CRESTMOOR CARE CENTER

895 S MONACO PKWY, DENVER, CO 80224 (303) 321-3110
For profit - Limited Liability company 108 Beds RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
35/100
#143 of 208 in CO
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Crestmoor Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #143 out of 208 facilities in Colorado places it in the bottom half, and #17 out of 21 in Denver County suggests only a few local options are better. The facility's performance is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2024 to 13 in 2025. Staffing is relatively stable, with a 3-star rating and a low turnover of 23%, which is below the state average. However, there have been serious incidents, including failures to protect residents from abuse and issues with food safety and infection control practices, indicating areas that need urgent improvement.

Trust Score
F
35/100
In Colorado
#143/208
Bottom 32%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 13 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below Colorado's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Colorado. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 13 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (23%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (23%)

    25 points below Colorado average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Colorado average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Chain: RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Oct 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to protect four (#12, #5, #9 and #15) of seven resident...

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 protect four (#12, #5, #9 and #15) of seven residents from abuse out of 12 sample residents.Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (mental illness), depression, and dementia.Resident #12 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of dementia, other behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder and depression.On [DATE], Resident #6 and Resident #12 were in the dining room when the residents began yelling at each other and hitting each other. On [DATE], Resident #6 grabbed Resident #12 on both of her arms. On [DATE], Resident #6 began yelling at Resident #12. Resident #6 then lunged at Resident #12 and pushed her to the ground, where she (Resident #6) attempted to hit Resident #12 in the face. As a result of the three incidents of physical and verbal abuse, Resident #12 began isolating herself and avoiding Resident #6. Resident #12 said she avoided Resident #6 when she could because Resident #6 was yelling at her, hitting her and pushing her. Resident #12 said she feared getting seriously injured. Observations revealed Resident #12 displayed anger and distress when talking about the encounter with Resident #6 and said she did not like talking about the incidents. Specifically, the facility failed to:-Prevent multiple abuse altercations between Resident #6 and Resident #12; and,-Protect Resident #5, Resident #9 and Resident #15 from physical abuse by Resident #4. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse policy, dated February 2024, was provided by the corporate nurse consultant on [DATE] at 2:07 p.m. It read in pertinent part, “Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraints not required to treat the resident's symptoms. “Providing a safe environment for the resident is one of the most basic and essential duties of our facility. This facility promotes an atmosphere of sharing with residents and staff without fear of retribution. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including but not limited to facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers, staff of other agencies serving the residents, family members or legal guardians, friends, or other individuals. “Resident abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment of a resident resulting in physical harm or pain, mental anguish, deprivation of goods or services that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, or psychosocial well-being. Also, verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse, including abuse facilitated or enabled through use of technology. “Verbal abuse is defined as the use of oral, written, or gestured language that includes disparaging or derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance, regardless of their ability to comprehend, or disability. Examples of verbal abuse include, but are not limited to: 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. “Physical abuse is defined as abuse that results in bodily harm with intent. It includes hitting, slapping, pinching, kicking, and controlling behavior through corporal punishment and willful neglect of the resident's basic needs. “The following approaches and interventions are designated as part of the facility abuse prevention protocols: Education is provided at staff orientation and training programs that include topics such as abuse prevention, the elder justice act, identification and reporting of abuse, stress management, and handling verbally or physically aggressive resident behavior.” The Dementia-Clinical protocol, undated, was provided by the clinical nurse consultant on [DATE] at 2:07 p.m. It read in pertinent part, “As part of the initial assessment, the physician will help identify individuals who have been diagnosed as having dementia and those with otherwise impaired cognition. “The interdisciplinary team (IDT) will evaluate individuals with new or progressive cognitive impairment and help identify symptoms and findings that differentiate dementia from other causes. “Nursing assistants will receive initial training in the care of residents with dementia and related behaviors. In-services will be conducted at least annually thereafter. Additionally, performance reviews will be conducted annually and in-service education will be based on the results of the reviews. “The IDT will adjust interventions and the overall plan depending on the individual's responses to those interventions, progression of dementia, development of new acute medical conditions or complications, changes in resident or family wishes, and other relevant factors.” II. Incident of physical and verbal abuse by Resident #6 towards Resident #12 A. Facility investigation The facility investigation, dated [DATE], documented Resident #12 and Resident #6 were in the hallway after lunch and started to argue and hit each other. Staff immediately separated both residents. The investigation documented neither resident could explain why they were hitting each other. Resident #12 sustained mild swelling, redness and warmth to her left cheek from the altercation. She received Tylenol for pain and an ice pack for the swelling. The facility investigation documented Resident #6 had a history of being physically aggressive towards other residents with whom she had been friends with in the past. After the altercation, Resident #6 was not able to recall the argument or physical altercations and said that everything was fine. Resident #6 said she would be friends again with the other resident (Resident #12) that she attacked after an incident occurred. The investigation documented Resident #12 was interviewed by registered nurse (RN) #4. Resident #12 said she went to the dining room and sat down. Then Resident #6 came over and accused Resident #12 of drinking her juice. Resident #12 said she did not drink Resident #6's juice. Resident #12 said Resident #6 started cursing at her. Resident #12 said she got angry and ended up cursing back at Resident #6. Resident #12 said she left the dining room, but Resident #6 followed her and continued to fight with her. The investigation documented Resident #6 was interviewed by RN #4. Resident #6 said when she went to the dining room, Resident #12 started cursing at her for no reason. Resident #6 said she fought with Resident #12, then Resident #12 left the dining room while she continued to curse at her. Resident #6 said she followed Resident #12 and fought with her. Later that day, Resident #6 said everything was fine. CNA #4 was interviewed as a witness to the incident on [DATE]. CNA #4 said she was passing room trays in the south unit. She saw Resident #6 and Resident #12 yelling and hitting each other. CNA #4 said she got in between them and yelled for help. CNA #4 said an unidentified RN came right away and helped her separate the residents. CNA #4 said she walked Resident #6 to her room and the unidentified RN took Resident #12 back to the north nurses' station. CNA #4 said the unidentified RN placed both residents on 15-minute checks and directed for them not to be in the same area. The facility investigation concluded Resident #6 was the aggressor and did have the intent to fight with Resident #12 because Resident #6 said she followed her out of the dining room on [DATE]. -However, abuse occurred due to Resident #6 and Resident #12 cursing at each other and hitting each other. III. Incident of physical abuse by Resident #6 towards Resident #12 on [DATE] A. Facility investigation The facility investigation, dated [DATE], documented Resident #12 was interviewed by the social services director (SSD). Resident #12 said she was asleep and was woken up by Resident #6 grabbing her arms and trying to pull her out of the bed. Resident #12 said she did nothing to retaliate and just yelled at Resident #6 to let her go and get out of her room. She said someone came and got Resident #6 out of the room. Resident #6 was interviewed by the SSD as part of the facility investigation. Resident #6 said they (Resident #6 and Resident #12) were coming in from outside and Resident #12 stepped on her foot. Resident #6 said she yelled at Resident #12 because it hurt, but Resident #12 did not care and they started yelling at each other. -However, Resident #6 was not able to explain how she ended up in Resident #12's room, grabbing at her. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed as a witness to the incident on [DATE]. LPN #2 said she was in the south hall near the nursing cart and saw Resident #6 yelling, screaming and cursing at Resident #12, who was standing in the south hall. LPN #2 said Resident #6 told her that Resident #12 was putting clothes in bags in front of Resident #6's room. LPN #2 said she did not observe anything on the floor in front of Resident #6's room and nothing inside the room. LPN #2 said Resident #6 grabbed Resident #12 on both arms and tried to hit Resident #12's head. LPN #2 said she and the nurse practitioner (NP) separated the residents immediately. LPN #2 said she took Resident #6 to the other side of the building and notified Resident #12's nurse about the incident. -The facility investigation did not document that the incident of physical and verbal abuse was substantiated. IV. Incident of physical and verbal abuse on [DATE] by Resident #12 towards Resident #6 A. Facility investigation The facility investigation, dated [DATE], documented Resident #12 and Resident #6 were observed yelling at each other by the double doors that separated the north hallway and the north nurses' station. The nurse observed Resident #6 lunge at Resident #12. Resident #6 grabbed Resident #12's shoulders and pushed her to the ground and attempted to hit her in the face. The staff were able to separate the two residents before Resident #6 was able to physically hit Resident #12. Resident #6 said she was upset with Resident #12 because Resident #12 was stealing from her. Resident #12 was interviewed by the SSD as part of the facility investigation. Resident #12 said she was just walking down the hall and Resident #6 started yelling at her, and she yelled back too. Resident #12 said Resident #6 pushed her on the ground. Resident #12 said she felt safe when staff kept Resident #6 away from her. The facility investigation documented Resident #12 had a history of being friends with Resident #6 shortly after an altercation, as they both had cognitive deficits. Once the police came to interview the residents, they were holding hands, stating they loved each other and they were friends. The police told the residents to get along and not fight. Resident #6 was interviewed by the SSD as part of the facility investigation. Resident #6 said she was upset at her friend (Resident #12), who went into her room and stole all her money while she was mourning the loss of her husband. Resident #6 said she went to yell and confront Resident #12 because she stole all her money. RN #4 was interviewed as a witness to the incident on [DATE]. RN #4 said Resident #12 was walking towards the nurses' station and Resident #6 was walking towards Resident #12 at the north nurses' station. RN #4 said Resident #6 accused Resident #12 of stealing her money and keys. RN #4 said Resident #6 grabbed Resident #12's wrists and pushed her, which caused Resident #12 to fall. RN #4 said the staff separated the residents immediately. A staff nurse witness said she was working on the north cart when she heard yelling and saw Resident #6 come up to Resident #12 and push her hard down on the ground. The staff witness said she ran over to the fight, told them to stop and separated them. The staff witness said RN #4 came and took Resident #6 away. The staff witness said she assisted Resident #12 from the floor and conducted her assessment. -The facility investigation did not document that the incident of physical and verbal abuse was substantiated. The facility investigation concluded that Resident #6 was having delusional thinking and Resident #12 did not have keys or any of Resident #6's items. Resident #6's physician adjusted her medication after the altercation on [DATE] to help with the loss of her husband and her behaviors. A. Resident #6 (assailant) 1. Resident status Resident #6 was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included bipolar disorder, depression and dementia. According to the [DATE] minimum data set (MDS) assessment the resident had severe cognitive impairments with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of three out of 15. The MDS assessment documented that the resident was oriented to herself and displayed aggressive and violent behavior towards others. The resident was able to walk independently and wandered almost daily. 2. Resident observations During a continuous observation on [DATE], beginning at 12:30 p.m. and ending at 1:05 p.m., Resident #6 was walking up and down the hallway by herself, unsupervised by staff. The resident was walking in areas of the hall where she was not in direct line of sight of the staff for extended periods of time. During a continuous observation on [DATE] from 10:30 a.m. to 10:59 a.m., Resident #6 was walking up and down the hallway by herself, unsupervised by staff. The resident was walking in areas of the hall where she was not in the direct line of staff. 3. Resident interviews Resident #6 was interviewed on [DATE] at 1:00 p.m. Resident #6, due to her impaired cognition, was unable to answer many of the questions and often provided contradictory details. She said she did not know how long she had been at the facility and had nothing to do but lie in bed. However, she then contradicted her previous statement and said the facility had lots of games, which she enjoyed. Resident #6 said she got along well with the staff and residents and did not have issues with anyone at the facility. Resident #14, who was Resident #6's roommate, was interviewed on [DATE] at 1:01 p.m. Resident #14 said the staff was not taking very good care of Resident #6. She said Resident #6 was often pacing the halls of the facility without staff supervision and often appeared to be disheveled, unshowered and had an unpleasant body odor. 4. Record Review Resident #6's behavior care plan, initiated on [DATE], revealed the resident has potential to be physically aggressive related to dementia and bipolar disorder, and poor impulse control. She has a history of getting physically aggressive towards other residents. She has a history of being physically aggressive with one of the other residents, who was her friend. She can get physical but oftentimes does not remember all the details of the altercation or why she was making accusations. Interventions included documenting behaviors, administering medications as ordered and monitoring/documenting for side effects and effectiveness, providing physical and verbal cues to alleviate anxiety, giving positive feedback, assisting verbalization of the source of agitation, assisting in setting goals for more pleasant behavior, encouraging seeking out of staff members when agitated and when the resident became agitated, intervening before agitation escalated, guiding away from the source of distress, engaging the resident calmly in conversation and if the resident's response was aggressive, staff was to walk calmly away and approach later. Review of the resident's behavior log (from [DATE] to [DATE]) revealed the direct care staff had documented that Resident #6 had no identifiable aggressive or disruptive behaviors, including on [DATE] and [DATE], when Resident #6 was involved in altercations with Resident #12. B. Resident #12 (victim) 1. Resident status Resident #12, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] CPO, diagnoses included dementia, other behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder and depression. The [DATE] MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13 out of 15. The assessment revealed Resident #12 was independent in all activities of daily living (ADL) and exhibited verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others, such as screaming and cursing at others. 2. Resident observation On [DATE] at 1:50 p.m. Resident #12 was observed eating her lunch in her room. 3. Resident interview Resident #12 was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:25 a.m. Resident #12 said Resident #6 grabbed her left arm, twisted it and threw her on the floor for no reason. She said Resident #6 repeatedly punched her. Resident #12 said she sustained a sore arm that required staff to wrap it with an elastic bandage for a week. Resident #12 said Resident #6 pushed her against the wall, which caused back pain and soreness. Resident #12 said she had another incident with Resident #6 in the past. Resident #12 became emotional, waving her arms, saying no, shaking her head, while saying she did not want to be with Resident #6 while recounting the incidents involving her with Resident #6. Resident #12's voice trembled as she spoke and she was visibly shaking. Resident #12 repeatedly waved her hands and shook her head no when Resident #6's name was mentioned. Resident #12 was tense and spoke in a shaky tone. Resident #12 said she had to stay in her room more than usual out of fear that Resident #6 would hurt her again. Resident #12 said she avoided going to the dining room to keep from crossing paths with Resident #6 during meal time. She said she did not want to be in contact with Resident #6, even though Resident #6 tried to talk to her. Resident #12 said she was friends with Resident #6 before, but she did not trust her much and kept her distance from her after the altercations. 4. Record review Resident #12's trauma care plan, revised [DATE], documented Resident #12 had a history of trauma that resulted in difficulty connecting and trusting others. She had the potential to be verbally and physically aggressive related to dementia. She could get upset and start yelling and cursing at other residents. She tended to forget why she became physically aggressive after an incident had occurred. Pertinent interventions included analyzing key times of day, places, circumstances, triggers, and how to de-escalate behavior and document, assessing the resident's coping skills and support system, when the resident was agitated, intervening before the agitation escalated, guiding away from the source of distress, engaging calmly in conversation, and staff to walk calmly away and approach later if the response was still aggressive. The interventions further included providing physical and verbal cues to alleviate anxiety, giving positive feedback, assisting verbalization of sources of agitation and setting goals for more pleasant behavior and encouraging seeking out of staff members when agitated. The [DATE] nursing progress note documented RN #4 heard the sounds of a fight in the hallway and went to check on the disturbance. RN #4 found Resident #6 and Resident #12 were physically struggling and grabbing each other by the collar. Resident #6 was twisting Resident #12's left arm and RN #4 separated them. The provider ordered an Xray, icepack and as-needed (PRN) pain medication to be administered for Resident #12. The [DATE] nursing progress notes documented Resident #12 was involved in a physical altercation with Resident #6. Resident #12 said she was punched in the face by Resident #6. The nursing assessment noted mild and warm swelling and redness to Resident #12's left cheek as a result of the altercation. Nursing staff administered PRN Tylenol 650 milligrams (mg) and offered an ice compress to Resident #12. Resident #12 had been on the north side of the building for the entire shift, staying in her room and the north hallway. The resident ate in her room. -Review of Resident #12's electronic medical record (EMR) did not reveal documentation regarding the incidents of physical abuse with Resident #6 on [DATE] and [DATE]. C. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 3:34 p.m. CNA #1 said when a resident became aggressive, there was not much the staff could do besides disengage the resident if the behavior was directed at staff. She said the staff would try to separate the residents and move the residents to different rooms if the behavior was directed at another resident. CNA #1 said she heard of an incident last week (week of [DATE]) between Resident #12 and Resident #6. She said she was not sure how it had happened since the two residents were in completely different hallways. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:15 a.m. The DON said it was hard to decide what to do about the conflicts between Resident #6 and Resident #12 because most of the time they would be very friendly with each other and even called each other sisters. She said after all the altercations, the interdisciplinary team (IDT) moved the two residents to different halls and tried to encourage them to stay away from each other, but that it was ineffective. She said the facility had nothing that they could do in addition to the interventions they had already been implementing. The SSD was interviewed on [DATE] at 5:00 p.m. The SSD said Resident #6 had no identified triggers before displaying aggressive behavior, but sometimes had delusional thinking. The SSD said that the IDT had informed Resident #6 on [DATE] that Resident #6's husband had died. The SSD said she had noticed Resident #6 had more aggressive behaviors after the news of her husband's passing. The SSD said she had offered Resident #6 other activities to distract her. She said the IDT recently reviewed Resident #6's medications and there were no plans to change Resident #6's medications at the time of the review. LPN #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:56 p.m. LPN #2 said she was Resident #6's nurse on [DATE]. LPN #2 said both Resident #6 and Resident #12 were at the south nurses' station. She said Resident #12 was about three doors away from Resident #6. She said when Resident #6 saw Resident #12, she began yelling, accusing Resident #12 of touching her belongings in front of her room, which was not true. She said Resident #6 then attempted to touch Resident #12. LPN #2 said the NP and she intervened and separated them. She said both residents were escorted back to their rooms and placed on 15-minute checks. LPN #2 said no injuries were observed after the nursing assessment. LPN #2 said she reported the incident to the SSD and the nursing home administrator (NHA). LPN #2 said the SSD met with both residents and addressed the situation and that there were no further issues that day. RN #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 12:25 p.m. RN #2 said if a resident's behavior became aggressive or violent, she would leave the room to allow the resident time to calm down for about 10 minutes and would report the incident to the NHA. RN #2 said before leaving the room, she would ensure the resident was safe and would ask what happened and what triggered the behavior. RN #2 said then the NHA would come to the floor and check on the resident and ask if they would like to talk about the incident. RN #2 said she would also ask the CNAs to check on the resident. RN #2 said she would ask for assistance if a resident became dangerous or posed a risk of self-harm when trying to de-escalate a situation. RN #2 said she could not recall all specific interventions for Resident #6 and Resident #12, as the approach would depend on the situation. RN #2 said if a resident became very aggressive, she would contact the police. RN #2 said in situations involving two residents, she would remove the calmer resident from the area. RN #2 said it had been a while since her last training on managing aggressive residents or de-escalation techniques and she could not recall the name of the program where she had the training. RN #2 said she could not remember when she last had dementia training. RN #2 said if a resident was suspicious or paranoid, she would speak with them calmly and try to orient them to reality, reassuring them that they were safe. She said she would assist them in locating their belongings by showing the inventory list completed at admission. RN #4 was interviewed on [DATE] at 3:04 p.m. RN #4 said on [DATE] she was speaking with Resident #6 in the conference room near Resident #12's room about the passing of her husband. RN #4 said Resident #6 appeared to be experiencing hallucinations and believed that Resident #12 had stolen her belongings. RN #4 said Resident #6 became agitated, saying she wanted to leave and was searching for her keys. RN #4 said Resident #6 repeatedly said that another woman had killed her husband and continued accusing Resident #12 of stealing her keys. RN #4 said, later in the day, Resident #6 was wandering in the building and crossed paths with Resident #12 in the hallway. She said Resident #6 grabbed Resident #12, shoved her and pushed her against the wall. RN #4 said this caused Resident #12 to sit down on the floor. RN #4 said she immediately intervened, separated them and escorted Resident #12 to her room while another staff member took Resident #6 to her room. RN #4 said both residents were placed on 15-minute checks and Resident #12 complained about shoulder pain. RN #4 said an Xray was performed, which was negative, and Resident #12 was administered Tylenol for pain relief. RN #4 said she reported the incident to the DON, the NHA and the police. The NHA and the SSD were interviewed together on [DATE] at 4:31 p.m. The NHA said if a resident's behavior became aggressive or violent, staff would separate residents and place them on 15-minute checks. She said the staff would notify the NHA and the SSD, who would call the resident's physician for medication review if necessary. The NHA said behavior notes were documented in the care plan and in progress notes. The NHA said leadership had recognized the facility had a need to provide increased training to staff on managing aggressive behavior and providing dementia-focused care. The NHA said prior to [DATE], the facility's training compliance was at 31 percent and was now at 50 percent. The NHA said the facility would continue working to ensure all staff received training. The NHA said she was not aware Resident #12 was fearful of Resident #6. She said the facility should have investigated and implemented interventions as appropriate to ensure she was not fearful. She said Resident #12 was observed eating lunch with Resident #6 today ([DATE]). The NHA said she spoke with the ombudsman regarding the situation between Resident #6 and Resident #12. The NHA said the ombudsman expressed a desire to uphold the residents' right to remain friends. The NHA said both residents verbalized that they were friends and considered each other like sisters and wished to remain together. The NHA said it would be detrimental to separate the residents and she did not know how to prevent resident-to-resident altercations between the two residents. V. Incident of physical abuse by Resident #4 towards Resident #5 on [DATE] A. Facility investigation The facility investigation, dated [DATE], documented that Resident #4 punched his roommate, Resident #5 in their room, after returning to the facility intoxicated from his community outing. Resident #5 alerted staff of the altercation. The local police department and emergency medical services were called to the facility. Resident #4 appeared to be intoxicated, per the incident report, and continued to demonstrate aggressive behaviors while staff attempted to de-escalate the situation. Resident #4 was taken to the hospital by emergency medical services. Staff relocated Resident #4 to a different room in the facility upon his return from the hospital. B. Resident #4 (assailant) 1. Resident status Resident #4, age less than 65, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged to jail on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] CPO, diagnosis included history of alcohol dependence, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The [DATE] MDS assessment documented the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13 out of 15. The resident had verbal and physical aggression towards others. The resident was able to walk short distances and used a manual wheelchair to get around the community. 2. Resident interview Resident #4 was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:00 p.m. Resident #4 said he was on his way to the bar down the street. He said there was not much for him to do at the facility besides get drunk, high and gamble. He said that he could not do those activities on the facility grounds, but he could do them elsewhere. He said he usually came back to the facility drunk. He said that the facility discouraged him from drinking, but there were no real consequences. He said that he often felt like the other residents and staff were talking poorly of him, so he felt like he had to talk (expletive) to them. Resident #4 said that many people in the facility had bad attitudes and he often wanted to beat them up if they said disrespectful things to him. He said that his fights with residents were usually because other residents made false claims about his ethnic heritage. He said that made him very angry and that was why he would beat others up. Resident #4 said staff tried to keep residents apart from one another when they got into fights, but did not do anything to intervene when one resident was being disrespectful or threatening another resident. He said most of the time, the staff did not notice or ignored that behavior. 3. Record review The behavioral care plan, initiated on [DATE], documented Resident #4 occasionally returned to the facility from the community intoxicated. The care plan documented when the resident was intoxicated, he could become verbally and physically aggressive towards staff and residents. Pertinent interventions included while the resident appeared intoxicated, the staff were to provide the resident one-to-one observation. -However, the facility was unable to provide documentation that one-to-one observations were completed when Resident #4 was intoxicated on [DATE], [DATE] and [DATE]. A review of the resident's behavioral tracking sheets, from [DATE] through [DATE], revealed that staff did not document any of the incidents of aggressive behavior towards others, as documented in the resident's record and in the incident investigation. C. Resident #5 (victim) 1. Resident status Resident #5, age less than 65, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was discharged in [DATE]. According to the [DATE] CPO, diagnoses included heart failure, diabetes and anemia. The [DATE] MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. The resident was not aggressive towards others. The assessment revealed Resident #9 needed substantial/ maximum assistance with ADLs involving mobility of his lower body (legs, hips and feet) and was independent with ADLs involving the uses of his upper body (hands, shoulders and arms). The resident used a manual wheelchair to get around independently. VI. Incident of verbal abuse by Resident #4 and Resident #11 towards Resident #9 on [DATE] A. Facility investigation The facility investigation, dated [DATE], documented
Jun 2025 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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for one (#1) of five residents re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to investigate allegations of abuse for one (#1) of five residents reviewed for abuse out of seven sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to complete a thorough and timely investigation after Resident #1 made abuse allegations that staff and other residents were trying to harm her. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse policy, revised 2/29/24, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 6/17/25 at 12:46 p.m. It documented in pertinent part, The facility does not condone resident abuse and shall take every precaution possible to prevent resident abuse by anyone, including staff members, other residents, volunteers and staff of other agencies serving the resident, family members, legal guardians, resident representative, sponsors, friends or any other individuals. If resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source is suspected, the suspicion must be reported immediately to the administrator and to other officials according to state law. Reporting can be completed verbally or in writing. In addition to an investigation by the police department, the facility conducts an internal investigation. While the investigation is ongoing, the alleged assailant has interventions implemented to help ensure the safety of the alleged victim as well as other residents. The investigation includes interviewing any staff members, residents or family members who may have knowledge of the incident. II. Allegation of abuse A. Facility investigation The 4/17/25 alleged physical or verbal abuse occurrence packet was provided by the NHA on 6/17/25. The packet revealed Resident #1 was interviewed on 4/17/25 and said her granddaughter hired a certified nurse aide (CNA) to try to kill her. Resident #1 stated she felt safe at the facility because she was at the NHA's office all day yesterday (4/16/25) and she was feeling better. The packet documented that eight additional residents were interviewed on 4/18/25 with no additional information. A family member, who was not listed in Resident #1's electronic medical record (EMR) was interviewed on 4/18/25 with no additional information. -However, the family member who was interviewed was not involved in the incident (see interviews below). Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 4/18/25. The interview revealed LPN #1 reported Resident #1's son had reported Resident #1 was afraid of someone hurting her and that was why she left the facility (see progress notes below). Registered nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on 4/18/25. The interview revealed that RN #2 interviewed Resident #1 and Resident #1 reported her granddaughter hired a CNA to try and kill her. RN #2's interview revealed that Resident #1 had a history of accusing her granddaughter and other family members of trying to poison her for her money. B. Resident #1 1. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the June 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included dementia, delusional disorders and insomnia (sleeping disorder). The 5/30/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment documented Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairments with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of zero out 15. She was independent with all activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS assessment indicated Resident #1 did not exhibit physical or verbal behavioral symptoms directed toward others. 2. Resident's family member interview Resident #1's son was interviewed over the phone on 6/17/25 at 3:25 p.m. The resident's son said he got a call from the pharmacist at the grocery store across from the facility on 4/14/25 in the evening. He said Resident #1 was fearful of a staff member and was saying how the staff member was rough with her and would push her. The son said he talked to the nurse at the facility and then was able to bring her back. He said at first Resident #1 refused to go back to the facility but he was able to bring her back. He said he stayed with her at the facility for a little while before having to leave to go to work. He said no staff from the facility had reached out to him about the incident after it occurred. 3. Record review The 4/14/25 nursing progress note documented by LPN #1 revealed that Resident #1 was socializing with other residents. When the time came to give Resident #1 her medication, Resident #1 could not be found. The resident's son came to the facility stating that Resident #1 said three other residents were trying to kill her. Resident #1 was calling her son from her cellphone. Resident #1 was found across the street from the facility at a grocery store. Resident #1's son was able to talk Resident #1 into coming back to the facility. Resident #1 entered the facility crying and upset, still stating that other residents were trying to kill her. Resident #1's son was going to stay in the facility overnight. The RN supervisor, the NHA and resident's representative were notified. 15-minute checks were started on Resident #1. A second 4/14/25 nursing progress note documented by RN #1 revealed that Resident #1 was assessed by the RN on the floor, the resident had no bruises or skin tears and Resident #1 was started on 15-minute checks. Resident #1 was in a stable condition and presently relaxed in her room with her son. The unit manager was notified and a report was given to the night supervisor. III. Staff interviews Regional clinical resource (RCR) #1, RCR #2 and the director of nursing (DON) were interviewed together on 6/17/25 at 1:52 p.m. RCR #1 said another RCR came to the facility on 4/17/25 to check in with other care areas. RCR #1 said the RCR identified the nursing progress note from 4/14/25 and initiated an investigation for Resident #1's allegations. RCR #2 said during the investigation, it was determined by the social services director (SSD) that Resident #1 was fearful of a staff member and not fearful of any residents. LPN #1 was interviewed on 6/17/25 at 2:20 p.m. LPN #1 said she was the nurse taking care of Resident #1 on the evening of 4/14/25. She said Resident #1 was outside in the courtyard with other residents during the evening of 4/14/25. LPN #1 said she saw the residents come back inside and she saw that Resident #1 was with them. She said she told Resident #1 it was time for her medications and LPN #1 went to get the medications. She said when she came back with the medications a few minutes later, Resident #1 was no longer there. She said she started to look around and asked the other residents where she had gone. She said the residents did not know where Resident #1 was and they started to look around. LPN #1 said she looked in rooms and could not find Resident #1. LPN #1 said she told other staff she could not find Resident #1 and one staff member told LPN #1 that Resident #1 sometimes used the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER]. LPN #1 said she looked in room [ROOM NUMBER] and could not find Resident #1. LPN #1 said the staff at the facility looked in all the rooms and bathrooms. She said after about 15 minutes of knowing Resident #1 was gone, Resident #1's son called the facility and talked to LPN #1. LPN #1 said the son called from the grocery store across the street and said he was with Resident #1. He said Resident #1 had said she was scared of three other residents at the facility and that they were trying to poison and kill her. He said she was very fearful and did not want to come back to the facility. After a few minutes, LPN #1 said the son convinced Resident #1 to go back to the facility and he brought her back. LPN #1 said she immediately called and reported the incident to the NHA and the unit nurse manager (RN #2). LPN #1 said the NHA and RN #2 had instructed her to do 15-minute checks on Resident #1 and assess her. LPN #1 said Resident #1 was very fearful and upset when she initially came back to the facility but calmed down back to her baseline after about an hour. The SSD was interviewed on 6/17/25 at 2:58 p.m. The SSD said she was employed at the facility during the incident on 4/14/25. She said she was not there the evening of 4/14/25 or the next day, on 4/15/25. She said the process with any abuse allegations was to start an investigation right away. She said she typically helped with interviews. She said in this incident, the NHA had told her he wanted to run it through his bosses to see if it was necessary to do an investigation. She said there should have been no reason for delays in starting the investigation into Resident #1's allegations. The pharmacist was interviewed over the phone on 6/17/25 at 4:20 p.m. The pharmacist said she worked as a pharmacist at the grocery store pharmacy across the street from the facility. She said she had a good friend who she worked with at the facility and she referred community members needing assistance to the facility. The pharmacist said she knew Resident #1 from working with her and the facility. She said Resident #1 had a history of having delusions of people poisoning her food. She said she was not at the pharmacy on the evening of 4/14/25 but she had received a call from another pharmacist who was working and a pharmacy technician. She said the staff at the pharmacy had informed her that Resident #1 was at the pharmacy looking for the pharmacist. She said the technician said Resident #1 was very upset and scared. She said she tried talking to Resident #1 on the phone and could not completely understand what Resident #1 was saying. She said she called the resident's son and he said he was going to pick her up. The pharmacist said no staff from the facility had reached out to her about the incident that occurred. The DON and RCR #1 were interviewed together on 6/17/25 at 4:45 p.m. The DON said when there were abuse allegations involving a resident, the NHA was expected to be notified right away. The DON said the DON, the resident's representative and the physician were all expected to be notified as soon as possible. She said if a staff member called with abuse allegations during hours in which the DON or the NHA were not at the facility, the DON or the NHA would guide the staff on how to initially start the investigation.
Feb 2025 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#24) of one resident out of 47 sample residents were p...

