COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE

3749 SHERMAN AVE, MONTE VISTA, CO 81144 (719) 852-5118
Government - State 60 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#17 of 208 in CO
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

The Colorado Veterans Community Living Center at Homelake has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #17 out of 208 nursing homes in Colorado, placing it in the top half, and is the best facility in Rio Grande County, ranking #1 out of 3. The facility is improving, with the number of issues found decreasing from 5 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, receiving a perfect 5/5 stars with a turnover rate of 34%, significantly lower than the state average, and it boasts more RN coverage than 96% of facilities in Colorado. However, there have been incidents of concern, including a serious incident where a resident was injured after an altercation with another resident, and issues related to food safety and vaccination policies. While the facility has no fines and maintains excellent staffing ratings, families should be aware of these recent incidents when making their decision.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In Colorado
#17/208
Top 8%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
5 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
34% turnover. Near Colorado's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 80 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Colorado nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
○ Average
9 deficiencies on record. Average for a facility this size. Mostly minor or procedural issues.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (34%)

    14 points below Colorado average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 34%

12pts below Colorado avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

The Ugly 9 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide services for two (#15 and #7) of two residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to provide services for two (#15 and #7) of two residents reviewed out of 23 sample residents according to professional standards of practice. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #15's and Resident #7's vital signs, specifically the resident's blood pressure and pulse, were monitored and assessed prior to the administration of a blood pressure medication. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to Kizior, R. J. [NAME], K. J. (2023). Metoprolol. [NAME] Nursing Drug Handbook. Elsevier. p. 770. Assess B/P (blood pressure), heart rate immediately before drug administration. If pulse in 60 beats per minute or less or systolic B/P is less than 90 mmHg (millimeters of mercury) withhold medication and contact physician. According to Kizior, R. J. [NAME], K. J. (2023). Amlodipine. [NAME] Nursing Drug Handbook. Elsevier. P. 60. Assess B/P, if systolic B/P is less than 90 mmHg, withhold medication, contact physician. According to Kizior, R. J. [NAME], K. J. (2023). Lisinopril. [NAME] Nursing DrugHandbook. Elsevier. p. 703. Obtain B/P, apical pulse immediately before each dose in addition to regular monitoring, be alert to fluctuations. II. Facility policy and procedure The Medication Administration policy and procedure, revised 10/20/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/16/24 at 4:56 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Obtain and record vital signs, when applicable or per physician orders. When applicable, hold medications for those vital signs outside the provider's prescribed parameters. III. Resident #15 A. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that causes tremors), orthostatic hypotension (low blood pressure after standing or sitting up) and syncope (fainting). The 7/18/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of 13 out of 15. He was dependent with toileting, personal hygiene, required substantial/maximal assistance with bed mobility, transfers and required supervision with eating. B. Observations On 10/16/24 at 7:35 a.m. registered nurse (RN) #2 was observed dispensing and administering Metoprolol 12.5 milligrams (mg) to Resident #15. RN #2 checked the certified nurse aide (CNA) 10/16/24 vital sign record sheet for that morning (10/16/24), which indicated the resident's blood pressure was 93/60 mmHg. -RN #2 did not check the vital sign record sheet or the resident's medical record for a pulse rate. -RN #2 did not check the order for blood pressure or pulse parameters prior to the administration of the Metoprolol medication to Resident #15. C. Record review The October 2024 CPO documented a physician's order of Metoprolol succinate ER (extended release), give 12.5 mg once a day for heart rate, ordered on 11/3/22. -The October 2024 CPO did not document any vital signs parameters for when to hold the Metoprolol medication or when to notify the physician of irregular vital sign results for that medication. The October 2024 (10/1/24 to 10/16/24) vital signs summary revealed Resident #15's pulse was only assessed on 10/4/24, 10/5/24, 10/7/24, 10/11/24, 10/12/24, 10/13/24 and 10/14/24 and not daily at the time the resident was given the prescribed Metoprolol tablets. IV. Resident #7 A. Resident status Resident #7, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the October 2024 CPO, the diagnoses included diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension. The 7/25/24 MDS assessment revealed the resident had cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of five out of 15. She required partial/moderate assistance with personal hygiene, transfers, supervision with toileting, set up assistance with eating and was independent with bed mobility. B. Observations On 10/16/24 at 8:00 a.m. RN #2 was observed dispensing and administering: -Amlodipine 10 mg (blood pressure medication); and, -Lisinopril 40 mg (blood pressure medication). -RN #2 did not assess the resident vital signs, including the resident's blood pressure and pulse, check the order for blood pressure parameters or review the resident's record for the resident's most recent vital signs prior to the administration of Almodipine or Lisinopril. C. Record review. The October 2024 CPO documented a physician's order of Amlodipine 10 mg once a day for hypertension (high blood pressure), ordered on 9/18/24. The October 2024 CPO documented a physician's order of Lisinopril 40 mg once a day for hypertension, ordered on 9/6/23. -The October 2024 CPO did not document any vital sign parameters for when to hold the Amlodipine or Lisinopril or when to notify the physician of irregular vital sign results. -The October 2024 (10/1/24 to 10/16/24) medication administration record (MAR) and treatment administration record (TAR) did not document how often the resident's vital sign should be checked. The September 2024 (9/1/24 to 9/30/24) and October 2024 (10/1/24 to 10/16/24) vital sign summary revealed Resident #7's blood pressure was only assessed on 9/5/24, 9/16/24, 9/19/24, 9/20/24, 9/21/24, 9/27/24, 10/9/24 and 10/16/24. The September 2024 (9/1/24 to 9/30/24) and October 2024 (10/1/24 to 10/16/24) vital sign summary revealed Resident #7's pulse was only assessed on 9/5/24, 9/12/24, 9/19/24, 9/20/24, 9/21/24 and 9/26/24. V. Staff interviews RN #2 was interviewed on 10/16/24 at 8:15 a.m. RN #2 said if a physician's order did not indicate parameters to hold the medication he would only check the blood pressure if the resident was symptomatic. He said a blood pressure of 93/60 mmHg was normal for Resident #15. He said vital signs were not routinely checked unless there were ordered parameters for medications. RN #1 was interviewed on 10/16/24 at 11:00 a.m. RN #1 said residents that were on a new medication had their vital signs checked daily. She said certain medications had ordered parameters to check vital signs. She said when residents were on medications and did not have parameters she would decide on her own whether or not to take the resident's vital signs. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/16/24 at 12:00 p.m. The DON said vital signs were taken by certified nurse aides (CNA) and the nurses when there were parameters ordered. She said blood pressure medications should have blood pressure and pulses taken before administration, even if there were no parameters ordered. The DON was interviewed again on 10/16/24 at 2:00 p.m. The DON said she was working on nursing education regarding checking vital signs before administering blood pressure medications and knowing when to hold and consult the physician if there were no parameters in place, according to standards of practice. V. Facility follow up The Hypertensive Medication Parameters, dated 10/16/24, was received from the NHA on 10/17/24 at 1:33 p.m. It documented nursing education was provided on 10/16/24 (during the survey) to include when receiving physician's orders for hypertensive medication to notify physician to obtain orders for parameters. It documented the DON did a chart audit for all residents on medications affecting blood pressure and heart rate and their associated parameters on 10/16/24 (during the survey). It documented a weekly audit would be done of blood pressure medications with parameters for compliance. It documented audit reports to quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) every month to start 10/31/24.