HILLCREST CARE CENTER

360 CANYON RIDGE DR, WRAY, CO 80758 (970) 332-4856
Government - Hospital district 45 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
55/100
#69 of 208 in CO
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Hillcrest Care Center has received a Trust Grade of C, indicating it is average and positioned in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #69 out of 208 facilities in Colorado, placing it in the top half, and is the only option in Yuma County. The facility is showing improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from eight in 2023 to six in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 64%, which is higher than the state average, although it maintains a good overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars. However, the facility has faced significant fines totaling $49,385, which is higher than 93% of Colorado facilities and indicates ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident being left unattended during transportation, resulting in a fall and injuries, and a failure to properly monitor another resident, potentially jeopardizing their safety. While there are strengths in the quality of care, these weaknesses highlight important areas for families to consider.

Trust Score
C
55/100
In Colorado
#69/208
Top 33%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$49,385 in fines. Higher than 60% of Colorado facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 40 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Colorado. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 8 issues
2024: 6 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 64%

17pts above Colorado avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $49,385

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Colorado average of 48%

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Oct 2024 5 deficiencies
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 record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASR...

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 Level II preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) was completed for one (#27) of two residents out of 23 sample residents reviewed for PASRR to gain and maintain their highest practical medical, emotional, and psychosocial well-being. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure a Level II PASRR was in place for Resident #1. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) policy, reviewed in [DATE], was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on [DATE] at 9:18 a.m. The policy revealed the facility would coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program to the maximum extent practicable to ensure the facility can meet the resident's needs prior to admission. If the Level I revealed, Refer for Level II this indicated that a Level II must be completed prior to admission. II. Resident status Resident #27, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included anxiety, chronic pain and unspecified mental disorder due to known psychological conditions. The [DATE] minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of six out of 15. III. Record review The PASRR Level I, dated [DATE], revealed this assessment was a 30-day hospice provisional admission. If the resident did not discharge as expected, a Level I screen must be resubmitted when the provisional admission had expired. The care plan for impaired cognitive function or impaired thought process related to developmentally delayed was revised on [DATE]. Pertinent interventions included for staff to monitor/document/report to her physician any changes in cognitive function, specifically changes in decision-making ability, memory, recall, general awareness, difficulty expressing self, difficulty understanding others, level of consciousness, and/or mental status and the staff were to provide a program of activities that accommodated the references preferences and abilities. The care plan for a history of childhood trauma was initiated on [DATE]. Pertinent interventions included continuing to offer mental health services, encouraging the resident to express their feelings/concerns/thoughts in a safe space and avoiding any care that involved private body parts. The care plan also included some of the resident's triggers: talking about intimate parts of their body, discussing any medication that invaded the residents privacy, discussing the residents childhood and talking about men and intimacy. The resident's electronic medical record was reviewed on [DATE] at 3:25 p.m. There was no evidence a Level II PASRR had been completed. The PASRR level I dated [DATE] (during the survey) indicated a Level II was needed. The description of the suspected diagnosis of intellectual or developmental disability revealed the resident had a congenital hypoxic brain injury at birth (lack of oxygen to the brain). -However, a PASRR level I should have been completed on [DATE], since the resident remained at the facility for 30 days after the provisional PASRR. IV. Staff interviews The social services director (SSD) was interviewed on [DATE] at 8:21 a.m. The SSD said the resident had intellectual disabilities related to a congenital hypoxic brain injury at birth. The SSD said the PASRR Level I dated [DATE] was provisional and the resident needed an additional PASRR Level I that should have been done 30 days after [DATE]. The SSD said the PASRR Level II told the facility who the resident was and how the facility could meet their needs. The SSD said the recommendations told the facility the services that would be beneficial to improve their quality of life. The SSD said she started the process for the PASRR Level II during the survey. The NHA was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:39 a.m. The NHA said the PASRR Level II recommendations were to help improve the resident's quality of care and of life. The NHA said recommendations might include the need for counseling, psychological visits/therapy and any additional programs or support that the resident needed. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:05 a.m. The DON said a PASRR Level II was a person-centered assessment. She said it provided recommendations, so that the facility could meet the needs of the resident and improve their quality of life.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 were provided services that meet 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 were provided services that meet professional standards for one (#1) of five residents out of 23 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #1's insulin was administered according to the physician's orders. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Insulin Administration policy, revised September 2014, was provided by the nursing home administratior (NHA) on 10/2/24 at 12:32 p.m. The policy provided guidelines for the safe administration of insulin to residents with diabetes. The type of insulin, dosage requirements, strength, and method of administration must be verified before administration, to assure that it corresponded with the order on the medication sheet and the physician's order. The nurse should notify the DON and the attending physician of any discrepancies before giving the insulin. The Administering Medications policy, revised April 2019, was provided by the NHA on 10/3/24 at 12:29 p.m. The policy revealed the director of nursing (DON) supervised and directed all personnel who administered medications and/or had related functions. Medications were administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame. If a dosage was believed to be inappropriate or excessive for a resident, or a medication had been identified as having potential adverse consequences for the resident or was suspected of being associated with adverse consequences, the person preparing or administering the medication would contact the prescriber, the resident's attending physician or the facility's medical director to discuss the concerns. The individual administering the medication checked the label three times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) of administration before administering the medication. If a drug was withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication should initial and circle the medication administration record (MAR) space provided for that drug and dose. II. Resident status Resident #1, age greater than 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the September 2024 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease of the native coronary artery without angina pectoris, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes without complications. The 7/3/25 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of five out of 15. The assessment indicated the resident received insulin injections all seven days during the seven-day assessment period. III. Record review A physician's order, dated 7/2/24 at 12:06 p.m., revealed to administer Humalog injection solution (Insulin Lispro). Inject eight units subcutaneously (under the skin) as needed for a blood sugar level greater than 300 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dl) related to type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. The care plan for diabetes mellitus was revised on 1/11/24. Some of the interventions were to administer diabetes medication as ordered by the physician. Staff were to monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. The medication administration record (MAR) for July 2024 revealed Resident #1 had a blood sugar level greater than 300 mg/dl a total of 14 times. As needed eight units of Humalog insulin were administered according to the physician's orders eight times. -The facility failed to administer the as needed eight units of Humalog insulin six times when Resident #1's blood sugar level was greater than 300 mg/dl during the month of July 2024. The MAR for August 2024 revealed Resident #1 had a blood sugar level greater than 300 mg/dl a total of ten times. As needed eight units of Humalog insulin were administered according to the physician's orders five times. -The facility failed to administer the as needed eight units of Humalog insulin five times when Resident #1's blood sugar level was greater than 300 mg/dl during the month of August 2024. The MAR for September 2024 revealed Resident #1 had a blood sugar level greater than 300 mg/dl a total of 10 times. As needed eight units of Humalog insulin were not administered for any of the 10 times. -The facility failed to administer the as needed eight units of Humalog insulin 10 times when Resident #1's blood sugar level was greater than 300 mg/dl during the month of September 2024. IV. Staff interviews The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/3/24 at 11:23 a.m. The DON reviewed Resident #1's July 2024, August 2024 and September 2024 MARs. The DON acknowledged that some nurses administered the eight additional units of Humalog insulin and some did not. The DON said, according to the physician's orders, nurses were to administer eight units of Humalog insulin when Resident #1's blood sugar level was greater than 300 mg/dl. The DON said a possible outcome of not receiving the additional eight units of Humalog insulin according to the physician's orders were the resident's blood sugar levels could increase. She said the resident might experience blurred vision, have headaches, have increased voiding of urine and/or an increase in hunger. The DON said a nurse that received the physician's order would verify the order and place it onto the resident's MAR. She said a night nurse would then verify the order for accuracy. The DON said the third step in the physician's order process was that the interdisciplinary team (IDT) would review the 24-hour report together in the next morning meeting. The DON said this third step was implemented approximately one month ago (September 2024). The DON said nursing staff should follow physician's orders. She said if a nurse was unsure about an order, the nurse should call the resident's physician immediately for clarification. The DON said if the insulin was not administered according to physician's orders, the nurse should have called the resident's physician and write a progress note regarding the decision to administer or not administer the insulin. The NHA was interviewed on 10/3/24 at 12:51 p.m. The NHA reviewed Resident #1's July 2024, August 2024 and September 2024 MARs. The NHA said each time the resident's blood sugar level was greater than 300 mg/dl, the resident should have been administered the as needed eight units of Humalog insulin. The NHA said the nursing staff should follow the physician's orders or get a clarification from the physician if the order was confusing. The NHA said there should be a nurse progress note for a blood sugar level greater than 300 mg/dl related to the administration or non-administration of insulin.
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 observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with a feeding tube received appropr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with a feeding tube received appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications for one (#26) of one resident reviewed for tube feeding out of 23 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure Resident #26's physician's orders were updated and accurate; and, -Ensure Resident #26's feeding tube was flushed to maintain patency (prevent clogging). Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Appropriate Use of Feeding Tubes policy, revised February 2023, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on [DATE] at 9:03 a.m It read in pertinent part, Feeding tubes (naso-gastric, gastrostomy, jejunostomy) will be utilized in accordance with current clinical standards of practice, with interventions to prevent complications to the extent possible. The plan of care will address the use of feeding tube, including strategies to prevent complications. II. Resident #26 A. Resident status Resident #26, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the [DATE] computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included intracranial (brain) injury, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart disease and depression. The [DATE] minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had moderate cognitive impairments with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of 11 out of 15. Resident #26 had a feeding tube. The MDS assessment indicated Resident #26 did not have signs or symptoms of a swallowing disorder, was maintaining his weight and was receiving 25% or less of total calories through tube feeding. B. Resident interview Resident #26 was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:11 p.m. Resident #26 said he still had a feeding tube in place. Resident #26 was lying in bed. C. Record review Resident #26's care plan revealed instructions to flush the G-tube (gastrostomy/feeding tube) as ordered ([DATE]), and revised on [DATE] with instructions to check G tube daily for occlusion ([DATE]). Review of the [DATE] CPO revealed the following physician's order: Flush feeding tube with 30 cubic centimeters (cc) of water twice daily for patency, ordered on [DATE] and discontinued on [DATE]. -Review of the [DATE] medication administration record (MAR) did not reveal documentation that indicated the feeding tube was flushed with 30 cc water twice daily for patency per physician's order after [DATE]. Review of the [DATE] CPO revealed the following physician's orders: Enteral (tube) feed one time a day, start at 10:00 p.m, ordered on [DATE] at 7:00 p.m.; and, Regular diet, ordered on [DATE] at 1:00 p.m. -Review of the [DATE], [DATE] and [DATE] ([DATE] to [DATE]) medication administration record (MAR) revealed tube feedings were held beginning [DATE]; however, there was no documentation in the resident's EMR that indicated why the feedings were held starting on [DATE]. -Review of the EMR revealed there was no documentation of any feeding tube flushes administered from [DATE] to [DATE]. D. Staff interviews Registered nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 8:47 a.m. RN #2 said she did not know why there was an active order for Resident #26 to receive tube feedings at night. RN #2 said tube feedings had been on hold since [DATE], as the resident was able to eat and maintain weight. RN #2 said there was not an active physician order to flush Resident #26's feeding tube and there should have been an order to flush his feeding tube every day. RN #2 said she flushed the feeding tube when she was on shift. She said she did not document the flushes were completed. The medical director (MD) was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:24 a.m. The MD said Resident #26 was not currently receiving tube feedings and he did not know why there was an active order to administer tube feedings. The MD said the nurses should flush Resident #26's feeding tube with 30 milliliters (mls) of water twice daily and said this was the plan the MD described in his progress note on [DATE]. The MD said he would be concerned about patency of the feeding tube if it was not flushed. The registered dietitian (RD) was interviewed on [DATE] at 10:06 a.m. The RD said the feeding tube needed to be flushed regularly. The RD said an order was entered on [DATE] (during the survey) to start tube feeding flushes. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on [DATE] at 1:28 p.m. The DON said Resident #26's tube feedings were held at the end of [DATE]. The DON said the feedings had not been reinitiated, however, Resident #26 still had a gastrostomy (feeding) tube in place. The DON said there should not have been an active order for tube feedings. She said the hold order for tube feedings may have expired, which would have automatically reinitiated the active order. She said nurses documented not given for the feedings in September, 2024, and they should have reported to the provider to find out if the order should have remained on hold. The DON said Resident #26's feeding tube should be flushed for patency and documented. She said if the feeding tube was not flushed, it could clog, cause infection or gastrointestinal (stomach) issues. The DON said there was not an active order for flushing, and there was not documentation of Resident #26's feeding tube flushes for the month of September, 2024. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:02 p.m. The IP said Resident #26's feeding tube should be flushed. She said the flush ensured the tube would work if needed. The IP said if the feeding tube was not flushed, the potential for infection could be increased. The IP said feeding tubes should be flushed twice per day and staff should document when feeding tubes were flushed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen. Specifical...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the main kitchen. Specifically, the facility failed to develop a maintenance program to ensure environmental concerns in the dish room, kitchen and serving area were identified and corrected in a timely manner. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Maintenance Inspection policy, reviewed on 4/13/23, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/2/24 at 12:21 p.m. The policy revealed the facility utilized a maintenance inspection checklist in order to assure a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public. The director of maintenance services would perform routine inspections of the physical plant using the maintenance checklist (MC). The NHA, or designee, would perform random inspections of the physical plant using the MC. All opportunities would be corrected immediately by maintenance personnel. The facility should establish quality/compliance thresholds as a benchmark for quality assurance (QA) purposes. Data recorded on the MC would be compared to established thresholds, and action plans would be generated as needed. All MCs would be filed in the director of maintenance's office and retained for a minimum of three years. II. Observations The dish room, main kitchen and serving area of the kitchen were observed on 9/30/24 at 8:46 a.m. and 10/1/24 at 12:33 p.m. The following was observed: The dish room's linoleum floor under the dish washing machine was torn in multiple areas and the connecting seam to the adjacent parts of the linoleum floor was separated. The floor under the dish machine was unkempt with debris. There were eight unused (holes) wall anchors on the wall adjacent to the dish washing machine. There was lint in the two metal exhaust vents on the wall by the dish washing machine. There was chipped paint on both sides of the door to the dish room. There were multiple areas of loose base board. The corners of the room had built up debris. There was chipped paint on the entrance door frame to the kitchen. The kitchen had four small holes in the wall by the three-compartment sink. There was sheetrock damage on the wall by the fire extinguisher. There were two small holes in the wall under the fire extinguisher. There was chipped wall paint beside the electrical panel. There was one small hole in the wall near the floor under the electrical panel. There were bug remnants in one ceiling light fixture. There were four brown stained metal screens for the ceiling air vents. There was chipped wall paint on three of the room's corners. There was chipped paint on the doorframe by the ice machine. There was one small hole in the wall behind the ice machine. There was debris on the floor behind the ice machine. There was chipped paint on the wall by the walk-in refrigerator. The serving area had two missing doors under the counter by the steam table. There was sheetrock damage on the wall corner by the room tray/silverware cart. There was debris along the base of the counter at the one compartment sink. There was debris in the room corners. The base board was unkempt in multiple areas. III. Staff interviews and observations The NHA completed an environmental tour of the dish room, kitchen and serving areas on 10/1/24 at 12:44 p.m. The NHA said she would check with the maintenance staff for any work orders related to the kitchen areas that needed repair. The maintenance supervisor (MS) completed an environmental tour of the dish room, kitchen and serving area on 10/1/24 at 12:58 p.m. The MS observed the concerns in these areas. The MS said the floors were cleaned daily in the three areas. The MS said all three areas were deep cleaned three weeks ago and they were scheduled to be deep cleaned once a month. The MS said he used a power washer to clean the floors and the baseboard. The MS said he had not placed any work orders for the maintenance staff to make repairs in these three areas. The NHA was interviewed again on 10/3/24 at 8:06 a.m. The NHA said there were no work orders for any of the repairs in these three areas. The NHA said work orders should be developed for repairs in these areas. The NHA said the floors and baseboard should be clean without debris.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to 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 maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the possible development and transmission of infectious diseases. Specifically the facility failed to ensure residents were offered hand hygiene before meals in both the dining room and during the delivery of room trays. Findings include: I. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Hand Hygiene in Healthcare settings, revised 2/27/24, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/index.html on 10/8/24, Patients and visitors should clean their hands before preparing or eating food. Cleaning your hands can prevent the spread of germs, including those that are resistant to antibiotics, and protects healthcare personnel and patients. Using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer is the preferred way for you to keep your hands clean. II. Facility policy and procedure The Resident Mealtime Hand Hygiene policy was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 10/2/24 at 12:20 p.m. It read in pertinent part, All staff assisting with meal services or snack delivery will encourage and assist residents as needed with an effective hand hygiene method prior to eating. Residents will be encouraged and assisted with an effective hand hygiene method prior to consuming meals and snacks. Hand wipes will be made available to residents in the activity room, the dining room, and when meals or snacks are delivered to residents in their rooms. III. Observations and staff interview On 9/30/24 during a continuous observation, beginning at 11:40 a.m. and ending at 12:52 p.m., residents arrived for lunch in the main dining room, some walking in, some self-propelling themselves in manual wheelchairs and some escorted in by staff. Residents in wheelchairs were observed to be handling the large wheel on their manual wheelchairs to wheel into the dining room. Residents were assisted to sit at their tables and staff in the dining room approached to offer clothing protectors to residents. Tables in the dining room had multiple residents sitting together. Of all the residents in the dining room (21 total residents), none were offered and assisted with hand hygiene. On 10/1/24 at 12:01 p.m. the dietary manager (DM) delivered the first room tray at 12:01 p.m. to room [ROOM NUMBER]. At 12:02 p.m., a meal tray was delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. At 12:05 p.m., a meal tray was delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. At 12:06 p.m., a meal tray was delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. At 12:07 p.m., a meal tray was delivered to room [ROOM NUMBER]. -There were no individual hand sanitizing packets on the room trays and the DM did not ask, encourage or assist any of the residents with washing or sanitizing their hands before the meal. The DM said he did not encourage or assist any of the residents with washing or sanitizing their hands. The DM said the facility did have hand sanitizing packets but they did not provide them on the trays that were delivered to the residents today (10/1/24). IV. Resident interviews Resident #93 was interviewed on 10/3/24 at 12:40 p.m. Resident #93 said staff had never offered hand sanitizer or to wash his hands in the dining room. Resident #18 was interviewed on 10/3/24 at 12:45 p.m. Resident #18 said staff were beginning to offer hand sanitizer before meals on this date (10/3/24), but staff had only occasionally offered hand hygiene to residents prior to this. Resident #8 was interviewed on 10/3/24 at 1:45 p.m. Resident #8 said staff did not offer hand hygiene to residents prior to meals in the dining room. She said the facility used to provide bottles of sanitizer on the tables in the dining room but this practice had been discontinued several months ago. V. Additional staff interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #4 was interviewed on 9/30/24 at 12:43 p.m. CNA #4 said she had not offered hand hygiene to residents who ate independently during the lunch meal. CNA #2 was interviewed on 9/30/24 at 12:52 p.m. CNA #2 said residents in the dining room were not offered hand sanitizer during the lunch meal (on 9/30/24). CNA #2 said residents should be offered hand hygiene prior to eating their meals. CNA #3 was interviewed on 9/30/24 at 12:53 p.m. CNA #3 said she had been working at the facility for one month and had not seen residents being offered hand hygiene prior to their meals in the dining room. The NHA was interviewed on 10/1/24 at 12:38 p.m. The NHA said the staff should encourage or assist any of the residents with washing or sanitizing their hands before meals. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 10/2/24 at 12:15 p.m. The IP said one of the goals of the facility was to focus on hand hygiene as it was found to be the best way to break the chain of infection. The IP said the facility had provided staff education on 10/1/24 and 10/3/24 (during the survey) which included hand hygiene for staff and residents. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 10/3/24 at 1:38 p.m. The DON said all residents should be offered hand hygiene prior to eating, including when meal trays were delivered to residents' rooms. She said using hand hygiene prevented infections and residents could contract more illnesses if they were not using hand hygiene prior to meals. The IP was interviewed again on 10/3/24 at 1:58 pm. The IP said all residents should be offered hand hygiene prior to their meals. The IP said the previous NHA had removed sanitizing wipes from the room trays. VI. Facility follow up On 10/3/24 at 2:38 p.m., the IP provided documentation of a staff inservice education signed by seven staff members on 10/1/24 and eight staff members on 10/3/24. The education was provided to ensure all residents were offered hand hygiene before eating with either soap and water, hand sanitizer or hand sanitizer wipes. The IP revealed hand hygiene education was also added to the facility's all staff meeting that was scheduled for 10/7/24.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to address and/or act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations during resident council on issues of resident care and q...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to address and/or act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations during resident council on issues of resident care and quality of life in the facility that were important to the residents. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure resident council grievances were addressed to resolve resident concerns related to residents being left in the dining room for up to an hour after meals, lack of staff in the dining room, inappropriate staff conversations, rude staff members and call light response times. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Resident and Family Grievance policy, dated 4/23/23, was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 7/16/24 at 2:00 p.m. The policy documented in pertinent part, Grievances may be voiced in the following forums: Verbal complaint during resident council meetings.All staff involved in the grievance investigation or resolution should make prompt efforts to resolve the grievance and return the grievance form to the Grievance Official. Prompt efforts include acknowledgment of complaint grievances and actively working toward a resolution of that complaint grievance. In accordance with the residents' right to obtain a written decision regarding his or her grievance, the Grievance Official will issue a written decision on the grievance to the resident or representative at the conclusion of the investigation. The written decision will include, at a minimum, the steps taken to investigate the grievance, a summary of the pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the resident's concern(s),any corrective action taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance, and the date the written decision was issued. II. Resident interview Resident #4 was interviewed on 7/16/24 at 9:27 a.m. Resident #4 said she attended the resident council meetings each month. Resident #4 said concerns brought up in the resident council meeting were not addressed by the facility. She said she had not received any follow up on the concerns raised. Resident #4 said concerns were brought up in resident council about residents who were left in the dining room for up to an hour after meals, no nursing staff in the dining room, inappropriate staff conversations, rude staff members and call light response times. Resident #4 said staff came in to answer call lights but they turned off the light and said they would be back without ever returning. She said staff were on their cell phones in the dining room, and did not speak to the residents. Resident #4 said when a resident requested something off the alternate menu because they did not want what was being served she could hear the staff complaining, and that made the resident's feel like they were an imposition. Resident #4 said some of the resident's who were left for periods of an hour after meals were long time friends of hers and this made her feel sad. She said the NHA said he would have a manager on duty in the dining room to help but this did not consistently happen. She said the same issues came up every month in resident council meetings without resolution or follow up communication from the facility. III. Resident council minutes and grievances On 7/15/24 at 1130 a.m. the NHA provided the resident council minutes for April 2024, June 2024 and July 2024. The NHA said there was no May 2024 resident council meeting due to inclement weather. The resident council minutes identified the residents had concerns regarding residents being left in the dining room for up to an hour after meals, inappropriate staff conversations, rude staff members and call light response times. -The concerns remained unresolved. The minutes did not identify how the facility was addressing the unresolved concerns. The April 2024 resident council minutes documented, under the old business section, residents reported that other residents needed help out of the dining room after meals. This was still occurring and was a confusing mess. Residents reported nursing staff were not prominent in the dining rooms and now it was worse than ever. Residents reported staff would answer call lights and say they would be back but they never came back to assist residents. The new business section of the April 2024 resident council minutes documented the staff were impatient and the residents could hear the staff talking about other residents in the hallways. The residents said the conversations between staff in the dining room were inappropriate. There was no further information documented in the minutes regarding the resident's concerns. Grievances related to the April 2024 resident council concerns were received from the NHA on 7/16/24 at 10:30 a.m. On 4/9/24 a grievance from the resident council documented the residents were concerned with the amount of time residents who needed assistance were in the dining room after meals. The grievance documented the residents called the situation a confusing mess. The director of nursing (DON) responded and documented there was at least one certified nurse aide (CNA), nurse or support staff assisting residents out of the dining room consistently. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. On 4/9/24 a grievance documented there were no prominent nursing staff in the dining room and it was worse than ever before. The DON documented she interviewed the staff and they said they were in the dining room. She interviewed a resident who said it was hard to spot any staff in the evening. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. On 4/9/24 a grievance from the resident council said they could still hear the staff talking about other residents in the hallways. The DON's response was that the staff had been asked to speak quietly. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. The June 2024 resident council meeting minutes documented the residents who needed assistance out of the dining rooms were still having to wait a significant amount of time and that nursing staff were not prominent in the dining rooms. The minutes documented the issue with not returning after a call light was answered and turned off continued.The resident reported conversations in the hallways seemed better but not in the dining rooms. The residents reported nursing staff conversed with themselves in the dining room and not the residents. The residents said the nursing staff made rude gestures and body language while caring for them. Grievances related to the June 2024 resident council concerns were received from the NHA on 7/16/24 at 10:30 a.m. On 6/10/24 a grievance form from resident council documented the residents were concerned with rude body language and gestures from staff during resident care. The DON documented this concern would be reviewed at the nursing meeting in July 2024 but she did not know what the rude body language or gestures were. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. On 6/10/24 a grievance form from resident council documented the residents were concerned with conversations between nursing staff and dietary staff. The DON documented the dining room staff yelled out curse words in front of residents. She documented she would discuss the concern at the next nursing meeting. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. On 6/10/24 a grievance form from resident council documented the residents were concerned with residents who needed assistance out of the dining room being left for extended periods of time. The grievance documented the concern had been reported in every resident council for a year, since 6/13/23. The DON documented she would be tracking and verifying the concern. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. On 6/10/24 a grievance form from the resident council documented the residents were concerned with getting help timely from nursing staff. There was no further information documented regarding specific details of the concern. The DON documented she did not know what timely meant and she would discuss the concern at the next nursing meeting. -There was no documentation on the grievance form of a plan to assess, audit, monitor or take any further action regarding the grievance. The July 2024 resident council minutes again documented the issue with residents being assisted out of the dining room after meals was still a problem. Additionally, the residents said staff still did not converse with them in the dining room and only spoke with each other and the call lights were still being turned off without staff returning to assist the residents. -There were no grievances documented for the July 2024 resident council meeting. IV. Staff interviews A frequent visitor (FV) was interviewed on 7/15/24 at 2:10 p.m. The FV said she attended most of the resident council meetings for the facility. The FV said the residents had brought up the same concerns since June 2023 without any resolution from the facility. The FV said concerns were related to residents being left in the dining room for up to an hour after meals, staff talking to each other during meals about what they did on the weekend and who they slept with. She said complaints included dining staff and nursing staff being rude to residents and lack of call light response time.The FV said she had received weekly complaints about the issues from residents and their families. She said she had spoken to the director of nursing (DON) and the NHA about the concerns but the complaints had not been resolved. The NHA was interviewed on 7/16/24 10:30 a.m. The NHA said he had identified the lack of and inappropriate response to the resident grievances a month ago (June 2024). The NHA said he knew the facility's grievance process was not effective. He said the grievance responses for nursing did not include any kind of assessment or plan. The NHA said he had not developed any kind of plan to address the residents' concerns. He said he had educated the DON regarding ensuring grievances were thoroughly investigated and included a plan to resolve the situation. He said the DON was supposed to correct the grievances and come up with a plan for each resident concern but she had not had time. -However, the DON was interviewed and said she had not received any education regarding the grievance process (see DON interview below). The DON was interviewed on 7/16/24 at 1:45 p.m. The DON said she had not had any education on responding to grievances. She said she was out all last week (7/7/24 to 7/13/24) and grievances sat on her desk for the entire week. She said she did know that she needed to respond within 72-hours to the grievances. The social service director (SSD) 7/16/24 at 2:41 p.m. The SSD said she received and logged all grievances. The SSD said she had been concerned that there were not acceptable responses to the grievances and she forwarded them to the NHA for follow up. She said there was not always an acceptable investigation or resolution of the issues. The SSD said, additionally, the facility needed to be having a follow up conversation with the resident to ensure the grievance had been resolved if possible. She said the facility's lack of an effective grievance process was a problem.
