said he did not have a palm guard or splint that he wore during the day. Resident #73 said he was also supposed to wear a brace that fit inside the shoe on his left foot during the day. He said the staff never put the brace on him.
Resident #73 was again interviewed on 4/07/21 at 11:34 a.m. He said he had not worn the arm splint or the leg brace in several days.
Resident #73 was interviewed again on 4/12/21 at 9:09 a.m. Resident #73 said he had not worn his arm splint or leg brace all weekend.
C. Observations
On 4/05/21 at 2:59 p.m., Resident #73 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. His left hand was in a closed fist position and he was not wearing a palm guard or splint on his hand. There was no leg brace on his left leg. He was unable to open his left hand. He was able to move his left leg off of the wheelchair pedal by pulling on the leg of his sweatpants to lift his leg. An arm splint was observed to be lying on the top of the dresser closest to the doorway of the room. The splint had a white label on it facing up. An ankle foot orthosis (AFO) brace was observed to be sitting on the floor between the dresser that had the arm splint on it and the dresser next to it.
On 4/06/21 at 8:45 a.m., Resident #73 was observed sitting in his wheelchair by the elevators on the first floor. There was no splint or palm guard on his left arm/hand, and no brace on his left leg.
On 4/07/21 at 11:34 a.m., the resident was observed sitting in his wheelchair in his room. He was not wearing a splint or palm guard on his left arm/hand, or a brace on his left leg. The arm splint was observed to be lying on the first dresser in the room with the white label on the splint facing up. The AFO brace was observed again sitting on the floor between the two dressers in the room.
On 4/07/21 at 4:30 p.m., Resident #73 was observed sitting in his wheelchair on the first floor near the elevators, eyes closed. There was no brace on his left leg, and no splint or palm guard on his left arm/hand.
On 4/08/21 at 9:54 a.m., Resident #73 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in the common area near the elevators on the sixth floor. There was no splint or palm guard on his left arm/hand, and no brace on his left leg.
On 4/12/21 at 9:09 a.m., Resident #73 was observed lying in bed. His hands were on top of the bed covers. There was no splint or palm guard on his left arm/hand. The arm splint was observed lying on the first dresser in the room with the white label on the brace facing up.
D. Record review
The Contracture Risk Screen assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #73 did not have any observable evidence of joint distortion. It further documented an existing splint was not applicable.
Review of Resident #73's electronic progress notes revealed the most recent therapy quarterly screen for the resident was on 2/9/21. The therapist's progress note read in pertinent part, Patient is currently working with physical therapy/occupational therapy (PT/OT) on contracture management/splinting of left upper extremity (LUE) and left lower extremity ( LLE).
Review of Resident #73's April 2021 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
-Patient to have left elbow splint and left hand splint on at bedtime and off in the morning for contracture management. The order had a start date of 3/4/21.
-RNP three times per week to include PROM to LUE and AROM to right lower extremity (RLE) to reduce the risk of LUE contractures and maintain joint mobility and strength for ADLs. The order had a start date of 1/3/21. The order was discontinued on 4/12/21 due to the RNP being updated.
-RNP to include: PROM to LUE and BLE five times per week, and brace assistance to LLE five times per week to prevent the development of contractures. The order had a start date of 4/12/21.
Review of Resident #73's comprehensive care plan, initiated 1/3/21, revealed the resident had a RNP to reduce LUE contractures and maintain joint mobility. Pertinent interventions included AROM three times per week to BLE in all planes of motion three times for 10 repetitions, NuStep (recumbent bike) for 10 to 15 minutes with resistance as tolerated, brace assistance five times per week: donn AFO to LLE in the morning, and PROM three times per week to LUE in all planes of motion three times for 10 repetitions.
The care plan interventions did not include the left elbow and left hand splint to be worn at night.
Review of Resident #73's April 2021 medication administration record (MAR) and the resident's progress notes revealed there was no nursing documentation in regards to ensuring the resident was wearing his left elbow and left hand splint, or his left leg AFO brace.
Review of Resident #73's RNP participation record provided by ADON #2 on 4/13/21 at 3:32 p.m. revealed the following:
-January 2021: The resident received restorative services on 1/4, 1/5, 1/7, 1/11, 1/12, and 1/13/21. There was no documentation the resident received restorative services for the remainder of January 2021.
-February 2021: The resident received restorative services on 2/1, 2/4, 2/5, and 2/8/21. There was no documentation the resident received restorative services for the remainder of February 2021.
-March 2021: The resident received restorative services on 3/28, 3/30, and 3/31/21. There was no documentation the resident received restorative services prior to 3/28/21.
Review of the restorative progress notes revealed there had not been a monthly restorative progress note entered into Resident #73's EMR since 9/29/2020. The progress note documented the resident's RNP had been discontinued.
Review of the Resident #73's Restorative Referral Form dated 3/24/21 revealed it was signed by the RNA on 3/28/21, however it documented the RNP did not start until 4/12/21.
E. Staff interviews
ADON #2 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 9:36 a.m. ADON #2 said either floor CNAs or the RNAs could put on and remove resident's splints and braces. She said the resident had an order for the left arm brace to be worn at night. She said it should be put on and removed by the nurses. She said nurses should document on the MAR when the left arm brace was put on and when it was removed. ADON #2 said she did not see documentation for the brace on the resident's EMAR. She said the order was entered incorrectly, and therefore it was not showing up on the EMAR for the nurses to be aware Resident #73 had a physician's order for putting on and removing the left arm brace. She said if the resident wore the brace it would help to prevent his left hand contractures from worsening. ADON #2 said Resident #73's restorative program had just been updated by therapy to include PROM of his left hand and putting on and removing the AFO brace for his left foot. She said she had just received the program orders on 4/12/21.
CNA #1 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 10:56 a.m. CNA #1 said he thought Resident #73 had a splint for his leg and his arm. He said the resident put on his own splints.
The DOT was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 3:43 p.m. The DOT said therapy wrote a restorative program for the residents at the end of therapy, if it was appropriate. She said once the program was written, the therapist trained the RNAs on the program. She said after the RNAs were trained, they signed the program, and the signed copy of the program was turned into the restorative nurse so the orders could be put in. The DOT said the RNA had signed the restorative program for Resident #73 on 3/28/21, and it should have been turned into the restorative nurse on that date. She said once a restorative program was signed and turned in to the restorative nurse, she would ideally expect the orders to be put in to a resident's electronic medical record no more than 72 hours later to ensure the resident did not begin to decline in function due to a delay in getting the restorative program started.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0744
(Tag F0744)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#63) of two residents who displayed or w...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#63) of two residents who displayed or were diagnosed with dementia, received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being out of 46 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to provide a person-centered approach to Resident #63's dementia care services and therapeutic programming.
Findings include:
I. Resident status
A. Resident #63
Resident #63, over the age of 90, admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance and major depression disorder.
The 3/10/21 minimum 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. The resident required one-person physical assistance with mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toileting and hygiene.
It indicated the resident did not exhibit verbal or physical behaviors during the assessment period.The resident did not refuse care nor exhibit wandering behaviors during the assessment period.
It indicated the resident was blind in one eye and depended on a hand-held hearing device.
B. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 5:24 p.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair, asleep at a table in the dining room.
At 6:18 p.m. the resident still seated in her wheelchair in the dining room was receiving meal assistance from a certified nurse aide (CNA). The resident was spitting out food from her mouth into a tissue. The CNA continued to offer the resident the same food items for approximately 15 minutes. The CNA then offered the resident an individual yogurt. The resident ate approximately four ounces of yogurt.
The CNA assisted the resident back to her room. The CNA did not offer the resident additional food items.
On 4/6/21 at 9:17 a.m. and 4/7/21 at 9:04 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair at a table in the dining room. Two activity assistants (AA) entered the dining room with a snack cart containing coffee and individual bags of chips. The activity staff offered items off the cart to the other residents in the dining room. Resident #63 was not offered coffee or a snack from the cart. Both CNAs left the dining room.
At 1:32 p.m. the posted activity schedule revealed BINGO was scheduled at 1:30 p.m. Activity staff started to set-up the game at 1:35 p.m. Resident #63, observed seated in her wheelchair in her room was not invited.
On 4/7/21 at 8:50 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair at a table in the dining room. The resident was asleep in her wheelchair. Her breakfast tray was covered but was placed on the edge of her table.
At 8:55 a.m. the CNA sat down next to the resident and began to assist the resident with her meal. The resident was observed without her hearing device on. The resident refused her breakfast when the CNA moved the spoon to the residents mouth. The CNA did not acknowledge the resident and left the table.
At 9:00 a.m the CNA returned to the table and assisted the resident with eating a bowl of hot cereal. The CNA did not address or acknowledge the resident. The CNA conversed with staff at the nurses station.
At 9:08 a.m. the CNA assisted the resident back to her room. The resident ate approximately two ounces of her hot cereal. She did not offer the resident additional food items.
On 4/7/21 at 10:04 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair facing the television in her room. The activity director (AD) and two AA's were in the dining room hosting the scheduled group exercise program with other residents. Resident #63 was not invited to participate in the activity.
At 11:00 a.m. the resident was observed laying in her bed, facing the television. The television volume was turned off on the television. Activity assistant #1 and #2 entered the hallway with a snack cart containing ingredients for root beer floats. The resident was not offered a root beer float or an alternative.
At 12:03 p.m. the resident was observed laying in her bed sleeping. A CNA knocked and entered the room. The resident was assisted to a table in the dining room. The resident was not addressed by staff while in the dining room until 12:32 p.m.
At 12:32 p.m. a CNA sat next to the resident at the dining table but did not engage the resident in conversation. The resident was observed seated in her wheelchair with her eyes closed.
At 2:14 p.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair facing the television. The resident was staring at the ground and not engaged with the television program.
On 4/8/21 at 9:49 a.m. the resident was observed laying in bed sleeping with the lights on.
At 11:04 a.m. the CNA was observed leaving Resident #63 ' s room. She said to the resident she would come back in at lunch time.
On 4/9/21 at 9:24 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair at a table in the dining room. The AA #1 entered the dining room with a snack cart containing coffee and an assortment of donuts. The AA #1 walked past the resident, did not acknowledge her and did not offer an item from the snack cart.
At 9:28 a.m. the resident, seated in her wheelchair, was assisted back to her room from the dining room. The CNA positioned the resident in front of her television. The CNA did not adjust the volume so the resident could hear it.
At 11:21 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair at a table in the dining room. The resident was leaning towards the right in her wheelchair. A CNA and social worker (SW) #1 walked past the resident but did not address her.
On 4/12/21 at 8:49 a.m. the resident was seated in her wheelchair in the dining room receiving assistance with breakfast. The CNA did not engage the resident in conversation.
At 8:57 a.m. the CNA was observed telling the nurse that the resident had not eaten most of her breakfast. The resident was not offered an alternative breakfast option.
At 9:01 a.m. the CNA was observed cleaning the tray of food from the residents table
At 10:19 a.m. the resident was observed laying awake in her bed with the lights off and no television on.
At approximately 11:07 a.m. the resident was observed laying in her bed facing the television. The volume on the television was turned off. The AA #2 entered the hallway with a snack cart containing an assortment of cheese and crackers. The resident was not offered a snack from the cart or an alternative snack.
On 4/13/21 at 10:50 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair in her room facing the television. The television was on but the volume was turned down low. The resident was not engaged with the television program and began to fall asleep.
At 12:10 p.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair at a table in the dining room. Resident #63 was not addressed or acknowledged by staff for 25 minutes.
At 12:35 p.m. the CNA brought the resident her tray of lunch. The CNA did not engage the resident in conversation during the meal.
At 12:40 p.m. the CNA seated with Resident #63 was talking with a resident at another table.
C. Record review
The psychotropic medication comprehensive care plan, last revised 3/10/21, revealed the resident did not have a major mental illness (MMI) however, the resident was receiving an antipsychotic for agitation related to a diagnosis of dementia. It revealed the resident did not exhibit behavioral expressions including verbal aggression and tearfulness.
The pertinent interventions included: to monitor the resident for blurred vision, increased confusion, constipation, drooling, dry mouth, involuntary movements, muscle rigidity, restlessness, sedation, sleep disturbances and stiffness of the neck, review with the resident responsible party the risks and benefits of the medication and frequent mood check-ins which would serve as behavior tracking.
Person-centered, non-pharmacological interventions had not been added or revised in the care plan.
The activity section of the comprehensive care plan, last revised 3/10/21, revealed the resident enjoyed conversation with others.
The pertinent interventions included: to invite the resident to ongoing activities, invite the resident to conversation based programs and to provide the resident with an activity calendar.
Cross-reference F758 (unnecessary medications)
D. Staff interviews
The activity director (AD) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 2:03 p.m. He said an activity assessment which included the residents history and activity preferences was completed at the time of the residents admission into the facility.
He said if a resident was unable to verbalize their preferences for activities, he attempted multiple activities on a trial and error basis. He said he would contact the residents family for background information when necessary. He said conversations with family members were not documented. He said all residents received a calendar of activities at the beginning of the month. He said all residents should be invited by activity staff before the start of each activity regardless of their health or cognitive status.
The AD said activities which involved food such as the snack carts should be tailored to meet the needs of residents with altered diets or those that required meal assistance. He said all residents should be invited to participate in these programs.
He confirmed Resident #63 enjoyed socializing with staff and other residents. He said residents, including Resident #63 were not scheduled for one-to-one programming. He said that he would visit with the resident for approximately 10 minutes as his schedule allowed. He said the other activity staff did not visit with residents for one-to-one programming as they were training. He said he did not visit with Resident #63.
The licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:45 a.m. She said Resident #63 had spent the majority of her day sleeping in her room. She said the resident did not sleep at night and instead was awake watching television. She said the resident did not exhibit any behavioral expressions and that she had not received a report from the night shift staff of any behavioral expressions.
The social worker (SW) #2 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:53 a.m. She said she was unsure why Resident #63 received an antipsychotic medication. She confirmed the resident's care plan revealed the resident did not exhibit behavioral expressions. She said she had not observed the resident to exhibit behavioral expressions. She said behavior monitoring for residents receiving a psychotropic medication included mood check-ins from the social services department. She said behavior monitoring was not an order within the medical record. She said mood check-in ' s did not occur daily for each resident. She said each social worker would choose three residents and check in with them for that day. She said mood check-in's were always documented in the electronic medical record.
Record review on 4/15/21 revealed the resident had one mood check-in from the SW. The 4/9/21 mood check-in progress note revealed the SSC met with the resident in the dining room. The resident did not report any concerns with her mood.
She said Resident #63 would spend the majority of her day alone in her room sleeping. She said she would occasionally assist the resident with a video call to her family. She said otherwise she did not interact with the resident. She said she felt the resident was on a reversed sleep schedule. She said she did not meet with the resident or family to address this. She said she was unaware if staff addressed Resident #63 sleep/wake cycle.
LPN #2 was interviewed again on 4/15/21 at 11:23 a.m. She said she had not received dementia care training from the facility. She said she was trained in dementia care at a previous place of employment. She said it was important to communicate with residents during meals and throughout the day to gain a better understanding of the residents needs.
CNA #7 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 11:33 a.m. She said Resident #63 would spend her day sleeping. She said the resident enjoyed getting up in the morning and was more engaged at that time. She said she felt if Resident #63 had more engagement during the day or more involvement in activities she would stay awake during the day.
She said it was important to engage with residents to better understand their likes and dislikes. She said it was very important to talk with a resident during meal times as it could aid in the resident eating their meal.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 11:27 a.m. The DON said residents, including Resident #63, should be engaged in meaningful activities and conversations to maintain quality of life. She said staff engagement was used to better understand and care for the residents. She said staff received dementia care training annually through a computer based program. She said behavior monitoring was completed via a care plan. She said the social service department was responsible for developing the care plan. She said she was not sure if the resident was on a reversed sleep schedule. She said that she would address this with the resident and assist if the resident desired.
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, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure three (#6, #2, and #54) out of three residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure three (#6, #2, and #54) out of three residents reviewed out of 48 sample residents were treated with dignity and respect. The facility failed to recognize and meet individual resident needs.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Treat Resident #6 in a dignified manner; and
-Provide inform Residents (#2, and #54) with visual impairments the food on their plates.
Findings include:
I. Resident #6
A. Resident status
Resident #6, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 3/27/21 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), Diabetes Mellitus, dementia, anxiety disorder, asthma and respiratory failure.
The 3/27/21 quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. The resident required limited assistance with toileting, dressing and personal hygiene.
B. Observation
On 4/13/21 at 12:10 p.m., Resident #6 was observed to sit at a table in dining room on the sixth floor.
-At 12:30 p.m., the resident said she did not like her meal, and requested an alternative.
-At approximately 12:45 p.m., dietary aide (DA) #3 was observed to bring a hamburger up from the kitchen. A certified nurse aide (CNA) asked if he wanted to serve it to the resident. The DA #3 said, You know I do not want to give it to her, she is mean, (and) I do not talk to her. This comment was said as he was in the common area, and could be heard by the residents in the dining room.
C. Interview
The NHA was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 4:27 p.m. The NHA said staff should not speak about residents in the manner as DA #3 did. She said this was the resident's home, and should be treated with respect. She said when orientation was completed with employees she focused on the culture and resident rights. She said she would provide training to DA #3.
D. Follow up
The NHA provided customer service training on 4/13/21 with DA #3. The education included, how to have appropriate conversations in front of residents.
II. Identification of food on plate for visual impaired residents.
III. Professional reference:
A checklist list titled, Health Care Facilities and Service Providers, Ensuring Access to Services and Facilities by Patients Who Are Blind, Deaf-Blind, or Visually Impaired, retrieved from: The American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) provided from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which became a civil rights law on 7/26/1990, currently in affect, retrieved from on 4/22/21: https://www.afb.org/blindness-and-low-vision/your-rights/advocacy-resources/ada-checklist-health-care-facilities-and#%5B5%5D, read in pertinent part:
Places such as hospitals, nursing homes, day-care centers, ambulatory treatment or diagnostic centers, and professional offices of health care providers are all places of public accommodation covered by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). In addition, hospitals or other health care institutions that are operated by state or local governments are covered under Title II of the ADA through a series of checklists, we will guide you through a process of services .
-identifying personnel, staff should initiate an introduction to a patient who is blind, deaf-blind, or visually impaired by addressing the patient by name. They should always identify themselves by name and function and the reason they are there.
