CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1667 SAINT PAUL ST, DENVER, CO 80206 (303) 399-2040
For profit - Partnership 125 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
23/100
#138 of 208 in CO
Last Inspection: October 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

City Park Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor quality of care. Ranked #138 out of 208 facilities in Colorado, they fall in the bottom half of available options, and #15 out of 21 in Denver County, meaning only a few local facilities are worse. While the facility is improving, having reduced issues from 18 in 2023 to just 4 in 2024, it still faces serious weaknesses; staffing received a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars with a 54% turnover rate, indicating instability. Although there have been no fines, which is positive, the center has concerning RN coverage, being lower than 76% of Colorado facilities, which may affect resident care. Recent inspector findings revealed serious issues, including inadequate food sanitation practices and a failure to properly inform residents about changes to their Medicare services, which raises potential risks for residents.

Trust Score
F
23/100
In Colorado
#138/208
Bottom 34%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
18 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Colorado. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
54 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 18 issues
2024: 4 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Colorado average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near Colorado avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 54 deficiencies on record

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

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of three residents was free from abuse out of six ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of three residents was free from abuse out of six sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to prevent and protect Resident #1 from verbal abuse by a staff member who yelled and cursed at Resident #1. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse and Neglect policy and procedure, revised 9/30/22 and 1/16/23 (after the incident with Resident #1), was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/13/24 at 2:44 p.m. by email. It revealed in pertinent part, Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of property, exploitation, involuntary seclusion, and physical or chemical restraints imposed for the purpose of discipline or convenience not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. Residents will not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including staff (to include agency or contract vendors), residents, volunteers, consultants, family members or legal guardians, friends, or any other individuals. Verbal abuse The use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully, consciously or with understanding is certain to cause harm and includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents said within their hearing distance, regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or their disability. Some examples of verbal abuse include threats of harm, saying things to frighten a resident such as telling a resident that he/she will never be able to see his/her family again, or using profanity to insult or scold a resident. II. Facility investigation On 12/10/23 at approximately 1:00 p.m., Resident #1 went to a door outside the facility's main kitchen and knocked. Resident #1 went to the kitchen to request bread which was not provided on his lunch tray. The dietary cook (DC) opened the door to the kitchen, yelled profanity at the resident and told him I'm going to shove a bread up your 'expletive.' The incident was witnessed by other staff members. Resident #1 was interviewed and said after the DC yelled at him he became afraid, he was afraid he would be beaten up by the DC. Resident #1 said he quickly went back to his room after the incident. The social service director (SSD) progress note on 12/13/23 at 8:24 a.m. (three days after the incident) revealed she visited the resident for a mood check and he said he was okay. -There was no documentation Resident #1's representative, who was the power of attorney (POA), was called after the incident. III. Resident status Resident #1, age under 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), seizures and chronic pain syndrome. The 12/11/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had mild cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 11 out of 15. He required supervision or touch assistance with showers, toilet use and personal hygiene. He was independent with eating. He used a front wheel walker to ambulate. He did not reject care from staff. IV. Resident and representative interview On 3/18/24 at 9:45 a.m. the resident refused to be interviewed about the incident on 12/10/23. Resident #1's representative was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 3:10 p.m. He said he was the resident's legal POA. He said no staff from the facility called him to report the incident in December 2023. He said he wished the facility had called him because when he spoke to the resident over the phone it helped the resident be calm. He said Resident #1's son moved out of state. He said he was the only family member in the state. He said before the incident, the facility had called him to explain things to the resident and it always helped. V. Record review The 11/6/23 comprehensive care plan revealed Resident #1 had communication problems at times. His primary language was Ethiopian-Amharic. He was able to understand and speak English but struggled with some word finding in English. When he got frustrated when he tried to communicate, the facility was to call his representative to interpret or if the representative was not available, the facility was to call an interpreter line (see representative interview above). The Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II for post-traumatic stress disorder revealed the resident had a history of PTSD from being a police officer in Ethiopia during civil unrest and was ambushed and beaten by soldiers. He was in an African refugee camp. He perseverated on being attacked/beaten. To alleviate symptoms of trauma, the resident could talk to his representative over the phone for a coping strategy. Resident #1's identified trauma trigger was being spoken to in an accusatory manner. VI. Staff interviews The housekeeper (HSK) was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 1:45 p.m. The HSK said she and another housekeeper had stepped out of the elevator on 12/10/23 around lunchtime and heard the DC screaming at Resident #1. She said both housekeepers watched the DC yell at Resident #1. She said the DC was screaming profanity over and over at Resident #1. She said she heard the DC say that he was going to shove bread up Resident #1's (expletive). The DC was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 2:00 p.m. The DC said he only worked in the facility on Sundays and Mondays. He said he was helping cook in the kitchen on 12/10/23. He said Resident #1 banged on the door to the kitchen because he wanted bread. He said it was lunch time. He said Resident #1 was a special case, who needed extra attention and was the problem child. He said he opened the door and yelled at Resident #1 and he said he yelled profanity. The DC said he told Resident #1 he was going to shove a loaf of bread up his (expletive). He said another dietary staff member came out of the kitchen while he was yelling and brought Resident #1 bread. The DC said he knew he should not have screamed at Resident #1. He said the incident occurred around 1:00 p.m. on Sunday 12/10/23 and he said he continued to work until the end of his shift at 6:00 p.m. He said he was told by the assistant dietary manager (ADM) on 12/10/23 at about 6:00 p.m., that he was suspended the next day. He said the NHA at the time called him on Wednesday 12/13/23 to ask him about the incident. He said the NHA asked him about the facts only. The DC said he did not receive an education about abuse at that time or any time after the incident. He said the NHA left him a voicemail on Friday 12/15/23 to come into work on the upcoming Sunday, 12/17/23. He said he did not know that Friday 12/15/23 was the NHA's last day to work in the facility. He said he worked Sunday 12/17/23 for a full shift and returned to work on Monday 12/18/23. He said at about 1:00 p.m. on Monday 12/18/23 he was told to go to the human resource (HR) office where he was notified he was fired. The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 2:20 p.m. The DM said Resident #1 liked two pieces of white bread with breakfast, lunch and dinner. He said he was not at work the day the DC yelled at Resident #1. He said from what he learned when he spoke to his employees in the kitchen, there was bread in the freezer on 12/10/23 but it was not put on the resident's food tray. He said that was why the resident came to the kitchen to get two slices of bread. The DM showed Resident #1's daily meal cards for the dining room staff to follow. The daily meal cards revealed the resident was to have two slices of bread with every meal. The DM said everyone who worked in the kitchen knew to make sure Resident #1 had his two slices of white bread with every meal. He said he had never seen the DC get angry at any residents before the incident with Resident #1. The ADM was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 2:45 p.m. The ADM said she worked on 12/10/23 and heard the DC yell at Resident #1. She said Resident #1 knocked on the kitchen door over and over. She said she heard the DC cuss at Resident #1. She said he cursed at the resident a lot. She said Resident #1 said he just wanted bread. She said she was afraid to step in and stop the DC from yelling because of how angry she felt the DC was. The ADM said she called the DM to help her with what to do with the DC. She said when the DC's shift was over she told him he was not to return to work on Monday 12/11/23. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 3:00 p.m. LPN #1 said Resident #1 always had bread three times a day. She said he had two slices of bread with each of his three meals. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 3:05 p.m. CNA #1 said Resident #1 had two slices of white bread every day, not toasted, for breakfast, lunch and dinner. She said the nursing staff all knew to never miss his bread with all three meals. The NHA was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 3:30 p.m. She said she had only worked in the facility for less than two weeks. She said Resident #1's representative was not called after the incident because the resident was his own POA. She said all the documentation the facility had about the incident in December 2023 was provided during the survey. The interim nursing home administrator (INHA) was interviewed on 3/18/24 at 2:35 p.m. The INHA said she was brought in by the facility's corporation to be the INHA on 12/18/23. She said after the incident with the DC and Resident #1 on 12/10/23 she was at work in the corporate office and was alerted to the incident. She said she told the former NHA to terminate the DC and not to let him return to the facility to work. She said when she arrived on 12/18/23 someone informed her that the DC was in the building. The INHA said she had the DC go to the HR office where he was immediately terminated. The INHA provided abuse in-service training which was provided to staff on 1/18/24 (over one month after the verbal abuse incident) and 2/16/24 -2/21/24. The INHA said the training did not happen for more than a month after the incident. She said there was no abuse education documented for the facility staff after the incident except to the two housekeepers who witnessed the 12/10/23 incident. She said there was no documentation that the dietary staff had abuse training after the incident until over a month later. The INHA said there was no documentation that the former NHA educated the DC before he returned to work.
Jan 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dialysis receive s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents who require dialysis receive such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences, for one (#1) of three residents reviewed for dialysis out of three sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was ready to leave the facility timely in order to get to dialysis to receive all ordered dialysis treatment. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Dialysis Care policy, revised 7/12/23, was received on 1/11/24 at 3:00 p.m. from the nursing home administrator (NHA). The policy documented in pertinent part, Coordination of dialysis care will include communication about care concerns and appropriate interventions, if dialysis is postponed or canceled the provider will be notified. II. Resident status Resident #1, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included end stage renal disease. The 11/24/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident required setup assistance with personal hygiene, parietal to moderate assistance with toileting and bed mobility. He required substantial maximum assistance with transfers. The assessment documented the resident was on dialysis. III. Resident interview Resident #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 11:50 a.m. Resident #1 said he had dialysis three times per week. He said he was frequently late to dialysis. Resident #1 said the night shift was supposed to get him ready and dressed, and the day shift was supposed to put him in his wheelchair at 6:30 a.m. He said the day shift did not get him in his chair at 6:30 a.m. IV. Record review The January 2024 CPO documented the resident had physician orders dated 5/25/2023 for dialysis on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 12:10 p.m. The January 2024 CPO documented Resident #1 was to be gotten up by 6:00 a.m. by night shift staff for dialysis. -However, the resident's dialysis was scheduled to begin at 7:30 a.m. not 12:10 p.m. -The resident did not want to sit up in his chair earlier than 6:30 a.m. Dialysis communication records for Resident #1,dated 12/19/23 and 12/26/23, were reviewed on 1/11/24. Both records documented the resident was late for dialysis. The dialysis care plan, initiated 2/26/2020, documented the staff was to ensure the resident was ready for dialysis at 6:30 a.m. On 12/18/23 at 2:43 p.m., the social services progress note documented the resident was non- compliant with his dialysis pick up time. -However, according to a staff interview, the resident did not want to wait for extended periods of time sitting up in his wheelchair for transport to dialysis and the staff frequently got caught up in their rounds and did not have him ready at 6:30 a.m. V. Additional interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 12:31 p.m. lpn #1 said the resident had expressed concern with being late for dialysis. She said the resident did not want to get up in his wheelchair before 6:30 a.m. and when the day shift arrived they would get caught up in rounds and not get him up on time. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 1/11/24 at 1:51 p.m. The DON said she was aware of Resident #1's concerns with having been late to dialysis. The DON said the nursing staff told her it was the resident that caused the problem. She said the nursing staff told her Resident #1 always wanted one more thing done before he could get in his chair. She said 6:30 a.m. was at shift change for the nursing staff and they could not get him up at that time. The DON said she had not spoken to the resident about the problem and did not know what his story version was regarding being late. The DON said she had not heard the nursing staff got caught up in their rounds and did not get Resident #1 up timely. The dialysis center clinical manager (DCM) was interviewed on 1/11/24 at 11:20 a.m. She said the resident had dialysis three times per week on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday at 7:30 a.m. She said Resident #1 was late for almost every session. The DCM said this resulted in the resident having to be taken off dialysis before he had a full session because he started late. The DCM said this meant the resident missed about one and a half hours per week of dialysis. She said receiving the full dialysis time was critical to the resident's health. The DCM said with a shortened dialysis time Resident #1 was not getting enough fluid, chemicals and waste pulled off of his body. She said this could lead to significant issues with his heart and breathing and lead to increased hospitalizations.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of three residents out of 3 sample residents did n...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of three residents out of 3 sample residents did not experience a significant medication error. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure that Resident #1 received all doses of his prescribed kidney failure medication, Velphoro, which resulted in a significant medication error of omission. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Medication Administration policy, dated 7/25/19, was received on 1/11/24 at 3:00 p.m. from the nursing home administrator (NHA). The policy documented in pertinent part, Medications will be administered in accordance with written orders authorized by the attending physician. II. Resident status Resident #1, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included end stage renal disease. The 11/24/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident required setup assistance with personal hygiene, parietal to moderate assistance with toileting and bed mobility. He required substantial maximum assistance with transfers. The assessment documented the resident was on dialysis. III. Record review The January 2024 CPO revealed the following: On 2/13/23 at 4:00 p.m. the resident had an order for Sucroferric Oxyhydroxide (Velphoro) tablet chewable 500 mg (milligram). Give two tablets by mouth three times daily. On 12/28/23 at 5:19 p.m. there was an order to hold the Velphoro because prior authorization was needed. The order listed the start date as 12/28/23 and the end date as 12/31/23. The January 2024 CPO no longer listed an order to hold the medication because the order to hold the medication had ended on 12/31/23. The December 2023 medication administration record (MAR) documented the last time the resident received the medication was 12/24/23, four days prior to the order to hold the medication. IV. Interviews Resident #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 11:50 a.m. He said he had been out of one of his kidney failure medications,Velphoro, for several weeks. He said the nurse on duty and the DON were aware but he had received no follow up about when the medication would be available. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 12:31 p.m. LPN #1 said she was the nurse for Resident #1. LPN #1 said the resident had been out of his Velphoro medication for a few weeks. She said she did not know if his primary physician was aware. Looking at her laptop and the resident's orders, she said there was no order to hold the medication. She said the DON was aware. The DON was interviewed on 1/11/24 at 1:51 p.m. She said she was aware of Resident #1's missing medication Velphoro. She said she was waiting on prior authorization. The DON confirmed the resident had not had the medication in several weeks. She said we dropped the ball and too much time had gone by that the resident had not had the medication. The DON said she did not know if the medication was at the facility yet. She said the facility had obtained an order to hold the medication from the primary physician on 12/28/23 while prior authorization was obtained. However, she said that order was to have ended as of 12/31/23 (see record review above). The dialysis center clinical manager (DCM) was interviewed on 1/11/24 at 11:20 a.m. She said she was concerned the resident had not been getting the phosphorus binding medication, Velphoro. The medication removed excess phosphorus from the blood. The DCM said dialysis did not remove phosphorus from the blood like the kidneys. She said the phosphorus would build up in the blood and act as a toxin affecting all the other electrolytes. The DCM said the build up of phosphorus would lead to muscle cramps and pain, bone breaks, joint pain, itching of the skin and many other problems. She said the resident was supposed to take it three times per day. The DCM said the resident reported he had not received the medication for several weeks and the facility said they were waiting on a prior authorization. The DCM said she and several other staff members at the dialysis center had sent the facility the prior authorization multiple times. The DCM called regarding the phosphate level results after the survey exit on 1/18/24 at 9:08 a.m. She said the resident's phosphate level on 12/14/23 was 2.6 mg/dL (milligrams per deciliter). The DCM said on 1/11/24 the phosphate level was 6.0 mg/dL. She said the phosphate level should be less than 5 mg/dL which was the high end of an acceptable range. The DCM said the elevated phosphate level was a result of Resident #1 not receiving the Velphoro. V. Facility follow up On 1/10/23 at 12:02 p.m. a nursing progress note documented the medication would be sent to the facility as of that date, according to the pharmacy.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and or their representatives were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances for three (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents and or their representatives were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve grievances for three (#1, #2 and #3) of three residents out of three sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to address, resolve, document and follow up on grievances for: -Resident #1 regarding missing medications, call light wait times and schedule to ensure he arrived to dialysis timely; -Resident #2 regarding the staff getting him out of bed, call light wait times and providing showers; and, -Resident #3 regarding extended call light wait times. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Grievances policy, revised November 2016, was received on 1/11/24 at 3:00 p.m. from the nursing home administrator (NHA). The policy documented in pertinent part, Within three days of receipt of an verbal or written grievance, the Grievance Officer or designee, will give a written explanation of findings and proposed remedies, if any, to the complainant and to the aggrieved party, if other than the complainant. An oral explanation will be provided, along with the written statement whenever possible. II. Resident interviews Resident #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 11:50 a.m. Resident #1 said he had reported concerns with extended call light times over one and a half hours long to the director of nursing (DON) and NHA multiple times. He said the concern had not been addressed and he had received no follow up from the DON or NHA. Resident #1 said he had been out of one of his kidney failure medications,Velphoro, for several weeks. He said the nurse on duty and the DON were aware but he had received no follow up about when the medication would be available (cross reference F760 significant medication errors). Resident #1 said he had dialysis three times per week. He said he was frequently late to dialysis. Resident #1 said the night shift was supposed to get him ready and dressed, and the day shift was supposed to put him in his chair at 6:30 a.m. He said the day shift did not get him in his chair by 6:30 a.m. The resident said the DON was aware of his concern, but there had been no resolution (cross reference F698 dialysis). Resident #1 was interviewed again on 1/11/24 at 3:27 p.m. He said the social worker had come to his room today (1/11/24) and told him he was not allowed to leave messages on the staff's voicemail with his concerns. She handed him several concern forms and told him he needed to fill out a form if he had a concern. Resident #2 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 12:48 p.m. He said he had reported concerns about extended call light wait times for over an hour to the nurses on duty and the social worker. He said he had not heard any follow up on his concern. Resident #2 said the nursing staff would refuse to get him out of bed, put him back to bed timely, or give him a shower. He said he had reported his concerns to the nurse on duty and the DON. He said there had been no improvement to his concerns. Resident #3 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 1:22 p.m. He said he had reported concerns with call light wait times up to one and a half hours long to the nurse on duty. He said he had not seen any improvement to the extended call light wait times. IV. Record review Grievance concern forms were requested from the NHA on 1/11/24 at 1:11 p.m. related to the concerns above for Residents #1, #2 and #3. -No grievances or concern forms were received by the end of the survey on 1/11/24. Grievance concern forms were requested from the DON on 1/11/24 at 1:51 p.m. related to the concerns above for Residents #1, #2 and #3. -No grievances or concern forms were received by the end of the survey on 1/11/24. On 10/15/23 at 10:56 p.m., a nursing progress note documented Resident #2 went to the second floor and told the nurse he had been waiting since 7:00 p.m. to be put to bed. The second floor nurse called the 3rd floor where the resident lived but there was no answer. The second floor nurse went to the 3rd floor and informed the 3rd floor nurse the resident had been waiting to go to bed. On 10/23/23 at 12:56 p.m. the social service note documented that Resident #2 had concerns with showers, receiving timely care and feeling his needs overall were being ignored. The SW informed the nurse manager. -However, there were no grievances or concern forms completed for Resident #2's concerns. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 12:31 p.m. She said she was the nurse for Resident #1. LPN #1 said the resident had been out of his Velphoro medication for a few weeks. She said she did not know if his primary physician was aware. She said the DON was aware. LPN #1 said she had not followed up with the resident regarding the progress on obtaining his medication. LPN #1 said she had worked with Resident #1 during the night shift and day shift. She said she was aware of his concerns with extended call light wait times. She said sometimes he called frequently with his call light for assistance and sometimes he did not. She said he was very picky and liked things done a certain way. She said, as an example, Resident #1 liked the books in his room organized in a certain order. LPN #1 said the resident had expressed concerns with being late for dialysis. She said Resident #1t did not want to get up in his wheelchair before 6:30 a.m. and when the day shift arrived they would get caught up in rounds and not get him up on time. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 1/10/24 at 1:40 p.m. CNA #1 said Resident #2 and Resident #3 had both expressed concerns to her about extended call light times, especially on the night shift. The DON was interviewed on 1/11/24 at 1:51 p.m. She said she was aware of Resident #1's missing medication, Velphoro. She said she was waiting on prior authorization from the insurance provider for the medication. The DON confirmed the resident had not had the medication in several weeks. She said we dropped the ball and too much time had gone by that the resident had not had the medication. She did not know if anyone had followed up with the resident regarding his concern of not having the medication. The DON said she had call light concerns reported to her from Resident #1 and Resident #2 in the past. She thought it was several months ago. She said she did not know if she had grievances reports with follow up regarding call lights. She said she would look. The DON said she was aware of Resident #1's concerns with having been late to dialysis. She said it was the resident that caused the problem. She said he always wanted one more thing done before he could get in his chair. She said 6:30 a.m. was at shift change for the nursing staff and they could not get him up at that time. The DON said she had no grievance report for Resident #1 indicating follow up or attempts to resolve the issue. The DON said she was aware of Resident #2's concerns with not getting out of bed, or being put back to bed timely, as well as his concern with call lights. She said it was a couple of months ago and did not realize it was still a concern. She said she did not have a grievance report on his concerns. The NHA was interviewed on 1/11/24 at 2:38 p.m. She said she started a few weeks ago and had identified grievance reports were not being completed.The NHA said she had not had a chance to put a corrective plan in place yet. She said if a resident had a concern the staff should complete a grievance form for them. She said a copy went to the NHA and to the department head responsible. She said the department responsible then had 72 hours to investigate the concern and respond back to the resident with possible solutions. She said she did not have grievances for Residents #1, #2 or #3, or call lights. The NHA said she had identified that the majority of concerns reported seemed to come from her night shift and she would plan to come in on that shift to observe what was happening.