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 (#24) of one resident out of 47 sample residents were provided prompt efforts by the facility to resolve a grievance. Specifically, the facility failed to provide prompt resolution to grievances for Resident #24. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Grievances policy and procedure, dated 5/8/23, was provided via email by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/6/25 at 8:08 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The resident, or person acting on behalf of the resident, will be informed of the investigation's findings and any corrective actions recommended, within five working days of filing the grievance or complaint. II. Resident #24 A. Resident status Resident #24, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder and postencephalitic parkinsonism (a Parkinson's disorder that develops after an inflammation to the brain). The 11/30/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of 14 out of 15. He required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting and personal hygiene. B. Resident interview Resident #24 was interviewed on 2/3/25 at 1:37 p.m. Resident #24 said he had been missing four pairs of pants for a while. He said he spoke with the NHA and social services about it and was told the facility was only going to replace two pairs of pants. He said he hand delivered his own clothes to the laundry so he knew the pants were lost somewhere in the laundry. He said the facility had not yet replaced any of his pairs of pants. Resident #24 was interviewed a second time on 2/6/25 at 2:00 p.m. Resident #24 said the facility told him they would replace all four pairs of his pants and he was happy with the resolution. C. Record review The 9/9/24 grievance form filed by Resident #24 documented he was missing two pairs of pants after the pants were sent to the laundry and were not returned. It documented follow up by the facility with the laundry department and indicated they were unable to locate his pants. It documented Resident #24 refused staff help to look for the pants in his room. The grievance form was not signed by Resident #24. The form was signed by the NHA, but there was no date to indicate when the NHA signed it. The 1/29/25 grievance form filed by Resident #24 documented he was missing two pairs of pants. It documented that the social services director (SSD) searched the room and could not find the pants in his closet. It documented that his last inventory sheet had four pairs of pants. The NHA approved purchasing four new pairs of pants for the resident. The form was signed by Resident #24 and the NHA on 2/3/25, during the survey. D. Staff interviews The social services consultant (SSC) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 1:10 p.m. The SSC said that grievance forms were at the front of the building and could be filled out by residents or staff members and be submitted anonymously. The SSC said social services started the grievance process and then forwarded it to the appropriate department to follow up on the concern. She said grievances were also discussed in the morning meetings and forwarded to the appropriate department for follow up and a resolution to the grievance should be reached with the resident within 72 hours of the date the grievance was filled out. The NHA was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 1:25 p.m. The NHA said he had been at the facility for two years and Resident #24 had a pattern of asking the facility to replace his pants since 2017. He said the resident had multiple inventory lists and it had been unclear which inventory list he had been working off of. He said the grievance process for the missing pants had begun in September 2024. He said the facility had not been successful in finding the missing pants and did not come to a successful resolution with Resident #24. He said the issue came up again recently, and this time they were able to successfully resolve the issue with the resident. The NHA said the facility would be purchasing four new pairs of pants for Resident #24.
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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#77 and #69) of eight residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#77 and #69) of eight residents reviewed for abuse out of 47 sample residents were kept free from abuse. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Protect Resident #77 from verbal abuse by Resident #23; and, -Protect Resident #69 from physical abuse by Resident #235. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Abuse Policy, dated 5/3/23, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, The facility does not condone resident abuse and shall take every precaution possible to prevent resident abuse by anyone. Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. Identification of abuse shall be the responsibility of every employee. If abuse happens: separate the assailant from the victim, isolate the assailant to protect others, assess and treat the victim, and notify the abuse coordinator. II. Incident of verbal abuse of Resident #77 by Resident #23 A. Observations During a continuous observation of the lunch meal service on 2/3/25, from 11:35 a.m. to 1:34 p.m., the following was observed: At 11:35 a.m. Resident #77 and Resident #23 were talking to each other and were in a disagreement. Resident #77 told Resident #23 she should be in hell. Resident #23 said she did not want to sit at the table anymore. Resident #23 was sitting at a table alone and facing the wall and Resident #77 was sitting at another table a few feet away from Resident #23. At 11:45 a.m. Resident #23 told Resident #77 to shut up and that she would kick her explicit word. -Two nursing staff members were in the dining room at the time and were talking about something on the news. They did not address Resident #77 or Resident #23. At 12:02 p.m. Resident #23 held her hand in a fist and directed the gesture at Resident #77, who was able to see the gesture. At 12:06 p.m. Resident #23 again held her hand in a fist and directed the gesture at Resident #77. Resident #23 said she would knock her so she would not get up. Resident #23 then told Resident #77 to go back to where she came from and called her a monkey. Resident #77 said Resident #23 was bad to her and was talking about her country. Resident #77 was upset and said she wanted Resident #23 to be moved somewhere else. Restorative nurse aide (RNA) #1 went over to Resident #77 and Resident #23 and started talking to each resident individually. RNA #1 asked Resident #77 if she wanted to move seats so she would not be next to Resident #23. RNA #1 then returned to assisting residents during the lunch service and Resident #23 and Resident #77 remained in the same spots. At 1:55 p.m. Resident #77 was in the hallway talking with the social services director (SSD). Resident #77 told the SSD that someone was mean to her during lunch. Resident #77 said someone made her cry and was bad. B. Facility incident report The facility incident report, dated 2/4/25 at 4:00 p.m., was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/6/25 at 2:48 p.m. The report revealed the following: On 2/3/25 at 12:15 p.m. Resident #23 and Resident #77 were sitting at different tables in the dining room. Without any noticeable provocation, Resident #23 began to call Resident #77 explicit names. Resident #77 was upset by this and began to argue with Resident #23, asking what she did to her and why she was calling her those names. Neither resident left their table. Staff intervened and calmed both residents down. The alleged victim and assailant were interviewed, along with the six closest residents to the area where the event took place, and six staff members were also interviewed. Video of the incident was reviewed and Resident #77 and Resident #23's care plans were reviewed. Resident #23 was unable to recall the incident. Resident #77 was interviewed on 2/4/25 at 4:30 p.m. by the SSD. Resident #77 said she and Resident #23 were sitting at separate tables in the dining room and waiting for lunch to be served when, without warning, Resident #23 started yelling out curses. Resident #77 said she did not like that and told her to stop and that she had not done anything wrong. Resident #77 said the staff intervened and calmed Resident #23 down. Resident #77 said she was not frightened or fearful at the time or afterward. RNA #1 was interviewed on 2/4/25 at 6:00 p.m. by the NHA. RNA #1 said she heard Resident #23 start saying expletives and nasty things, and Resident #77 did not like it and told her how she felt. RNA #1 said Resident #77 did not say anything back to Resident #23, but just said she did not do anything wrong and asked why she was talking to her that way. RNA #1 said she comforted Resident #23 and calmed her before checking on Resident #77, who said she was okay. Six residents were interviewed, none of which could recall any altercation that had taken place. Video footage of the incident was reviewed by the NHA and revealed at 11:55 a.m. Resident #77 picked up a straw from the straw dispenser on Resident #23's dining table. At 11:57 a.m. Resident #23 started to talk, then stopped. At 12:05 p.m. Resident #23 started to yell something in the general direction of Resident #77 who was sitting approximately six feet away. Resident #77 seemed to respond and gestured with her hands. RNA #1 walked over and spoke with Resident #23, who then calmed down and returned her attention to the dining table. RNA #1 then checked on Resident #77 who had turned back to her table. The facility concluded the allegation of verbal abuse was unsubstantiated. Resident #23 often responded to internal stimuli/confusion by calling out or talking, sometimes with profanity. The facility determined Resident #23 was not addressing Resident #77 when she began cussing in the dining room. Resident #77 also did not feel frightened or threatened at any point. -However, verbal abuse occurred due to Resident #23, who had a history of verbal aggression towards others, calling Resident #77 derogatory names and cursing at her. C. Resident #23 (assailant) 1. Resident status Resident #23, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with other behavioral disturbance and depression. The 11/12/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of zero out of 15. The resident was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADL). The MDS assessment documented the resident did not have physical or verbal behaviors directed at others or other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others. 2. Record review The mood care plan, revised 8/23/22, revealed Resident #23 was at risk for a mood problem due to her disease process and her diagnoses of depression and dementia with behavioral disturbance. Pertinent interventions included administering medications as ordered, providing behavioral health consults as needed, assisting the resident with identifying strengths and positive coping skills and providing the resident with a meaningful program of activities. The psychotropic medication care plan, revised 9/25/23, revealed Resident #23 was prescribed antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. Pertinent interventions included monitoring and recording occurrences of target behavior symptoms, including violence/aggression toward staff and others. A progress note, dated 4/29/24 at 2:42 p.m., revealed Resident #23 had a behavioral outburst on 4/27/24. Resident #23 had opened her roommate's closet and flung her clothes on the floor, told her roommate to get out and that it was her house, and blocked her roommate from coming inside. Resident #23's provider was notified and her condition was continuously monitored. A behavior note, dated 4/29/24 at 8:35 p.m., revealed Resident #23 had agitated behavior and refused to take her evening medications. Emotional support was provided to Resident #23 to help her calm down and her practitioner was notified. A behavior note, dated 5/5/24 at 1:54 p.m., revealed Resident #23 showed aggressive behavior and had a verbal outburst toward her roommate and her roommate's representative. A provider note, dated 7/30/24 at 1:00 a.m. revealed Resident #23 was seen by the provider at the request of the nursing staff as they had observed increased aggressive behaviors in the evening. A behavior note, dated 10/2/24 at 9:26 p.m., revealed Resident #23 refused to go to bed. Resident #23 was cursing and screaming at staff and other residents and was kicking and grabbing at the staff. Resident #23 was offered a snack which she refused and threw at the staff. Staff tried to distract Resident #23 but she continued to yell. A provider note, dated 12/11/24 at 12:00 a.m., revealed Resident #23 was seen for a psychiatric follow-up. The provider met with Resident #23 and spoke with her representative to discuss discontinuing her quetiapine (antipsychotic medication) since Resident #23 had not had any new behaviors and was stable. The provider planned to decrease Resident #23's quetiapine to one tablet once a day for two weeks, then one half of a tablet for two weeks, then discontinue the medication. A provider note, dated 1/8/25 at 12:00 a.m., revealed Resident #23 was seen for a psychiatric follow-up. Resident #23's escitalopram (antidepressant medication) dose was decreased from 7.5 milligrams (mg) to 5 mg. Per the provider, Resident #23's representative did not notice any difference in the resident when they decreased her quetiapine dose and she wanted Resident #23 to be removed from any psychotropic medications. A behavior note, dated 2/4/25 at 1:01 p.m., revealed a staff member reported Resident #23 was yelling and cursing at another resident in the dining room around 12:30 p.m. The other resident was sitting next to Resident #23 and Resident #23 was saying do not look at me and started cursing and yelling. Resident #23 was distracted by the staff and became calm. The nurse practitioner was notified. D. Resident #77 (victim) 1. Resident status Resident #77, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included dementia, anxiety and depression. The 12/2/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairments with a BIMS score of ten out of 15. The resident was independent for all ADLs. The MDS assessment documented the resident did not have physical or verbal behaviors directed at others or other behavioral symptoms not directed toward others. 2. Resident interview and observations Resident #77 was interviewed on 2/4/25 at 3:22 p.m. Resident #77 said some people in the facility were bad and made her feel bad. Resident #77 said a person in the dining room made her feel bad, made her scared and hurt her feelings. Resident #77 said she could not go into the dining room. Resident #77 said the person gave her a hard time and told her to go back to her country. Resident #77 said people in the dining room saw it happen but did not say anything. On 2/4/25 at 4:09 p.m. Resident #77 was looking into the dining room and pacing, going in and out of the dining room. Resident #77 would peer into the dining room and then walk back out. She said someone gave her a hard time. Resident #23 was in the dining room with her representative at the time of the observation. E. Staff interviews The CC was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 10:11 a.m. The CC said the facility was investigating the incident from 2/3/25, reviewing footage and interviewing residents who were in the dining room. The CC said it seemed like Resident #23 was overstimulated and was saying things out loud but not directing them at anyone specifically. The CC said the facility was talking with Resident #23's representative about moving her to a lower-stimulus facility. RNA #1 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 1:59 p.m. RNA #1 said most of the time, Resident #23 liked to get other residents' attention and fix whatever they were doing that she did not like. RNA #1 said the conflict on 2/3/25 started because Resident #23 told Resident #77 not to look at her. RNA #1 said Resident #23 was directing her words at Resident #77. RNA #1 said Resident #23 was using explicit language and asking Resident #77 why she was looking at her. RNA #1 said Resident #77 was saying she did not know why Resident #23 was saying that to her and why she was abusing her, and said she (Resident #77) did not do anything. RNA #1 said the incident on 2/3/25 was her first time seeing Resident #23 have an issue with another resident. She said Resident #23 had conflicts with staff and refused care. RNA #1 said the staff tried to calm Resident #23 down but the best thing was usually to leave her alone. RNA #1 said Resident #77 could also be trouble at times, but she had not had any conflict with any other residents or her caregivers. RNA #1 said the 2/3/25 incident was a big fight, but usually there were just smaller conflicts between residents. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 2:21 p.m. CNA #5 said Resident #23 was fine if she was left alone but she would lash out when provoked. CNA #5 said she knew to redirect Resident #23 if she started talking about her daughter because that was when the resident started to become agitated. CNA #5 said if no one listened to Resident #23, she would put up a fight because Resident #23 knew what she wanted. CNA #5 said if she saw a resident-to-resident altercation she would separate the residents right away and tell the supervisor or administrator with no delay. The SSD and the social services consultant (SSC) were interviewed together on 2/5/25 at 2:55 p.m. The SSD said they were investigating a verbal altercation at the time of the interview that occurred between Resident #23 and Resident #77 on 2/3/25. The SSD said there were two residents in the dining room and, from what they could tell based on video footage and interviews, one resident started saying profanities. The SSD said Resident #23 was very particular about how she liked things. The SSD said Resident #77 took a straw from Resident #23's table and Resident #23 became upset and started cursing. She said Resident #77 was upset because Resident #23 was cursing. The SSD said Resident #23 did not recall the incident. The SSD said Resident #77 denied fear but said the incident was scary, made her sad and hurt her. The SSD said she still needed to complete one more interview, but most of the residents they had interviewed said they did not hear any altercation. The SSD said there was a restorative aide (RNA #1) that stopped the altercation right away who was interviewed but said she did not see what caused the incident. -However, Resident #77 began yelling at Resident #23 at 11:35 a.m. and RNA #1 did not intervene until 12:06 p.m. The SSD said she saw Resident #23 and Resident #77 in the hallway together on 2/3/25 and Resident #77 told the SSD that Resident #23 did not like her. The SSD said she asked Resident #77 if she was fearful of Resident #23 and she said no, but that she just did not know why Resident #23 did not like her. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 10:31 a.m. RN #1 said Resident #23 did not like being told what to do. RN #1 said Resident #23 would scream and yell at staff if they tried to tell her to go to bed. RN #1 said Resident #23 had behaviors with refusing care and yelling at staff, but she had not had any incidents with any other residents. RN #1 said Resident #23 was able to be redirected when she was angry. RN #1 said the last time Resident #23 had a behavior was when she screamed at a CNA for pushing her wheelchair. RN #1 said the nursing staff documented behaviors in the progress notes as a behavior note. CNA #6 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:10 p.m. CNA #6 said Resident #23 did not have any issues with any other residents but would yell and cuss at facility staff. CNA #6 said Resident #23 had called her a fat expletive and told her to shut up. The NHA was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:53 p.m. The NHA said the facility did not substantiate abuse for the 2/3/25 incident for several reasons. The NHA said Resident #23 had internal stimuli that she responded to by cursing, as well as sundowning, in which she had cursing behaviors with staff. The NHA said Resident #23 usually cursed in an empty hallway and the cursing was not directed at any residents. -However, interviews with RNA #1 and observations revealed Resident #23's cursing was directed at Resident #77 on 2/3/25 (see observations and interviews above). The NHA said Resident #77 was reactive to Resident #23's cursing and asked her why she was saying that. The NHA said there was no willful infliction of verbal aggression, and Resident #23 was not calling anyone names. The NHA said this was supported by the six residents who were interviewed that were sitting near Resident #23 and Resident #77 at the time of the incident and did not recall any altercation. The NHA said Resident #23 was asking Resident #77 what country she came from. III. Incident of physical abuse of Resident #69 by Resident #235 A. Facility incident report The facility incident report, dated 3/4/24, was provided by the NHA on 2/6/25 at 2:48 p.m. The report revealed the following: Resident #69 chose to sit in the seat that Resident #235 typically sat in the dining room. When Resident #235 arrived to the dining room, she struck Resident #69 with an open hand on the head or neck. Staff intervened and separated the two residents immediately. Resident #69 was assessed by an RN and was unhurt and not upset or frightened. The facility notified the police and the ombudsman and initiated an investigation. The alleged assailant (Resident #235) was placed on increased monitoring and temporary one-on-one monitoring during mealtimes. Resident #235 had a history of being aggressive at home and had been observed to be physically and verbally aggressive towards other residents and staff members. The investigation documented Resident #235 had been involved in three other incidents in the 90 days prior to the incident. Resident #69 was interviewed but could not recall the event. Resident #235 was interviewed and said a lady was sitting in her spot and would not move. Resident #235 said she and the lady got into an argument and she moved. The facility did not substantiate the allegation of abuse. The facility determined the alleged assailant (Resident #235) did hit the alleged victim (Resident #69) with an open hand in the neck or head area, it was light and did not cause any bodily damage and did not cause the alleged victim pain or fear. The facility determined the incident did not rise to the level of abuse, per the abuse manual. -However, Resident #235 willfully hit Resident #69, when she was in her seat. B. Resident #235 (assailant) 1. Resident status Resident #235, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to another facility on 4/4/24. According to the April 2024 CPO, diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease and a mood disorder with depressive features. The 4/4/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairments with a BIMS score of three out of 15. The resident was independent for most ADLs. The MDS assessment documented the resident did not have physical or verbal behaviors directed at others. 2. Record review The behavior care plan, initiated 2/20/24, revealed Resident #235 had a history of being aggressive at home. Resident #235 had been observed to be physically and verbally aggressive toward other residents and staff members at the facility. Pertinent interventions included calling family members to spend time with Resident #235, finding a place for the resident to calm down, redirecting her away from staff members and residents, reviewing medications as needed and quarterly and engaging the resident in activities that interested her. The mood care plan, initiated 1/1/24, revealed Resident #235 had a mood disorder. Pertinent interventions included administering medications as ordered, arranging for a psychiatric consult and following up as needed and monitoring for any signs or symptoms of depression. A progress note, dated 1/22/24 at 12:20 p.m., revealed Resident #235 fought with another resident for a dining room seat. Resident #235 pushed the other resident. A social services staff member came to the dining room and tried to separate the residents but Resident #235 did not move. A progress note, dated 3/12/24 at 9:29 p.m., revealed Resident #235 was yelling at other residents in the hallway. Nursing staff attempted to separate Resident #235 from the other residents. C. Resident #69 (victim) 1. Resident status Resident #69, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included dementia and depression. The 1/9/25 MDS assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of zero out of 15. The resident was dependent on staff for most ADLs. The MDS assessment documented Resident #69 did not have physical and behavioral symptoms directed toward others. D. Staff interviews CNA #5 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:03 p.m. CNA #5 said Resident #69 did not have any issues with any other residents. CNA #5 said other residents would hold onto Resident #69 or follow her, but Resident #69 did not initiate contact with them. The NHA was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:48 p.m. The NHA said Resident #69 and Resident #235 got into a scuffle over seating in the dining room in March 2024. The NHA said he did not think Resident #235 was trying to hurt Resident #69, but she did hit her in the face. The NHA said Resident #235 had a history of resisting care. The NHA said there was a situation in the dining room in which two residents were trying to be friends with a third resident, so they were all trying to sit in one specific seat in the dining room. The NHA said the facility got rid of the seat in question and that eliminated the issue.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#184 and #75) of seven residents reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure two (#184 and #75) of seven residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 47 sample residents received the necessary treatment and services according to professional standards of practice to prevent or heal pressure injuries. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide dressing changes for consecutive days for Resident #184, who was admitted to the facility with an unstageable pressure wound to his coccyx; -Ensure Resident #184's care plan was updated in a timely manner; and, -Provide timely wound prevention interventions and ensure interventions were consistently implemented for Resident #75, who was admitted to the facility with pressure ulcers to his coccyx and both heels. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel, European Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Injuries: Clinical Practice Guideline, third edition, [NAME] Haesler (Ed.), EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA (2019), retrieved from https://www.internationalguideline.com/guideline on 2/10/25, Pressure ulcer classification is as follows: Category/Stage 1: Nonblanchable Erythema (discoloration of the skin that does not turn white when pressed, early sign of tissue damage) Intact skin with nonblanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have visible blanching; its color may differ from the surrounding area. The area may be painful, firm, soft, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. Category/Stage 1 may be difficult to detect in individuals with dark skin tones. May indicate 'at risk' individuals (a heralding sign of risk). Category/Stage 2: Partial Thickness Skin Loss Partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed, without slough. May also present as an intact or open/ruptured serum filled blister. Presents as a shiny or dry shallow ulcer without slough or bruising.This Category/Stage should not be used to describe skin tears, tape burns, perineal dermatitis, maceration or excoriation. Category/Stage 3: Full Thickness Skin Loss Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon or muscle are not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling. The depth of a Category/ Stage 3 pressure ulcer varies by anatomical location. The bridge of the nose, ear, occiput and malleolus do not have subcutaneous tissue and Category/ Stage 3 ulcers can be shallow. In contrast, areas of significant adiposity can develop extremely deep Category/Stage 3 pressure ulcers. Bone/tendon is not visible or directly palpable. Category/Stage 4: Full Thickness Tissue Loss Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often include undermining and tunneling. The depth of a Category/Stage 4 pressure ulcer varies by anatomical location. The bridge of the nose, ear, occiput and malleolus do not have subcutaneous tissue and these ulcers can be shallow. Category/ Stage 4 ulcers can extend into muscle and/ or supporting structures ( fascia, tendon or joint capsule) making osteomyelitis possible. Exposed bone/tendon is visible or directly palpable Unstageable: Depth Unknown Full thickness tissue loss in which the base of the ulcer is covered by slough (yellow, tan, gray, green or brown) and/or eschar (tan, brown or black) in the wound bed. Until enough slough and/or eschar is removed to expose the base of the wound, the true depth, and therefore Category/ Stage, cannot be determined. Stable (dry, adherent, intact without erythema or fluctuance) eschar on the heels serves as 'the body's natural (biological) cover' and should not be removed. Suspected Deep Tissue Injury: Depth Unknown Purple or maroon localized area of discolored intact skin or blood-filled blister due to damage of underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear. The area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. Deep tissue injury may be difficult to detect in individuals with dark skin tones. Evolution may include a thin blister over a dark wound bed. The wound may further evolve and become covered by thin eschar. Evolution may be rapid, exposing additional layers of tissue even with optimal treatment. II. Facility policy and procedure The Pressure Injury policy and procedure, dated 2/29/24, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Conduct a thorough skin assessment. The facility will complete this assessment upon admission and weekly thereafter unless otherwise indicated. It is important that each existing pressure injury be identified, whether present on admission or developed after admission, and that factors that influenced its development, potential for development of additional pressure injuries, or for the deterioration of the pressure injuries be recognized, assessed or addressed. A comprehensive assessment of a pressure injury will be performed by the wound nurse or designee to include the following: differentiate the type of injury (pressure versus non pressure related), determine the stage of the pressure injury, measure the pressure ulcer (length by width by depth), description of exudate, description of wound, description of surrounding skin, presence of tunneling/sinus tract formation, determine if infection is present, monitor the progress toward healing and for potential complication, assess, treat, and monitor pain and monitor the efficacy of dressings and treatments. III. Resident #184 A. Resident status Resident #184, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included right lower extremity cellulitis with skin transplant on open wound right lower leg, malnutrition and unstageable ulcer of sacral region. According to the 1/29/25 nursing admission assessment, Resident #184 was alert and oriented to person, time, place and situation. He was independent with eating, required assistance with bed mobility, personal hygiene and transfers and was dependent with toileting. B. Resident interview and observation Resident #184 was interviewed on 2/3/25 at 10:06 a.m. Resident #184 said he had a pressure wound on his tail bone and that was why he had an air mattress. During the interview, Resident #184 was observed to be on an air mattress with heel boots in place. C. Wound care observations On 2/6/25 at 10:00 a.m. the wound care physician (WCP) removed a bordered gauze dressing covering Resident #184's sacral wound. The sacral wound bed (the surface area of a wound, encompassing the tissue within the wound itself) appeared dark red in color. There was no slough (dead yellow or white tissue present on the wound bed) or eschar (necrotic or dead tissue covering a wound bed, typically dry, black and firm) noted in the wound bed. According to the WCP, measurements of the coccyx wound were 2.2 centimeters (cm) by 2.1 cm by 0.7 cm, with undermining (when the edges of the wound separate from the surrounding healthy tissue, creating a cavity or pocket beneath the skin) present from the 9:00 position to the 2:00 position and a maximum measurement for undermining of 1.5 cm at the 12:00 position. D. Record review The skin integrity care plan, initiated 2/4/25, indicated Resident #184 had a coccyx pressure injury. Interventions included administering treatments and monitoring effectiveness, assessing and monitoring wound healing weekly, assisting the resident to shift weight and pressure relieving devices in wheelchair, encouraging repositioning throughout shifts and assisting as needed, utilizing pressure relieving devices, enhanced barrier precautions, floating heels, assessing and monitoring by the wound care physician and using a pressure relieving mattress. -However, the comprehensive skin care plan was not initiated until 2/4/25, seven days after Resident #184 was admitted to the facility with a pressure wound to his coccyx (tail bone). The 1/28/25 nursing progress note documented a pressure wound on Resident #184's tail bone. The nurse practitioner was notified and an air mattress was initiated. -Review of Resident #184's January 2025 CPO revealed there was no physician ordered treatment for the resident's coccyx wound. Resident #184's 1/29/25 nursing admission assessment documented the resident had a coccyx wound with an intact dressing. -However, there were no physician's orders for dressing changes of the coccyx wound (see January 2025 CPO above). The 1/31/25 nursing progress note documented a coccyx wound with an intact dressing. -However, there was no physician's order for dressing changes of the coccyx wound (see January 2025 CPO above). -A review of Resident #184's January 2025 treatment administration record (TAR) failed to reveal wound care orders for the treatment of the coccyx wound or documentation to indicate the resident had been provided with wound dressing changes to his coccyx wound. Review of Resident #184's February 2025 CPO revealed the resident had the following physician's order for wound care: Cleanse the coccyx with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply skin prep, calcium alginate and a bordered gauze dressing. Change dressing every other day and as necessary, ordered 2/2/25. -The physician's order for treatment of Resident #184's coccyx pressure wound was not obtained until five days after the resident's admission to the facility. A review of Resident #184's February 2025 TAR revealed the resident's coccyx wound dressing was not documented as being changed on 2/2/25 or 2/3/25, after the physician's order was obtained on 2/2/25 (see physician's order above). The February 2025 TAR documented a dressing change for the resident's coccyx wound on 2/4/25. -Resident #184's dressing was not documented as being changed until seven days after the resident was admitted to the facility. E. Staff interviews The WCP was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 10:20 a.m. The WCP said the facility would notify him what wounds he needed to see for residents. He said he had seen Resident #184 for the first time the week prior for care of his right lower leg wounds. He said early and accurate identification of pressure wounds was important to be able to place interventions timely, which included dressing changes, pressure relieving devices and frequent repositioning to help prevent deterioration. He said the unstageable coccyx wound was now open which was good because now it could heal. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:45 p.m. RN #1 said a head to toe skin assessment was completed on all residents and was documented on the admission nursing assessment. She said any wounds identified were reported to the director of nursing (DON) so that the resident could be referred to the WCP. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:55 p.m. CNA #1 said Resident #184 had a wound and should be offered frequent repositioning. He said if he identified a new wound while providing resident care or a resident's wound looked worse or smelled, he would notify the nurse taking care of the resident. The DON was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 4:54 p.m. The DON said when residents were admitted to the facility, she and the minimum data set (MDS) coordinator would review the admission referral and identify which residents had existing pressure wounds upon admission. She said she would take a picture of the residents' wounds and send it to the WCP to get guidance on how to proceed with treatment of the wound. The DON said Resident #184 had been admitted to the facility with a coccyx wound. She said she reviewed the hospital's referral for the resident, during the survey, and the wound note documentation said the resident's wound was an unstageable pressure wound. She said Resident #184 was placed on an air mattress after admission as a preventative measure for his coccyx wound. She said it was important that treatment interventions, such as dressing changes be completed timely to help prevent further deterioration of the wound. She said further education was required for staff to make sure that interventions were care planned and dressing changes were initiated timely. IV. Resident #75 A. Resident status Resident #75, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the January 2025 CPO, diagnoses included displaced fracture of the left hip, difficulty swallowing, generalized muscle weakness, history of falling and limitation of activities due to disability. The 1/9/25 MDS assessment revealed the resident had mild cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 11 out of 15. He required setup assistance with eating and oral/personal hygiene. He required moderate assistance with bed mobility and transfers. He was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and dressing. He was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. It documented Resident #75 was admitted with two Stage 2 pressure injuries. It documented interventions in place: a pressure-reducing device for a chair, pressure-reducing device for his bed, pressure injury care, and application of dressings to Resident #75's feet. -However, Resident #75 was not observed utilizing a pressure-relieving mattress upon observation (see below). The assessment indicated he did not have behaviors. B. Resident interview Resident #75 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 8:58 a.m. Resident #75 said he had pain in both of his heels and floating his heels on a pillow helped alleviate some of the pain. He said his coccyx hurt as well, however, it was painful for him to lay on his left and right sides. He said he had difficulty repositioning himself onto his sides from his back and said staff did not often reposition him. He said he had not been feeling well the past few days and wanted to stay in bed. C. Observations On 2/3/25 at 11:55 a.m. Resident #75 was lying on his back in bed. He had a wrapped dressing on his left heel and his right heel was open to air. His left heel was floated (offloaded) on a pillow, however, his right heel was not on the pillow and was resting directly on the bed. There was no alternative pressure mattress on his bed. On 2/4/25 at 10:47 a.m. Resident #75 was sleeping in his bed. He was lying on his back and both heels were floated on a pillow. However, the bottoms of both of his feet were touching the footboard. On 2/4/25 at 3:23 p.m. Resident #75 received incontinence care from CNA #2. Resident #75 required maximum assistance from CNA #2 to reposition from his back to his left and right sides. He was visibly incontinent of stool and urine, and there was stool visible on his gown and bed sheets. His coccyx and groin were red with approximately four to eight dark spots towards the edge of the redness. There was no dressing on Resident #75's coccyx and his skin was slightly covered with a previously applied barrier cream. He had a wrapped dressing on his left heel, which was dated 2/4/25. His right heel was red and was open to air with a non-skid sock covering the rest of his foot. After completing incontinence care, Resident #75 was repositioned onto his left side by CNA #2 and his heels were floated on a pillow. A pillow was not placed in between his knees to help offload pressure. On 2/5/25 at 1:22 p.m. Resident #75 was lying on his back in bed asleep. His heels were floated on a pillow, however, the bottoms of his feet were touching the footboard. There was not an alternative pressure mattress on the resident's bed. On 2/5/25 at 4:48 p.m. Resident #75 received incontinence care from CNA #1. Resident #75 required maximum assistance from CNA #1 to reposition from his back onto his left and right sides. There was no dressing on the resident's coccyx, and it was red with approximately four to eight dark spots towards the edge of the redness. Resident #75's coccyx was slightly covered with a previously applied barrier cream. He was incontinent of urine. He had a gauze-wrapped dressing to his left heel, dated 2/4/25. His right heel was red and open to air. On 2/6/25 at 11:40 a.m. Resident #75 was seen for a visit by the facility's WCP. The DON was present to assist during the visit. The DON told the WCP that Resident #75 was being seen as a follow-up for an existing pressure injury on his left heel, however, she did not mention the resident's right heel or coccyx. Upon repositioning Resident #75 to his left side for wound care, the WCP and the DON observed the redness to the resident's coccyx, which was not covered with a dressing, and the resident's right heel. The WCP said Resident #75 had a re-opened deep tissue injury (DTI) over scar tissue on his right heel. The WCP applied wound cleanser to Resident #75's right heel and patted it dry with sterile gauze. The WCP measured and assessed the wound. The WCP instructed the DON to apply betadine to Resident #75's right heel, which she did. The DON then applied skin prep to Resident #75's heel. The WCP applied a dated bordered gauze dressing to Resident #75's right heel. The DON removed the old dressing on Resident #75's left heel. His heel was red with an open dark wound in the center. The WCP said there was alginate (old dressing) stuck on Resident #75's skin. The WCP instructed the DON to soak Resident #75's heel with normal saline and attempt to mechanically debride the wound to get it off. The DON was successful in removing the old dressing after approximately two to three minutes of mechanically debriding the wound using normal saline and sterile gauze. The WCP measured and assessed the wound. He instructed the DON to apply honey gel and a bordered gauze applied to Resident #75's wound. The WCP applied wound cleanser to Resident #75's coccyx and patted it dry with a sterile gauze. He assessed and measured the wound. He instructed the DON to apply honey gel to the wound, which she did. The WCP covered the wound with a dated bordered gauze. D. Record review A review of Resident #75's February 2025 CPO revealed the following physician's orders for pressure injuries/wound management: Float heels when in bed every shift, ordered 1/9/25. Wound care to left heel: cleanse the site with wound cleanser and pat dry. Apply skin prep (skin protectant) and then silver alginate (antibacterial wound dressing). Cover with an abdominal (ABD) pad and kerlix (rolled gauze dressing). Change every other day and as needed, ordered 2/1/25. Apply nystatin and zinc cream on open area on coccyx and cover with mepilex every evening shift for coccyx wound, ordered 1/2/25. -However, observations on 2/4/25, 2/5/25 and 2/6/25 revealed Resident #75 did not have a mepilex dressing covering his coccyx wound (see observations above). Apply skin prep to right heel and leave open to air every shift, ordered 2/3/25. Alternating pressure mattress to bed, set at medium/alternating firmness. Check the mattress every shift for proper setting and function, ordered 2/4/25. -The physician's order for an alternating pressure mattress was not obtained until 2/4/25, one month after Resident #75 was admitted to the facility with pressure wounds on his coccyx and both heels. Review of the activities of daily living (ADL) care plan, initiated 1/2/25 and revised 1/22/25, revealed Resident #75 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to a left hip fracture. Pertinent interventions included assisting the resident with toileting/mobility/transfers, inspecting the resident's skin for redness, open areas, scratches, cuts, or bruises, and reporting changes to the nurse. Review of the skin care plan, initiated 2/3/25 (during the survey), revealed Resident #75 was receiving treatment for a stage two pressure injury to his right heel, a stage three pressure injury to his left heel and a dehisced (separation of the edges of a previously closed wound) abdominal wound. Pertinent interventions included administering treatments as ordered and monitoring for effectiveness, an alternating pressure mattress to bed set to medium/alternating firmness, encouraging Resident #75 to reposition himself throughout the shift and assisting as needed, floating heels while in bed, using barrier cream after incontinent episodes, as indicated and weekly nursing skin checks. -However, the skin care plan was not initiated until one month after Resident #75 was admitted to the facility (1/2/25) with wounds. -Additionally, the care plan failed to include the wound to Resident #75's coccyx (see observations above). A general record note, dated 1/2/25 at 12:43 p.m., documented Resident #75 was admitted to the facility at 12:25 p.m. The note documented Resident #75 had open wounds to both of his heels and an open area and redness on his coccyx. A weekly nursing documentation assessment, dated 1/21/25 at 9:40 p.m., documented Resident #75 utilized a wheelchair cushion. The note documented he had a rash/redness to his coccyx that was being treated and a right heel wound that was healing well with betadine. The note documented a left heel wound that was noted upon admission and was being treated. It documented Resident #75 had existing bruises and rashes on his skin. A WCP visit note, dated 1/23/25, documented Resident #75 was evaluated for pressure injuries to both the right and left heels, a neuropathic (nerve damage) wound on his left heel and a dehisced abdominal wound. The note documented Resident #75's left heel wound was worsening and should be listed as unavoidable. His right heel was not healed, however, it was improving. The note documented a debridement (tissue removal) procedure on Resident #75's left heel wound was performed. The note additionally documented orders for pressure injury interventions included turning and repositioning the resident frequently while in bed or chair, placing Resident #75 on a low air loss or alternative pressure mattress, floating his heels while in bed and checking incontinence briefs frequently. -However, observations during the survey revealed several occasions when the resident's heels were not floated or were in contact with the bed's footboard, and there was no alternative pressure mattress on the resident's bed (see observations above). -Additionally, the physician's order for an alternative pressure mattress was not obtained until 2/4/25, during the survey (see physician's orders above). A weekly nursing documentation assessment, dated 1/29/25 at 2:06 p.m., documented Resident #75's skin was intact and he had no new skin concerns. The note documented Resident #75 was not using any specialized equipment, such as a specialty bed or wheelchair cushion. -However, the WCP visit note on 1/23/25 documented the presence of several wounds on the resident's skin. A weekly wound note, dated 1/30/25 at 8:26 a.m., documented Resident #75's left heel pressure injury had a date of onset 1/2/25, was a stage three wound and was worsening. The note documented the wound was being treated with silver alginate. A nurse progress note, dated 2/3/25 at 11:33 p.m., documented Resident #75 was noncompliant with care. The note documented the resident would have a bowel movement and sit in it, refusing to allow staff to assist in cleaning him up. The note documented the nurse explained to Resident #75 that his care refusals could lead to skin breakdown, however, Resident #75 stated he did not care. E. Staff interviews The WCP and the DON were interviewed together on 2/6/25 at 12:12 p.m. The WCP and the DON said they were not aware of the wounds on Resident #75's right heel and coccyx. The DON said Resident #75 had a previous wound on his right heel, however, it had improved and was resolved on 1/30/25. She said she was not aware the wound had reopened. The WCP said Resident #75's left heel wound was stage four pressure injury, his right heel wound was a deep tissue injury over scar tissue and the coccyx wound was a stage two pressure injury. The WCP and the DON said Resident #75 was not currently using an alternative pressure mattress and the resident needed one to assist with wound healing. CNA #3 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:40 p.m. CNA #3 said Resident #75 was total care and dependent on staff for assistance with ADLs. She said the resident was incontinent. CNA #3 said dependent residents should be repositioned every two hours. She said skin protectant creams were supposed to be used every time peri-care was completed and any new skin issues should be reported to the nurse. CNA #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:07 p.m. CNA #1 said Resident #75 was dependent on staff for incontinence care, showering and repositioning. She said residents should be repositioned every two hours, however, some residents may have different care plans. She said newly identified skin issues should be reported to the nurse. She said she had previously seen wound dressings on Resident #75's coccyx, however, she said he no longer needed them because his wound had improved. CNA #1 said barrier cream was applied after incontinent episodes to prevent skin breakdown. She said the resident's nurse should be notified if a dressing came off or became dislodged. RN #3 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:16 p.m. RN #3 said dependent residents should be repositioned every two hours to prevent skin breakdown. She said Resident #75 was admitted to the facility with a stage two pressure wound on his coccyx, a widespread rash and stage two pressure wounds on both heels. She said there was an order to put zinc cream onto his coccyx for wound prevention, however, she said there was not an order to apply Mepilex to Resident #75's coccyx. After RN #3 reviewed Resident #75's February 2025 CPO for his coccyx wound orders, she said there was an order for Mepilex dressings, however, she said she had not been applying them because they would not adhere to Resident #75's skin due to the topical zinc cream applied to the wound. She said she would coat on a lot of zinc to treat the wound and told the CNAs to use a lot of barrier cream with incontinence care. The DON was interviewed a second time on 2/6/25 at 4:03 p.m. The DON said residents at high risk for skin breakdown and who were dependent on staff for ADL care should be repositioned at least every two hours. She said if a change in condition was noted, it should be reported to the resident's nurse or the DON. She said when Resident #75 was admitted , he had redness on his coccyx, however, she said it resolved with the use of barrier cream. The DON said she was not informed Resident #75 had new redness and an open wound on his coccyx. She said she asked RN #3 about his wound and RN #3 told her Resident #75's coccyx appeared red and shiny on 2/5/25, however, no open wounds were observed. The DON said RN #3 was not following physician's orders by not applying a Mepilex dressing to Resident #75's coccyx wound. She said she would follow up with RN #3. She said Resident #75's bed mattress was being switched to an alternative pressure mattress (on 2/6/25).
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 residents with indwelling catheters received ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with indwelling catheters received the appropriate care and services according to professional standards for one (#52) of four residents reviewed for catheters of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Obtain physician's orders for the use of Resident #52's catheter; -Create a care plan addressing Resident #52's use of the catheter; and, -Maintain documentation for Resident #52's catheter care and maintenance. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Urinary Catheter Care policy and procedure, revised August 2022, was received from the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, including urinary tract infections. The nursing and interdisciplinary team should assess and document the ongoing need for a catheter that is in place. The following documentation should be recorded in the resident's medical record: the date and time that catheter care was given, the name and title of the individual giving catheter care, and all assessment data obtained when giving catheter care. II. Resident #52 A. Resident status Resident #52, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included demyelinating disease of the central nervous system (a disorder that damages the myelin sheath-the protective covering around nerve fibers in the central nervous system), obstructive and reflux uropathy (a condition that affects the urinary tract, leading to an obstruction or blockage in the flow of urine), neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder and a personal history of urinary tract infections (UTIs). The 1/7/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. She was dependent on staff for most activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS assessment indicated she had an indwelling urinary catheter. B. Observations and resident interview Resident #52 was interviewed on 2/4/25 at 9:03 a.m. Resident #52 said she had a urinary catheter to keep the urine away from her kidneys. Resident #52 said she had not had any issues with her catheter and had used the catheter for the last two to three months. Resident #52 said she had just recovered from a UTI. Resident #52 said the facility staff did not say how she had gotten the UTI but they gave her antibiotics for it. Resident #52 was lying in bed with the catheter bag clipped to the foot of her bed. On 2/6/25 at 8:30 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was providing catheter care for Resident #52. LPN #1 filled a basin with warm water, washed her hands, pulled the privacy curtain and put on gloves. LPN #1 did not don (put on) a gown. LPN #1 removed Resident #52's incontinence brief. LPN #1 used a warm wet washcloth and wiped down the front of Resident #52's perineum from front to back and then wiped down her catheter with the same cloth. LPN #1 disposed of the washcloth. LPN #1 obtained a new washcloth and wiped the catheter towards the catheter bag then wiped back up the catheter tubing towards Resident #52's perineum. LPN #1 used the same cloth to wipe Resident #52's perineum and disposed of the washcloth. -LPN #1 did not don the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to care for Resident #52's indwelling catheter Cross-reference F880: failure to follow infection control practices. C. Record review A review of the February 2025 CPO revealed the following order: Indwelling catheter., monitor for placement and function every shift, change the catheter for complications and prior to obtaining a urine sample as needed, provide catheter care and ensure a privacy bag was in place every shift, ensure the catheter was unobstructed, secured, and draining properly every shift. Change the catheter tubing and bag as needed. Replace graduated cylinder or urinal used for draining catheter bag every Friday night, ordered 2/6/25 at 9:26 a.m. (during the survey process). -Review of the comprehensive care plan did not reveal any focus or interventions related to the use of the indwelling urinary catheter. A hospital note, dated 10/13/24 at 2:43 p.m., revealed Resident #52 had a foley (indwelling urinary) catheter which the resident would keep after her discharge back to the facility. A progress note, dated 10/14/24 at 10:57 p.m., revealed Resident #52 returned to the facility from the hospital at 6:45 p.m. that evening. Resident #52 had an indwelling catheter which was draining clear yellow urine. A progress note, dated 10/15/24 at 5:53 a.m., revealed Resident #52 had a foley catheter in place and a urine output of 450 cubic centimeters (cc) of urine. A progress note, dated 10/15/24 at 9:16 p.m., revealed Resident #52 had a foley catheter in place and a urine output of 1000 milliliters (ml). A weekly nursing note, dated 11/6/24 at 12:46 p.m., revealed Resident #52 used a foley catheter. A weekly nursing note, dated 12/23/24 at 9:40 p.m., revealed resident #52 used a foley catheter. Resident #52's urine was clear and yellow, and no odor was noted at that time. A weekly nursing note, dated 1/6/25 at 9:19 p.m., revealed Resident #52 used a foley catheter. Resident #52's urine was free of odor and yellow in color. A provider note, dated 1/17/25 at 1:43 p.m., revealed Resident #52 was seen by her provider after recent bloodwork revealed elevated white blood cell counts. Resident #52 denied having a fever but reported having burning urination, an intermittent cough and congestion. A urinalysis and culture were ordered. A provider note, dated 1/29/25 at 12:00 a.m., revealed Resident #52 was on antibiotics for five days for a UTI. Resident #52 said she was having urinary pain a few days prior which had resolved since starting the antibiotics. Resident #52 had a foley catheter in place which was draining clear yellow urine. A weekly nursing note, dated 1/31/25 at 8:10 p.m., revealed Resident #52 used a foley catheter. Review of the bladder elimination task for Resident #52 from 1/7/25 to 2/5/25 revealed the following: -Continence was not rated due to indwelling catheter was marked 37 times; -Incontinent was marked 17 times; and, -Continent was marked 10 times. D. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 2:21 p.m. CNA #5 said the CNAs emptied the catheter bags, gave the nurses the quantity of urine and the nurses charted the information. CNA #5 said the CNAs emptied the catheter bags every shift. Registered nurse (RN) #5 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 3:39 p.m. RN #5 said catheter care was performed every day. RN #5 said the nurses or the CNAs could provide catheter care. RN #1 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 4:31 p.m. RN #1 said the CNAs provided catheter care but the nurses could also do so if the CNAs were busy. RN #1 said the nursing staff provided Resident #52 catheter care whenever they changed her incontinence brief. RN #3 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 4:55 p.m. RN #3 said catheter care was mostly done by the CNAs. RN #3 said the CNAs documented this in their catheter care task sheet. CNA #1 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 5:07 p.m. CNA #1 said catheter care was documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) in the associated tasks. CNA #1 said catheter care should be performed and documented every shift. The CC was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 5:12 p.m. The CC said catheter care should be in the resident's orders, medication administration record (MAR) and the care plan. LPN #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 8:40 a.m. LPN #1 said she washed her hands and put on gloves before performing catheter care. LPN #1 said she normally put on a gown as well. LPN #1 said when providing catheter care she should wipe from front to back and use a separate washcloth when moving from the perineum to the catheter. LPN #1 said when cleaning the catheter she should start at the perineum and wipe away (down the line toward the catheter bag). The DON was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:47 p.m. The DON said when providing catheter care, the nursing staff should wipe from the urethra down to the catheter bag and work from clean surfaces to dirty surfaces. The DON said the nursing staff needed to don a gown and gloves when providing catheter care. The DON said catheter care needed to be done every day and as needed, especially for Resident #52. The DON said the CNAs should empty the catheter bag but not clean it. The DON said the CNAs needed to wear a gown and gloves when emptying the catheter bag. The DON said the physician's order for catheter care was added on 2/6/25 and said it should have been added before then. The DON said there was not a catheter care plan in Resident #52's comprehensive care plan. The DON said the admission nurse missed the order for catheter care and the mistake just carried on. The DON said she had been pairing up with a staff member in the record-keeping department to try to do audits of residents' medical records.
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 and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care for residents was provided timely and in a manner that ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure care for residents was provided timely and in a manner that maintained or enhanced the residents' dignity for three (#15, #69 and #64) of six residents reviewed for dignity out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility staff failed to treat Resident #15, Resident #69 and Resident #64 in a dignified manner. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Quality of Life - Dignity policy and procedure, revised February 2020, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, feeling of self-worth and self-esteem. Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times. Staff speak respectfully to residents at all times, including addressing the resident by his or her name of choice. Staff are expected to treat cognitively impaired residents with dignity and sensitivity. II. Resident #15 A. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included encephalopathy (a condition that affects the brain's function), schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. The 1/6/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) assessment score of nine out of 15. The resident required supervision to partial/moderate assistance for all activities of daily living (ADLs). B. Observations During a continuous observation of housekeeper (HK) #1 on 2/5/25, beginning at 9:28 a.m. and ending at 10:11 a.m., the following was observed: At 9:28 a.m. HK #1 was standing in the open doorway of Resident #15's room preparing to clean the room. Resident #15 was lying in his bed in the room. HK #1 said the room was very stinky. -HK #1's comment was loud enough for it to be heard in the facility hallway. At 9:56 a.m. Resident #15 remained in his bed in his room. HK #1 said hold your nose before opening the door to Resident #15's bathroom. HK #1 said the bathroom was always bad but was especially bad today (2/5/25). HK #1 said the material on the bathroom floor was feces and Resident #15 had a problem with pooping and wiping himself. -HK #1's comment was said in a normal volume that could be heard by anyone in the room or in the hallway outside of Resident #15's room. C. Staff interviews The social services director (SSD) and the social services consultant (SSC) were interviewed together on 2/5/25 at 2:55 p.m. The SSD said HK #1 calling Resident #15's room stinky was a dignity issue. The SSD and the SSC said HK #1's comment would make them both feel awful if it was said about them. The SSD said it was already an uncomfortable situation to need someone to clean up after you. The SSD said the incident with HK #1 was an issue of failing to provide dignity and respect for to Resident #15. The environmental services director (ESD) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 12:08 p.m. The ESD said housekeepers saying residents' rooms were stinky was not a normal practice. The ESD said the incident with HK #1 calling Resident #15's room stinky was a dignity issue. The nursing home administrator (NHA) and the CC were interviewed together on 2/6/25 at 6:53 p.m. The NHA and the CC both said calling Resident #15's room stinky was a dignity issue. The NHA said hearing a comment like that would not make him feel great and would make him feel undignified. III. Resident #69 A. Resident status Resident #69, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included dementia and depression. The 1/9/25 MDS assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of zero out of 15. The resident was dependent on staff for most ADLs. B. Observation On 2/3/25 at 11:45 a.m. registered nurse (RN) #7 was following Resident #69 to a chair at a table in the dining room. Resident #69 walked past the chair RN #7 intended for her to sit in and RN #7 grabbed Resident #69 by the waistband of her pants to prevent Resident #69 from continuing to walk forward. RN #7 assisted Resident #69 into the chair at the dining table using the waistband of the resident's pants to guide her. C. Staff interviews Restorative nurse aide (RNA) #1 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 1:59 p.m. RNA #1 said if a resident was walking past the chair she was trying to have them sit in, she would ask them to sit down. RNA #1 said she would never grab onto a resident's clothes to stop them. RNA #1 said if she did not have eye contact with the residents, it could be difficult to get them to understand what she wanted them to do. RNA #1 said the nursing staff had to make eye contact, face the resident and walk with them wherever they were supposed to go. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 2:21 p.m. CNA #5 said if a resident was walking past a chair she wanted them to sit in, she would make sure she talked to them so the resident knew what she was doing. CNA #5 said she would never grab a resident by their clothes and tell them to sit somewhere. CNA #5 said it was not appropriate to grab a resident by their clothes. CNA #5 said if she grabbed a resident by their clothes, they could get mad. The SSD and the SSC were interviewed together on 2/5/25 at 2:55 p.m. The SSD said when nursing staff were trying to get a resident to sit down, they should be patient and give the resident a reason for why they were redirecting them. The SSD said the nursing staff should talk to the residents and make them feel comfortable. The SSC said she would not want someone to grab onto her clothes. The SSC said the nursing staff were not trained to grab residents' clothes, but to use a gait belt and to guide the residents wherever they needed to go. The NHA was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:53 p.m. The NHA said the nursing staff should guide residents verbally and show them the chair if the staff member needed them to sit somewhere. The NHA said it would not be okay for a nurse to grab a resident by the waistband of the pants. The NHA said he would not appreciate it if someone grabbed him by the waistband of his pants to get him to sit down.IV. Resident #64 A. Resident status Resident #64, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, metabolic encephalopathy and degenerative disease of the nervous system. The 1/17/25 MDS assessment revealed Resident #64 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of nine out of 15. The resident was independent with the majority of his ADLs, but he required supervision or touching assistance for showering and personal hygiene. B. Observations On 2/3/25 at 9:55 a.m. Resident #64 was walking towards his room wearing a windbreaker type jacket with stains and food spills down the front of it and a heavier leather jacket with a large tear on the left sleeve. He was wearing two pairs of pants. His outer pants were falling down and were stained on the front and backside. On 2/4/25 at 10:24 a.m. Resident #64 was wearing the same stained pants, shirt and jackets as the day before (see 2/3/25 observation above). On 2/5/25 at 10:29 a.m. Resident #64 was wearing the same clothes as the previous two days, however, the resident's pants were inside-out. On 2/5/25 at 10:45 a.m. Resident #64 was walking down the hall and his pants fell completely to the floor. The resident pulled his pants back up and tried to walk with his four-wheel walker while holding his pants up. On 2/5/25 at 11:09 a.m. the NHA told Resident #64 that he would help him with his pants and belt, after seeing him struggling with his pants falling all the way to the floor and trying to tighten his belt. On 2/5/25 at 11:12 a.m. Resident #64 and the NHA were observed leaving Resident #64's room. The resident's belt appeared to be re-looped, however, his pants were still on inside-out. On 2/5/25 at 11:29 a.m. the director of medical records (DMR) was offered Resident #64 a clean pair of pants. On 2/5/25 at 11:39 a.m. the DMR, who was a CNA, was observed with new clothing for Resident #64. She assisted Resident #64 to the shower room and was heard telling him that they were going to use the shower room because maintenance was in his room fixing something. On 2/5/25 at 11:53 a.m. Resident #64 and the DMR came out of the shower room. Resident #64 was wearing a completely new outfit, including a new sweatshirt that zipped up the front. The DMR bagged up the resident's dirty clothes and put them in the soiled linen container. She then assisted the resident to the dining room for lunch. C. Record review The behavior care plan, revised 7/12/24, revealed Resident #64 perseverated on thinking that people would go into his room and mess with his things with no indication that anyone had been in his room. At times, he had delusions that people were rude to him when they had not been around him. Interventions included, if appropriate, explaining why his behaviors were inappropriate, redirecting him from the situation, removing him from the situation and thoroughly investigating any claims of anyone going into his room. D. Staff interviews CNA #9 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:00 p.m. CNA #9 said staff had to be very careful with Resident #64 because they did not want to violate his rights. He said Resident #64 could be very particular about who went into his room and he was resistant to allowing help. CNA #9 said when he saw the resident wearing soiled clothes, he talked to him and asked him to change his clothes, but he could be very resistant to changing his clothes. CNA #9 said it was a dignity issue when Resident #64 was walking around in dirty clothing and his pants were falling down. He said if it were him, he would feel embarrassed. The DMR was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:36 p.m.The DMR said Resident #64 was normally very resistant to care, but she had gone to a dementia training in October 2024 and was able to use those resources from the training to get him to change his clothes. She said she had noticed that his clothes were too small and she was able to get him some clothes that fit better from the facility's donated clothes. The DMR was interviewed again on 2/6/25 at 3:27 p.m.The DMR said she got her dementia training from a different facility where she worked as a CNA. She said she told the NHA and the interdisciplinary team (IDT) about how she was able to get Resident #64 to change his clothes. She said she spoke to social services about getting him some clothes that fit him and a new jacket that was not torn. The NHA was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:12 p.m. The NHA said Resident #64's willingness to change his clothes was inconsistent. He said Resident #64 could be very reactive to who was working with him and the staff had to be very careful with him. He said Resident #64 was previously homeless and had a tendency to hoard things so the facility had to find the right person to assist him with certain things. He said that the facility would care plan the DMR's approach to working with Resident #64 and educate the staff that worked with him about the effective approach.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