-communicating contents of written diets or menu plans
-using disability-sensitive language and etiquette
-informing patient of arrival of food
-identifying location of food and utensils on tray
-assisting with preparation or cutting of some food items .
Food service assistance could include reading and completing menus, identifying items on a patient's tray, or cutting meat on request.
IV. Resident #2
A. Resident status
Resident #2, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 3/12/21 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included anemia, hypertension (high blood pressure), osteoporosis, Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, and cataracts.
The 4/3/21 annual minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had short and long term memory problems, and was severely impaired with daily decision making. The resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene. The resident required total. Staff was to provide set up for meals, clean up assistance and to encourage the resident to eat finger foods. The resident was coded as having impaired vision.
B. Record review
The 12/22/2020 care plan read and revealed, the resident had a potential for nutritional problems due to advanced Alzheimer's Disease. The resident needed to be reminded of meal times. The resident needed encouragement and cueing during meals.
The resident meal ticket documented, to tell the resident what food was on her plate.
C. Observations
On 4/13/21 at 12:31 p.m., the resident was served her meal. The CNA #1 was observed to cut her chicken fried steak into small pieces, however she was not told what was on her plate. The resident began to eat, without knowing what was on her plate.
V. Resident #54
A. Resident status
Resident #54, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the 3/27/21 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes, moderately impaired hearing, and severely impaired vision.
The 2/21/21 quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15. The resident required supervision, encouragement or cueing with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, personal hygiene and toilet use. The resident required set up and clean up assistance with eating.
B. Record review
The 4/6/21 care plan care plan identified the resident was legally blind and that he was at risk for nutritional problems. The interventions were to provide setup assistance at mealtime and assist with cutting up foods as resident will allow. The care plan further documented, the resident may need additional direction during mealtime related to blindness. Describe placement of food/beverages using the clock method and supervise during meals.
C. Observation
On 4/5/21 at 5:30 p.m., the resident received his dinner meal, however, when the resident received his meal, the certified nurse aide failed to tell the resident what was on his plate. The plate was served to the resident and then the CNA walked away.
On 4/7/21 12:16 p.m., the resident received his noon meal. The CNA served the food plate, handed him a spoon and said Can you get it? He was not told what was on his plate or the location of the food.
D. Interview
The director of nurses (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 3:00 p.m. The DON confirmed both residents were legally blind. She said when the plate was served to the residents then the food on the plate should be told to the resident and to use the clock method.
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** IV. Resident #9
A. Resident status
Resident #9, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. According to the April ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Resident #9
A. Resident status
Resident #9, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, chronic kidney disease, and repeated falls.
The 4/3/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 14 out of 15. He required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, toilet use, and supervision with one person assistance with personal hygiene, eating, and limited assistance with one person assistance with dressing. Behavior not present for acute onset of mental status change; no inattention or difficulty focusing; no difficulty keeping track of what was said. Behavior not present for disorganized thinking. Behavior was not present for altered level of consciousness.
B. Resident interview
Resident #9 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 4:50 p.m. Resident #9 said he disliked the facility and planned to leave tomorrow to a new facility. He said certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 was not respectful and CNA #2 was really bad and stressed him. He said if he wanted some water CNA #2 would get mad and act like it really put her out to get it. He said he complained to the nursing home administrator (NHA) and filled out a grievance form on 3/22/21 however, he had not heard back, and CNA #2 continued to be his caregiver. He said CNA #2's tone and attitude were intimidating. He said if he needed help using the bathroom, CNA #2 would insist that he walk in there, and make him clean himself up, even if he was hurting and in pain. He said it was very stressful and made him feel so terrible that he wanted to leave the facility. Resident #9 voiced fear of repercussions should the CNA #2 overheard him talking to the surveyor.
C. Record review
Abuse investigation
The nursing home administrator (NHA) provided a folder that contained the grievance investigation. However, the facility failed to show the abuse investigation was completed.
The facility investigation contained the following content:
The allegation was verbal abuse by staff CNA #2. The investigation documented,
Resident #9 reported to surveyor that CNA #2 will make him go into the bathroom, when he wanted to go in his briefs instead. He said CNA #2 stresses him out and he is fearful of repercussions.
The facility suspended CNA #2 pending investigation on 4/5/21 at 3:50 p.m. The facility interviewed residents from the same neighborhood and staff members. CNA #2's personnel file was reviewed.
The conclusion of the investigation documented, on 3/22/21 the resident reported to the NHA that he was upset that the staff wanted him to use the toilet and he would rather go in his brief. He said he was okay for the CNA to care for him and was ok if NHA spoke to CNA #2.
CNA #2 was interviewed 3/24/21, and she said she encouraged the resident to get out of bed and go to the toilet and not just have a bowel movement in his brief. She was told to set limits with him and encouraged him to go to the bathroom because he requested her to wipe and clean his rectum even after all the bowel movement was gone. If he refused to get out of bed and went in his brief, she would clean it up.
The investigation documented the NHA interview which occured on 3/22/21. Resident #9 asked to speak to NHA. The NHA went into his room and introduced herself to him,she had not met him prior to her maternity leave. He said he was upset that staff wanted him to use the toilet and he would rather go in his brief. The NHA let him know they did encourage residents to toilet themselves if they could but if their preference was to go in their brief, they would honor it. The NHA asked him which CNA and he said CNA #2 and CNA #4. The NHA asked if he was okay for them to care for him and he said yes. The NHA asked if he would be okay if they talked to them about it and he said that was fine. He never mentioned that it stressed him out or he was worried he would receive repercussions from them.
Residents and staff were interviewed from the same community and no one had concerns with feeling unsafe or threatened. However, the questions asked were not in relation to the care provided by CNA #2 and CNA #4.
The investigation was unsubstantiated the allegation of abuse. Staff was to encourage residents to be independent in activities of daily living (ADLs). Staff were to honor Resident #9's preferences. Based on interview, the staff member was genuinely trying to encourage him to be independent. The facility plan for CNA #2's return to work was as follows:
-CNA #2 and CNA #4 would be coached on resident's preference and customer service prior to returning to work.
-A final written warning will be given to identified CNA #2.
-The director of nurses (DON) would provide customer service training prior to returning to the floor.
-CNA #2 was to complete resident rights training prior to working the floor.
-CNA #2 would identify goals on how she could improve her customer service.
-Nursing supervisor would monitor her customer service through grievances and weekly check-ins.
The resident was discharged from the community on 4/6/21. Investigation signed as complete by NHA, DON, and director of clinical operations on 4/8/21 (cross-reference F610 investigate, prevent allegation of abuse).
Although, the resident was discharged from the facility on 4/6/21, the facility failed to ensure a complete investigation was completed with the allegation of abuse (see NHA interview below).
C. Staff interview
The NHA was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 4:40 p.m. The NHA said she did not interview the resident following the verbal abuse allegation on 4/5/21. She said she had combined the grievance reported on 3/22/21 with the new report of verbal abuse on 4/5/21. She said that she had not considered that he was leaving the facility because he did not feel safe there.
The NHA said she had received complaints from other residents in the past in regards to CNA #2. She said that within the past year, she had not received any. The NHA said during the interview of residents, another resident said she was abrupt and rushed her with showers. The NHA said an investigation was not started from the resident who said she was abrupt as it was more customer service.
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure three (#22, #65, #9) of six out of 48 sample residents were kept free from physical abuse, verbal abuse, mental abuse, and neglect.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Resident #22 reported an allegation of physical abuse during cares, which was not fully investigated;
-Resident #65 reported allegation of abuse during cares, which was not fully investigated; and,
-Resident #9 reported verbal abuse allegation which was not fully investigated.
Cross-reference F610 failure to investigate timely, prevent and correct alleged violations
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedure, revised 8/15/16, was provided by the NHA via email on 4/5/21 at 6:23 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. Residents will not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including but not limited to staff (including agency or contract vendors), residents, volunteers, consultants, family members or legal guardians, friends, or other individuals.
II. Resident #22
A. Resident status
Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included, obesity, edema, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension.
According to the 1/24/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident #22 required extensive two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and dressing. He required extensive one person assistance with toileting, and supervision with personal hygiene. He used oxygen and was short of breath with exertion.
B. Resident interview
Resident #22 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:53 p.m. Resident #22 said there was a male staff person who was rough with him when they changed him. He said it occurred when he lived on the fifth floor. Resident #22 said it was a male certified nurse aide (CNA). He said he could identify him if he saw him but did not recall his name. He said he did not report it because there is no sense, no one is held accountable here.
C. Record review
Report of allegation to NHA
The NHA was advised of the allegation of abuse on 4/5/21 at 4:48 p.m.
Review of investigation
The investigation was started on 4/5/21. The NHA provided the investigation for the allegation on 4/13/21 at 4:10 p.m. The resident reported to the NHA that a male CNA was rough with him during his care at night. The CNA threw his right leg over to the side of the mattress. He said he could not describe him because it was late at night. The resident could not recall the name of the staff member when asked by the NHA. She said the allegation was unsubstantiated because she could not determine who the staff person was, and no one else complained. The investigation documented that five female CNAs were interviewed, two male CNAs, and two female nurses. However, according to the DON on 4/14/21 at 3:27p.m. The facility had eight male CNAs, five of them worked nights. The facility also had nine male nurses, six who worked nights. The interview questions asked were, Have any of the residents reported they have been treated roughly or hurt by a staff member. The staff responded no. There were no questions related to repositioning residents in bed and complaints of pain or being treated rough.
There were two resident interviews in the file. The interviews asked has anyone hurt you or threatened you or made you feel unsafe. Have you seen other residents being hurt or threatened. The resident responded no. There were no questions related to staff being rough when transferring, repositioning or turning in bed.
The facility failed to complete a though investigation, and therefore left the residents in a potential abuse situation (cross-reference F610).
D. Interviews
The NHA was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 4:00 p.m. The NHA said that the facility was unable to determine who the male staff member was for the allegation reported by Resident #22, and therefore the investigation was complete, and was found to be unsubstantiated because they were unable to identify the male staff member who was involved with the abuse allegation.
III. Resident #65
A. Resident status
Resident #65, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: cerebral infarction (stroke) due to embolism (clot), seizure disorder, flaccid hemiplegia and hemiparesis of the left side, traumatic brain injury, bipolar disorder, major depression, anxiety and tremors.
According to the 3/12/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15. Resident #65 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and hygiene.
B. Observation
On 4/5/21 at 3:11 p.m., Resident #65 was observed in his room in his wheelchair. His hair was long, to his shoulders, and uncombed. He had two matted areas of hair sticking out from the left side of his head.
C. Record review
The care plan initiated 4/29/17 documented, I require assistance with bathing and ADLs. I frequently decline assistance of any kind and get angry with staff who try to help me. I do not like to have my bed/linens or clothing changed, even when I know they are soiled.I frequently refuse cares but especially don't like to bath or be groomed even when you reapproach me several times or try to give me an incentive.I have left sided hemiplegia and use my right arm and foot to propel myself in my wheelchair. I will sometimes wheel backwards so that I can get from place to place faster. I will remain as independent as possible to complete my ADLSand still be neat, clean, and dressed appropriately through the next care plan review. I will allow staff to help me if I will take a shower at least once per week through my next review. Apply lotion as I allow bathing : prefers showers Monday and Friday evening and prn. Check fingernails and toenails if I allow, discourage me from wheeling backwards so that I don't run into things and people. I often refuse showers, please remind me of the importance of good hygiene. I prefer my facial hair to be unshaven and long. Offer to trim my facial hair and respect my decision. If I refuse a shower, periodically re-approach me for care but know that I do not like the attention and CNA.This may serve to upset me. I will often resort to foul language and may even ask you to leave.
D. Resident interview
Resident #65 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:07 p.m. He said a female nurse had come in his room last week and was shaking a white brush at me, it made me feel threatened. She had not done that before. He said he had not reported this to anyone, but he could identify the nurse if he saw her again.
E. Report of allegation to NHA
The NHA was advised of the allegation of abuse by Resident #65 on 4/5/21 at 3:28 p.m.
The abuse investigation was started on 4/5/21. The investigation revealed four staff members were interviewed. The questions asked of the staff were: Have you at any time seen any staff be disrespectful or rude to a resident, family member or visitor? Do you have concerns about potential abuse, neglect or resident care? Is there anything else that leaders should know? There were no specific questions related to concerns with ADL's, or a staff person shaking a brush at a resident or threatening gestures. The staff members all answered No.
Five residents were interviewed. They were asked, has anyone hurt you or threatened you or made you feel unsafe. There were no questions specific to (activities of daily living) ADL care or regarding threatening gestures, like with a brush. The residents all answered no.
The facility failed to complete a though investigation, and therefore left the residents in a potential abuse situation (cross-reference F610).
F. Interview
The NHA was interviwed 4/13/21 at 4:10 p.m. The NHA said the allegation of abuse was not substantiated because she could not confirm who it was. She said the resident could not describe the staff member. She provided her investigation.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Resident #9
A. Resident status
Resident #9, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. According to the April ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Resident #9
A. Resident status
Resident #9, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, chronic kidney disease, and repeated falls.
The 4/3/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score of 14 out of 15. He required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility, toilet use, and supervision with one person assistance with personal hygiene, eating, and limited assistance with one person assistance with dressing. Behavior not present for acute onset of mental status change; no inattention or difficulty focusing; no difficulty keeping track of what was said. Behavior not present for disorganized thinking. Behavior was not present for altered level of consciousness.
B. Resident interview
Resident #9 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 4:50 p.m. Resident #9 said he disliked the facility and planned to leave tomorrow to a new facility. He said certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 was not respectful and CNA #2 was really bad and stressed him. He said if he wanted some water CNA #2 would get mad and act like it really put her out to get it. He said he complained to the nursing home administrator (NHA) and filled out a grievance form on 3/22/21 however, he had not heard back, and CNA #2 continued to be his caregiver. He said CNA #2's tone and attitude were intimidating. He said if he needed help using the bathroom, CNA #2 would insist that he walk in there, and make him clean himself up, even if he was hurting and in pain. He said it was very stressful and made him feel so terrible that he wanted to leave the facility. Resident #9 voiced fear of repercussions should the CNA #2 overheard him talking to the surveyor.
C. Record review
Abuse investigation
The nursing home administrator (NHA) provided a folder that contained the grievance investigation. However, the facility failed to show the abuse investigation was completed.
The facility investigation contained the following content:
The allegation was verbal abuse by staff CNA #2. The investigation documented,
Resident #9 reported to surveyor that CNA #2 will make him go into the bathroom, when he wanted to go in his briefs instead. He said CNA #2 stresses him out and he is fearful of repercussions.
The facility suspended CNA #2 pending investigation on 4/5/21 at 3:50 p.m. The facility interviewed residents from the same neighborhood and staff members. CNA #2's personnel file was reviewed.
The conclusion of the investigation documented, on 3/22/21 the resident reported to the NHA that he was upset that the staff wanted him to use the toilet and he would rather go in his brief. He said he was okay for the CNA to care for him and was ok if NHA spoke to CNA #2.
CNA #2 was interviewed 3/24/21, and she said she encouraged the resident to get out of bed and go to the toilet and not just have a bowel movement in his brief. She was told to set limits with him and encouraged him to go to the bathroom because he requested her to wipe and clean his rectum even after all the bowel movement was gone. If he refused to get out of bed and went in his brief, she would clean it up.
The investigation documented the NHA interview which occured on 3/22/21. Resident #9 asked to speak to NHA. The NHA went into his room and introduced herself to him,she had not met him prior to her maternity leave. He said he was upset that staff wanted him to use the toilet and he would rather go in his brief. The NHA let him know they did encourage residents to toilet themselves if they could but if their preference was to go in their brief, they would honor it. The NHA asked him which CNA and he said CNA #2 and CNA #4. The NHA asked if he was okay for them to care for him and he said yes. The NHA asked if he would be okay if they talked to them about it and he said that was fine. He never mentioned that it stressed him out or he was worried he would receive repercussions from them.
Residents and staff were interviewed from the same community and no one had concerns with feeling unsafe or threatened. However, the questions asked were not in relation to the care provided by CNA #2 and CNA #4.
The investigation was unsubstantiated the allegation of abuse. Staff was to encourage residents to be independent in activities of daily living (ADLs). Staff were to honor Resident #9's preferences. Based on interview, the staff member was genuinely trying to encourage him to be independent. The facility plan for CNA #2's return to work was as follows:
-CNA #2 and CNA #4 would be coached on resident's preference and customer service prior to returning to work.
-A final written warning will be given to identified CNA #2.
-The director of nurses (DON) would provide customer service training prior to returning to the floor.
-CNA #2 was to complete resident rights training prior to working the floor.
-CNA #2 would identify goals on how she could improve her customer service.
-Nursing supervisor would monitor her customer service through grievances and weekly check-ins.
The resident was discharged from the community on 4/6/21. Investigation signed as complete by NHA, DON, and director of clinical operations on 4/8/21
Although, the resident was discharged from the facility on 4/6/21, the facility failed to ensure a complete investigation was completed with the allegation of abuse (see NHA interview below).
C. Staff interview
The NHA was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 4:40 p.m. The NHA said she did not interview the resident following the verbal abuse allegation on 4/5/21. She said she had combined the grievance reported on 3/22/21 with the new report of verbal abuse on 4/5/21. She said that she had not considered that he was leaving the facility because he did not feel safe there.
V. Additional interview
The medical director was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:24 a.m. He said he was not aware of the six allegations of abuse reported during the survey. He said he would review them in the quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) meeting for any trends. He said investigations and interviews should have been specific to the allegation and not vague questions about abuse and treatment. He said the staff may need more training and resources.
Based on record review, resident interview and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation for three (#65, #22 and #9) out of six residents for a potential abuse allegation out 48 sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation which included, but not limited to: obtaining a thorough interview specific to the allegation, from all staff that had worked with the resident, to effectively indicate appropriate actions, and take the appropriate corrective action as a result of the investigation findings for Resident #65, #22, and #9.
Cross-reference F600 for failure to prevent abuse
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Abuse and Neglect policy, revised on 8/15/16, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/6/21 at 8:38 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part,
The individual coordinating the investigation will, at a minimum:
-Review the documentation;
Review the resident's medical record to determine events leading up to the incident;
- Interview the person(s) reporting the incident; Interview any witnesses to the incident; -Interview the resident (as able);
-Review the MOS and care plans of residents involved to determine cognitive level, ability to understand and be understood, mood and behaviors, and any other patterns which may;
-Interview staff members (on all shifts) who have had contact with the resident during the
period of the alleged incident;
-Interview the resident's roommate, family members, and visitors;
Interview other residents to whom the accused employee provides care or services; and
- Review all events leading up to the alleged incident.