Oct 2023 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 self-administration of medications was clinically appropriate for one (#39) resident out of 46 sample residents. Specifically the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #39 was assessed for the appropriateness and safety of self-administration of oral medications; and, -Ensure there was a physician order for self-administration of oral medications. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Medication- Self Administration policy and procedure, dated 2/24/14, received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. revealed in pertinent part an assessment will be completed prior to self administering medications to ensure residents safety. If the nurse and/or interdisciplinary team (IDT) deems the resident safety and competent, a physician order will be obtained containing specifics about the medications itself and an order for the medication to be self-administered by the resident. The Medication Administration General Guidelines policy and procedure, dated 10/15/10, received from the NHA on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. revealed in pertinent part, Residents will be observed after medication administration to ensure the dose was completely swallowed. II. Resident #39 A. Resident status Resident #39, age [AGE], admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnosis included pneumonia (infection in the lungs), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (air flow blockage), heart failure (decrease in the pumping mechanism of heart), myocardial infarction (heart attack), hypertension (high blood pressure), and gout (urea crystallization in the joints). The 7/20/23 minimum data set (MDS) revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. She required one person's assistance with dressing. Set up assistance with bed mobility and eating. She was independent with transfers, toileting and personal hygiene. B. Record review The October 2023 CPO revealed Resident #39 had an order to self administer inhalers, eye drops, ear drops, topicals, nasal sprays/creams and could be stored at bedside ordered on 7/3/23. The medication self-administration safety screen dated 7/3/23 documented the following medications safe for resident to administer independently and be kept at bedside: Ventolin inhaler; Trellegy inhaler; Debrox ear solution; Biofreeze topical; Latanoprost eye drop. The 7/20/23 comprehensive care plan identified that the resident was safe to keep medication at bedside and be re-evaluated for self administration quarterly. C. Observations Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was passing medication on 10/11/23 at 7:54 a.m. LPN #1 dispensed the following medications for Resident #39; Omeprazole (used for acid reflux); tylenol (pain medication); acidophilus (good gastrointestinal bacteria); Amoxicillin-Pot Clavulanate (antibiotic); aspirin (clot prevention); azithromycin (antibiotic); Furosemide (decrease fluid retention); losartan (decreases blood pressure); metoprolol (blood pressure reducer); senna (stool softener); and spironolactone (decrease fluid retention). LPN #1 entered Resident #39's room and handed the medication to the resident and left the room prior to the resident taking the medications. LPN #1 returned to medication cart and charted the Resident #39 took her medications. -None of the medications LPN #1 dispensed were approved in the physician order for self administration or to be kept at bedside (see order above). LPN #1 failed to observe Resident #39 take her oral medications. III. Staff interviews LPN #1 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 3:39 p.m. He said only residents who have been assessed to self administer medications could have medications left in their rooms. LPN #1 said medications could not be left with a resident as medications could be not taken, lost or another resident may get a hold of them and lead to complications. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12 23 at 2:41 p.m. She said residents were assessed with a self administration tool to prove they could safely self-administer medications. Medications should not be left in the resident room during medication pass as it places the risk of the resident not taking them or someone else taking them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were clean ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were clean to minimize odors and in good repair. Findings include: I. Facility policy On 10/12/23 at 3:33 p.m. A request was made for the facility's home like environment policy, the nursing home administrator (NHA) said the facility did not have a homelike environment policy. II. Resident #100 A. Observation and interviews On 10/9/23 at 3:01 p.m. Resident #100 was observed laying in bed with a bedpan containing feces. A trash can beside the bed contained multiple wipes stained brown matter. There were two urinals that were half full with urine hanging on the side of the waste basket. The room had the odor of urine and stool. On 10/10/23 at 10:53 a.m. to 4:10 p.m. Resident #100 was observed laying in bed. The bed pan was covered with brown paper towels and was on the resident's bed leaning against a pillow pushed against the wall. The resident has two urinals with one urinal completely full and the other half full. The room had the odor of feces and urine. Resident #100 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 3:01 p.m. The resident said he kept the bed pan on his bed against the wall for easy access. The resident said he preferred the bedpan to be close to him in the event he needs to go now. The resident said he used his call light to call for help with toileting but they take too long and he can not always wait for staff to arrive. The resident said he was not bothered by the smell and did not think his roommate was bothered by the smell either. Resident #100's roommate was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 3:15 p.m. The resident's roommate said he kept the curtain closed 100 percent of the time and he was not bothered by the odor because he had Lysol spray which he used to keep the odor down. On 10/11/23 at 7:47 a.m. Resident #100 was observed in bed with a soiled bed pan on the bed next to him; the waste basket was full of stool soiled wipes.The room had the odor of stool. -At 8:36 a.m. The resident's breakfast arrived. The certified nurse aide (CNA) delivering the resident's food emptied the resident's urinals but left the trash can full of the stool soiled wipes at the resident's bedside next to where he ate. The resident's room smelled of stool. -At 10:15 a.m., a housekeeper entered the resident's room to empty the waste basket after the resident had finished his meal. On 10/12/23 at 10:43 a.m. a housekeeper entered the resident's room to empty the trash can containing the soiled wipes but the urinals were not emptied. The urinals were left hanging on the side of the resident's waste basket. A staff member near the resident's room was notified by the housekeeper about the urinals. The staff member did not enter the resident's room. B. Staff interviews CNA #7 was interviewed on 10/12 23 at 11:42 a.m. CNA #7 said Resident #100 was very independent and used the urinal and bedpan on his own. CNA #7 said the resident could lift himself up to put the bedpan underneath him. CNA #7 said the resident would sometimes call staff to assist him with wiping. CNA #7 said she always cleaned the bedpan after use and flushed the wipes but returned the bed pan to the resident per his request. CNA #8 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 12:15 p.m. CNA #8 said most CNAs respected the resident's independence and tried to keep up with cleaning the bedpan, urinals and emptying the waste baskets after he used them. However, some of the other CNAs did not touch the waste basket unless they were told to. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 3:40 p.m. The IP said staff should be emptying urinals routinely and empty the bed pan immediately after use. The IP said the bedpan should be removed from the resident's bed. The IP said if waste baskets were full of dirty wipes they should be emptied immediately and on a consistent basis. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 3:25 p.m. The DON said it was the responsibility of all staff to create a homelike environment and immediately address cleaning needs. III. Resident #36 A. Observations and interview Resident #36 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 9:45 a.m. He stated he had rheumatoid arthritis and had difficulty holding things with his hands resulting in the condition of his room. The facility did not want to help him clean his room and he did not believe the staff wanted to come into his room. The holes in his walls were a result of hitting the wall with his electric wheelchair. During the interview on 10/9/23, food and debris were observed on the floor. A brown banana, a sandwich in a bag, garbage and clothes were on his floor by his bed and heater. [NAME] matter was observed on the toilet seat and floor of his bathroom. There was a urinal full of urine with a drinking cup full of urine on his bedside table. Several baseball size holes were observed in the walls when first entering the room. Staff came into the resident's room to clean it on 10/9/23 at 10:15 a.m. The resident's room was observed on 10/10/23 at 10:30 a.m. Garbage and food was observed on the resident's floor. What appeared to be brown matter was observed on the floor next to the resident's bed. A cup of urine and a urinal with urine were sitting on his bedside table. [NAME] matter was observed covering the toilet seat. The holes in the walls remained the same as from 10/9/23. Staff came into the resident's room to clean it on 10/10/23 at 10:45 a.m. and removed all the debris and brown matter. The cup of urine remained on his bedside table. B. Staff interview Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 10:45 a.m. He stated the resident had no behaviors he was aware of. CNA #1 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 11:20 p.m. She stated the resident could be verbally aggressive and agitated with the staff. He would allow staff to clean his room, but he would yell at the staff while it was being cleaned. The resident was not incontinent of bowel or bladder, smearing stools was a behavior of the residents. He required staff assistance to go to the toilet and transfer but he would try to do it on his own. He used to have a bedside commode but he did not want to use it. The DON was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 3:40 p.m. The DON stated the resident often would throw his urinal on the floor with urine inside of it. He would throw food and garbage onto his floor. He would allow one particular housekeeper to clean his room but would tell the other staff to leave. She said his room had to be cleaned daily and after the room was cleaned, the resident would start throwing things on his floor again. She did not have daily cleaning documentation for the resident and had not documented this behavior on a daily basis. The resident's wall had been repaired several times, but he continued to run into the wall creating holes. She did not have documentation of the room repairs. C. Facility follow-up The housekeeping's daily cleaning schedule was provided on 10/12/23 at 1:15 p.m. from the NHA. It revealed the resident's room had been last cleaned 9/22/23. The scheduled documented resident rooms were to be cleaned daily between 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. The floor of each room was to be cleaned daily. Any concerns were to be brought to management's attention and documented by the nurses.
CONCERN (D)

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#48) of two residents reviewed for abuse out of 46 sam...

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 one (#48) of two residents reviewed for abuse out of 46 sample residents were free from abuse. Specially, the facility failed to prevent a resident to resident altercation between Resident #48 and Resident #66. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse and Neglect policy, dated 7/11/21, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/12/23. It read in pertinent part: Physical abuse is defined as including hitting, slapping, pinching, and kicking of residents. The two elements needed are: -Intent or knowingly or recklessly -Bodily injury and/or serious bodily injury, and/or -Unreasonable confinement or restraint. II. Resident to resident physical altercation between Residents #48 and #66. A. Facility investigation Incident 9/2/23 The incident between Resident #48 and Resident #66 occurred in the room where both residents reside. Resident #48 alerted the nurse Resident #66 had punched him in the nose after Resident #48 accidentally ran over his foot with the electric wheelchair. The residents were separated by staff and assessed for injuries, Resident #48 had a bloody nose. Resident #66 was moved to a different room the same day. Resident #48 was interviewed by manager on duty, where he stated Resident #66 was sitting in a chair in the room when Resident #48 bumped into him with his electric wheelchair. Resident #66 became upset and punched him in the nose. Resident #66 was interviewed by the manager on duty, where he stated Resident #48 ran over his foot with the wheelchair and this aggravated him so he turned and punched Resident #48 in the nose. The facility failed to substantiate the abuse citing Resident #66 did not intend harm to Resident #48 when he punched him. -However, the abuse should have been substantiated due to Resident #66 punching Resident #48 in the face and causing a bloody nose. During the facility investigation, Resident #66 admitted to punching Resident #48 because he was aggravated with Resident #48. B. Resident #48 (victim) 1. Resident status Resident #48, aged 78, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, Parkinson's disease and congestive heart failure. The 8/23/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. He had no behaviors indicated. 2. Resident interview Resident #48 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 12:45 p.m. He stated his former roommate, Resident #66, thought he had deliberately ran over his foot with his electric wheelchair and punched Resident #48 in the front of his face. The staff moved his roommate the same day and he did not feel fearful. 3. Record review The comprehensive care plan, revised 5/23/23, revealed the resident had impaired cognitive functioning related to impaired thought processes due to Parkinson's disease. And was to be monitored for elopements. He required a wheelchair for mobility. He received one person assist with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toileting, hygiene. No behaviors were indicated. C. Resident #66 (assailant) 1. Resident status Resident #66, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] According to the October 2023 CPO, diagnoses included unspecified dementia and depression. The 9/25/23 MDS assessment documented the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of seven out of 15. He only required staff set up for bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. He had no behaviors indicated. 2. Resident interview Resident #66 was approached on 10/10/23 at 2:15 p.m. and refused to be interviewed. 3. Record review The comprehensive care plan, revised 9/12/23, identified the resident had behavior of perseverating on the location of his money and needing staff reminders to look in his lock box. The resident had behaviors of urinating on washcloths and hanging the cloths in his room to dry instead of using the bathroom. Staff were to encourage and remind the resident to use the restroom. III. Staff interview The nursing home administrator was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 4:15 p.m. This was the first incident of this nature between Resident #48 and #66. Nether resident had a history and Resident #66 was moved to another floor of the building the same day of the incident. The facility did not substantiate the incident as physical abuse due to determining Resident #66 reacted to Resident #48 running over his foot and would not have hit him otherwise. The NHA did not believe Resident #66 intended to be physically abusive.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 a resident was free from physical restraints imposed for purposes of convenience, and that are not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms, the least restrictive alternatives was not used for one (#102) of one resident reviewed for restraint use out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to -Attempt to assess less restrictive alternatives to prevent Resident #102 from falling out of his wheelchair; -Evaluate the risks and benefits for using a lap belt or personal restraint on Resident #102; -Obtain a physician's order before implementing the use of a lap belt personal restraint on Resident #102 while in his wheelchair; -Re-evaluate the ongoing use of a lap belt personal restraint on Resident #102; and -Perform periodic removal/release of Resident #102's lap belt personal restraint to assess for continued need. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Restraint Assessment and Consent Policy, revised October 2023, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/12/23 at 4:33 p.m. It read in pertinent part: A physical restraint-free or least restrictive environment will be the standard for resident care. If restraints are present, the interdisciplinary team will make every effort to reduce then eliminate restraints. Purposes for restraint use include resident safety, injury prevention, and protection of the medical devices. When evaluating restraints, a risk-benefit of device use will be completed. Restraint definition: A physical restraint is any physical or mechanical device, attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot easily move. It restricts movement or access to one's body. When determining if a device is a restraint or assistive device, the focus will be the effect on the resident, not the intent or reason for use. 1. Assessment and treatment of potential underlying conditions and environment (reasons for behaviors/impulsivity, pain, boredom, restlessness, quality of life) will be completed prior to initiation of a restraint. Evaluations will be documented on the evaluation/consent form. 2. Restraints will not be implemented based on family/POAs (power of attorney) requests. Instead, a facility assessment will be completed to evaluate the restraint request, including less restrictive alternatives. Families will be interviewed to understand their concerns and educated regarding restraint alternatives. 3. The following will be documented on the evaluation/consent form: -Alternative measures tried prior to device use, with trial results -Evaluation of self-release ability and potential movement or access to body restriction -Observation of device effect on the resident -Identification of potential risks and benefits of the device -Medical symptoms A Physician's order will be obtained for restraints. The order will include the type and purpose of the restraint and duration of application, as well as a diagnosis for the restraint. II. Resident #102 A. Resident status Resident #102, age [AGE] years, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included intracranial (brain) injury with loss of consciousness, fracture of nasal bones, injury to face and abnormality of gait/mobility. The 9/13/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of five out of 15. The resident needed extensive assistance from staff to complete all activities of daily living, used both a manual wheelchair and walker with expensive staff assistance and had limited function range of motion (ROM) mobility in both the upper and lower extremities, one sided. It did not document the use of a lap belt or restraint on the resident's person. B. Observations and resident interview On 10/9/23 at 1:31 p.m. Resident #102 was sitting up in a wheelchair with a seat belt across his lap. On 10/10/23 at 10:23 a.m. Resident #102 was sitting in a wheelchair, a certified nurse aide (CNA) noticed the resident was leaning forward in the wheelchair sleeping, the lap belt was in place. -At 12:14 p.m. and 2:43 p.m., Resident #102 was observed sitting in his wheelchair in the common area. The resident was restrained in the wheelchair with a lap belt personal restraint. The resident's wheelchair was reclined; he was seated upright and back at the base of the seat and was not leaning forward. Resident #102 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 2:55 p.m. The resident said he had to wear the lap belt/restraint to not get in trouble. -The resident was not able to say anything more about the lap belt and the resident was unable to demonstrate ability to remove the lap belt. On 10/11/23 at 7:31 a.m. and 10:47 p.m. the resident was seated in a wheelchair in the dining room, the belt across the resident's lap was in place. C. Record review -The care plan did not have a care focus for the use of a lap belt personal restraint while up in a wheelchair. -The October 2023 CPO did not include a physician's order for the use of a lap belt/restraint. -The resident's medical record failed to have documentation to show that the resident was assessed for the use of the lap belt restraint or a risk benefit statement prior to the initiation of the use of a lap belt personal restraint or consent for use. -A review of the resident's treatment administration records (TAR) contained entries for behavioral tracking but failed to document any behaviors to support the use of a lap belt/restraint. -There are no progress nursing notes documenting the use of the lap belt personal restraint. III. Staff interviews Activities Assistant (AA) #1 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 8:54 a.m. AA #1 said she was assigned to help the resident eat on occasion, but did not know much else about the resident. AA #1 said she believed the resident came to the facility with the lap belt which was attached to the wheelchair. AA #1 said she did not know why the resident used the lap belt and has never seen the resident try to take it off. CNA #6 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 11:19 a.m. CNA #6 said the resident was moved to long-term care after receiving rehabilitation services on the second floor. CNA #6 said the resident's wheelchair with an attached lap belt was brought in by the resident's son. The resident's son asked staff to place the lap belt on the resident to prevent him from falling out of the wheelchair because the resident had a tendency to lean forward while in the wheelchair. CNA #6 said she had never seen the resident try to take off the lap belt and did not believe the resident knew how to release the lap belt. CNA #6 said she did not receive training on the use of the lap belt or positioning the resident in his wheelchair. Licensed practice nurse (LPN) #3 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 11:30 a.m. LPN #3 said the resident wore the lap belt because he tilted forward while sitting upright in the wheelchair. LPN #3 said she did not believe the lap belt bothered the resident because he did not try to remove it. LPN #3 said the resident's son brought in the wheelchair with the lap belt attached; staff used the lap belt at the son's request. LPN #3 said she had never seen a wheelchair with a lap belt attached and had no training on how to use it. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 3:30 p.m. The DON said no resident in the facility used any type of restraint. When told that staff were using a lap belt to secure Resident #102 in his wheelchair, the DON said she was not aware that the resident had a lap belt secured in his wheelchair The DON said she would call the resident's family to discuss the use of the lap belt and inform them the device needed to be removed from the wheelchair.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 incorporate the recommendations from the preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) level II determination and evaluation report into the assessment, care planning and transitions of care for one (#83) of four residents reviewed for PASRR out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to take steps to: -Ensure services were timely provided as recommended in Resident #83's PASARR level II; and, -Develop a PASARR level II care plan for Resident #83. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #83, under the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). According to the 9/10/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had a moderate cognitive impairement with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. He required set up help only for walking and transfers. The resident was independent for all other activities of daily living (ADLs). The resident did not have signs of depression. The resident did not exhibit behavioral symptoms. The resident was not triggered for having a PASARR level II. The resident received antidepressant medication. II. Resident interview Resident #83 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 3:11 p.m. Resident #83 said he had distress from past abusive experiences both in his country and at a different facility. Resident #83 said he did not receive help from the facility. Resident #83 said he wanted a case manager and someone to talk to about the past trauma. Resident #83 said he had asked for help multiple times and the social worker ignored him and did not provide assistance with his concerns. III. Record review According to The PASRR II evaluation dated 12/19/22 documented the resident was evaluated because the resident had diagnoses of PTSD and major depressive disorder. The recommendations included the following psychiatric case consultation so the resident was able to discuss adjustment concerns and depression, psychosocial consultation, case management services so the resident can discharge into lower level of care. According to the care plan dated 8/25/23 documented Resident #83 did not have a PASARR level II care plan. According to the behavior care plan revised 7/1/23 documented the resident was known for becoming verbally and physically aggressive when he did not get his meal preference. Interventions included the following, staff should allow the resident to calm down and temporarily leave the residents room. Staff should check in on the resident prior to meals to ask for his preference. Monitor and notify director of nursing (DON) and team of behaviors like screaming, yelling and becoming physically aggressive. According to the psych note dated 5/23/23 documented the resident had an evaluation and management of medications. According to the psych note dated 6/22/23 documented the resident had an evaluation and management of medications. The practitioner reviewed medication changes with the resident. According to the psych note dated 6/22/23 documented the resident had an evaluation and management of medications. The practitioner reviewed medication changes. They discussed mental health progress and Resident#83 should continue licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) therapy check ins. -There was no additional documentation of psychosocial consultations, outside case management or additional psychiatric case management services. According to the trauma behavior plan, revised 4/5/23, documented the resident had PTSD from an event he experienced in Ethiopia. Interventions included the following activities should provide Ethiopian gospel music. The staff would call the residents brother. Notify the DON (director of nursing), social worker or ADON (assistant director of nursing) if the resident experiences symptoms of trauma. Observe signs of psychosocial distress, anger, tearfulness, irritability and restlessness. According to the mental health care plan revised 4/1/23 the resident was being seen by a psychiatrist for emotional support. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:39 a.m. LPN #4 said Resident #83 had physical and verbally aggressive behaviors. LPN #4 said the resident did not have interventions in place to help him. LPN #4 said the resident did not have outside services to help with his behaviors. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:53 a.m. CNA #5 said Resident #83 had very aggressive behaviors and would yell at staff and would sometimes become physically aggressive. CNA #5 said the staff did not have interventions to help Resident #83 when he became aggressive. CNA #5 said the resident had PTSD from past events. CNA #5 said the staff walked away if he became aggressive. Resident #5 said Resident #83 did not receive outside services for his PTSD. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 1:28 p.m. The SSD said PASRR recommendations were used to build the resident's care plan. The SSD said recommendations are important to follow to appropriately care for the resident that had been diagnosed with a major mental illness. The SSD said if the recommendations could not be followed the SSD would communicate the challenges with the state mental health agency. The SSD said she had not communicated with the mental health agency about a refusal or difficulty meeting recommendations for Resident #83. The SSD said Resident #83 had PASRR II with recommendations. The SSD said the resident refused to get services from a case manager or get a psychosocial consultation and the resident had a handful of psychiatric visits. The SSD said the residents PASRRII recommendation and refusals were care planned. -However, the resident did not have documentation of refusals and it was not care planned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed provide care and services for activities of daily living...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed provide care and services for activities of daily living including speech, language and other communication systems for one (#12) resident of one reviewed out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure Resident #12 was able to communicate in her preferred language; and, -Ensure the communication book was available for Resident #12 use. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Dignity, Voice and Choice policy and procedure, dated 2/28/23, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Residents will be cared for in a manner and environment that maintains or enhances their dignity, privacy, and respect in full recognition of their individuality. Residents were addressed by their preferred name in respectful and in a language they understand. II. Resident #12 A. Resident status Resident #12, age [AGE], admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnosis included fracture of the left humerus (broken bone in the lower arm), COPD (airway blockage) and hypertension (high blood pressure). The 7/23/23 minimum data set (MDS) revealed the resident was mildly cognitively impaired with a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. She required two person assistance with bed mobility. Transfers, dressing and toileting. One person assistance with eating and personal hygiene. B. Resident interview Resident #12 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 1:04 p.m. She said she was told to speak English a lot but could not express herself well or make her needs known because she did not know some words in English. Resident #12 said the staff have never used a communication line or a book to help communicate with her. Resident #12 said she got frustrated when she could not tell staff what she needed and had no one to talk to most days. C. Observations On 10/10/23 at 11:42 a.m. Resident #12 was observed in the dinning room for lunch and was attempting to communicate with certified nurse aide (CNA) #2. Resident #12 was asking for coffee to drink and was unable to ask for the sugar of choice. CNA #2 told the resident to talk to her in English and Resident #12 was able to speak in English. It took Resident #12 over two minutes to communicate she wanted a pink sugar packet. CNA #2 told Resident #12 to speak in English four times during the conversation. Resident #12 appeared to be frustrated by shaking her head side to side and frowning. At 2:50 p.m. Resident #12 was observed sitting by herself at a table during bingo. Resident #12 said bingo and an unidentified staff member came to the residents table from across the room, reviewed her card and told the resident no but close. Resident #12 appeared to be confused and not understanding why she did not have a bingo. On 10/11/23 at 1:26 p.m. registered nurse (RN) #2 was observed speaking with Resident #12. RN #2 told the resident to speak English as he did not understand her. -The facility staff failed to use any translation aids (see record review below) to communicate with the resident in her preferred language. D. Record review The 7/26/23 comprehensive care plan documented Resident #12 had a communication problem related to Spanish speaking only. Interventions staff documented for Resident #12 would be able to make basic needs known on a daily basis using an interpreter, staff were to anticipate and meet needs, provide translators as necessary to communicate with the resident and use cue cards for simple communication. III. Staff interviews CNA #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 She said Resident #12 spoke Spanish and had to be reminded to speak English. CNA #2 was unaware of any interpreting services available to help communication between the staff and Resident #12. RN #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 1:26 p.m. He said Resident #12 could speak English but needed to be reminded to speak English. RN #2 was unaware of any communication aids available to help with translation. The activities director (AD) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 11:30 a.m. She said that Resident #12 was added to one-to-one visits about a month ago and a Spanish speaking staff member assisted Resident #12 during activities she attended. The NHA was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 11:30 a.m. She said therapy department initiated a communication book for Resident #12 and the director of therapy trained staff to use the book to help communicate with the resident. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:41 p.m. She said staff had access to an interpreter line and could call family members to assist in translating. The DON said she did not know staff were not aware of the interpreter service or Resident #12 had a communication binder at the nurses station.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to clarify resuscitation choices and document them accurately ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to clarify resuscitation choices and document them accurately in the medical record for one (#70) of three residents reviewed for advance directives out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the medical orders for scope of treatment forms (MOST) form matched the physician's orders for Resident #70's cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) wishes. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Advance Directives and Resident Representative policy and procedure, dated [DATE], was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on [DATE] at 4:45 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, A facility representative usually social services or nursing will provide advanced directive information as needed to assist with health care decisions prior to or upon admission, with potential changes of condition, and as needed based on resident and representative needs. The physician should discuss choices offered on the MOST form and educate the resident regarding the choices made. II. Resident #70 A. Resident status Resident #70, age [AGE], admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnosis included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (air flow blockage), pneumonia (lung infection), myocardial infarction (heart attack) and hypertension (high blood pressure). The [DATE] minimum data set (MDS) revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. B. Record review The MOST form signed on [DATE] by Resident #70 documented he was not to be resuscitated. The [DATE] CPO documented an order for Resident #70 as a full code ordered on [DATE]. -The MOST form and physician order failed to match. III. Staff interviews Registered nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:14 a.m. He said when a resident was admitted to the facility the nurse admitting them went over the MOST form with the resident and obtained their signature. The admitting nurse would then add an order to the resident physician order to indicate their wishes as full code or do not resuscitate. RN #2 said in an emergency situation the nurse could look at the computer or the paper chart to identify the resident's wishes. RN #2 identified Resident #70 as being full code by looking at the CPO and then reported he would try to revive the resident to full extent. When RN #2 reviewed the MOST form in the resident paper chart it documented that Resident #70 was a do not resuscitate and said the order and the MOST form did not match. RN #2 immediately notified to the social worker and then changed the order in the CPO to do not resuscitate. RN #2 said if Resident #70 coded this would have been a problem because staff could have performed life saving measures on a resident who did not want those measures taken. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:41 p.m. She said during the admission process the admitting nurse or the social worker share the responsibility of getting the MOST form signed. The DON said once the MOST form was signed the nurse was to place the residents wishes into the computer system and the order was to match the MOST form. The DON said if the order and MOST form did not match staff could revive the resident and it not be their wishes or not revive them when they wished to be revived.
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** III. Resident #83 A. Resident status Resident #83, under the age of 65 was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 com...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #83 A. Resident status Resident #83, under the age of 65 was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included major depressive disorder and PTSD (post-traumatic stress syndrome). According to the 9/10/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was moderately cognitively impaired as evidenced by a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15. The resident was independent and able to perform most activities of daily living (ADL) independently but needed minimal assistance to walk and transfers According to the assessment activities preferences the resident said being able to participate in preferred activities was very important. Listening to music; keeping up with the news; and being able to go outside were somewhat important. B. Observation and resident interview On 10/9/23 from 10:00 a.m. until 2:35 p.m. Resident #83 was observed, the resident was in his room sleeping staff did not go into the resident's room to offer any activities programming or invite the resident to the scheduled activity ball toss at 10:15 a.m., cafe social at 11:00 a.m., or good vibes music at 1:00 p.m. The resident was not offered gospel music to listen to in his room. On 10/10/23 from 9:22 a.m., until 12:10 p.m. Resident #83 was observed. The resident was in his room sleeping. Staff passed the resident's room three times but did not go into the resident's room to offer activities programming or invite the resident to the Caffe social at 11:40 a.m. The resident was not offered Ethiopian gospel music. Observation on 10/11/23 from 2:40 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. Resident #83 was observed. The resident was in his room on his phone. The staff did not go into the resident's room to invite the resident to a pizza party that was on the third floor. Resident #83 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 3:11 p.m. Resident #83 said he would like to participate in activities but no one asked or reminded him of the scheduled activity. Resident #83 said he would especially have liked to participate in food activities. Resident #83 said he did not know there was a pizza activity. Resident #83 did not know where he would find the activities the facility offered. Resident #83 said he was not offered Ethiopian gospel music. Resident #83 said he did not have an activities calendar. Resident #83 said the activities staff could have given it to him but he did not know where it was. -The resident's room was observed and there was no activity calendar posted in the room. C. Record review According to the activities care plan revised 4/18/23, documented the resident was independent and would make leisure needs known. The resident preferred food socials, special events, being outside, visiting with family and going outdoors. The resident liked to use the facility's computers and using his personal phone. Interventions included providing the resident with an activities calendar. Inform the resident of ongoing activities. Provide the resident with food whenever there was a food activity. Thank the resident for participating. Provide the resident with independent supplies. Remind the resident to call his brother when he has phone issues. Be patient with the resident when he had phone issues. Provide the resident with a daily large print calendar, on a weekly basis or per request. According to the trauma care plan initiated 4/5/23, documented the resident had PTSD. Interventions included that the activities department should offer to play Ethiopian gospel music for the resident in order to soothe his mood. The activity participation records dated 9/11/23 through 10/11/23 documented the following: -The resident participated in one-on-one activity independently seven times, four times with family, and three times with staff, and was marked as not occurring for the remaining 16 times. -The resident participated in snack activities 20 times independently, three times with staff, and refused four times. -The resident participated in sensory activities 24 times independently and refused six times. -The resident participated in spiritual activities three times independently, refused three times, and the activity was not offered 25 times. -The resident participated in physical activities 27 times independently and two times refused. -The resident participated in outings two times with family and 30 times the activity was not applicable. -The resident participated in creative activities ten times independently and refused 19 times. -The resident participated in a social group 10 times independently, four times with staff and 15 times the resident refused. -The resident participated in cognitive activities independently 11 times and the resident refused 19 times. -The participation record documented that the resident was left to participate mostly in independent activities when his activity preferences included attending food socials, special events, and being outside. D. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:53 a.m. CNA #5 said Resident #83 did not come out of his room often. CNA #5 said the resident liked food activities and to go outside. CNA #5 said the activities staff gave out a calendar at the beginning of the week. CNA #5 said the staff did not always tell every resident about activities. The activities director (AD) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 11:33 a.m. The AD said activities staff go door to door to ask residents if the resident would like to participate. The AD said they did this right before the activities started. The AD said the activities programs were held on different floors. The AD said the resident would know which floor the activity was on according to the activities calendar. The AD said the activities staff asked residents at the beginning of the month if he wanted to go on outings. The AD said the residents received a calendar at the beginning of the week. The AD said Resident #83 was often on his phone in his room doing independent activities. The AD said that when residents do things in their rooms that activity was counted as independent participation in an activity. The AD said Resident #83 did like to go to café or food activities. Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure activities designed to support residents' physical, mental and psychosocial well-being were provided for two (#11 and #83) of four residents reviewed for meaningful activity programming activities out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Resident #11 received individualized meaningful activities to meet her social, emotional and recreational needs; and, -Resident #83 received a schedule of upcoming activities and was invited to activities and informed where the activity would be occurring. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure A request was made for the activities policy on 10/12/23 at 4:33 p.m. The nursing home administrator (NHA) said the facility did not have and activities policy. II. Resident #11 A. Resident status Resident #11, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure, anxiety and diabetes. The 7/31/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had intact cognition with a brief interview for mental status exam score of 13 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance from staff to get out of bed and move around the facility. The assessment documented that the resident said it was very important to have books, newspapers, and magazines to read; be around animals and pets; do her favorite activities; and participate in activities. The resident said it was important to listen to music, keep up with the news, do things with groups of people, and somewhat important to go outside and enjoy with fresh air. B. Resident interview and observation Resident #11 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 10:36 a.m. Resident #11 said the facility did not offer her any activities, so she spent a lot of time on her phone doing research to keep from being bored. Resident #11 said staff did not regularly ask her what kinds of activities she was interested in, or offer to get her up in her wheelchair so she could attend an activity. The resident said she felt like she was in jail because the staff would not get her out of bed and take her out of the room. Resident #11 said that staff told her she was too weak to get up in her wheelchair. The resident said, I will never get stronger if they do not get me up. Every day I lay in bed I lose 10 percent of my strength and I haven't been up and in my chair in several weeks. Resident #11 said she just wanted the opportunity to get out of the room, even if it was only for 15 minutes a day. Resident #11 said she received a weekly massage and visits from the hospice pastor. The visits from the pastor helped when she was at her wits end Resident #11 said she was grateful for hospice services but still felt like she was in jail. Resident #11 said upon admission she was told that she would have a great view from her room window but all she had to look at all day was the tops of trees and an apartment building roof. The resident was a little teary as she talked about what her day was like. Resident #11 said she had severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) her daily thoughts led her to thoughts of her childhood and the abuse she suffered as a child. Staying in her room all day long day in and day out did not help her emotionally. Resident #11 said again said she would really like to get out of the room and be able to see what was going on throughout the facility. What bothered her most was that she was not able to attend religious services because they were important to her. Observations of Resident #11 throughout the survey from 10/9/23 to 10/12/23 revealed the resident remained in her room and did not have the opportunity to attend any group activities socialize with other like-minded residents or even attend and in-person religious event. C. Record review The activities director (AD) provided Resident #11's activities care plan and activity participation records for 7/26/23 to 9/27/23, on 10/12/23 at approximately 9:33 a.m. The resident participation records revealed the resident participated in: -One-to-one activity programming with or without a snack (social visits) four times in August 2023; 10 times in September 2023; and zero times from 10/1/23 to 10/11/23. Several times the resident's attendance was documented to be independent with one-to-one activity. -Spiritual activity program was not provided as a part of the activities programming it was marked as not applicable (N/A) in August 2023 and provided once in September 2023 and four times in 2023. There were no details of the activity given. -Other types of activity including creative, cognitive, and sensory activities were provided at the same time as the one-on-one activity with facility staff. The resident's activity care plan, revised on 8/3/23, documented Resident #11 was independent for meeting her emotional, intellectual, and social needs. Resident #11 requires some assistance with her physical needs. In the past, she used to express interest in gardening, bingo, and going outdoors. She currently prefers to stay in her room using her phone and watching television (TV). She is accepting of visits from the priest. The goal of the activities care plan was to help Resident #11 maintain involvement in cognitive stimulation and socially independent activities as desired. Interventions included: -Allow Resident #11 to be self-directed with daily independent leisure as desired; -Provide preferred activities such as watching TV, visiting with friends, and going on outings with activities staff; -Promote and explain the importance of social interaction and leisure activity time; -Encourage the resident's participation by (reminding and inviting her to social events); -Invite and encourage Resident #11 and family members to attend activities in order to support participation; -Monitor for safety during activity functions; -Provide Resident #11 with a monthly activities calendar; and, -Remind Resident #11 that she may leave activities at any time and is not required to stay for the entire activity. D. Staff interview The AD and NHA were interviewed on 10/11/23 at 9:15 p.m. The AD said there was not much that Resident #11 liked to do. Most days the resident was active on her phone doing independent activities. The AD said this was by the resident's choice. The AD said she visited the resident for one-to-one activities at least once a week and brought the resident her favorite snack, popcorn. Activities provided the resident with pen and notebooks so she could keep records about her care and daily activity. Additionally, the resident received periodic visits from the hospice chaplain, weekly visits from a pastor from a local church and visits from church volunteers. Both provided the resident with emotional and spiritual support. The AD said Resident #11 was able to get her nails done when requested and the social services director conducted mood check-ins. The resident, however, never left her room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide one (#99) of five residents reviewed for pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide one (#99) of five residents reviewed for pressure injuries out of 46 sample residents with the necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new pressure injuries from developing. Specifically,the facility failed to: -Reposition the resident, who had pressure injuries; -Follow orders specifically to float heels while the resident was in bed; and, -Follow current orders for supplements to assist with wound healing and minimize further skin breakdown. Findings include: I. Professional reference A. The National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, NPIAP Pressure Injury Stages 2016,http://www.npuap.org/resources/educational-and-clinical-resources/npuap-pressure-injury-stages/ revealed the following pertinent information: A pressure injury is localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence or related to a medical or other device. The injury can present as intact skin or an open ulcer and may be painful. The injury occurs as a result of intense and/or prolonged pressure or pressure in combination with shear. B. According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel (NPUAP), Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers, Quick Reference Guide. [NAME] Haesler (Ed.). Cambridge Media: [NAME] Park, Western Australia; 2014: Steps to prevent the emergence of pressure injuries in individuals identified as being at high risk include: scheduled repositioning and floating heels. Steps to prevent the worsening of existing pressure injuries and to promote healing include: Avoiding positioning that places pressure on the pressure injury, floating heels, assessment and documentation of the pressure injury when discovered and reassessment and documentation at least weekly. Assessment should include location, category/stage, size, tissue types, color, periwound (the skin around the wound) condition, wound edges, and evidence of undermining or tunneling, exudate, and odor. II. Facility policies and procedures The Pressure Wound Prevention and Skin Management policy and procedure, revised April 2021, was provided by the nursing home administrator on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, The primary purpose of the pressure wound prevention and skin management program is to reduce the occurrence of pressure. injuries and promote healing of wounds. Identification, prevention, and treatments will be based on NPUAP definitions, recommendations, and practice standards. The interdisciplinary team will partner when the resident when planning and providing care. Weekly wound rounds and community education will be coordinated by wound team members. residents with skin issues should be discussed during report. The following business day IDT (interdisciplinary team) members will review admission records and corresponding care plan. Additional assessment such as nutrition, therapies, social service, wound rounds, and activities will be completed within the first week of admission. The long-term resident plan of care for prevention and management of wounds will be completed and reviewed during a care conference by the 21st day of care. The nurse identifying a new pressure injury or wound should obtain treatment orders based on the resident's individualized needs. The following people will be notified by the physician, the resident, and or responsible party, the IDT members, including the DON (director of nursing), RD (registered dietitian), social services, activity and therapy, a nutritional evaluation should be completed. Depending on the factors contributing to the wound, the therapy, social service, and activities evaluation may be initiated. Pain, pressure, redistribution, nutrition, and incontinence management will be evaluated as part of a potential overall change of condition when new pressure wounds are identified. Using the pressure injury, QA (quality assurance) investigation tool, the DON will evaluate the cause of all new in-house acquired pressure injuries. This will be initiated during the next business day, following identification of pressure wounds based on this evaluation additional interventions may be implemented. Wound consult will be obtained as needed for stage three in for pressure, injuries or other ones when complications impede healing. If a wound does not stabilize, show some evidence of healing within 2 to 4 weeks, the wound and residents overall clinical condition and treatment should be reassessed. If the wound appears to be deteriorating an evaluation and practitioner notification should occur before two weeks. The wound nurse will coordinate weekly wound rounds, evaluate new residents admitted with wounds or existing residents with newly acquired wounds, and coordinate the program. Wounds and interventions will be evaluated during rounds. The wound weekly observation to be utilized for weekly wound. evaluations. Documentation will include type of wounds, measurements, notification, pain, tolerance, type of treatment and effectiveness and other areas as prompted by the tool. The care plan will be updated as needed. Residents will be observed for skin breakdown by a licensed nurse, a minimum of weekly and documented on the skin observation tools. Skin should be assessed upon return from a leave of absence residents who identified as high risk for breakdown, should be educated regarding pressure injury prevention and conversation should be documented a comprehensive care plan, including identification of individual risk factors, and interventions will be initiated. Weight shifts may be implemented as part of both prevention and treatment for pressure wounds. When possible, weight shifting and offloading will allow sufficient capillary, refill and tissue perfusion, may be implemented. Tissue tolerance should be considered when identifying individualized turning schedules. Inspection, for the following will be evaluated before, and after position change discoloration, change in temperature, change, inconsistency. Pressure injury education should be completed upon hire, annually, and as needed on skin breakdown concerns in the community. Stage 3: full thickness, tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bones, tendons, or muscles are not exposed. Slough may be present, but does not obscure the depth of the tissue loss. May include undermining, and or tunneling. The depths of a stage three pressure ulcer varies by anatomical location. Stage 4: full thickness, tissue loss with exposed, bone, tendon, or muscle. Slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often includes undermining and tunneling. Unstageable: full thickness, tissue, loss in which the base of the wound is covered by slough and or eschar in the wound bed. Most or all of the wound bed cannot be visualized. II. Resident #99 A. Resident status Resident #99, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. According to the 9/23/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively severely impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of two out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with toileting, bed mobility and dressing. She required extensive assistance of one person with transferring, locomotion, eating and personal hygiene. The resident was at risk for acquiring pressure injuries. The resident currently had one stage 3 pressure ulcer and two unstageable pressure injuries. III. Observation and representative interview Observations on 10/9/23 -At 10:14 a.m. the was on her back with her feet were touching the wall and her head was almost off of the bed. There was no pillows near her; she did not have her heels off loaded off of her bed. -At 2:30 p.m. the resident remained in the same position A continuous observation on 10/10/23 beginning at 9:10 a.m. and ended at 2:47 p.m. revealed: -At 9:10 a.m. the resident was in her bed and was on her back on the slight right sideline; she did not have her feet offloaded from her bed. -At 10:22 a.m. an unknown nurse went into the resident's room to do wound care. An unknown certified nurse aide (CNA) change the resident's brief. -At 11:11 a.m. an unknown CNA brought water into the residents room and did not offer to assist the resident and placed the water on the other side of the room. Her heels were not floated. -At 12:38 p.m. the representative asked the nurse if she had her Ensure (supplement) yet and the nurse said Resident #99 had not and handed her the supplement. -At 1:38 p.m. the resident remained in the same position. -At 2:47 p.m. the resident remained in the same position. The representative came out and told a CNA the resident had not been repositioned and she needed to be repositioned. -The staff had not repositioned the resident since 10:22 a.m. which was over four hours. The representative was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 2:50 p.m. The representative said the CNAs did not reposition