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 residents unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received necessary services for three (#80, #1 and #53) of 10 residents reviewed for ADLs out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Provide appropriate repositioning for eating and eating supervision for Resident #80; -Provide timely eating assistance for Resident #1; and, -Provide timely repositioning, bathing and oral care for Resident #53. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Activities of Daily Living, Supporting policy, revised March 2018, was received from the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Residents will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out ADLs. Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLs independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care, including appropriate support and assistance with: -hygiene (bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care); -mobility (transfer and ambulation, including walking); -elimination (toileting); -dining (meals and snacks); and, -communication (speech, language, and any functional communication systems). If residents with cognitive impairment or dementia resist care, staff will attempt to identify the underlying cause of the problem and not just assume the resident is refusing or declining care. Approaching the resident in a different way, at a different time, or having another staff member speak with the resident may be appropriate. Interventions to improve or minimize a resident's functional abilities will be in accordance with the resident's assessed needs, preferences, stated goals and recognized standards of practice.X. II. Resident #80 A. Resident status Resident #80, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included cerebral infarction (stroke), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and gastrostomy. The 1/16/25 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. She was dependent with toileting and transfers, required substantial/maximal assistance with personal hygiene, bed mobility and supervision with eating. B. Observations and resident interview Resident #80 was interviewed in the presence of two family members on 2/3/25 at 10:14 a.m. Resident #80 said she had been given her medications crushed in yogurt. She said when the nurse left, she started choking on the medications and vomited. Resident #80's family members verified the choking/vomiting incident had occurred. During the interview, there was a sign observed above Resident #80's bed for meals and food to be in small bites and no straws in drinks. On 2/4/25 at 9:05 a.m. Resident #80 was lying in bed with her breakfast tray sitting on her overbed table. The head of the resident's bed was not positioned in an upright position and she was not attempting to feed herself. There were no staff members in the room offering or assisting the resident with her meal. During a continuous observation on 2/5/25, beginning at 8:45 a.m. and ending at 10:00 a.m., the following was observed: At 8:45 a.m. Resident #80 was lying in bed and the head of her bed was not positioned in an upright position. The resident's breakfast tray was on her overbed table with the lid removed. Resident #80 was not attempting to feed herself. There were no staff members in the room offering or providing cueing or eating assistance to the resident. At 10:00 a.m. an unidentified staff member entered the resident's room and removed her breakfast meal tray. The unidentified staff member did not offer or provide cueing or eating assistance to Resident #80 prior to removing the meal tray from the resident's room. During a continuous observation on 2/5/25, beginning at 12:45 p.m. and ending at 1:50 p.m., the following was observed: At 12:45 p.m. an unidentified staff member delivered a lunch meal tray to Resident #80 and left the room. Resident #80 was lying on her back and the head of her bed was not positioned in an upright position. The resident's lunch meal tray was not set up for her prior to the unidentified staff member leaving the resident's room. There were no other staff members who entered the resident's room to offer or provide cueing or eating assistance to the resident. At 1:50 p.m. registered nurse (RN) #1 entered Resident #80's room and asked the resident if she was done with her lunch meal tray before exiting the room RN #1 did not offer or provide cueing or eating assistance to the resident prior to leaving the room. At 2:45 p.m. Resident #80 was calling out and RN #1 entered the room a second time to check on the resident. RN #1 proceeded to remove the resident's lunch meal tray from the resident's room without offering or providing cueing or eating assistance to the resident. C. Record review The nutrition care plan, initiated 1/22/25, documented Resident #80 was at risk for nutritional problems related to diabetes mellitus, cerebral edema, hypertension and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Interventions included monitoring the resident's weights, monitoring/documenting/reporting signs of dysphagia (pocketing, choking, coughing, drooling, holding food in mouth, multiple attempts at swallowing, refusing to eat), providing diet as ordered, monitoring intake, reporting signs of malnutrition and the registered dietitian (RD) was to evaluate. -The care plan failed to reveal Resident #80 required supervision or assistance with eating and had swallowing precautions due to her dysphagia diagnosis. A comprehensive review of Resident #80's meal assistance documentation from 1/9/25 to 2/4/25 revealed inconsistent eating assistance was provided for the resident. The meal assistance documentation revealed the resident was documented as independent with eating 22 times, required set up 25 times, required partial/moderate assistance three times and required substantial/maximal assistance one time. D. Staff interviews RN #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:55 a.m. RN #1 said Resident #80 could feed herself and did not require assistance with eating. She said staff needed to watch her while she ate and staff would periodically go into her room and check on her. The DON was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:26 p.m. The DON said Resident #80 had been at the facility for less than a month. She said Resident #80 had a traumatic brain injury and a craniotomy while at the hospital. She said Resident #80 had a speech evaluation for swallowing at the facility and had passed. She said the resident required a mechanically soft diet and could take her medications in pudding. She said anyone on a therapeutic diet had a potential for aspiration or choking and should have their head positioned in an upright position during meals. The DON said she did not know the level of assistance Resident #80 required for eating. She said residents that required supervision should have staff supervision during meals. She said therapeutic diets, diet restrictions and precautions should be care planned and communicated to nursing staff. III. Resident #1 A. Resident status Resident #1, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included anoxic brain damage, memory deficit following cerebral infarction, vascular dementia, contracture to right and left elbows and contracture to right and left hands. The 12/30/24 MDS assessment revealed Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIM) score of three out of 15. The resident was dependent on staff for all of her ADLs. B. Observations During a continuous observation on 2/3/25, beginning at 12:40 p.m. and ending at 1:09 p.m., the following was observed: At 12:40 p.m. Resident #1's room tray was delivered. The tray was placed on her bedside table and was not within her reach. At 1:09 p.m. (29 minutes after the resident's meal tray was delivered) an unidentified certified nurse aide (CNA) went into Resident #1's room to assist her. The CNA asked the resident if she was hungry and she said, Yes, very hungry! During a continuous observation on 2/4/25, beginning at 8:49 a.m. and ending at 9:03 a.m., the following was observed: At 8:49 a.m. Resident #1 was in her bed with her room tray sitting on her bedside table. The oatmeal was not covered and Resident #1 was making whimpering noises and calling out, por favor, por favor. At 9:03 a.m. (14 minutes after the meal tray was observed sitting on the resident's bedside table) CNA #9 entered Resident #1's room to assist her with her meal. Resident #1 was heard saying, Por favor, I'm hungry. During a continuous observation on 2/4/25, beginning at 5:04 p.m. and ending at 5:31 p.m., the following was observed: At 5:04 p.m. Resident #1's room tray was delivered The tray was not placed within her reach. At 5:31 p.m. (27 minutes after the resident's meal tray was delivered) an unidentified CNA went into Resident #1's room to assist her with her meal. During a continuous observation on 2/5/25, beginning at 12:19 p.m. and ending at 1:31 p.m., the following was observed: At 12:19 p.m. Resident #1's room tray was sitting on her bedside table. The tray was not within her reach. At 1:31 p.m. (one hour and 12 minutes after the resident's meal tray was observed sitting on the bedside table) unidentified CNA went in to assist Resident #1 with her meal. During a continuous observation on 2/6/25, beginning at 12:28 p.m. and ending at 1:09 p.m., the following was observed: At 12:28 p.m. Resident #1's meal tray was delivered. The tray was not placed within her reach. At 1:09 p.m. (37 minutes after the meal tray was delivered) an unidentified nursing student went in to assist Resident #1 with her meal. C. Record review The nutrition care plan, revised on 1/24/25, revealed that Resident #1 had a nutritional problem due to difficulty with self-feeding which was related to physiological causes, dementia and brain damage. Interventions included assisting the resident one-on-one at meals and monitoring for signs and symptoms of dysphagia. The ADL care plan, initiated 8/16/23, revealed that Resident #1 had a self-care deficit related to her dementia and brain damage. The resident needed assistance with eating her meals. D. Staff interviews CNA #9 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:00 p.m. CNA #9 said Resident #1 could only feed herself when it was finger foods. He said when she tried to use utensils to eat her meals, she spilled all over herself. He said he did not see any difference between the resident's food being left on her bedside table or being left in the meal delivery cart until someone can assist her because the resident's food would get cold either way. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:10 p.m. The NHA said it was inappropriate to have leave Resident #1's room tray sitting out of reach in front of her until someone could assist her with eating.V. Resident #53 A. Resident status Resident #53, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included central pontine myelinolysis, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease with exacerbations, chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, dysphagia, aphasia, and quadriplegia. The resident could not communicate, was dependent on supplemental oxygen, and had a tracheostomy and a gastrostomy. The 1/23/25 MDS assessment revealed that a BIMS score assessment was not conducted. The resident had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and long term and short term memory problems, based on staff assessment. Resident #53 was dependent and required the assistance of two or more staff members for bed mobility, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and bathing. B. Observations On 2/3/25 at 11:43 a.m. Resident #53 had white residual in her mouth, around her lips and between her teeth. The resident had a body odor and her face was oily. On 2/4/25 at 2:30 p.m. Resident #53 had a strong body odor. On 2/5/25 at 9:15 a.m. Resident #53 had white residual in her mouth and between her teeth. During a continuous observation on 2/5/25, beginning at 1:00 p.m. and ending at 5:00 p.m., the following was observed: At 3:29 p.m. RN#4 entered Resident #53's room and performed aspiration (removal) of secretions from the resident's tracheostomy. While RN #4 was in the room, checked the resident's brief for incontinence and noted the resident was dry. However, RN #4 did not reposition Resident #53 while he was in the room. -The facility failed to reposition Resident #53 during the four hour continuous observation. C. Record review The 1/21/25 ADLs care plan revealed Resident #53 was totally dependent on two staff members to provide baths and showers as necessary. The care plan indicated the resident was to be turned and repositioned frequently to decrease pressure. The care plan further indicated staff was to provide the resident with mouth care as per ADL personal hygiene and apply lip balm/ointment to the resident's lips as needed. A review of Resident #53's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that the resident received only one bath per week. Resident #53 had her last two baths on 1/31/25 and 1/24/25. D. Staff interviews CNA #8 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:26 p.m. CNA #8 said he checked Resident #53 every two hours for incontinence care, repositioned her every two hours and cleaned her mouth two to three times a day, and as needed. He said all CNAs should do the same. CNA #8 said Resident #53 needed two people for assistance. RN #4 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 5:20 p.m. RN #4 said the CNAs checked Resident #53 every two hours because she could not move or communicate and staff should assist her with repositioning, toileting, mouth care and grooming. The DON was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:21 p.m. The DON said the staff should reposition Resident #53 and wash her face and mouth every few hours. The DON was unaware that Resident #53 had not received a bath in six days.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure an environment free from risk of accidents an...