The following guidelines will be used when conducting interviews: Each interview will be conducted separately and in a private location.
The purpose and confidentiality of the interview will be explained to each person being interviewed. Interviews will be documented by the person conducting the interview, dated, and signed. Based on the facts identified during the investigation, a summary of the investigation and
reasons for the conclusion will be written and reviewed by the Nursing HomeAdministrator/Designee.
II. Resident #22
A. Resident interview
Resident #22 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:53 p.m. He said there was a male staff person who was rough with him when they changed him. He said it occurred when he lived on the fifth floor. Resident #22 said it was a male certified nurse aide (CNA). He said he could identify him if he saw him but did not recall his name. He said he did not report it because there is no sense, no one is held accountable here. Cross-reference F600.
B. Report of allegation to NHA
The NHA was advised of the allegation of abuse on 4/5/21 at 4:48 p.m.
C. Facility investigation
The investigation was started on 4/5/21. The NHA provided the investigation for the allegation on 4/13/21 at 4:10 p.m. The resident reported to the NHA that a male CNA was rough with him during his care at night. The CNA threw his right leg over to the side of the mattress. He said he could not describe him because it was late at night. The resident could not recall the name of the staff member when asked by the NHA. She said the allegation was unsubstantiated because she could not determine who the staff person was, and no one else complained. The investigation documented that five female CNA's were interviewed, two male CNAs, and two female nurses. However, according to the DON on 4/14/21 at 3:27p.m. The facility had eight male CNAs, five of them worked nights. The facility also had nine male nurses, six who worked nights. The interview questions asked were, Have any of the residents reported they have been treated roughly or hurt by a staff member. The staff responded no. There were no questions related to repositioning residents in bed and complaints of pain or being treated rough.
There were two resident interviews in the file. The interviews asked has anyone hurt you or threatened you or made you feel unsafe. Have you seen other residents being hurt or threatened. The resident responded no. There were no questions related to staff being rough when transferring, repositioning or turning in bed.
The investigation was not a complete and thorough investigation, as it failed to show all staff on the night shift were interviewed, all male staff members in the nursing department who worked the night shift were not not interviewed. According to the DON on 4/14/21 at 3:27 p.m. The facility had eight male CNA's, five of them worked nights. The facility also had nine male nurses, six who worked nights. However, the facility only interviewed two male CNAs who worked the night shift. The interview questions were not specific to Resident #22. Therefore, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation and left the residents in potential abuse situations.
D. Interviews
The NHA was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 2:00 P.M. She said the interviews and investigation could be more through. She said you have opened my eyes to dig deeper and ask more questions. She said she needed to provide more education to her team on interviewing and using more specific questions to rule out abuse.
E. Facility follow-up
On 4/15/21 at 9:44 a.m. The NHA provided more additional staff interviews. She had interviewed four more male nursing staff members. This time the questions asked were, Have you ever transferred Resident #22? Has he ever complained of leg pain with transfers? Have you ever witnessed a staff person being rough?
On 4/14/21, the NHA provided an inservice document with eight staff signatures. The inservice said, please review and sign acknowledging the care plan for moving Resident #22's legs.
The care plan, initiated 1/2/19, was updated on 4/7/21 to include my legs are sensitive and if bumped causes me pain. Staff will monitor placement of my legs and feet during transfers and ensure they are protected. Staff will tell me what they are doing with my feet.
III. Resident #65
A. Resident interview
Resident #65 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:07 p.m. Resident #65 said a female nurse had come in his room last week and was shaking a white brush at me, it made me feel threatened. She had not done that before. He said he had not reported this to anyone, but he could identify the nurse if he saw her again. Cross-reference F600.
B. Report of allegation to NHA
The NHA was advised of the allegation of abuse by Resident #65 on 4/5/21 at 3:28 p.m.
C. Facility investigation
The investigation was started on 4/5/21. On 4/13/21 at 4:10 p.m. The NHA said the allegation of abuse was not substantiated because she could not confirm who it was. she said the resident could not describe the staff member. She provided her investigation.
The investigation revealed four staff members were interviewed. The questions asked of the staff were: Have you at any time seen any staff be disrespectful or rude to a resident, family member or visitor? Do you have concerns about potential abuse, neglect or resident care? Is there anything else that leaders should know? There were no specific questions related to concerns with ADLs, or a staff person shaking a brush at a resident or threatening gestures. The staff members all answered No.
Five residents were interviewed. They were asked, has anyone hurt you or threatened you or made you feel unsafe. There were no questions specific to (activities of daily living) ADL care or regarding threatening gestures, like with a brush. The residents all answered no.
There was no follow up documentation or monitoring of Resident #65 in the electronic medical record (EMR) between 4/5/21 and 4/13/21, regarding any changes in behavior or fear.
On 4/14/21, the NHA provided an email she had sent to Resident #65's social worker and requested he do a mood check with the resident weekly for four weeks.
F. Interviews
The social service director ( SSD) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 3:37 p.m. He said he assisted with abuse investigations. The SSD said he asks if anyone had been verbally or physically abused and who would you tell when he does interviews for abuse. He said he felt the questions were too general.The SSD said he felt the questions should be more specific toward the allegation, like regarding being threatened with brush or concerns with ADL care in the case of Resident #65.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
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 the assessments accurately reflected the status for five (#4...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure the assessments accurately reflected the status for five (#42 #79, #43, #47, and #136) of 48 sample residents reviewed for accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments.
Specifically, the facility failed to accurately code:
-The use of the using tobacco on the MDS for Residents #42 and #79;
-The use of glasses for Resident #43;
-The preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) level II for Resident #47; and,
-The use of antibiotics and IV's for Resident #136.
Findings include:
I. Resident #42
A. Resident status
Resident 42, age less than 50, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO diagnoses included, aphasia following unspecified cerebrovascular disease (CVA), hemiplegia and hemiparesis following CVA, cannabis abuse.
B. Resident interview
The resident was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 11:23 a.m. The resident said that he smoked cigarettes
The 2/21/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment showed the resident had a score of 15 out of 15 for the brief interview for mental status. The resident required supervision with personal hygiene.
-The MDS failed to code that the resident smoked cigarettes.
II. Resident # 79
A. Resident status
Resident #79, age less than 50, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO diagnoses included, chronic pain, major depressive disorder, and paraplegia.
The 3/21/21 MDS assessment documented the resident had no cognitive impairment with a score of 15 out of 15 for the brief interview for mental status. The resident required extensive assistance of two for bed mobility, transfers, and personal hygiene.
The 8/27/2020 annual MDS assessment failed to code the resident smoked cigarettes.
B. Resident interview
The resident was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 11:38 a.m. The resident said he was able to smoke when he wanted.
III. Resident #43
A. Resident status
Resident #43, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO diagnosis included, seizures, chronic pain, and CVA.
The 2/7/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toilet use. MDS assessment coded the resident did not wear corrective lenses.
B. Observation
On 4/7/21 at 10:15 a.m., the resident was had a pair of reading glasses on the arm rest on her wheelchair.
C. Resident interview
The resident was interviewed on 4/8/21 at approximately 10:00 a.m. The resident said she wore glasses for reading.
D. Record review
The 1/6/21 physician progress note documented, the resident had complained of blurred vision in past, and was waiting on her new pair of glasses.
E. Interview
The DON was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 10:28 a.m. The DON confirmed MDS was inaccurate and did not include Resident #43 used corrective lenses.
IV. Resident #47
A. Resident status
Resident #47, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO diagnoses included, encephalopathy, and epilepsy.
The MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident had both long and short term memory impairments. His decision making skills were severely impaired. The MDS failed to document the resident had a PASRR level II.
B. Record review
The electronic record showed the resident had an active PASRR level II.
C. Interview
The social service director (SSD) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at approximately 2:00 p.m. The SSD said the social service department completed the MDS for the PASRR level II in section A.
The SSD was interviewed a second time on 4/15/21 at 10:00 a.m. The SSD said he reviewed the MDS and confirmed it was coded inaccurately and that the resident did have an activity PASRR level II.
V. Resident #136
A. Resident status
Resident #136, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO diagnoses included, congestive heart failure, bacteremia, infection and inflammatory reaction to due to cardiac and vascular devices.
The 4/8/21 MDS showed the resident had no cognitive impairments with a score of 15 out of 15 for mental status. The resident required supervision with locomotion and personal hygiene.
The MDS Nursing Summary (UDA) dated 4/2/21 failed to include the resident received IV treatment for an antibiotic.
The 4/8/21 MDS signed off on 4/12/21 failed to code the resident as being administered IV antibiotics upon the residents admission.
B. Observation
The resident was observed on 4/6/21 at approximately 10:00 a.m. He had an IV on his left arm.
C. Record review
The April 2021 CPO showed an order for Vancomycin HCI solution 500 mg to be administered while at dialysis.
D. Interview
The DON was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 10:28 a.m. The DON reviewed the MDS and confirmed the use of IV antibiotics was not on the MDS. She reviewed the UDA and confirmed it was not on the UDA summary sheet. Although the resident received the antibiotic while at dialysis, it should still be on the MDS.
VI. Additional interview
The DON was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 10:28 a.m. The DON said they do not have a MDS coordinator. She said the MDSs were completed by an outside company. She said that the UDA was filled out by the charge nurse, and then it was sent to the company. The outside company did the nurse sections of G, GG, H,I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P. She said, that the contract was coming to an end real soon.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident received tre...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for seven (#84, #59, #336, #40, #65, #77 and #8) of 24 residents out of 48 total sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Transcribe a medication correctly resulting in a medication administration error for Resident #84;
-Monitor Resident #59 for signs/symptoms of bleeding while the resident was receiving an anticoagulant medication;
-Ensure foot rests were on Resident #336's wheelchair for proper positioning of the resident;
-Notify the physician of Resident #40's elevated blood sugars;
-Identify a visible burn on Resident #65's skin;
-Follow physician orders/parameters for blood pressure medications for Resident #77; and,
-Ensure Resident #8 was assisted with timely repositioning.
Findings include:
I. Failure to transcribe a medication correctly resulting in a medication administration error for Resident #84
A. Resident status
Resident #84, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and passed away at the facility on 4/2/21. According to the April 2021 clinical physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included encounter for palliative care, cognitive social or emotional deficit following cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, Alzheimer's disease, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and history of falling.
The 3/26/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident had cognitive impairments, and his cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired, based on the staff assessment for mental status. He required one-person extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toilet use. He required one-person limited assistance for personal hygiene.
B. Record review
Review of Resident #84's April 2021 clinical physician orders (CPO) revealed the following physician orders:
Seroquel tablet 25 milligrams (MG). Give one tablet by mouth two times a day for unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. The order had a start date of 3/19/21. The order was discontinued on 3/26/21 due to a dose change in the order.
Seroquel tablet 25 MG. Give one tablet by mouth at bedtime daily for unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. The order had a start date of 3/26/21.
Review of Resident #84's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed the resident's admitting physician orders were faxed to the facility on 3/18/21. The admitting orders included a physician's order for Seroquel 25 MG. Give 1/2 tablet (12.5 MG) by mouth two times per day.
Further review of the EMR revealed Resident #84's Seroquel order had been entered into the EMR system on 3/19/21, the day prior to the resident's admission to the facility. The order was entered incorrectly into the EMR as Seroquel 25 MG by mouth two times per day.
-The transcription error resulted in the resident receiving two times the dose of Seroquel that had been prescribed by the physician.
The Nursing Screening/History assessment, conducted upon Resident #84's admission to the facility on 3/20/21, documented the drug regimen review was completed by a nurse and there were no problems found during the review.
Further review of the 3/20/21 Nursing Screening/History assessment revealed the physician/provider review and verification section of the assessment was not marked to indicate whether or not the resident's admitting physician orders had been reviewed and verified with the facility's physician.
Review of Resident #84's progress notes did not reveal any documentation to indicate the admitting nurse had called the facility's physician to review and verify the resident's medications upon his admission to the facility.
C. Staff interview
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 12:04 p.m. The DON said she was not aware a medication error had occurred for Resident #84. She said he should have been receiving 12.5 MG of Seroquel two times daily from the start of his admission, however she said she could see he had received 25 MG two times a day instead. She said the nurse had put the physician's order into the EMR incorrectly. She said when a resident was admitted to the facility, the nurse was supposed to call the physician, review all of the resident's medications with the physician, and verify the physician approved of the medications. The DON said the 3/20/21 Nursing Screening/History assessment for Resident #84 was not completed fully. She said all of the sections should be marked and accurate. She said physician orders should not be entered into the EMR until a resident arrived at the facility. The DON said the facility did not have a process in place to ensure orders were double checked and verified by nurses to make sure that all orders had been entered into the EMR accurately. She said she would do a risk management assessment for the medication error, and provide education to the nurse who made the transcription error.
II. Failure to monitor Resident #59 for signs/symptoms of bleeding while the resident was receiving an anticoagulant medication
A. Facility policy and procedure
The Anticoagulation Management policy was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) via email on 4/13/21 at 11:33 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Residents receiving anticoagulants will have a care plan that includes monitoring for bleeding such as: increased bruises, bleeding from the gums, nose, or ears, blood in the urine or stool, and sudden confusion or shortness of breath related to potential bleeding in the brain or lungs.
B. Resident status
Resident #59, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April CPO, diagnoses included chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension, unspecified atrial fibrillation, presence of cardiac pacemaker, presence of other heart valve replacement, presence of other cardiac implants and grafts, and encounter for orthopedic aftercare following a surgical amputation.
The 2/24/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. She required two-person extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. She required one-person extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene.
C. Record review
Review of Resident #59's comprehensive care plan, initiated on 4/5/21 revealed the resident was receiving Xarelto, an anticoagulant medication, for atrial fibrillation and aortic valve replacement. She was at risk for bleeding, bruising, and blood in her stools. Pertinent interventions included assisting the resident with prevention of bruising/trauma, and performing skin checks to make sure the resident had no skin discolorations.
-The care plan did not include monitoring for other symptoms of bleeding such as: bleeding from the gums, nose, or ears, blood in the urine or stool, and sudden confusion or shortness of breath related to potential bleeding in the brain or lungs.
Review of Resident #59's April 2021 CPO revealed the resident had a physician's order for Xarelto tablet 20 MG. Give one tablet by mouth in the evening for atrial fibrillation. The start date for the order was 2/18/21.
-Further review of the CPO did not reveal a physician's order to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of bleeding or bruising while on an anticoagulant medication.
D. Staff interview
Assistant director of nursing (ADON) #1 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 10:00 a.m. ADON #1 said residents who were receiving anticoagulant medications should have a physician's order to monitor for signs and symptoms of bleeding. She said the care plan should include the anticoagulant medication the resident was receiving, in addition to the specific signs and symptoms of bleeding to monitor for.
III. Failure to identify, assess and treat skin wounds that were located on Resident #65's hand and wrist, which were in a visible location. See observation below.
A. Facility policy and procedure
The Pressure Wound Prevention and Skin Management policy, revised 4/1/21 was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/21/21 at 11:44 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part,Prevention Program:Residents will be observed for skin breakdown by a licensed nurse a minimum of weekly and documented on the Skin Observation Tool. Skin should be assessed upon return from a leave of absence.
B. Resident #65
1. Resident status
Resident #65, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: cerebral infarction (stroke) due to embolism (clot), seizure disorder, flaccid hemiplegia and hemiparesis of the left side, nicotine dependence, traumatic brain injury, and tremors.
According to the 3/12/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15. Resident #65 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and hygiene. He had a wheelchair for mobility. He had no skin conditions, including burns.
2. Observations
On 4/8/21 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #65 was observed in the hallway, his left wrist and hand rested between his legs on the wheelchair seat. His hand was curled up, and he could not independently to move his left arm or hand. He had three visible circular wounds on the left wrist and hand. The two wounds on the wrist appeared to be scabbed and approximately 1 cm, and the one toward his thumb was a round dark purple scarred area approximately 1.5 cm. The wounds were round, and were cigarette burns (cross reference F-689 accidents).
On 4/8/21 at 11:51 a.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) #1 observed the wounds. She said those are cigarette burns. She said there are at least three visible burns. ADON #1 said the wound near the thumb looked healed and the other two near his wrist were scabbed. The ADON said the first wrist wound on the outer wrist was 1.1x1.5 cm and the one below it was 1.7 x 1.3 cm.
She said he refused weekly skin assessments, but these wounds were visible without removing his clothes for a skin assessment. ADON #1 said the resident had a shower last night and the wounds should have been reported at that time. The ADON said she was concerned he may have burns to his groin area too after she looked at the multiple holes in his wheelchair. The wheelchair still had ashes from the cigarette on top of the burned areas in the chair. The resident refused to allow her to inspect his groin area at that time. ADON #1 said she would notify the wound physician to come look at the wounds.
3. Record review
The skin assessments for February, March and April 2021 were reviewed. The resident refused skin assessments in February, 2/3/21, 2/10/21, 2/17/21, 2/24/2. The resident refused skin assessments in March, 3/3/21, 3/10/21, 3/17/21, 3/24/21, 3/31/21.
Added during survey after the facility was informed, On 4/8/21, the skin assessment documented the seven smoking related injuries to the upper and lower extremities, all in centimeters, Left Medial wrist 1- 1x 0.8 scab 2- 1x 0.8 scab 3- 0.7 x 0.7 4 L thumb cluster- 2.0x2.0 L pinky- 1.3x0.7 Left thigh 2x1.7 Left thigh 1.8x 0.7. There was no further description of the wounds. However, these wounds were viable and not covered by clothing.
The CNA bath sheets were received from the DON on 4/8/21. The DON said the CNA should document any skin problem on the bath sheet and the nurse signed off on the sheet. The bath sheets for February through April were reviewed. The bath sheets documented the resident refused a bath on 2/5/21 and 2/17/21. Two bath sheets provided had no date and were blank, except for a nurse signature. On 3/17/21, the bath sheet documents the resident refused. On 3/31/21, the bath sheet documents the skin was ok and was signed by a nurse.