Mar 2023 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #32 A. Resident status Resident #32, age of 93, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** III. Resident #32 A. Resident status Resident #32, age of 93, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included unspecified dementia, diabetes and history of falls. The 2/2/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of four out of 15. The resident required one-person assistance with transfers, dressing, walking, toilet use, bathing, and personal hygiene. The resident had unsteady balance but could stabilize themselves without assistance. The resident used a cane for ambulation. The MDS assessment marked the resident had no falls in the six months prior to admission. B. Observations Observations made from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on 3/27/23 through 3/30/23 revealed: Resident #32 was not checked on every two hours by staff, the resident's room was the last room on the hallway and the furthest from the nursing station, and the resident kept the door closed the majority of the day. Inside the resident room throughout this timeframe, non-skid strip tape was not observed being used on the floor anywhere in the room and there were no fall mats in the room. C. Record review The comprehensive care plan fall focus initiated on 2/21/23, revealed the resident had a fall with injury. Interventions initiated on 2/22/23 were to continue interventions, and to check and document neurological checks post fall. The activities of daily living focus initiated on 2/10/23 revealed the resident had a self-care deficit due to dementia and joint pain. Interventions initiated 2/21/23 revealed the resident required one-person assistance and a wheelchair or four-wheel walker for mobility. The resident also had impaired vision and required glasses. Falls On 2/20/23 the resident had a witnessed fall in their room. The certified nursing aide (CNA) was providing the resident assistance to go to the dining room. The resident was in their recliner and when the resident stood up, the resident tripped over a pair of shoes in front of their chair resulting in a fall. It was determined the fall was due to clutter, poor lighting, gait imbalance, weakness and poor memory. -The incident report indicated the resident was to use a walker for ambulation. The report failed to identify interventions recommended post fall to prevent further falls. On 2/21/23 the resident had an unwitnessed fall at bedside. The resident's spouse, whom the resident shared the room with, came out of the room and alerted staff that the resident had fallen when trying to get out of their bed. It took two staff to assist the resident from the floor. The resident sustained an abrasion to their knee and the wound was treated. It was determined the fall was due to poor lighting, confusion, gait imbalance, improper footwear and poor memory. -The report failed to identify interventions recommended post fall to prevent further falls. On 3/2/23 the resident had an unwitnessed fall in their room. The resident's spouse came out of the room yelling for help. The resident was found on the floor with blood around their head. The spouse had impaired cognition as well and could not tell staff how the resident fell. The resident told the staff the fall occurred while riding a horse on the way to see mom. The injury was addressed and was documented as a hematoma. It was determined the fall was due to confusion, gait imbalance, weakness, and poor memory. -The report failed to identify interventions recommended post fall to prevent further falls. Nursing progress note dated 3/7/23 revealed the resident had an unwitnessed fall in their room. Their spouse came out of the room yelling for help. The resident was found on the floor and blood was on the floor. It took three staff to assist the resident from the floor. It was determined the resident had hit the back of their head and reopened the hematoma from the 3/2/23 fall. The nurse assessed the resident. -There was no interdisciplinary (IDT) note or incident report located for the fall. On 3/29/23 (during survey) the resident had an unwitnessed fall in their room. Their spouse came out of the room and alerted staff that the resident had fallen. The resident was found by staff sitting on the floor, it took two staff to assist the resident from the floor. Neither the resident nor their spouse could say how the fall occurred. It was determined the fall was due to gait imbalance and ambulating without assistance. -The report failed to identify interventions recommended post fall to prevent further falls. D. Staff interviews The restorative aide (RA) #1 was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 1:58 p.m. She stated she had never seen the resident for restorative therapy for falls. The occupational therapist (OT) was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 2:20 p.m. She stated she did not have records of the resident being seen by physical or occupational therapy or a screen being requested due to falls. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 2:50 p.m. She stated the resident had three falls. The interventions for the resident were to keep the bed in the low position, ensure the resident was wearing appropriate socks and shoes, and to remind them to use their call light instead of attempting to transfer or ambulate independently. She said their falls have been a result of advancing dementia and the resident's cognitive inability to understand their ADL limitations. A record of the resident's fall would be on an incident report in their medical record. Fall interventions would be in the resident's care plan. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 10:27 a.m. The DON stated the resident had come from assisted living due to cognitive and functional decline. The resident had fallen while in assisted living. Fall interventions for the resident had been to provide a hospital bed. The staff conducted frequent checks and the resident was now using a wheelchair for ambulation. CNA #7 was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 1:35 p.m. She stated the resident had been having an ADL decline over the last two weeks. The staff were to check on the resident every two hours but usually they found out about a fall when the spouse told them. Neither resident cognitively remembered to use their call light for help or before trying to perform an ADL on their own. The DON was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 12:55 p.m. She said she would provide the incident report for 3/7/23 and the interventions that had been put in place for the resident after each fall. The DON returned at 1:25 p.m. and revealed she had been unable to find any fall interventions in the resident's record and the care plan had not been updated. She provided the incident report for 3/2/23 but did not have one for 3/7/23. Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to keep residents safe from accident hazards related to fall prevention for two (#16 and #32) of two residents reviewed for falls, out of 29 sample residents. Resident #16 had a history of fall and was assessed to be at high risk for repeated falls. Facility assessment and medical diagnosis revealed the resident had muscle weakness, poor balance, unsteady gait. Additionally, the resident had severe cognitive impairment that affected the resident judgment and ability to make sound safe decisions. Per the resident's medical records, the resident forgot or was unable to use the call light when she needed assistance to make safe transfer from surface to surface. Despite the resident's care plan having fall prevention interventions in place the resident continued to have repeated falls. The resident record failed to show a review of the effectiveness of the resident's fall interventions or consider more effective interventions to prevent the resident from falling. The facility's failure led to the resident experiencing repeated falls with injury. The resident had 11 falls between 11/4/22 to 3/24/23. The resident experienced several injuries including a fractured hip on 12/21/22, head injuries from the resident hitting her head during falls as evidenced by bruising, swelling, and pain to the head and several other aches, pains and bruises. Additionally, the facility failed to develop person centered care plan and individualized interventions; to assess interventions and to modify the care plan when applicable in order to prevent Resident #16 and #32 form experiencing repeated falls. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Fall Prevention Program policy and procedure was received from the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/29/23 at 1:29 p.m. It read in pertinent part: Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and shall receive care and services according to their level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls. The objective of this policy is to use a risk assessment to determine a resident's fall risk. The facility uses a high, low and moderate risk using a scoring system on the risk assessment. Upon admission the nurse on duty will complete a fall risk assessment to determine a resident's risk of falls. The nurse will indicate on the resident's door frame with a leaf if the resident is a fall risk. This indicates to follow the fall precautions listed in the resident's care plan. When a resident experiences a fall, the facility will: 1. Assess the resident 2. Complete a post fall assessment 3. Complete an incident report 4. Notify physician and family 5. Review the resident's care plan and update as indicated 6. Document all assessments and actions 7. Document witness statements in case of injury II. Resident #16 A. Resident status Resident #16 age [AGE] was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physicians orders (CPO) diagnoses included generalized osteoarthritis, history of falling, unspecified severe dementia with behavioral disturbances, unspecified fracture of right pubis (pubic bone), fracture of left femur (hip), muscle weakness and closed fracture with routine healing. The 1/4/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident was moderately cognitively impaired with a brief interview of mental status (BIMS) score of eight out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance with transfers, bed mobility, dressing, and use of assistive devices with a manual wheelchair. The MDS assessment documented that the resident experienced a fall at least 30 days prior to admission. The resident experienced a fall with fracture in the last six months after admission. Surgery was needed for hip replacement prior to admission. B. Observations On 3/28/23 at 10:00 a.m., Resident #16's room was located five rooms down the hall from the nurse's station. Nursing staff did not have a direct line of sight of the resident's room from the nurses station, as the interdisciplinary team (IDT) recommended in a fall investigation. The resident was in a recliner and was wearing gripper socks. The wheelchair had an anti roll back bar applied. C. Record review 1. Care plan The resident's comprehensive care plan last reviewed on 1/10/23 revealed: Resident #16's care plan documented a care focus for fall prevention. The fall care focus last revised 11/4/22 revealed the resident was a risk for falls related to confusion, deconditioning, gait balance problems and being unaware of safety needs. Interventions included: -Anti rollback device placed on the back of the resident's wheelchair, initiated 12/8/22; -Do not put anything above the resident's reach, initiated on 11/4/22; -Ensure the resident is able to use the call light on command, initiated on 11/4/22; -Ensure Resident #16 is wearing rubber sole shoes or gripper socks for all transfers and ambulation (walking), initiated on 11/4/22; -Follow facility protocol for falls (no explanation of what the fall protocol was), initiated on 11/4/22; -Keep most used items within reach, initiated 11/4/22; -Provide activities that minimize the potential for falls while providing diversion and distraction; initiated 11/4/22; -Move (Resident #16's) wheelchair away from bed so that (the resident) does not attempt to self-transfer, initiated 12/14/22; -Provide a chair with an armrest, initiated: 11/4/22; -Review medications associated with fall risk antidepressants, initiated: 11/4/22; and, -Use a silent alarm to Resident's bed and chair related to Resident not being unable to call for assistance, due to poor safety awareness and dementia/confusion, initiated 11/7/22. The care plan documented a care focus for a facility acquired fracture of the resident femur occuring on 12/20/22. The goal of the intervention read in pertinent part: I (Resident #16) will remain free of complications related to hip fractures. Interventions included Anticipate and meet needs. Be sure call light is within reach and respond promptly to all requests for assistance initiated 1/3/23. -Resident #26's care plan was not updated with newly proposed interventions suggested in post fall investigations, and there was no documentation that existing interventions were assessed for effectiveness. 2. Resident falls Review of the resident's medical record revealed the resident had 11 falls from 11/8/22 to 3/28/23. Fall 11/8/22 Nursing note dated 11/8/22 at 3:35 p.m. read in part: Upon entering the resident's room, the resident was laying on her back. The resident was alert and able to verbalize that she fell and hit her head on the floor when trying to get up from the recliner. The resident's alarm did sound, gripper socks in place, the call light within reach. Resident was able to move all extremities, but expressed pain on right groin area, noted a large protruding hematoma to the lateral right side of the resident's head, protrusion purple in color and painful. Emergency medical services (EMT) called and the resident was transferred to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment. Nursing note dated 11/8/22 at 11:45 p.m., read in pertinent part: Resident returned to facility about 6:55 p.m. Resident to follow up with physician to recheck head injury in one week. Resident was given a pain pill at 7:03 p.m. for all over pain. Resident did not want to eat. About 11:10 p.m., the resident's bed alarm was sounding and when CNA (certified nurse aide) went to assist the resident, the resident was self-transferring into her wheelchair. The resident was reminded to use the call light for staff to assist as needed. Another pain pill was given at 11:15 p.m. Post fall report dated 11/8/22, read in pertinent part: nurse heard resident's voice from hallway saying help me. Upon entering the residents' room, the resident was on floor laying supine (on the back) diagonal from the recliner chair. Resident was alert and confused per usual, the resident complained of lower back pain and pain at the back of head. Upon observation, resident had a large protruding bump/bruising noted to the left back side of head, no visible bleeding noted, slipper socks and alarm in place, Vitals obtained and neurological check started. Resident voiced 'I hit my head', but was unable to give a full description of the fall. -predisposing factors: resident was confused, memory impairment and had weakness. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Fall 12/8/22 Nursing note dated 12/8/22 at 5:13 a.m., read in part: Alarm was sounding when this nurse entered the resident's room. The resident was trying to transfer into her wheelchair. The wheelchair rolled a little and the resident slid onto the floor. Non-skid socks in place. The resident said, 'I was trying to go to the bathroom.' Post fall report dated 12/8/22, revealed Resident #16 attempted to self transfer from the bed to the wheelchair without assistance and fell onto the floor when the wheelchair that was not locked rolled out from underneath the resident. There were no initial signs of symptoms of injury. The report documented the resident had poor safety awareness and an unsteady gait. Predisposing factors included poor lighting. Intervention recommendations included a directive for staff to increase rounds to check on the resident more often and for staff to anticipate the resident's needs during rounding times. Nurses note dated 12/9/22 at 2:31 p.m., revealed the resident was being monitored for witnessed fall on 12/8/22 with no apparent injuries. The resident had chronic pain to the right hip and right lower extremity with ibuprofen given with positive results to relieve pain. Fall 12/13/23 Nursing note 12/13/22 at 10:05 p.m., read in pertinent part: Late entry: Alarm sounding when nurse went into resident's room. Resident was sitting on the floor on a fall matt with back to bed, the bed alarm was on the resident's bed, but was towards (where the resident's) lower back (would have been an not at the shoulder where it was to be placed), non-skid socks in place, and the call light on the bed by where the resident's torso would have been. Wheelchair was within arm's reach which the resident tried to get to. Resident stated she was ready to get up. Assisted resident to standing position with resident able to bear weight. Resident reported discomfort to the hip but was continuing to heal from a prior fracture of the pubic (bone)with noted with chronic pain. Resident states pain is the same as usual. Abrasion to right of spine noted without pain or discomfort to site. Education received to staff regarding placement of bed alarm at shoulder height, not low back staff acknowledged (understanding). Resident with dementia and often forgetful to use call light. Post fall report dated 12/13/22 revealed, Resident #16 was attempting to get into her wheelchair without assistance and she fell onto the floor. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Staff were educated on the proper placement of the resident bed alarm; however, it was unknown hitch staff were educated because the training document was not provided. Fall 12/20/22 Nursing note dated 12/20/22 at 6:49 p.m., read in pertinent part: Resident #16 had an unwitnessed fall at 5:15 p.m. Resident (was found) lying supine approximately eight feet from the bed beside a reclining chair. Non slip socks on feet, legs were pointing in the direction of the bed, knees pulled up. (the resident ) verbalizing complaints of severe pain in the left hip. The resident was A&O (alert and oriented) to self, place, event, and readily conversing with nurse staff. (The resident said) 'I think I broke my hip.' Resident was unable to move, flex or extend the left leg or move the left knee medial without pain. The resident left the facility at 5:34 p.m. for hospital treatment assessment. Post fall report dated 12/20/22 at 5:15 p.m. revealed Resident #16 tried to ambulate from the bed to a chair without staff assistance. The resident fell before getting to the chair, which was approximately three feet away. The resident complained of severe hip pain immediately following the fall and was sent to the emergency room. Predisposing factors included recent illness, gait imbalance, impaired memory and a recent change in medications. Other information: the bed pressure alarm did not activate, as intended. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Hospital records dated 12/28/22 documented Resident #16 had fallen at the facility and complained of weakness in her legs and extreme pain in the left hip area.The resident was transferred to the emergency room; X-ray results concluded the resident had sustained a left hip fracture as a result of the fall. The resident underwent surgical intervention, on 12/21/22, to repair the hip fracture. Discharge instructions included making a follow up appointment with the resident's primary care physician, getting enough rest and eating healthy foods to help recover quickly. Nurses note dated 12/28/22 at 5:49 p.m., read in pertinent part: Resident readmitted from the hospital with arrival at 3:15 p.m., after left femur fracture with surgery done on 12/21/22. Observed three separate incision sites to the left lower extremity with steri-strips and sutures intact. Orders received to clean incision sites to left lower extremity, apply xeroform to sutures/steri-strips and cover with ABD (absorbent) pad. The resident is weight bearing as tolerated with sit-to-stand used for admission weight with resident tolerating well. PT (physical therapy) and OT (occupational therapy) to evaluate the resident. The resident is alert to self only with confusion to time, place and situation. Resident verbally reports pain to left leg with facial grimacing. Fall 1/17/23 Nursing note dated 1/17/23 at 11:10 p.m. read in pertinent part: Late entry: Called to resident room due to a fall. CNA heard the resident's bed alarm sound and went to the resident's room, as the CNA walked into the resident's room the resident fell to the floor. Resident was wearing gripper socks but they were no longer gripping due to the tread was mostly worn off, also the fall mat was not in place. Removed the old gripper socks and put on different ones and disposed of the other ones. Fall mat was placed at the bedside. CNA was reminded to always use the fall mat when the resident was in bed. Resident did have pain in the left leg. Percocet (pain medication) given with positive results. Post fall report dated 1/17/23, revealed CNA heard resident bed alarm sound and went to the resident's room where the resident was found seated on the bed feet on the floor, as the staff entered the room the resident slid off the bed onto the floor. When asked what happened the resident stated, I was playing. Staff assisted the resident back onto bed. Resident refused the offer to use the bathroom. The resident was noticed to be wearing gripper socks but the socks were no longer gripping due to the tread being mostly worn off the bottom of the socks. Predisposing factors included poor lighting. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Fall 2/15/23 Nure note dated 2/15/23 at 3:15 a.m. read in pertinent part: Resident was observed laying on her floor on her back. The wheelchair was in the bathroom doorway laying down with the front wheels up. The wheelchair breaks were locked. Noted to have a hematoma (pooling of blood under the skin) to the back of her head with no other complaints of pain or discomfort. Post fall report dated 2/15/23 revealed a loud crashing noise was heard form Resident #16 room the resident yelled out ohh. Upon entering the resident's room the resident was found lying on her back, on the floor. The wheelchair was in the bathroom doorway laying down with the front wheels up in the air. The wheelchair breaks were locked. The resident was wearing gripper socks. Resident had been previously lying in bed with the wheelchair next to the bed with breaks on. Resident was assessed and was noted to have a hematoma to the back of her head. The resident description of the fall: 'I fell and hit my head.' Predisposing factors included poor lighting, gait imbalance, impaired memory, and getting up without assistance. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Nurse note dated 2/17/23 at 12:03 p.m. read in pertinent part: Resident is being monitored for unwitnessed fall on 2/15/23. Observed slightly raised, dark purple colored hematoma to left side of back of head measuring approximately 8 centimeters (cm) in length by 6 cm in width. Non-raised light purple colored bruising to middle of back of head measuring approximately 5 cm in length by 5 cm in width. Resident denies any head or neck discomfort with range of motion to the neck within normal limits. Resident denies headaches Unchanged mental status with the resident being alert to self only and confused to time, place and situation. The resident continued to bear weight and transfer with sit-to-stand lift without difficulties (with staff assistance). The resident with poor safety awareness due to dementia with frequent self-transfers and inability to comprehend use of call light. Personal alarms on to alert staff. Continue to anticipate resident's needs to help prevent falls. Bed in lowest position when in bed and fall mat in place. Fall 2/24/23 Nursing note dated 2:40 p.m. read in pertinent part: CNA responded to resident (position change) alarm to find resident on the floor at the end of the bed. with back against the dresser, legs straight out, call light at bedside, floor mat in place and slipper (gripper) socks on appropriately. Resident was pleasantly confused which is her baseline. No head, neck or back pain upon assessment. Post fall report dated 2/24/23, documented the same information as the progress note with the following additional information. The resident description: I was trying to get to my wheelchair. Predisposing factors included confusion and impaired memory. Interventions following the fall were for staff to encourage the resident to use the call light, continue current interventions and check on the resident every hour while in bed. Fall 2/24/23 Nursing note dated 2/25/23 at 5:17 a.m. read in pertinent part: This nurse was called to the resident's room. Resident was found sitting on the floor between the window and bed. Resident had a hematoma 6 cm in diameter with a small abrasion was noted on the resident's head left side above the ear. Also on the outside of the resident's left wrist there were three small blood blisters. Will continue with the plan of care. Post fall report dated 2/258/23 revealed the resident was found sitting on the floor between the window and the bed. Resident description of the fall: Resident said she was trying to go to the restroom. Predisposing factors included: impaired memory and getting up without assistance. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Fall 3/7/23 Nursing note dated 3/7/23 1:34 p.m, read in pertinent part: CNA notified nurse that resident had fallen. Nurse and DON entered the resident's room to find the resident's bed at its lowest position and fall matt in place. Resident was kneeling on the floor facing towards the doorway with the left arm on bed and right arm on the wheelchair. It appeared the resident was trying to transfer to the wheelchair without assistance. Personal (position change) alarm was on the bed but (placed) low in bed. (the alarm) Sounded when the resident tried to self-transfer. The DON (director of nursing) and nurse assisted the resident into a wheelchair. Resident without bruising skin tears or redness. CNA assisted residents to the bathroom. The resident denied complaints of pain or discomfort. Able to move all extremities without pain/discomfort. Staff received education regarding proper placement of (position change) alarms required to be by residents shoulders and not beneath the resident's glutes (the buttocks). Post fall report dated 3/7/23, revealed the resident was found on the floor after a fall. Interventions including bed at lowest position and use of a fall matt were in place. The position change alarm was not placed properly. Resident description of the fall: I was just trying to get up. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Nursing note dated 3/8/23 at 11:23 a.m. read in pertinent part: Unchanged mental status with resident being alert to self only and confused to time, place and situation. Resident continues to bear weight and transfer with sit-to-stand lift without difficulties. The resident with poor safety awareness due to dementia with frequent self-transfers and inability to comprehend use of call light. Personal alarms on to alert staff. Alarm on bed positioned at shoulders/back. Nursing note dated 3/9/23 at 8:48 a.m., read in pertinent part: Night nurse reported that resident's bed (position change) alarm was not working. Noted that the alarm was working but delayed (in alarming). This nurse changed out the bed alarm to number 40. Staff updated on new bed alarm (number). Fall 3/11/23 Nursing note dated 3/11/23 at 2:59 p.m., read in pertinent part: Resident's alarm (position change) sounded with nurse rushing to room. Resident was on hands and knees on fall matt about to crawl towards the wheelchair. Alarm was in place but had moved down when the resident shifted. Fall matt in place and under resident. Low bed in place and all the way to the floor. Wheelchair was against the wall about a foot away from the resident. New intervention is for Dycem (non slip pad) under personal alarm to prevent alarm from falling down and keep wheelchair close to resident. Resident's call light was within reach but the resident has poor safety awareness and does not use it. Also in place fall matt remains in place, hi/Low bed and anti roll back to wheelchair. Post fall reported dated 3/11/23, document the same as the progress note above. Additional information included: Resident description of the fall: I need to go to the damn bathroom that's what I am doing. I will crawl there myself. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Fall 3/24/23 Nursing note dated 3/24/23 at 4:17 p.m. read in pertinent part: resident's bed silent alarm went off, CNA went to resident's room and observed the resident kneeling on floor mat in front of bed, CNA notified this nurse, this nurse went into see resident, sitting on floor mat in front of bed with feet in front of her, slipper socks in place, call light in reach. Resident pleasantly confused per usual baseline, smiling, alert and oriented to self only no distress noted, general aches and pains in legs-chronic pain, no visible injuries, Resident able to move all extremities w/o difficulty. When asked what happened the resident said 'I wanted to be down here, I was trying to get up.' The resident taken to the nurse's station for one to one monitoring. Post fall report dated 3/24/23 at 2:00 p.m. documented the same information as in the nursing note above. Additional information predisposing factors included confusion, weakness, gait imbalance, and impaired memory. -There was no documentation that the fall prevention interventions were assessed for effectiveness and no recommendations to add additional interventions. Therapy assessment Physical therapy and plan of treatment certification period 1/29/22 to 1/27/23 revealed Resident #16 was evaluated for physical therapy. Short term goals included: Goal #1- the patient will improve the ability to safely transfer from sitting to the side of the bed to lying flat on the bed with supervision or touching assistance. Goal #2- The patient will improve the ability to safely transfer from lying on the back to sitting on the side of the bed, feet flat on the floor with supervision or touching assistance in order to get out of bed. Goal #3[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve the ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) for for one (#32) of two residents reviewed for ADLs out of 29 residents. Specifically, the facility failed to provide supervision, oversight, encouragement and cueing with eating for Resident #32. Findings include: I. Resident status Resident #32, age of 93, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnoses included unspecified dementia and diabetes. The 2/2/23 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of four out of 15. The resident required one-person assistance with transfers, dressing, walking, toilet use, bathing, and personal hygiene. The resident required supervision, oversight, encouragement and cueing with eating. II. Observations The resident was observed on 3/28/23 at 11:45 a.m. in the resident's room for lunch. The resident refused to come to the dining room and refused food. A meal tray was brought to the room and put next to the resident's recliner. At 11:51 a.m. the director of nursing (DON) went into the resident's room to assist with encouragement but the resident refused to eat. At 11:54 a.m. certified nursing aide (CNA) #1 went into the resident's room to assist with encouragement but the resident refused to eat. At 12:00 p.m. the resident's spouse, whom the resident shared a room with, returned from the dining room and did not encourage the resident to eat. The meal tray was removed from the room at 12:10 p.m. The resident was not offered an alternative. The resident was observed on 3/29/23 at 11:25 a.m. sitting in the dining room with spouse for lunch. When the lunch plate arrived, the resident first ate the dessert cup, then ate a few bites of the entree. After 10 minutes of picking at the entree, the resident went back to the dessert cup and used the spoon to scrape the sides of the bowl to eat any remaining dessert. The resident then drank coffee until 11:45 a.m. The resident again tried to scrap the dessert cup but there was no dessert left. The resident went back to drinking coffee until the spouse was ready to leave at 11:52 a.m. At no point did nursing staff come to the resident's table to check on the meal intake or if the resident wanted something different to eat. The resident was observed on 3/29/23 at 5:25 p.m. arriving at the dining room for dinner. From 5:25 p.m. through 6:00 p.m, the resident picked at dinner, which was nacho chips. The resident was attempting to eat the nacho chips with a fork and having difficulty. At 5:35 p.m., a dietary staff member stopped by the resident's table to ask if the resident needed anything and then left. No other staff checked on the resident and the spouse did not encourage the resident to eat dinner. The resident left the dining room at 6:00 p.m. At no point did nursing staff come to the resident's table to check on the meal intake or if the resident was having difficulty eating. III. Record review The comprehensive care plan nutrition focus initiated on 2/20/23, revealed the resident had the potential for nutritional risk due to diagnosis of diabetes, dementia, and hypertension. Interventions initiated on 2/22/23 were to encourage fluids, follow physician diet order of low calorie sweetener and remind the resident of mealtimes and location. The activities of daily living focus initiated on 2/10/23 revealed the resident had a self-care deficit due to dementia. Interventions initiated 2/21/23 revealed the resident was independent with eating. Nutrition progress notes from 2/24/23 through 3/21/23 revealed the registered dietitian (RD) had been monitoring the resident for weight loss related to poor intake. The resident would refuse one to two meals a week and intakes were between 10%-60%. The RD documented the resident as independent with eating until 3/21/23 than documented independent with the need for supervision. The resident intake log for food and fluids revealed: 30% intake for lunch on 3/28/23; 95% intake for lunch on 3/29/23; and, 15% intake for dinner on 3/29/23. Facility tasks for CNAs for recording meals revealed: -Lunch on 3/28/23 the resident received supervision, oversight, and encouragement; -Lunch on 3/29/23 the resident was independent and did not require any supervision to eat; and, -Dinner on 3/29/23 the resident was independent and did not require any supervision to eat. IV. Staff interviews Restorative aide (RA) #1 was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 1:58 p.m. She stated she had never seen the resident for restorative therapy for dining. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 2:50 p.m. She stated the resident did not eat very much due to advancing dementia. She said the resident did not associate what they were supposed to do with food anymore. The resident needed supervision, cues, and food cut up by staff. Certified nursing assistant (CNA) #2 was interviewed at 3/28/23 at 11:46 a.m. She stated the CNAs have to provide the resident eating assistance. The resident needs supervision, cues, and prompts or else the resident would not eat the meal. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 10:27 a.m. The DON stated the resident had come from assisted living due to cognitive and functional decline. The staff would give the resident encouragement to eat. The resident liked sweets and the kitchen would provide dessert with meals. The resident enjoyed coffee so the kitchen provided snacks to be kept in the room for the resident to eat with coffee. The resident's spouse also provided cues and prompted the resident during meal times to eat. The activities director (AD) was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 1:40 p.m. She stated she had been a CNA and could determine meal intake. After looking at Resident #32's lunch plate, she determined the intake was 15%. CNA #3 was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 4:11 p.m. She stated the CNA working in the dining room records the meal intakes on a sheet of paper and gives it to the floor CNAs to record in the resident's medical record. She normally worked on Resident #32's hallway and it was not typical for the resident to eat 95% (as indicated on 3/29/23). The meal intake was usually less than 40% for Resident #32. The AD was interviewed again on 3/29/23 at 5:15 p.m. She stated she did not usually record the meal intakes, the CNAs in the dining room did that. She acknowledged that 95% intake for Resident #32 at lunch time on 3/29/23 was not accurate. The nutrition services director (NSD) was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 5:22 p.m. He stated if a resident in the dining room needed assistance with dining, there was an area of tables in the corner where CNA staff would assist residents with eating. If the resident needed to be cued and prompted to eat, the nursing staff would come by the residents table in the main part of the dining room. CNA #4 was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 6:00 p.m. After looking at Resident #32's dinner plate, she determined the intake was 10%. She usually helped with the residents who needed help to be assisted with their meal. She acknowledged that Resident #32 needed cues and prompts to eat meals or the resident would just pick at the food. The DON was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 12:55 p.m. She was not aware that the CNAs were leaving cueing and prompting of meal intake to the resident's spouse and not encouraging the resident in the dining room. She said that the spouse encouragement was not to replace the care provided by the CNAs. The DON acknowledged the resident needed to be reminded to eat and encouraged at every meal.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to establish parameters for pain medication for one (#29) of three re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to establish parameters for pain medication for one (#29) of three residents in a manner consistent with professional standards of practice out of 29 sample residents. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Pain parameters and assessments were established and implemented for a physician ordered scheduled and as needed (PRN) pain medication; and, -Non-pharmacological interventions were established or implemented. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Pain Management policy and procedure, reviewed March 2018, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/30/23 at 4:50 p.m. It revealed in pertinent part, An assessment or an evaluation of pain based on clinical standards of practice may necessitate gathering the following information, as applicable to the resident: history of pain and its treatments (including non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment), characteristics of pain such as intensity of pain (as measured on a standardized pain scale); descriptors of pain (burning, stabbing, tingling, aching); pattern of pain (constant or intermittent); location and radiation of pain; frequency, timing and duration of pain; impact of pain on quality of life (sleeping, functioning, papetitis, an mood); factors such as activities, care, or treatment that precipitate or exacerbate pain; strategies an factors that reduce pain; additional symptoms associated with pain (nausea and anxiety); physical, psychological and cognitive status); current medical conditions and medications;or the resident ' s goals for pain management and his or her satisfaction with the current level of pain control. II. Resident status Resident #29, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the March 2023 computerized physician orders (CPO), the diagnoses included multiple fractures of ribs and pain in the right hip. The 2/26/23 minimum data set MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a brief interview for mental status score (BIMS) of 15 out of 15. She required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and supervision with setup for eating. It indicated the resident was on a scheduled pain medication program, received PRN medications and did not receive non pharmacological interventions for pain management. III. Record review The pain management care plan, initiated on 3/4/23, documented the resident was at risk for pain and was able to request assistance and pain medication when in pain. Interventions included monitor and document for side effects of pain medication, monitor and record pain characteristics, administer pain medication per order if non medication interventions were ineffective. -A review of Resident #29 ' s comprehensive care plan did not reveal a person-centered approach with identification of location, type or intensity of pain the resident experienced. It did not include personalized non pharmacological interventions to address the resident ' s pain. It did not identify a baseline assessment of pain or person-centered pain management goals. The February 2023 and March 2023 medication administration record (MAR) documented the resident was prescribed the following medications: -Norco 10/325 milligrams (mg) tablet-one tablet twice a day ordered 2/17/23, discontinued 3/15/23. -Norco 5/325 mg tablet- one tablet twice a day ordered 3/15/23. -Norco 5/325 mg tablet-one tablet every six hours for pain as needed for breakthrough pain ordered 2/17/23. -Morphine sulfate 20 mg/ml solution-0.25 ml every two hours as needed if unable to swallow Norco ordered 2/17/23. -Acetaminophen 500 mg tablet-one tablet at bedtime for pain ordered 2/17/23. A comprehensive review of February and March 2023 MAR failed to document location and type of resident ' s pain being treated for Acetaminophen, Norco and Morphine Sulfate. The physician orders did not include specific pain scale parameters for the PRN Norco and Morphine sulfate. IV. Staff interviews Licensed practical nurse (LPN) #1 was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 10:00 a.m. LPN #1 said a pain assessment was done prior to administration of a pain medication. A pain assessment scale was used if the resident was cognitively intact or a behavioral assessment if the resident was not cognitively intact. LPN #1 said there were no parameters ordered and clinical judgment was used prior to administration. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 3:15 p.m. The DON said that when a PRN or routine pain medication was administered, clinical judgment was used before giving the pain medication. The DON confirmed that parameters based on a pain assessment should be in place before administration of a pain medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure mechanical equipment was in safe, operational condition. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure necessary kitchen equipment was...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure mechanical equipment was in safe, operational condition. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure necessary kitchen equipment was maintained in safe, working condition. Findings include: I. Observations On 3/27/23 at 9:15 a.m., a kitchen inspection revealed a three compartment sink with one faucet handle dripping into the left hand side sink compartment. On 3/29/23 at 5:00 a.m. the faucet on the three compartment sink dripping into the sink still. Underneath the sink, a valve handle was dripping water into a seven quart rectangular wash basin and overflowing onto the floor under the sink. On 3/30/23 at 8:30 a.m. the faucet and valve had still not been repaired. II. Staff interviews The nutrition services director (NSD) was interviewed on 3/27/23 at 9:30 a.m. He stated he had reported the dripping sink to the maintenance director two days prior and was told that once the maintenance assistant returned to work from being sick, it would be taken care of. The NSD was interviewed again on 3/29/23 at 5:10 p.m. He stated the faucet and valve had both been dripping for a week and the maintenance director had been informed of both leaks. Dietary cook (DC) #2 was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 8:45 a.m. She stated both leaks had been going on for a month but recently had become worse. DC #1 was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 10:10 a.m. She stated the faucet and the valve had both been dripping for a month but in the last two weeks it had become worse. In the last two weeks, the container underneath filled up again right after being emptied. The container had begun overflowing more often and the staff had to mop water off the floor to prevent from slipping. The maintenance director (MTD) was interviewed with the nursing home administrator (NHA) present on 3/30/23 at 10:20 a.m. The MTD stated the NSD had let him know about the leaks in the kitchen a week prior and he had provided them with the seven quart rectangular wash basin as a short term remedy until his assistant returned from being out sick. The assistant had still not returned to work. He stated the repair was on his list of things to do and should only require a few parts to be fixed when he got the chance. The NHA was interviewed on 3/20/23 at 10:25 a.m. She stated the leaks in the kitchen would be addressed immediately and a plumber would be contacted. III. Facility follow-up On 3/30/23 at 11:02 a.m. an email from the NHA documented a plumber had arrived at the facility. At 2:12 p.m. an email from the NHA documented a purchase order receipt from a plumbing company showing a replacement of a SharkBite fitting by the plumber to the kitchen sink.
CONCERN (E)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 maintain a system of documenting grievances and dem...

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 maintain a system of documenting grievances and demonstrating prompt action for residents. Specifically, the facility failed to effectively address, resolve and demonstrate the facility's response to: -Ongoing food and pest control concerns; and, -Grievances brought up in the resident council. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Grievance policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/30/23 at 11:02 a.m. It read it pertinent part, The social services director is responsible for overseeing the grievance process; receiving and tracking grievances through to their conclusion. Grievances may be voiced by verbal complaint during resident or family council meetings. The social services director or designee will keep the resident appropriately apprised of progress towards the resolution of the grievance. II. Resident interviews All residents were identified by facility and assessment as interviewable. Resident #4 was interviewed on 3/27/23 at 9:55 a.m. The resident stated she had observed mice running across the floor of the room, in and out of the bathroom, and in and out of the closet for the last two weeks. The resident stated she had voiced this to the floor staff and the housekeepers but was not aware if a grievance had been written. The resident stated the cold food was not cold enough and the hot food was not hot enough. Resident #1 was interviewed on 3/27/23 at 11:12 a.m. The resident stated the food temperatures were not right sometimes and the food was not desirable in appearance. Resident #20 was interviewed on 3/27/23 at 2:17 p.m. The resident stated the facility food had no flavor, did not look appealing, the temperature was not usually hot enough. III. Observations On 3/28/23 at 1:40 p.m. in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] an exposed rodent glue trap behind the resident's recliner. It was visible from the hallway and had a piece of corn chip on it. At 3:43 p.m. in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] an exposed rodent glue trap behind the resident's recliner with a corn chip in it. In resident room [ROOM NUMBER] an exposed rodent glue trap behind the resident's recliner with a corn chip in it. Cross-reference F925 for pest control On 3/29/23 at 5:00 p.m. the temperature was taken of the chicken served with dinner and it was 172 degrees F. The temperature was taken again after the last resident was served at 5:35 p.m. and it had dropped to 107 degrees F. The meal was nachos and consisted of a plate full of chips, a small amount of nacho cheese, meat, beans, and sour cream on the top. The toppings could only sustain approximately 25% of the chips leaving the rest of the chips to be eaten plain. The dessert was to be churros, but it was not provided to the residents and there was no alternative for dessert. IV. Record review Resident council meeting minutes dated 11/8/22 revealed concerns voiced to nutrition services director (NSD) regarding drink temperatures (of the hot beverages). The NSD responded there had been a break in the chain between a couple departments, but they were working on it. Resident council meeting minutes dated 1/10/23 revealed concerns voiced to NSD regarding drink temperatures not being hot enough. NSD responded one of the boilers that controlled the kitchen water temperature had been down but it was being worked on and drinks could be microwaved. Resident council meeting minutes dated 2/14/23 revealed concerns voiced to NSD regarding drinks, soups, and oatmeal not being hot enough. It was also voiced that the presentation of the food appeared sloppy. -There was no response from NSD on meeting minutes. Facility grievances for the last six months were reviewed on 3/30/23 at 9:00 a.m. There were no written grievances for food or rodents. In addition, there also were no grievances for 2023. V. Staff interviews Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 2:50 p.m. She stated in the last two weeks residents have started to report to her seeing mice in their rooms. She had reported these concerns to the housekeeping and maintenance departments. Housekeeper (HSKP) #2 was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 9:07 a.m. She stated she had been receiving complaints from staff and residents regarding rodents for the last month. The NSD was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 5:10 p.m. He stated he had not received grievances regarding food temperatures or appearance. He said he attended resident council meetings. The social services director was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 9:00 a.m. She stated she only wrote a grievance form when the resident concern was very serious. Examples might be theft or abuse. She tried to resolve concerns when they came to her and would write a progress note in the resident's chart. The SSD said she did not ever write a grievance form for a complaint brought up in resident council. She depended on the department head to address concerns for their department. She acknowledged she did not have a way to track if the department head resolved it, how long it took them, and if they followed up with the resident with a resolution. If a resident said a complaint had not been addressed, without a grievance form, the SSD would have to go through the resident's progress notes to show if she had addressed it or not. The NHA was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 10:25 a.m. She stated if there was a grievance, it was referred to the SSD. The grievance process was to try to resolve grievances right away and not write a grievance form. The NHA acknowledged that this process did not guarantee a grievance was addressed and not ignored, and did not provide documentation of trends. The NSD was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 1:25 p.m. He stated in regards to the resident council concerns, he had addressed them in resident council and no grievance form had been completed. The 11/8/22 concern was regarding the coffee being brewed too long before service and then cooling down so the kitchen started to wait closer to time of service to brew coffee. The 1/10/23 concern was resolved by a new water heater being purchased for the kitchen. The staff had to use the microwave to heat drinks but took the temperature of the drinks before serving to the residents. He could not explain what had been done for the 2/14/23 resident council concerns. VI. Facility follow-up An email was received from the NHA on 3/30/23 at 10:16 a.m. documenting the glue traps had been removed from all the resident rooms. The NHA provided the prior two months pest control invoices. Invoice dated 2/22/23 charged the facility for interior inspection of pests and external service of baited traps. Invoiced dated 1/12/23 charged the facility for interior inspection of pests and external service of baited traps. The NHA provided invoices on 3/30/23 at 2:15 p.m. for kitchen repairs made by the facility's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) service provider. Invoice dated 1/30/23 showed a 1/3/23 service call to replace a boiler combustion fan. Invoiced dated 2/27/23 showed a 1/10/23 service call to replace heat exchanger for boiler.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

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 maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility w...