Resident #99 unless she asked them to. The representative said this happened every day so she came to the facility to ensure they reposition her and give the resident the supplements. The representative said the resident had pressure injuries and she needs to be repositioned and given supplements to help heal the pressure injuries. IV. Record review The skin care plan initiated on 9/6/23 documented the resident had pressure injuries on her sacrum and bottom. Interventions included an air mattress, coordinated with the dietitian for supplements. Encourage good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin. Follow facility protocols for treatment of injury. Reposition with the use of pillows to assist residents to stay off bony prominences as tolerated and offload pressure as tolerated. Wound physician to evaluate and treat pressure injuries. Treat the wounds according to orders. According to physician orders dated 3/9/23 the resident's heels should be floated in bed as tolerated. According to physicians ordered dated 7/21/23 the resident received ensure three times a day between meals. According to physician orders dated 6/21/23 the resident received liquid protein three times a day. -The supplemented were not evaluated after she developed wounds (see below). According to October 2023 CPO orders documented wound care with Dakins external solution 0.25 % apply to sacral/buttocks wounds topically one time a day Tuesday and Thursday and Saturday. According to a progress note dated 8/17/23 at 5:54 a.m. documented the resident had a skin opening on her left hip due to prolonged pressure on skin. Clean with antiseptic and dress it. Nurse notified the physician and wound team. According to a progress note dated 8/17/23 at 8:00 a.m. documented the resident had a small open area on her right hip. The resident was underweight and her hips were very boney. The open area was on a pressure point. She positions herself on her right side in bed. When positioned on her left side she would reposition herself to her right side. According to an interdisciplinary team (IDT) note dated 8/17/23 at 10:06 a.m. documented the IDT intervention was for the resident to be repositioned in her bed with use of pillows to assist residents to stay off of bony prominences as tolerated. According to an incident note dated 8/24/23 at 7:13 p.m. the resident had an open area to the buttock. Assessment documented the resident had two open areas to the left and right sacrum. Treatments were put in place. Sites were cleansed and covered. The resident will have a wound physician evaluation the following week. Current treatment was to use air mattress and staff to provide repositioning as tolerated. According to IDT review notes dated 8/25/23 documented the resident had a new pressure wound. The resident had a decline in food intake. Intervention included coordinating with registered dietitian (RD) for supplements to assist with wound healing and minimize further skin breakdown. Continue to reposition residents as tolerated. According to the wound notes dated 8/31/23 the resident had acquired three pressure injuries. The resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer on her sacrum. The resident had a stage 3 pressure ulcer on her right buttock. The resident had an unstageable pressure ulcer on her right buttocks distal. The most recent wound notes dated 9/28/23 the resident had documented two pressure injuries. The resident had a stage 4 pressure ulcer on her sacrum. The resident had a stage 3 pressure ulcer on her right buttocks. According to the physician note dated on 10/9/23 documented Resident #99 was seen for wounds on sacrum, buttock and periarea wound. The resident intake remains poor and the resident remained on hospice. Decubitus ulcer of buttock, unspecified laterally and unspecified ulcer stage. Treatment included daily wound care and oral medications for decubitus ulcer. V. Staff interview Licensed practical nurse (LPN ) #4 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:39 a.m. LPN #4 said residents at high risk for pressure injuries should be repositioned every two hours. LPN #4 said CNAs reposition the residents who were at high risk. LPN #4 said nursing staff should follow orders and care plans to prevent or heal pressure injuries. LPN #4 said Resident #99 pressure injuries were healed and was better. LPN #4 said the nurses bring the Ensure to Resident #99 three times a day. CNA #5 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:53 a.m. CNA #5 said Resident #99 had pressure injuries. CNA #5 said residents who were at high risk for pressure injuries should be repositioned every two hours, sometimes every hour. CNA #5 said Resident #99 should be repositioned every two hours. CNA #5 said the resident could not reposition herself. CNA#5 said the resident did not have preventative boots to offload her feet. CNA #5 said the staff did not offload the residents feet. CNA #5 said interventions for residents with pressure injuries were located in the resident's care plan. CNA #5 said the nurses administered any ordered supplements. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:43 p.m. The DON said residents who were at high risk should be repositioned every two hours. The DON said all orders should be followed to prevent and heal pressure injuries. The DON said the care plan should be followed and documented if the resident refused interventions. The DON said Resident #99's feet should be offloaded but she did not like it. The DON said Resident #99 had pressure injuries. The DON said the resident did not like being repositioned and would go back into the same position. The DON said nursing staff should continue to try to reposition the resident. The DON said the staff should try to offload the resident's feet. The DON said the resident had supplements put into place to help since she had weight loss and pressure injuries. The DON said the staff should give the supplements in between meals since that was what the order indicated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#99) resident of two out of 46 sample residents had pa...

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 one (#99) resident of two out of 46 sample residents had pain management services consistent with professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure as needed (PRN) pain scale was implemented and followed for administration of morphine for Resident #99; and, -Pain medication was not administered according to the physician's orders for Resident #99. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #99, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and pancolitis (affects the entire colon and causes bouts of bloody diarrhea that may be severe, abdominal cramps and pain). According to the 9/23/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively severely impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of two out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with toileting, bed mobility, and dressing. She required extensive assistance of one person with transferring, locomotion, eating and personal hygiene. The resident was on a pain medication regimen. The resident did not receive PRN medications. II. Record review According to the medication administration record (MAR) from 9/16/23 to 10/4/23 Morphine sulfate oral solution 20 mg (milgrams) /5ml (militers) give 0.25 ml by mouth every four hours as needed. -There was no pain scale to determine when the morphine should be administered. Morphine sulfate oral solution 20 mg/5ml give 0.25 ml by mouth every four hours as needed for pain 6-10. According to the MAR, the resident received morphine on the following days: 10/7/23 the resident received morphine with a zero pain scale entered. 10/8/23 the resident received morphine with a zero pain scale entered. 10/9/23 the resident received morphine with a zero pain scale entered. 10/10/23 the resident received morphine with a zero pain scale entered. 10/11/23 the resident received morphine with a zero pain scale entered. According to the order note dated 10/5/23 documented, Morphine sulfate oral solution 20 mg/5ml give 0.25 ml as needed for pain 6-10 was outside of recommended doses and frequency. This dose fails dose range check based on drug inputs and/or the patient information provided. This drug's dose should be adjusted based on renal functioning. III. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:39 a.m. LPN #4 said Resident #99 was on pain medication. LPN #4 received pain medication on an as needed basis. LPN #4 said Resident #99 was unable to verbally tell staff if she was in pain. LPN #4 said Resident #99 had anxiety and would yell out and it did not indicate the resident was in pain. LPN#4 said there were not specific things she would look at to determine when the resident was in pain. LPN #4 said she knew the resident so she would just know if the resident was in pain. LPN #4 said since the resident did not verbally tell the staff member a number she would put zero for pain scale. LPN #4 said it was important to document pain scale correctly so the providers know where the resident was at with pain. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:43 p.m. The DON said if a resident was in pain the nurse should assess pain and treat according to physician orders. The DON said if a resident was unable to verbally express their pain the nurse should use the [NAME]-baker scale (a method for someone to self-assess and effectively communicate the severity of pain they may be experiencing). The DON said nurses should use a zero to 10 pain scale even when the resident was not verbal. The DON said she had educated the staff that it was important to use pain levels to determine what pain medication should be used. The DON said it was important to only give pain medications according to the orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0742 (Tag F0742)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents diagnosed with a mental disorder or psychosocial ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents diagnosed with a mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty received appropriate treatment and services for s to attain and maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial wellbeing for two (#33 and #97) of three residents reviewed out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure individualized, non-pharmacological approaches to care were being identified and promoted to meet the mental and psychosocial needs for Resident #33 and Resident #97. Findings include: I. Resident #33 A. Resident status Resident #33, age under 70 years, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included bipolar disorder. The 7/23/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 10 out of 15. Her depression assessment score was two indicating no depression. B. Resident interview and observation The resident was observed on 10/9/23 at 10:00 a.m. waiting to enter the elevator. She was yelling profanities and no staff responded to her. The resident was observed on 10/9/23 at 1:15 p.m. She was sitting in the dining room with other residents and yelling her bottom hurt and she needed to use the bathroom. She yelled she had diarrhea and no one cared about her. After two minutes of yelling, the staff came to take her to her room. The resident was observed on 10/9/23 at 1:21 p.m. leaving her room. She was yelling she wanted to take a shower and needed help. Another resident was in the shower and Resident #33 went to the shower room door and yelled obscenities until the staff were able to get her into the shower room. After several attempts on 10/9/23, the resident was unable to be interviewed due to behaviors. C. Record review The comprehensive care plan, initiated 7/10/23, revealed the resident exhibited behaviors of yelling obscenities towards staff and other residents. Interventions included allowing the resident to calm down, educating the resident on appropriate communication with others, frequent mood checks, behavior monitoring and offering mental and emotional support services as needed. -The care plan failed to reveal the recent psychiatric hospitalization and any new interventions as a result. The October CPO revealed the following physician orders; -Ativan 0.5 MG (milligrams)-give one tablet by mouth three times a day for anxiety-ordered on 10/6/23; -Depakote 500 MG- give three tablets a day at bedtime for bipolar disorder-ordered on 10/6/23; -The resident is known to call 911 for psychological reasons. Offer reassurance, try distraction with music, or call sister so the resident can speak to her- ordered on 10/2/23. Progress notes dated 7/17/23 through 10/10/23 revealed in pertinent part, -Social services progress note date 7/18/23 revealed a referral was sent per the resident's request for psychological services. -Social services progress note dated 7/19/23 revealed the resident was scheduled to see the psychology provider on 7/25/23 and the resident had been notified. -Preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) progress note dated 7/21/23 revealed the resident was reviewed in the psychotropic medication committee. The resident had recently returned from a psychiatric hospitalization. There were no progress notes explaining the necessity for psychiatric hospitalization. -Order administration note on 7/24/23 revealed the resident was having a behavior or yelling out for her food. No interventions or outcomes were provided. -Order administration note dated 7/30/23 revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Nursing note dated 8/14/23 revealed the resident verbalized increased depression to the nurse. The provider was notified and labs requested. -Psychiatric provider note dated 8/24/23 revealed the resident was placed on a mental health hold in June 2023, but the provider was unclear as to why. The provider documented the resident's record and showed she was manic at the time of the hold. The provider documented the resident verbally expressed depressive symptoms during the visit. -Nursing note dated 8/29/23 revealed the resident was perseverating on a medication change and became verbally aggressive with the nurse. The nurse advised the resident the provider would be notified of her concerns. -Social services note dated 9/12/23 revealed the social services director (SSD) reached out to the resident's sister for items to purchase for the resident. -Order administration note dated 9/19/23 revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Order administration note dated 9/20/23 at 2:00 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Order administration note dated 9/20/23 at 4:16 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Order administration note dated 9/22/23 at 6:00 a.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Alert note dated 9/22/23 at 6:45 a.m. revealed the resident called 911 because she had a cough. The resident was transported to the hospital. The note did not include the physician ordered interventions were tried or the family was contacted. -admission note on 9/26/23 revealed the resident returned to the facility from the hospital. -Order administration note dated 9/28/23 at 5:53 a.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Order administration note dated 9/29/23 at 4:00 a.m. revealed a behavior tracking order had been entered for the resident's behavior of screaming obscenities, name calling, and non compliance. Behaviors observed were to be included in the progress notes. -Order administration note dated 9/29/23 at 10:29 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Order administration note dated 9/29/23 at 10:35 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Nurse note dated 9/29/23 at 10:38 p.m. revealed the resident called 911 and demanded medication from the staff she had already taken then used profanity.The note did not include the physician ordered interventions were tried or the family was contacted. -Nurse note dated 9/30/23 revealed the resident did not go to sleep until 4:00 a.m. The resident was waking other residents due to yelling and throwing things at the staff. The resident attempted to exit the floor and staff had to call other staff from another floor for back up. The nurse documented the resident was putting staff and other residents' safety at risk. She finally fell asleep. -Order administration note dated 10/1/23 release the resident was at the hospital after calling 911 herself. The note failed to include the reason the resident called 911 and transported to the hospital. The note did not include the physician ordered interventions were tried or the family was contacted. -Nursing note dated 10/2/23 at 3:00 a.m.revealed the resident came to the nurses and wanted to call her son. She was informed the staff would assist her once shift change was completed. The resident yelled profanity and the staff and then went to her room and called 911. She reported to the police she was having chest pain and not receiving care. The resident was taken to the hospital and then returned several hours later. She then began yelling for the staff to call 911 again. The note did not include the physician ordered interventions were tried or the family was contacted. -Order administration note dated 10/2/23 at 10:26 a.m. revealed the resident was having behaviors of restlessness, tremors, and agitation. No interventions or outcomes were documented. -Behavior note dated 10/5/23 revealed the resident used her call light and started yelling for help. She threw her food tray across her room. The resident was assisted to the toilet where she declared she was having a baby and was corrected it was a bowel movement not a baby. The resident was given a shower but continued to need constant verbal reassurance or she would begin to yell. She was taken to activities. -Order administration note dated 10/6/23 at 9:24 p.m. revealed yelling profanity at staff. No intervention or outcome was documented. -Order administration note dated 10/6/23 at 9:48 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Nursing note dated 10/8/23 at 6:10 p.m. revealed the resident called paramedics complaining of chest pain. She was transported to the hospital and returned to the facility within three hours. The note did not include the physician ordered interventions were tried or the family was contacted. -Nursing note dated 10/8/23 at 8:21 p.m. revealed the resident was yelling profanity at staff. No intervention or outcome was documented. -Order administration note dated 10/9/23 at 9:48 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Order administration note dated 10/10/23 revealed the resident had an episode of yelling and calling out. No intervention or outcome was documented. The progress notes failed to reveal the social services director (SSD) followed up with the resident or the staff regarding the repeated behaviors or the interventions used. The resident's pre-admission level II PASRR was reviewed on 10/12/23. The level II evaluation dated 2/16/23 identified a history of psychiatric hospitalizations over her lifetime related to bipolar instability. A review of the CNA tasks on 10/12/23 failed to reveal behavior tracking. II. Resident #97 A. Resident status Resident #97, age under 70 years, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 CPO, the diagnoses included post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideations, and major depressive disorder. The 7/23/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. His depression assessment score was a five indicating mild depression. The resident expressed feeling down and hopeless. B. Resident interview and observation Resident #97 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 10:15 am. The resident stated he had some issues with the staff and yelled at them when frustrated. He had been working with his therapist on emotional regulation when he became frustrated with the staff. During the interview, the resident became tearful when discussing feeling the staff did not provide physical care consistent with how he requested (turning, repositioning). Resident #97 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 11:30 a.m. The resident had expressed suicidal ideations to the staff and was on 15 minute checks. He stated he was triggered because the staff had told him he could be helped out of bed after breakfast and the staff had not been getting him up. It affected his mood that he was dependent on the staff. He denied he wanted to attempt suicide when he made the statements but sometimes he stated he to become upset to the point of expressing suicidal ideations to receive attention for his feelings. The resident said the facility had never done 15 minute checks on him before and he was not sure the purpose. He did not feel he should have to become frustrated and angry enough to feel suicidal in order for the facility staff to realize he is being made feel dependent and helpless. During the interview, the resident described his prior suicide attempt of hanging himself with his call light and became tearful when explaining how the staff made him feel. He was observed with his call light and his phone charger cord across his chest. C. Record review The comprehensive care plan, revised on 2/15/23, revealed the resident exhibited behaviors of suicidal ideations and suicidal attempts. The resident had a history of being admitted for a suicide attempt via medication overdose related to frustration over medical condition. Interventions included mood check ins and behavior tracking. His last suicide attempt was 7/19/23 via wrapping a call light cord around his neck (this was added to the care plan 10/12/23, during the survey). Interventions included following a safety plan which outlined activities he enjoyed. It also included frequent checks from the SSD and encouragement to socialize. -The resident's suicide attempt and new interventions were not added to the care plan until 10/12/23 and failed to reflect the psychiatrtic hospitalization. -No safety plan for the 7/19/23 suicide attempt was located in the resident's chart. The October CPO revealed the following physician orders; -Refer to behavior health for psychological and psychiatric evaluation and treatment-ordered on 4/24/23; -Lamotrigine (anticonvulsant) 50 MG milligrams-give one tablet one time a day for history of seizures-ordered on 8/23/23; -Behavior monitoring for suicidal ideations. Check to make sure the resident does not pocket medications to attempt suicide-ordered on 10/9/23; -Behavior monitoring for escalating verbal aggression towards staff-ordered on 10/9/23. Orders failed to reveal behavior monitoring was started after the recent suicide attempt on 7/19/23 nor did behavior monitoring reflect to monitor for attempts to hang self with call light. Progress notes dated 7/17/23 through 10/10/23 revealed in pertinent part, -Order administration note dated 7/17/23 revealed the resident had a behavior related to suicidal ideations and verbal aggression. The resident had been throwing water. -Social services note dated 7/18/23 at 7:14 a.m. revealed the SSD completed a suicide lethality assessment with the resident due to statements he wanted to die due to increased pain. The resident was determined to be low risk and without a plan. -Nursing progress note dated 7/18/23 at 9:05 p.m. revealed the nurse entered the resident room after his call light had been pulled to find the resident had wrapped the call light around his neck. 911 was contacted. -Nursing progress note dated 7/19/23 reveled the resident had been admitted to the hospital on a mental health hold due to suicide attempt. -admission summary note dated 7/20/23 revealed the resident returned to the facility. -PASRR progress note dated 7/21/23 revealed the resident had been reviewed regarding his recent hospital visit for attempted suicide. The physician recommended trialing the resident on Lithium (mood stabilizer). -Social services note dated 7/26/23 revealed the SSD had a mood check in with the resident. The resident expressed feeling ashamed of his suicide attempt. Continues with behavioral health. The SSD had been working with the resident on a discharge plan to another facility per his request But had not found an accepting facility. -PASRR progress note dated 7/27/23 revealed the resident started on a trial of Lithium 300 MG twice a day for mood and impulsive behavior related to depression. -Social service note dated 8/2/23 revealed the SSD and director of nursing (DON) met with the resident per his request. The resident expressed being upset about the care he had received the previous evening. The resident expressed feeling anger and frustration as a result. -Social service note dated 8/4/23 revealed the SSD invited the resident's family to his care conference for 8/8/23. -Social service note dated 8/8/23 at 12:35 p.m. revealed the resident had a care conference with the family present. The care conference was for the discussion of discharge planning. -Nursing note dated 8/8/23 at 3:24 p.m. revealed the resident had been upset and throwing items in his room. He had tipped over his bedside table and was using profanity at staff related to being unhappy with the discharge care conference earlier in the day. The SSD and DON were notified however, no follow up progress note was made. -Nursing note dated 8/16/23 revealed the resident had been having upset stomach symptoms of nausea and diarrhea for several days and was sent out to the hospital. -Nursing note dated 8/19/23 at 3:35 p.m. revealed the resident readmitted to the facility from the hospital -Order administration note dated 8/19/23 at 10:21 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Social services note dated 8/28/23 at 12:32 p.m. revealed the SSD checked in with the resident. The resident expressed no concerns. -Social service note dated 8/28/23 at 1:40 p.m. revealed the social worker did a mood check in with the resident. The resident was tearful, expressing he was struggling with pain and concerns he would not be able to discharge in December. -Nursing note dated 9/15/23 at 2:59 p.m. revealed the resident contacted paramedics to transport him to the hospital stating he was in pain and unhappy with his care at the facility. The resident returned within 24 hours. No follow up note from the SSD was located regarding his expressing unhappiness at the facility until 9/27/23 -Social service note dated 9/27/23 at 8:18 a.m. revealed the SSD did a mood check in with the resident. A safety plan was discussed for the resident to identify and manage warning signs and symptoms of increased stress. The resident expressed he becomes more angry when he is stressed and then yells at staff, kicks staff out of his room, and uses profanity. The resident stated individual activities were helpful to decrease stress. -Social service note dated 10/2/23 at 11:14 a.m. revealed the SSD discussed with the family the resident's discharge plan and the SSD was now looking for new placement for the resident instead of a discharge home. -Order administration note dated 10/2/23 at 2:37 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed but there was no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. -Social service note dated 10/2/23 at 2:41 p.m. revealed the resident had spoken with the SSD earlier and expressed a desire to transfer to another facility citing he did not feel the current facility could meet his needs. The SSD submitted referrals on his behalf. -Nursing note dated 10/5/23 3:47 p.m. revealed the resident returned from the hospital. There were no precipitating notes documenting the reasons the resident had gone to the hospital. -Order administration note dated 10/11/23 at 2:37 p.m. revealed a behavior was observed related to suicidal ideations but there were no further information regarding what the behavior was or the outcome. A review of the CNA tasks on 10/12/23 failed to reveal behavior tracking. III. Staff interviews Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 10:45 a.m. He was not aware of where to find the non pharmacological interventions for residents in the medical record. Resident #97 was moody and wanted care promptly from the staff. He was currently on 15 minute checks for expressing suicidal ideations but RN #1 was not aware the resident had a history of suicidal ideations or attempts and did not know the method he used to attempt suicide in July 2023. He did not know care plan interventions or identified triggers for Resident #97. RN #1 said he did not know the facility's expectations of him when a resident expressed suicidal ideations. RN #1 said Resident #33 had behaviors of yelling for care, using profanity, racial slurs at staff, and calling 911 if she did not receive care promptly. Staff would try to redirect her or take her to activities. He did not know care plan interventions or identified triggers for Resident #33. CNA #1 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 11:02 a.m. She stated Resident #97 was on 15 minute checks due to expressing suicidal ideations. She was unaware he had a history of suicidal ideations or attempts prior to the current incident. CNA #1 did not know care plan interventions or identified triggers for Resident #97. She said CNAs track behaviors generated in the CNA tasks. If management wants the staff to be aware of a new behavior, it will be posted on the board in the CNA charting room (no behavior notes were observed on the board). The DON will also come to the staff and let them know of new behaviors. Management does not advise staff of the non pharmacological interventions to use, the staff had to figure those out. CNA #1 said Resident #33 had behaviors of yelling profanity at staff, refusing care, and throwing things at staff. She did not know care plan interventions or identified triggers for Resident #33. The SSD was interviewed with the social services consultant (SSC) on 10/11/23 at 1:29 p.m. She said the facility's process when a resident expressed suicidal ideations was to complete a suicide assessment with the resident to determine the severity of the risk. If a resident was sent out for psychiatric evaluation or hospitalizations related to suicide thoughts or actions, the resident's care plan was updated. Updates were made to care plans daily because the care plan was the road map to the resident's care and needs. After the psychiatric hospitalizations, Resident #33 and Resident #97 care plans should have been updated. After Resident #97 returned from his psychotic hospitalization, the SSD came up with a safety plan with him. The safety plan would include potential triggers, identified non pharmacological interventions, and support needed by the resident. She had not documented the safety plan in the care plan, behavior tracking, or educated the staff on the plan. SSD stated after Resident #33 returned from her psychiatric hospitalization on 7/21/23, no new interventions were put into place. The SSD stated when a resident had a behavior, the nurse made a behavior note including the specific behavior and the interventions tried. Interventions were put into the care plan and the staff were trained to look for a resident's individualized non pharmacological interventions in the care plan. Resident #97 had a behavior documented related to suicidal ideations on 10/11/23 with no further notes from the nurse. The SSD was not aware of what the behavior was and if the resident had made further remarks related to desiring suicide. She would provide documentation of staff training for behavior tracking and care plan interventions. The SSC stated management did a sweep of a resident's room for potential weapons with the resident's consent. If a resident had used a call light as a mode to attempt suicide in the past or expressed desire to use it, the call light would temporarily be removed and replaced with a bell. She stated she had done a suicide assessment and room sweep for Resident #97 on 10/10/23. He was determined to be at low risk and had expressed suicidal ideations related to feeling frustrated with staff not assisting him with getting out of bed for the day. She had not removed his call light because she was not aware he had used the call light in the past to attempt to hang himself. This was not identified in his care plan or his behavior tracking. The nursing home administrator (NHA) and DON were interviewed on 10/12/23 12:07 p.m. The NHA had not been able to locate staff training on how to complete a behavior tracking note, where to find interventions in the care plan or how to respond to resident's individual behaviors. The facility would start doing training with staff for residents with behaviors on individualized interventions, triggers and behaviors. The minimum data set coordinator (MDSC) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 12:35 p.m. Resident behaviors were put in the care plan and flagged to show up in the CNA system ([NAME]). From there, the MDCS would add the resident's behaviors to the CNA tasks so the behaviors could be documented. The MDCS was unable to provide documentation Resident #97 and Resident #33 had behaviors and interventions from the care plan added to CNA tasks to monitor. The MDCS was interviewed again on 10/12/23 at 1:06 p.m. and stated she had entered the behavior monitoring in the CNA tasks.