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 an environment free from risk of accidents and hazards for four (#26, #31, #15 and #54) of nine residents reviewed for accident hazards out of 47 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure person-centered interventions were in place to prevent elopement incidents for Resident #26 and Resident #31; -Ensure staff provided appropriate supervision and implemented care-planned interventions for Resident #15 while smoking; and, -Ensure care-planned interventions for falls were consistently implemented for Resident #54. Findings include: I. Failed to ensure person-centered interventions were in place to prevent elopement incidents for Resident #26 and Resident #31 A. Facility policy and procedure The Elopement & Wandering policy and procedure, dated 2/29/24, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, It is a goal of the facility to provide a safe environment using the least restrictive measures available in caring for residents who are exhibiting elopement behavior. If the resident is identified as an elopement risk, the following will be maintained: implementing and care planning interventions to address safety and decrease the risk of elopement, the care plan will be updated to include that an electronic alarm system is used for the resident's safety. B. Resident #26 1. Resident status Resident #26, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included vascular dementia, adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression and repeated falls. The 1/9/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was severely cognitively impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) assessment score of three out of 15. The resident was dependent on staff for dressing, bathing and toileting and required setup to moderate assistance for all other activities of daily living (ADL). The assessment documented the resident did not have a wander/elopement alarm and did not exhibit wandering behavior. 2. Facility incident report The facility incident report, dated 9/14/24 at 5:40 p.m., was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/6/25 at 1:31 p.m. The report revealed Resident #26 was last seen at 5:40 p.m. on 9/14/24. Review of camera footage revealed Resident #26 had followed a visitor out of the facility doors. The facility staff searched the building, neighborhood and nearby stores but could not find Resident #26. At 10:00 p.m. that night (9/14/24), Resident #26 was found wandering approximately one and a half miles away from the facility. Paramedics were called and Resident #26 was found to be in good health and returned to the facility. The building's wander alarm system was assessed and found to be in good working condition. Resident #26 still had her wander alarm on when she returned to the facility and the administrators verified it was working correctly. Resident #26 was temporarily placed on increased monitoring. 3. Record review The elopement care plan, initiated 7/31/24 and revised 10/31/24, revealed Resident #26 was an elopement risk due to her diagnosis of dementia. Pertinent interventions, initiated on 7/31/24, included assessing Resident #26 for fall risk and providing the resident with structured activities including toileting, walking inside and outside and reorientation strategies. Additional interventions, initiated on 9/18/24, included checking Resident #26 to ensure her wander alarm was in place and to redirect the resident when she was going toward the facility doors to exit-seek. -Resident #26's care plan was not updated following a second incident where she was found outside the facility on 10/1/24 (see progress note below). A wander/elopement evaluation, dated 7/31/24, revealed Resident #26 was an elopement risk and would be observed by staff closely. A wander/elopement evaluation, dated 10/31/24, revealed Resident #26 was a high elopement risk. Review of Resident #26's February 2025 CPO revealed the following physician's orders: -Apply wander alarm to prevent resident from going out of the facility unassisted. Monitor presence of wander alarm every shift, ordered 7/31/24; and, -Behavior monitoring for antidepressant medication: document number of episodes of target behavior and document in progress notes every eight hours as needed, ordered 7/31/24. A progress note, dated 7/31/24 at 4:00 p.m., revealed a nurse found Resident #26 trying to go out the front doors of the facility by herself. The nurse notified Resident #26's provider and received an order to apply a wander alarm to the resident. A progress note, dated 7/31/24 at 9:20 p.m., revealed Resident #26 attempted to go out of the facility three times but was redirected away from the doors. A provider note, dated 8/9/24 at 1:00 a.m., revealed Resident #26 was seen by the nurses station pacing back and forth wanting to find out if she could go home. A progress note, dated 9/2/24 at 12:52 p.m., revealed Resident #26 had a wander alarm applied to her leg since admission which still functioned well. The nurse reminded Resident #26 that she was not to leave the facility without facility support because of her memory problem and Resident #26 verbalized understanding. Resident #26 was kept on continuous monitoring. A progress note, dated 9/2/24 at 9:11 p.m., revealed at 3:00 p.m. that afternoon (9/2/24) Resident #26 had packed all of her belongings and brought them to the facility entrance to go home. The nurse explained to Resident #26 that the facility was her home but the resident did not listen to her and was agitated for the next hour. The nurse gave Resident #26 emotional support and explained her situation again and again, and the resident calmed down around 5:00 p.m. that evening (9/2/24). Resident #26's wander alarm was in place and the resident was kept on continuous monitoring. A progress note, dated 9/14/24 at 6:35 p.m., revealed the administration was alerted at approximately 5:30 p.m. that Resident #26 was missing from the facility. Staff searched the building and were unable to locate the resident. A nurse said she saw Resident #26 at approximately 5:00 p.m. that evening (9/14/24) and confirmed the resident wore a wander alarm that was working appropriately. Resident #26 had not signed out at the front desk and her emergency contacts had not seen her. The police and the facility's administrators were notified, and the department heads of the facility drove around the community but were unable to locate the resident. A progress note, dated 9/14/24 at 11:15 p.m., revealed Resident #26 was returned to the facility. Resident #26 did not have any complaints of pain or discomfort and her vital signs were within normal limits. A progress note, dated 9/14/24 at 11:31 p.m., revealed Resident #26 was returned to the facility by the NHA. Resident #26 was escorted back to her room by a nurse. A progress note, dated 9/15/24 at 11:56 a.m., revealed Resident #26 was alert and able to make needs known verbally. Resident #26 was reminded not to leave the facility without support. Resident #26 walked the hallways of the facility and in the courtyard several times and was monitored continuously. A progress note, dated 9/29/24 at 10:50 a.m., revealed Resident #26 was seen walking around and checking to see if the doors to the facility were unlocked. Resident #26 was observed trying to get out of the facility with two other residents. Resident #26 was redirected to attend bingo in the dining room. Resident #26 got upset and made a fist at the nurse as she was walking into the dining room. A progress note, dated 10/1/24 at 5:50 p.m., revealed Resident #26 was found outside the facility. Resident #26 was brought back into the facility, and the nurse heard the wander alarm sounding. Resident #26 said she knew she needed to stay inside but when she pushed the door it opened and she went through it. Resident #26 was reminded that she needed to stay inside the building because of her forgetfulness. Resident #26's location was monitored with frequent rounding by the nurse. Behavior monitoring records, from 7/31/24 through 2/6/25, revealed Resident #26's behaviors were monitored and recorded at least once each day since admission. In each instance of behavior documentation, it was documented that the behavior tracking was not applicable or that Resident #26 did not have any behaviors during that time. The behavior tracking monitored several behaviors, including wandering and exit-seeking. -However, progress notes from 7/31/24 through 10/1/24 revealed Resident #26 exhibited exit-seeking and wandering behaviors on several occasions (see above). 4. Staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:59 p.m. CNA #5 said the facility used wander alarms for residents who wandered around the building. CNA #5 said the alarm went off if the resident tried to exit the building and the staff had to go check the door if they heard the alarm going off. CNA #5 said Resident #26 was always walking around the facility but never tried to exit the building. -However, according to progress notes, Resident #26 was found outside the facility on 9/14/24 and 10/1/24 (see record review above). Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:19 p.m. RN #1 said Resident #26 walked around the facility a lot but did not try to leave. RN #1 said Resident #26 would get confused and say she wanted to go home but the resident never went outside. -However, according to progress notes, Resident #26 was found outside the facility on 9/14/24 and 10/1/24 (see record review above). Receptionist (RECP) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 4:29 p.m. RECP #1 verified Resident #26's information was in the facility's elopement binder kept at the front desk. RECP #1 said Resident #26 did not try to get out of the facility. RECP #1 said Resident #26 was able to get a few feet out of the facility one time over the previous summer but was redirected back into the building. RECP #1 said the only times Resident #26 had gotten close enough to the facility doors to set off the wander alarm was when she went out for appointments. -However, according to progress notes, Resident #26 was found outside the facility on 9/14/24 and 10/1/24 (see record review above). The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:34 p.m. The DON said Resident #26 was declining. The DON said Resident #26 had been eloping from the facility previously and had gotten all the way to another area of the city from the facility. The DON said when Resident #26 first came to the facility, her previous apartment was just behind a nearby store, so the resident was familiar with the area. The DON said Resident #26 would stand in the facility lobby and talk about her previous apartment. The DON said Resident #26 would go to the doors every time the facility staff turned around. The DON said Resident #26 was very smart about her elopement attempts and would wait for groups of visitors to go in and out of the building. The DON said one night (9/14/24), Resident #26 walked out of the building with another family who let her out. The DON said the facility immediately went out to look for her and the NHA eventually found her. The DON said Resident #26 stopped wandering after the 9/14/24 incident. The DON said Resident #26 had her wander alarm in place during the incident and she had tried lots of ways to get her wander alarm off. The DON said the interventions used for Resident #26 prior to the 9/14/24 incident included having her room across from the nurse's station and trying to distract Resident #26. The DON said the nursing staff would also walk with Resident #26 around the facility. -However, according to progress notes, Resident #26 was found outside the facility a second time on 10/1/24 (see record review above). C. Resident #31 1. Resident status Resident #31, age less than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included alcohol dependence with alcohol-induced amnesic disorder (short-term memory loss associated with chronic alcohol use), dementia with agitation and a history of falling. The 12/11/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. The resident was independent or required supervision for all ADLs. The MDS assessment documented the resident did not exhibit wandering behaviors. The assessment documented a wander/elopement alarm was used daily. 2. Observations On 2/4/25 at 9:55 a.m. Resident #31 was redirected from the facility exit by an unidentified staff member. The staff member told Resident #31 not to go out the front door and if Resident #31 wanted to smoke, she needed to go to the smoking area doors. At 3:16 p.m. Resident #31 was seen pacing around the facility and going in and out of her room. On 2/5/25 at 8:59 a.m. Resident #31 was pacing through the facility hallways near the dining room. At 4:36 p.m. Resident #31 was pacing the hallways and asking for a cigarette. On 2/6/25 at 8:38 a.m. Resident #31 entered her room and promptly left her room before returning to pacing around the facility. 3. Record review The elopement care plan, initiated 9/15/17, revealed Resident #31 was at risk for elopement related to her intermittent confusion. Resident #31 had poor impulse control and at times would ask to leave the facility to move in with her sister and mother. Pertinent interventions, initiated on 9/15/17, included offering emotional and psychological support as needed, checking the placement and function of Resident #31's wander alarm and orienting the resident to her environment as needed. Additional interventions, initiated on 6/14/18, included having a wander alarm in place. A second elopement care plan, initiated 7/10/23, revealed Resident #31 was an elopement risk. Pertinent interventions included distracting Resident #31 from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television or books. A progress note, dated 11/10/24 at 3:41 p.m., revealed Resident #31 was able to get out of the front door and into the parking lot. Resident #31 was redirected back into the facility and her wander alarm was in place and functional. The DON was notified. A psychiatric medication review note, dated 1/8/25 at 11:30 a.m., revealed Resident #31 displayed ongoing impulsivity and exit-seeking behaviors. Resident #31's dose of sertraline (an anxiety medication) was increased from 50 milligrams (mg) to 100 mg to manage her anxiety. A progress note, dated 1/19/25 at 1:52 p.m., revealed Resident #31 was seen outside of the facility on the street by another resident through her room's window at 11:15 a.m. that morning. Staff redirected Resident #31 back into the facility, assisted her to her room and encouraged her to lay in her bed. The DON and Resident #31's provider were notified. A discharge planning note, dated 1/21/25 at 1:50 p.m., revealed the social services director (SSD) spoke with Resident #31's representative to discuss Resident #31 needing a higher level of care due to her increased confusion and elopement attempts. Resident #31's provider recommended placing her in a secured unit. A referral to another facility was sent out and accepted but no discharge date was scheduled. 4. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 10:22 a.m. LPN #1 said Resident #31 got agitated and started walking around and tried to leave the facility. LPN #1 said Resident #31 tried to leave the facility to get cigarettes. LPN #1 said Resident #31 had a wander alarm but sometimes visitors held the door open for her because they thought she was a visitor. LPN #1 said the facility had to educate visitors to not let people out of the building. LPN #1 said Resident #31 had not made it out of the facility to her knowledge and was easily redirected back to her room or to an activity. -However, according to progress notes, Resident #31 was found outside the facility on 11/10/24 and 1/19/25 (see record review above). RECP #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 4:29 p.m. RECP #1 verified Resident #31's information was in the elopement binder at the front desk. RECP #1 said Resident #31 was always trying to go out of the facility to get cigarettes. The DON was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:56 p.m. The DON said Resident #31 always wanted cigarettes. The DON said Resident #31 was exit-seeking but did not go out of the facility. The DON said Resident #31 had a wander alarm in place. The DON said the administration was looking for a different facility for Resident #31 as she would benefit from a smaller, less stimulating environment. -However, according to progress notes, Resident #31 was found outside the facility on 11/10/24 and 1/19/25 (see record review above). II. Failed to ensure staff provided appropriate supervision and implemented care planned interventions for Resident #15 while smoking A. Facility policy and procedure The Traditional Tobacco and Electronic Smoking Device policy, dated 5/10/23, was provided by the CC on 2/6/25 at 8:08 p.m. It read in pertinent part, All residents who smoke or desire to smoke will be appropriately assessed to determine if the resident requires supervision and protective equipment during smoking. Smoking assessments and potential restrictions shall be completed upon admission, quarterly or at the time of unsafe smoking behavior or suspicion of smoking in an undesignated area or upon change of condition. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) will implement a care plan for all residents who smoke on the baseline care plan. A care plan is required for all smoking residents and any smoking materials. The smoking assessment will also identify those residents who require protective devices such as a non-combustable apron or blanket or any other protective device. Supervised smokers shall not be permitted to smoke without the direct supervision of a designated staff member, family member or volunteer. Direct supervision will be provided throughout the entire smoking period. Supervised smokers will have their smoking supplies secured at the nurse's station. B. Resident #15 1. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO, diagnoses included encephalopathy, type two diabetes, schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. The 1/6/25 MDS assessment revealed Resident #15 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of nine out of 15. The resident required partial to moderate assistance with most of his ADLs. 2. Observations On 2/4/25 at 9:55 a.m. Resident #15 was observed having his cigarette lit by another resident as he was standing beside her and smoking. An unknown staff member approached and watched the lighting of the cigarette and then returned to the inside of the building. Resident #15 was not wearing a smoking apron. On 2/4/25 at 4:12 p.m. CNA #7 was observed taking Resident #15 outside for a cigarette. Resident #15 was observed lighting his own cigarette while CNA #7 watched him. Resident #15 and CNA #7 moved over to the smoking bench and table. CNA #7 handed Resident #15 the ash tray and a long tube (the tubing was for the resident to inhale from the cigarette while the cigarette rested in the ashtray and ensured the resident did not have to hold the cigarette) that were already outside and on the table. Resident #15 did not use either the ash tray or the tubing and held the cigarette as he smoked.CNA #7 did not encourage or assist Resident #15 with placing the tubing on his cigarette. Resident #15's hands and arms were moving involuntarily and he was shaking. A smoking apron was lying on the bench next to Resident #15 but he did not put the apron on and CNA #7 did not ask Resident #15 put on the apron. CNA #7 remained outside with Resident #15 for the duration of the cigarette, however, CNA #7 was looking at her phone the entire time and was not observing the resident to ensure the cigarette did not drop hot ash on the resident. 3. Record review Resident #15's smoking care plan, revised 1/21/25, revealed the resident was a supervised smoker and was required to wear a smoking apron while smoking. Resident #15's 10/1/24 admission smoking assessment indicated the resident was a supervised smoker and was unable to light a cigarette safely independently. He was required to wear a smoking apron while smoking. Resident #15's 1/1/25 smoking assessment indicated the resident was a supervised smoker and was unable to light a cigarette safely independently. He was required to wear a smoking apron while smoking. -However, Resident #15's care plan and the smoking assessments did not indicate that Resident #15 was to use any other type of adaptive equipment while smoking (see observations above). C. Staff interviews The NHA and the CC were interviewed together on 2/6/25 at 7:16 p.m. The NHA said if Resident #15 used the tubing then he did not have to be supervised for the entire smoke break, however, he said staff did need to take him out and light his cigarette. If he used the tubing then he was not physically holding the cigarette because the cigarette stayed in the ashtray and he inhales through the other end of the tube. He said Resident #15 was supposed to use the tubing. The NHA said if Resident #15 did not use the tubing, staff needed to stay outside with him. -However, the use of the tubing was not included on Resident #15's care plan or smoking assessments (see record review above). III. Failed to ensure care-planned interventions for falls were consistently implemented for Resident #54 A. Facility policy and procedure The Fall Management policy and procedure, dated 2/29/24, was provided by the CC on 2/6/25 at 8:08 p.m., It read in pertinent part, A fall reduction program will be established and maintained to assess all residents to determine their risk for falls. A plan of care will be implemented based on the resident's assessed needs. The fall reduction program is characterized by four components: - Fall risk evaluation; - Care planning and implementation of interventions; - On going evaluation process quality assurance performance improvement (QAPI); and, - Commitment by caregivers to make it work. B. Resident #54 1. Resident status Resident #54, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2025 CPO diagnoses included fracture of right patella, fracture of T11-T12 vertebra, epilepsy, schizophrenia, muscle weakness and repeated falls. The 12/18/24 MDS assessment indicated that Resident #54 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMs score of 12 out of 15. The assessment further indicated that he needed supervision or touching assistance for all of his transfers and ambulating and partial to moderate assistance with toileting and substantial to maximal assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. 2. Observations On 2/5/25 at 9:18 a.m. Resident #54 was sleeping in his bed. The resident was leaning far to the right and nearly off the side of his bed. His walker was seen outside of his room in the hallway. His bed was not in the lowest position. On 2/5/25 at 11:27 a.m. Resident #54 was sleeping in the same position as before and his bed was still not in the lowest position. His walker was seen outside of his room in the hallway. On 2/6/25 at 8:50 a.m. Resident #54 was sitting on the edge of his bed eating his breakfast. The resident's bed was not in the lowest position. On 2/6/25 at 12:14 p.m. Resident #54 was asleep in his bed. The resident's right leg was hanging over the edge of his bed and his bed was not in the lowest position. On 2/6/25 at 1:51 p.m. Resident #54 continued to sit on the edge of his bed eating his lunch. The resident's bed was not in the lowest position. His walker was in his room by his bed. 3. Record review The fall care plan, revised 9/23/24, revealed Resident #54 had a history of falls and was at risk for injuries due to falling. The interventions included making sure the resident was wearing appropriate footwear, anticipating and meeting the resident's needs, encouraging the resident to use the call light, ensuring the resident's room was clutter free and the resident's bed was in the lowest position when the resident was in the bed. The 2/3/25 nursing progress note revealed Resident #54 was found on the floor in his bathroom. The 2/4/25 nursing note indicated that Resident #54's fall precautions were maintained and the resident's bed was in the lowest position and the room was clutter free. The 2/4/25 interdisciplinary team (IDT) note indicated that the root cause of the 2/3/25 was due to a recent fracture. The note indicated interventions that were put in place included re-educating the resident of the importance of using his call light and using his wheelchair brakes when transferring. C. Staff interviews CNA #9 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 2:00 p.m. CNA #9 said Resident #54's bed was not in the lowest position because he was a tall person and if the bed was in the lowest position, he would not be able to get up to go to the bathroom. He said Resident #54 was not on any fall precautions and he was able to ambulate on his own. -However, Resident #54's 12/18/24 MDS assessment indicated the resident needed supervision or touching assistance for all of his transfers and ambulating and partial to moderate assistance with toileting (see resident status above). RN #4 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 4:20 p.m. RN #4 said Resident #54 was on fall precautions because he had a recent fall. He said when Resident #54 ambulated, he was supposed to be supervised and he was supposed to call for help before he got up. RN #4 said Resident #54's bed should be in the lowest position.
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 ensure medications and biologicals were properly stored and labeled in accordance with professional standards in two of four medication car...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were properly stored and labeled in accordance with professional standards in two of four medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure expired medications were removed from the medication cart; and, -Ensure injectable medications were labeled with the date they were opened. Findings include: A. Professional references The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) Don't Be Tempted to Use Expired Medicines (revised 10/31/24), was retrieved on 2/12/25 from https://www.fda.gov/drugs/special-features/dont-be-tempted-use-expired-medicines. It 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. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Insulin Storage and Effectiveness (revised 9/19/17), was retrieved on 2/12/25 from fda.gov/drugs/emergency-preparedness-drugs/information-regarding-insulin-storage-and-switching-between-products-emergency. It read in pertinent part, Insulin products contained in vials or cartridges supplied by the manufacturers (opened or unopened) may be left unrefrigerated at a temperature between 59° (degrees) Fahrenheit (F) and 86°F for up to 28 days and continue to work. B. Facility policy and procedure The Storage of Medications policy, revised November 2020, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Drugs and biologicals are stored in the packaging, containers or other dispensing systems in which they were received. The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining medication storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. Discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. C. Observations On 2/6/25 at 5:07 p.m. the medication cart on the second south hall was observed with registered nurse (RN) #6. The following items were found: -A bottle of vitamin C supplements, with an expiration date of December 2024; -A bottle of vitamin C supplements, with an expiration date of August 2024 ; -A bottle of fish oil supplements, with an expiration date of August 2024; -A bottle of vitamin D3 supplements, with an expiration date of January 2025; -A COVID-19 testing reagent, with an expiration date of December 2023; -A nicotine lozenge, with an expiration date of July 2024; -A bottle of calcium acetate, with an expiration date of October 2024; -A bottle of zinc sulfate, with an expiration date of September 2024; -A bottle of naproxen sodium, with an expiration date of March 2024; -Two bisacodyl suppositories, with an expiration date of May 2024; -A bottle of Prostat, with an expiration date of 10/24/24; and, -Five insulin injection pens for four different residents which were not labeled with the date they were opened; -Nine loose pills in the back of the top drawer; -Multiple loose pills in two other drawers of the medication cart. On 2/6/25 at 5:34 p.m. the medication cart on the north hall was observed with RN #4. The following items were found: -A bottle of thiamine supplements, with an expiration date of September 2024; -A bottle of oyster shell calcium supplements, with an expiration date of August 2024; and, -A bottle of Latanoprost ophthalmic solution, undated. IV. Staff interviews RN #4 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 5:34 p.m. RN #4 said the night shift nursing staff went through and cleaned the medication carts each week. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 8:01 p.m. The DON said the over-the-counter medications on the medication carts should be reviewed every day. The DON said as soon as a resident was discharged , their old medications were discarded. The DON said she and another staff member went through the medication room to try to discard old medications. She said they had been falling behind with doing so because they were the only two staff members doing this task. The DON said she was trying to get the night shift nursing staff to go through the medication carts each night and discard any expired medications or medications from residents that had discharged . The DON said there should not be any loose pills in the medication carts.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to implement their policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling and consumption. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure the resident's personal refrigerator temperatures were monitored correctly for appropriate temperatures; and, -Implement the facility policy for food brought by visitors and ensure food that was kept in residents' refrigerators had safe and sanitary storage. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Regulations, (3/16/24) were retrieved on 2/13/25. It read in pertinent part, Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, time and temperature control for safety food shall be maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less. (3-501.16) Ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less for a maximum of seven days. The day of preparation shall be counted as day one. The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on food safety. (3-501.17) The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food code (3/27/23) were retrieved on 2/13/25 from https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/food-code-2022 revealed in pertinent part, Bacterial growth and/or toxin production can occur if time/temperature control for safety food remains in the temperature danger zone (41 degrees to 135 degrees F) too long. II. Facility policy and procedure The Refrigerators and Freezers procedure and policy, revised November 2022, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Monthly tracking sheets for all refrigerators and freezers are posted to record temperatures. Food service supervisors or designated employees check and record refrigerator and freezer temperatures daily. Supervisors are responsible for ensuring food items in refrigerators are not past use by or expiration dates. III. Observations On 2/5/25 at 9:05 a.m., Resident #13's refrigerator contained the following items: -A container of rice, unlabeled and undated; and, -A bottle of chocolate syrup, dated 9/20/24 and the expiration date was obscured by marker. The thermometer in the refrigerator read 42 degrees Fahrenheit (F). The February 2025 temperature log on the refrigerator revealed the temperature had not been recorded on 2/1/25, 2/2/25 and 2/4/25 through 2/5/25. The temperature recorded on 2/3/25 was 42 degrees F. -However, there were no indications that the staff member who recorded the temperature attempted to correct the temperature of the refrigerator. On 2/5/25 at 1:29 p.m., the temperature log on Resident #66's personal refrigerator had temperatures recorded for 2/1/25 through 2/3/25. On 2/1/25 the refrigerator was recorded at 42 degrees F, on 2/2/25 it was 42 degrees F and on 2/3/25 it was 44 degrees F. The temperature was not recorded on 2/4/25 or 2/5/25. The temperature was 42 degrees F at that time. -However, there were no indications that the staff member who recorded the temperature attempted to correct the temperature of the refrigerator. On 2/6/25 at 10:08 a.m., the temperature log on Resident #68's personal refrigerator did not have temperatures recorded on 2/1/25, 2/2/25 and 2/4/25 through 2/5/25. The temperature of the refrigerator was 42 degrees F at that time. -However, there were no indications that the staff member who recorded the temperature attempted to correct the temperature of the refrigerator. IV. Resident interviews Resident #13 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 9:08 a.m. Resident #13 said the facility's maintenance staff checked the temperature of his refrigerator but did not do it every day. Resident #13 said no one came in and checked through his refrigerator to see if things were expired. Resident #68 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 10:08 a.m. Resident #68 said the facility's maintenance staff came and checked her refrigerator's temperature but did not do so every day. V. Staff interviews The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 9:51 a.m. The DM said refrigerators should be kept at 41 degrees F or below to keep food out of the danger zone for bacterial growth. The DM said any temperature above 41 degrees F was too warm and the refrigerator needed to be serviced. The DM said she checked multiple of the resident's refrigerators throughout the facility and found they had not had their temperature checked for several days according to their February 2025 temperature logs. The DM said the housekeeping staff checked the resident's refrigerators daily. The environmental services director (ESD) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 12:08 p.m. The ESD said the housekeeping staff were responsible for checking the temperatures of resident's personal refrigerators daily. The ESD said he was only told to have the housekeeping staff check the temperatures, not the refrigerators' contents. The ESD said it was a grey area which department was responsible for the refrigerators.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, distributed and served under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen, activities room, and two of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was prepared, distributed and served under sanitary conditions in the main kitchen, activities room, and two of two nourishment refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure safe and appropriate storage of food items in the nourishment room refrigerators; and, -Ensure ready-to-eat foods were handled in a sanitary manner to prevent cross-contamination in the main kitchen. Findings include: I. Failure to safely and appropriately store food items A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations, (3/16/24), were retrieved on 2/13/25. It revealed in pertinent part, Ready-to-eat, time/temperature control for safety food prepared and held in a food establishment for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded when held at a temperature of 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less for a maximum of seven days. The day of preparation shall be counted as day one. The day or date marked by the food establishment may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on food safety. (3-501.17) B. Facility policy and procedure The Food Receiving and Storage policy and procedure, revised November 2022, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Time/temperature control foods are stored at or below 41 degrees F. Functioning of the refrigeration and food temperatures are monitored daily and at designated intervals throughout the day by the food and nutrition services manager or designee and documented. Refrigerated foods are labeled, dated and monitored so they are used by their' use-by' date, frozen, or discarded. Frozen foods are maintained at a temperature to keep the food frozen solid. All food items to be kept at or below 41 degrees F are placed in the refrigerator located at the nurse's station and labeled with a use by date. All foods belonging to residents are labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date. Refrigerators must have working thermometers and are monitored for temperature according to state-specific guidelines. Other opened containers are dated and sealed or covered during storage. C. Observations and record review On 2/3/25 at 10:35 a.m., the following items were observed in the south hall nourishment refrigerator: -An open bottle of thickened apple juice, with an expiration date of 9/8/24; -A container of yogurt, with an expiration date of 1/13/25; -A container of milk, with an expiration date of 1/18/25; -An unidentified food item rolled in aluminum foil in a plastic bag, dated 1/23/25; -An open and partially used butter packet, undated; and, -A medical ice pack. On 2/5/25 at 9:21 a.m., the following items were observed in the north hall nourishment refrigerator: -An open container of applesauce, unlabeled and undated; and, -A nutritional frozen dessert cup which was thawed and easy to squeeze, undated. Instructions on the dessert cup revealed it was to be stored frozen and used within five days of thawing in the refrigerator. The refrigerator was 56 degrees F. A refrigerator temperature log for February 2025 was posted on the nourishment refrigerator. The refrigerator temperature was recorded as 58 degrees F each day from 2/1/25 through 2/5/25. The temperature log had instructions written at the bottom which read in part, refrigerator temperature range is less than 41 degrees F, freezer temperature is less than 20 degrees F. Adjust setting if temperature is out of range. Verify the thermometer every three days. -There was no documentation on the refrigerator temperature log that indicated the temperature of the refrigerator was addressed when it was noted to be out of acceptable range. On 2/5/25 at 2:50 p.m., the following items were observed in the south hall nourishment refrigerator: -The same open bottle of thickened apple juice, with an expiration date of 9/8/24; -The same container of yogurt, with an expiration date of 1/13/25; -The same container of milk, with an expiration date of 1/18/25; -The same unidentified food item rolled in aluminum foil in a plastic bag, dated 1/23/25; -The same open and partially used butter packet, undated; and, -Several dumplings wrapped together in plastic wrap, unlabeled and undated. On 2/5/25 at 4:44 p.m., the following items were observed in the activities room refrigerator: -A bottle of dijon mustard, with an expiration date of 1/29/25; -A bottle of yellow mustard, with an expiration date of 11/18/24; -A jar of olives, with an expiration date of 8/24/24; and, -A bottle of chocolate syrup, with an expiration date of January 2025. -The activities director (AD) threw away the expired contents of the refrigerator during this observation. On 2/6/25 at 10:30 a.m., the February 2025 refrigerator temperature log on the south nourishment refrigerator only had one temperature recorded on 2/6/25. No temperatures were recorded for 2/1/25 through 2/5/25. D. Staff interviews Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 9:16 a.m. RN #1 said the dietary staff or the night shift nurses checked the nourishment refrigerator temperatures. RN #1 said she was not sure who checked through the foods in the nourishment refrigerators or when that task was done. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #10 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 10:13 a.m. CNA #10 said the dietary staff filled the nourishment refrigerators and the night shift nurses checked the refrigerator temperatures. CNA #10 said the dietary staff checked the nourishment refrigerator contents during the day. The AD was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 4:44 p.m. The AD said the activities staff and dietary staff shared responsibility for maintaining the contents of the activities refrigerator. The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 11:50 a.m. The DM said the north nourishment refrigerator was 53 degrees F. The DM said the unit needed a new refrigerator and she would alert the maintenance staff. The DM said the refrigerator temperature should be checked daily. The DM said the temperature of the refrigerator was above what it needed to be, as it needed to be below 41 degrees F. The DM said cold food needed to be kept below 41 degrees F. The DM said the facility nurses checked the refrigerator daily and should have notified the dietary staff about the temperatures. The DM said she reviewed the south nourishment refrigerator. She said the bottle of milk and thickened apple juice were expired and she threw them away. The DM said the contents and temperature of the refrigerator should be checked daily. The DM verified the refrigerator had only had its temperature monitored once in February 2025. The DM said she would do an inservice with the staff on recording the dates food items were opened. II. Failed to ensure ready-to-eat foods were handled in a sanitary manner A. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Establishment Regulations, (3/16/24), were retrieved on 2/13/25. It revealed in pertinent part, Food employees may not contact exposed, ready-to-eat food with their bare hands and shall use suitable utensils such as deli tissue, spatulas, tongs, single-use gloves, or dispensing equipment. If used, single-use gloves shall be used for only one task such as working with ready-to-eat food or with raw animal food, used for no other purpose, and discarded when damaged or soiled, or when interruptions occur in the operation. (3-301.11) B. Observations During a continuous observation of the lunch meal service on 2/5/25, beginning at 10:40 a.m. and ending at 12:37 p.m. the following was observed: At 11:50 a.m. DA #1 donned (put on) a pair of gloves and began preparing two hamburgers. DA #1 retrieved a bag of hamburger buns, opened the bag and grabbed two hamburger buns with the same gloved hands. With the same gloved hands, DA #1 selected lettuce leaves and placed them on the hamburger buns. DA #1 repeated this process with onion slices using the same gloved hands. DA #1 opened a bag of potato chips and retrieved a handful of chips to put onto the plates with the hamburger buns with his gloved hands. DA #1 retrieved a new bag of potato chips, opened the bag and used the same gloved hands to grab another handful of chips to put on the plate with the hamburger buns. C. Staff interview The DM was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 9:51 a.m. The DM said ready-to-eat foods should be handled with clean gloves used only for one task.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of diseases and infection. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure housekeeping staff followed proper cleaning techniques for cleaning and disinfecting resident rooms and high-frequency touched areas (call lights, door handles and handrails); -Ensure housekeeping staff performed appropriate hand-hygiene; -Ensure enhanced barrier precautions (EBP) were in place for Resident #52 and Resident #284; -Follow infection control procedures for catheter care; -Follow infection control procedures for endotracheal tube care; and, -Clean equipment between use with residents. Findings include: I. Housekeeping failures A. Professional reference Assadian O, Harbarth S, Vos M, et al. Practical Recommendations for Routine Cleaning and Disinfection Procedures in Healthcare Institutions: A Narrative Review. The Journal of Hospital Infection, (July 2021) 113:104-114, was retrieved on 2/13/25 from https.//pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. It read in pertinent part, High-touch surfaces, on the other hand, are usually close to the patient, are frequently touched by the patient or nursing staff, come into contact with the skin and, due to increased contact, pose a particularly high risk of transmitting pathogens (virus or microorganism that can cause disease). Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are the most common adverse outcomes due to delivery of medical care. HAIs increase morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospital stays, and are associated with additional healthcare costs. Contaminated surfaces, particularly those that are touched frequently, act as reservoirs for pathogens and contribute towards pathogen transmission. Therefore, healthcare hygiene requires a comprehensive approach. This approach includes hand hygiene in conjunction with environmental cleaning and disinfection of surfaces and clinical equipment. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Environment Cleaning Procedures, (revised 3/19/24) was retrieved on 2/13/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/healthcare-associated- infections/hcp/cleaning-global/procedures.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/hai/pre ent/resource-limited/cleaning-procedures.html#cdc_generic_section_2-4-1-general-environmental-cleaning-techniques. It read in pertinent part, High-Touch Surfaces: The identification of high-touch surfaces and items in each patient care area is a necessary prerequisite to the development of cleaning procedures, as these will often differ by room, ward and facility. Common high-touch surfaces include: bed rails, IV (intravenous) poles, sink handles, bedside tables, counters, edges of privacy curtains, patient monitoring equipment (keyboards, control panels), call bells and door knobs. Proceed from cleaner to dirtier areas to avoid spreading dirt and microorganisms. Examples include: during terminal cleaning, clean low-touch surfaces before high-touch surfaces, clean patient areas (patient zones) before patient toilets, within a specified patient room, terminal cleaning should start with shared equipment and common surfaces, then proceed to surfaces and items touched during patient care that are outside of the patient zone, and finally to surfaces and items directly touched by the patient inside the patient zone. In other words, high-touch surfaces outside the patient zone should be cleaned before the high-touch surfaces inside the patient zone and clean general patient areas not under transmission-based precautions before those areas under transmission-based precautions. B. Facility policy and procedure The Cleaning and Disinfecting Residents' Rooms policy and procedure, revised August 2013, was provided by the clinical consultant (CC) on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Housekeeping surfaces (floors, tabletops) will be cleaned on a regular basis, when spills occur, and when these surfaces are visibly soiled. Perform hand hygiene after removing gloves. C. Observations During a continuous observation on 2/5/25, from 9:43 a.m. to 10:11 a.m., housekeeper (HK) #1 was observed cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER]. HK #1 removed his gloves from a previous room and donned (put on) a new set of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #1 entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and began spraying the entire surface of the toilet with Clorox hydrogen peroxide cleaner. HK #1 returned to his cart, removed his gloves and donned a new pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #1 retrieved a rag from a bin with cleaning solution and began wiping the door handles, light switch, sink area, and sink faucet. HK #1 pulled a chisel from his pants pocket and scraped something on the sink surface before returning it to his pants pocket. HK #1 wiped over the area he chiseled with the rag. HK #1 did not sanitize the chisel. HK #1 returned to his cart, removed his gloves and donned a new set of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #1 grabbed a new rag and began to wipe down the bedside table on side B of the room. HK #1 retrieved the chisel from his pants pocket, used it to scrape something on the side table, then returned the chisel to his pants pocket. HK #1 used the rag to wipe over the area he had scraped. HK #1 then used the chisel to scrape something on the floor underneath the bedside table before returning the chisel to his pants pocket. -HK #1 did not disinfect high-touch areas such as the resident's call light or remotes. HK #1 returned to his cart, removed his gloves and donned a new set of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #1 took a mop head out of a bin with cleaning solution and put it on the floor in side A. HK #1 then pushed the mop into Side B and began mopping. HK #1 used the chisel from his pocket to scrape the floor in several areas. HK #1 wiped the chisel along the back of the mop head before returning it to his pants pocket. HK #1 used the mop to push crumbs and a pillowcase from side B to side A and into the hallway. HK #1 used the same mop head to mop side A. -HK #1 failed to mop the two sides of the room separately. HK #1 returned to his cart, removed his gloves and donned new ones without performing hand hygiene. HK #1 grabbed two new rags from the cleaning solution bin and began to wipe down the sink area, the paper towel holder, the walls in the bathroom, then the bathroom handrail. HK #1 used a new rag to wipe the base of the toilet and the outside of the toilet bowl. HK #1 returned to the cart, removed his gloves and donned a new pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #1 grabbed a new rag from the cleaning solution bin, removed the raised toilet seat and set it on the bathroom floor, wiped the toilet flusher, the top of the toilet seat, bottom of the toilet seat and the rim of the toilet. HK #1 then began wiping the bottom side of the raised toilet seat before wiping down the top side of the raised toilet seat with the same rag. -HK #1 did not wipe the handles of the raised toilet seat. HK #1 removed his gloves, retrieved the Clorox hydrogen peroxide spray and sprayed the inside of the toilet bowl. HK #1 donned a new set of gloves, retrieved the toilet brush from the cart, and began scrubbing the inside of the toilet bowl. HK #1 put the toilet brush back onto the housekeeping cart. -HK #1 did not disinfect the toilet brush after use. HK #1 retrieved a new mop head, placed it on the bathroom floor and began mopping the bathroom. HK #1 used the chisel to scrape fecal material off of the bathroom floor. HK #1 wiped the chisel on the top of the mop head several times before wiping the chisel on his pants and placing the chisel back into his pocket. HK #1 then used the mop to sweep pieces of feces from the bathroom through side A of the room and into the hallway. HK #1 said the material he chiseled off the ground was feces. During a continuous observation on 2/6/25, from 9:22 a.m. to 9:44 a.m., HK #2 was observed cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER]. At 9:22 a.m. HK #2 finished cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER], removed her gloves and donned a new set of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #2 entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and began cleaning. HK #2 went into the bathroom and collected the trash bag from the trash can, grabbed a paper towel and removed something from the sink, then used the same gloved hand to move one of the resident's walkers by the handle. HK #2 returned to her cart, removed her gloves and donned a new set without performing hand hygiene. HK #2 grabbed a rag from the bin with cleaning solution and began wiping the dresser for side A and the top of the cart used to hold personal protective equipment (PPE). With the same gloved hands, HK #2 grabbed a new rag and wiped the area around the sink. HK #2 then used the same rag to wipe a small area of the outside portion of the door handle. HK #2 retrieved a new rag with the same gloved hands and began wiping the bedside table in side B of the room. The bedside table was mostly covered with the resident's personal items, which HK #2 did not move but instead wiped the available surface area of the table. -HK #2 did not disinfect the high-touch surfaces on side A or side B of the room including call lights, light switches and remotes. HK #2 returned to her cart, removed her gloves and donned new gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #2 grabbed a toilet brush and a new rag from the bin with cleaning solution. HK #2 hung the toilet brush from the hand rail in the bathroom, squeezed the cleaning solution out of the rag and into the toilet, and used the same rag to clean the sink area in the bathroom. HK #2 used the toilet brush to scrub the bowl of the toilet, then used the same rag to clean the underside of the seat, the rim of the toilet bowl, then the top of the toilet seat and the toilet basin. HK #2 returned the toilet brush back to her cart without disinfecting it. -HK #2 did not disinfect high-touch surfaces in the bathroom including the sink faucet, the hand rail in the bathroom, the soap dispenser or the toilet flusher. HK #2 grabbed a mop pad and put it onto the B side and began to mop that side. HK #2 used the mop to sweep debris including cotton gauze and a rubber band through side A into the hallway. HK #2 then used the same mop pad to mop the A side. HK #2 retrieved a new mop head and put it on the bathroom floor and mopped the bathroom. HK #2 lifted and carried the mop through the room, removed the mop head, put her equipment onto the cart and removed her gloves. HK #2 knocked on the door to room [ROOM NUMBER] and donned a new pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. HK #2 then began cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER]. D. Staff interviews The environmental services director (ESD) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 12:08 p.m. The ESD said the housekeeping staff should start at the sink in the room and work from dirtiest surfaces to cleanest surfaces. The ESD said the housekeeping staff should start at the sink, then clean the bathroom, then the B side of the room and the A side last. The ESD said the housekeepers had a specific toilet cleaner they used to clean the bowl of the toilet. The ESD said he did not know the exact steps the housekeepers followed, but said they should wipe the toilet handle, then the seat to prevent transferring bacteria from the seat to the handle. The ESD said the toilet scrub brush should be sanitized between each room. The ESD said the housekeeping staff should use one mop head for side A and one mop head for side B. The ESD said the housekeeping staff should use hand sanitizer after removing dirty gloves and before putting on clean gloves. The ESD said the housekeeping staff should use a disinfectant spray and rag to wipe all high-touch surface areas. The ESD said he knew HK #2 was using a chisel when cleaning the rooms. He said he assumed HK #2 disinfected the chisel between use. The CC was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:01 p.m. The CC said the housekeeping staff should perform hand hygiene before entering a resident's room and before each glove change and should change their gloves frequently. The CC said it was not an acceptable practice to move from the bathroom to the room with the same mop head. The CC said high-touch surfaces should be cleaned daily with a disinfectant solution. II. EBP failures A. Professional reference The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Implementation of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Use in Nursing Homes to Prevent Spread of Multidrug-resistant Organisms (MDROs) (4/2/24), was retrieved on 2/13/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/PPE.html. It read in pertinent part, EBP are an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities. Nursing home residents with wounds and indwelling medical devices are at especially high risk of both acquisition of and colonization with MDROs. The use of gown and gloves for high-contact resident care activities is indicated, when contact precautions do not otherwise apply, for nursing home residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices regardless of MDRO colonization as well as for residents with MDRO infection or colonization. Examples of high-contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove use for Enhanced Barrier Precautions include dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting, device care or use (central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheostomy/ventilator) and wound care: any skin opening requiring a dressing. B. Facility policy and procedure The Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy, revised March 2024, was provided by the CC on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, EBPs are used as an infection prevention and control intervention to reduce the transmission of MDROs. Gloves and gown are applied prior to performing high-contact resident care activities. Signs are posted in the door or wall outside the resident room indicating the type of precautions and PPE required. C. Observations On 2/5/25 at 11:45 a.m. an EBP sign was observed on Resident #284's door. Registered nurse (RN) #2 was providing tube feeding care for Resident #284. RN #2 entered Resident #284's room performed hand hygiene and donned gloves. He raised the head of Resident #284's bed. RN #2 pulled back Resident #284's gown and opened the gastrostomy tube (G tube) cover. He then connected the tube feeding tubing to the open G tube port and started the tube feeding. He then disposed of supplies in the trash, removed his gloves and performed hand hygiene. -RN #2 did not don a gown before touching the patient, tube feeding supplies or the G tube port. On 2/5/25 at 2:21 p.m. certified nurse aide (CNA) #5 was observed as she finished emptying Resident #52's catheter bag. CNA #5 was wearing gloves but was not wearing a gown. There was no sign indicating Resident #52 needed EBP on her door and there was no PPE observed inside or outside of the resident's room (which was indicated in the facility's policy and interviews as the facility's process for identifying residents on EBP - see facility policy above and interviews below). On 2/6/25 at 8:30 a.m. licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was providing catheter care for Resident #52. Resident #52's room did not have an EBP sign on the door. LPN #1 filled a basin with warm water, washed her hands, pulled the privacy curtain and put on gloves. LPN #1 did not don a gown. -LPN #1 did not don the appropriate PPE to care for Resident #52's indwelling catheter. D. Staff interviews RN #2 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 11:50 a.m. RN #2 said before touching a resident with a tube feeding hand hygiene should be performed and gloves should be donned. He said if there was a risk of blood or body fluids being sprayed a mask should be used. He said he was not aware of the EBP outside of the door. He said he was not aware that a gown needed to be used for residents on EBP. CNA #5 was interviewed on 2/5/25 at 2:21 p.m. CNA #5 said the CNAs only wore gloves to empty the resident's catheter bags if the resident did not have anything infectious. She said the CNAs did not wear gowns when providing catheter care. RN #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 9:16 a.m. RN #1 said EBP was used for residents with wounds or urinary catheters. RN #1 said the EBP signs on the resident's doors indicated the nursing staff needed to wear a gown and gloves. RN #1 said EBP were to protect the workers and other residents in case the resident with EBP had an infection. CNA #10 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 10:13 a.m. CNA #10 said EBP was used for residents with catheters. CNA #10 said EBP meant the staff needed to wear gloves only when they were specifically working with the resident's catheter or indwelling line, but not when providing other high-contact care. CNA #10 said the nursing staff only needed to wear gloves and not a gown when providing catheter care. LPN #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 8:40 a.m. LPN #1 said she normally put on a gown on when providing catheter care. CNA #6 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 3:10 p.m. CNA #6 said she looked for the EBP signs on resident's doors to see what PPE she needed to put on when working with those residents. The CC was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:01 p.m. The CC said EBP were used for any residents with chronic wounds or indwelling devices. The CC said the need for EBP was identified on admission. The CC said the residents that needed EBP had a sign outside their door that indicated they needed EBP and a bin of PPE outside of their room. The CC said anyone that entered the room to provide direct care needed to don a gown and gloves. The CC said EBP should be indicated in the resident's care plan. III. Catheter care failures A. Facility policy and procedure The Urinary Catheter Care policy and procedure, revised August 2022, was received from the CC on 2/10/25 at 11:56 a.m. It read in pertinent part, The purpose of this procedure is to prevent urinary catheter-associated complications, including urinary tract infections. B. Observations On 2/6/25 at 8:30 a.m. LPN #1 was providing catheter care for Resident #52. LPN #1 filled a basin with warm water, washed her hands, pulled the privacy curtain and put on gloves. LPN #1 did not don a gown. LPN #1 removed Resident #52's incontinence brief. LPN #1 used a warm wet washcloth and wiped down the front of Resident #52's perineum from front to back and then wiped down her catheter with the same cloth. LPN #1 disposed of the washcloth. LPN #1 obtained a new washcloth and wiped the catheter towards the catheter bag then wiped back up the catheter tubing towards Resident #52's perineum. LPN #1 used the same cloth to wipe Resident #52's perineum and disposed of the washcloth. -LPN #1 wiped the catheter tubing from the catheter bag to the perineum -LPN #1 used the same washcloth to wipe Resident #52's perineum before wiping down the catheter tubing. C. Staff interviews LPN #1 was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 8:40 a.m. LPN #1 said she washed her hands and put on gloves before performing catheter care. LPN #1 said she normally put on a gown as well. LPN #1 said when providing catheter care she should wipe from front to back and use a separate washcloth when moving from the perineum to the catheter. LPN #1 said when cleaning the catheter she should start at the perineum and wipe away (down the line toward the catheter bag). The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 7:47 p.m. The DON said when providing catheter care, the nursing staff should wipe from the urethra down to the catheter bag and work from clean surfaces to dirty surfaces. The DON said the nursing staff needed to don a gown and gloves when providing catheter care.IV. Tracheostomy failures A. Professional reference Treas, L.S., [NAME], K.L., & [NAME], M.H. (2022) Basic Nursing, Thinking, Doing and Caring, (Third edition), chapter 33, page 1437, Performing Tracheostomy or Endotracheal Suctioning. It read in pertinent part Don a nonsterile glove and face shield or goggles. Test the suction equipment by oscillating the connection tubing. Remove and discard gloves. Perform hand hygiene. Open the suction catheter kit. Maintain sterility of the inside of the suction kit. [NAME] gloves, consider your dominant hand clean and your nondominant hand as contaminated. Pour the sterile saline solution into a sterile container. Pick up the suction catheter with your dominant hand and attach it to the connection tubing. Do not touch the connection tubing with your dominant hand. B. Observations and interviews On 2/6/25 at 10:12 a.m. RN #2 was observed providing suctioning for Resident #284's tracheostomy. RN #2 said the procedure could be performed as a clean or sterile procedure and that he tried to be as sterile as possible. RN #2 laid all of the prepackaged sterile equipment on Resident #284's bedside table without cleaning the table or removing the items that were already on the bedside table. RN #2 did not designate a clean area and dirty area. RN #2 proceeded to wash his hands for approximately 12 seconds. He dried his hands and opened a trash bag and put it in the trashcan. He then washed his hands again for approximately 10 seconds and opened the box of gloves and put on a pair of the gloves. He then touched the privacy curtain, touched the bed control, pulled out the pulse oximeter from his pocket, touched the resident's hand, touched the tracheostomy tubing that was still connected to the resident and touched the bedside table. The package of suctioning equipment fell to the floor. He then picked up the package of suctioning equipment from the floor, opened the sterile suctioning equipment, grabbed his pen out of his pocket, raised the head of the bed and removed his gloves. Without performing hand hygiene, he put on his gown, opened and poured the distilled water into the sterile container. He then put on gloves without performing hand hygiene. He treated his left hand as his dirty hand. The tracheostomy tubing and tracheostomy mask fell to the floor. He picked up the tubing from the floor and removed the tracheostomy mask from the end of the tubing with his right hand, which was his sterile hand. He began to suction using both hands. He used his right hand to touch the resident and to check the pulse oximeter. He then grabbed the tracheostomy mask with his right hand, went to the sink and rinsed the tracheostomy mask off using water. He then said that he thought it was clean enough. He used his right hand to dry the mask with a paper towel. He then used his left hand to open and dig through all of Resident #284's bedside table drawers looking for a new tracheostomy mask. He touched the tracheostomy mask with both hands. He attached the tubing to the mask and put the tracheostomy mask onto Resident #284's tracheostomy. RN #2 then took off his gloves and washed his hands. D. Staff interview The CC was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:31 p.m. The CC said when the staff were completing tracheostomy suctioning, it was important to establish a clean area. She said the person doing the suctioning should have a clean hand and a dirty hand. She said that hand hygiene should be done before putting on sterile gloves. V. Failure to clean vital signs equipment between residents A. Professional reference According to the CDC Recommendations for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities, (2024), retrieved on 2/13/25 from https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-sterilization/summary-recommendations.html#:~:text=Ensure%20that%2C%20at%20a%20minimum,once%20daily%20or%20once%20weekly. It read in pertinent part, Clean medical devices as soon as practical after use. Perform either manual cleaning or mechanical cleaning. Perform low-level disinfection for noncritical patient-care surfaces and equipment (blood pressure cuffs) that touch intact skin. B. Observation During a continuous observation on 2/4/25, beginning at 3:59 p.m. and ending at 5:32 p.m., the following was observed: At 3:59 p.m. CNA #7 came out of a resident's room with vital signs equipment (blood pressure cuff, pulse oximeter, thermometer and a vitals clipboard) and went directly into another resident's room. She did not disinfect the equipment between residents. She then left the room and went into another resident's room, she did not clean the equipment. After taking that resident's vital signs she then put the vital signs equipment away without cleaning it and took a resident outside to smoke. At 4:19 p.m she returned from the smoke break. She did perform hand hygiene and did not clean the vital signs equipment. She then entered another resident's room and obtained their vital signs. C. Staff interview The CC was interviewed on 2/6/25 at 6:01 p.m. The CC said the CNAs were responsible for cleaning the equipment between use and on a routine basis. The CC said the vital sign machine should be cleaned with sanitizing wipes in between residents.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies
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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to perform regular control substance solution tests for four of 15 glucometers. Specifically, the facility failed to perform a control solu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and interviews, the facility failed to perform regular control substance solution tests for four of 15 glucometers. Specifically, the facility failed to perform a control solution test on all glucometers used for monitoring resident's blood glucose. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Blood Glucose Monitoring policy, dated 10/1/2021 was provided by the regional quality mentor (RQM) on 3/7/24 at 10:45 a.m. The policy read in pertinent part, It is the policy of the facility to ensure calibration checks on glucometers must be performed per manufacturer's instructions. II. Manufacturer's recommendation A review of the manufacturer's recommendation for Assure Platinum a professional blood glucose monitoring system provided by the director of nursing (DON) on 3/6/24 at 3:36 p.m. recommended a control solution test be performed: -Before testing with the Assure Platinum System for the first time; -When new bottles of test trips were opened; -Whenever you suspect the meter or test strips may not be functioning properly; -If test results appear to be abnormally high or low or were not consistent with clinical symptoms; and, -Each time the batteries were changed. III. Record review -A 60 day review of the south station #1 glucometer testing log on 3/6/24 at 1:00 p.m. revealed a control solution test was completed and documented for one out of three glucometers. -A 60 day review of the south station #2 glucometer testing log on 3/6/24 at 1:15 p.m. revealed a control solution test was completed and documented for one out of six glucometers. -A 60 day review of the north station #1 glucometer testing log on 3/6/24 at 1:22 p.m. revealed a control solution test was completed and documented for one out of three glucometers. -A 60 day review of the north station #2 glucometer testing log on 3/6/24 at 1:30 p.m. revealed a control solution test was completed and documented for one out of three glucometers. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 1:45 p.m. The LPN said control solution tests were performed and documented by the night shift nurse. She said she could not identify which glucometer was tested because there was only one control solution test log for all three glucometers at the unit. The RQM was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 3:35 p.m. The RQM said the control solution test was performed on all glucometers according to the manufacturer's recommendation and the facility's policy regarding the proper maintenance of glucometers. The RQM said the facility had initiated glucose monitoring and maintenance education for all staff. She said the facility would ensure each glucometer had its separate control solution testing log.
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 F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were labeled properly on four of four medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure insul...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were labeled properly on four of four medication carts. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure insulin (medication used for blood glucose control) pens were labeled with the resident's name and open dates. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Humalin N kwikpen instructions for use, retrieved on 3/10/24 from: https://pi.lilly.com/us/HUMULIN-N-KWIKPEN-IFU.pdf, Do not remove the Insulin Pen Label, unused Pens may be used until the expiration date printed on the label. II. Facility policy and procedure The Medication Labeling and Storage policy, dated February 2023, was provided regional quality mentor (RQM) on 3/6/24 at 2:00 p.m. The policy read in pertinent part, Labeling of medications and biologicals dispensed by the pharmacy is consistent with applicable federal and state requirements and currently acceptable pharmaceutical practices. Medication labeling includes, at a minimum: the medication name, prescribed dose, strength, expiration date, resident's name, route of administration, and precaution. Only the dispensing pharmacy may label or alter the label on a medication container or package. III. Observations South station #1 medication cart was reviewed with licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 on 3/6/24 at 11:05 a.m. There were a total of eight insulin pens, six of them with no labels: A Levenir insulin pen with no label and the date it was opened. A Basaglar and Victosa insulin pen had the resident's first names written with a marker and no opened date. Abasaglar with no name and no label. All the insulin pens were stored together in the top left drawer of the medication cart. At 11:06 a.m. LPN #1 took the blood sugar for Resident #1. LPN #1 then left the room and went to the medication cart. The medication cart had six flex pens in the blue bin. The LPN was observed to flip through all of the flex pens to find Resident #1. The flex pens were labeled with a black sharpie marker with Resident #1's name. The other flex pens were labeled in the same manner. LPN #1 did locate the pen, however the resident's name was written in black pen. South station #2 medication cart was reviewed with registered nurse (RN) #1 on at 11:21 a.m. There were three Basaglar, a Levenir and a Novolog unlabeled insulin Ppens stored together in a medication cart drawer. The first names of the residents were written with a marker and no last names or the date it was opened were written on the insulin en. A Basaglar and Novolog insulin pen had no label, no marked name and dates it was opened. During medication administration at 11:30 a.m. RN #1 was shuffling through the insulin Pens trying to identify which belonged to which resident. North station #1 medication cart was reviewed with LPN #2 at 11:35 a.m. There were seven Insulin Pens stored together in the top left drawer of the medication cart. Three Basaglar, two Lenenir and two Novolog insulin pens were marked with a black marker with the resident's first names and no dates it was opened. North Station #2 medication cart was reviewed with RN #2 at 11:40 a.m. There were four insulin pens Victosa, Novolog and Basaglar insulin pens had no label, resident's first names were written with a marker and no open date. All four were stored together in the top left drawer of the medication cart. IV. Interviews The corporate nurse consultant was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 12:30 p.m. The corporate nurse said she understood the situation and she was going to work with the pharmacist to put a plan in place to ensure the flex pens were labeled correctly. LPN #1 was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:14 p.m. The LPN said insulin pens' open dates were important to know when the medication expired and when it should be discarded. The LPN said it was possible for names written with a marker to fade after cleaning the insulin pen after each use making it difficult to read. The LPN said the insulin pens arrived in a sealed box or bag from the pharmacy. She said sometimes the insulin pens were not individually labeled by the pharmacy when they were delivered. The director of nursing (DON) and the RQM were interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:30 p.m. The DON said insulin pens should be dated so staff were able to know when they expired and when to discard them. The RQM said markers were not a reliable form of identification since they faded away as the staff continued to clean the insulin pens after each use. The pharmacist was interviewed on 3/6/24 at 2:39 p.m. The pharmacist said she had brought labels for all of the insulin pens. She said the pens (insulin) needed to be properly labeled with the prescription which included, name of resident, dose ordered and any instructions. She said when the medication was delivered in a box of four such as Basaglar. She said the box was then labeled with the proper prescription label. However, each individual pen was not individually labeled. She said that the pharmacist was not allowed to open the box. She said if the order was for only two pens then they could be individually labeled. The pharmacist said additional labels could not be sent to the facility as the nurses were not allowed to label drugs, only pharmacists were allowed to label a drug. She said she printed off the labels for all of the residents with flex pens and she did go through all of the medication carts and labeled all the pens. She said the black pens being used to label the drugs was not appropriate. She said she would come up with a solution to ensure each individual flex pen was labeled correctly. The pharmacist was interviewed again on 3/6/24 at 3:00 p.m. The pharmacist said they were not allowed to open the manufacturer's packaging before sending the insulin to the facility making it difficult to know if the individual insulin pens in the package were unlabeled. She said it was difficult to read the resident's names written with a marker. The pharmacist said the pharmacy could not send labels with the insulin packaging box for the facility to use because all insulin labeling should be performed by a licensed pharmacist. The pharmacist said the pharmacy would ensure all insulin pens were properly labeled individually before delivering them to the facility.
Aug 2023 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure immediate notification to the resident's representative of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure immediate notification to the resident's representative of a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (that is, a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); for one (#120) resident reviewed out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to make timely notification of Resident #120's change of condition to the resident's legal representative. Findings include: I. Facility policy The facility Change in a Resident's Condition or Status policy revised February 2021 was provided by the nursing home administrator on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. It read in pertinent part: Our facility promptly notifies the resident, his or her attending physician and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medial/mental condition and or status. A 'significant change' of condition is a major decline or improvement in the resident's status that: Will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease related clinical interventions (is not 'self -limiting'). II. Resident #120 A. Resident status Resident #120, age [AGE], was admitted to the facility on [DATE] under hospice care and passed away on 8/28/22. According to the August 2022 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included respiratory failure, history of stroke, and anxiety. The 6/1/22 minimum data set assessment (MDS) documented the resident had moderately impaired cognition and was on hospice care. B. Record review The comprehensive care plan, initiated 3/10/22 and last revised 7/12/22 revealed the resident was receiving hospice care; had impaired cognition; was dependent on staff for emotional, intellectual, physical and social needs; and wanted the facility to Inform my family of any significant changes in condition. Other interventions documented throughout the care plan included: Encourage ongoing family involvement. Communicate with me/my family/my caregivers regarding my capabilities and needs. Hospice social work visit (SW) notes dated 8/13/22 at 11:44 a.m. read in pertinent part: Resident experiencing memory deficit failure to recognize familiar persons/places, impaired decision-making, inability to recall events of the past 24 hours, failure to perform usual activities of daily living. Patient is alert and oriented to the person but forgetful and confused. -The note documented that the hospice SW left a voice message for the POA/resident representative to call the hospice social worker with any questions. Nurse's notes dated 8/23/22 at 3:02 a.m. read in part: Resident is receiving pain and anxiety medications as ordered by Hospice. Condition is declining slowly. He is getting more anxious and restless. Body is showing more weight loss. Nursing notes dated 8/24/22 at 10:33 p.m. read in pertinent part: (Resident) started declining and Hospice notified. (Resident) resting comfortably with no SOB (shortness of breath), distress or anxiety noted. Medications given as prescribed. -There were no progress notes to document that the resident's POA/representative was notified by the facility of the resident's change of condition, including increased anxiety, weight loss and decline. Nursing notes dated 8/26/22 at 1:14 a.m. read in pertinent part: Resident appears actively dying. (Resident) is unable to open his eyes and hard to swallow medications, comfort care provided, body repositioned, mouth care provided, safety maintained, will continue to monitor per care plan. -There were no nursing notes documenting that facility staff notified the POA/resident representative of the resident's change of conation. The resident's POA/resident representative was not notified of the resident's change of condition until hospice arrived to assess the resident hours later (see hospice note below). Hospice registered nurse (RN) visit notes dated 8/26/22 at 8:22 a.m. read in pertinent part: Patient's current mental status: deteriorating, not oriented to person place or time. Current status of the patient's appearance: deteriorating. Current status of the patient's pain/comfort: deteriorating. Patient had a major change in condition precipitated by an episode of extreme agitation and is no longer able to communicate. Beginning daily updates to evaluate change in condition. POA/resident representative notified with an update. C. Staff interviews The assistant director of nursing (ADON) was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 3:10 p.m. The ADON said that the nurse on duty was to notify the resident's family/ representative any time a resident experienced a change of condition and document the contact in the resident record. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. The SSD said the resident representative should always be notified as soon as possible when there was a change in a resident's condition unless the resident did not want others to be notified. The NHA and director of nursing (DON) were interviewed on 8/29/23 at 5:45 p.m. The DON said the hospice provider made notification to Resident #120's family when the resident had a change in condition. The DON was unable to find documentation of facility staff making any notification to the resident's POA when the resident first experienced a change of condition and acknowledged that facility nursing staff did not make notification of the resident's change of condition to the resident's POA.
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 F0625 (Tag F0625)