On 4/8/21, the bath sheet documented the resident refused.
-There was no bath sheet for 4/7/21, the night ADON #1 said the resident had a shower and the burns should have been seen.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/9/2021 at 11:14 a.m. She said the skin assessments should be done weekly. If the nurse finds a new skin problem including burns, they should document the size, shape, color, drainage, and cause.
She said documenting the size alone was not sufficient as documented on the 4/8/21 skin assessment. The DON said the physician and the family should be notified and a risk report completed. The wound care nurse should be notified and a care plan initiated.
4. Interviews
The DON was interviewed again on 4/13/21 at 10:46 a.m. She said she was not aware of the residents refusal of skin assessments or the burns prior to 4/8/21. She said the ADON on each floor should be auditing the skin assessments weekly.
The DON said the ADON should have attempted a skin assessment themselves with the repeat refusals, or documented skin that could be seen without removing the clothing like the hands and arms. She said unfortunately, the ADON did not do anything.
IV. Failure to follow physician ordered parameters for blood pressure medication
A. Facility policy and procedure
The Medication Administration policy, reviewed 7/25/19, was received from the NHA on 4/13/21 at 11:33 a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Medications will be administered in accordance with written orders authorized by the attending physician or designee.
B. Resident #77
1. Resident status
Resident #77, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: respiratory failure with hypoxia, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus.
According to the 3/19/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had mild cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. Resident #77 required supervision of one person with bed mobility and toileting. He required limited one person assistance with transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. He used oxygen and had shortness of breath when lying flat.
2. Record review
The April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO) were reviewed. The resident had two orders with vital signs that needed to be obtained before the medication was administered or held.
On 11/1/7/2020, the order documented, Metoprolol Succinate ER (extended release) 24 hour, 50 mg (milligrams), give one tablet by mouth in the evening for hypertension. Hold if heart rate was less than 60 beats per minute or the systolic blood pressure was less than 100 mmhg (millimeters mercury).
On 11/17/20, the order documented, Losartan Potassium tablet 100 mg, give one tablet by mouth in the evening for hypertension. Hold if the systolic blood pressure was less than 100.
The medication administration records (MARs) were reviewed for January, February, March and April 2021. There was no pulse or blood pressure documented prior to giving the medications.
The MARs did have a blood pressure and pulse check documented just prior to the administration of the medications.
3. Interviews
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 3:26 p.m. He was at the nurses station with his computer open in the electronic medical record in Point Click Care. His entire screen was red. He said he was entering the vital signs for the COVID-19 monitoring onto the MAR. LPN #1 said the certified nurse aides (CNA's) get the vital signs on residents twice per day for COVID-19 monitoring. Once in the morning and once in the evening. He said if a resident requires a blood pressure or pulse check before administering a medication he would use the vital signs the CNA's obtained. He said sometimes it took him three hours to complete a medication pass. He said even if it had been three hours since the CNA checked the blood pressure and pulse he would still use those vital signs to administer or hold medications that required a blood pressure or pulse check.
He said he did not take the vital signs himself for medication administration. He said in the evening, vital signs are checked for COVID-19 between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. He presented the vital sign tool sheets the CNA's documented on . The sheets had dates on them, with resident names and vital signs.
-There were no times documented on the vital sign sheets.
The DON was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 8:11 a.m. She said the nurse should check the vital signs no more than one half hour before giving a medication with parameters to hold. She said it can be the CNA, but it still should be no more than one half hour before the medication was administered.
The DON said she would add a space to the MAR for a blood pressure and pulse check before giving medication with parameters to hold for Resident #77. She said she would audit the other residents' orders and add a place on the MAR to document vital signs if the physician had ordered parameters for administration.
The DON said she was going to do an audit.
V. Failure to notify the physician of blood sugar values outside of physician identified parameters for resident #40.
Resident #40
A. Resident status
Resident #40, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the 2/8/21 computerized physician orders (CPOs), diagnoses included Diabetes Mellitus, hypertension (high blood pressure), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), and chronic kidney disease.
The 2/8/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, movement on and off the unit, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. The resident was always incontinent of urine and frequently incontinent of bowel.
B. Record review
The April 2020 CPO showed an order for the physician to be notified when blood sugar reading was less than 60 or greater than 350.
The 1/21/2020 care plan and revised on 4/5/21, identified the resident had a diagnosis of diabetes and was prescribed insulin. The care plan documented that blood sugar was monitored. The orders revealed the physician was to be notified if blood sugar reading was less than 60 or greater than 350.
The blood sugar summary, read and revealed the following 11 dates the resident's blood sugar values were outside the physician specified parameters of greater than 350.
-The progress notes and the medication administration record (MAR) failed to show the physician notification of blood sugar values that were above 350.0 mg/dL on the following dates.
Date and blood sugar values were recorded:
-4/8/21, 413.0 mg/dL;
-3/29/21, 361.0 mg/dL;
-3/27/21, 370.0 mg/dL;
-3/26/21, 388.0 mg/dL;
-3/24/21, 399.0 mg/dL;
-3/23/21, 363.0 mg/dL;
-3/19/21, 375.0 mg/dL;
-3/16/21, 397.0 mg/dL;
-3/11/21, 389.0 mg/dL;
-3/7/21, 359.0 mg/dL; and,
-3/1/21, 385.0 mg/dL.
C. Interview
The director of nurses (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 3:00 p.m. The DON said when the physician had written a parameter on the blood sugars, then it must be followed. She said for Resident #40, his blood sugars were above 350 and should have been reported to the physician as ordered.
VI. Failure to place foot rests on the wheelchair for Resident #336
A. Resident status
Resident #336, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 diagnoses included, Parkinson's disease, history of falling and cerebrovascular disease.
The 3/1/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a score of eight out of 15 on the brief interview for mental status. The resident required assistance with locomotion with one person assist, extensive assistance with mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene. Resident #336 was coded to use a wheelchair only.
B. Observations
On 4/6/21 at 10:23 a.m., the resident was to be seated in her wheelchair. Her feet were dangling and were not resting on the floor. The foot rests were located on the floor in the corner of the room. The resident said sometimes the staff put the foot rests on. She said when the foot rests were on the chair, it was more comfortable for her.
On 4/7/21 at 4:27 p.m.,the resident continued to sit in her wheelchair with her feet dangling. She did not have foot pedals on her wheelchair.
On 4/9/21 at 11:15 a.m., the resident was seated in her wheelchair with her feet dangling. The foot rests were on the floor in the corner of the room.
-At 11:19 a.m., licensed practical nurse #5 (LPN) also observed the resident's feet dangling with no foot rests. The LPN #5 picked up the foot rests from the floor and placed them on the wheel chair. The resident said that was much better.
On 4/12/21 at 8:53 a.m., the resident had no foot rests on her wheelchair as she sat with her feet dangling.
On 4/13/21 at 10:16 a.m., the resident was seated sitting in her wheelchair and she had no foot pedals on and her feet were dangling.
C. Record review
The care plan dated 4/7/21 identified the resident was unable to complete her activities of daily living. The resident had a recent CVA with hemiplegia and a fall with a right clavicle fracture. The intervention was to assist the resident with ADL's and to encourage resident to help.
-The care plan failed to provide instruction to ensure the foot pedals were on the wheelchair.
D. Interviews
The LPN #13 was interviewed on 4/9/21 at 11:19 a.m. The LPN #13 said the resident was able to walk independently. She said the foot rests would cause a problem with her as she did not have the strength to put them up. She said that she will have to train her CNAs to put the foot pedals on and foot pedals needed to be on the residents when they transported residents to other areas.
The resident was interviewed on 4/12/21 at approximately 9:30 a.m. The resident said she was not able to walk independently. She said the CNAs would help her when she walked.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #13 was interviewed on 412/21 at approximately 10:00 a.m. The CNA said the resident was not able to go to the bathroom alone. She said that she walked with a walker, however she required assistance to walk.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 residents maintained continence or received tr...
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 residents maintained continence or received treatment and services to restore continence to the extent possible for three (#8, #65, and #336) of four residents out of 48 total sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-Bowel and bladder incontinence care plans were followed for Resident #8;
-Residents #8, #65 and #336 received an accurate and thorough bladder and bowel assessment to determine an appropriate treatment plan and;
-Implement individualized interventions in response to incontinence for Resident #65.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Incontinence Management policy and procedure, last revised November 2020, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/13/21 at 11:33 a.m. It documented in pertinent part: Residents should be evaluated on admission, quarterly, and with a change of condition, increased incontinence, new incontinence related excoriation etc.
The required forms: bowel and bladder continence evaluation, three day pattern study evaluation when appropriate, urinary incontinence tool and the acute temporary and/or long-term care plan
For incontinent residents who have a potential to have their continence restored a 3-day voiding pattern study will be evaluated by nursing to determine potential types of incontinence.
Utilizing the Urinary Incontinence Tool, the nurse may determine if any of the suggestions are appropriate for the resident.
Based on screen results, an acute temporary care plan should be initiated. Resident's response to individualized toileting scheduled will be completed as directed per the care plan and resident preference. A plan will be established to maintain skin dryness and minimize exposure to urine and/or feces.
I. Resident #8
A. Resident status
Resident #8, under the age of 70, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerised physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic pain syndrome, acquired absence of right leg below knee and polyneuropathy.
The 1/1/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15. He required two-person extensive assistance for bed mobility, toileting and transfers. He required one-person extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene.
The bladder and bowel assessment of the 1/1/21 MDS revealed the resident was almost always incontinent of bladder and almost always incontinent of bowel. The resident was coded as not on a toileting program.
B. Resident interview
Resident #8 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 11:14 a.m. Resident #8 said he was rarely incontinent of bladder and bowel.He said he almost always knew when he needed to be toileted.
The resident said he required the sit-to-stand machine to transfer him from his bed to the toilet. He said staff also needed to provide assistance with applying his prosthetic leg before using the machine.
He said by the time staff would answer his call light, apply his prosthetic leg and get him positioned in the sit-to-stand, he would experience an episode of incontinence.
The resident said he asked staff to provide a urinal, bedpan and brief to keep at his bedside so he was not incontinent in his bed or on the floor. He said he did not mind using the urinal, bedpan or brief but preferred to use the toilet.
He said staff did not offer other solutions to include frequent incontinence checks.
He said staff only checked-in on him once or twice a day. He said staff did not offer to provide assistance toileting him throughout the day.
C Observations
On 4/7/21 at 9:20 a.m. the resident was observed laying in his bed listening to music.
At 11:23 a.m., 12:38 p.m. and 2:17 p.m., the resident was still laying in bed. Staff did not enter his room and offer to toilet or reposition him during the observation period.
At 2:35 p.m. the certified nursing aide (CNA) entered the residents room and filled his water jug.
The CNA obtained a towel and assisted the resident with showering.
At 4:31 p.m. the resident was observed laying in bed with his urinal approximately 4 ounces full of urine. There was a slight urine odor coming from the room.
On 4/9/21 the resident was observed seated in his wheelchair in his room completing a crossword puzzle. There was a slight urine odor coming from his room.
On 4/13/21 the resident was observed laying in bed on his back. There was a urine odor coming from his room.
D. Record review
The 5/4/18 incontinence diary revealed the resident voided every two hours when prompted by staff.
The most recent incontinence diary was on 5/5/18, revealed the resident was incontient three times out of 12 opportunities during the observation period. It revealed he voided every two hours when prompted by staff.
The 11/5/2020 therapy progress note revealed the CNA on shift informed therapy that the resident had experienced an increase in incontinence. The CNA was concerned that the increase could pose a great risk to the resident's skin integrity. The CNA said the resident used his call light appropriately.
Therapy completed an assessment on 11/5/2020 and reported the resident was at his baseline. The therapist educated CNA to offer to toilet the resident more frequently to reduce bowel incontinence episodes.
The 3/30/21 quarterly bowel and bladder continence evaluation revealed the resident was always continent of bladder. It revealed the resident was always incontient of bowel. It revealed the resident required more than oversight, encouragement and cueing when toileting.
It revealed staff would encourage the resident to use the toilet and that staff would provide frequent incontinence checks.
The 30 day look back review of the bowel and bladder elimination plan of care (POC) response history was reviewed on 4/15/21. It revealed the resident was incontinent of bowel 35 out of 48 documented times.
The activities of daily living (ADL) care plan, last revised 11/26/2019, revealed the resident was frequently incontient of bowel and bladder. It revealed the resident was aware of when he needed to be toileted but chose to soil himself. It revealed the resident required extensive assistance with ADL's.
The pertinent interventions included: to encourage the resident to inform staff when he needed to use the toilet to promote continence and for staff to complete purposeful rounds with the resident to help meet his needs.
The medical record failed to show evidence that the resident was assessed properly to determine which bowel and bladder program was best for Resident #8.
E. Staff interviews
The assistant director of nursing (ADON) #2 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 10:33 a.m The ADON #2 said Resident #8 was continent of bladder and used his urinal independently. She said he used his call light appropriately when he needed to be toileted for a bowel movement. She said the restorative department was not responsible for overseeing toileting. She said floor staff was responsible for encouraging the resident to use the toilet as appropriate.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 4:19 p.m. The DON said residents complete a three day bowel and bladder study upon admission into the facility and as needed. She said based on the bowel and bladder study the interdisciplinary team (IDT) determined what assistance a resident required. She said when a resident did not meet criteria for the restorative or therapy program, staff completed purposeful rounds with them.She said purposeful rounds included asking the resident every 2 hours if they needed anything and offering to toilet them. She said the comprehensive care plan documented the findings and recommendations from the bowel and bladder study.She said a bowel and bladder assessment was completed upon the residents admission into the facility and quarterly. She said the CNA was responsible for prompted toileting and implementing care plan interventions.
The licensed practical nurse (LPN) # 2 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:46 a.m. LPN #2 said Resident #8 was checked-in on when staff walked past his room. She said the resident did not require purposeful rounding because he could make his needs known.She said the resident was frequently incontinent but was able to tell staff when he needed to be toileted. She said she was not sure of any interventions in place to assist the resident with his incontient episodes.
CNA #7 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 11:22 a.m. CNA #7 said she was unsure if Resident #8 required purposeful rounding. She said the resident was continent of bladder but incontient of bowel.She said she did not provide cues or encouragement to the resident in regard to toileting. She said the resident was able to make his needs known.
IV. Resident #65
A. Resident status
Resident #65, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: cerebral infarction (stroke) due to embolism (clot), seizure disorder, flaccid hemiplegia and hemiparesis of the left side, traumatic brain injury, and tremors.
According to the 3/12/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of nine out of 15. Resident #65 required supervision with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting and hygiene. He had a wheelchair for mobility. He was frequently incontinet of bowel and bladder, which was described as seven or more episodes of incontinence, with at least one episode of continence. Resident #65 was not on a toileting program for prompted voiding, or bladder or bowel retraining.
B. Record review
The Bowel and Bladder Continence Evaluation dated 3/12/21 was reviewed. The evaluation documented the resident was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The evaluation documented he needed assistance with toileting, more than oversight, encouragement and cueing. It documented he was alert and oriented to person, place and time. The evaluation documented his immobility affected his continence. He had functional incontinence due to immobility. There was no plan for treatment of the incontinence. The evaluation documented he did not have transient, overflow, urge mixed or stress incontinence. His incontinence was solely based on his immobility. A three day bladder pattern study had not been initiated.
A care plan initiated 4/22/18, documented the resident has the potential for skin breakdown because he was incontinet of bowel and bladder. The care plan documented to check and encourage him to change his soiled incontinent underwear, encourage the use of the toilet to stay continent throughout the shift. However, there was no care plan related to a toileting program for Resident #65.
C. Interviews
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 9:10 a.m. He said the staff do not toilet or assist Resident #65 to the bathroom. He said we change him every couple of hours when he was incontinet of bladder or bowel.
CNA #9 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 11:53 a.m. She said he was not assisted with toileting. She said he was changed every two hours when he had been incontinent.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 4:25 p.m. The DON said on admission, a three day voiding diary was done to help determine a plan for a resident's incontinence. She said sometimes the resident may require therapy, prompted voiding, a restorative program or a check and change schedule for incontinence. She said then the plan is careplanned. She said the bladder assessment is done quarterly and a three day voiding diary may need to be redone at that time. The DON said immobility alone was not a reason for not developing a plan for continence, or putting someone on a schedule to change them each time they are incontinet rather than try to toilet them.
She said Resident #65 was not prompted by staff to toilet and his assessment was incomplete because it did not indicate a plan. She said his immobility alone was not a sufficient reason to not have him on a toileting plan. The DON said the skin care plan documented to encourage the resident to toilet and stay dry, but this did not happen. She said the care plan was the road map and the staff should follow it. The DON said the Resident #65 had some behavior challenges, but she said this was not an excuse for not offering to assist him with toileting him. The DON said she would look to see if a three day voiding diary had ever been done for Resident #65. There was no voiding pattern provided by the end of the survey.
V. Additional interviews
The assistant director of nursing (ADON) #2 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 10:33 a.m. The ADON #2 said she was responsible for overseeing the restorative therapy program. She said the facility did not offer a bowel and bladder program as part of the restorative program. She said all residents have a three day bowel and bladder study completed upon admission in the facility. The ADON #2 said a care plan was developed for residents who required assistance with bowel and bladder.
She said potential interventions would include every two hour monitoring, offered assistance with toileting and offered bedside commode or other assistive devices. She said all residents should be offered to be toileted every two hours.
II. Resident #336
A. Resident status
Resident #336, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 diagnoses included, Parkinson's disease, history of falling and cerebrovascular disease.
The 3/1/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a score of 8 out of 15 on the brief interview for mental status. The resident required extensive assistance with mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS coded the resident as being occasionally incontinent.
B. Resident interview
Resident #336 was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 10:18 a.m. The resident said that she was aware when she had to go to the bathroom. She said she would be incontnent if she was not taken to the bathroom timely.
Resident #336 was interviewed a second time on 4/12/21 at 9:30 a.m. The resident said she required assistance to walk to the bathroom. She said she required assistance with the adult incontnent brief.
C. Record review
The three day bladder diary dated 2/2/21 showed the resident was incontinent of urine four times out of 18 opportunities. However, the diary started on 2/23/21 at 6:00 p.m., and continued through 2/25/21until 5:00 p.m. and was missing large gaps of time.