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 observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to consistently provide appropriate treatment and servic...

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 consistently provide appropriate treatment and services for dementia care for one (#99) of two residents with dementia out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide a person-centered approach, individualized approach and treatment to Resident #99; and, -Have consistent, purposeful and meaningful activity for Resident #99. Findings include: I. Resident #99 A. Resident status Resident #91, age [AGE] was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included dementia with behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. According to the 9/23/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively severely impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of two out of 15. She required extensive assistance of two people with toileting, bed mobility and dressing. She required extensive assistance of one person with transferring, locomotion, eating and personal hygiene. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. The resident was on antidepresent and antipsychotics. II. Observations 10/9/23 -At 10:14 a.m. the resident was in her bed. The room was dark and had no music or television (TV) on. The door was shut and the resident was yelling very loud and could be heard across the unit. Staff did not go into the resident's room. The resident did not have a weighted blanket or stuffed animals with her. -At 12:00 p.m. the resident continued to scream and can be heard across the floor unit. The resident remained in the same position. There was no music or TV on. The door remained shut. -At 2:45 p.m. the resident remained in the same position without music or television and continued to yell loudly. The door remained shut. A continuous observation on 10/10/23 beginning at 9:10 a.m. and ended at 2:47 p.m. revealed: -At 9:15 a.m. the resident was in her bed. The resident was yelling and could be heard when the door was shut. The resident did not have a weighted blanket or stuffed animals with her. There was no music or TV on in the resident's room. -At 9:22 a.m. an unknown certified nurse aide (CNA) entered the resident's room to grab her food tray. The CNA did not communicate with the resident and shut the door behind them. -At 9:32 a.m. the resident was screaming when two unknown staff members walked by her room but did not enter her room. -At 9:45 a.m. the resident continued to yell at three unknown staff members who walked by the resident's room without checking on her. -At 9:51 a.m. the resident was yelling her eyes were wide open and she had tears in her eyes. The door remained shut. -At 10:19 a.m. the resident continued to yell and was screeching. The resident was heard across the unit. Staff did not check on her. -At 10:22 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #5 went into the resident's room to give medications and treatments. -At 10:28 a.m. LPN #5 asked CNA #5 to change the resident. The resident continued to scream. CNA #5 left the room at 10:32 a.m. -At 10:35 a.m. there was a music activity going on in the common area. The resident remained in her bed with the door shut. The resident was screaming loudly. The resident could be heard over the music, no staff went into her room to check on her. -At 11:11 a.m. an unknown CNA was passing out water they went into the resident's room and set the water across the room and did not offer to help her drink. The resident could not reach the drink. -At 11:45 a.m. the resident continued to scream and staff did not check on her. -At 12:08 p.m. the resident was screaming the door was shut. An unknown nurse went into the resident's room to give her medications. The unknown nurse did not communicate with the resident. -At 12:15 p.m. the resident was yelling help and the staff did not check on her. -At 12:34 p.m. her representative went into the room and the resident continued to scream. -At 12:38 p.m. her representative came and asked about her supplements and lunch. The respresentative went into the resident's room and the resident stopped yelling. -At 1:30 p.m. the resident remained in the room with her respresentative. Her yelling had stopped. Staff did not enter the room. -At 2:45 p.m. the resident's representative remained in her room. Staff did not check on the resident or enter the room. The resident was no longer yelling. The representative asked an unknown CNA to reposition the resident. The resident's representative was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 2:50 p.m. She said the staff did not check on the resident often, allowed the resident to scream and gave the resident medications to calm her down. The representative said the resident had a decline within the last two months and she admitted to hospice care. The representative said she visited every day to ensure Resident #99's needs were met. III. Record review According to the communication care plan, revised on 3/29/23, documented the resident had communication issues due to a dementia diagnosis. Interventions included the following, anticipate the resident's needs. Allow adequate time to respond, repeat if necessary, do not rush. Monitor and document resident's ability to express and comprehend language, memory, reasoning ability, problem solving ability and ability to attend. Validate the resident's message by repeating aloud. According to the psychotropic/mood care plan, revised on 7/5/23 documented the resident was on medications to manage the symptoms of dementia with agitation. The interventions included the following, administered the medications as ordered. The resident or power of attorney could request a change in medications, frequent mood check ins and behavior monitoring. According to the behavior care plan, revised on 8/02/23, documented the resident yelled across the unit and speaks gibberish. The resident becomes irate and yells out more when redirected. The interventions included the following frequent mood checks, giving the resident a stuffed animal and weighted blanket and offering music to the resident. According to the psych progress note dated 9/8/23 documented the resident continued to have severe cognitive deficiencies with behavioral disturbances. According to the psychosocial note dated 9/12/23 documented during the care conference the interdiplinary team and the resprestative decided the resident should be placed on hospice. According to activity participation dated October 20223 the resident did not have one-to-one activity visits and did not participate in activities. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #4 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:39 a.m. LPN #4 said when residents have behavioral issues staff should check on the resident and provide interventions to help them calm down. LPN #4 said medications could help but the staff should try other methods first. LPN #4 said Resident #99 was difficult to redirect. LPN #4 said the resident yelled a lot and could get aggressive with staff. LPN #4 said there were no specific interventions for the resident when she was screaming and yelling. LPN #4 said she knew the resident and was able to redirect her and calm her down. CNA #5 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:53 a.m. CNA #5 said Resident #99 had behaviors that included screaming, yelling, agitated easily and hit staff. CNA #5 said the resident was not easy to redirect. CNA #5 said there were no interventions in place to help the resident. CNA #5 said the resident was not predictable and there was not many things that worked.CNA #5 said she would try to calmly talk to the resident. CNA #5 said there was nothing staff could do to stop the resident from yelling. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:43 p.m. The DON said residents that have behavioral issues should have non-pharmaceutical interventions. The DON said non-pharmaceutical interventions should be offered first. The DON said there should be a dementia specific care plan for the resident that included interventions. The DON said Resident #99 was a unique case and she was very difficult to work with. The DON said Resident #99 was not predictable and the same intervention did not always work. The DON said the resident had declined in the last few months and was on hospice care. The DON said the resident would refuse care and had became more difficult to work with. The DON said there had been many recent medication changes for the resident.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

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 prevent misappropriation of property for four (#19, #44, #48 and #...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of property for four (#19, #44, #48 and #49) of five residents reviewed for misappropriation out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to prevent staff members from exploiting money from Residents #19, #44, #48 and #49. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse and Neglect policy and procedure, revised 1/16/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/10/23 at 10:12 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Each resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of property, exploitation, involuntary seclusion, and physical or chemical restraints imposed for the purpose of discipline or convenience not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. Residents will not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including staff (to include agency or contract vendors), residents, volunteers, consultants, family members /legal guardians, friends, or any other individuals. II. Resident #48 A. Resident status Resident #48, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. B. Resident interview Resident #48 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 1:19 p.m. Resident #48 said he loaned a certified nurse aide (CNA) money with the understanding that she would pay him back, but when he found out she quit he realized he was not going to get his money back. Resident #48 said he no longer gives staff money and was working with the police to see if he could get his money back. C. Facility investigation Incident investigation dated 6/6/23 read in pertinent part: On 5/25/23 it was reported by Resident #48 that CNA #11 borrowed around $8,000.00 from him and he was worried he would not get paid back. CNA #11 was suspended immediately. Resident #48 told the investigator he gave CNA #11 $8,600.00 plus in loans which he expected to be paid back but the CNA had not paid anything back. Resident #48 said he started giving CNA #11 money back in August 2022 she asked to borrow $5000.00 because she had wrecked her car, needed dental work and new glasses. Then she said she needed to move and needed a deposit so he loaned CNA #11 an additional $2,800.00 in January 2023. There was an additional check that he endorsed over to CNA #11 totaling $845.00. Resident #11 said CNA #11 had not seen any repayment and he stated to question if he would ever see his money again. CNA #11 was interviewed on 5/26/23, at first CNA #11 said Resident #48 gave her the checks to cash for him and bring back to him. The facility asked for proof that she did not deposit the money into her account and that the money had been provided to the resident. CNA #11 said she would provide proof but instead, she resigned from her position. CNA #11 was reported to the police and to the State Nursing Board. CNA #11's licensure as a nurse aide was revoked. Resident #48 was educated to not give money to staff he agreed. On 6/5/23, an email education notification was sent to all staff. The email read: Subject: Accepting gifts, gratuities, and payments from residents: Please be advised and reminded of page 16 in the Employee Handbook. Gifts, Gratuities, and Payments: It is the policy of (facility name) to prohibit any employee from receiving or giving any gifts, gratuity, or payment for services rendered, the making of any promise (s) on behalf of (facility name), or engaging in any activity, practice, or act which conflicts with the interest of (facility name) or its customers. For further clarification, speak to your supervisor or reference (facility name) Compliance Program. III. Resident #19 A. Resident status Resident #19, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. B. Resident interview Resident #19 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 9:02 a.m. Resident #19 pointed to her dresser drawer and said, someone took my purse to take money from her, who would do something like that, who would do something like that? Resident #19 said she did not have a way to lock up her purse prior to it going missing. Resident #19 said she did not know the name of the person who took her banking information and bank cards. Resident #19 was upset that someone would try to steal from her. C. Facility investigation Incident investigation dated 9/13/23 read in pertinent part: Resident #19 reported that her purse went missing on 8/16/23, but no report was made at that time. On Friday 9/8/23 at approximately 4:00 p.m. when she still could not find her purse and the contents of her purse, the resident reported that her purse was still missing. The unit nurse reported to the social worker and an investigation was initiated. The resident said she kept her purse in the bottom drawer of her dresser. A search was conducted and the purse was not found. A review of bank documents revealed evidence of fraudulent activity and attempts to divert the resident's money. The facility identified a suspect and suspended the staff pending an investigation. The resident bank account was frozen and the police were notified. The investigator found that the assailant cashed a check for $700.00 on 8/9/23 and attempted to cash a second check for $2,650.00 on 8/16/23. Additionally, there was an attempted charge to the local energy company for $1,195.51 and a cellphone company for $369.44. The $2,650.00 check was written out to CNA #10 and the $700.00 check was written out to a known associate with the same last name as CNA #10. CNA #10 was interviewed by facility staff and confessed to forging the $2,650.00 but did not believe it was a crime because he did not get any money. CNA #10 denied knowing anything about other fraudulent activity. The staff was no longer working in the facility. The State Nursing Board was notified during the survey (on 10/12/23). The outcome of the police investigation was ongoing. IV. Resident #44 A. Resident status Resident #44, under the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. B. Resident interview Resident #44 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 1:22 p.m. Resident #44 said a staff stole his credit card and charged approximately $400.00 to his card at a local big box store. Resident #44 said the same staff stole another resident's check and tried to get money for that resident. Resident #44 said the staff was no longer working at the facility and he now kept his card safe in a locked box provided by the facility. C. Facility investigation Incident investigation dated 9/13/23 read in pertinent part: Resident #44's son called the NHA on 8/28/23 to inform the facility that the credit card that he left with his dad had been used for a purchase at a local box store (store name) on Saturday night 8/26/23. The son said he immediately called Resident #44 to see if the credit card was still in his possession and it was not. The resident was not able to identify when it had gone missing, he was just able to say that he used it to buy Chinese food the night before which was Friday 8/25/23. The resident's son was able to work with the credit card company to report the charge as fraudulent and stop the payment to the box store. The police in the county where the crime occurred had video evidence but because the resident resided in a different county, the facility was not able to view the video evidence to verify if the assailant was a staff member. The investigation was ongoing. The facility suspected the assailant was the same staff (CNA #9) who committed a crime against Resident #19. On 8/28/23, the facility provided Resident #44 with a locked box, provided education on using the locked box to secure valuables and ensured the resident could use the locked box effectively. V. Resident #49 A. Resident status Resident #49, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. B. Resident interview Resident #49 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 9:55 a.m. Resident #49 said she withdrew $50.00 from her personal account to purchase a couple of things and shortly after $25.00 turned up missing. Resident #49 said she reported it to the leadership and they were investigating. She did not know any more about who might have taken her money. Resident #49 said she now kept her money in a locked box. C. Facility investigation Incident investigation dated 9/13/23 read in pertinent part: Resident #49 stated that on 9/14/23, she took $50.00 out of her account to buy soda and a candy bar; on 10/2/23 she noticed that $25.00 was missing. The resident's room was searched with the resident's permission. The social services provided emotional support and the resident was given a locked box on 10/2/23, to protect other valuables and encouraged to use the lockbox. The facility had no leads and was unable to determine who might have taken the resident money. VI. Staff interview The activities director (AD) and the NHA were interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:13 a.m. The AD said the police department community representative came to the facility last April 2023 to provide in-services for residents on protecting themselves from scammers who may target them through phone calls, emails and text messages. The AD said the training did not include information for residents to know how to protect themselves from being taken advantage of financially. The residents had not been provided education regarding asset misappropriation and theft of intellectual property. The residents were not educated on how another person could take advantage of them financially if they had access to their credit cards, checkbooks, banking statements, social security cards and other government identification. The NHA said the facility provided education for staff to refresh orientation that was provided to them at orientation. This training was provided to staff on a couple of occasions. In that training, facility staff were reminded that taking money or property from a resident was not permitted by facility policy. Additionally, the facility would look into providing residents with additional education to protect themselves financially. The NHA said they had locked boxes available for any resident who wanted a way to protect their personal belongings only upon request.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health agency promptly after a significant...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health agency promptly after a significant change in the mental condition of three (#33, #36 and #97) of seven residents reviewed for preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) out of 46 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Notify the state mental health agency of Resident #33, and Resident #97 necessity for inpatient psychiatric hospitalizations, and, -Notify the state mental health agency of worsening symptoms for Resident #36. Findings include: I. Resident #33 A. Resident status Resident #33, age under 70 years, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included bipolar disorder. The 9/29/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 10 out of 15. It did not identify level II PASRR. B. Record review The comprehensive care plan, initiated on 7/10/23, revealed the resident exhibited behaviors of yelling obscenities towards staff and other residents. Interventions included allowing the resident to calm down, educating the resident on appropriate communication with others, frequent checks to ensure her needs were met, and offering mental and emotional support services as needed. The resident took medications to manage symptoms of bipolar disorder and had a level II PASRR for major mental illness. Interventions included frequent mood checks and behavior monitoring. According to the October 2023 CPO, the resident had orders dated 7/19/23 to be sent out for a psychological and psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Progress notes dated 7/5/23 through 10/10/23 revealed in pertinent part: Social services progress note date 7/18/23 revealed a referral was sent per the resident's request for psychological services Social services progress note dated 7/19/23 revealed the resident was scheduled to see the psychology provider on 7/25/23 and the resident had been notified. PASRR progress note dated 7/21/23 revealed the resident was reviewed in the psychotropic medication committee. The resident had recently returned from a psychiatric hospitalization. -No progress notes were located documenting the behaviors leading up to the resident's need for an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or an update being sent to the state mental health agency. The resident's pre-admission level II PASRR was reviewed on 10/12/23. The level II notice of determination dated 2/8/23 identified the resident as meeting criteria for PASRR mental illness. The level II evaluation dated 2/16/23 identified a history of psychiatric hospitalizations over her lifetime related to bipolar instability. II. Resident #36 A. Resident status Resident #36,aged [AGE] years, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 CPO, the diagnoses included post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. The 8/30/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 11 out of 15. It indicated the resident did not meet criteria for a level II PASRR diagnosis. B. Record review The comprehensive care plan, initiated on 9/21/18, revealed the resident exhibited behaviors of getting easily annoyed with others and changes in appetite. He had periodic episodes of suicidal ideations but not currently. Interventions included follow up from the social services director (SSD) and for staff to notify the SSD or the physician of suicidal ideations. The resident took medications to manage symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, and anxiety. He had a level II PASRR for major mental illness. Interventions included behavior monitoring for depressive symptoms and frequent check ins to meet his needs. Progress notes dated 6/1/23 through 10/10/23 revealed in pertinent part: Social services progress note date 7/26/23 revealed the resident expressed suicidal ideations and desiring to end his life. He was assessed and determined to be at low risk for attempting suicide. Social services progress note date 8/1/23 revealed the resident expressed suicidal ideations and desiring to end his life. He was assessed and determined to be at low risk for attempting suicide. Social services progress note date 8/21/23 revealed the resident expressed suicidal ideations and desiring to end his life. He was assessed and determined to be at low risk for attempting suicide. -No progress notes were located documenting an update was sent to the state mental health agency for worsening symptoms. The resident's resident review level II PASRR was reviewed on 10/12/23. A status change had been submitted 3/25/19 due to a time limit expiration. The level II notice of determination dated 5/28/19 identified the resident as meeting criteria for PASRR mental illness. The level II evaluation dated 6/4/19 identified the resident without a history of suicidal ideations. Suicidal ideations were first care planned 9/21/18. -However, this was not included in his status change PASRR 3/25/19 or subsequent PASRRs to the state mental health agency and behaviors continued. III. Resident #97 A. Resident status Resident #97, age under 70 years, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2023 CPO, the diagnoses included post traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideations and major depressive disorder. The 8/30/23 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. It did not identify level II PASRR. B. Record review The comprehensive care plan, revised on 2/15/23, revealed the resident exhibited behaviors of suicidal ideations and suicidal attempts. The resident had a history of being hospitalized for a suicide attempt via medication overdose related to frustration over medical condition. Interventions included mood check ins and behavior tracking. His last suicide attempt was 7/19/23 via wrapping a call light cord around his neck (this was added to the care plan 10/12/23, during the survey). Interventions included following a safety plan which outlined activities he enjoyed. It included frequent checks from the SSD and encouragement to socialize. According to the October 2023 CPO, the resident had orders dated 4/24/23 to receive psychological and psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Progress notes dated 7/1/23 through 10/10/23 revealed in pertinent part: Order administration note dated 7/17/23 revealed the resident had a behavior related to suicidal ideations and verbal aggression. The resident had been throwing water. Social services note dated 7/18/23 at 7:14 a.m. revealed the SSD completed a suicide lethality assessment with the resident due to statements he wanted to die due to increased pain. The resident was determined to be low risk and without a plan. Nursing progress note dated 7/18/23 at 9:05 p.m. revealed the nurse entered the resident room after his call light had been pulled to find the resident had wrapped the call light around his neck. 911 was contacted. Nursing progress note dated 7/19/23 reveled the resident had been admitted to the hospital on a mental health hold due to suicide attempt. admission summary note dated 7/20/23 revealed the resident returned to the facility. -No progress notes were located documenting an update being sent to the state mental health agency. The resident's pre-admission level II PASRR was reviewed on 10/12/23. The level II notice of determination dated 9/29/22 identified the resident as meeting criteria for PASRR mental illness. The level II evaluation dated 10/6/22 identified the resident had a history of suicidal ideations and a suicide attempt in 2022 via medication overdose. IV. Staff interviews The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 1:28 p.m. She stated residents with a mental health diagnosis have a level II PASRR. An update was sent to the state mental health agency when a resident's mental health condition worsened, the resident had a new diagnosis or a new medication. An update was needed if a resident had an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. Resident #36 had expressed to her suicidal ideations on three occasions. Resident #33 and #97 had been sent out to inpatient psychiatric units for worsening mental health symptoms requiring evaluation. She had not sent in updates for Resident #33, #36, and #97.