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate resident resuscitation choices in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate resident resuscitation choices in the medical record for three (#141, #13 and #32) of fourteen residents out of 23 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure a physician's order was in place for a do not resuscitate (DNR) for Resident #141, who wished to be a DNR per the resident's Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) form; -Ensure documentation of a MOST form was in place for Resident #13; and, -Ensure the MOST form was discussed with and signed by Resident #32, who was cognitively intact. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Advanced Directives and Resident Rights to Refuse Treatment policy and procedure, revised [DATE], was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on [DATE] at 8:00 a.m. It read in pertinent part, On admission, the facility will determine if the resident has executed an advance directive, and if not, determine whether the resident would like to formulate an advance directive. Copies of living wills or advanced directives will not be scanned into the medical record but instead, kept in a binder in a designated area. Physician order will be entered in the electronic medical record (EMR) that reflects the resident's wishes and corresponds to the MOST form or other legal documents related to advanced directives or living will. II. Resident #141 A. Resident status Resident #141, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic kidney disease (CKD), macular degeneration (eye disease that causes vision loss) and bilateral cataracts. The[DATE] minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. He required setup assistance with eating and was independent with toileting, personal hygiene, bed mobility and transfers. B. Record review Review of Resident #141's EMR revealed a MOST form which was signed on [DATE] and documented Resident #141's wishes for DNR status. -Review of the [DATE] CPO failed to reveal documentation of a physician's order for the resident's DNR status. III. Resident #13 A. Resident status Resident #13, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] CPO, diagnoses included traumatic brain injury, hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The [DATE] MDS assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of four out of 15. He required substantial/maximal assist personal hygiene, partial/moderate assistance with toileting, transfers, setup assistance with eating and was independent with bed mobility. B. Record review A review of Resident #13's [DATE] CPO revealed the following physician's order: DNR, see MOST form, ordered [DATE]. -A comprehensive review of the facility's MOST form binder failed to reveal a completed MOST form for Resident #13. IV. Resident #32 A. Resident status Resident #32, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] CPO, diagnoses included traumatic ischemia of muscle (direct tissue damage with decrease in blood supply), Parkinson's disease (degenerative movement disorder) and chronic respiratory failure. The [DATE] MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. He required substantial/maximal assistance with one person for shower/bathing, upper/lower body dressing, personal hygiene, sit to stand transfers, and chair to chair transfers. B. Record review A review of Resident #32's [DATE] CPO revealed the following physician's order: Do Not Resuscitate (DNR), see MOST form, ordered [DATE]. According to the resident's MOST form, the resident was marked as No CPR: do not attempt resuscitation. The MOST form was signed by Resident #32's medical power of attorney (MPOA). The area on the MOST form that revealed if the decision was discussed with the resident was marked no. -However, Resident #32 was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15 indicating the resident was capable of making his own decision about his resuscitation status and therefore should have signed his own MOST form. The care plan, initiated [DATE], revealed the resident planned to stay at the facility for short term care. -The care plan did not identify the resident's resuscitation wishes according to the MOST form. V. Staff interviews The director of nursing (DON) and the NHA were interviewed together on [DATE] at 2:59 p.m. The DON said the facility used the MOST forms for the residents' resuscitation wishes. She said the admitting nurse initiated the MOST form when the residents were admitted and the form was reviewed quarterly and when the residents' chose to change their resuscitation wishes. She said the physician was at the facility a minimum of once a week and would sign the MOST forms. She said residents that came to the nursing home from the domiciliary (the independent resident cottages) brought their MOST forms with them. The DON said Resident #141 was admitted on [DATE]. She said a physician's order for DNR status had not been obtained for Resident #141 until [DATE] (during the survey) because it was caught during a MOST form audit the facility conducted. She said, in an emergency situation, staff referred to the MOST form binder to check for residents' resuscitation statuses. She said it was important to have MOST forms filled out and physician's orders documented timely in case of any emergency situations. The DON said she did not know why Resident #13's original MOST form was missing out of the facility's MOST binder. She said there was a MOST form for Resident #13 uploaded into the EMR, but she said the facility's process during an emergency situation was to check the MOST binder and the original MOST form. She said the original MOST form was where the staff would document when a review of the MOST form was conducted and document with residents that the MOST form continued to accurately reflect their wishes. She said the facility would create a new MOST form for Resident #13 and verify if the DNR status was still his wish for resuscitation.
Feb 2024 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 record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of four residents reviewed for abuse out of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#1) of four residents reviewed for abuse out of four sample residents was kept free from abuse. Resident #2 and Resident #1 were involved in an altercation on 11/7/23. Resident #2 attacked Resident #1 and Resident #1 had injuries that included a scratch to his left forehead that was cleaned, a scratch on his nose, an abrasion to his left face/cheek, left jawline, left ear and bruising to the top of his left shoulder. There was redness around his neck and Resident #1 complained of severe left shoulder pain. Interventions added after the altercation were to move Resident #2 to a different hall and the resident was to be in the staff's line of sight. However, those interventions were not effective due to another altercation that occurred on 1/3/24. According to Resident #1, on 1/3/24 Resident #2 pulled him down and hit him. Resident #2 had redness/possible bruising to the right hand at the base of the third finger knuckle and an abrasion on the back of his left hand. Resident #1 sustained a bloody nose, a skin tear to his nose and left hand and two abrasions to the forehead. He also sustained a fracture to one of the fingers on his right hand. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. The facility failed to implement measures to protect Resident #1 from abuse perpetrated by Resident #2, who was known to be physically aggressive. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Abuse policy, revised 10/16/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 2/13/2024 at 4:05 p.m. It documented in pertinent part, It is the policy of the (corporation) to provide protection for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent mistreatment, abuse, neglect and exploitation. The (facility) will take necessary precautions to prevent resident abuse by anyone including staff members, other residents, volunteer, contracted staff, family members, resident representatives, visitors, and other individuals. II. Resident-to-resident altercation involving Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 11/7/23 According to the investigation, Resident #2 entered the room that adjoined his and went to the bed where Resident #1 was sleeping and began attacking him. Resident #2 attempted to choke Resident #1 but the Resident #1 was able to make enough noise to alert staff of the situation. Staff reported a certified nurse aide (CNA) attempted to pull the Resident #2 from Resident #1 and when she did, Resident #2 pushed her away from him. The CNA called for assistance and when staff entered the room they were able to get the Resident #2 away from Resident #1 and out of the room. Resident #2 was brought to the rotunda (common area) where he slept for the next hour. The medical doctor (MD), the NHA, the director of nursing (DON), the social services staff and family were notified of the incident. Law enforcement was notified at 5:20 p.m. Resident #1 sustained a scratch to his left forehead that was cleaned, dried and covered with protective dressing. He had a scratch on his nose, an abrasion to his left face/cheek, left jaw line, left ear and bruising to the top of his left shoulder. There was redness around his neck and the resident complained of severe left shoulder pain. The facility's action for the assailant was to add Resident #2's behaviors to the care plan and implement an intervention for the resident to be in the line of sight of the staff. Resident #2 was moved to a different hall. The conclusion of the internal investigation documented Resident #2 attacked and choked Resident #1. Resident #1 did not remember the incident. The CNA witnessed the incident and separated the residents immediately. III. Resident-to-resident altercation involving Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 1/3/24 According to the investigation, there was an unwitnessed altercation between Resident #1 and Resident #2 on 1/3/24. Resident #1 thought Resident #2 may have punched him. The registered nurse (RN) in charge thought maybe Resident #1 attempted to stand up and fell and hit his nose and side of his head due to injury marks and where he was found. A CNA observed what she thought was a resident had fallen. Resident #1 was mostly out of his wheelchair next to the wall with Resident #2 holding him by his shirt collar. The CNA redirected Resident #2 down to his hallway and called a RN to assess injuries in both residents. Resident #1 was interviewed by a police officer and, due to the resident having an abrasion to head, he was sent to the emergency room for further evaluation. The nature of suspected abuse was physical with hitting and Resident #1 having a fractured finger. The facility's action for Resident #2 was for the resident to be in the line of sight of the staff. Resident #2 was moved to a room at the end of the hall. The facility documented the incident was inconclusive due to the cognition of the residents. -However, the CNA did witness the resident being pulled by his collar which caused the fall and injuries to Resident #1 (see progress notes below). In addition, Resident #2 had redness/possible bruising to the right hand at the base of the third finger knuckle and an abrasion on the back of his left hand. IV. Resident #1 A. Resident status Resident #1, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia and age related physical disability, According to the 1/25/24 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15. The resident had verbal and physical behaviors directed towards others. B. Resident observation and interview Resident #1 was interviewed on 2/13/24 at 9:50 a.m. Resident #1 was lying down in his bed looking out the window. He said he stayed in his room most of the time as he liked to spend time alone. Resident #1 said, I don't want to talk about it but I tell you if I would not have been lying down I would have let him have it because I know [NAME] arts. C. Record review The care plan, initiated 5/15/23 and revised 1/25/24, identified the resident had impaired cognition function/dementia or impaired thought processes and dementia with behaviors. Interventions included keeping resident's routine consistent and trying to provide consistent caregivers as much as possible and monitor/document/report as needed any changes in cognitive function, specifically changes in decision making ability. The nurse note dated 1/3/24 at 7:53 p.m. documented in pertinent part, This nurse heard a CNA yelling for a nurse. Upon arrival to the hallway the resident was found lying on the floor with his head against the wall with nose bleeding, skin tear to nose and skin tear to left hand with two abrasions to the forehead. The resident was stating another resident made him fall and hit him. The resident complained of shoulder pain which was chronic. Administration and medical doctor notified with order to send the resident to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation. Social service notified as well as family of possible altercation. The Sheriff's office notified and came into the facility to interview residents. The ambulance arrived to transport to hospital. Report called to nurse at hospital. The resident was alert smiling and talking to emergency medical technicians (EMT). The EMT asked the resident if he hit his head and he stated, 'I don't remember as my memory isn't very good anymore'. The 72-hour follow up notes dated 1/4/24 at 6:31 a.m. documented in pertinent part, The resident was back from hospital altercation with another resident. The resident received his tetanus shot, had some lacerations, bruising and a fracture to his finger on the right hand. The resident complained of pain and received medication without complications. The physician note dated 1/6/24 at 3:54 p.m. documented in pertinent part, Follow up ER visit from 1/3/24. Unwitnessed incident resulted in skin tear, abrasions and fracture that is not displaced of the finger. Splint on for at least three weeks. V. Resident #2 A. Resident status Resident #2, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the February 2024 CPO, diagnoses included dementia and adult failure to thrive. According to the 12/7/23 MDS assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of four out of 15. The resident had no behavioral symptoms. B. Record review The care plan, initiated 7/22/22 and revised 12/7/23, identified the resident had potential to be physically aggressive. Interventions include providing physical and verbal cues to alleviate anxiety and give positive feedback. Document observed behaviors and attempt interventions and behaviors. When the resident becomes agitated, intervene before agitation escalates. Guide way from source of distress, engage calmly in conversation. If the response was aggressive, the staff were to walk away calmly and approach later. The behavior note dated 11/7/23 at 10:47 a.m. documented in pertinent part, The resident made verbal threats toward this registered nurse (RN) while rounding on him this morning. This RN left the room immediately to de-escalate the situation. Later this resident was apologetic towards this RN. Social services staff notified. The 72 hour follow up note dated 11/8/23 at 6:23 a.m. documented in pertinent part, The resident stood in the door of his room wrapped in his blanket peeking down the hallway for a while during the night. He later came toward the rotunda and went down the blue hall entering another resident's room where he was caught just before attempting to get into an occupied bed. He was redirected back to his room where he stayed for about an hour. During this time, the CNA attempted to assist him with his clothing as he had his pants on backwards and he raised his hand at her and stated, 'Don't tell me what to do.' The CNA felt unsafe so she left the room. After she left he exited his room and went toward the rotunda. She exited another room and saw him attempting to enter a female resident's room. He was again redirected and brought to the rotunda and offered a snack and apple juice. He ate and then fell asleep in a recliner in the rotunda. The nurse note dated 1/3/24 at 7:53 p.m. documented in pertinent part, Resident #2 wandered at night and was half way down the hall and a CNA came out of another room seeing Resident #2 was leaning over the other resident with his hands on his sweater to try and lift the resident up. Resident #1 was lying on the floor against the wall next to the wheelchair. Resident #1 was assisted by CNA to the rotunda. Resident #2 said, 'I was trying to help him up.' Resident #2 was observed to have redness/possible bruising to the right hand at the base of the third finger knuckle and abrasion on the back of his left hand. VI. Staff interviews CNA #1 was interviewed on 2/13/24 at 10:52 a.m. CNA #1 said Resident #1 did not like to go out of his room as he did not feel comfortable around others. She said the resident had his good and bad days but was good with her and she had no problems with him. CNA #2 was interviewed on 2/13/24 at 11:02 a.m. CNA #2 said she was familiar with Resident #2. She said the resident had a lot of behaviors especially when providing care. She said he would yell and cuss at staff and did not like to be bothered. She said she was not working any of the times any of the resident incidents happened but she was told of the resident to resident altercations between Resident #1 and Resident #2. She said the residents did not have any interventions or guidelines to follow that she was aware of to prevent further altercations. She said she would find out. CNA #2 was interviewed again on 2/13/24 at approximately 11:15 a.m. CNA #2 said the interventions for Resident #2 were to monitor him and keep him within line of sight. RN #1 was interviewed on 2/13/24 at 11:15 a.m. RN #1 said he was familiar with both Resident #1 and Resident #2 and was aware of the resident to resident altercations between them. He said the residents did not have any interventions in place. He said Resident #2 did not have any behaviors. The social service director (SSD) and NHA were interviewed together on 2/13/24 at 1:29 p.m. The SSD said he was the abuse coordinator for the facility. He said the resident to resident altercation on 11/7/23 between Resident #1 and Resident #2 was substantiated as it had been witnessed by staff. He said he was called into the facility for the second incident on 1/3/24. He said the two residents were found together and a CNA witnessed Resident #2 grabbing the collar of Resident #1 while he was on the ground. He said Resident #1 was sent to the hospital due to his injuries and Resident #2 had reported no injuries but after the nurse assessed Resident #2 he had some bruising ]and scraped knuckles on his hands. He said both residents were confused and they were not really with it. He said the investigation identified Resident #1 was hit but he could not recall the specifics of the incident. The NHA said Resident #1 had short term memory because he could not remember what happened five minutes ago. She said Resident #1 could not recall the incidents but would not say what really happened.