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 a written notice of bed hold was provided at the time of ho...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a written notice of bed hold was provided at the time of hospitalization to two (#121 and #122) of three residents reviewed out of 33 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #121 and Resident #122 and their representative(s) were provided a bed hold notice informing them of their right for timely readmission after a therapeutic leave and appeal procedures for denial of readmission when sent to the hospital for mental health treatment. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Bed Hold policy and procedure, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. It revealed, in pertinent part, Residents and or representative are informed of the facility and state bed hold policy. All residents/representatives are provided written information regarding the facility bed-hold policies, which addresses holding or reserving a resident's bed during periods of absence (hospitalization or therapeutic leave). Residents are provided written information about these policies at least twice: well in advance of any transfer and at the time of transfer or if the transfer was an emergency, within 24 hours. II. Interview A hospital representative was interviewed on 8/23/23 at 11:37 a.m. The hospital representative said neither Resident #121 or Resident #122 were provided a bed hold notice or given information regarding their right to return to the facility or appeal rights in the event of the facility refusing to readmit the residents when each of the residents were sent to the hospital on psychiatric hold for aggressive behaviors. The hospital representative said the facility said they would readmit Resident #121 to the facility when the resident was psychiatrically stable and taking medication voluntarily. The facility said once the resident was assessed to be stable they would reassess the resident for readmission. The resident had been compliant with medication and treatment, was assessed to be stable on day 62 of hospitalization, and had returned to baseline behavior. The facility was notified. The facility said they would see the resident and assess the resident for readmission. On day 65, the resident was still awaiting the facility to reassess the resident for readmission. The hospital representative said the resident was asking and wanted to go home. On day 68, a facility liaison contacted the hospital to say they could not meet the resident's needs; despite that, no facility staff went to the hospital to assess the resident. On day 70, the facility told the hospital they would have to postpone assessing the resident due to other activities occurring at the facility. On day 78, 16 days after the resident was determined by hospital medical staff to be ready for readmission to the facility the facility staff assessed the resident for readmission. On day 83, 22 days after the resident was assessed to be back at baseline and taking prescribed medications, the resident and the resident's family became very frustrated with the facility's lack of attention to readmission. Not knowing what else to do, the resident and family began seeking alternative nursing facility placements. On day 84, another nursing facility accepted the resident for admission into care. The hospital representative said the facility came out on 5/5/23 and issued Resident #122 a discharge notice with appeal rights. This was the first document regarding placement and discharge provided to Resident #122. III. Resident #121 A. Resident status Resident #121, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and was transferred to the hospital on 6/13/23. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included schizophrenia, hypertension, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The 6/13/23 discharge minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had an unplanned discharge to an acute hospital with an anticipated return. The resident was unable to complete the brief interview for mental status. Staff assessment of the resident revealed the resident had short-term and long-term memory impairment, disorganized thinking, and required assistance in making decisions regarding tasks of daily life. The resident had delusions and displayed verbal behavioral symptoms. The resident did not reject care. The resident needed supervision level of care to complete activities of daily living and was independent while walking. The resident took daily antipsychotic medication. B. Record review Progress notes from 5/1/23 to 6/13/23 revealed Resident #121 started refusing medications on 6/1/23. -Notes dated 6/2/23 at 12:36 p.m. read in part: Resident has refused medication for two days. Resident stated she refused her medication because she believes the medication is causing her pain. The resident's physician was notified. -Notes dated 6/9/23 at 3:08 p.m. read: Resident has been refusing medication and nursing care. Resident stated that 'my medications are not helping'. MD (physician) was notified. Education was given, will continue monitoring and educating the resident. -Notes dated 6/13/23 at 11:00 a.m. read: Resident alert but showed agitated behavior, verbally abusive to everybody and refused to take medication. Emotional support was provided but it's useless. -Notes dated 6/13/23 at 12:30 p.m. read: Gave her scheduled Invega injection (antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia and mood support) under support of three peoples emotional support (a friend and two others gave verbal encouragement) . Her best friend (name) helped her with emotional support. Resident showed the same behavior. Keep on monitoring the resident, distanced from another resident to prevent feeling of insult. -Notes dated 6/13/23 at 5:30 p.m. read: Had emergency meeting. MD then gave order of transfer to hospital psychiatric unit. Arranged transportation for transfer. Resident refused to go to hospital, showed same behavior. Family tried to convince her through the phone and in person but were unsuccessful. The transportation team arranged for a 911 team to assist and the resident was transferred to the hospital at 4:52 p.m. Record review revealed the resident's medical record failed to contain a copy of a bed hold notice for 6/13/23 or that it had been provided to the resident/representative within 24 hours of the resident transfer to the hospital. Additionally, the record failed to document the reason why the resident was not permitted to return to the facility after the hospital assessed the resident to be back at psychiatric baseline of prior function to the event that caused the resident to be sent for psychiatric treatment in the first place (see interview above). There was no physician documentation in the resident record to indicate that the facility was unable to meet the resident's physical or psychiatric care needs. IV. Resident #122 A. Resident status Resident #122, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and was transferred to the hospital on 4/28/23. According to the June 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and substance use disorder. The 4/28/23 discharge minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had an unplanned discharge to an acute hospital with a return not anticipated. The 1/29/23 MDS quarterly assessment documented that the resident had moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 10 out of 15. Both the discharge and quarterly MDS assessment documented the resident had no behaviors and did not reject care. The resident was independent with most ADLs but needed supervision level of care while bathing. The resident was not on any psychotropic medications. B. Record review Progress notes failed to document the reason for the resident's discharge to the hospital but documented the resident was admitted to the hospital and on leave. Record review revealed the resident medical record failed to contain a copy of a bed hold notice for 4/28/23 or that it had been provided to the resident/representative within 24 hours of the resident's transfer to the hospital. Notes dated 5/10/23 at 11:04 a.m. read: Topic: Discharge plan: On 5/5/23 at noon this writer (NHA) visited Resident #122 at (hospital name) hospital and informed him that due to his homicidal ideation and violence directed towards other residents at the facility as well as his statement that he had access to a gun, (facility name) would no longer be able to care for him. This writer offered to help find appropriate placement for (resident name). The ED (emergency department) social worker stated that they had a discharge plan in place. V. Staff interviews The NHA was interviewed on 8/27/23 at 11:45 a.m. The NHA said the facility provided bed hold notice upon admission and upon transfer of the resident to the hospital but the facility did not provide either Resident #121 or Resident #122 a bed hold notice. The NHA said the facility intended to hold the resident beds and readmit the residents once they were deemed to be psychiatrically stable. Once Resident #122 reported intent to harm other residents in the facility, the facility made a decision they were unable to readmit Resident #122 due to a belief that the resident posed a threat to himself and to other residents. The NHA said the facility should have provided the notice to each resident within 24 hours of transfer to the hospital. The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on 8/28/23 at 2:00 p.m. The SSD said she was the discharge planner and usually worked with residents when they were transferring to another facility or being discharged for nonpayment. The SSD said she was not involved in emergency discharges and was not sure who was responsible for issuing the bed hold notices to residents being transferred out to the hospital but believed it would have been the discharging nurse's responsibility. The SSD said discharge notices were provided by the NHA.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0659 (Tag F0659)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide services by qualified persons for one (#64)...