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 interviews, the facility failed to safely store and properly dispose of medications in a manner consistent with standards of practice for two of four medication storage rooms...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to safely store and properly dispose of medications in a manner consistent with standards of practice for two of four medication storage rooms. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Expired medications were discarded and removed from the medication storage room refrigerators in a timely manner; -All drugs and biologicals were kept safe and secure in locked compartments when not in direct line of sight of nurse; and, -All refrigerated drugs and biologicals were monitored daily for proper temperature controls in accordance with manufacturers specifications Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Medication Storage policy, revised October 2023, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) provided on 10/12/23 at 4:33 p.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. Expired or discontinued non-narcotic medication will be stored in a locked area. Non-narcotic medication will be stored in a locked secure area. Medications requiring refrigeration or temperatures between 36-46 degrees Fahrenheit will be kept in a refrigerator with a thermometer to allow daily monitoring. II. Expired medication stored in refrigerator The second floor medication room was observed on 10/11/23 at 10:04 a.m. The refrigerator to contain the following expired medications: -Tuberculin purified protein derivative solution with an expiration date of 9/8/23; -Dulcolax laxative suppositories with an expiration date of 9/1/23; and, -Anasept topical gel (antimicrobial skin and wound cleanser) with an expiration date of 8/30/23. Registered nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 10:13 a.m. RN #2 said the nurse on the evening shift was responsible for checking the refrigerator for expired medication on a monthly basis. If a nurse forgot to check medication expiration dates it was up to the day nurse to complete the task. The fifth floor medication storage room was observed on 10/11/23 at 1:28 p.m., with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 The storage room ' s refrigerator contained a narcotic locked box and expired medication: -Diazepam suppositories with an expiration date of 7/12/23. LPN #1 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 1:36 p.m. LPN #1 said nurses on the evening and night shifts were responsible for monitoring medication expiration dates and knew to remove the expired medication for disposal. LPN #1 said monitoring for expired medication was completed twice per month. III. Unsecured medication storage room On 10/11/23 at 1:48 p.m. the door to the fifth floor medication storage room was observed. The door to the medication storage room was slightly ajar and accessible to anyone walking by and without a nurse in direct line of sight. LPN #1 was observed removing personal belongings from the medication storage room leaving a book on the floor to hold the door open. LPN #1 had his back to the door for approximately three minutes. LPN #1 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 1:52 p.m. LPN #1 said the lockers on the unit were too small for his backpack and did not have another space to put the backpack. LPN #1 said personal items were not supposed to be stored in the medication storage room nor should the door to the medication storage room remain open or ajar at any time. Registered nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 2:18 p.m. RN #2 said staff's personal items, non-medication items and food products should not be stored in the medication storage room. IV. Medication refrigerator temperature monitoring On 10/11/23 at 10:40 a.m. the medication refrigerator on the fifth floor was observed with LPN #1. LPN #1 provided temperature logs that were in a binder. The temperature log was not consistently completed and there were days when the refrigerator ' s temperature was not monitored. The temperature logs for August, September, and October 2023 were reviewed. The temperature logs revealed inconsistent monitoring for daily temperature checks. The August 2023 refrigerator temperature log did not contain temperature checks for 8/3/23 through 8/8/23. The September 2023 refrigerator temperature log did not contain temperature checks for 9/12/23 through 9/15/23. The October 2023 refrigerator temperature log did not contain temperature checks for 10/3/23 through 10/6/23. -There was no way to know if the medications needing refrigeration were stored at the proper temperatures to maintain the stability and effectiveness of that medication on the dates when the staff failed to check the refrigerator temperatures. LPN #1 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 1:41 p.m. LPN #1 said on the dates when the temperature checks were not conducted there were agency staff working the shift. LPN #1 said agency staff were provided an orientation to the unit and believed they received a packet of information that included monitoring temperatures of the refrigerators in the medication storage room. LPN#1 said permanent staff always check the refrigerator temperature. RN #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 2:05 p.m. RN #2 said the temperature logs should be monitored on a daily basis by the nurse on the evening or night shift. RN #2 said the temperature logs were picked up by the assistant director of nursing (ADON) and/or the weekend nurse for compliance purposes. RN #2 said he worked on the fifth floor every Thursday from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and relied on the evening shift nurse to check the fifth floor refrigerator temperature in the medication storage room. V. Administrative interview The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:56 p.m The DON said all agency staff who worked at the facility received a binder that covered their responsibility. The binder included instructions to monitor for expired medication in the medication storage refrigerators and monitoring refrigerator temperatures for proper medication storage on a daily basis while on shift. The DON said permanent facility staff know to monitor and remove expired medications and to check the refrigerator temperatures daily on the evening or night shift. VI. Unattended medication The fourth floor refrigerator medication cart was observed on 10/11/23 at 8:30 a.m. The fourth floor medication cart was left unattended with two medication cards continuing medications in the bubble pack cards. LPN #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 8:55 a.m. She identified the two medications on her cart as fluoxetine (antidepressant) with two pills left in the card and myrbetriq (a medication that relaxes the bladder muscles to prevent urgency and frequency in overactive bladder) with four pills in the card. LPN #2 said medications should not be left on the cart unattended because a resident could take them and could lead to adverse reactions if the medication was not ordered for them or if they received too much of a prescribed medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

III. Hand hygiene with medication administration A. Facility policy and procedures The Medication Administration General Guidelines policy and procedure, dated 10/15/10, was received from the NHA on 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
III. Hand hygiene with medication administration A. Facility policy and procedures The Medication Administration General Guidelines policy and procedure, dated 10/15/10, was received from the NHA on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. revealed in pertinent part Procedure: wash or sanitize hands before and after administration of medications. B. Observation On 10/11/23 at 7:54 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was observed preparing medications to Resident #39, he did not perform hand hygiene prior to preparing the medication. LPN #1 then knocked on her door when entering the room, passed the medication cup to the resident and grabbed the resident's personal water cup and handed it to her. LPN #1 then exited the room, returned to the medication cart and began charting the medications administration. LPN #1 failed to perform hand hygiene on exit of Resident #39's room. At 8:04 a.m. LPN #1 began preparing medications for Resident #25. LPN #1 knocked on Resident #25 door, assisted the resident to sit up in bed using the bed control and took the resident's blood pressure. LPN #1 then handed the medications to Resident #25, then washed his hands with soap and water. LPN #1 then applied gloves to administer eye drops to the resident. LPN #1 then washed his hands upon removal of gloves. LPN #1 took the empty bottle of Boost (supplement drink) tossed it into the trash, touching the trash bag as it fell into the trash bin, he then adjusted the bedside table and the bed position for Resident #25. LPN #1 then exited the residents room returning to the medication cart, placed eye drops back in the cart and charted the administration of medications. LPN #1 failed to perform hand hygiene after leaving Resident #25's room. At 8:23 a.m. LPN #1 began preparing medications for Resident #64. Resident #64 was in the dining room when he administered the medications to her. LPN #1 returned to his medication cart and charted the administration. LPN #1 failed to perform hand hygiene after medication administration to Resident #64. C. Staff interviews LPN #1 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 3:39 p.m. He said nurses were to wash with soap and water or use sanitizer on their hands if they administer eye drops, insulin (medication for abnormal glucose) or if they touch any of the resident's personal items. LPN #1 said if residents were only receiving medication in pill forms he did not have to wash his hands. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:41 p.m. She said the nursing staff were to sanitize their hands before dispensing medications and again after the resident took the medication. The DON said nurses should perform hand hygiene to prevent infections. IV. Proper disposal of needles A. Facility policy and procedure The Sharps Storage and Disposal policy and procedure, dated 10/15/10, was received from the NHA on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. revealed in pertinent part, Sharps such as syringe, needles, lancets, razors will be secured out of residents reach. After use, sharps will be placed into an approved designated sharps container and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and safety regulations. Immediately after use syringe, needles, or lancets will be placed in a puncture resistant, one way container with a lid that prohibits reaching into the container. B. Observations On 10/11/23 at 8:31 a.m. LPN #2 was observed passing medications to Resident #57. LPN #2 administered Insulin (glucose control) via injection into the Resident #57's right arm. LPN #2 then placed the safety sleeve over the needle and placed the syringe and needle into an empty water cup along with trash from two alcohol swabs and her used gloves. She returned to the medication cart. LPN #2 placed the cup and its contents into a trash bag hanging over the sharps container on the medication cart and then sanitized her hands and charted the medication administration. LPN#2 failed to properly dispose of a sharps. C. Staff interviews LPN #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 8:37 a.m. She said the needle and syringe were to be disposed of into the sharps container not the trash when asked about where the needle was disposed of. LPN #2 then proceeded to dig through the trash bag with no gloves on to retrieve the syringe and needle. LPN #2 found the syringe and needle and moved the trash bag to access the sharps container on her medication cart where she then properly disposed of the syringe and needle. She then re-hung the trash bag over the sharps container. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:41 p.m. She said needles were to be disposed of in the sharps container to reduce the risk of contamination or a needle stick which could lead to blood borne disease transmission. The DON said the nurse should not have dug through the trash to retieve the syringe and needle because it increased the risk of being struck by the needle. Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to prevent the development and transmission of disease and infection. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) masks were stored off the floor, in a clean bag and replaced when contaminated; -Ensure staff performed hand hygiene during medication administration; and, -Ensure staff disposed of needles appropriately. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Infection Control policy and procedure, revised 5/7/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/9/23 at 10:15 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Standard precautions include: A group of infection prevention practices that apply to all resident's environments, regardless of suspected or confirmed infection status, in any setting where healthcare is delivered. Includes: resident care equipment likely to have been contaminated by bodily fluids must be handled in a manner to prevent the transmission of infectious disease. II. Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mask A. Observation On 10/9/23 at 10:15 a.m. Resident #97 CPAP mask was observed hanging in an unsanitary manner on the floor next to the resident's foley bag with urine. On 10/10/23 at 11:30 a.m. Resident #97 CPAP mask was observed under his upper body while he was lying in bed. B. Resident interview Resident #97 was interviewed on 10/9/23 at 10:15 a.m. He stated the staff care for his CPAP mask and clean it for him. He was not able to get out of his bed independently and clean his CPAP. He also had contractures in his hands and this prevented him from being able to clean his CPAP mask or take care of it without the staff's assistance. C. Staff interviews Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 10/10/23 at 10:35 a.m. Resident #97 had a CPAP and when he was not using it, the staff had to clean it and keep it in a bag on his dresser. RN #1 did not know how many times a week it needed to be cleaned. He said the nurse is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of Resident #97's CPAP mask. RN #1 said the CPAP mask should never be on the resident's floor next to his foley bag. This could cause the spread of bacteria. The CPAP mask should not be kept in the resident's bed under his body because it could damage the mask. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 2:58 p.m. She was not sure of Resident 97's CPAP mask cleaning schedule but stated the mask should not be on his floor next to a foley bag. The mask should be on his dresser or in a drawer. The risk of having his CPAP mask on the floor, especially next a foley bag with urine, was contamination and the spread of bacteria.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in a sanitary manner in the kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in a sanitary manner in the kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure proper hand hygiene and maintain a sanitary environment where food was being served; and, -Ensure the refrigerators on the units were cleaned properly. Findings include: I. Hand washing and use of hair nets 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; Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms including surrogate prosthetic devices for hands or arms with soap and water for at least 20 seconds and shall use the following cleaning procedure: Vigorous friction on the surfaces of the lathered fingers, finger tips, areas between the fingers, hands and arms for at least 15 seconds, followed by;Thorough rinsing under clean, running warm water; and Immediately follow the cleaning procedure with thorough drying of cleaned hands and arms with disposable or single use towels or a mechanical hand drying device. Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils, and unwrapped single-service and single-use articles.After handling soiled equipment or utensils; After engaging in any activities that contaminate the hands.Hand antiseptics may be used in addition to but not in place of proper handwashing. Food employees engaged in food preparation shall wear hair restraints, such as hats, hair coverings, hair or beard nets, or other effective means, to effectively keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, and linens, and unwrapped single-service or single-use articles. B. Facility policies and procedures The Handwashing Dietary policy and procedure, revised 9/1/22, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/12/23 at 4:45 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, Staff will wash hands frequently as needed throughout the day following proper handwashing procedures. Handwashing facilities should be readily accessible and equipped with paper towels and soap. Encourage handwashing instead of the use of chemical, sanitizing gel's or lotions. If chemical, sanitizing gel or use, staff must first wash hands as stated below. Clean hands and exposed portions of the arms immediately before engaging in food preparation, including working with exposed foods. When to wash hands, after touching bare human body parts, other than clean hands and clean, expose portions of arms after using the toilet room. During food preparation, as often as necessary to remove soil contamination prevent cross-contamination when changing tasks. Before donning gloves for working with food. After removing gloves. Before distributing meals to residents. After collecting soil, plates and food waste. C. Observations Observation on 10/10/23 at 12:00 p.m. on floor number four. Kitchen staff brought up lunch to serve, an unknown kitchen staff had a cart of plates that were not covered. The cart was not in the kitchen area and was in the nurses station area. An unknown RN was passing medications and had her backside leaning up against the cart touching the uncovered plates. Several staff walked by and they did not move the cart into the kitchen area. The kitchen staff used the plates to serve lunch. At 12:45 p.m. the kitchen staff ran out of plates the activities director went to a different floor and came back with a plate without it being covered and gave it to the kitchen staff to plate the food. Observations on 10/11/23 at 11:15 a.m. in the main kitchen area where the staff was preparing for lunch service. Dietary assistant (DA) #1 was preparing hotdogs and hamburgers for lunch service. DA #1 had gloves on and touched the handle to get the hotdogs and hamburgers out of the steam oven. DA #1 grabbed the hotdogs and hamburgers with gloved hands and touched the lettuce tomato and onion with the same gloves. -At 11:25 a.m. cook (CK) #1 was pureeing dessert and grits. CK #1 put gloves on before starting this task. CK #1 put the dessert in the blender and needed to add more dessert and went to the steam oven and kept the same gloves on. CK #1 dished the dessert into a cup and touched the lip of the cup and the lid with the same gloves. CK #1 changed gloves and did not preform hand hygiene. CK #1 was pureeing grits and had to add more grits to it. CK #1 touched the handle of the steam oven. CK #1 touched the top of the cup and lid while putting the grits into the cup. -At 12:11 p.m. on the third floor kitchen. CK #2 had started serving the residents. CK #2 had the cart with uncovered clean plates and plates with food on them. CK #2 had the dishes of food uncovered on the steam table and on the steam table without coverings and staff were coming into the kitchen with hair coverings (see below). Certified nurse aide (CNA) #3 entered the kitchen without a hair net and performed hand hygiene. CNA #3 opened the refrigerator to get drinks. CNA #3 went to the dining area and touched a resident's shoulder then came back into the kitchen performing hand hygiene. CNA #3 rubbed up against the counter where the dessert was being served. CNA #3 went into the refrigerator and got drinks, went into the dining room and came back into the kitchen. CNA #4 came into the kitchen. CNA #4 did not have a hairnet on. CNA #4 did not perform hand hygiene and came into the kitchen. CNA #4 had delivered food to the dining area and came into the kitchen to get drinks. She opened the refrigerator. CNA #3 went into the kitchen without performing hand hygiene. CNA #3 went to the dining area to deliver a drink. CNA #3 came back into the kitchen without performing had hygiene. CNA #3 used the microwave that was above the counter. The cart with the uncovered dishes and plates of food that had plastic on them was under the microwave. CNA #3 reached to put the food in the microwave. CNA #3 touched the front of her body onto the cart. D. Staff interview CK #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 12:53 p.m. CK #2 said before entering the kitchen area staff should wash their hands and have hair nets on. CK #2 said nursing staff would come into the kitchen whenever they want. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 3:08 p.m. The IP said nursing staff should not be in areas that have food products in it. The IP said nursing staff should wash their hands and wear an apron if they went into the kitchens when food was present. The IP said nursing staff work directly with residents. The IP said there was a risk of contaminating food and spreading infections when nursing staff was in the kitchens while serving food. CNA #5 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:53 a.m. CNA #5 said CNAs should not go into the kitchen area during food service. CNA #5 said staff that go into the kitchen area needed a hair net and should perform hand hygiene before entering the kitchen if they need to. The nutrition service director (NSD) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:22 a.m. The NSD said she saw her kitchen staff using gloves and touching multiple things before touching the food and bowls that food went into. The NSD said she had already started to inservice her staff on proper hand hygiene. The NSD said kitchen staff should make sure the cart with the plates on it were in the kitchen area. The NSD said nursing staff should not lean against the counters or carts that have plates or food on them because their clothing was not sanitary. The NSD said nursing staff should not enter the kitchens while kitchen staff was serving. The NSD said hair nets and hand washing were required to enter kitchens that have food being served. The NSD said nursing staff should be patient and wait for the server to assist them. The NSD said she had educated CNAs in the past and will re-educate them about going into the kitchen areas. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:43 p.m. The DON said nursing staff should not enter the kitchens. The DON said the way the refrigerators were set up made it hard for the CNAs to help with food service. The DON said staff should wash their hands before entering the kitchen areas. The DON said the staff entering the kitchen should wear hair nets. The DON said the nursing staff should be careful and not let their bodies touch the counters or plates in the kitchens. The DON said there was an infection control risk if nursing staff went into the kitchens without proper hand hygiene. II. Refrigerator cleanliness A. Observations Observations on 10/11/23 at 12:00 p.m. on the third floor kitchen the refrigerator had crumbs on the bottom of it. The door handle had a film of a dark brown tacky substance that had built up it was a dark color and appeared to not have been cleaned for a long time. Observations on 10/12/23 at 11:17 a.m. the refrigerator on the fourth floor had dark streaks on the inside of the refrigerator and crumbs throughout the refrigerator. The handle had a buildup film that was dark and tacky. -At 11:20 p.m. the refrigerator on the fifth floor had crumbs throughout and the handle had a thick buildup of dark tacky substance. B. Staff interviews CK #2 was interviewed on 10/11/23 at 12:53 p.m. CK #2 said nursing staff cleaned the kitchens when they were done with food service. CK #2 said nursing and housekeeping staff made sure the refrigerators were cleaned. CNA #5 was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:53 a.m. CNA #5 said kitchen staff were required to clean the kitchens in between services. CNA #5 said the kitchen staff were required to keep the refrigerators clean. The NSD was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 9:22 a.m. The NSD said that housekeeping, kitchen and nursing staff made sure the kitchens were clean. The NSD said it was a group effort to ensure the refrigerator were clean. The NSD said they did not have a schedule of when they cleaned refrigerators. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/12/23 at 2:43 p.m. The DON said cleaning the kitchens including the refrigerators was a group effort with the kitchen staff, housekeeping and nursing staff. The DON said they did not have a schedule for cleaning the refrigerators. The DON said the refrigerators including the handle should be cleaned. The DON said keeping the kitchens areas clean was to ensure infection control.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide advance beneficiary protection notification (ABN) for three (#7, #8 and #9) out of three residents reviewed out of nine sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews the facility failed to provide advance beneficiary protection notification (ABN) for three (#7, #8 and #9) out of three residents reviewed out of nine sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #7, #8 and #9 were provided a description of the type of Medicare part A services that were ending, given an estimated cost of services if the resident wanted to pay privately, the reason why Medicare would not continue to pay for the service and the resident's option to appeal. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The facility policy for Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non Coverage (ABN) was requested from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/1/23 at 10:18 a.m. -The NHA said the facility did not have an ABN policy, but the facility followed Medicare guidelines for beneficiary notices. According to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) website: https://www.cms.gov/search/cms?keys=ABN+nursing+home+regulation: The Medicare Advance Written Notice of Noncoverage February 2020, retrieved from https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/Downloads/ABN_Booklet_ICN006266.pdf page 3, read and revealed in pertinent part: All health care providers and suppliers must deliver an Advance Beneficiary Notice of Noncoverage (ABN), Form CMS-R-131 when they expect a Medicare payment denial that transfers financial liability to the beneficiary. This includes skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). The ABN helps the beneficiary decide whether to get the item or service Medicare may not cover and accept financial responsibility for it. II. Record review A list of residents discharged from Medicare A services, with benefit days remaining, in the last six months, was received from the NHA on 5/31/23 at 3:00 p.m. There were 13 resident names listed. The form indicated 11 of the residents remained in the facility after Medicare A services were discontinued. Resident #7's discharge date , from Medicare part A skilled services, was documented as 2/3/23. The facility initiated the discharge from part A services, however the resident's benefit days were not exhausted. The resident remained in the facility. Resident #8's discharge date , from Medicare part A skilled services, was documented as 2/22/23. The facility initiated the discharge from part A services, however the resident's benefit days were not exhausted. The resident remained in the facility. Resident #9's discharge date , from Medicare part A skilled services, was documented as 4/7/23. The facility initiated the discharge from part A services, however the resident's benefit days were not exhausted. The resident remained in the facility. III. Interviews The social service coordinator (SSC) was interviewed with the NHA on 6/1/23 at 10:18 a.m. The Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non Coverage (ABN) was requested on 6/1/23 at 10:18 a.m. for Residents #7, #8 and #9 from the SSC and the NHA. The SSC said she did not complete ABN forms and was unsure what the ABN was used for. The NHA said there was a communication failure, and the ABN forms had not been completed. She said the facility did not have an ABN form for any of the 11 residents who were discharged from Medicare A services, with benefits remaining and remained in the facility. The NHA said the facility's financial coordinator would be issuing the ABN forms in the future. She said the facility had received education on the ABN requirement and she would provide a copy of the education. The NHA said she had not been previously aware that the ABN forms had not been issued. IV. Facility follow-up On 6/1/23 at 2:00 p.m., the NHA provided a document, dated September 2022, titled, SNF (skilled nursing facility) ABN, NOMNC (Notice of Medicare Non Coverage). Education for Leadership and Social Service Staff. There were no signatures of those receiving the education, on or attached to the form. The form documented in pertinent part, Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Advanced Beneficiary Notice of Non-coverage (SNF ABN) It is important to note that the SNF ABN, CMS-10055, is only issued if the beneficiary intends to continue services and the SNF believes the services may not be covered under Medicare. It is the facility's responsibility to inform the beneficiary about potential non-coverage and the option to continue services with the beneficiary accepting financial liability for those services.Per Ch. 30, section 70.2 of the Medicare Claims Processing Manual (IOM Pub. 100-04), a SNF ABN must be given to a beneficiary for the following triggering events: -Initiation -In the situation in which a SNF believes Medicare will not pay for extended care items or services that a physician has ordered, the SNF must provide a SNF ABN to the beneficiary before it furnishes those non-covered extended care items or services to the beneficiary. -Reduction -In the situation in which a SNF proposes to reduce a beneficiary's extended care items or services because it expects that Medicare will not pay for a subset of extended care items or services, or for any items or services at the current level and/or frequency of care that a physician has ordered, the SNF must provide a SNF ABN to the beneficiary before it reduces items or services to the beneficiary. -Termination -In the situation in which a SNF proposes to stop furnishing all extended care items or services to a beneficiary because it expects that Medicare will not continue to pay for the items or services that a physician has ordered and the beneficiary would like to continue receiving the care, the SNF must provide a SNF ABN to the beneficiary before it terminates such extended care items or services.