Mar 2023 5 deficiencies
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 the resident environment remained as free of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible, and adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents were provided for one (#27) of three residents reviewed for accidents out of 22 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide supervision during meals for Resident #27 who required supervision due to choking/coughing. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included malignant neoplasm (cancer) of the bladder, age related cognitive decline, bradycardia (slow heart rate) and anemia. According to the 12/15/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15. The resident had physical behaviors directed toward others. He required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, grooming and toilet use. The resident required supervision for eating. The MDS assessment revealed swallowing disorder of coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications. II. Observations On 3/13/23 at 11:32 a.m., Resident #27 was sitting in the rotunda eating his lunch by himself. No staff were observed while the resident was sitting in his wheelchair eating his meal. The resident was observed to be vigorously coughing during his meal. Resident #27 continued to cough and started to gasp for air as he tried to catch his breath. Resident #27 continued to cough and he was unable to eat his meal. An unknown certified nurse aide (CNA) approached Resident #27 and asked him if he was done with his meals. The CNA placed the plate cover over the resident's plate and removed the plate taking it to the kitchen. The assistant director of nursing (ADON) was getting a drink of water in the rotunda and observed Resident #27 having difficulty and asked how he was doing. Resident #27 requested a cup of coffee which the ADON said she would get from the kitchen. On 3/14/23 at 11:29 a.m., Resident #27 was eating his lunch in the rotunda by himself. The nursing home administrator came from the Special Forces hall and exited the rotunda area. No other staff were observed in the area. Resident #27 again started to vigorously cough but was unable to clear his throat. Resident #27 continued to cough trying to clear his throat. Resident #27 was slumped over coughing trying to catch his breath. His eyes were shut tight as he gasped for air. This surveyor was going for assistance when a CNA #2 walked into the rotunda and observed Resident #27 choking. She asked Resident #27 if he was okay with which he did not respond. CNA#2 then asked Resident #27 if he got it out. CNA #2 then called registered nurse (RN) #1. RN #1 started helping Resident #27 to catch his breath. Resident #27 was spitting up into a napkin. RN #1 threw three napkins into the trash while observing the napkins content. RN #1 then requested Resident #27 to blow his nose to help him clear his airway. RN #1 continued to monitor Resident #27 and check vitals while ensuring the resident's safety. The director of clinical operations (DCO) was also assisting with Resident #27. -At 12:35 p.m. CNA #2 was observed coming out of Resident #27's room. The resident was lying in bed in a 30 degree incline and continued to have a cough. The DCO was sitting next to Resident #27 while he was resting in bed. -At 12:47 p.m. RN #3 was observed monitoring Resident #27 who continued to still have a cough. III. Record review The care plan, initiated 10/15/21 and revised 3/2/23, identified the resident had a chewing and swallowing problem. The resident would cough with beverages during meals or swallowing medication. Swallowing assessment results by speech therapy to evaluate. The resident refuses one-to-one care and assistance at times related to independence and right to self-determination. Interventions include diet to be followed as prescribed of regular mechanical soft, thin liquids, and may have regular diet as needed per resident's request. The resident had a risk benefit diet consent form signed and reviewed. Have resident sit at the assist table as needed. Monitor/document/report any signs or symptoms of dysphagia: pocketing, choking, Coughing, drooling, holding food in mouth, several attempts at swallowing, and refusing to eat, appears concerned during meals. Refer to Speech therapist for swallowing evaluation. Nurse log note dated 3/9/23 at 1:50 p.m. documented in part Residents complaining about resident's cough during meals times. Will follow up with an interdisciplinary team. Nurse log note date 3/14/23 at 12:45 p.m , documented in part this resident coughing in the rotunda where he was having lunch. Was able to clear his secretions. Coughed off and on x 10 minutes while this RN had him under direct observation. Drank a little lemon lime soda and calmed himself. No signs or symptoms of distress, asked to return to his room. States that he is done with his lunch. Chatted with resident at his bedside x 10 minutes, respirations even and unlabored, and no signs/symptoms of distress. Was joking around with this RN and staff nurse. Denied any further needs Nurse note date 3/15/23 at 11:35 a.m., documented in part the resident was offered snacks this morning in the rotunda. The resident chose potato chips. The resident began coughing and was given a soda. The coughing subsided and the resident did not want to give staff his chips, initially but later offered to give them up for another snack. Staff at the side of the resident during the entire event. The resident continues to be monitored. IV. Interviews RN #1 was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 1:15 p.m. RN #1 said she was familiar with Resident #27. She said Resident #27 would eat in the rotunda because it had been reported that he was disturbing other residents in the dining room with his excessive coughing. She said other residents were disgusted by his continuous coughing. She said Resident #27 had a history of aspiration as he chewed his food too fast and he choked. She said Resident #27 was very particular about his food and did not like anyone to touch his food. She said generally the facility would have staff close by for Resident #27 and would be in line of sight while he was eating in the rotunda. She said Resident #27 was spitting up chunks of broccoli and sputum while she was monitoring Resident #27. She said Resident #27 had a history of coughing but today obviously was much worse than normal. She said a negative outcome of not monitoring Resident #27 while he was eating in the rotunda could be life threatening. CNA #2 was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 1:29 p.m. CNA #2 said Resident #27 would eat in the rotunda as other residents were getting upset with his coughing and it was affecting the others during meal time. She said Resident #27 had a history of coughing and choking. She said this past Sunday 3/12/23, Resident #27 had a severe coughing fit while he was eating. She said she would make sure the resident was okay and then she would offer him a drink of Sprite. She said she was assisting another resident at the end of Blue heaven hall when she observed Resident #27 having a hard time with his meal. She said she observed the resident's plate and the broccoli was whole and the sweet potatoes were definitely not mechanical soft size. She said she would compare the size of the food to a fifty cent piece. The social service director (SSD) was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 1:31 p.m. He said Resident #27 eats in the rotunda on a daily basis but that was his preference. He said Resident #27's medical power of attorney (MPOA) requested Resident #27 eat in the rotunda. He said Resident #27 was supposed to be in line of staff while eating in the rotunda. The physical therapist (PT) was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 1:48 p.m. He said Resident #27 eats in the rotunda because other residents would complain about his coughing. He said it was taking away the ability of others to enjoy their meals. He said Resident #27 had a history of aspiration and choking when eating his meals. He said therapy had tried on several occasion to do an evaluation with Resident #27 but Resident #27 would always be non-compliant and refuse any type of evaluation. So the facility medical power of attorney and the resident filled out a risk benefit form documenting Resident #27 had chosen to go against medical advice and not eat a pureed meal diet and thicken liquids taking full responsibility for his choices. He said Resident #27 should be in line of sight of staff and in a safe environment while eating his meals. The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 1:59 p.m. She said Resident #27 eats his meal in the rotunda due to complaints by other residents in the dining room about his coughing. The DM was told of the observation in the rotunda while eating and the size of