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 provide services by qualified persons for one (#64) out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #64 was assessed by a registered nurse (RN) after a fall. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #64, under age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the August 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included anxiety disorder, depression, presence of right artificial hip joint, osteoporosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), fracture of an unspecified part of the neck, pain in the right leg, unsteadiness on feet, repeated falls, and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (insufficient oxygen in the tissue to sustain bodily function) According to the 6/30/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15. The resident required limited assistance for activities of daily living, bed mobility, transfers, grooming, and toilet use. The MDS revealed the resident had two or more falls since admission. II. Record review The comprehensive care plan initiated 6/23/23 and revised 7/18/23, identified the resident was at risk for falls. Interventions include encouraging the resident to use her call device for assistance, ensuring the resident is wearing appropriate footwear, and falling matt next to her bed for injury prevention. Progress note dated 6/24/23 at 11:17 a.m. written by licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2, documented that the physical therapist reported that Resident #64 had a witnessed fall while walking to the bathroom without her walker. The note documented that a physical therapist (PT) assisted the resident from the floor and took the resident to the bathroom without first having the registered nurse (RN) on duty assess the resident for injuries. The progress note documented that an assessment was conducted the resident's range of motion (ROM) was within a normal level, had redness on both knees with no other observed injuries. The resident denied pain or discomfort. Immediate action taken was to remind the resident to use her walker with ambulation. -The progress note did not identify who completed the assessment after the fall. Progress note dated 7/28/23 at 2:33 p.m., written by LPN #3, documented that Resident #64 was found on the floor by therapy staff in the smoking area. The resident stated she fell while attempting to assist another resident. -The therapy staff helped the resident back into her wheelchair without first having the RN on duty assess the resident for injuries. A full review of the resident's medical record was conducted on 8/29/23 at 11:15 a.m. The resident's medical record did not reveal documentation that the resident was assessed by an RN following the fall either resident's fall on 6/24/23 or 7/28/23. III. Staff interviews LPN #2 was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 11:45 a.m. The LPN said when a resident fell she would go to the location of the fall and ensure that the resident was safe then call for a RN to complete the assessment before anyone assisting the resident from the floor. The LPN said it was outside her scope of practice to assess a resident after a fall. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 2:21 p.m. The DON said the staff should get the RN on duty immediately to assess the resident's condition to ensure moving the resident would not cause further injury, additionally; No one should move the resident off the ground without the RN completing an assessment and giving staff the approval to move the resident. An LPN was not able to conduct an assessment because it was outside of an LPN's scope of practice. The DON said she confirmed with the physical therapist who discovered Resident #64's falls and who had also assisted the resident up off the floor. The PT confirmed that the RN was not notified and that the RN did not assess the resident before the resident was assisted up off the floor. The DON said she educated the PT that the RN always needs to assess the resident prior to a lift assist off the floor after a fall and also had a conversation with the director of rehabilitation (DOR) to provide education to the therapy department that they must call the RN to assess the resident before assisting the resident up for the floor to avoid further injury to the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 resident were free from accidents and hazards situations for one (#25) of three residents reviewed out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Resident #25 had the ability to access the call light to call for staff assistance during showering; and, -Staff responded to resident #25 when the resident had been in the shower room for over 45 minutes coughing and unable to get to the call light for staff assistance. Findings include: I. Facility policies and procedures The safety and supervision of residents policy, revised 7/2017, was provided on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. by the nursing home administrator (NHA). It read in pertinent part: The facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. The residents' safety supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are the facility-wide priorities. Safety risks and environmental hazards are identified on an ongoing basis through a combination of employee training, employee monitoring, and reporting processes and the facility-wide commitment to safety at all levels of the organization. -Employees shall be trained on potential accident hazards and demonstrate competency on how to identify and report accident hazards and try to prevent avoidable accidents. II. Resident #25 A. Resident status Resident #25, under the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the August 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnosis included, severe obesity, major depressive disorder, obstructive sleep apnea, chronic pain syndrome, dependent on supplemental oxygen, According to the 8/4/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. The resident was independent with activities of daily living (ADLS), transfers, toileting, and bed mobility, and required supervision and oversight encouragement or cueing with one person's physical assistance with dressing. B. Record review The resident's comprehensive care plan last revised on 9/14/17 documented Resident #25 had limited ability to perform activity of daily living (ADL), and self-care performance deficit due to obesity and activity intolerance. Interventions for bathing included the resident needing assistance getting into and out of the shower room due to the use of an oversized wheelchair. Ensure the call light is within the resident's reach and encourage her to use the call light to call for assistance. -The care plan was not revised to include new interventions to ensure the resident did not get stuck in the shower room unable to access the call light to call for staff assistance during showers. The progress note dated 8/24/23 documented Resident #25 had an episode of nose bleeding while in the shower room. Resident stated she was coughing and triggered nose bleeding. The resident was assisted back to her room and placed cold compress over the bridge of her nose and the nosebleed stopped. Nasal saline gel was applied to the resident nostril. The resident oxygen level was 84 percent. Oxygen was applied via nasal cannula and the resident's oxygen level increased and was stable at 98 percent. C. Observations On 8/24/23 at approximately 11:00 a.m., an uncontrollable loud coughing was heard coming from a bathroom/shower room on the south side of the building. The cough continued for over 39 minutes which prompted an investigation to see if someone needed assistance; who was coughing; and where the cough was coming from At 11:36 a.m., the investigation revealed that Resident #25 was in the showroom and unable to reach the call light to summon staff assistance. Upon finding the location where the coughing was coming from it was discovered that three dietary staff including the dietary manager were meeting in an office located next door to where the coughing sound was coming from. The door to the dietary off was open. The three dietary staff were approached and asked if they knew who was in the room next door to their office; they did not know who was in the room next door coughing. The coughing could be clearly from inside of the dietary office as the office door and the shower room door were five feet apart and sharing a common wall between the two rooms An unknown male dietary staff went to the room where the coughing was coming from knocked on the door and tried to enter. The dietary staff could not gain access to the shower room because Resident #25's wheelchair was blocking the door. The dietary staff was able to crack the door to speak to the resident. The resident had labored breathing but was able to tell staff she was stuck and needed assistance from nursing staff and help to get out of the shower room. The dietary staff alerted nursing staff registered nurse (RN) #1 arrived at the scene and attended to the resident. Resident #25 continued coughing and had shortness of breath and a bloody nose during the observation. In addition to aggressive persistent cough, and having a bloody nose the resident had facial redness and signs of respiratory distress. RN #1 cleaned the blood from the nosebleed and began assessing the resident for signs and symptoms of illness. -At 11:45 a.m., the resident was assisted out of the shower room by RN #1. Resident #25 had to stand up with the nurses assistance while another staff folded up the resident's wheelchair because it would not fit through the door fully opened with the resident seated in the chair. Once the chair was in the hall the RN and staff physically assisted the resident to walk to the chair. The resident was fatigued and unable to walk with the staff assistance. RN #1 then escorted the resident to her room for further assessment and care. Observations about the physical layout of the shower room revealed a narrow entry door. The wheelchair was wider than the entrance of the bathroom and could not fit without having the resident stand up, fold her wheelchair closed then push the wheelchair through the doorway, open her chair back up and sit down in the wheelchair,or have staff assist her in the process of getting into the room. The room contained a sink toilet and roll in shower. The call light was placed in a narrow pathway in a tight corner where the resident's wheelchair could not fit due to the size of the wheelchair. The shower room was not spacious enough for the resident to be able to freely maneuver around in her wheelchair. D. Interviews RN #1 was interviewed on 8/24/23 at 2:30 p.m. The RN said it was brought to her attention that a resident needed assistance in the front shower room. The RN said the resident (#25) went to the shower room to shower but started coughing and became weak and unable to reach the call light or call for assistance. The RN said with the help of other staff she was able to assist the resident out of the shower room, because the resident was too weak and out of breath to get out of the shower room on her own. The RN said she assessed the resident and noticed the resident had oxygen desaturating (a condition when the body's saturations (oxygen levels) are dropping) and was assessed to have an oxygen saturation (a crucial measure of how well the lungs are working) of 84 percent (a normal level of oxygen saturation is usually 95 percent or higher; reading between 90 and 92 percent are considered low oxygen level, also called hypoxemia - inadequate levels of oxygen in body tissues and blood. A reading this low means you might need supplemental oxygen or that there may be challenges that affect how your lungs function. A result below 90 percent indicates that a person should seek medical attention). Resident #25 was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 9:30 a.m. The resident said she usually used the front southside shower room by her own choice and had to fold up and push her wheelchair thru the door because of the doors narrow size. On the day she got stuck in the shower room she entered at approximately at 10:20 a.m.and was getting ready to take a shower when she suddenly developed an uncontrollable cough and then became short of breath, fatigued and weak in both legs, resident #25 said she was unable to stand and walk to the call light that was out of reach because her wheelchair was too wide to fit down into the pathway by the toilet where the shower rooms call light was placed in the corner of the room. Resident #25 said she was also too short of breath to yell for help. Resident #25 said she was in the shower room coughing with her nose bleeding for over an hour and thirty minutes before staff arrived to help her. She felt trapped in the bathroom. RN #1 was interviewed on 8/28/23 at 4:32 p.m. RN #1 said since the bathroom incident with Resident #25 just happened one time she did not think there should be any changes to the resident's care plan. She said the resident should be able to continue showering in that same bathroom without additional supervision. Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #2 was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 11:30 a.m. The LPN said the resident was now taking baths in the back bathroom located near the nursing station. LPN #2 said staff should provide supervision for the resident during showers. The LPN said she was unsure if the resident's care plan was updated to include the new shower routine. The LPN said she believed the resident's care plan should be updated so staff were aware that the resident neede to be checked on during showering, to avoid another incident from happening. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #6 was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 11:40 a.m. CNA #6 said the resident was independent with showers and was able to get herself in and out of the bathroom without any assistance from staff. The CNA said she was unaware of any changes to the resident's shower routine. The NHA interviewed on 8/29/23 at 12:12 p.m. The NHA said the facility maintenance team had modified the call light system in the front bathroom to allow easy access for a resident to reach the cord without having to get down the narrow pathway by the toilet to reach the call light. -When checked and tested with the NHA the modified call light would not alarm because the angle of the call light's pull cord did not facilitate activation. The manner in which the call light was modified only allowed for the cord to be pulled sideways and the call light cord needed to be pulled straight in a downward motion to activate the call light. The NHA acknowledged the call light was not functional for resident use and said he would alert the maintenance staff to come up with a different solution. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 2:30 p.m. The DON said the dietary staff whose office was next door to the shower room, where Resident #25 was discovered, should have checked on the resident to see if she was ok when they heard the resident coughing excessively and or called for nursing assistance, The DON said she thought the dietary staff probably thought since they were not nursing staff it was not their responsibility to check on residents. The DON said she would make sure that all staff including the dietary staff were educated of the responsibility to ensure all residents were safe and received care when needed. The DON said Resident #25 was independent with showering and they did not want to take that away for the resident; however, the staff should be aware to check on the resident routinely when she was in the shower room and the resident's comprehensive care plan should be updated to reflect interventions for the resident's shower routine to ensure staff were aware of the need to check on the resident for safety. The DON said the facility would provide education to all the departments on potential accident hazards, demonstrate competency on how to identify and report accident hazards and try to prevent potential and avoidable accidents and hazardous situations. The NHA was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. The NHA said the maintenance department had located a remote door bell that could be placed in the area of the residents shower for easier access to call for staff assistance. The remote alarm end would be placed at the nurse station to alert nursing staff when a resident was in the front shower room and needed assistance. The system still needed to be tested to make sure the distance and placement of the ringer was functional; they would need to have a monitoring system to make sure the batteries were tested for and changed routinely to ensure the system was fully functional. In the meantime they were encouraging resident #25 to use the shower room closer to the nurses station for her personal safety until a function and accessible call light system was installed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received respirator...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received respiratory treatment as ordered for one (#46) of one resident reviewed for supplemental oxygen use out of 35 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to acquire a physician's order before administering oxygen to Resident #46. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Oxygen Administration policy, dated April 14, 2023, was provided on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. by the nursing home administrator (NHA). It read in pertinent part: Oxygen is administered and stored to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences. The policy explanation and guidelines included: 1. Oxygen will be administered under orders of a physician, except in case of emergency. In such cases, Oxygen shall be administered and orders for Oxygen shall be obtained as soon as practicable when the situation is under control. 2. Staff shall document the initial and ongoing assessment of the resident's condition warranting Oxygen and the response to Oxygen therapy. 3. The resident's care plan shall identify the interventions for oxygen therapy, based on the resident's assessment and orders. II. Resident #46 A. Resident status Resident #46, over age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the August 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (insufficient amount of oxygen in the body), chronic systolic congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, chronic pain, and myocardial infarction (heart attack). According to the 8/4/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of thirteen out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility, grooming, toileting, and transfers. The resident was not assessed to be on oxygen therapy. B. Record review The comprehensive care plan initiated on 7/31/23 revealed that the resident had signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia. The care focus included the following interventions: monitor and report to the medical director (MD) any signs and symptoms of respiratory distress, increased heart rate, restlessness, confusion, or cough. Oxygen settings via nasal prongs/mask. -The care plan did not include parameters for the prescribed liter flow of oxygen therapy, duration of treatment or the specific method by which the oxygen would be delivered; it gave two methods: nasal cannula (prong) and mask. The August 2023 CPO did not include a physician's order for oxygen therapy, that included the oxygen liter flow, duration of treatment, or method of delivery. The 8/1/23, through 8/6/23 skilled nursing progress notes, documented the resident was receiving oxygen therapy via nasal cannula at two (2) liters per minute (LPM). C. Observations On 8/23/23 at 11:27 a.m., Resident #46 was observed. Resident #46 lying down in bed receiving oxygen therapy by nasal cannula. The resident's oxygen concentrator was set to 3 LPM. On 8/23/23 at 4:14 p.m., Resident #46 was observed. Resident #46 was sleeping in his bed receiving oxygen therapy by nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set at 3 LPM. On 8/24/23 at 4:38 p.m., Resident #46 was observed. Resident #46 was awake in bed receiving oxygen therapy by nasal cannula. The concentrator was set at 3 LPM. On 8/28/23 at 11:28 a.m., Resident #46 was observed. A staff member assisted the resident from his wheelchair to his bed and applied a nasal cannula tubing to the resident's nostrils. The tubing was connected to an oxygen concentrator which was set to 3 LPM of oxygen. D. Staff interviews Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 9:10 a.m. LPN #1 said oxygen was considered a medication and needed to be administered according to a physician's order. The LPN said there was a physician's order in place for the resident to receive oxygen therapy at 2 LPM to 3 LPM via nasal cannula; however, when the LPN looked into the resident's CPO, the LPN could not locate the physician's order for the resident's oxygen therapy. The LPN said the resident needed oxygen therapy to avoid a possible negative outcome such as a hypoxia which could lead to confusion, bluish skin, and changes in breathing and heart rate. The LPN said, however, the nurses needed a physician's order to follow for oxygen therapy and should not be given oxygen therapy without a physician's order. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 1:45 p.m. The DON said oxygen was considered a medication and required a physician's order in order to be administered. The DON said there should be an order for resident #46's oxygen therapy. The DON said a negative outcome of the resident not receiving oxygen therapy was that the resident could end up in respiratory distress, but the nurses need to follow the physician's orders for the specific LPM and method of delivery. The DON said in cases of extreme emergencies where oxygen therapy was needed she expected nursing staff to apply the oxygen and notify the resident's physician that there was a change in the resident condition and request a physician's order for oxygen therapy.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment f...