Jul 2022 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for self-administration of medications for 2 (Residents #99 and #100) of 5 re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure residents were assessed for self-administration of medications for 2 (Residents #99 and #100) of 5 residents observed during medication administration. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Medication- Self Administration, effective 02/24/2014, revealed, The resident who chooses to self-administer medications will be evaluated by a nurse for safe self-administration of medications and findings will be documented on the appropriate form and saved in the resident's record. 1. A review of the admission Record revealed Resident #100 had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. A review of the current Order Summary Report revealed a physician order, dated 07/23/2020, for azelastine hydrochloride solution 137 microgram (mcg) per spray. The order directed staff to spray one spray in each nostril once a day for allergies. There was also an order, dated 11/12/2020, for fluticasone propionate (Flonase) 50 mcg per actuation. The order directed staff to spray two sprays in each nostril one time a day for allergies. During an observation of medication administration on 07/12/2022 at 8:13 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 gave Resident #100 both medications listed above. The resident self-administered the fluticasone propionate 50 mcg. The resident sprayed one spray to each nostril then went to hand the bottle back to the nurse. The nurse instructed the resident to do one more spray to each nostril and the resident did. Then the resident self-administered the azelastine hydrochloride and sprayed one spray to each nostril. 2. A review of the admission Record revealed Resident #99 had a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and hypothyroidism. A review of the current Order Summary Report revealed a physician order, dated 06/22/2022, for calcium citrate tablet 950 milligrams (mg). The order directed staff to administer one tablet by mouth two times a day for supplement. During the observation of medication administration on 07/12/2022 at 8:51 AM, LPN #2 administered Resident #99's medications. The resident removed the calcium citrate from the cup of pills and indicated they were about to start eating and would take it after they ate. The resident's morning meal tray was sitting on the overbed table. LPN #2 exited the room and left the calcium citrate in the room with the resident. A record review revealed neither Resident #99 nor Resident #100 had a self-administration assessment in their medical record. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 2:58 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 indicated a resident had to have an order in order to self-administer medications. RN #1 stated Resident #99 did not have an order to self-administer medication. RN #1 indicated medication could not be left in a resident room. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 3:33 PM, LPN #4 indicated that a resident had to be assessed and a physician order obtained before a resident could self-administer medication. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:34 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #99 and Resident #100 had no self-administration assessment. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:33 PM, the DON indicated his expectation for self-administration of medications was for the resident to have been assessed, have an order, and have been educated on how to administer the medication. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:40 PM, the Administrator indicated her expectation for resident self-administration of medication was for the facility to have determined that the resident could administer the medication safely and that the resident had been trained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was thoroughl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of verbal abuse was thoroughly investigated for 1 of 3 facility reported incidents for verbal abuse that were reviewed. This failed practice affected Resident #257. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect, last revised 03/2021, indicated, Definitions: .5. Investigation: All potential abuse allegations will be investigated. The Nursing Home Administrator is ultimately responsible for abuse prevention, timely identification of potential abuse, the investigative process, and reporting results to the proper authorities based on regulatory time frames and requirements .Procedure .5. A. Investigations will be coordinated by the Nursing Home Administrator or designee. B. The individual coordinating the investigation, or their designee will: .Interview staff members who have had contact with the resident during the period of the alleged incident or who may have knowledge of the residents' behaviors that could potentiate the event. A review of Resident #257's admission Record indicated the resident had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and iron deficiency anemia. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #257's cognition was moderately impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9. The resident had behavior symptoms that were not directed toward others for 1 to 3 days of the seven-day look back period. Resident #257 required supervision only for bed mobility and required limited assistance of one person for transfers and toilet use. A review of a reportable occurrence report, dated 05/31/2022, indicated a nurse hotline was called on 05/22/2022 by Resident #257, and the hotline nurse called Adult Protective Services (APS) because they felt the nurse at the facility was yelling and berating the resident while the hotline nurse was on the phone. During the APS worker's interview with the resident, the resident stated he was afraid of the nurse. The report revealed seven residents, four staff, and the alleged perpetrator, Registered Nurse (RN) #4, were interviewed by the facility during the investigation. A review of the staffing schedule for 05/22/2022 indicated Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #5, CNA #8, and RN #3 also worked with the resident on this date (the date of the incident). CNA #5, CNA #8, and RN #3 did not have an interview included in the reportable occurrence report. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 2:24 PM, CNA #8 indicated she worked with Resident #257 on the evening of 05/22/2022. CNA #8 recalled the resident had called someone and was upset. CNA #8 denied being asked about what occurred that evening. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:45 AM, RN #3 denied having been asked about any incidents between RN #4 and Resident #257. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 12:50 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated employees and residents were interviewed regarding the incident on 05/22/2022. The DON indicated they did not talk to CNA #5 and RN #3. The schedule was reviewed and the DON was asked if CNA #8 had been interviewed and the DON said no. The DON was asked if he would have asked CNA #8 if she had heard any abuse and he indicated he would and he was surprised they did not. The DON indicated that would be a part of the investigation, to pull the schedule and interview everyone on that floor, but he was unsure why CNA #8 was not interviewed. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 4:26 PM, the Administrator indicated CNA #8 should have been interviewed regarding the allegation. The Administrator indicated the expectation for an abuse investigation was to include assessment and interviews with other residents and staff to paint a picture of what occurred.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care and serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with the comprehensive care plan for 1 (Resident #57) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for supplemental nutritional items. Findings included: A review of the Care Plans, Person-Directed policy, reviewed 07/12/2022, revealed, Care plans will be developed consistent with the residents' specific conditions, risks, needs, behaviors, preferences, and current standards of practice. Measurable goals and individualized interventions will be identified. A review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #57 with diagnoses of Lewy body dementia, dysphagia, and hypertension. A review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Resident #57 required a mechanically altered diet and limited one-person assistance with meals. A review of Resident #57's care plan revealed a focus of advanced dementia and dysphagia diagnoses, which was initiated on 06/05/2021 and revised on 06/01/2022. The care plan included an intervention instructing the facility staff members to provide ice cream to the resident at lunch and supper daily. A review of Resident #57's meal ticket on 07/12/2022 revealed instructions for the facility staff members to provide the resident with ice cream at lunch daily. A review of Resident #57's Nutritional Assessment, dated 02/17/2022, revealed a nutritional supplement of ice cream at lunch and supper. During an observation on 07/11/2022 at 12:37 PM, Resident #57 was in the dining room eating a lunch of fish, pasta, carrots, plain cake, and a health shake. There was no ice cream on the lunch tray. During an observation on 07/12/2022 at 12:25 PM, Resident #57's caregiver was assisting the resident with the lunch meal of chicken pot pie, potatoes, and applesauce. There was no ice cream on the lunch tray. During an interview on 07/12/2022 at 1:05 PM, Resident #57's caregiver stated Resident #57 was not normally served ice cream when they were present for the lunch meal. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 3:05 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated she expected the tray ticket to be followed at meals and staff should serve what was listed on the tray ticket. LPN #1 further stated the tray ticket had a resident's diet, any special equipment, allergies, likes and dislikes on it and the LPN expected the ticket to be followed. The tray ticket information was taken from the physician's orders and should be followed. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 8:57 AM, the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated Resident #57 had a history of weight loss in the past and had interventions in place to prevent further weight loss. The RD further stated the instructions to provide ice cream were initiated per the care plan and it was important to make sure the nutritional interventions were in place to prevent any further weight loss. If the nutritional interventions were not followed, these actions could potentially lead to weight loss. The RD then stated she was not aware of any written policy in place regarding implementing nutritional interventions. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated a resident's physician's orders and care plan were available to the staff members and the facility expected them to be followed. She stated if the RD or physician wrote an order for a nutritional supplement, there was a reason behind that recommendation, and it should be followed. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:10 AM, the Administrator stated she expected staff to know a resident's physician's orders or any recommendations from the clinical team and to implement them. The Administrator further stated it was important to follow the plan of care to ensure the facility was meeting the needs of the residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 3:20 PM, the Food and Nutrition Services Director (FNSD) stated she expected the staff members who prepared the resident's trays to read the tray tickets as they were placing the food and beverage items on the residents' meal trays. The FNSD then stated she expected staff members to follow physician's orders and the care plan instructions for resident safety to prevent weight loss. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 3:30 PM, Dietary Aide (DA) #3 stated she had been working on the meal-serving station when Resident #57 did not get his/her ice cream at lunch, and it was just an accidental oversight that it was missed. DA #3 further stated she had been given education regarding providing ice cream to Resident #57 and that applesauce was not the same as ice cream.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised when needed for 1 (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure care plans were revised when needed for 1 (Resident #96) of 1 residents reviewed for oxygen administration. Cross reference F695, Respiratory Care. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, Person-Directed, reviewed 07/12/2022, revealed, The care plan will be revised and updated as necessary to reflect the resident's current status. A review of Resident #96's admission Record revealed a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. The resident was receiving supplemental oxygen therapy. A review of a care plan, dated 01/03/2022, indicated Resident 96 received oxygen at 3-4 liters per minute via nasal canula. A review of a physician order, dated 06/13/2022, indicated the physician had directed the facility staff members to administer oxygen at 1 liter per minute via nasal canula at night. During an observation on 07/11/2022 at 11:23 AM, the surveyor observed the resident in his/her room receiving supplemental oxygen therapy at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal canula. During an observation on 07/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, the surveyor observed the resident in his/her room continuing to receive supplemental oxygen therapy at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal canula. During an interview and observation on 07/13/2022 at 1:48 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #5 indicated Resident #96's oxygen rate should be 4 liters per minute. RN #5 observed the resident's oxygen concentrator and confirmed the rate was on 2.5 liters per minute. During an interview and observation on 07/13/2022 at 2:14 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse #7 indicated the oxygen concentrator was set at 2.5 liters per minute and should have been on 1 liter per minute. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 3:59 PM, RN #2, the care plan nurse, indicated she was not aware of when the oxygen order changed and that it was a care plan revision issue. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 4:21 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), after being informed that Resident #96's care plan indicated the resident was on 3-4 liters a minute of oxygen rather than the 1 liter of oxygen that was ordered, indicated the care plan was not accurate for staff to provide care. The DON indicated he would expect the care plan to be accurate. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 4:25 PM, the Administrator indicated her expectation was for the care plan to match the physician orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care and serv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with physician orders and accepted standards of practice for 1 (Resident #57) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for the use of straws for the oral intake of fluids. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Person-Directed, reviewed 07/12/2022, indicated, Physician's orders, medication and treatment administration records, care conferences meeting minutes and Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) cards are considered components of the care plan. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident #57 with diagnoses which included Lewy body dementia, dysphagia, and hypertension. A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident required a mechanically altered diet and limited one-person assistance with meals. A review of the resident's care plan, which was initiated on 06/05/2021 and revised on 06/01/2022, revealed the resident should not use straws when consuming fluids as related to the diagnoses of advanced dementia and dysphagia. A care plan included an intervention, which began on 09/07/2021 and was revised on 03/01/2022, instructing the facility staff members not to provide the resident with straws. A review of the resident's current consolidated physician orders revealed a physician's order, dated 12/02/2021, that informed the facility staff that the resident should not consume fluids using straws. A review of the resident's meal ticket, dated 07/12/2022, revealed the staff members should not provide the resident with straws. Observation of Resident #57 on 07/12/2022 at 5:38 PM revealed the resident drinking a red liquid out of a cup using a straw and the resident consumed all of the liquid from the cup. At approximately 5:40 PM, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed. CNA #1 stated the resident would usually spill the fluids if the staff members did not provide a straw to the resident. CNA #1 further stated Resident #57 was much better at consuming liquids when he/she used a straw and CNA #1 was not sure why no straws was on Resident #57's meal-tray card. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 3:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 stated when a resident had an order for no straws then that resident was at an increased risk for aspiration (fluid entering the lungs). She stated it was important for those residents not to use straws because they had swallowing issues and could aspirate on the liquid they were drinking through the straw. LPN #1 then stated it was never appropriate for a resident to use a straw if they had an order for no straws. LPN #1 also stated she expected the information on the meal-tray tickets to be followed because the tickets reflected the physician's orders. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 3:32 PM, the Speech Therapist (ST) stated drinking liquids using a straw sent liquids to the back of the throat in large quantities and increased the risk of aspiration for a resident with a dysphagia diagnosis. The ST further stated Resident #57 had an order for no straws because Resident #57 had a dysphagia diagnosis and severe cognitive deficits, so using a straw for thin liquids increased the risk of aspiration. The ST then stated it was never appropriate for someone like Resident #57 to use a straw, and the CNA should have looked at the meal-tray card to know Resident #57 was not supposed to use a straw. The ST further stated she reassessed Resident #57 for the use of a straw that day (07/13/2022), and the resident was still at an increased risk of aspiration when using a straw. Therefore, she continued the recommendation that the resident did not use straws. A review of Resident #57's Progress Notes, dated 07/13/2022, revealed a dysphagia screen was completed to reassess patient safety with thin liquids using a straw with no signs or symptoms of aspiration. Resident #57 continued to take large consecutive sips, significantly increasing aspiration risk secondary to an inability to utilize safety strategies due to severe cognitive deficits. Therefore, there was a continued recommendation for no straws. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:50 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated a resident's physician orders and care plan were available to staff members, and he expected them to be followed. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:10 AM, the Administrator stated she expected staff to know a resident's physician's orders or any recommendations from the clinical team and to implement them. The Administrator further stated it was important to follow the plan of care to ensure the facility was meeting the needs of the residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered at the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered at the flowrate prescribed by the physician for 1 (Resident #96) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for oxygen administration. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Oxygen Titration, last revised on 03/04/2020, indicated, Oxygen will be administered per physician order .Residents with the following diagnoses or histories will be carefully evaluated: .Residents with a COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], sleep apnea, morbid obesity, or congestive heart failure diagnosis will be evaluated based on severity of disease process. A review of Resident #96's admission Record revealed the resident had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. The resident was receiving supplemental oxygen therapy. A review of a physician order, dated 06/13/2022, indicated the physician had directed the facility staff members to administer oxygen at 1 liter per minute via nasal canula at night. During an observation on 07/11/2022 at 11:23 AM, the resident received oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal canula. During an observation on 07/12/2022 at 12:26 PM, the resident continued to receive oxygen at 2.5 liters per minute via nasal canula. During an interview and observation on 07/13/2022 at 1:48 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) #5 indicated Resident #96's oxygen flow rate should be 4 liters per minute. RN #5 observed the resident's oxygen concentrator and confirmed the rate was on 2.5 liters per minute. During an interview and observation on 07/13/2022 at 2:14 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7 indicated the oxygen concentrator was set at 2.5 liters per minute and should have been on 1 liter per minute. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 2:16 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated his expectation was that the oxygen rate should have been set at what the physician ordered. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:40 PM, the Administrator indicated her expectation was that the facility followed what the physician ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% for 2 (Resident #75 and Resident #100) of 5 residents observe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% for 2 (Resident #75 and Resident #100) of 5 residents observed during medication administration. Observations during medication administration revealed there were two medication errors out of 32 opportunities, which resulted in a 6.25% medication error rate. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration General Guidelines, last revised 07/25/2019, revealed, Medications will be administered in accordance with written orders authorized by the attending physician or designee .Medications will be administered based on the resident's schedule and preferences as well as specific medication and physician requirements. 1. A review of Resident #75's admission Record revealed a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. A review of current Order Summary Report revealed a physician order, dated 02/19/2022, for furosemide solution. The order directed staff to administer 80 milligrams (mg) one time a day. During an observation of medication administration on 07/12/2022 at 8:41 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 administered 10 milliliters (ml) (equivalent to 100 mg) of furosemide. LPN #2 administered 10 milligrams per milliliter solution to Resident #75 instead of 8 milliliters to equal the 80 milligrams that was ordered. 2. A review of Resident #99's admission Record revealed a diagnosis of hypothyroidism. A review of the current Order Summary Report revealed a physician order, dated 06/29/2022, for levothyroxine sodium (Synthroid) tablet 88 micrograms (mcg). The order directed staff to administer one tablet by mouth once a day for hypothyroidism. During the observation of medication administration on 07/12/2022 at 8:51 AM, LPN #2 administered the levothyroxine sodium 88 mcg with the resident's morning meal tray sitting on the overbed table. The resident indicated they were about to start eating. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 9:44 AM, LPN #5 indicated liquid medication should be measured by placing the cup level on the medication cart and measured at eye level. LPN #5 indicated a syringe should be used to measure the liquid if the dose cup was not calibrated for the dosage amount of the medication that was ordered. LPN #5 indicated levothyroxine should be administered before a resident ate. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:08 AM, LPN #6 indicated a syringe should be used to draw up liquid medication if the calibrated dose cup was not calibrated for the amount of medication ordered. LPN #6 indicated that levothyroxine should be administered in the morning 30 minutes to an hour before a meal. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:22 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the medication dose cup was not calibrated for 8 milliliters. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:33 PM, the DON indicated he expected a zero medication error rate but in reality, we know they occur. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:40 PM, the Administrator indicated her expectation was for zero errors, but we are human and have errors. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 4:46 PM, LPN #2 indicated the furosemide should have been 8 milliliters. LPN #2 indicated the liquid medication was a little above the 7.5 ml mark for 80 milligrams. LPN #2 indicated the facility did not have syringes to measure medications. LPN #2 confirmed the levothyroxine 88 micrograms should have been given before breakfast. A review of facility-provided medication information for levothyroxine on 07/14/2022 revealed the levothyroxine should have been administered on an empty stomach. A review of document titled, SYNTHROID, revised August 2005, retrieved from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021402s011lbl.pdf, revealed, Information for Patients. Patients should in informed of the following information to aide in the safe and effective use of SYNTHROID: .5. Take SYNTHROID as a single dose, preferably on an empty stomach, one-half to one hour before breakfast. Levothyroxine absorption is increased on an empty stomach.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident was not served food items that ha...