The care plan dated 4/7/21 identified the resident had occasional urinary incontinence. The interventions included, to assist the resident to the bathroom before meals, after meals and upon arising and prior to bed.
The medical record failed to show a complete assessment to determine the type of incontinence, history of bladder functioning, and functional and cognitive in regards to urinary incontinence.
D. Interview
The ADON #2 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 10:33 a.m. The ADON #2 said the resident was not on a bladder retraining program. She was unable to provide a complete urinary assessment.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #13 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at approximately 10:00 a.m. The CNA said the resident was not able to go to the bathroom alone. She said that she walked with a walker. She said that the resident knew when she had to go, and she did void in the toilet, however, she was occasionally incontinent. She said she need help with the incontient brief.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** VI. Resident #78
A. Resident status
Resident #78, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized ph...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** VI. Resident #78
A. Resident status
Resident #78, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and dependence of supplemental oxygen.
The 4/2/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident with moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score of 13 out of 15. She required supervised assistance with one person for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room, dressing, and is independent with eating with set up help. The 4/2/21 MDS assessment documented the resident used oxygen.
B. Observation
On 4/6/21 at 11:33 a.m. Resident #78 was in her room. She was wearing a nasal cannula (NC) with oxygen set at 2 liters per minute (LPM). The oxygen tubing and concentrator were not marked or labeled with a date.
On 4/8/21 at 9:46 a.m. Resident #78 was in her room. She was wearing a nasal cannula with oxygen set at 2 LPM on concentrator. The oxygen tubing was not labeled with the date it was replaced.
C. Record review
Review of the April 2021 CPO stated oxygen via NC up to 6LPM to maintain oxygen saturation levels at or above 90%, every shift for hypoxia.
Review of Resident #78's comprehensive care plan revealed the resident did not have a care plan in place for the use of oxygen.
D. Staff interviews
LPN #5 was interviewed 4/8/21 at 10:59 a.m. She said the oxygen tubing is changed one time per week, during the night shift. She said they should be dated and labeled when staff change it. Resident #78 was in her room and an observation was made with LPN#5 to check her oxygen. The oxygen was currently set at 2LPM. LPN #5 then took Resident #78's oxygen saturation level which was 96% on 2LPM. LPN #5 acknowledged after visual confirmation, that the oxygen tubing was not labeled.
On 4/8/21 at 11:25 a.m. LPN #5 reported that the order has been updated for Resident #78 to two LPM and that all oxygen tubing has been replaced for everyone on the fifth floor (total of six residents) and they were now labeled.
Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care and services consistent with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive person-centered care plan for six (#14, #59, #22, #77, #78, and # 136) of six residents reviewed for respiratory care out of 48 total sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Obtain physician orders for oxygen for Resident #22;
-Administer oxygen as ordered by the physician for Resident #14, #22, #136, #77, and #78;
-Ensure oxygen tubing was labeled with the date the tubing was replaced for Resident #14, #59, #22, #78 and #136; and,
-Ensure Resident #14, #59, #22, and #78's care plans were accurate, included pertinent information regarding oxygen and was updated accordingly.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedures
The Oxygen Titration policy, dated 11/11/09, and last revised 3/4/2020, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) via email on 4/13/21 at 11:33 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Oxygen will be administered per physician order and nursing evaluation. Evaluation of the continued need for oxygen will be based on diagnoses, history, and clinical presentation, including titration results. Continuous oxygen orders will include the liter flow, route, and frequency for oxygen use, frequency of pulse ox, titration parameters, and diagnosis. Titration
orders will include frequency of pulse oximetry and parameters for titration.
II. Resident #14
A. Resident status
Resident #14, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 clinical physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory failure, unspecified whether with hypoxia or hypercapnia, respiratory failure with hypoxia, personal history of pneumonia (recurrent), and dependence on supplemental oxygen.
The 4/6/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15. He required supervision for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He required the use of oxygen.
B. Resident interview
Resident #14 was interviewed on 4/7/21 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #14 said his oxygen was always set on four (4) liters per minute (LPM).
C. Observations
On 4/6/21 at 2:29 p.m., Resident #14 was seated in his recliner in his room. There was an oxygen concentrator in his room which was not turned on. He was wearing oxygen via a nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing was attached to one of two portable oxygen tanks which were hanging from his four-wheel walker. The flow rate on the portable oxygen tank was set at 4 LPM. The oxygen tubing was not labeled with the date the oxygen tubing was changed.
On 4/7/21 at 10:00 a.m., Resident #14 was getting on the elevator to go outside for a walk. He was wearing oxygen. The portable oxygen tank was set on 4 LPM. The oxygen tubing was not labeled.
On 4/7/21 at 4:38 p.m., the resident was walking down the hallway to his room. He was wearing oxygen. The portable oxygen tank was set on 4 LPM. The oxygen tubing was not labeled.
On 4/12/21 at 9:07 a.m., Resident #14 was seated in his recliner shaving. He was wearing oxygen. The oxygen tubing was attached to the oxygen concentrator. The oxygen concentrator was set on 5 LPM. The oxygen tubing on the concentrator was marked, however the oxygen tubing for his portable tanks was hanging on his walker and was not labeled.
D. Record review
Review of Resident #14's April 2021 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
Keep oxygen at 5-6 LPM and document oxygen saturations (SpO2) every shift every four hours for chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. The order had a start date of 4/22/2020. The order was discontinued on 4/8/21 due to an oxygen order change (during survey).
Keep oxygen at 4 LPM and document SpO2 every shift every four hours for chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. The order had a start date of 4/8/21.
-The CPO did not include a physician's order regarding the frequency of when to change the oxygen tubing.
Review of Resident #14's comprehensive care plan initiated on 4/18/18 revealed the resident used oxygen therapy. Pertinent interventions included oxygen via nasal cannula per orders.
-The care plan did not include interventions of when to change the oxygen tubing, or to label the oxygen tubing with the date the tubing was changed.
Review of Resident #14's April 2021 medication administration record (MAR) revealed nursing staff documented four times daily that the resident was receiving 5-6 liters of oxygen per minute from 4/1 through 4/7/21.
The April 2021 MAR further revealed nursing staff documented four times daily that the resident was receiving 4 LPM of oxygen from 4/8 through 4/14/21, including the date of 4/12/21, when the resident was observed to be receiving 5 LPM via the oxygen concentrator in his room.
E. Staff interviews
Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 12:26 p.m. RN #1 said Resident #14 usually preferred to have his oxygen set on 4 LPM. She said his order had just changed on 4/8/21 to 4 LPM, (see ADON interview below) She said his order prior to that had been for 5-6 LPM. She said a resident's oxygen flow should match their physician orders. RN #1 said night shift was supposed to change oxygen tubing once per week. She said oxygen tubing should be labeled with the date that it was changed.
ADON #1 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 10:00 a.m. ADON #1 said she had conducted an oxygen audit on 4/5/21. She said during the audit she noticed Resident #14's physician orders were for 5-6 liters of oxygen per minute. She said the resident told her he preferred to be on 4 liters of oxygen per minute. ADON #1 said Resident #14's oxygen saturations on four liters of oxygen were above 90 percent. She said she contacted the provider to get an order to change his oxygen to 4 LPM per his preference. She said he had been receiving 4 liters of oxygen per minute since 4/8/21. ADON #1 said the nursing staff should have noticed the discrepancy between the oxygen order and the oxygen flow Resident #14 was receiving. She said the physician's orders and the oxygen flow rate should always match. She said the nursing staff should have obtained a clarification order from the provider for Resident #14's oxygen.
III. Resident #59
A. Resident status
Resident #59, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April CPO, diagnoses included chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension.
The 2/24/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 out of 15. She required two-person extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and toilet use. She required one-person extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. She required the use of oxygen.
B. Observations
On 4/7/21 at 4:44 p.m., Resident #59 was seated in her wheelchair in her room. She was wearing oxygen via a nasal cannula. The oxygen tubing on her oxygen concentrator was not labeled with the date the tubing was changed.
On 4/12/21 at 8:47 a.m. the resident was seated in her wheelchair in her room. She was wearing oxygen. The oxygen tubing was not labeled.
On 4/13/21 at 3:33 p.m., Resident #59 was again seated in her wheelchair in her room. She was wearing oxygen. The oxygen tubing was not labeled.
C. Record review
Review of Resident #59's April 2021 CPO revealed the following physician orders:
-Oxygen at 3 LPM via nasal cannula every shift for obstructive sleep apnea. The order had a start date of 2/18/21.
-Change oxygen nasal cannula weekly and clean filter weekly every night shift on Sunday. The order had a start date of 2/21/21.
Review of Resident #59's comprehensive care plan initiated on 4/5/21 revealed the resident was at risk for respiratory distress due to congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Pertinent interventions included oxygen continuously via nasal cannula.
The care plan did not include interventions to change the oxygen tubing weekly, or to label the oxygen tubing with the date the tubing was changed.
D. Staff interviews
ADON #1 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 10:00 a.m. ADON #1 said oxygen orders should always match the oxygen liter flow the resident is receiving. She said oxygen tubing was changed monthly at the facility. She said oxygen tubing should be labeled with the date the tubing was changed.
However, even though the ADON stated the oxygen tubing should be changed monthly this did not match what the orders specify and contradicted the interview by RN#1 above.
IV. Resident #22
A. Resident status
Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: obesity, edema, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension.
According to the 1/24/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident #22 required extensive two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and dressing. He required extensive one person assistance with toileting, and supervision with personal hygiene. He used oxygen and was short of breath with exertion.
B. Observations and interviews
On 4/5/21 at 4:06 p.m., Resident #22 was in bed. He had an oxygen concentrator in his room set on three liters per minute (LPM). The oxygen was not on the resident. The tubing was curled up and tucked under the handle of the oxygen concentrator. There was no label or date on the tubing. Resident #22 stated he wore oxygen but he could not recall how many liters he was supposed to be on.
On 4/7/21 at 4:57 p.m., Resident #22 was lying in bed. His oxygen tubing was not in his nose, but under his right shoulder. There was a label on the oxygen tubing dated 4/5/21. The label was not present on 4/5/21 (see observation above). Registered nurse (RN) #2 was present in the room. She placed the oxygen back in the resident's nose, but did not check the liter flow on the concentrator. She said, he is on four to six liters. The concentrator was set on 3LPM.
RN #2 was asked what the order for oxygen was. She then went to the electronic medical record and said he was supposed to be on 2LPM. RN #2 was informed the concentrator was set on 3LPM. She said the night nurse must have put him on 3LPM. RN#2 said she had not checked the liter flow.
C. Record review
The physicians orders for April 2021 were reviewed on 4/5/21. There was no order for oxygen. On 4/6/21, an order was written for oxygen. Oxygen at two liters via nasal cannula every shift for supplement.
The care plan was reviewed on 4/5/21. There was no care plan for oxygen. On 4/6/21 the care plan was updated to include: utilize oxygen as ordered, there were no other interventions.
V. Resident #77
A. Resident status
Resident #77, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure, and diabetes mellitus.
According to the 3/19/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had mild cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. Resident #77 required supervision of one person with bed mobility and toileting. He required limited one person assistance with transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. He used oxygen and had shortness of breath when lying flat.
B. Observation
On 4/8/21 at 11:10 a.m., Resident #77 was lying in bed, his eyes were closed. He had oxygen on via an oxygen concentrator. His concentrator was in his bathroom with the door closed. The concentrator was set at five liters per minute. LPN #1 was present and observed the resident on five liters of oxygen.
C. Record review
The April 2021 orders were reviewed. Resident #77 had an order for oxygen 2LPM at hour of sleep.
D. Interviews
Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 11:15 a.m. He said he was Resident #77's nurse that day. LPN #1 said you need an order for oxygen with a specific liter flow and sometimes there is an order to titrate the oxygen. He said he did not know how many liters Resident #77 was on. LPN #1 said the CNA can titrate the oxygen if there was a physician's order to titrate. He went to the electronic medical record and checked the residents orders and said, who knows why it is on five liters, maybe the night nurse turned it up. LPN #1 said, it should be at 2LPM.
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #6 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 11:21 a.m. She said you know how much oxygen someone is supposed to be on by checking the oxygen concentrator and looking at what it is set at. I have adjusted it before. The resident can usually tell you how many liters to put the oxygen on.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/9/21 at 11:14 a.m. She said oxygen must have an order from the physician to be administered. The DON said the order must include the liter flow, frequency and titration with specific parameters if required.
She said a CNA can not adjust oxygen unless they have been trained and had a competency check to do so. She said none of our CNA's have been trained to titrate oxygen. The DON said the nursing home administrator should not be adjusting oxygen. She has not been trained to do so. The DON said the nurse should change out the oxygen tubing monthly. She said she was aware the oxygen tubing had not been marked at the beginning of the survey. She said the staff had begun marking the tubing after 4/5/21.
VII. Resident #136
A. Resident status
Resident #136, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPOs), diagnoses included anemia, atrial fibrillation, cardiomyopathy, end stage renal disease, and diabetes.
The 4/8/21 admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident required staff supervision for transfers, bed mobility, walking in the room, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident received oxygen therapy and went out of the facility three times per week to receive dialysis treatment.
B. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 4:00 p.m. the resident was wearing an oxygen nasal cannula. The cannula was not dated when changed.
On 4/8/21 at approximately 9:30 a.m., the nursing home administrator (NHA) was observed to leave the room. The resident was seated on his bed. The resident had the nasal cannula on and the oxygen concentrator was set at 2LPM. The cannula continued to not be labeled with the date when changed. The resident was interviewed and said the NHA had just turned down his oxygen to 2LPM, as it had been on 3LPM.
-At 11:25 a.m., the licensed practical nurse (LPN) #5 observed the oxygen cannula on the chair. The resident was not in the room. The LPN #5 said the cannula needed to be stored in the plastic bag when not in use. She placed the tube into the plastic bag connected to the concentrator.
C. Record review
The 4/2/21 physician order documented the resident had an order for oxygen to be administered continuously at 2LPM (liters per minute) via a nasal cannula.
The 4/10/21 care plan identified the resident had congestive heart failure and obstructive sleep apnea. Resident #136 had an order for two liters of oxygen, and the physician was to be called if the oxygen saturation (SPO2) levels dropped below 88%. The oxygen tubing was to be changed every Sunday night and the tubing was to be labeled with the date it was changed.
D. Interviews
The LPN #5 was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 11:25 a.m. The LPN #5 said the resident had an order for oxygen at 2LPM. She said she had not been notified or given any direction to have the oxygen turned down to 2LPM from 3LPM by the NHA. She said the tubing needed to be labeled with the date when changed. She said the night shift changed it once a week.
The NHA was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 11:35 a.m. The NHA confirmed that she did turn the oxygen down to 2LPM. She said the oxygen concentrator was set at 3LPM.
She said once she did turn the oxygen liter down to 2LPM, she realized she should not have done that, as it was not in her scope of practice.
She said she notified the ADON #3, on 4/8/2021 that she had changed the liter flow and the ADON was providing her education.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#63 and #84) of two residents reviewed f...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#63 and #84) of two residents reviewed for psychotropic drusgs out of 48 sample residents were free from unnecessary medications as possible.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-Provide rationale for use of an antipsychotic medication for Resident #63 and;
-Track hours of sleep to evaluate the clinical indication of antipsychotic for the usage of insomnia for Resident #63 and; and,
-Resident #84's medication regimen was free from unnecessary psychotropic medications to include: Ativan (antianxiety, sedative-hypnotic), Seroquel (antipsychotic) and Melatonin (sedative).
Findings include:
I. Resident status
A. Resident #63
Resident #63, over the age of 90, admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbance and major depression disorder.
The 3/10/21 minimum 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. The resident required one-person physical assistance with mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toileting and hygiene.
It indicated the resident did not exhibit verbal or physical behaviors during the assessment period.The resident did not refuse care nor exhibit wandering behaviors during the assessment period.
B. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 5:24 p.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair, asleep at a table in the dining room.
On 4/7/21 at 8:50 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair at a table in the dining room. The resident was asleep in her wheelchair.
At 12:03 p.m. the resident was observed laying in her bed sleeping. A certified nursing aide (CNA) knocked and entered the room. The resident was assisted to a table in the dining room.
At 2:14 p.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair facing the television. The resident was staring at the ground and not engaged with the television program.
On 4/8/21 at 9:49 a.m. the resident was observed laying in bed sleeping with the lights on.
On 4/13/21 at 10:50 a.m. the resident was observed seated in her wheelchair in her room facing the television. The television was on but the volume was turned down low. The resident was not engaged with the television program and began to fall asleep.
Cross-reference 744 (dementia care) and 679 (activities meet interest)
C. Record review
1.Medication and changes
The April 2021 CPOs revealed the following physician orders:
- Haloperidol (Haldol) tablet: give 2 milligrams (MG) by mouth at bedtime for insomnia and agitation related to dementia- ordered 3/19/21.
The March 2021 medication administration record (MAR) revealed Resident #63 was taking Haloperidol upon admission. It revealed the resident was administered 5MG by mouth at bedtime for agitation following physician orders.
The 3/19/21 quick physician note documentation revealed the doctor ordered a dose reduction of the Haloperidol from 5MG to 2MG. The note revealed nursing staff reported the resident slept throughout the night and during the day.
The note revealed a dose reduction was recommended for sleep/wake cycle improvement.
Although the Haloperidol was administered due to lack of sleep, the medical record failed to show sleep tracking.
Record review did not document exhibited behavioral expressions for Resident #63 since admission into the facility.
2. Care plan
The psychotropic medication comprehensive care plan, last revised 3/10/21, revealed the resident did not have a major mental illness (MMI) however, the resident was receiving an antipsychotic for agitation related to a diagnosis of dementia. It revealed the resident did not exhibit behavioral expressions including verbal aggression and tearfulness and was even-tempered.
The pertinent interventions included: to monitor the resident for blurred vision, increased confusion, constipation, drooling, dry mouth, involuntary movements, muscle rigidity, restlessness, sedation, sleep disturbances and stiffness of the neck, review with the resident responsible party the risks and benefits of the medication and frequent mood check-ins which would serve as behavior tracking.
Person-centered, non-pharmacological interventions had not been added or revised in the care plan.
3. Behavior tracking
The behavior symptom tracking for the 30 day look back period was reviewed on 4/15/21. It revealed Resident #63 had no observed behavioral symptoms.
Resident #63 did not have target behaviors specified on the comprehensive care plan for her ordered antipsychotic medication.