the broccoli and sweet potatoes. She said the mechanical soft diet should be bite size pieces. She said she would educate dietary staff again on the procedure of special diets. She said a negative outcome of residents not receiving a correct diet could be choking and/or death. The DCO was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 2:13 p.m. She said she was somewhat familiar with Resident #27. She said, It was my understanding that Resident #27 was to receive supervision or in line of sight and today he did not receive any while he ate. She said a negative outcome would be choking and aspiration. The ADON was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 2:24 p.m. She said Resident #27 was asked daily if he wanted to eat in the dining room in the rotunda. She said he was independent with eating his meals. She said staff were always in the area of the rotunda and staff who were in their offices who would hear anyone if they were choking. She said Resident #27 did have a history of coughing and he did have one episode of aspiration and the staff did keep an eye on him during meals. The ADON was told of the observation above of Resident #27 coughing/choking while he was eating his meals and no staff responded until CNA #2 came into the rotunda. The ADON said Resident #27 could not be identified as aspirating as aspiration required a diagnosis by a physician. She said Resident #27 had such a strong cough he could clear himself most of the time. The ADON said Resident #27 was to be in line of sight of staff while eating but it was not always 100 percent of the time. The NHA was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 3:45 p.m. She said Resident #27 had the option of eating in the dining room or the rotunda but he liked eating in the rotunda. She said Resident #27 had the right to choose where he wanted to eat and if he was having a coughing episode he also had the option of going to his room. She said the facility would ensure he was safe while he was eating. She said Resident #27 had signed a risk benefit statement form choosing to not eat a puree diet and he chose what he wanted to eat. She said he would not sit at the assisted dining table either and that was his choice. She said a negative outcome of not having supervision or in line of site during meals Resident #27 could get pneumonia, choke and/or death. The registered dietitian (RD) was interviewed on 3/17/23 at 4:32 p.m. via telephone after exit. She said she was familiar with Resident #27. She said Resident #27 had a history of excessive coughing, choking and aspiration. She said Resident #27 refused to eat a pureed meal and chose to eat what he wanted to eat. The RD said if the resident was eating at the assisted table or in the dining room, he should be monitored. She said if Resident #27 was eating in the rotunda he should have definitely been monitored closely by staff. The RD was told of observations above during lunch and the size of the resident's food. The RD said the mechanical soft food should be bite size and not whole pieces of broccoli and sweet potatoes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents received proper respiratory treatment and care for one (#15) of four residents reviewed for supplemental oxygen use out of 22 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure physician's order was in place for Resident #15's continuous oxygen use. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The Oxygen Therapy policy and procedure, revised February 2/23/23, was provided on 3/14/23 at 4:00 p.m., by the nursing home administration (NHA). It read in pertinent part, It is the policy of the (name of the facility) that oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the residents' goals and preference. It is the policy of this facility to administer oxygen in a safe manner. II. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, sleep apnea, and dementia. According to the 6/10/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of seven out of 15. The resident had no behaviors. He required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, grooming, and toilet use. The MDS assessment revealed the resident did not receive oxygen therapy. III. Record review The care plan, initiated 4/21/21 and revised 3/9/23, identified the resident had COPD. Interventions include the resident refusing to wear oxygen during the day. Continuous positive airway (CPAP) discontinued on 11/17/21. The resident refuses to wear oxygen discontinued on 6/23/22. The April 2022 CPO included an oxygen order for O2 at 2 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula. Check oxygen saturation (SAT) daily. Notify a medical doctor (MD) if SAT is lower than 89%. Discontinued 4/18/22. -The March 2023 CPO did not include a physician's order for oxygen. IV. Observation and interview On 3/13/23 at 10:46 a.m., the resident was lying in bed with no oxygen on. Resident #15 had an oxygen concentrator and CPAP machine at the foot of his bed. No oxygen tubing or nasal cannula were observed. -At 3:30 p.m. Resident #15 was observed sleeping in bed with no oxygen on. On 3/14/23 at 9:00 a.m., the resident was lying in bed with no oxygen on. On 3/15/23 at 3:04 p.m. Resident #15 was lying in bed sleeping. He had oxygen at 2 liters per minute (LPM). Registered nurse (RN) #3 observed Resident #15 lying in bed sleeping with his oxygen on. RN #3 said Resident #15 always slept with his oxygen on. RN #3 said Resident #15 had an order for oxygen while laying down in bed. RN #3 was shown the discontinued order for resident's oxygen and CPAP. RN #3 walked to his medication cart and reviewed the resident CPO. RN #3 said Resident #15 should have had a physician's order prior to the use of continuous oxygen. He said he would get the physician order updated. V. Staff interviews The ADON was interviewed on 3/15/23 at 2:24 p.m. She said, I don't consider oxygen to be a medication because as a nurse I can put oxygen on a resident if they need it. She said the facility missed the order and the oxygen was ordered for Resident #15.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide special eating equipment and utensils for r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide special eating equipment and utensils for residents who need them for one (#20) of two residents reviewed for adaptive equipment out of 22 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the physician ordered weighted utensils, Dycem placement, sippy cup and scoop plate was positioned correctly during all meals for Resident #20. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #20, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included Parkinson's, gastro-esophageal reflux disease and chronic kidney disease. According to the 6/10/22 minimum data set (MDS) assessment, the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of three out of 15. The resident had wandering behaviors. He required extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, grooming, and toilet use. The MDS revealed the resident required supervision, encouragement and set up for meals. B. Record review The care plan, initiated 3/29/21 and revised 3/9/23, identified the resident had nutritional problems related to Parkinson disease, dysphagia (swallowing difficulty), difficulty chewing and risk for weight loss. Intervention included: Monitor/document/report as needed any signs or symptoms of dysphagia: pocketing, choking, coughing, drooling, holding food in mouth, several attempts at swallowing, refusing to eat, and appears concerned during meals. Provide, serve, diet as ordered. Regular mechanical soft thin liquids. Monitor intake and record meals. -The resident did not have a care plan identifying use of assistive devices. The March 2023 CPO included: For all meals and snacks: weighted utensils with built-up handles, scoop dish, Dycem placemat, and sippy cup with handles. Revision date 4/24/21. C. Observations On 3/14/23 at 11:53 a.m. Resident #20 was in the main dining room eating his lunch. The resident did not have his weighted utensils, Dycem place mat, and sippy cup with handles. The resident did have his scoop plate but the raised lip of the scoop plate was at the two o'clock position. Resident #20 was right hand dominant and was observed scooping his meal from right to left and was observed to have food spilling over the top of the scoop plate. -At 4:32 p.m. Resident #20 was observed in the main dining room eating his dinner. The resident did not have his weighted utensils, Dycem place mat, and sippy cup with handles. The resident did have his scoop plate but the raised lip of the scoop plate was at the three o'clock position. Resident #20 was observed scooping his meal from right to left and was observed to have food spilling over the top of the scoop plate. On 3/15/23 at 11:43 a.m. Resident #20 was observed in the main dining room eating his