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 a resident was not served food items that had been reported as a dislike and/or allergy for 1 (Resident #40) of 4 sampled residents reviewed for food concerns. Findings included: A policy related to food allergies was requested from the facility, but the facility did not have a policy that addressed food allergies. A review of Resident #40's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #40 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 12, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident #40 was independent for eating. A review of Resident #40's care plan, dated 05/17/2022, revealed the resident had an intolerance to carrots, carrot soup, corn, bananas, and pineapple. A review of Resident #40's electronic health record revealed the resident had allergies listed as ibuprofen, bananas, carrot, corn, and pineapple. A review of Resident #40's admission Nutrition Assessment, dated 02/05/2022, revealed Resident #40 expressed he/she had an intolerance to carrots, corn, bananas, and pineapple. Resident #40 reported diarrhea if he/she ate these foods. During an observation on 07/11/2022 at 12:45 PM, Resident #40 was observed with diced carrots on the resident's meal tray. During an interview on 07/11/2022 at 12:45 PM, Resident #40 indicated he/she was allergic to carrots and indicated the facility served carrots to him/her at least once a month. The resident indicated he/she usually just scraped them off the plate. Resident #40 indicated the carrots made him/her constipated. The surveyor immediately notified the dietary department, and Resident #40 was given a serving of green beans. A review of Resident #40's meal ticket indicated the resident had the following allergies: banana, carrot, corn, and pineapple. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 3:25 PM, Dietary Aide (DA) #1 indicated that it was an oversight on her part that Resident #40 was served carrots. DA #1 indicated she was supposed to check the meal tickets for allergies and dislikes and serve the resident an alternate food. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:32 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #8 indicated she was aware that Resident #40 was not supposed to receive carrots, bananas, pineapple, or corn on his/her food tray. CNA #8 indicated the meal ticket and food tray should be checked before it was served to the residents. CNA #8 indicated that sometimes the agency staff did not know the resident and sometimes the meal ticket was not checked with what the resident was being served. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 11:00 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #5 indicated she did not usually work on the 3rd floor and was not familiar with Resident #40. LPN #5 indicated she would check the resident's meal ticket before serving the resident their meal tray to make sure the resident was not served foods the resident disliked or were allergic to. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:08 PM, the Food and Nutrition Services Director (FNSD) indicated that it was her expectation that the dietary aide check the meal ticket so that the resident was not served any food items that were listed as a dislike and/or allergy. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:21 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed it was his expectation that staff members serve the resident in accordance with what information was provided on the meal ticket. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:22 PM, the Administrator indicated that it was her expectation that the staff members followed what was documented on the meal ticket. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 4:11 PM, the Registered Dietitian indicated that Resident #40 indicated on the initial nutrition assessment that carrots gave him/her diarrhea.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed bet...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed between dirty and clean tasks during wound care for 1 (Resident #60) of 1 sampled resident who was reviewed for wound care. Findings included: A review of a policy titled, Dressing change: Aseptic, last revised on 05/07/2021, revealed, Procedure: .6. Set up barrier, located conveniently near wound so aseptic technique is not broken. Set up supplies, open packages, prepare dressings, date, pre-cut packing dressings, pull and or pre-cut Iodoform etc [et cetera] .9. With resident in appropriate position, don gloves, remove old dressing, discard in plastic or red bag, observe wound, measure, etc. 10. Remove dirty gloves, place in plastic bag, wash hands. 11. [NAME] the second pair of gloves and begin the treatment. 12. Observe for breaks in aseptic technique, changing gloves, and washing hands if necessary. A review of Resident #60's admission Record indicated a diagnosis of Stage 4 pressure of left buttock and sacral region. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident was cognitively intact per a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility, and had one Stage 3 pressure ulcer and two Stage 4 pressure ulcers. A review of a care plan, dated 06/02/2022, indicated the facility admitted Resident #60 with three pressure ulcers and was receiving skilled nursing services for wound care. A review of the Order Summary Report revealed a physician order, dated 07/08/2022, to apply magic skin cream to the right buttock for moisture associated skin damage two times a day and as needed. There was an additional physician order, dated 07/08/2022, to clean the left ischium with Dakins 0.125%, pat dry with gauze, apply skin prep to the area around the wound, apply silver alginate to the wound bed, and cover with dry dressing every day. During an observation on 07/12/2022 at 2:50 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 and Registered Nurse (RN) #6 provided wound care to Resident #60. LPN #4 placed the container of magic cream, Dakins 0.125% solution bottle, alginate silver dressing package, and gauze 4 x 4s on the resident's over-the-bed table without cleaning the table or applying a barrier. LPN #4 washed her hands and applied gloves. LPN #4 applied the Dakins solution to the gauze and cleansed the left lower ischium wound. Without changing the gloves, LPN #4 cut the silver alginate with scissors then placed it in the wound with a Q-tip, and without changing gloves, LPN #4 applied skin prep around the wound. LPN #4 obtained the dressing by touching the center of the dressing. RN #6 stopped LPN #4 from applying the dressing and said, We don't touch the dressing. Without changing the gloves, LPN #4 obtained a new dressing and applied it to the area. Without changing gloves, LPN #4 applied magic cream to the moisture-associated skin damage on the right buttock area. LPN #4 then removed the gloves and washed her hands. During an interview on 07/12/2022 at 3:05 PM, LPN #4 indicated gloves should be changed after they took something dirty off and after they cleaned the wound. LPN #4 indicated she did not change gloves until after she applied the dressing. LPN #4 confirmed that it was an infection control issue. During an interview on 07/12/2022 at 3:48 PM, RN #6 indicated she would have removed the soiled gloves, washed her hands, and reapplied gloves before applying the clean dressing. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 3:33 PM, LPN #4 indicated a clean barrier should have been set up for the wound care supplies. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 3:45 PM, the Director of Nursing indicated there should be a clean surface or barrier for wound care supplies. The DON indicated gloves should be changed after removing a dirty dressing. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:33 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the expectation was to have a clean barrier and to wash hands before the start, after removing the dirty dressing, before applying a clean dressing, and after the wound care was done. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 1:40 PM, the Administrator indicated the expectation was that a clean barrier be used and for hand hygiene to be done before wound care started and to clean and sanitize in between dirty and clean.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, document review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with profes...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, document review, interviews, and review of the facility policy, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food safety in 1 of 1 kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: 1. the kitchen staff dated, labeled, and covered food items in storage. 2. raw foods were not stored next to ready-to-eat foods. 3. dented cans were discarded. 4. kitchen staff wore a complete hair covering at all times when in the kitchen. 5. kitchen staff maintained the overall cleanliness of the kitchen. 6. kitchen staff maintained complete and accurate refrigerator and freezer temperature logs. This had the potential to affect all residents. Findings included: 1. A review of the undated Food Storage policy revealed, Food should be dated as it is placed on the shelves. Leftover food is stored in covered containers or wrapped carefully and securely. Each item is clearly labeled and dated before being refrigerated; foods should be covered, labeled, and dated. Kitchen observations made on 07/11/2022 from 8:45 AM to 9:15 AM revealed a pan of covered raw chicken with no date or label and five trays of uncovered raw bacon with no date or label in the walk-in refrigerator. Further observation revealed a pan of uncovered cut-up fruit with no date or label in the reach-in refrigerator. During an interview on 07/11/2022 at 9:05 AM, the Food and Nutrition Services Director (FNSD) stated the chicken was pulled out that day and that the kitchen staff would get the bacon covered and dated. The FNSD then pulled out the pan of fruit and stated she would have staff cover and date it. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, the FNSD stated all foods should be dated, labeled, and completely covered. It was important to make sure all food items were dated and labeled to ensure no cross contamination occurred and staff used the freshest ingredients in food preparation. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 8:50 AM, the Registered Dietitian (RD) stated foods should be dated, labeled, and stored in a sealed container to avoid any food contamination. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:47 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated he expected the kitchen to be clean and meet the standards for kitchen sanitation. He stated there was a purpose behind the standards, and the facility did not want to cause harm to any residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator stated she expected kitchen staff to follow the kitchen sanitation guidelines. The Administrator expected the FNSD to teach and train the kitchen staff and hold the kitchen staff accountable. It was important to maintain proper kitchen sanitation to ensure the facility staff did not harm anyone. 2. A review of the undated Food Storage policy revealed, Cooked foods must be stored above raw foods to prevent contamination. Observation on 07/12/2022 at 10:15 AM revealed a pan of raw chicken stored on top of a box of celery in the walk-in refrigerator. Further observation revealed trays of exposed shelled eggs stored next to hard cooked eggs. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, the FNSD stated she threw the box of celery away and did immediate education to not store raw foods next to or on top of ready-to-eat foods to prevent cross contamination. The FNSD expected kitchen staff to follow food storage policies and procedures and raw meat should be stored below ready-to-eat foods. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 8:50 AM, the RD stated raw meats should be stored below any ready-to-eat foods to prevent any cross contamination. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:47 AM, the DON stated he expected the kitchen to be clean and meet the standards for kitchen sanitation. There was a purpose behind the standards, and facility staff did not want to cause harm to any residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator stated she expected kitchen staff to follow the kitchen sanitation guidelines. The Administrator expected the FNSD to teach and train the kitchen staff and hold the kitchen staff accountable. It was important to maintain proper kitchen sanitation to ensure the facility staff did not harm anyone. 3. An observation made in the kitchen on 07/11/2022 from 8:45 AM to 9:15 AM revealed one dented can of black beans and one dented can of stewed tomatoes on the can storage rack. During an interview on 07/11/2022 at 8:50 AM, the FNSD stated dented cans should be stored on a separate cart in dry storage, so staff knew not to use them, and then the FNSD disposed of them. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, the FNSD stated she immediately threw away any dented cans so staff knew not to use them to prevent foodborne illness, because bacteria could get in the dents and contaminate the contents of the can. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 8:50 AM, the RD stated kitchen staff needed to throw away any dented cans to avoid using the product in case anerobic bacteria built up inside the dented can. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:47 AM, the DON stated he expected the kitchen to be clean and meet the standards for kitchen sanitation. There was a purpose behind the standards, and he did not want to cause harm to any residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator stated she expected kitchen staff to follow the kitchen sanitation guidelines. The Administrator expected the FNSD to teach and train the kitchen staff and hold the kitchen staff accountable. It was important to maintain proper kitchen sanitation to ensure the facility staff did not harm anyone. 4. A review of the undated Food Storage policy revealed, Food employees engaged in food preparation shall wear hair restraints to effectively keep hair from contacting exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, and linens, and unwrapped single-service or single use article. Observation on 07/11/2022 at 11:20 AM revealed Dietary Aide (DA) #1 washing their hands in the food preparation area. DA #1's hair was pulled back in a bun and she were not wearing a hairnet. Further observation revealed DA #2 with a hairnet partially on their head with a length of three to four inches exposed above their forehead and approximately two inches in length exposed above their neck. During an interview on 07/11/2022 at 11:22 AM, DA #1 stated she was going to put a hairnet on after washing her hands. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, the FNSD stated staff should always wear a hair covering when in the kitchen because she did not want any hair falling into the food. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 8:50 AM, the RD stated all staff should wear hair coverings in the kitchen to prevent hair from falling into food and contaminating it. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:47 AM, the DON stated he expected the kitchen to be clean and meet the standards for kitchen sanitation. There was a purpose behind the standards, and facility staff did not want to cause harm to any residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator stated she expected kitchen staff to follow the kitchen sanitation guidelines. The Administrator expected the FNSD to teach and train the kitchen staff and hold them accountable. It was important to maintain proper kitchen sanitation to ensure facility staff did not harm anyone. 5. A review of the undated Food Storage policy revealed scoops were to be kept covered in a protected area near containers. Observation on 07/11/2022 from 8:45 AM to 9:15 AM revealed a bin of sugar and a bin of flour, both dated 04/05/2022 and to use by 10/05/2022. The lids were sticky and dirty, and the scoops were dirty and not covered when in their storage holders. Observation on 07/11/2022 from 8:45 AM to 9:15 AM revealed two staff drinks in the reach-in freezer and a staff drink on a storage shelf. During an interview on 07/11/2022 at 8:50 AM, the FNSD stated the staff drinks should not be in the freezer or on the storage shelf. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, the FNSD stated personal drinks should be stored on a designated shelf. The FNSD did constant education with staff to not store personal drinks in food storage and preparation areas because she did not want to accidentally give it to a resident. It was best practice to not have personal drinks when preparing food or serving residents. The FNSD further stated the food storage bins were cleaned every time she replenished the product, and she expected the bins to be wiped down daily to maintain safe food practices. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 8:50 AM, the RD stated she did not allow personal drinks in the kitchen. They should be stored in the office area because it was not sanitary to store staff drinks in the food storage or preparation area. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:47 AM, the DON stated he expected the kitchen to be clean and meet the standards for kitchen sanitation. There was a purpose behind the standards, and facility staff did not want to cause harm to any residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator stated she expected kitchen staff to follow the kitchen sanitation guidelines. The Administrator expected the FNSD to teach and train the kitchen staff and hold kitchen staff accountable. It was important to maintain proper kitchen sanitation to ensure facility staff did not harm anyone. 6. A review of the facility's undated Food Storage policy revealed, The refrigerator and freezer temperatures should be checked at least once a day. Observations made in the kitchen on 07/11/2022 from 8:45 AM to 9:15 AM revealed a freezer temperature log that was completed from 07/01/2022 to 07/08/2022. The log was blank from 07/09/2022 to 07/11/2022. A refrigerator temperature log was completed from 07/01/2022 to 07/09/2022. The log was blank from 07/10/2022 to 07/11/2022. Another refrigerator temperature log was completed for the morning and evening temperatures from 07/01/2022 to 07/11/2022 and the evening temperature for 07/12/2022. During an interview on 07/11/2022 at 9:05 AM, the FNSD stated she took the freezer temperature log that was blank from 07/09/2022 to 07/11/2022 and filled in the temperatures during the initial tour. When asked if it was appropriate to back fill or to fill in a future temperature on the log when they did not see it, the FNSD stated absolutely not. The FNSD further stated it was important to check the refrigerator and freezer temperatures daily to make sure food was stored at the correct temperature to keep the food safe. During an interview on 07/13/2022 at 10:00 AM, the FNSD stated she expected the refrigerator and freezer temperature logs to be completed twice a day to ensure food was stored at a safe temperature and checking twice a day helped them stay on top of that. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 8:50 AM, the RD stated she expected kitchen staff to check and log the refrigerator and freezer temperatures to ensure food was stored at the proper temperature. If the refrigerator temperature was too high, food could spoil, and if the freezer temperature was too low, it could cause freezer burn. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 10:47 AM, the DON stated he expected the kitchen to be clean and meet the standards for kitchen sanitation. She stated there was a purpose behind the standards, and facility staff did not want to cause harm to any residents. During an interview on 07/14/2022 at 11:06 AM, the Administrator stated she expected kitchen staff to follow the kitchen sanitation guidelines. The Administrator expected the FNSD to teach and train the kitchen staff and hold kitchen staff accountable. She stated It was important to maintain proper kitchen sanitation to ensure facility staff did not harm anyone.
Apr 2021 22 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
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.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 54 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (23/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Colorado, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the Colorado average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 62%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 54 deficiencies at CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 53 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?

CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 125 certified beds and approximately 118 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DENVER, Colorado.

How Does City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Colorado Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Colorado, CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Colorado. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the Colorado average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is City Park Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

CITY PARK HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.