III. Staff Interviews
The licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 1:38 p.m. LPN #3 said she was unsure of the reason Resident #63 received Haloperidol, as it was administered at night.
She confirmed there was not a physician order for behavior monitoring or sleep tracking. She said both would have to have been ordered by a physician in order for nursing staff to track it. She was unsure if the CNA tracked sleep or behavioral expressions elsewhere.
She said she did not observe Resident #63 exhibit behavioral expressions. She said Resident #63 would spend most of her day sleeping.
LPN #2 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:45 a.m. LPN #2 said Resident #63 would spend the majority of her day sleeping in her room. She said the resident did not sleep at night and instead was awake watching television.
She said the resident did not exhibit any behavioral expressions and that she had not received a report from the night shift staff of any behavioral expressions.
The social worker (SW) #2 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:53 a.m. She said the psychotropic medication committee consisted of social services, the nursing home administrator (NHA), director of nursing (DON), attending physicians and the pharmacist. She said the committee met once a month and reviewed residents receiving psychotropic medication on a quarterly basis. She said the resident's behavioral expressions and medications were reviewed each time.
SW #2 said she was unsure why Resident #63 received an antipsychotic medication.
She confirmed the resident's care plan revealed the resident did not exhibit behavioral expressions and was even-tempered. She said she had not observed the resident to exhibit behavioral expressions. She said behavior monitoring for residents receiving psychotropic medication included mood check-ins from the social services department. She said behavior monitoring was not an order within the medical record.
SW #2 said mood check-ins did not occur daily for each resident. She said each social worker chose three residents and checked-in with them for that day. She said mood check-ins were always documented in the electronic medical record.
Record review on 4/15/21 revealed the resident had one mood check-in from SW #2. The 4/9/21 mood check-in progress note revealed SW #2 met with the resident while in the dining room. The resident did not report any concerns with her mood.
She said Resident #63 would spend the majority of her day alone in her room sleeping. She said she would occasionally assist the resident with a video call to her family. She said otherwise she did not interact with the resident. She said she felt the resident was on a reversed sleep schedule. She said she did not meet with the resident or family to address this. She said she was unaware if staff addressed Resident #63 sleep/wake cycle.
CNA #7 was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 11:33 a.m. She said Resident #63 would spend her day sleeping. She said the resident enjoyed getting up in the morning and was more engaged at that time. She said if Resident #63 had more engagement during the day or more involvement in activities she would stay awake during the day. She said it was important to engage with residents to better understand their likes and dislikes. The CNA further said it was very important to talk with a resident during meal times as it could aid in the resident eating their meal.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 11:27 a.m. The DON said staff received dementia care training annually through a computer based program. She said behavior monitoring was completed via a care plan. The social service department was responsible for developing the care plan. She said a gradual dose reduction could be ordered at any time under the direction of the attending physician. The DON said any resident receiving a psychotropic medication that did not exhibit behavioral disturbances should be reviewed with the physician for recommendations regarding medication. She said she was not sure if the resident was on a reversed sleep/wake schedule. She said that she would address this with the resident and assist if the resident desired.
III. Resident # 84
A. Resident status
Resident #84, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and passed away at the facility on 4/2/21. According to the April 2021 clinical physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included encounter for palliative care, cognitive social or emotional deficit following cerebral infarction, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side, Alzheimer's disease, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, and history of falling.
The 3/26/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident had cognitive impairments, and his cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired, based on the staff assessment for mental status. He required one-person extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and toilet use. He required one-person limited assistance for personal hygiene. The resident did not have any hallucinations, delusions, physical/verbal behaviors directed toward others, or any other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others. The resident had exhibited wandering behavior on one to three occasions.
B. Record review
Review of Resident #84's medical diagnoses revealed he had a diagnosis of anxiety disorder, however he did not have a diagnosis related to psychosis or insomnia.
Review of the Resident #84's April 2021 CPO revealed the following physician's orders:
-Seroquel tablet 25 milligrams (MG). Give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. The order had a start date of 3/26/21.
-Melatonin tablet 3 MG. Give one tablet by mouth every night shift for sleep. The order had a start date of 3/20/21.
-Lorazepam solution 2 MG/milliliter (ml). Give 0.25 ml by mouth every four hours as needed for anxiety related to unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. The order had a start date of 3/20/21.
-Antipsychotic medication use, monitor for side effects: blurred vision, confusion, constipation, drooling, dry mouth, involuntary movements, muscle rigidity, restlessness, sedation, sleep disturbances, stiffness of neck. Notify the medical doctor (MD) if any are observed. Every shift for antipsychotic med use. The order had a start date of 3/20/21.
There were no physician orders to monitor or track targeted behaviors related to the use of the psychotropic medications.
Review of Resident #84's comprehensive care plan, initiated on 3/24/21, revealed the resident had a care plan for receiving medications to help manage his behavior with dementia. The care plan documented the resident presented with a lot of confusion and need for redirection, however he did not display any signs of tearfulness, verbal aggression, or other behaviors. Staff was to be monitoring his mood and behaviors. Pertinent interventions included: administering medications as prescribed, frequent mood check-ins and behavior monitoring for behavior tracking, and monitoring for side effects of antipsychotics, such as blurred vision, confusion, constipation, drooling, dry mouth, involuntary movements, muscle rigidity, restlessness, sedation, and sleep disturbances.
-The care plan did not include a care plan specifically for antipsychotic behavior, anxiety or difficulty sleeping.
-The care plan did not include specific targeted behaviors to monitor for each psychotropic medication.
Review of Resident #84's electronic medical record (EMR) did not reveal any behavior tracking or monitoring of targeted behaviors.
Review of the Nursing admission Screening/History assessment dated [DATE] revealed the Resident #84 had confusion and long term memory problems, however he did not have hallucinations or delusions.
Further review of the Nursing admission Screening/History assessment revealed the resident presented with disorganized thinking. He did not have any other mood or behavior concerns.
A progress note dated 3/25/21 read in pertinent part, Resident is very anxious and restless, Hospice aware.
Review of Resident #84's EMR did not reveal any other progress notes related to behaviors for the resident.
C. Interview
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 12:04 p.m. The DON said the facility did monitor for behaviors. She said the facility also tracked hours of sleep if a resident was on an antihypnotic medication. She said residents should have a physician's order to monitor for individualized targeted behaviors for each psychotropic medication the resident was receiving. She said residents should have a physician's order to track hours of sleep if a resident was on an antihypnotic medication. She said resident behaviors and hours of sleep should be tracked on the medication administration record (MAR).
The DON said she did not see physician's orders to monitor behaviors for the medications Resident #84 was receiving. She said she also did not see any behavior monitoring or hours of sleep tracking in his EMR. She said psychotropic medications should be care planned, and should include the individualized target behaviors to monitor for the resident. She said the care plans should also have non-pharmacological interventions included for helping to decrease behaviors. She said a care plan for an antihypnotic medication should include an intervention to track hours of sleep.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure three out of three medication storage rooms and three out of four medication carts stored, secured, and labeled medications in ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure three out of three medication storage rooms and three out of four medication carts stored, secured, and labeled medications in accordance with accepted professional principles for drugs and biologicals.
Specifically the facility failed to:
-Remove expired medications from medication carts and medication rooms to prevent the use of expired medications;
-Date insulins and eye drops when opened;
-Properly label medications with the residents' names;
-Secure medications in locked compartments; and,
-Monitor the temperature of refrigerated medications.
Findings include:
I. Professional references
A. The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) (2/8/21) [NAME] ' t Be Tempted to Use Expired Medicines, retrieved on 4/25/21 from https://www.fda.gov/drugs/special-features/dont-be-tempted-use-expired-medicines, read in pertinent part, Expired medical products can be less effective or risky due to a change in chemical composition or a decrease in strength. Certain expired medications are at risk of bacterial growth and sub-potent antibiotics can fail to treat infections, leading to more serious illnesses and antibiotic resistance. Once the expiration date has passed there is no guarantee that the medicine will be safe and effective. If your medicine has expired, do not use it.
B. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (June 2019) Questions about Multi-dose Vials, retrieved on 4/25/21 from
https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/providers/provider_faqs_multivials.html, read in pertinent part, If a multi-dose vial has been opened or accessed (needle-punctured), the vial should be dated and discarded within 28 days unless the manufacturer specifies a different (shorter or longer) date for that opened vial.
II. Facility policy and procedure
The Medication Storage policy, dated 3/19/9, and revised 10/20/14, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) via email on 4/13/21 at 11:33 a.m. It read in pertinent part, The director of nursing (DON)/designee is responsible for drug storage per regulatory requirements to promote safety and security of medications and biologicals. Non-narcotic medications will be stored in a locked, secure area. Medications requiring refrigeration or temperatures between 36-46 degrees F will be kept in a refrigerator with a thermometer to allow daily monitoring.
III. Observations and interviews
A. Fourth floor
1. Medication storage room
On 4/12/21 at 3:15 p.m., the fourth floor medication storage room was inspected with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #3. LPN #3 could not remember the electronic door code for the storage room. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #14 entered the code and opened the door for LPN #3. LPN #3 said CNAs had access to the medication storage rooms because ice machines and other things they needed were stored in the medication rooms. She said the CNAs did not have access to the medications because medications were stored in locked compartments.
The following items were found:
The cupboard containing the over the counter (OTC) medications was not locked. The cupboard contained several OTC medications including tylenol, aspirin, melatonin, and docusate sodium. LPN #3 said the lock on the cupboard was broken. She said she did not know if the broken lock had been reported to maintenance or to the DON. LPN #3 said the OTC medication cupboard should be locked at all times. She said CNAs had access to the medication storage room, but should not have access to medications stored there.
The medication refrigerator did not have a temperature log which recorded the daily temperature of the refrigerator. LPN #3 said the night shift staff was responsible for checking and documenting the temperature of the medication refrigerators daily, however LPN #3 could not locate the daily temperature log. She said she would have to check with her supervisor to find out where it was. (see follow up section)
The medication refrigerator contained a vial of Tubersol tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD). The multi-dose vial was open but did not have a date of when it was opened. LPN #3 said she had no way to know how long the vial had been opened and it should be thrown away. She said tuberculin PPD could be kept for 28 days after opening, but the vial should be dated with the date that it was opened.
The nurse treatment cart in the medication storage room contained a tube of muscle rub ointment which had expired in November 2020. LPN #3 said it should be thrown away.
-According to the package insert for Tubersol tuberculin PPD, a vial which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded.
2. Medication cart #1
On 4/12/21 at 3:40 p.m., the fourth floor medication cart #1 was inspected with LPN #3.
The following items were found:
An insulin aspart (Novolog) 3 milliliter (ml) prefilled insulin pen was open but did not have a date of when it was opened.
A Semglee 100 units/ml prefilled insulin pen was open but did not have a date of when it was opened.
A bottle of Refresh Liquigel eye drops was open, but did not have a resident name on it. The bottle did not have a date of when it was opened.
A bottle of Latanoprost 0.005 percent (%) ophthalmic solution was open but did not have a date of when it was opened.
Two tubes of Aspercreme Gel were both open. Neither tube was labeled with a resident name.
A tube of Clotrimazole 1% Vaginal Cream was open but did not have a resident name on it.
LPN #3 said all insulins and eye drops should have a date on them when they were opened. She said eye drops and tubes of cream should be used for one resident only and have his/her name on the bottle/tube.
-According to the package insert for the insulin aspart (Novolog) prefilled insulin pen, once a cartridge is punctured, it should be kept at temperatures below 30°C (86°F) for up to 28 days.
-According to the package insert for the Semglee Insulin Pen, it should be stored in-use (opened) at room temperature up to 86 degrees fahrenheit (F)/30 degrees celsius (C). It should be thrown away after 28 days, even if it still has insulin left in it.
-According to the drug information on the box of Refresh Liquigel, the medication should be discarded 90 days after opening.
-According to the package insert for Latanoprost, the product should be disposed of four weeks after opening, even if it has not been completely used up.
B. Sixth floor
1. Medication storage room
On 4/12/21 at 3:58 p.m., the sixth floor medication storage room was inspected with LPN #6.
The following items were found:
The cupboard containing the OTC medications was not locked. The cupboard contained several OTC medications including senna, aspirin, vitamin D3, and ibuprofen. LPN #6 said the cupboard was never locked and she was not sure which key locked it. LPN #6 confirmed CNAs had access to the medication storage room, and the cupboard should be locked.
There was a temperature log for April 2021 taped to the side of the medication refrigerator. The log had temperatures documented on 4/4, 4/5, 4/6, 4/7, 4/11, and 4/12/21. All of the temperatures were within the acceptable parameters of 36 degrees F to 46 degrees F. The dates of 4/1, 4/2, 4/3, 4/8, 4/9, and 4/10/21 did not have a temperature recorded. LPN #6 said the refrigerator temperature should be checked daily.
2. Medication cart B
On 4/12/21 at 4:04 p.m., the sixth floor medication cart B was inspected with LPN #6.
The following items were found:
A bottle of Latanoprost 0.005 percent (%) ophthalmic solution was open but did not have a date of when it was opened. LPN #6 said the bottle should be thrown out because it was not dated when it was opened. LPN #6 returned the bottle to the medication cart when the inspection of the cart was completed.
-According to the package insert for Latanoprost, the product should be disposed of four weeks after opening, even if it has not been completely used up.
C. Fifth floor
1. Medication storage room
On 4/12/21 at 4:18 p.m., the fifth floor medication storage room was inspected with LPN #4.
The following items were found:
The cupboard containing the OTC medications was not locked. The cupboard contained several OTC medications including tylenol, senna, aspirin, and omeprazole. LPN #4 confirmed CNAs had access to the medication storage room. He said the cupboard should be locked, however he did not know which key on his key ring was for the OTC cupboard.
Two boxes of 20-count heparin lock 10 units/ml 5 ml syringe flushes were on the counter. One box had been opened and 10 of the syringes had been used to flush a resident ' s intravenous line. The open box had been delivered from the pharmacy on 4/8/21, however, the expiration date on the box was 8/31/2020. The other box had been delivered from the pharmacy on 3/29/21, however, the expiration date on the box was 12/31/2020.
The medication refrigerator did not have a temperature log which recorded the daily temperature of the refrigerator. The refrigerator felt warm to the touch inside when LPN #4 unlocked and opened it. The thermometer inside the refrigerator read 52 degrees F, six degrees warmer than the highest acceptable temperature parameter for a medication storage refrigerator.
The refrigerator contained an open bottle of tuberculin PPD with no date of when it was opened.
The refrigerator also contained two unopened Trulicity 0.75 mg/5 ml insulin injection pens. There was no name on the insulin pens. LPN #4 said the tuberculin vial should be dated when opened and the insulin pens should be labeled with the resident ' s name.
LPN #4 said he would let his supervisor know about the refrigerator temperature. LPN #4 relocked the refrigerator, leaving the medications in the refrigerator, before exiting the medication storage room.
-LPN #4 did not report the temperature of the refrigerator, see ADON interview below.
-According to the package insert for Tubersol tuberculin PPD, it should be stored at 2 degrees to 8 degrees C (35 degrees to 46 degrees F). A vial which has been entered and in use for 30 days should be discarded.
-According to the package insert for the Trulicity insulin pen, the pen should be stored in the refrigerator at 36 degrees F to 46 degrees F.
-All of the medications listed above were in the refrigerator that was 52 degrees F.
D. Third floor
1. Medication cart #1
On 4/12/21 at 4:36 p.m., the third floor medication cart #1 was inspected with registered nurse (RN) #2.
The following items were found:
A Lantus 100 unit/ml 3ml prefilled insulin pen was open but did not have a date of when it was opened.
A Victoza 6 mg/ml prefilled insulin pen was open but did not have a date of when it was opened.
A bottle of Latanoprost 0.005 percent (%) ophthalmic solution was open but did not have a date of when it was opened.
Two boxes of albuterol sulfate 1.25 mg/3 mL inhalation solution were opened. Both boxes of the medication said to discard after 10/8/19.
RN #2 said all insulin and eye drops should be labeled with the date they were opened. She said expired medications should never be administered.
-According to the Lantus insulin pen package insert, the pen should be discarded 28 days after being put into use (opening).
-According to the Victoza insulin pen package insert, after first use, the pen can be stored for up to 30 days.
-According to the package insert for Latanoprost, the product should be disposed of four weeks after opening, even if it has not been completely used up.
-According to the albuterol sulfate 1.25 mg/3 mL inhalation solution package insert, vials should not be used after the expiration date printed on the vial.
E. Additional follow up for medication refrigerator temperature logs
On 4/12/21 at 4:42 p.m., assistant director of nursing (ADON) #2 provided copies of the fourth and fifth floor medication refrigerator temperature logs for April 2021. She said all of the floors had night shift duty books where the temperature logs were kept.
She said she could not locate one in the sixth floor book.
Review of the fourth floor medication refrigerator temperature log for April 2021 revealed temperatures had been completed for 4/1 through 4/12/21. All temperatures for the month were documented at 40 degrees F.
Review of the fifth floor medication refrigerator temperature log for April 2021 revealed temperatures were documented for 4/1 through 4/9/21. All of the temperatures were documented at 40 degrees F. There were no temperatures recorded for 4/10, 4/11, or 4/12/21 (the day the temperature of the refrigerator was 52 degrees F and being used to store medications).
F. Staff interviews
ADON #2 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 5:39 p.m. ADON #2 said LPN #4 had not informed her of the 52 degree F temperature in the fifth floor medication refrigerator. She said she would let maintenance know there was a concern with the refrigerator. She said she would transfer the medications to another refrigerator She said the medications should probably be thrown out instead of transferring them to another refrigerator.ADON #2 said there was no way of knowing how long the medication refrigerator had been too warm
The DON was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 11:41 a.m. The DON said insulins and eye drops should be labeled with the date when they were opened. She said the facility ' s standard for all insulins and eye drops was to discard them 28 days after they were opened to ensure the medications were not used beyond their expiration. She said expired medications should never be administered.
The DON said eye drops, insulin pens, and creams/ointments should be labeled with a resident ' s name and should only be used for a single resident. The DON said CNAs did have access to the medication storage rooms because they needed to utilize the ice machines in the storage rooms. She said the CNAs should not have access to any medications in the storage rooms. She said the OTC medication cupboards should always be locked.