lunch. The resident did not have his weighted utensils, Dycem place mat, and sippy cup with handles. The resident did have his scoop plate but the raised lip of the scoop plate was at the 12 o'clock position. Resident #20 was observed scooping his meal from right to left and was observed to have food spilling over the top of the scoop plate. IV. Interviews Registered nurse (RN) #3 was interviewed on 3/15/23 at 11:51 a.m. RN #3 observed Resident #20's plate. RN #3 said the high lip of the resident's scoop plate was at the top of the scoop plate. RN #3 said he was not familiar with the correct placement of the scoop plate but would check on its placement. Certified nurse aide (CNA) #9 was interviewed on 3/15/23 at 11:59 a.m. She said Resident #20's scoop plate should have been at the left side of the resident. CNA #9 said, I changed it to the correct position. CNA #9 said dietary staff would serve the residents' meals and sometimes would just place them in front of the residents. CNA #9 said she was aware Resident #20 utilized a scoop plate but was not aware of the other assistive devices. The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 3/15/23 at 3:17 p.m. She said the dietary staff are aware of any assistive devices required for all residents. She said Resident #20 should have been provided with all assistive devices to ensure adequate food intake during all meals. She said he would provide training for the dietary staff immediately. The registered dietitian (RD) was interviewed on 3/17/23 at 4:32 p.m. via telephone after exit. She said she was familiar with Resident #20. She said the dietary department had all of the assistive devices and should have been using them. The RD was told of the observations above. She said, That doesn't make sense. She said Resident #20 was not getting 100 percent of his meal and it probably was taking longer to eat. She said a negative outcome would be his food getting cold and losing its palatability and possible weight loss.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures related to pneu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to develop and implement policies and procedures related to pneumococcal immunizations for three (#91, #38 and #25) of five residents reviewed for vaccinations of 29 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Residents #91, #38 and #25 were offered and/or received pneumococcal immunization. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reviewed 11/21/22, retrieved on 3/27/23 from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/infectioncontrol/ltc-facility-guidance.htm. It read, in pertinent part, If possible, all residents should receive inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) annually before influenza season. For persons aged 65 years (or older), the following quadrivalent influenza vaccines are recommended: high-dose IIV, adjuvanted IIV, or recombinant influenza vaccine. If not available, standard-dose IIV may be given. In the majority of seasons, influenza vaccines will become available to long-term care facilities beginning in September, and influenza vaccination should be offered by the end of October. Informed consent is required to implement a standing order for vaccination, but this does not necessarily mean a signed consent must be present. Although vaccination by the end of October is recommended, influenza vaccine administered in December or later, even if influenza activity has already begun, is likely to be beneficial in the majority of influenza seasons because the duration of the season is variable, and influenza activity might not occur in certain communities until February or March. According to the CDC Recommended Immunization Schedule for Adults Aged 19 Years or Older, United States, 2023, retrieved on 3/27/23 from https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf. It read, in pertinent part, The pneumococcal vaccine was to be administered to immunocompetent adults aged 65 years or older one dose of 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV13), if not previously administered, followed by one dose of 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV23) at least one year after PCV13; if PPSV23 was previously administered but not PCV13, administer PCV13 at least one year after PPSV 23. For special situations (see-www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6140a4. htm): individuals aged 19-64 years with chronic medical conditions (chronic heart excluding hypertension, lung, or liver disease, diabetes), alcoholism, or cigarette smoking: give 1 dose PPSV23. II. Facility policy The Pneumococcal Vaccine policy, revised 12/20/22, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/15/23 at 1:01 p.m. the policy included, Policy: Facilities will offer and provide vaccinations against pneumococcal diseases in accordance with the (CDC) recommendations and guidance. Procedures/Process: -Each resident will be assessed for pneumococcal immunization upon admission. Self-report of immunization shall be accepted. Any additional efforts to obtain information shall be documented, including efforts to determine the date of immunization or type of vaccine received. -Each resident will be offered a pneumococcal immunization unless it is medically contraindicated or the resident has already been immunized. Following assessment for any medical contraindications, the immunization may be administered in accordance with physician-approved 'standing orders.' -Prior to offering the pneumococcal immunization, each resident or the resident's representative will receive education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of the immunization. a. The individual receiving the immunization, or the resident representative, will be provided with a copy of CDC's current vaccine information statement relative to that vaccine. b. If necessary, the vaccine information statement will be supplemented with visual presentations or oral explanations to assist vaccine recipients in understanding. -The resident/representative retains the right to refuse the immunization. A consent form shall be signed prior to the administration of the vaccine and filed in the individual's medical record. -The type of pneumococcal vaccine (PCV15, PCV20, or PPSV23/PPSV) offered will depend upon the recipient's age and susceptibility to pneumonia, in accordance with current CDC guidelines and recommendations. -Usually only one (1) pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccination (PPSV) is needed in a lifetime. However, based on an assessment and practitioner recommendation, additional vaccines may be provided. -A pneumococcal vaccination is recommended for all adults 65 years' and older and based on the following recommendations: a. For adults 65 years' or older who have not previously received any pneumococcal vaccine: Give 1 dose of PCV15 or PCV20. i. If PCV15 is used, this should be followed by a dose of PPSV23 at least one year later. The minimum interval is 8 weeks and can be considered in adults with an immunocompromising condition, cochlear implant, or cerebrospinal fluid leak. ii. If PCV20 is used, a dose of PPSV23 is NOT indicated. b. For adults 65 years' or older who have only received a PPSV23: Give 1 dose PCV15 or PCV20. i. The PCV15 or PCV20 dose should be administered at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination. ii. Regardless of if PCV15 or PCV20 is given, an additional dose of PPSV23 is not recommended since they already received it. c. For adults 65 years' or older who have only received PCV13: Give PPSV23 as previously recommended. -For adults 19 to 64 years' old who have only received PPSV23: Give 1 dose of PCV15 or PCV20. a. The PCV15 or PCV20 dose should be administered at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination. b. Regardless of if PCV15 or PCV20 is given, an additional dose of PPSV23 is not recommended since they already received it. -For adults 19 to 64 years' old who have received PCV13 with or without PPSV23: Give PPSV23 as previously recommended. -The resident's medical record shall include documentation that indicates at a minimum, the following: a. The resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of pneumococcal immunization. b. The resident received the pneumococcal immunization or did not receive due to medical contraindication or refusal. III. Resident #91 Resident #91, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. The medical record revealed the resident received the influenza vaccination outside of the facility and his pneumococcal vaccination information provided prior to admission had been documented non compliant. -The facility did not have evidence of an offer or refusal of the pneumococcal vaccine. IV. Resident #38 Resident #38, age above 90, was admitted on [DATE]. The medical record revealed the resident received the influenza vaccination at the facility and his pneumococcal vaccination was not up-to-date. -The facility did not have evidence of an offer or refusal of the pneumococcal vaccine. V. Resident #25 Resident #25, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. The medical record revealed the resident received the influenza vaccination at the facility and her pneumococcal vaccination was not up-to-date. -The facility did not have evidence of an offer or refusal of the pneumococcal vaccine. VI. Interview The director clinical operations (DCO) was interviewed on 3/14/23 at 4:00 p.m. She said when the request was made for vaccination records, the facility had identified the problem with pneumococcal vaccination status. She said the facility was currently conducting an audit of the residents and would be contacting the providers. She said it would be important to offer the vaccine to help prevent pneumonia.