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 effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of pests and vermin. Specifically, the facility failed to utilize a method for pest control that was effective and sanitary. Findings include: I. Professional references According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, How to Trap and Remove Rodent Infestations, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pets/wildlife/trap on [DATE], Glue traps (small board made of cardboard, fiberboard, or plastic that's coated with a sticky adhesive that ensnares any small animal who wanders across or lands on its surface) can increase a human's risk to exposure of diseases. Do not use glue traps or live traps. These traps can scare the rodents causing them to urinate, which can increase a human's chances of getting sick. In addition, glue traps were not included in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) list of registered and recommended products to treat rodent infestations. II. Facility Policy The Pest Control policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on [DATE] at 5:03 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The facility will ensure that appropriate chemicals are used to control pests but can be used safely inside of the building without compromising resident health. III. Observations On [DATE] at 1:40 p.m. in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] an exposed rodent glue trap was behind the resident's recliner. It was visible from the hallway and had a piece of corn chip on it. At 3:43 p.m. in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] an exposed rodent glue trap was behind the resident's recliner with a corn chip in it. In resident room [ROOM NUMBER] an exposed rodent glue trap was behind the resident's recliner with a corn chip in it. IV. Resident interviews The resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:55 a.m. The resident was aware of the trap in the room but did not believe it was effective. The resident had observed mice running across the floor of the room, in and out of the bathroom, and in and out of the closet for the last two weeks. The resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was interviewed again on [DATE] at 10:11 a.m. The resident stated there was a rodent problem on that hallway and the resident had observed mice in the room daily. V. Interviews Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on [DATE] at 2:50 p.m. She stated in the last two weeks the residents have started to report to her seeing mice in their rooms. She had not seen mice herself but the residents making the reports were cognitively intact. She was aware of the glue traps being put out. Certified nursing aide (CNA) #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 3:47 p.m. She had not seen any mice in the facility personally but stated she had heard rumors from other staff there was an infestation in the last week. Housekeeper (HSKP) #2 was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:07 a.m. The rodents had only recently become a problem in the last month. She knew the maintenance department was using glue traps and residents had reported to her seeing mice. She stated sometimes the traps would stay out for a few days with a mouse in them before they were disposed of. HSKP #2 said she personally has disposed of two mice in the last month. The NHA was interviewed on [DATE] at 9:56 a.m. She said the pest control company the facility used was scheduled to come out for the regular monthly visit today. The maintenance director (MTD) was interviewed on [DATE] at 10:14 a.m. with the NHA present. The MTD stated the facility had a pest control company that came out monthly. The company would spray around the outside of the building and set up baited box traps (traps that once the mouse went inside, they could not get back out) outside and in the facility's boiler room. He said several months ago, he had been given the glue traps by the pest control company on one of their visits to the facility. The maintenance department was putting the corn chips on the glue traps as bait. He acknowledged he had not considered whether having a rodent stuck to a glue trap behind a resident's chair was sanitary or disturbing for the resident. A representative with the pest control agency was interviewed on [DATE] at 11:30 a.m. He stated his company had been coming to the facility for approximately six months and he had been to the facility four times personally. The company had set out twelve external baited box traps and serviced those traps monthly. The agent said about four months ago, the maintenance department asked him for interior bait traps and he sold those to the facility. Interior bait traps include poisoned bait inside and once a mouse went inside and ate the bait, they left the trap and went elsewhere in the building to die. The agent said the pest control company could sell or provide interior bait traps or glue traps by request but those were not recommended methods. He did not recommend interior bait traps because finding the deceased rodent and disposing of them could be difficult. He did not recommend glue traps because rodents could sometimes get off of the trap and this process could be very messy. A rodent's body may not be intact when they get themselves free from the glue. IV. Facility follow-up An email was received from the NHA on [DATE] at 10:16 a.m. documenting the glue traps had been removed from all the resident rooms. The NHA provided the prior two months pest control invoices. Invoice dated [DATE] charged the facility for interior inspection of pests and external service of baited traps. Invoiced dated [DATE] charged the facility for interior inspection of pests and external service of baited traps.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide training to their staff that at a minimum educate staff on activities that constitute abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide training to their staff that at a minimum educate staff on activities that constitute abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property as set forth, procedures for reporting incidents of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation of resident property and dementia management and resident abuse prevention. Specifically the facility failed to: -Provide annual abuse identification and prevention training for one of out of six certified nurse aides (CNA) reviewed; and, -Provide initial hire orientation and/or annual dementia management training for four out of six CNAs. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation policy, revised 2/27/2020, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/27/23 at 11:12 a.m., read in part: The facility will develop and implement written policies and procedures that: -Include training for new and existing staff on activities that constitute abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriate of resident property, reporting procedures, and dementia management and resident abuse prevention. Employee Training: New employees will be educated on abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property during initial orientation. Existing staff will receive annual education through planned in-services and as needed. Training topics will include: -Prohibiting and preventing all forms of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation; -Identifying what constitutes abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property; -Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators; -Reporting process for abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, including injuries of unknown sources; -Understanding behavioral symptoms of residents that may increase the risk of abuse and neglect such as: Aggressive and/or catastrophic reactions of residents; Wandering or elopement-type behaviors; Resistance to care; Outbursts and yelling out; and Difficulty in adjusting to new routines or staff. II. Training records A request was made for training records for the past 12 months (3/29/22 to 3/29/23) for six randomly selected CNAs showing proof of participation in orientation (new hire) or annual abuse identification, prevention, and reporting; and dementia management training. The facility staff development coordinator (SDC) provided employee records. The training records revealed not all reviewed employees were up to date with annual and new hire abuse identification, prevention, and reporting; and dementia management training Training records revealed -CNA #11 was hired on 8/16/19. CNA #11's training records revealed the CNA had no documented training in the last 12 months. CNA #11 was not provided either annual abuse identification, prevention, and reporting; and dementia management training. -CNA #1 was hired on 8/21/2020. CNA #1's training records revealed CNA #1 was not provided annual dementia management training. -CNA #9 was hired on 12/28/22. CNA #9's training records revealed CNA #9 was not provided initial new hire dementia management training prior to working with residents diagnosed with dementia; CNA #9 had been working in the facility for 93 days at the completion of the survey. -CNA #10 was hired on 12/28/22. CNA #10's training records revealed CNA #10 was not provided initial new hire dementia management training prior to working with residents diagnosed with dementia; CNA #9 had been working in the facility for 93 days at the completion of the survey. III. Staff interviews The SDC was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 2:13 p.m. The SDC said both abuse identification, prevention, and reporting; and dementia management training were mandatory for all newly hired staff provided during employee orientation and the training was to be repeated annually. The SDC said she maintained the staff training records and had provided the most up to date records for review. All facility staff were assigned the required training topic on a monthly basis and were expected to come into the facility to complete the required training sessions independently. The staff had access to computers in the facility library and were permitted to come in off scheduled work hours to complete the training; staff were paid for their training time. All staff were required to complete the assigned training. The SDC said the online training was developed by a health care professional organization (organization name provided) (each training was based on industry standards). The SDC said if staff failed to complete the assigned training the employee's manager was notified. The manager was responsible to provide appropriate disciplinary action to ensure the employee completed any missing training session to maintain compliance with training recommendations. If the employee remained out of compliance with training requirements after one additional month, the SDC was to provide a report to the NHA for next step actions. The SDC said a recent review of staff compliance with training requirements revealed several staff were out of compliance with the facility's training expectations; based on these findings facility leadership determined it was necessary to give all staff a list of uncompleted training with an expected completion deadline of 5/30/23. If a staff failed to catch up on uncompleted training by the deadline that staff member would face unpaid suspension. The SDC was not sure why CNA #11 had not completed any of the facility assigned required trainings; CNA #11's lack of compliance with training assignments was somehow overlooked and no staff recognized that CNA #11 had not completed any of the assigned training in the last 17 months. It was not until the CNA's training records were requested during the survey that it was realized that CNA #11 had not been completing the assigned training. The NHA was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 2:25 p.m. The NHA acknowledged the importance of employee education particularly when staff were newly hired to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to perform the job. The NHA said there was no reason that any staff should not be in compliance with new hire and annual training requirements. Staff were provided paid time to complete training and were given dedicated time to complete the assigned training modules.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Administering medication in hygenic manner A. Professional reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Par...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** IV. Administering medication in hygenic manner A. Professional reference Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Part III: Precautions to Prevent Transmission of Infectious Agents. https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/providers/guideline.html. Retrieved on 4/3/23. Standard Precautions combine the major features of Universal Precautions (UP) and Body Substance Isolation (BSI) and are based on the principle that all blood, body fluids, secretions, excretions, except sweat, non intact skin and mucous membranes may contain transmissible infectious agents. These include: hand hygiene, use of gloves, gown, mask, eye protection, or face shield, depending on the anticipated exposure; and safe injection practices. Also, equipment or items in the patient environment likely to have been contaminated with infectious body fluid must be handled in a manner to prevent transmission of infectious agents (wear gloves for direct contact, contain heavily soiled equipment, properly clean and disinfect or sterilize reusable equipment before use on another patient). B. Observations 1. Certified nurse aide with medication authority (CNA_Med) #1 obtained a blood glucose from Resident #24 on 3/29/23 at 4:00 p.m. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer and obtained Resident #24's dedicated blood glucose monitor. CNA_Med #1 then placed a sterile lancet into the resident's lancet pen. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #24's room placed a testing strip in the glucose monitor and swabbed Resident #24's finger with alcohol and stuck resident's finger with lancet pen. CNA_Med #1 took Resident #24's finger with the drop of blood and touched it to the testing strip in the blood glucose monitor and swabbed the resident's finger with a dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 took the glucose monitor with the used testing strip, alcohol pad and used cotton ball to the medication cart and placed the used lancet, alcohol swab and cotton ball into the sharps container. CNA_Med #1 cleaned the end of Resident #24's blood glucose monitor with an alcohol swab, placed into the designated bag and returned it back to the medication cart. CNA_Med #1 obtained Resident #24's humalog insulin pen and cleaned hub off with alcohol and applied sterile needle. CNA_Med #1 dialed two units into the pen and primed the pen. CNA_Med #1 then dialed six units in per sliding scale order. CNA_Med #1 did not use gloves during handling of the used test strip, alcohol swab, cotton ball, lancet and injection needle. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #24's room, and administered the insulin into the resident's left arm. CNA_Med #1 left the resident's room and dispensed the used needle in the sharps container at the medication cart, placed the resident's pen into the dedicated bag and performed hand hygiene. CNA_Med #1 did not use gloves during handling of the used test strip, alcohol swab, cotton ball, lancet and injection needle. 2. CNA_Med #1 obtained a blood glucose and administered an injection for Resident #6 at 4:10 p.m. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer and obtained Resident #6's designated blood glucose monitor. CNA_Med #1 placed a new sterile lancet into the lancet pen and obtained an alcohol swab and dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #6's room, placed a test strip into the glucose monitor and swabbed resident's finger with alcohol swab and stuck Resident #6's finger with lancet pen. CNA_Med #1 took Resident #6's finger with the drop of blood and touched it to the testing strip in the blood glucose monitor and swabbed the resident's finger with a dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 took the glucose monitor with the used testing strip, alcohol pad and cotton ball to the medication cart and placed the used lancet, alcohol swab and cotton ball into the sharps container. CNA_Med#1 cleaned the end of Resident #6's blood glucose monitor with an alcohol swab, placed into the designated bag and returned it back to the medication cart. CNA_Med #1 obtained Resident #6's Novalog insulin pen and cleaned hub with an alcohol swab and placed a new sterile needle. CNA_Med #1 then dialed two units and primed the insulin pen. CNA_Med #1 dialed 11 units into the insulin pen per physician ordered sliding scale. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #6's room, swabbed Resident #6's right lower abdomen and administered insulin. CNA_Med #1 left the resident's room and dispensed the used needle in the sharps container at the medication cart, placed the resident's pen into the dedicated bag and performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer. CNA_Med #1 did not use gloves during handling of the used test strip, alcohol swab, cotton ball, lancet and injection needle. 3. CNA_Med #1 obtained a blood glucose and administered an injection for Resident #25 at 4:15 p.m. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer and obtained Resident #25's designated blood glucose monitor. CNA_Med #1 placed a new sterile lancet into the lancet pen and obtained an alcohol swab and dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #25's room, placed a test strip into the glucose monitor and swabbed resident's finger with alcohol swab and stuck Resident #25's finger with lancet pen. CNA_Med #1 took Resident #25's finger with the drop of blood and touched it to the testing strip in the blood glucose monitor and swabbed the resident's finger with a dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 took the glucose monitor with the used testing strip, alcohol pad and cotton ball to the medication cart and placed the used lancet, alcohol swab and cotton ball into the sharps container. CNA_Med #1 cleaned the end of Resident #25's blood glucose monitor with an alcohol swab, placed into the designated bag and returned it back to the medication cart. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer. CNA_Med #1 did not use gloves during handling of the used test strip, alcohol swab, cotton ball, lancet and injection needle. 4. CNA_Med #1 obtained blood glucose for Resident #32 at 4:25 p.m. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer and obtained Resident #32's designated blood glucose monitor. CNA_Med #1 placed a new sterile lancet into the lancet pen and obtained an alcohol swab and dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #32's room, placed a test strip into the glucose monitor. Resident #32 CNA_Med #1 took Resident #32's finger with the drop of blood and touched it to the testing strip in the blood glucose monitor and swabbed the resident's finger with a dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 took the glucose monitor with the used testing strip, alcohol pad and cotton ball to the medication cart and placed the used lancet, alcohol swab and cotton ball into the sharps container. CNA_Med #1 cleaned the end of Resident #32's blood glucose monitor with an alcohol swab, placed into the designated bag and returned it back to the medication cart. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer. CNA_Med #1 did not use gloves during handling of the used test strip, alcohol swab, cotton ball and lancet. 5. CNA_Med #1 administered an injection for Resident #22 at 4:30 p.m. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer and obtained Resident #22's designated blood glucose monitor. CNA_Med #1 placed a new sterile lancet into the lancet pen and obtained an alcohol swab and dry cotton ball. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #22's room, placed a test strip into the glucose monitor. Resident #22 took the lancet pen and stuck their own finger and placed a drop of blood onto the test strip. CNA_Med #1 took the glucose monitor with the used testing strip, alcohol pad and cotton ball to the medication cart and placed the used lancet, alcohol swab and cotton ball into the sharps container. CNA_Med #1 cleaned the end of Resident #22's blood glucose monitor with an alcohol swab, placed into the designated bag and returned it back to the medication cart. CNA_Med #1 performed hand hygiene with alcohol based sanitizer. CNA_Med #1 obtained Resident #22's insulin pen cleaned off the hub with an alcohol swab and applied a new sterile needle. CNA_Med #1 primed pen with two units and dialed in five units of scheduled Humalog insulin. CNA_Med #1 entered Resident #22's room and administered insulin into the left arm. Returned to the medication cart and dispensed the used needle into the sharps container. CNA_Med #1 did not use gloves during handling of the used test strip, alcohol swab, lancet, cotton ball or injection needle. C. Staff interviews Registered nurse #2 was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 9:00 a.m. RN #2 said that when obtaining resident blood glucoses, administering insulin injections or coming into contact with blood or bodily fluids standard precautions should be followed. RN #2 said gloves were worn and hand hygiene was performed before donning gloves and after doffing gloves. The infection preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 4:10 p.m. The IP said standard precautions should be followed prior to resident care that had the potential for blood or bodily fluid exposure which included finger sticks for blood glucose monitoring, giving injections and handling items contaminated by blood or bodily fluids. The director of nursing (DON) was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 4:20 p.m. The DON said that before obtaining resident blood sugars, administering insulin injections and handling any item contaminated with blood or bodily fluids, standard precautions were followed which included hand hygiene and the use of gloves. Based on observations, record review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an infection control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the possible development and transmission of infectious diseases. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Ensure professional standards of infection control were followed while cleaning resident rooms; -Ensure that different cleaning cloths were used to clean and disinfect different potentially contaminated surfaces; -Ensure housekeeping staff changed gloves and performed hand hygiene consistently when moving from a task where the staffs hand became contaminated form cleaning and or touching a contaminated surface within a resident's room before cleaning the next surface; -Ensure housekeeping staff cleaned and thoroughly cleaned all high-touch surfaces in resident rooms and followed manufacturer directions for thorough cleaning of a potentially contaminated surface during routine daily cleaning; -Ensure housekeeping staff followed the appropriate procedure when cleaning resident room bathrooms, so they did not contaminate surfaces with water from the inside of the toilet bowl; -Ensure the facility had a water monitoring program to prevent the potential spreads of Legionella and other waterborne pathogen infections; -Ensure residents were offered hand hygiene before meals in both the dining rooms and room trays; and, -Ensure nursing staff administered medications in a hygienic manner and wearing proper personal protective equipment when coming into contact with bodily fluids. Findings include: I. Routine cleaning in resident rooms A. Professional reference According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Infection control: Guidelines for Environmental Infection Control in Health-Care Facilities, last reviewed 5/14/19, was retrieved on 4/3/23 from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/environmental/background/services.html: Cleaning is the necessary first step of any sterilization or disinfection process. Cleaning is a form of decontamination that renders the environmental surface safe to handle or use by removing organic matter, salts, and visible soils, all of which interfere with microbial inactivation. The physical action of scrubbing with detergents and surfactants and rinsing with water removes large numbers of microorganisms from surfaces. Housekeeping surfaces can be divided into two groups - those with minimal hand-contact (floors, and ceilings) and those with frequent hand-contact ( 'high touch surfaces' ). The methods, thoroughness, and frequency of cleaning and the products used are determined by health-care facility policy. However, high-touch housekeeping surfaces in patient-care areas (doorknobs, bed rails, light switches, wall areas around the toilet in the patient's room, and the edges of privacy curtains) should be cleaned and/or disinfected more frequently than surfaces with minimal hand contact. Infection-control practitioners typically use a risk-assessment approach to identify high-touch surfaces and then coordinate an appropriate cleaning and disinfecting strategy and schedule with the housekeeping staff. Part of the cleaning strategy is to minimize contamination of cleaning solutions and cleaning tools. Bucket solutions become contaminated almost immediately during cleaning, and continued use of the solution transfers increasing numbers of microorganisms to each subsequent surface to be cleaned. -A simplified approach to cleaning involves replacing soiled cloths and mop heads with clean items. Application of contaminated cleaning solutions, particularly from small-quantity aerosol spray bottles or with equipment that might generate aerosols during operation, should be avoided, especially in high-risk patient areas. Making sufficient fresh cleaning solution for daily cleaning, discarding any remaining solution, and drying out the container will help to minimize the degree of bacterial contamination. Containers that dispense liquid as opposed to spray-nozzle dispensers (quart-sized dishwashing liquid bottles) can be used to apply detergent/disinfectants to surfaces and then to cleaning cloths with minimal aerosol generation. A pre-mixed, 'ready-to-use' detergent/disinfectant solution may be used if available. B. Facility policy The Routine Cleaning and Disinfection policy, undated, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 3/30/23 at 3:35 p.m. It read: It is the policy of this facility to ensure the provision of routine cleaning and disinfection in order to provide a safe, sanitary environment and to prevent the development and transmission of infections to the extent possible. -Routine cleaning and disinfection of frequently touched or visibly soiled surfaces will be performed in common areas, resident rooms, and at the time of discharge; -Use standard precautions, including appropriate personal protective equipment, for all rooms; -Clean from areas that are visibly clean and least likely to be contaminated to areas usually visibly dirty; -Clean from top to bottom (bring dirt from high levels down to floor levels); -Routine surface cleaning and disinfection will be conducted with a detailed focus on visibly soiled surfaces and high touch areas to include, but not limited to: Toilet flush handles; bed rails; tray tables, call buttons; TV (television) remote; light switches; door knobs and levers; -Clean prior to disinfection as recommended by the manufacturer of the product(s) being used; -Disinfectant solution will be prepared fresh daily and changed frequently in order to ensure effectiveness. Follow manufacturer recommendations for dilution and frequency of changing of disinfectant solution. Follow manufacturer recommendations regarding appropriate contact time to ensure adequate disinfection; -Horizontal surfaces with infrequent hand contact (window sills and hard surface flooring) in routine resident-care areas should be cleaned: On a regular basis. C. Observations On 3/28/23 at 1:45 p.m. housekeeper (HSKP) #1 was observed cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER]. HSKP #1 gathered supplies to clean the resident's room. The HSKP removed a small plastic container from the housekeeping cart and put cleaning supplies in the container including a toilet bowl brush, a small hand scrub brush, a very small pumice stone, and two clean cloths. The container was packed so the items were touching including the clean cloths being right next to the previously used toilet brush. The HSKP did not apply gloves for cleaning and did not perform hand hygiene prior to starting the cleaning process. With bare hands, HSKP #1 went to the resident bathroom first and poured a moderate amount of a cream cleanser inside the toilet bowl and inside the sink. The creamy cleanser was labeled as a bleach type toilet bowl cleaner. HSKP #1 used the toilet bowl brush to clean the inside of the toilet bowl, rim, and underside then top of the toilet seat in that order. The HSKP rinsed the toilet brush in the toilet and returned it to the small plastic container it was brought into the resident room inside. After cleaning the toilet bowl and seat; HSKP #1 without performing any hand hygiene; picked up the small scrub brush to clean the sink, rinsed the sink and brush and put that back into the small container with the toilet brush and cleaning cloths. Next HSKP #1 picked up a bottle of disinfectant spray and a cleaning cloths form the container that also contained the used toilet brush; sprayed a small amount of disinfectant onto the contaminated cloth to clean the base of the toilet, the tank; the top of the toilet tanks and then the flushing handle in that order. There was insufficient amount of disinfectant on the cleaning cloth to cover or saturate the surfaces cleaned and no waiting for the surface disinfectant time while the surfaces were properly disinfected. The HSKP then returned the used cloth to the small plastic container with the used toilet brush. HSKP #1 next took the small pumice stone out of the small plastic container and cleaned inside the toilet bowl. HSKP #1 said this was to remove any rust or hard water stains for the toilet. After use of the pumice stone, the stone was placed back into the small plastic container. HSKP #1 then took another cleaning cloth out of the small plastic container that also contained the used toilet brush; scrub brush; the used pumice stone; and used (toilet) cleaning cloth were placed. This cleaning cloth was sprayed with a small amount of disinfectant cleaner so that only a small spot on the cloth was dampened with the disinfectant solution. HSKP #1 used the cleaning cloth to clean the grab bars, soap dispenser, paper towel holder, sink countertop, and sink handles in the bathroom. After cleaning those items with the contaminated cloth, the HSKP used that same cloth and unwashed hands to handle and wipe down the entire surface (inside and outside) of the resident's denture cup. -HSKP #1 only perform hand hygiene once at the start of the cleaning process and did not put on any gloves to clean the resident's room; -HSKP #1 did not clean any of the high touch surfaces in the resident's room including the bed controller, the call light, or the television remote; -HSKP #1 did not clean the resident's bedside table, where the resident had drinks and other food items throughout the day; -HSKP #1 did not clean any vertical surfaces such as the windowsills or resident dresser, which were visibly dusty. D. Interview HSKP #1 was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 1:55 p.m. There was a language barrier between HSKP #1 and the interviewer. HSK P#1 said she was done and the room was clean. HSKP #1 shrugged and was unable to explain how she was to use any of the chemicals for cleaning and following prescribed surface disinfectant times. The NHA was interviewed on 3/28/23 at 2:00 p.m. When informed that the housekeeper was using a contaminated cloth to wipe down a resident's denture cup, the NHA was not aware that any of the HSKPs were cleaning resident denture cups. The NHA said the correct procedure was for the certified nurse aides (CNAs) to maintain and clean any of the residents personal care items, not the HSKPs. The NHA said she would educate HSKP#1 again on proper housekeeping procedure and that no HSKP was to clean residents' denture cups or any other personal care items. In addition, all resident denture cups would be replaced. The NHA said the HSKP should be using a clean cloth on each surface thought-out the resident's room; cleaning from top to bottom or cleanest to dirtiest and most importantly the HSKPs were not to clean nursing supplies or resident care items. HSKP #2 was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 11:58 p.m. HSKP #2 said the creamy cleanser was a bleach based product to be used in the toilet and the disinfectant spray was to be sprayed directly on high touch surfaces to saturate the surface and let it sit to kill pathogens for a period of three minutes. The HSKP identified the disinfectant cleaner as QT3 disinfectant with a surface disinfectant time of three to five minutes. The infection preventionist (IP),who was also the housekeeping