The DON said she had been made aware of the temperature concern with the medication refrigerator on the fifth floor. She said the refrigerator had been replaced and the medications that had been in the refrigerator had been discarded and replaced. She said nurses should be monitoring the medication refrigerator temperatures two times a day, and documenting the temperature accurately each time on the temperature logs. The DON said medication refrigerator temperatures should be maintained between 36 degrees F and 46 degrees F.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** VI. Food served not at safe temperature
A. Observations and interviews
On 4/5/21 at 5:32 p.m., the third floor kitchenette was o...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** VI. Food served not at safe temperature
A. Observations and interviews
On 4/5/21 at 5:32 p.m., the third floor kitchenette was observed. Dietary aide (DA) #1 was observed at the steam table. She checked the temperature of a tray of fruit salad and said it was 13.6 degrees celsius (56.4 degrees fahrenheit). She checked the temperature of a chocolate pie and said it was 14.3 degrees celsius (57.74 degrees fahrenheit). DA #1 checked the temperature of a tray of ranch dressing and said it was 9.2 degrees celsius (48.56 degrees fahrenheit). She said she did not know what temperature cool items needed to be at. She then checked the temperature of a tray of shepards pie and said it was 184.6 degrees fahrenheit. She then took the thermometer and checked a tray of vegetable soup and the temperature was 174.0 degrees fahrenheit.
On 4/5/21 at 5:50 p.m., a bowl of vegetable soup was placed on the counter to be served at room [ROOM NUMBER]. Dietary aide #1 checked the temperature of the soup after placing it in the bowl and putting it on the counter. The temperature was 175 degrees fahrenheit. DA #1 said she likes the soup to be 165 degrees fahrenheit or hotter when it was served. She said the hotter the better. She told the CNA the soup was good to go. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #12 immediately took the soup to room [ROOM NUMBER] bed A. The resident in 304 bed A, took a spoonful of the soup and said it was too hot to eat, she would have to let it sit.
On 4/5/21 at 6:10 p.m., DA #1 microwaved a bowl of ramen noodles and broth for a resident sitting in the dining room. She checked the temperature of the soup when she removed it from the microwave, it was 172 degrees fahrenheit. She told CNA #12 to serve the soup. CNA #12 took the soup to the resident in the dining room. Steam was observed coming off of the bowl.The CNA was stopped by the surveyor due to the soup being too hot. She took the soup back to the kitchen counter. DA #1 checked the temperature of the soup again. It was 168 degrees fahrenheit. The soup rested on the counter for four minutes. The temperature was rechecked by DA #1. The temperature was 161.4 degrees Fahrenheit. CNA #12 then served the soup to the resident in the dining room.
B. Interview
The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 10:40 a.m. He said he targeted having the soup leave the tray line at 150 degrees fahrenheit. He said it has the potential to burn a resident if it is spilled.
Based on interviews, observations and record review, the facility failed to consistently serve food that was palatable and attractive at the appropriate temperatures.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident food was palatable in taste, texture, appearance, and safe temperature.
Findings include:
I. Resident interviews
Residents were identified as interviewable by the facility and assessment.
Resident #65 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:10 p.m.Resident #65 said the food was bland and not a lot of variety.
Resident #62 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 3:52 p.m. Resident #62 said the food quality was not good and it tended to be cold and not flavorful.
Resident #22 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 4:05 p.m. Resident #22 said the food was served cold and it was bland in taste. The resident also said the meat was tough and the vegetables were either over or under cooked.
Resident #59 was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 9:50 a.m. Resident #59 said the food was way too salty.
Resident #67 was interviewed 4/6/21 at 11:05 a.m. Resident #67 said the food did not taste good all of the time. He said the cheese burgers were like leather.
Resident #77 was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 11:05 a.m. Resident #77 said his food was served cold by the time he received it. He ate in his room.
Resident #58 was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 1:26 p.m. Resident #58 said the food did not taste good. He said it was often served cold. He said that he did not always get a choice of what he wanted to eat.
Resident #8 was interviewed on 4/6/21 at 2:14 p.m. Resident #8 said the food did not taste good 50% of the time. He said the food was cold about 50% of the time. The resident said he did not get a choice of what he wanted to eat.
Resident #6 was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 12:40 p.m. Resident #6 said the chicken fried steak was tough, and the vegetables were too hard to eat.
II. Resident council president
The interim president of the resident council was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 11:28 a.m. He said that a lot of residents did complain about the food, in regards to taste and temperature. He said the facility told the council that they were working on the temperature and also the taste, but otherwise he did not hear anything else.
III. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 5:30 p.m. a hot tray cart of food was delivered to the fourth floor kitchen. The posted meal time for dinner was 5:30 p.m.
The posted menu included shepherd's pie, roasted vegetables and a side salad with dressing.
A resident in the main dining room was served his dinner tray at 6:20 p.m, 50 minutes after the food was delivered to the fourth floor.
The resident said his shepherd's pie and roasted vegetables were cold. A staff member offered to reheat his food in the microwave. The resident declined and said he did not want to wait any longer to eat.
Dinner was observed on 4/5/21 at 5:36 p.m. Residents in the fourth floor main dining room were not offered condiments to include salt and pepper.
Breakfast was observed in the fourth floor main dining room on 4/7/21 at 8:19 a.m. The posted menu included a choice of eggs and toast. Residents in the main dining room were not offered condiments to include salt and pepper.
On 4/9/21 at 9:20 a.m. a resident breakfast tray was observed on top of the serving station in the kitchen on the fourth floor. The individual plates of food on the tray were covered with plastic wrap.
At 9:27 a.m. a staff member located the tray and delivered it to the resident.
The posted meal time for breakfast was 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
Lunch was observed on the fifth floor main dining room on 4/12/21 at 12:09 p.m. Residents in the main dining room were not offered condiments to include salt and pepper.
Lunch was observed on the sixth floor main dining room on 4/14/21 at 12:12 p.m. Residents in the main dining room were not offered condiments to include salt and pepper.
IV. Test tray
A test tray was completed on 4/13/21 at 12:49 p.m., from the 6th floor. The test tray was chicken fried steak, vegetable mixture with peas, green beans and carrots, mashed potatoes with cream gravy, and chocolate cake.
The temperature of the food was palatable.
-The green beans were crunchy and undercooked, with no taste of butter.
-The cream gravy was bland in taste and had no flavor.
-The chocolate cake was dry. The cake was cut into square pieces, and was not covered during service, which enabled it to dry out.
V. Staff interviews
The dietary manager (DM) and registered dietician (RD) were interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:00 a.m. The DM said food that was ordered from the always available menu or made-to-order items should be reheated to at least 145 degrees fahrenheit prior to being served.
The RD said food that was left out for less than an hour should be reheated to a palatable temperature. She said food that was left out longer than an hour should be reheated to 165 degrees fahrenheit.
The DM said staff should be taking temperatures of all food items prior to being served. He said food should be served at a palatable temperature.
The RD said the posted meal times were 8:00 a.m. (breakfast), 12:00 p.m. (lunch) and 5:30 p.m. (dinner). She said that the first round of meals should be served within 45 minutes of the posted times.
She said each resident should have an opportunity to receive a second round of food before the food is removed from the floor.
She said any concerns expressed by residents in regard to meals should be addressed during the meal. She said staff should complete a grievance form and submit it to the dietary manager for review.
She said they would educate the appropriate staff to ensure the same concern did not occur again.
She said she was aware that residents had expressed concerns of meals being served cold or bland.
She said salt, pepper and other condiments were always available. She said that should offer residents' condiments to include salt and pepper when they are served.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the dietary department followed safe practices to prevent the potential contamination of food and spread of food-borne illness...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the dietary department followed safe practices to prevent the potential contamination of food and spread of food-borne illness through proper kitchen sanitation procedures in two of five kitchens.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
-Holding temperatures were at appropriate level;
-Thermometer was cleaned appropriately; and,
-Food was reheated to the appropriate temperatures.
Findings include:
I. Food temperatures of cold and hot food items were not held at the proper temperature and not reheated to proper temperature to reduce the risk of food borne illness.
A. Professional reference
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (2019) The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/DEHS_RetailFd_6CCR10102_RFFC_EffJan2019.pdf. It read in pertinent part; The food shall have an initial temperature of 41ºF or less when removed from cold holding temperature control or 135°F or greater when removed from hot holding temperature control.
Reheated in a microwave oven 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) and the food is rotated or stirred, covered, and allowed to stand covered for 2 minutes after reheating.
B. Third floor satellite kitchenette
The evening meal on the third floor was observed on 4/5/21 at 5:52 p.m. Behind the steam table was a counter. The counter had two disposable containers of macaroni and cheese, another with white rice and a 1/8 pan with cooked hamburger patties. There was no mechanism to keep any of the above mentioned food at proper holding temperature.
At 6:00 p.m., the macaroni and cheese was going to be served to a resident, the temperature was 90.9 degrees F, which was not 135 degrees F for hot holding. Dietary aide (DA) #1 said she would reheat it. She reheated it to 110 degrees F and it was then served to the resident. The macaroni and cheese was not reheated to 165 degrees F and stand covered for two minutes (see reference above).
-The temperature of the rice was 94 degrees F. She reheated the rice and it was reheated in the microwave. It was heated to 143.7 degrees Fand it was then served to the resident.The rice was not reheated to 165 degrees F and stand covered for two minutes (see reference above).
-The hamburger patties in the 1/8 pan was 110 degrees F. She reheated the hamburger patty to 134.3 degrees F and the hamburger patty was served to a resident. The hamburger patty was not reheated to 165 degrees F and stand covered for two minutes (see reference above)
Dietary aide (DA) #1 was interviewed on 4/5/21 at 6:00 p.m. The DA #1 said she would reheat the food to 150 degrees F (which was not the appropriate temperature indicated in reference above). She said the macaroni and cheese, rice and hamburgers were for specific residents and therefore it did not go on to the steam table.
C. Sixth floor satellite kitchenette
The noon tray line was observed on 4/13/21 at 12:03 p.m. The DA #2 was observed and she had already served a few residents their meals. The DA #2 was asked to view her temperatures. The DA #2 said she had not taken the holding temperature yet before the start of meal service (in order to ensure the food was at appropriate holding temperatures).
The temperatures were obtained from all the hot items on the steam table. However, she did not take the temperatures of the cold food which were cut melon and cut lettuce.
There was a hamburger wrapped in plastic wrap on top of the steam table. The temperature was 123.4 degrees F. A grilled cheese sandwich was also in plastic wrap and it was on the steam table, not in a well. The temperature was 106.9 degrees F, served out to a resident and not reheated to the proper temperature.
D. Administrative interview
The interim dietary manager (IDM) and the registered dietitian (RD) were interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:00 a.m. The RD said the food items which were out of the temperature range should be reheated to 165 degrees F. The IDM said all food should be in a well, not on top of the steam table. The IDM said the temperature of the food should be completed prior to service.
II. Improper cleaning of the thermometer
A. Third floor kitchenette
On 4/5/21 at 6:00 p.m., the DA#1 was observed to take the temperatures of different food items. The DA #1 failed to clean the thermometer prior to placing it into the macaroni and cheese. The DA #1 then placed the thermometer directly onto the counter. She then picked it up and placed it directly into the rice. She continued this process throughout the service without properly disinfecting the thermometer after touching a contaminated surface.
B. Sixth food kitchenette
The DA #2 was observed on 4/13/21 beginning at 12:03 p.m. The DA #2 used the handi wipes which were used to clean the resident's hands to clean the thermometer as opposed to alcohol wipes (see interview below).
C. Administrative interview
The IDM was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:00 a.m. The IDM said the thermometers should be cleaned with the alcohol wipe and air dried provided prior to inserting it into the food.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Balloon toss
A. Observation
On 4/7/21 at 10:00 a.m. the scheduled group exercise activity was observed in the dining room o...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Balloon toss
A. Observation
On 4/7/21 at 10:00 a.m. the scheduled group exercise activity was observed in the dining room on the fourth floor.
Three residents and two activity staff members were seated in chairs in a circle formation in the dining room. The activity director (AD) stood in the middle of the circle and tossed an inflated balloon to the first resident. The resident hit the balloon back to the AD. This occurred approximately 5 times.
The AD then moved to the next resident and tossed them the inflated balloon. The resident hit the balloon back to the AD approximately five times.
This was repeated for each person in the circle.
Hand hygiene was not observed before, during or after the balloon toss group exercise program.
B. Staff interview
The infection preventionist was interviewed on 4/14/21 at approximately 11:00 a.m. The IP said the balloon toss was not an activity which should be played, during the pandemic, related to unable to ensure the balloon could be kept clean. She said she would provide education to the activity department in regards to the balloon toss.
The AD was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 2:03 p.m. He said that he had not received any infection control training in regard to group activity and hand hygiene prior to today (4/14/21).
He said he was educated on 4/14/21 of the importance of offering hand hygiene during small group activities when supplies would be shared.
III Failure to ensure personal items were labeled in shared resident rooms
A. Observation
On 4/14/21 at 10:32 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER], a room shared by two residents, was observed. The following items were found:
-A pink plastic basin was sitting on the counter on the left side of the sink. The basin contained a toothbrush and a partially used tube of toothpaste. A white hairbrush, a can of shaving cream, a razor, a small bottle of lotion, a bottle of shampoo, and a bottle of mouthwash were sitting next to the pink plastic basin. The bottle of lotion was labeled 619B. None of the other items were labeled with the resident's name or room number.
-The counter on the right side of the sink contained a can of shaving cream, a small roll-on deodorant, and a tube of skin protectant cream. None of the items were labeled with the resident's name or room number.
-There were two towel bars mounted on the wall to the left of the sink. Each towel bar contained two towels and two washcloths. One end of each towel bar was labeled with the letter A, and one end of each towel bar was labeled with the letter B. The linens were all touching each other on each towel bar.
-There was an opened package of cleansing wipes on the back of the toilet. The package was not labeled with the resident's name or room number.
- room [ROOM NUMBER] had an unmarked toothbrush sitting on the sink in a shared room
-room [ROOM NUMBER] had an unmarked toothbrush sitting directly on the counter at the sink in a shared room.
B. Interviews
Certified nurse aide (CNA) #15 was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 10:39 a.m. CNA #15 confirmed the personal items in room [ROOM NUMBER] were not labeled. She said personal items in shared resident rooms were supposed to be labeled with the resident's name and room number. She said she assumed one towel bar was for each resident. She agreed the towel bars were not clearly marked to indicate which linens should be used for each resident. CNA #15 said she had no way to guarantee the linens were used for one resident only.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at 11:59 a.m. The DON said all personal items in shared resident rooms should be labeled with the resident's name, room number, and A or B. She said the central supply room on each floor had permanent markers stocked in them so staff could label personal items when they obtained them from the supply room. The DON said one towel bar should be used for each resident. She said each towel bar should be labeled clearly which resident the linens were to be used for. She said any unlabeled personal items found in shared resident rooms should be thrown away, and new items obtained and labeled properly.
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.
Specifically, the facility failed to:
-Ensure Resident #22's catheter was emptied in a manner to prevent contamination of the catheter, and change the catheter collection bag per physicians orders;
-Ensure activity equipment used by multiple residents was disinfected; and,
-Ensure residents personal hygiene equipment was labeled with their name.
Findings include:
I. Facility policy and procedure
The Indwelling Urinary Catheter policy, reviewed 1/2/2020, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/12/21 at 9:11a.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, .decrease the potential for infection by covering the catheter bag and keeping it off the floor .empty the collecting bag regularly using a separate \, clean, collecting container for each resident, prevent contact of the drainage spigot with the non sterile collecting container.
A blank competency checklist titled, Catheter Care and Emptying a Urinary Catheter Bag, undated, was received from the director of learning (DOL) on 4/14/21 at 1:24 p.m. The checklist documented in pertinent part, Obtain a clean graduate or urinal container. Obtain a clean graduate or urinal container. Obtain a clean graduate or urinal container. Empty urine into graduate, clip and replace spout.
II. Foley catheter management
A. Resident #22
Resident #22, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included: obesity, edema, chronic pain, diabetes mellitus, and obstructive and reflex uropathy.
According to the 1/24/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident #22 required extensive two person assistance with bed mobility, transfers, and dressing. He required extensive one person assistance with toileting, and supervision with personal hygiene. He had an indwelling catheter.
B. Observations and interviews
On 4/7/21 at 4:50 p.m., Resident #22 was observed in bed. His catheter urine collection bag was on the floor. It had approximately 1000 ml (milliliters) of urine in it. Registered nurse (RN) #2 was present in the room. She said the catheter bag should not be on the floor due to the risk of contamination and infection. She said there was no hook on the bed or bag to hang the catheter bag on. RN #2 then went to the bathroom and brought a urinal over to the bed. The urinal did not have a name or date. The resident had a roommate. The urinal had a dry yellow substance, resembling dry urine, around the rim of the opening. RN #2 set the urinal on the floor without a clean surface under it. She then opened the spigot valve and hung it inside the urinal. The valve was touching the inside of the urinal wall. She emptied the catheter. There was 1000 ml of urine. She said only the nurse emptied Resident #22's catheter because they were keeping track of his output. RN #2 said she last emptied it at 11:00 a.m., six hours prior. RN #2 then began to leave the room. She then did not close the catheter bag valve, and left it hanging below the catheter within a millimeter or two of touching the floor. She was asked if she needed to close the valve as it was almost touching the floor. She returned to the bed and closed the valve. The catheter bag had a date on it of 3/12.
On 4/7/21 at 5:11 p.m., Resident #22's catheter orders were reviewed in the electronic medical record with RN #2. RN #2 said he had an order to change his catheter bag weekly. She went down to the residents room and said his catheter bag was marked 3/12. It had not been changed in almost four weeks. RN #2 said she did not know if the nurse or the certified nurse aide (CNA) was supposed to change the catheter bag. RN #2 said she did not know if changing a catheter bag was a sterile or aseptic technique. She did not change the bag at that time.
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/9/21 at 11:14 a.m. She said if a resident had a catheter there should be a catheter order with the size of catheter, frequency, diagnosis, and catheter care. The DON said the nursing staff should use a graduated cylinder or urinal. The cylinder or urinal should be labeled with the residents name, dated, and changed monthly or as needed. She said the urinal or graduated cylinder should not be placed directly on the floor. She said there should be a clean barrier. The DON said the catheter bags are emptied every shift or when they are two thirds full. She said catheter collection bags should not be on the floor, they should be secured off the floor and below the bladder. She said she was unsure of who changed catheter collection bags. The DON said the collection bags should be changed monthly or per the physician's orders.