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions in one kitchen. Specifically, the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions in one kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure: -Appropriate hand hygiene by food service staff; and, -Foods of modified consistency were reheated to safe temperatures following the use of a multi-step preparation process. Findings include: I. Improper hand hygiene A. Professional references According to the Colorado Retail Food Establishment Rules and Regulations (effective 1/1/19) pg. 46-47, Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including working with exposed food, clean equipment and utensils, and unwrapped single-service items and: Before handling or putting on single use gloves for working with food, and between removing soiled gloves and putting on clean gloves. Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms including surrogate prosthetic devices for hands or arms with soap and water for at least 20 seconds and shall use the following cleaning procedure: 1. Vigorous friction on the surfaces of the lathered fingers, fingertips, areas between the fingers, hands and arms for at least 15 seconds, followed by; 2. Thorough rinsing under clean, running warm water; and 3. Immediately follow the cleaning procedure with thorough drying of cleaned hands and arms with disposable or single use towels or a mechanical hand-drying device. B. Observations On 3/13/23 at 8:41 a.m., dietary aide (DA) #1 was preparing French toast. She grabbed four slices of bread and held each piece of bread on her palm. She proceeded to use a brush to put the egg mixture onto the bread. She repeated this for all four slices of bread. She used her gloved hand to place them onto the grill and reach over and grab a spatula. She allowed the French toast to cook and while grabbing a plate and continuing serving meals. She then wiped her gloved hand on the side of her pants. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process. Observation of the meal service was conducted on 3/15/23 at 10:47 a.m. The cook was observed preparing mechanical soft and puree meals. The cook went toward the front of the kitchen and retrieved several cans of soup. The cook grabbed several slices of bread to add them into the pureed meal. The soup cans had a flip top lid. She opened the can of soup and placed the contents in the blender. She then moved over to the trash can and utilized her forearm to lift the lid of the trash can and discarded the can. She returned to the puree station and proceeded to puree the broccoli soup. She then reached down and retrieved a small metal pan and proceeded to spray the metal pan with spray oil. She then poured the soup into the metal container and placed it on the counter in front of the oven. The cook was wrapping the metal container with aluminum foil. The temperature of the soup was going to be taken. She proceeded to grab a thermometer and several sanitizing wipes. She took the temperature of the soup and then wiped the thermometer with the alcohol wipe. She wrapped the soup with aluminum foil and reached into her pocket and grabbed a marker. She wrote soup on top and grabbed the oven handle with her hand and placed the small container into the oven. She then grabbed the used alcohol wipes and again lifted the trash can with her forearm and discarded the wrappers into the trash. She proceeded to remove the blender container and placed it into the sink. She ran water into the blender container. She then grabbed a metal container of mixed vegetables and poured them into another blender container. The cook did not perform hand hygiene during this process. DA #1 was observed entering the kitchen from the dining room and going directly to the washed dishes on the south side of the dishwasher. She started removing clean dishes and placing them on the clean metal rack. DA #1 again exited the kitchen and returned to the clean dish area and proceeded stacking the clean dishes on the metal rack. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process. DA #2 entered the kitchen from the dining room. She proceeded to the large mixer and started to make a whipped topping for a cake she was preparing. She placed all ingredients into the metal bowl and proceeded to mix the ingredients. She went to the shelf and grabbed a small container of food coloring and placed several drops into the mixing bowl. As she was leaning over into the mixing bowl her lanyard went into the bowl. DA #2 grabbed her lanyard and flipped it toward her back. She then proceeded to grab a large metal bowl and proceeded to scrap the whipped topping into the bowl. She placed the bowl onto the counter and wrapped it with plastic wrap. She reached into her pocket and grabbed a marker and wrote the date on top. She grabbed the handle of the walking and placed the container into the walk-in refrigerator. She removed all the metal whisk and metal bowl from the mixer and proceeded to take the items to the dishwashing area. She proceeded to rinse them and placed them into the dishwasher. She exited the kitchen area again and returned removing the whisk and the metal pan. She returned to the mixer and reinstalled all of the items. DA #2 did not perform hand hygiene during this process. DA #1 was observed making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. She grabbed a bag of bread and removed two slices of bread with her gloved hand. She proceeded to walk in front of the serving line and grabbed several containers of peanut butter. She returned to the serving line and proceeded to make the sandwich. She placed a slice of bread onto her gloved hand and then opened the container of peanut butter. She grabbed a table knife and spread the peanut butter on the bread while in her gloved hand. She repeated this on the other slice of bread. She then placed the sandwich on the large cutting board and grabbed a knife and cut the sandwich into two pieces. She grabbed the sandwich with her gloved hand and proceeded to place them on a plate on the shelf of the serving line. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process. DA #1 was observed preparing a hamburger for meal time. DA #1 was observed grabbing a hamburger bun out of the bag with her gloved hand. She placed the hamburger bun onto the large cutting board. She then grabbed a slice of cheese with her gloved hand from the sandwich preparation area and placed it on the bun. She then grabbed the hamburger and placed it onto the bun with her gloved hands. She grabbed the hamburger with her gloved hands and proceeded to place it on the plate. She then grabbed a pair of metal tongs and placed some French fries onto the plate and placed it on the top shelf of the serving line. DA #1 did not perform hand hygiene during this process. C. Staff interview The dietary manager (DM) was interviewed on 3/15/23 at 3:17 p.m. She said all kitchen staff needed to wash their hands when their hands become contaminated. She said all staff must wash their hands before handling or serving food. She said staff should never touch ready to eat foods with their bare hands. She said they should use serving tongs even if they have gloves on. Staff should also wash their hands when they leave the kitchen and dining area. The DM said all dietary staff should wash their hands between tasks to avoid cross contamination. II. Food temperatures A. Professional reference According to the United States Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2022 Food Code 3-403.11 (A) pg. 36 Time/Temperature Control for Safety Food (TCS) that is cooked, cooled, and reheated for hot holding shall be reheated so that all parts of the food reach a temperature of at least 74 degrees C (165 degrees F) for 15 seconds. B. Observations and staff interview On 3/15/23 at 10:47 a.m., the cook was observed preparing mechanical soft and puree meals of broccoli cheese soup, mixed vegetables and lasagna that was being held for lunch service. The cook proceeded to the front of