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 provide a clean, comfortable, homelike environment for residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Resident rooms and unit hallways were clean, comfortable, free of urine odors and in good repair throughout the facility; and -Resident bed linens were in clean, stain-free condition. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Homelike Environment policy, revised February 2021, provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/28/23, included in pertinent part: Staff provides person-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence and personal needs and preferences. The facility staff and management maximizes to the extent possible the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting to include: -clean, sanitary and orderly environment; -clean bed and bath linens that are in good condition; -pleasant, neutral scents. II. Observations and interviews On 8/23/23 starting at 8:45 a.m. the facility environment was observed, revealing the following conditions. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was cluttered with boxes of the resident's personal items stacked in the corners and around the wall. Resident #48 said she was unhappy about all the boxes in her room and that she could not unpack and display her personal belongings. Resident #48 said staff do not help her get this done and no one is willing to help her create space for her personal belongings. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was cluttered with the resident's belongings; items were packed on the furniture and piled in the corner. Resident #5 and Resident #1 said there was not enough space to store personal belongings so the items were left on the floor; and staff does not offer any solutions. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had holes in the ceiling in the resident's bedroom. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had boxes stacked on the resident's bed and around the bed. Resident #8 said she does not have enough room to unpack or store her personal belongings so she keeps them on her bed. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had cluttered items, food stains on the wall, floor and bedside table; and particles that appeared to be dried food debris on the bedroom floor. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a strong urine odor that drifted out in the hall. There was no shelving or dresser space for the resident's personal items, so the resident's personal items were sitting on the floor around the resident's bed. -Resident rooms #27 and #28 were cluttered and disorganized, resident personal items were sitting on the floor around the resident's bed. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had dirty bed linen with multiple yellow and brown stains. There was a soiled urinal hanging off a trashcan next to the resident's bed. The floor near the resident bed was soiled and stained with blackened debris and was sticky under foot. The bedside was soiled with dried liquid and food crumbs. -Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] had a strong smell of urine throughout the room. The smell was so strong it could be smelled from down the hall. -The floors in resident rooms #115, #116, #117, #124 were heavily stained with black marks, and had food and paper debris across the floors. -The south side of the building had dark stains on the walls around most of the doors. The overall condition of the hallway was unsanitary with food crumbs and staining visible on the floor. On 8/24/23 at 3:40 p.m., in resident room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident #46 and the resident's representative were visiting. The resident's representative was observed cleaning up the room and collecting food plates and covers from the resident's lunch and piling them into the lunch tray. -The resident's representative said the dirty dishes were left over from the lunch meal. It was frustrating that the facility staff frequently failed to collect the resident meal trays timely after the meal was done. The representative said she frequently had to take the dirty dishes back to the kitchen and had to pick up the resident's room during their visits because the staff did not tidy up the resident's room. -The resident representative said every time she came in to visit the resident's wheelchair was full of stuff; the resident's artificial leg was laying on the floor and the call light as if it were tossed there instead of placed neatly in the corner. V. Additional staff interviews The housekeeping supervisor (HSKS) was interviewed on 8/28/23 at 11:30 a.m. The HSKS said he just started his position a couple of days ago. The prior housekeeping team had been short staffed and had not been keeping up with cleaning duties. Members of the corporate office had been in the building recently and completed a walkthrough with the HSKS. They made a list of cleaning tasks and set a deadline for 9/15/23 to complete the list. The HSKS said there were a lot of areas that needed attention and his new team was working to get their cleaning priority list completed. The HSKS said nursing staff would have to assist with organizing and tidying up the residents' belongings as his team was focused on environmental cleaning. The NHA said they had concerns with the long standing housekeeping team, the facility recently hired a new HSKS and gave the team a list of items that needed to be addressed with a strict deadline to complete the cleaning tasks.
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, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that drugs/biologicals were stored and disposed properly upon expiration. Specifically, the facility failed to dis...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that drugs/biologicals were stored and disposed properly upon expiration. Specifically, the facility failed to dispose of expired Cephalexin (antibiotic medication) and Levemir injection pen (insulin medication device). Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), FDA, Keflex (Cephalexin) Oral Suspension, Highlights of Prescribing Information (2018), retrieved from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2018/050406s013lbl.pdf, on 9/5/23, advised refrigerate Cephalexin after mixing. Medication may be kept for 14 days without significant loss of potency. According to Novo Nordisk, manufacturer recommendations, Taking Levemir (2022), retrieved from https://www.mynovoinsulin.com/insulin-products/levemir/taking-levemir.html, on 9/5/23, Dispose of the Levemir pen after 42 days, even if there is insulin left in the pen. II. Facility policy The facility medication labeling and storage policy, revised February 2023, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/29/23 at 5:30 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The nursing staff is responsible for maintaining storage and preparation areas in a clean, safe and sanitary manner. If the facility has discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated medications or biologicals, the dispensing pharmacy is contacted for instructions regarding returning or destroying these items. Opened or accessed multidose vials are outdated and discarded within 28 days, unless manufacturer specifies shorter or longer duration. -The policy did not provide direction to nursing staff for determining discard dates for single patient use of insulin pens, including Levemir. III. Observations and interviews On 8/24/23 at 3:45 p.m. medication storage room was observed with registered nurse (RN) #1. The medication storage refrigerator contained two bottles of Cephalexin suspension labeled for Resident #57 with expiration label instruction to discard after April 2023. Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 8/24/23 at 3:45 p.m. RN #1 said the Cephalexin suspension for Resident #57 with a written expiration on the bottle to discard April 2023 should be removed from the refrigerator and discarded. The RN took the medication out of the refrigerator to discard. On 8/28/23 at 11:50 a.m., the south hall medication cart was observed with certified nursing assistant with medication administration authority (CNA) #1. A Levemir insulin injection pen was observed in the cart. The Levemir insulin pen was labeled with an open date that was difficult to read and appeared to be labeled as being opened/first used on 7/8/23. -The insulin injection had been opened and had been in use for 50 days well over the manufacturer recommendations for use to administer to a patient (see professional reference above). CNA #1 with medication administration authority was interviewed on 8/28/23 at 11:50 a.m. CNA #1 was unsure what date on the Levemir insulin pen was, as the writing on the label was difficult to read. CNA #1 said the open date written on the label of the insulin injection pen could have been 7/8/23 but it was not clearly written and therefore the insulin should be disposed of; because all insulin pens should be disposed of 28 days after opening. IV. Other interviews The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 8/29/23 at 12:55 p.m. The DON said that a refrigerated liquid medication (ie Cephalexin) with a discard by date of April 2023 should have been discarded on the last day of April 2023. The DON said that the Levemir insulin pen should be discarded 28 days after opening.
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in one of two residents' snack refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner in one of two residents' snack refrigerators. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure proper unit refrigerator temperatures were maintained in the south hall for resident snack refrigerators that contained ready to eat perishable foods intended for resident consumption. Findings include: I. Professional reference The Colorado Retail Food Regulations, effective 1/1/19 and retrieved 9/5/23 from https://cdphe.colorado.gov/environment/food-regulations read in pertinent part, Except during preparation, cooking, or cooling, time and temperature control for safety food shall be maintained at 41 degrees Fahrenheit (F) or less. Equipment for cooling and heating food, and holding cold and hot food, shall be sufficient in number and capacity to provide food temperatures as specified. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) food code reviewed 3/27/23 and retrieved 9/5/23 from https://www.fda.gov/food/fda-food-code/food-code-2022 read in pertinent part, Bacterial growth and/or toxin production can occur if time/temperature control for safety food remains in the temperature danger zone (41 degrees to 135 degrees F) for too long. II. Facility policy The facility policy for food from outside sources was reviewed, revised 7/28/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 8/23/23 at 10:00 a.m. It read, in pertinent part, To assure foods are safe, to prevent foodborne illness, to assure safety for swallowing and chewing, and to add quality of life for residents, questionable food may be removed until safety is determined. Food includes any edible food stuff, including snacks, candy, beverages, or anything made for human consumption. Cold foods must be stored at 41 degrees or lower. If food is above 41 degrees and temperature is documented for less than one hour, the food may be served. If food is higher than 41 degrees and exceeds one hour, the food is advised to be discarded. III. Observation and record review On 8/24/23 at 5:10 p.m., the resident snack refrigerator for the south hallway was observed. The thermometer inside the shared unit snack refrigerator had a high out of range temperature reading of 46 degrees F. The refrigerator temperature log for August 2023 was taped to the refrigerator, and contained a.m. and p.m. columns for recording refrigerator temperatures; the a.m. columns were completed, and the p.m. columns did not have any entries for any days of August 2023. The recorded temperatures for August, 2023 were as follows: -On 8/1/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/2/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/3/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/4/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/5/23, the temperature was 44 degrees F; -On 8/6/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/7/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/8/23, the temperature was 44 degrees F; -On 8/9/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/10/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/11/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/12/23, the temperature was 44 degrees F; -On 8/13/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/14/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/15/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/16/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/17/23, the temperature was 44 degrees F; -On 8/18/23, the temperature was 44 degrees F; -On 8/19/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/20/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/21/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/22/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/23/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F; -On 8/24/23, the temperature was 46 degrees F -The refrigerator temperature log contained a column for corrective action of temperature greater than 41 degrees F, however, the column had no corrective action entries documented. The refrigerator contained two partial containers of milk, one opened ranch salad dressing, one vanilla nutrition shake, a labeled resident's mango, and a cooked hamburger in a plastic bag. The freezer was stocked with packaged frozen food. There was no thermometer was not present in the freezer, and there was no log for the freezer temperatures being monitored. A review of the snack refrigerator temperature log for the months of July 2023 revealed that daily documentation of temperatures were completed with documented temperatures ranging from 44 to 46 degrees F. The column for corrective action documentation had no entries. Freezer temperatures logs were requested on 8/24/2, The requested freezer temperature logs were not provided by the end of the survey to show that staff were monitoring the freezer temperatures. IV. Interviews Registered Nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 8/24/23 at 5:15 p.m. The RN stated that she did not know what the correct refrigerator temperature should be, and stated the night nurse checked the refrigerator temperature. The RN confirmed that the items in the refrigerator were for the residents. The nursing home administrator (NHA) was interviewed on 8/24/23 at 5:45 p.m. The NHA acknowledged the high refrigerator temperatures documented on the refrigerator temperature record logs for July 2023 and August 2023, and said that he would provide education regarding acceptable temperature ranges to the staff who were completing the logs.
Jun 2022 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to accommod...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, it was determined the facility failed to accommodate and individualize the physical environment of the resident's bathroom for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #59) reviewed for accommodation of needs. Specifically, the facility failed to provide adequate space in the resident's bathroom to allow the resident to safely transfer themself from a wheelchair to the commode. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Accommodation of Needs, implemented on 10/01/2021, revealed, 1. The facility will make reasonable accommodations to individualize the resident's physical environment including their personal bathroom and bedroom and the common living areas within the facility .3. Facility staff shall make efforts to reasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of the resident as they make use of their physical environment. 4. Based on individual needs and preferences, the facility will assist the resident in maintaining and/or achieving independent functioning, dignity, and well being to the extent possible. A review of the admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #59 with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the right non-dominant side, acquired absence of left and right leg below knee, muscle weakness, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. A review of the significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 out of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS revealed the resident required supervision and set up help for transfers and toilet use and used a wheelchair for mobility. There were no diagnoses listed related to bilateral below knee amputation (BKA). A record review of Resident #59's care plan, initiated on 04/04/2022, revealed the resident was at risk for falls related to impaired mobility, gait/balance problems, and was unaware of safety needs. The resident had two self-reported falls on 03/24/2022 and 04/02/2022, both without injury. Interventions included to anticipate the resident's needs, ensure the call light was in reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance, and the resident needed prompt responses to all requests for assistance. Another intervention included for physical therapy to evaluate and treat as ordered or as needed. There were no interventions listed for the fall that occurred on 03/24/2022. The resident's care plan also indicated the resident had an activity of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to activity intolerance, disease process, fatigue, hemiplegia, impaired balance, pain, and history of stroke. Interventions included the resident required extensive assistance of one staff for toilet use and transfers. A record review of Progress Notes, dated 03/21/2022 at 1:45 PM, revealed the resident was a low risk for falling, did not require any ambulatory aids, exhibited normal gait, and the resident was aware of their own safety limits. A record review of Progress Notes, dated 03/24/2022 at 1:23 PM, revealed the resident had a fall and was found on the floor between their bed and the closet. The resident's wheelchair was near the resident. The nurse went to get assistance and when they returned, the resident had already transferred themself back into bed. A record review of Progress Notes, dated 03/24/2022 at 2:02 PM, revealed the resident was a high risk for falling, did not require any ambulatory aids, exhibited impaired gait, and the resident was aware of their own safety limits. A record review of an incident report titled Un-witnessed, dated 03/24/2022 at 12:41 PM, revealed it was completed by Registered Nurse (RN) #3. The Nursing Description revealed the resident's hospice social worker reported to RN #3 that the resident was found on the floor and needed help. The resident was found on the floor between the bed and the closet, with the resident's wheelchair nearby. The resident's room was lighted and free of clutter. When RN #3 went to get a certified nursing assistant (CNA) for assistance, the resident had already transferred themself to their bed. The Resident Description of the incident revealed the resident stated they were getting up to use the restroom when the incident occurred. The resident stated they crawled to the restroom and failed to use the wheelchair due to urgency of needing to have a bowel movement. The resident then crawled back to their bed to locate their wheelchair to transfer themself, but they could not. The immediate action taken indicated a head-to-toe assessment was performed by the nurse and no injury was noted. Vital signs were also taken and were at baseline. Neurological checks were initiated. There were no interventions listed on the report. A record review of Progress Notes, dated 03/30/2022 at 1:06 PM, revealed a multidisciplinary care conference was held. Further review of the note revealed the resident used a wheelchair for mobility and had a recent fall in the bathroom. Per the progress note, the resident was not participating in therapy at that time and the resident's care plan was reviewed and updated. A record review of Progress Notes, dated 04/02/2022 at 9:33 PM, revealed the resident had a fall with an intervention to encourage the resident to use the call light for assistance. Relevant medical history related to the fall did not include the diagnosis of bilateral BKA. A review of an incident report titled, Un-witnessed, dated 04/02/2022 at 7:33 PM, revealed the Nursing Description indicated the resident told the nurse that they had fallen. There was no Resident Description listed. The Immediate Action Taken revealed the resident stated their wheelchair slid away while they were trying to transfer from the bed to the chair. No injuries were reported. There were no interventions listed on the report. A review of PT [physical therapy] Evaluation & Plan of Treatment revealed the certification period was from 04/05/2022 to 05/04/2022. The referral for PT revealed the resident was debilitated with bilateral below knee amputation, was weak, had two falls to the floor, and was unstable in their wheelchair. The resident was referred to PT for development of strengthening and balance program and training on safe transfers, including floor to wheelchair. A record review of Progress Notes, dated 05/20/2022 at 2:23 PM, revealed the resident was a high risk for falling, did not require any ambulatory aids, exhibited impaired gait, and the resident was aware of their own safety limits. During an interview and observation on 06/20/2022 at 11:18 AM, Resident #59 was sitting in their wheelchair in their bedroom. The resident had bilateral below knee amputation. The resident stated they had to crawl to their bathroom because their wheelchair would not fit in the bathroom. The resident stated they used a urinal for urination and the bathroom if they needed to have a bowel movement. The surveyor visualized the bathroom and it appeared there would not be enough room for a wheelchair to enter the bathroom and allow for a safe transfer from the wheelchair to the toilet. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 12:32 PM, RN #3 stated the resident used the urinal for urination and the bathroom for a bowel movement. RN #3 stated the resident used their wheelchair to get to the bathroom and would call a CNA for assistance. RN #3 stated they could not remember much about the fall that occurred on 03/24/2022. RN #3 stated they believed another staff member notified her that the resident was on the floor and stated that upon arrival to the resident's room, the resident was on the floor near the door of the bathroom and was trying to use the bathroom. RN #3 stated the resident's wheelchair was by the resident's bedside. The resident told RN #3 that the resident was crawling on the floor to the bathroom. RN #3 stated the intervention for that fall was to remind the resident to use the call light when they needed assistance. RN #3 stated the resident used their wheelchair to get close to the bathroom, used the rail, and the assistance for CNAs to transfer the resident to the toilet. RN #3 stated they were not sure if the resident's wheelchair would fit in the bathroom and stated they had never assisted the resident to the toilet. At this time, RN #3 and the surveyor walked down to the resident's room. RN #3 was unaware of the location of the bathroom in the resident's room. Once shown the location of the bathroom, RN #3 stated the wheelchair would fit in the bathroom. Resident #59 was sitting on their bed and told the RN that it would not fit. The resident stated it was okay to borrow their wheelchair to see if it would fit in the bathroom. The RN wheeled the empty wheelchair to the bathroom and stated the wheelchair did not fit in the bathroom and there was not enough room for the resident to safely transfer themself. The RN stated that the CNAs assisted with transferring the resident. The resident responded, stating that they had to crawl to the bathroom every time and CNAs did not assist them. The RN did not respond. Upon exiting the resident's room, the RN asked the surveyor what she was supposed to do and if she needed to talk to the Administrator. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 12:47 PM, Resident #59 wheeled out of their room and stated they had contacted a family member about moving to another facility that had a handicapped bathroom but did not want to leave because the resident had friends at the facility. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 1:09 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #3 stated the resident used the restroom independently. The CNA had never assisted the resident to the bathroom and had never seen the resident use the restroom, making her unaware of how the resident transferred themself to the toilet. The CNA stated the resident did use the call light but typically asked for ice. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 1:15 PM, CNA #1 stated the resident transferred themself to the restroom by wheeling their wheelchair close to the entrance of the bathroom, used the stumps to stand on, grabbed the assistance bar and the toilet, and would lift themself up on the toilet. CNA #1 stated the resident's wheelchair would not fit in the bathroom, and the resident did not like the wheelchair too close because they could not shut the door. Once the resident had transferred themself to the toilet, they pushed the wheelchair out of the way to allow for more room to transfer. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 1:22 PM, the Rehabilitation Manager (RM) stated the resident was referred to the department because the resident was having falls. The RM stated the resident was falling on the floor and physical therapy (PT) did bed-to-wheelchair and wheelchair-to-bed transfers. The RM stated the resident was a high fall risk and would continue to be so. The RM stated the resident was self-reporting falls, stating the resident had fallen from their chair but was able to get back up. The RM stated the resident was a bilateral BKA and could transfer from the floor to the chair and stated, There is no reason for [them] to do that. The RM stated they went over the setup of the resident's bed and changed the positioning of the bed that was more accommodating. The RM stated they did not assess the transfer to the toilet because the focus was the floor-to-bed transfer. When the RM was asked why they did not assess for a toilet transfer since that was where one of the resident's falls were, the RM stated they would have to review their notes. After reviewing the RM's notes, the RM stated she had marked that the resident refused the assessment for the toilet transfer and that her evaluation was to ensure the resident could transfer themself off the floor. The RM stated the resident did the exercises in the gym and not in their room. The RM was asked if they thought it was appropriate for the resident to have to get on the floor in order to get to the bathroom and the RM stated, If that's the technique [they]'re using, that's what [they] should use. At 1:34 PM, the RM and the surveyor went to the resident's room. The resident offered to demonstrate how they transfered themself to the bathroom. The resident parked their wheelchair approximately six feet from the bathroom, lowered themself to the floor, walked to the bathroom on their knees, and lifted themself up on the toilet. The resident stated they would then close the door. The RM stated there was not much room in the resident's bathroom and asked the resident if they were okay with how they had to transfer themself to the bathroom. The resident stated, No. The RM asked the resident what they would prefer, and the resident stated, I'd prefer to get my wheelchair next to the toilet so I can just slide over. I'd like to have my prosthetics back so I can just walk in there. I haven't had them in a year. The RM stated it was the first the resident had complained about the transfer. All the bathrooms had limited space and they teached residents to park at the door, stand, and pivot to the toilet. The RM stated they used the shower room's bathroom if the resident could not use their own bathroom, but also added that showers tend to be wet, so it's a fall risk and they'd need supervision. The RM stated they would not be able to answer if any of the bathrooms in the facility would accommodate a wheelchair. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 2:45 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that the Director of Nursing (DON) was out on medical leave, and they had an interim DON (IDON) start that day (06/21/2022) and the interim DON was not familiar with the residents. The ADON stated CNAs helped the resident to the bathroom and had not seen the resident transfer themself. The ADON stated they were unaware of the resident having to crawl on the floor in order to use the restroom but was aware the resident could transfer themself. The ADON stated the resident had not complained about not being able to transfer themself from the wheelchair to the toilet due to lack of space. When asked if the facility had any bathrooms that would accommodate a wheelchair, the ADON referred the surveyor to the RM. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 3:05 PM, the Administrator (ADM) stated the resident's bilateral BKA would not be on the resident's care plan because it was clinical, but would be on the MDS. At this time, the ADM was asked to show if the BKA was on the MDS. Unable to locate the BKA, the ADM stated she would need to speak with the MDS Consultant (MDS #1). The ADM stated the intervention for the fall on 03/24/2022 was to use the call light for assistance. The ADM stated the resident took themself to the bathroom. The resident did not crawl to the bathroom, and the resident was admitted with the bilateral BKA. The ADM stated that therapy evaluated the resident, and the resident was able to go to the bathroom independently. The ADM indicated that it was the resident's choice on how they transferred themself to the bathroom. The ADM stated the facility could have a meeting with the resident to see if there was an alternative, such as the resident using the shower room's toilet. The ADM stated that all bathrooms were the same size; however, the shower room had a larger area to move around in. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 3:26 PM, MDS #1, the IDON, and the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) were asked by the ADM where on the MDS would the BKA be listed, since it was clinical and not listed on the resident's care plan. MDS #1 stated, Diagnosis. Section I. I don't see it listed. MDS #1 stated it should be on the MDS.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to complete a Level 1 Preadmission Screen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to complete a Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 1 (Resident #28) of 1 resident reviewed for PASARR. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Assessment Policy and Procedure, dated 2020, revealed, XI. Preadmission screening for individuals with a mental disorder and individuals with intellectual disability. A. The Facility shall not admit any new resident with: a. Mental disorder (an individual is considered to have a mental disorder if the individual has a serious mental disorder as defined in 42 CFR § 483.102 (b) (1), unless the State mental health authority has determined, based on an independent physical and mental evaluation performed by a person or entity other than the State mental health authority, prior to admission: i. That, because of the physical and mental condition of the individual requires the level of services provided by a nursing facility; and ii. If the individual requires such level of services, whether the individual requires specialized services. A review of Resident #28's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 12/30/2021. Resident #28 had diagnoses that included delusional disorders, insomnia due to other mental disorder, alcohol dependence with other alcohol-induced disorder, and dementia without behavioral disturbance. According to the admission Record, these diagnoses were present upon admission to the facility. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed the resident had an active diagnosis of psychotic disorder (other than schizophrenia). A review of Resident #28's electronic health record (EHR) revealed no documented evidence a Level 1 PASARR was completed for the resident. During an interview on 06/22/2022 at 11:26 AM, the Social Worker (SW) revealed it was an oversight that Resident #28's Level 1 PASARR was not completed prior to admission. The SW indicated the Level 1 PASARR was not done initially when the resident was admitted from the hospital. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 11:38 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) indicated it was his expectation that the SW ensured residents that were admitted to the facility had a Level 1 PASARR screening conducted with 30 days of admission. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 11:45 AM, the Administrator indicated it was her expectation that moving forward she would get with her clinical liaison team to ensure the hospital completed the Level 1 PASARR. The Administrator further indicated that the Social Worker would follow up with the county.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications from enteral feedings for 1 (Resident #53) of 1 resident observed during medication administration via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure medications, enteral formula, and water were allowed to flow into the PEG tube via gravity, rather than being pushed into the tube with a syringe. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Enteral Tube Medication Administration, 2022 Edition, revealed the procedure to administer medications included, 8. Flush the tube with 30 ml [milliliters of water. 9. Administer liquid medications first, then those that need to be diluted. Reserve thick medications e.g. [for example] antacids for last. 10. Allow medication to flow down tube via gravity. Review of an admission Record revealed Resident #53 had diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and aspiration of fluid. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Resident #53 scored 13 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS revealed the resident had a feeding tube for nutrition. Review of Resident #53's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that during the 8:00 AM medication pass, the resident was to receive the following medications and supplements: - Calcium Carbonate chewable 500 milligram (mg) tablet. Administer two tablets via G-tube (gastrostomy tube) for low calcium before meals - start date 02/22/2022. - Cholecalciferol tablet 1000 units. Administer four tablets via G-tube as a supplement - start date 11/10/2021. - Colace (crushable) 100 mg tablet via G-tube for constipation - start date 01/19/2022. - Escitalopram oxalate 20 mg tablet. Administer one tablet via G-tube for depression - start date 02/22/2022. - Multivitamin with minerals tablet. Administer one tablet via G-tube as a supplement - start date 11/10/2021. - Oxybutynin chloride 5 mg tablet. Administer one tablet via G-tube for overactive bladder - start date 03/15/2022. - Protein liquid (no amount indicated). Administer via G-tube for a supplement - start date 03/24/2022. - Sennosides 8.6 mg tablet. Administer two tablets via G-tube for constipation - start date 11/09/2021. - Gabapentin solution 100 mg/6 mL (100 milligrams per six milliliters). Administer 12 mL via G-tube for neuropathy - start date 03/15/2022. - Jevity 1.5, eight ounces via PEG for nutrition - start date 01/11/2022. During an observation and interview on 06/22/2022 at 9:01 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #5 prepared medication to administer to Resident #53 via PEG tube. Before administering the medications, RN #5 stated she was not going to use gravity to administer the water flushes, medications, and enteral feed due to the medications getting stuck in the small tube. RN #5 aspirated the resident's PEG tube with a syringe to check for residual stomach contents, which yielded none. RN #5, using a plunger and syringe, then forced the water flushes, eight medications, and liquid nutrition through the PEG tube. After using force to administer all water flushes, medications, and nutrition, RN #5 administered 60 milliliters of water via gravity. The resident did not appear to be in distress or discomfort during the observation. During an interview on 06/21/2022 at 2:45 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated the Director of Nursing (DON) was out on medical leave, and the facility currently had an interim DON (IDON), who started on 06/21/2022. The ADON indicated the interim DON was not familiar with the residents. The ADON stated medications via PEG tube should be administered via gravity. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, the Administrator stated he did not know if medications should be administered via gravity, only that the medications needed to be flushed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #53 and #54) observed during medication administration. Four errors in medications were observed during 28 opportunities for errors in medication administration. This resulted in a medication error rate of 14.28%. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration and General Guidelines, 2022 Edition, indicated the procedure included, 2. Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. If a dose seems excessive considering the resident's age and condition, or a medication order seems unrelated to the resident's current diagnosis or condition, the physician is contacted for clarification prior to the administration of the medication. The interaction with the physician is documented in the nursing notes and elsewhere in the medical record as appropriate .16. Prior to administration, the medication dosage schedule on the resident's MAR [medication administration record] is compared with the medication label. If the label and MAR are different and the container is not flagged indicating a change in directions, or if there is any other reason to question the dosage or directions, the physician's orders are checked for the correct dosage schedule. Facility personnel will contact [pharmacy] if any discrepancies are noted. 1. A review of Resident #53's admission Record revealed the resident had diagnoses of multiple sclerosis, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, and aspiration of fluid. A review of Resident #53's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident scored 13 of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Further review of the MDS revealed the resident had a feeding tube for nutrition. During a medication administration observation on 06/22/2022 at 9:01 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #5 prepared medication for Resident #53 to administer via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. RN #5 had printed out the resident's MAR; however, RN #5 did not look at the MAR while preparing the medications. The following medications were prepared and/or crushed and given to the resident: - Calcium carbonate chewable 500 milligrams (mg), 2 tablets; - Cholecalciferol tablet 1000 units, 4 tablets; - Escitalopram oxalate 20 mg; - Multivitamin with minerals tablet, 1 tablet; - Oxybutynin chloride 5 mg, 1 tablet; - Miralax 17 gms (grams); and - Gabapentin 12 milliliters (mL). A record review of Resident #53's Medication Administration Record and physician's orders revealed that during the 8:00 AM medication administration, the resident was to receive the following medications: - Calcium carbonate chewable 500 mg tablets. Administer two tablets via gastrostomy-tube (G-tube) for low calcium before meals. This medication was started on 02/22/2022; - Cholecalciferol tablet 1000 units. Administer four tablets via G-tube as a supplement. This medication was started on 11/10/2021; - Colace (crushable) 100 mg tablet via G-tube for constipation. This medication was started on 01/19/2022; - Escitalopram oxalate 20 mg tablet. Administer one tablet via G-tube for depression. This medication was started on 02/22/2022; - Multivitamin with minerals tablet. Administer one tablet via G-tube as a supplement. This medication was started on 11/10/2021; - Oxybutynin chloride 5 mg tablet. Administer one tablet via G-tube for an overactive bladder. This medication was started on 03/15/2022; - Sennosides 8.6 mg tablet. Administer two tablets via G-tube for constipation. This medication was started on 11/09/2021; - Gabapentin solution 100mg/6 mL. Administer 12 mL via G-tube for neuropathy. This medication was started on 03/15/2022. The record review revealed that Colace 100 mg tablet and Sennosides 8.6 mg tablet was not administered to Resident #53 as ordered. Furthermore, there was no physician's order for the Miralax that was given during the medication administration observation. During an interview on 06/22/2022 at 10:33 AM, RN #5 stated the resident's Colace and sennosides were not administered because, I made an error. I gave [the resident] Miralax instead. It's because I didn't have my computer. I thought [the resident] was on Miralax but I think I read it wrong. I notified the doctor after. A record review of an Order Audit Report revealed that on 06/22/2022 at 9:57 AM, RN #5 had an order written for a one-time dose of glycolax powder (Miralax) to be given on 06/22/2022. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 8:57 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that the Director of Nursing (DON) was out on medical leave, and they had an interim DON (IDON) that started on 06/21/2022 and the interim DON was not familiar with the residents. The ADON stated the nurse providing medication should review the MAR and follow the rights of medication administration. The ADON stated that if staff did not have a computer to review the MAR, then they were to print a paper copy of the MAR and read off of it. The ADON stated if a resident did not have a physician's order for a medication, it should not be administered. The ADON stated that if a medication order did not have an amount to be given, the nurse should call the doctor to verify. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, the Administrator (ADM) stated the nurses should use the electronic health record (EHR) to complete the MAR. The ADM stated nurses had laptops and always had their MAR up. The ADM stated if the nurse did not have a laptop, then they could use a desktop computer. The ADM stated she was aware of two laptops that had been dropped and were not working and stated the nurse would have to go back and forth from the desktop to their medication cart. The ADM stated the nurse also had the option of printing off the MAR so the nurse would not have to leave the medication cart. The ADM stated that the resident had to have a physician's order for a medication in order for it to be administered. The ADM stated if a medication order did not have the amount to be given, the nurse was to contact the physician. 2. A review of Resident #54's admission Record revealed the resident had diagnoses of hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the left non-dominant side and type 1 diabetes mellitus. A review of Resident #54's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the resident scored 6 of 15 on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. During a medication administration observation on 06/22/2022 at 7:19 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #4 prepared the resident's 8:00 AM medications. The following medications were prepared and given: - Droxidopa 100 mg capsule; - Cholecalciferol tablet 1000 units; - Clopidogrel Bisulfate 75 mg; - Famotidine 20 mg tablet; - Folic acid 1 mg; - Metoprolol tartrate 25 mg tablet; and - Basaglar 100 unit/mL, 20 units. A record review of Resident #53's Medication Administration Record and physician's orders revealed that during the 8:00 AM medication pass, the resident was to receive the following medications: - Cholecalciferol tablet 1000 units. Administer one tablet by mouth for a vitamin D deficiency. This medication was started on 11/09/2021; - Clopidogrel Bisulfate 75 mg tablet. Administer one tablet by mouth for blood clots. This medication was started on 11/09/2021; - Droxidopa 100 mg capsule. Administer one capsule by mouth for dizziness. This medication was started on 11/13/2021; - Famotidine 20 mg tablet. Administer one tablet by mouth for reflux. This medication was started on 04/06/2022; - Folic acid 1 mg tablet. Administer one tablet by mouth as a supplement. This medication was started on 11/09/2021; - Lantus SoloStar solution Pen-injector 100units/mL. Inject 20 units subcutaneously for diabetes mellitus. This medication was started on 03/15/2022; - Metoprolol tartrate 25 mg tablet. Administer one tablet by mouth for high blood pressure. This medication was started on 04/04/2022. The record review revealed that the physician's order was for Lantus and the resident received Basaglar. An interview with LPN #4 on 06/22/2022 at 10:40 AM revealed she thought Lantus and Basaglar were the same medication and Basaglar was what the pharmacy sent. LPN #4 told the surveyor to call the pharmacy to verify the information about the medications. During an interview on 06/22/2022 at 1:36 PM, the pharmacy was contacted and Licensed Pharmacist (LP) #1 stated that both Basaglar and Lantus were insulin glargine and the pharmacy substituted Basaglar for Lantus due to the preference of the insurance company. When asked about documentation regarding the medications being interchangeable, the surveyor was transferred to the Director of Pharmacy (DP). The DP stated that insurance chose which medication the resident should receive, and the two medications were interchangeable. When the surveyor asked for documentation showing they were interchangeable, the DP stated she would email the surveyor the information. The DP stated she reviewed two websites while on the phone with the surveyor, and both websites stated the medications were not interchangeable. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 8:57 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated if a physician's order did not match what the pharmacy sent, the nurse should call the pharmacy first and verify and call the doctor to verify, and that it was up to the doctor to change the medication. The ADON stated the pharmacist's opinion may not match what the doctor wanted. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 9:27 AM, the Administrator (ADM) stated if a physician's order did not match what the pharmacy sent, the nurse should contact the physician and the pharmacy. During a record review on 06/23/2022 at 12:45 PM, the DP emailed the surveyor a Therapeutic Substitution Formulary grid which indicated the basal insulin, such as Lantus, should be substituted with Semglee. There was no reference that Lantus and Basaglar were interchangeable.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked carts when unattended for 1 of 4 medication carts and 2 of 3 treatment carts. Findings included: A review of facility policy titled, Medication Storage in the Facility, dated 2022, revealed 2. Only licensed nurses, the Consultant Pharmacist, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications (e.g., medication aides) are allowed unsupervised access to medications. Medication rooms, carts, and medication supplies are locked or attended by persons with authorized access. During an observation on 06/20/2022 at 11:04 AM, an unlocked medication cart was located in front of the North Hall nurse's desk. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #1 was sitting at the desk, with her back towards the cart. There was one resident sitting in a wheelchair, approximately 10 feet from the unlocked cart. The Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) walked by the cart twice and did not lock the cart. Resident #42, who was in a wheelchair, wheeled up to the cart and sat next to it. Another resident walked up to the nurse's desk and asked the CNA at the desk for some ice. At 11:08 AM, Nurse Practitioner (NP) #1 walked into the nurse's station, bypassing the medication cart, sat down, then reached over the counter and grabbed the laptop off the medication cart. At 11:10 AM, Resident #62 wheeled past the unlocked medication cart in their wheelchair. At 11:12 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) #1 and CNA #1 walked by the cart. At 11:14 AM, two kitchen staff walked by the unlocked cart. At this time, NP #1 got up to go screen a staff member before they were allowed to enter the building, leaving the nurse's station unattended. At 11:15 AM, Resident #59 wheeled up to the nurse's station to speak with the surveyor. At this time, the surveyor went to get NP #1, who was still at the screening station, and brought NP #1 back to the unlocked cart. NP #1 stated the cart should have been locked but the doorbell rang, and he had to screen someone in. During an observation and interview on 06/22/2022 at 5:52 AM, a treatment cart located at the South nurse's station was unlocked. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 was sitting at the nurse's station. One CNA and one ambulatory resident walked by the unlocked treatment cart. At 5:59 AM, LPN #3 got up from the nurse's station and went to room [ROOM NUMBER] to answer a call light, leaving the treatment cart unattended. At 6:01 AM, LPN #3 returned to the nurse's station. At this time, LPN #3 was asked to walk over to the treatment cart, and he acknowledged the cart was unlocked and stated it should be locked. The LPN locked the cart then showed the surveyor that the drawers still opened, even though the cart was locked. LPN #3 stated the lock had been like that for a while. After asking the LPN if he had notified anyone of the lock not working, the LPN changed his statement to he was just now made aware the lock did not work. The surveyor showed the LPN that the bottom drawer did not appear to be closing all the way. The LPN tried to shove the drawer back in and said the drawer was closed all the way. At 6:08 AM, LPN #3 went back to the nurse's station to give report to the two oncoming shift nurses. During an observation and interview on 06/22/2022 at 6:46 AM, the treatment cart located on the South nurse's station still appeared locked, but the drawers were still able to be opened. Registered Nurse (RN) #5 and LPN #4 stated that LPN #3 had left for the day and did not notify them that the treatment cart lock was not working properly. Both nurses looked at the bottom drawer and noticed there was something blocking the bottom drawer from closing all the way. They notified maintenance, and by 6:59 AM, the item was removed from the cart, which allowed the drawer to close and the lock to function properly. During an observation and interview on 06/22/2022 at 10:23 AM, the treatment cart located on the North Hall nurse's station was unlocked and unattended. The bottom drawer appeared to be slightly ajar. Resident #42 and two other residents wheeled by the unlocked cart in their wheelchairs. At 10:24 AM, RN #3 approached the cart and stated they had been assisting another resident and the cart should be locked when unattended. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 8:57 AM, the ADON stated that staff should ensure a medication or treatment cart was locked when unattended and that staff should notify a supervisor if a cart was unable to be locked. During an interview on 06/23/2022 at 9.27 AM, the Administrator (ADM) stated that staff should ensure that all carts were locked when not in use and staff should contact the maintenance department if there was an issue with the lock.
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 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.
  • • 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below Colorado's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade F (35/100). 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 Crestmoor's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CRESTMOOR CARE 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 Crestmoor Staffed?

CMS rates CRESTMOOR CARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 23%, compared to the Colorado average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Crestmoor?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at CRESTMOOR CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 27 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Crestmoor?

CRESTMOOR CARE 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 RECOVER-CARE HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 108 certified beds and approximately 82 residents (about 76% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DENVER, Colorado.

How Does Crestmoor Compare to Other Colorado Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Colorado, CRESTMOOR CARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (23%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Crestmoor?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Crestmoor Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CRESTMOOR CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). 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 Crestmoor Stick Around?

Staff at CRESTMOOR CARE CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 23%, the facility is 23 percentage points below the Colorado average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 29%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Crestmoor Ever Fined?

CRESTMOOR CARE 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 Crestmoor on Any Federal Watch List?

CRESTMOOR CARE 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.