C. Record review
The computerized physicians orders (CPO) for April 2021 were reviewed. Resident #22 had the following orders:
Catheter, indwelling, catheter care every shift. May change catheter as needed. Empty when two thirds full, dated 2/26/21. There was no size indicated for the catheter.
Change drainage bag weekly, one time every seven days, dated 2/15/19.
The care plan initiated 1/2/19 was reviewed. The care plan documented a goal was the resident would be free from catheter related trauma and will show no signs or symptoms of urinary infection Interventions included, check tubing for kinks as needed, be sure that the resident is not laying on the tubing, which could cause pressure injuries, monitor for signs and symptoms of discomfort on urination and frequency, monitor patience of catheter and report any severe reduction of urinary to the physician, catheter care every shift and as needed, change catheter and bag as ordered, monitor ,record and report to MD for signs and symptoms of urinary track infection: pain, burning, blood tinged urine,cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse,increased temp,urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, change in eating patterns.
RN #2's facility education was reviewed in her employment record. There was no competency checklist titled, Catheter Care and Emptying a Urinary Catheter Bag.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0570
(Tag F0570)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a surety bond or otherwise provide assurance satisfactory to the secretary, to assure the security of all personal funds of resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to ensure a surety bond or otherwise provide assurance satisfactory to the secretary, to assure the security of all personal funds of residents deposited with the facility.
Specifically the facility failed to ensure the sureity bond had the correct amount to cover the entire balance for resident's personal needs account at the facility.
Findings include:
I. Record review
The personal needs account balace had a total balance of $164,171.13 as of 4/12/21.
The 10/1/18 bonding company letter dated signed by the bonding company president was read and documented, the surety bond #CO 9121 patient funds, was for the amount of $80,000. The certificate was effective 12/31/18 and terminated on midnight 12/31/23.
II. Interviews
The business office manager (BOM) was interviewed on 4/13/21 at 9:30 a.m. The BOM said the list of the personal needs was correct. She said a resident had recently sold a house and the $85,000.00 was put into his account.
The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:56 a.m. The NHA said she was contacting the surety bond company. She said that the bond was reviewed quarterly, and that it was not reviewed yet, and therefore it had not been caught of the insufficient coverage. She said going forward it would be reviewed monthly.
III. Follow up
The 4/16/21 bonding company letter signed and dated 4/16/21 by the bonding company president, read and documented the surety bond #CO 9121 was to be increased from $80,000 to $170,000. Although the letter was signed 4/16/21, the company wrote the price change increase of this bond would be as of 3/1/21.
The nursing home administrator (NHA) sent an email on 4/16/21 at 3:45 p.m. The NHA wrote the facility surety bond notice was attached to the email. The NHA wrote the bond covered the amount currently in the resident account with coverage beginning on 3/1/21. The letter was signed, sealed and dated by the bonding company president on 4/16/21.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0810
(Tag F0810)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who ne...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them for three (#336, #54 and #47) of three residents reviewed for adaptive equipment out of three sample residents.
Specifically, the facility failed to ensure:
Resident #336 received her weighted utensils and spouted cup;
Resident #54 received the physician ordered plate guard was on the plate and positioned correctly during meals; and,
Resident #47 received the physician ordered plate guard and was on the plate and positioned correctly during meals.
Findings include:
I. Resident #336
A. Resident status
Resident #336, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 diagnoses included, Parkinson's disease, history of falling and cerebrovascular disease.
The 3/1/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment showed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a score of eight out of 15 on the brief interview for mental status. The resident required extensive assistance with mobility, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident required supervision with eating.
B. Resident interview
Resident #336 was interviewed on 4/12/21 at 9:00 a.m. The resident said that she used weighted utensils, as the weight of the utensil helped with her tremors. She said the facility did not send the weighted utensils the majority of the time.
C. Record review
The 3/22/21 occupational therapist (OT) note and the 4/9/21 OT discharge summary documented the resident would safely perform self feeding tasks with the use of weighted utensils and spouted cup to decrease spillage. The resident had hand tremors between mild and severe.
The care plan initiated on 3/7/21 identified the resident was at risk for weight loss. The care plan instructed the resident to have spouted cup and weighted utensils at all meals.
D. Observations
The resident was observed eating her breakfast meal on 4/6/21 at approximately 8:45 a.m. The resident had a glass of milk and 240 cc glass of juice, they were both in regular glasses and not in a spouted cups. The resident was eating her meal with regular utensils that were not weighted.
The resident was observed eating her breakfast meal on 4/6/21 at 9:22 a.m.,the resident had a glass of milk and 240 cc glass of orange juice, they were both in regular glasses and not in spouted cups. The resident was eating her meal with regular utensils that were not weighted.
On 4/7/21 at 12:20 p.m., the resident was eating her noon meal. She had regular glasses for her beverages (not spouted) and did not have the weighted utensils.
On 4/12/21 at 8:53 a.m.,the resident had her breakfast meal in front of her. She had a glass of juice and milk, which were in regular glasses (not spouted). The resident did not have the weighted utensils.
II. Resident #47
A. Resident status
Resident #47, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO diagnoses included, encephalopathy, and epilepsy.
The MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed the resident had both long and short term memory impairments. His decision making skills were severely impaired. The resident required meal set up, and could eat independently.
B. Record review
According to the 672 (census and condition) form, provided by the facility, revealed the facility had three residents that utilized adapitive equipment. All three residents are included in the citation.
The April 2021 CPO had an order for a plate guard to be used at every meal for self feeding. Had a start date of 2/5/19.
The care plan last updated on 3/11/21 showed the resident was to use a plate guard at each meal to assist with eating. The care plan failed to show which direction the plate guard needed to be placed for the benefit of the resident.
C. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 5:45 p.m.,the resident was observed to have his evening meal in front of him. The plate guard was on the left of his plate and positioned on the plate to a C.
On 4/7/21 at 9:41 a.m.,the resident was eating his breakfast. The resident was struggling as he ate his eggs. The egg was dangling off of the fork. He was observed to use his fingers to get the egg onto his fork. The plate guard was placed on the left side of his plate and positioned on the plate to a C.
On 4/12/21 at 8:53 a.m.,the resident is eating his breakfast meal. He had no plate guard (as ordered). The resident was served eggs, and oatmeal. He was using his fingers to help him get his food onto his fork.
D. Interview
The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 4/14/21 at approximately 3:00 p.m. The DON said the plate guards were to be provided by the dietary department. The plate guard was then put onto the plate when served. The DON said the plate guard should be placed according to the need of the resident, and mainly set on the plate like a U if there was no further guidance.
III. Resident #54
A. Resident status
Resident #54, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the April 2021 CPO, diagnoses included, diabetes, moderately impaired hearing, and severely impaired vision.
The 2/21/21 quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 11 out of 15. The resident required supervision, encouragement or cueing, eating, and personal hygiene. The resident required set up and clean up assistance with eating.
B. Record review
The 5/4/2020 occupational therapist note documented a plate guard and small spoon was to be used to increase self feeding.
The 3/8/21 nutrition dietary progress note read and revealed, the resident was to have a plateguard and a small spoon to be provided at meals.
The April 2021 CPO showed the resident was to have a plate guard and a small spoon with meals.
The care plan last updated on 4/6/21 identified the resident required assistance with meals. The care plan documented the resident required adaptive equipment (a plate guard) at mealtime to maximize self feeding ability.
C. Observations
On 4/5/21 at 5:30 p.m.,the resident did not have a plate guard on his plate. He was eating his meal, and using his fingers to help with getting the food onto his spoon.
On 4/7/21 at 12:17 p.m.,the resident was eating his meal. He did not have a plate guard on his plate. He was using his fingers to put the food onto his spoon.
IV. Interview
The interim dietary manager (IDM) and the registered dietitian (RD) were interviewed on 4/15/21 at 9:00 a.m. The IDM said the plate guards come from the kitchen. He said the plate guards were placed onto the plate by the dietary aide who was serving the meal. The kitchen also provided the weighted utensils.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine and identify what resources were necessary to care for its residents a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine and identify what resources were necessary to care for its residents appropriately during both day-to-day operations and emergencies.
Specifically, the facility failed to develop a facility assessment which was facility specific to include, training, building structures, individualized risk assessment and specifics about the resident population. The facility was cited F689 (accident hazard) at a level 4 (immediate jeopardy to resident health and safety) for the failure to ensure residents who required supervision and assistive devices for safe smoking, received these interventions to prevent burns.
Findings include:
I. Record review
The facility assessment was last updated on 11/2/2020 by the nursing home administrator (NHA) and the quality assurance and performance improvement committee. The facility assessment failed to include the following:
-Staff competencies that were necessary to provide the level and types of care needed for the resident population or include the staff training program to ensure the staff were trained on the resident smoking policy;
-Accurate staffing ratios for all floors, and accurate resident census, (see the NHA interview below);
-How the facility evaluated what policies and procedures may be required in the provision of care, and how you ensure those met current professional standards of practice; -An accurate facility assessment which was unique to the facility.
-Identification that the facility had a resident smoking program and a smoking shelter.
-A safety hazard plan in regards to the safety of residents while smoking supervised and unsupervised.
The facility provided a list of residents who smoke on 4/5/21. The list contained 15 names.
II. Staff interviews
The director of nurses (DON) was interviewed on 4/8/21 at 12:35 p.m. The DON said, residents had the right to smoke, but they were not allowed to smoke unsupervised unless they went off campus which she explained was the sidewalk in front of the facility.
The NHA was interviewed on 4/15/21 at approximately 11:00 a.m. The NHA reviewed the facility assessment, and confirmed the facility assessment provided on 11/5/21 at 7:59 p.m., was the complete assessment the facility was currently using.
The NHA said the facility assessment was reviewed last on 11/2/21 by herself and the interdisciplinary team. She said that she had updated it to include the COVID-19 information.
The NHA said the 2nd floor had been closed during the pandemic and confirmed the assessment did not note the change in the assessment, the census had declined and the staffing failed to reflect the decreased staff.
The NHA reviewed the assessment and confirmed it did not contain any information about the resident smoking program and the safety hazards to keep residents safe.
The NHA acknowledged the assessment was missing pertinent information and was not a completed assessment to reflect the needs of the residents.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented, in order to facilitate...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure an effective quality assurance program to identify and address facility compliance concerns was implemented, in order to facilitate improvement in the lives of nursing home residents, through continuous attention to quality of care, quality of life, and resident safety.
Specifically, the quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI) program committee failed to identify and address concerns related to, quality of life, quality of care.
Findings include:
I. Cross-referenced citations
Cross-reference F689: The facility failed to ensure resident safety with accident hazards. The facility's failure to ensure residents were assessed accurately for smoking, and provided supervision and safe smoking devices resulted in substandard quality of care. The facility's failure to protect residents from accident hazards created an immediate jeopardy (IJ) situation with actual harm which resulted in a G level citation. Additionally, the facility failed to investigate an equipment malfunction and assess the involved resident.
Cross-reference F550: The facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life.
Cross-reference F570: The facility failed to ensure they had a surety bond which covered the residents personal needs funds.
Cross-reference F600: The facility failed to ensure four residents were free from verbal and physical abuse.
Cross-reference F610: The facility failed to thoroughly investigate two allegations of resident verbal and physical abuse.
Cross-reference F636: The facility failed to ensure minimum data set (MDS) assessments were completed accurately.
Cross-reference F676: The facility failed to ensure the necessary care and services to ensure that a resident's abilities in activities of daily living did not diminish.
Cross-reference F679: The facility failed to ensure an ongoing resident centered activities program to meet the needs and interests of residents.
Cross-reference F684: The facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices.
Cross-reference F685: The facility failed to ensure that residents received proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain vision.
Cross-reference F688: The facility failed to provide appropriate services and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence.
Cross-reference F690: The facility failed to ensure residents who were incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to restore continence to the extent possible.
Cross-reference F695:The facility failed to ensure respiratory care was provided, and such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, physicians' orders, and the comprehensive person-centered care plan.
Cross-reference F744: 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.
Cross-reference F758: The facility failed to ensure residents did not receive unnecessary psychotropic medications.
Cross-reference F761: The facility failed to medications were labeled, expired medications were removed,
medications were locked, refrigerators for medications had controlled temperatures, and medications were stored properly.
Cross reference F804: The facility failed to ensure food was palatable and served at a safe temperature.
Cross reference F810: The facility failed to adaptive eating utensils for thoses residents who required them.
Cross reference F812: The facility failed to ensure proper reheating and holding temperatures were maintained.
Cross reference F838: The facility failed to conduct a thorough facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations, such as resident smoking.
Cross reference F880: The facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for catheter care, activity equipment and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
II. Facility policy and procedure
The Quality Management Plan, QAPI program (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) policy, revised 11/15/18, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 4/15/21 at 1:54 p.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Our quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) program objective is to evaluate the availability, appropriateness, effectiveness, and efficiency of resident care, and is a continuous program of evaluating medical, nursing care, social services, activities, dietary, housekeeping, maintenance, infection control, and pharmacy services. Quality Assurance encompasses all departments within our communities that provide care and services to our residents and impact clinical care, quality of life, residents' choice, and transitions of care. This includes care and services provided to our Rehab and Long-Term Care residents by each department in our organization.
Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings are scheduled a minimum of monthly but occur more frequently as decided by the NHA and include the Medical Director(s), Nursing Home Administrator, Director of Nursing, Pharmacist, department managers and frontline staff or residents as appropriate. The Nursing Home Administrator ensures that the meeting is routinely scheduled, an agenda specific to that community is established and data and information is recorded.
III. Repeat deficiencies
Review of the facility's regulatory record revealed it failed to operate a QA program in a manner to prevent repeat deficiencies.
F550 for resident rights and dignity
During an abbreviated survey on 12/19/19, resident rights and dignity was cited at a D level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, resident rights and dignity was cited at an E level.
F600 for prevention of resident abuse
During an abbreviated survey on 12/19/19, resident abuse was cited at a D level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, resident abuse was cited at an E level.
F610 thoroughly investigate allegations of abuse
During an abbreviated survey on 12/19/19, thoroughly investigating allegations of abuse was cited at a D level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, thoroughly investigating allegations of abuse was cited at an E level.
F689 for accident/hazards
During the 5/8/19 recertification survey, F 689 was cited at an E level. During an abbreviated survey on 12/19/19, F 689 was cited at a G actual harm for resident smoking with burns. During the recertification survey on 4/5/21, it was cited at a G level actual harm, substandard quality of care for resident smoking with burns.
F679 for activities
During the 5/8/19 recertification survey, activities were cited at a D level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, lack of activities was cited at an D level.
F684 for quality of care
During the 5/8/19 recertification survey, quality of care was cited at a D level. During an abbreviated survey on 12/19/19, F684 was cited at D level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, quality of care was cited at an E level.
F695 respiratory care
During an abbreviated survey on 2/25/2020 respiratory care was cited at aD level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, respiratory care was cited at an E level.
F761 medication storage
During an abbreviated survey on 10/9/19 medication storage was cited at an F level. During the 5/8/19 recertification survey, medication storage was cited at an E level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, medication storage was cited at an E level.
F812 kitchen sanitation
During the 5/8/19 recertification survey, kitchen sanitation was cited at an F level. During an abbreviated survey on 12/19/19, kitchen sanitation was cited at an F level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, kitchen sanitation was cited at an E level.
F880 infection control
During the 5/8/19 recertification survey, infection control was cited at an E. During an abbreviated survey on 7/20/2020, infection control was cited at a D level. During the recertification on 4/5/21, infection control was cited at an E level.
IV. Interviews
The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 4/15/21 at 2:00 p.m. The NHA said the QAPI committee met monthly. She said the medical director, director of nursing (DON), pharmacist and occasional corporate person attended the meeting.
The NHA said the meeting had an agenda. She said the agenda included review of falls, infection control, fire safety, skin or wound concerns, weight loss, abuse, return to hospital cases, complaints, and any additional items identified.
The NHA said areas of concern were identified from previous citations, issues from the pharmacist, review of the quality management report, and resident council. The NHA said the facility had tended to be more reactive to concerns than proactive.
The NHA said smoking concerns had not been discussed in QAPI for a long time. She said the facility system failed because of lack of communication from the floor staff regarding the burns, and the laundry staff regarding the burned clothing. She said the licensed nurse did not look at the visible skin with burns on the hand and arm and follow up.
The NHA said the MDS inaccuracies had not been identified by QAPI. She said the MDS's were completed by an outside company, and the facility would be moving toward having them done in house, to improve the accuracy.
The NHA said ancillary service concerns were not reviewed in QAPI, and she was not aware of the delay in residents receiving eye glasses. She said she has created a tracking form for this purpose now.
The NHA said bowel and bladder continence was not reviewed in QAPI. She said because they were not done or not done correctly they did not flag, and therefore were not reviewed in QAPI.
The NHA said activities were not reviewed in QAPI. She said they used to give us a report, but they have not done that in two quarters.
The NHA said she samples the food at times, but food was not reviewed in QAPI because there were no trends of complaints. She said she was looking at putting together a food committee to look deeper at the cause of complaints received in survey of cold food, hard vegetables and dry meats.
The NHA said contractures, range of motion, and therapy were not items reviewed in QAPI. She said therapy used to provide reports, but she no longer got those.
The NHA said abuse was reviewed in QAPI. She said all allegations were investigated. The NHA said you have opened my eyes to digging deeper and to ask more specific questions when performing interviews. She said she would be providing education to those who assist with investigations on proper interviewing questions and techniques.
The NHA said the QAPI committee had not identified concerns with oxygen and physician orders not being followed.
The NHA said infection control was reviewed monthly at QAPI. She said we have audited housekeeping cleaning of resident rooms, training on PPE, training on COVID. We have an antibiotic stewardship program and consult with the medical director often. She said the medical director followed up with providers as needed.
The NHA said she attributed the deficient practice to a lack of audits and follow up on audits, a failure to identify the root cause for issues, and lack of nursing leadership. She said she previously had two assistant directors of nursing (ADON) and now had four ADONs. She again said the facility needed to be more proactive rather than reactive to issues. The NHA said she had also recently hired an assistant nursing home administrator who can assist with audits and follow up.