the kitchen and retrieved several cans of mushroom soup. She placed them into the blender and proceeded to puree the broccoli and cheese soup. She grabbed a small metal container and sprayed it with cooking oil. She poured the pureed soup into the metal container and placed it on the container. She proceeded to start wrapping aluminum foil on the container. The surveyor requested for the cook to take temperatures of the puree food. The cook stated the temperature of the soup was 124 degrees F. She then placed it into the warming oven. She proceeded to complete the same process for the mixed vegetables. After she was done pureeing the mixed vegetables she placed them in a small metal pan and took the temperature of the mixed vegetables, which read 106 degree F. She wrapped them with aluminum foil and placed them into the oven. She then placed four large pieces of lasagna into the blender and proceeded to pure the lasagna. After getting it to the correct consistency she grabbed another metal pan and poured the puree into the pan. She placed it on the counter and took the temperature, which was 129 degrees F. She wrapped it with aluminum foil and placed it into the oven. -At 11:05 a.m., the cook was asked if she checked the temperature of the pureed foods after pureeing them. The cook said, No, I do not, but I would take the temperatures before serving them. -At 11:22 a.m., the cook took the temperatures of the broccoli and cheese soup, mixed vegetables, and the lasagna. The temperature of the broccoli cheese soup was at 123 degrees F. The mixed vegetables was 131 degrees F, and the lasagna was at 143 degrees F. -At 11:31 a.m., the cook again took the temperature of all items listed above. The broccoli and cheese soup was at 167 degrees F. The mixed vegetables temperature was at 169 degrees F, and the lasagna was at 170 degrees F. C. Additional interview The DM was interviewed on 3/15/23 at 3:17 p.m. She said she was aware that the temperatures of the modified food dropped at times. She said It's my expectation that the food was ok as long as it reached 165 degrees F before serving. She said dietary staff would be educated immediately to ensure the modified consistency food reached proper temperatures and time frames.
Dec 2021 1 deficiency
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 observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who needed respiratory care were pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for two (#20 and #27) of three residents reviewed for oxygen therapy out of 22 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure oxygen was administered according to physician orders for Resident #20 and #27. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to [NAME]/[NAME], Fundamentals of Nursing, ninth edition, Elsevier, Canada, 2017, p 900, Oxygen is a therapeutic gas and must be prescribed and adjusted only with a health care provider's order. II. Facility policy The Oxygen Therapy policy, no revision date, provided by medical records (MR) on 11/30/21 at 10:58 a.m. included: Oxygen therapy will be available in the Nursing Home, under nursing supervision, by order if the attending doctor to include liter flow rate. III. Resident status A. Resident #20 Resident #20, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypertension (HTN). The 10/7/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had no impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15. He had no behaviors or rejections of care. He was identified as using oxygen. B. Record review The care plan, initiated 8/27/19 and revised on 2/25/2020, identified the resident had impaired gas exchange related to COPD. Interventions included: -Administer oxygen at one liter via nasal cannula to maintain saturation > 89% as needed. Observe oxygen precautions. The November 2021 CPO included: -Oxygen per nasal cannula at one liter to maintain oxygen saturation > 89%. Ordered on 1/29/2020. The 7/28/21 care plan conference summary included: -Resident #20 continues to have an order for oxygen via nasal cannula at one liter. C. Observations and interviews On 12/1/21 at 9:50 a.m. Resident #20 was in the hallway walking toward his room. He said he received two liters of oxygen. He said he had been on two liters of oxygen for a while. The portable tank he was using was set to two liters. On 12/1/21 at 9:51 a.m. certified nurse aide (CNA) #2 said he used two liters of oxygen. She said he had always used two liters of oxygen. On 12/1/21 at 9:53 a.m. registered nurse (RN) #3 said he received oxygen at two liters. When she looked up the order, she said his order was for one liter. She said she would contact the provider and correct the orders. IV. Resident #27 A. Resident status Resident #27, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the November 2021 CPO, diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease and hypertension (HTN). The 10/20/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident was not able to complete the BIMS assessment. She had no behaviors or rejections of care. She was identified as using oxygen. B. Record review The care plan, revised on 9/30/2020, identified the resident used oxygen therapy for ineffective gas exchange. Interventions included oxygen settings for oxygen via nasal prongs at two liters continuous. The November 2021 CPO included: -Oxygen two liters via nasal cannula. Check oxygen saturation every day. Ordered on 9/30/2020. The October 2021 oxygen saturation levels taken daily were within normal parameters (above 89%). The November 2021 oxygen saturation levels taken daily were within normal limits without oxygen administration. The 7/18/21 care plan conference summary noted, Resident #27 continues to use oxygen at two liters via nasal cannula to maintain saturations > 89%. C. Observations and interviews On 11/30/21 at 1:25 p.m. Resident #27 was observed in the dining room sitting at a table during an activity with no oxygen on. On 11/30/21 at 2:20 p.m.CNA #1 said Resident #27 did not wear oxygen. She said she would yank off the nasal cannula. On 11/30/21 at 2:40 p.m. RN #2 said Resident #27 did not wear oxygen and did not have an order. When she checked the orders, she said Resident #27 did have an order for two liters. She said Resident #27 had normal oxygen saturation readings when checked every day. She said she would not wear it. She said she would contact the provider and let them know. V. Interview The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 11/30/21 at 2:50 p.m. She said Resident #27 would not wear oxygen nasal cannula due to her diagnosis of Alzheimer's and had a history of taking off the tubing. She said her oxygen saturation levels were within normal limits and she would ensure the provider would be contacted and the order would be discontinued. On 12/1/21 at 1:00 p.m. the DON said Resident #20 used two liters of oxygen. She said she was not aware the order read one liter and she would ensure the staff would contact the provider and review his orders and ask the provider to change the order. She said the facility going forward will work on education regarding oxygen orders and following the provider's orders or contact the provider for new orders.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Colorado.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Colorado facilities.
  • • 34% turnover. Below Colorado's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 9 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Colorado, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake Staffed?

CMS rates COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the Colorado average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake?

State health inspectors documented 9 deficiencies at COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 8 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake?

COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 60 certified beds and approximately 40 residents (about 67% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MONTE VISTA, Colorado.

How Does Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake Compare to Other Colorado Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Colorado, COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (34%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Colorado. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake Stick Around?

COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE has a staff turnover rate of 34%, which is about average for Colorado nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake Ever Fined?

COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE 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 Colorado Veterans Community Living Ctr At Homelake on Any Federal Watch List?

COLORADO VETERANS COMMUNITY LIVING CTR AT HOMELAKE 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.