supervisor, was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 4:06 p.m. The IP said housekeeping staff received training on orientation that included the expectations and procedure for routine resident room cleaning; but was considering providing each HSKP with an annual retraining on infection control measures for routine housekeeping. The IP said each HSKP should start the room cleaning process through hand hygiene and putting on a pair of gloves; using other personal protective equipment as indicated by imposed precautions individualized to each resident. The HSKPs were to clean from top to bottom or clean to dirty. The bathroom was to be cleaned last. The housekeeper was to enter the resident's room and spray all high touch surfaces and let the chemical sit to disinfect the surfaces for three minutes. While they waited for the surface disinfectant time, the HSKP was to sweep and take out the trash. Cleaning cloths were to be changed frequently for different surfaces throughout the resident's room and when soiled. Cleaning cloths used to clean the bathroom were not to be used in any other part of the resident room, especially not on the resident bedside table, remotes and the HSKP should never have cleaned the resident's denture cup. Surfaces that come into contact with food or eating utensils need to be cleaned daily with a separate clean cloth. The IP said the toilet should be cleaned from top to base then inside; the cleaning cloth used to clean the toilet were not to be used on any other surface. HSKPs were expected to perform hand hygiene after cleaning the toilet before moving to touch or clean any other surface. The HSKP should be wearing clean gloves throughout the cleaning process and changing the gloves frequently when moving from contaminated surfaces. II. Facility had no water management plan to prevent Legionella disease A. Professional reference According to CDC, Legionella (Legionnaires Disease and Pontiac fever), last reviewed 3/25/21, retrieved from on 4/4/23: https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/wmp/toolkit/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Flegionella%2Fmaintenance%2Fwmp-toolkit.html and https://www.cdc.gov/legionella/wmp/overview.html. It read in pertinent part, Many buildings need a water management program to reduce the risk for Legionella growing and spreading within their water system and devices. Legionella bacteria are typically found naturally in [NAME] environments, but can become a health concern when they grow and spread in human-made water systems. Legionella can cause a serious type of pneumonia (lung infection) known as Legionnaires disease. Some water systems in buildings have a higher risk for Legionella growth and spread than others. Legionella water management programs are now an industry standard for many buildings in the United States. Legionella bacteria can cause a serious type of pneumonia (lung infection) called Legionnaires disease. Legionella bacteria can also cause a less serious illness called Pontiac fever. The key to preventing Legionnaires disease is to reduce the risk of Legionella growth and spread. Building owners and managers can do this by maintaining building water systems and implementing controls for Legionella. Water management programs identify hazardous conditions and take steps to minimize the growth and transmission of Legionella and other waterborne pathogens in building water systems. Developing and maintaining a water management program is a multi-step process that requires continuous review. Seven key elements of a Legionella water management program are to: -Establish a water management program team -Describe the building water systems using text and flow diagrams -Identify areas where Legionella could grow and spread -Decide where control measures should be applied and how to monitor them -Establish ways to intervene when control limits are not met -Make sure the program is running as designed (verification) and is effective (validation) -Document and communicate all the activities. Principles: In general, the principles of effective water management include: -Maintaining water temperatures outside the ideal range for Legionella growth - Preventing water stagnation -Ensuring adequate disinfection -Maintaining devices to prevent sediment, scale, corrosion, and biofilm, all of which provide a habitat and nutrients for Legionella. Once established, water management programs require regular monitoring of key areas for potentially hazardous conditions and the use of predetermined responses to respond when control measures are not met. A consultant with Legionella-specific environmental expertise may sometimes be helpful in implementing and operating water management programs. B. Facility Legionella plan A request was made on 3/29/23 for the facility's plan to address Legionella. The facility was unable to provide a written water management plan/program that would reduce the risk for Legionella growing and spreading within their water system and devices. The NHA confirmed the facility did not have a written plan to document procedures and monitoring efforts the facility would take to prevent water related health care associated infections. The NHA was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 3:33 p.m. The NHA was familiar with Legionella but acknowledged she was unable to locate a written facility water management plan to address Legionella. The NHA said she spoke to the maintenance director (MTD) that day and the MTD confirmed the facility did not have a written water management plan for Legionella. The NHA said the facility paid for an outside vendor to test the facility's water quality. The vendor tested the facility's water quality for Legionella and other potential pathogens. The test found that the flushing surveillance monitors in vacant rooms were all red indicating stagnation for greater than one month. Although test results found no healthcare-acquired infections suspected by waterborne pathogens, the company recommended the facility continue to monitor and track the facility's water quality. It was also recommended that the facility flush the water in the pipes in vacant rooms and use a water (flushing) monitor. The NHA contacted the MTD by phone during the interview. The MTD acknowledged there were no written records that documented the facility's efforts to monitor water quality, assess water temperatures or usage of the recommended flushing monitors. -The facility's plan addressing Legionella was not provided by exit on 3/30/23. III. Failure to ensure residents were offered hand hygiene before meals A. Professional reference According to the CDC Hand Hygiene in Healthcare settings, last reviewed 22/7/23, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/index.html on 4/4/23, Hand hygiene protects you and those receiving the care you provide. The simple act of cleaning your hands can prevent the spread of germs, including those that are resistant to antibiotics. Clean your hands: Before preparing or eating food. B. Observations On 3/27/23 from 10:40 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. residents arrived for lunch in the main dining room, some walking in, some self-propelling themselves in manual wheelchairs and some escorted in by staff. Residents in wheelchairs were observed to be handing the large wheel on their manual wheelchairs to wheel into the dining room; some who walked in were observed using the hand rails in the halls. Residents were assisted to sit at their tables and staff in the dining room approached to take resident meal orders. Each table was full with one resident per table. Of all the residents in the dining room waiting for lunch only one resident was offered and assisted with hand hygiene. -At 11:00 a.m., certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was observed serving lunch to a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA #1 delivered the resident's meal, set up the meal but did not encourage the resident to perform hand hygiene or offer to assist the resident with hand hygiene prior to the resident eating the meal. -At 11:06 a.m., CNA #1 delivered a lunch tray to the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA #1 set up the meal for the resident but did not offer the resident a method of hand hygiene or encourage the resident to perform hand hygiene prior to eating the meal. Neither resident trays had hand wipes for the resident use. -At 11:10 a.m., staff walked around to each resident to assist the resident to put on a clothing protector; but did not offer hand hygiene assistance; -At 11:10 a.m., staff started to deliver resident meals but did offer hand hygiene; -At 11:33 a.m. a male resident who had received his meal but not offered any method of hand hygiene was observed eating his meal with his hands, putting his fingers in his food and then putting his fingers in his mouth. -At 11:46 a.m., a female resident who was not offered hand hygiene was observed eating her meal after picking her nose for several minutes. Lunch service in the main dining room was observed on 3/28/23 and 3/29/23 starting at 10:45 a.m. Residents were observed coming in in the same manner. No residents were offered hand hygiene or assistance with hand hygiene during these to lunch services. -In all dining room observations staff greeted resident as they arrived to the dining room; applied clothing protectors to all residents; delivered preferred drinks; and outlook meal order; but except for one observation did not offer any resident a method of hand hygiene or ask the resident if they needed assistance with hand hygiene D. Interview The dining manager (DM) was interviewed on 3/29/23 at 4:50 p.m. The DM said it was the nursing staff's responsibility to assist residents with hand hygiene. The kitchen did not provide antibacterial hand rub (ABHR) or hand wipes on resident trays. The DM acknowledged hand wipes would be a good ideal for more independent residents wanting to wash their hands prior to eating. The infection control preventionist (IP) was interviewed on 3/30/23 at 2:13 p.m. The IP said hand hygiene was to be offered to the residents prior to the meal service. If the resident needed assistance, staff were to provide the resident hand hygiene assistance. Residents could use the sink with soap and water or antibacterial hand hygiene to clean their hands prior to eating a meal.
Dec 2021 6 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a fall with injuries during facility transportation of one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent a fall with injuries during facility transportation of one (#28) of three out of 23 sample residents. The facility failed to ensure Resident #28 was provided safe transportation. Due to the facility ' s failures Resident #28 was loaded into the van and was not secured properly before being left unattended while the transportation driver left the residents side to open the door on the other side of the vehicle. Because of this failure the resident's wheelchair was unstable and rolled forward out of an open door and out of the van causing the resident to fall approximately three feet down out of the van, face-forward onto the asphalt. As a result of the fall, the resident was seen in the emergency room for assessment and treatment. The resident sustained the following injuries resulting in pain to both upper extremities, both lower extremities, back, hip, trunk and head; bruising to both upper extremities, both lower extremities, and face; and skin tears to the head and body (see skin assessment below). Resident #28 was wheelchair bound and totally dependent on staff for mobility and positioning. She had functional limitations in range of motion for upper and lower extremities and was not able to use her arms to prevent the wheelchair from rolling forward. Resident #23 reported feeling unsure what was happening and when her wheelchair rolled forward in the van it caused her to squeal (to make a long, high-pitched cry to tell someone in authority about something wrong). She had originally requested a certified nursing aide to go with her but the aide was not there. Furthermore, the failure occurred because the transportation driver did not fully engage both brakes of the wheelchair, before walking away and leaving a fully dependent resident without the proper safety precautions to prevent injuries. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedure The Transportation Safety policy and procedure, dated effective 12/13/21, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/14/21 at 10:32 a.m. It read in pertinent part, Policy purpose to ensure safe transport of resident(s) in facility vehicle .Driver will only accept a resident to transport when necessary resources were available .Driver will review resources necessary and assist resident into vehicle appropriate for their medical status .Driver will secure resident into vehicle using proper safety equipment including, ramp, wheelchair brakes, seat belt, and floor straps per vehicle and equipment safety guidelines .Driver will perform a safety pause to ensure all equipment is secured properly and brakes are placed, as necessary. Driver will also physically perform an equipment check to see if any adjustments need to be made prior to departing. II. Resident #28 A. Resident status Resident #28, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE], with reentry 11/21/21. According to the December 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included fracture of the right lower leg, atrial fibrillation, and post-polio syndrome. The 11/28/21 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. She required total assistance with two persons for bed mobility, transfers, locomotion on and off the unit, bathing, dressing, toilet use, and extensive assistance of one person for personal hygiene. Functional limitations in range of motion for upper and lower extremities on one side. Use of wheelchair for mobility. B. Resident interview and observation Resident #28 was interviewed on 12/13/21 at 12:11 p.m. She said she had a fall from the facility's van after the transportation driver had taken her up the ramp in her wheelchair and into the van. Resident #28 said she was in a wheelchair (WC) in the van and the driver was trying to adjust and situate her because her right foot was elevated, the driver left her to go around to the driver ' s side of the van to open the drivers side passenger door to accommodate her foot rests to move her into a safe position. Resident #28 said after the driver opened the driver's side passenger door and left to walk back to the ramp side of the van, her WC rolled forward out of the driver's side passenger door and she fell forward out of the wheelchair landing onto the asphalt below. The WC was still hanging out of the van and she was face-forward on the parking lot asphalt. Resident #28 said she hit the left side of her head on the ground. The resident ' s left forehead and eye was observed to be black and blue in color. Resident #28 ' s left elbow, and upper arm were bruised and had thick large, black scabs over the left elbow and upper arm. Left forearm was bruised and Resident #28 said her left leg was also injured. Resident #28 said after the fall the ambulance came and took her to the hospital. Resident #28 was not sure why she fell, remembered falling out of the van, and could not recall if the driver put on her brakes or secured her prior to leaving her to go to the other door. C. Record review 1. Progress notes 12/1/2021 at 1:14 p.m. nursing note: Nurse notified that during transport resident fell out of wheelchair and was on floor. Observed resident lying supine in parking lot with right foot/leg externally rotated more than normal while in boot. Resident complained of hip, back, and leg pain. Emergency medical services (EMS) were called for transport to the emergency room (ER) at 12:50 p.m. Blood pressure 175/88 right arm, heart rate 61, oxygen saturation on two liters per minute (LPM) at 83% with increase to four LPM with 92%, equal unlabored respiratory rate of 18 breaths/min. Contusion and bruise to left eye and cheek bone observed. Skin tear to left arm with bleeding with inability to see extent due to shirt that resident did not want to be cut. Transportation verbally reported to the nurse that the resident was laying face down and rolled herself onto the back (supine) position. +1 pupil dilation to the left eye with no reaction to the right. Resident was left in supine position until EMS arrived at 1:05 p.m. Resident did not lose consciousness. Resident alert and oriented x4 per usual. MDS notified the specialty clinic that the resident was being sent to ER instead of her appointment. MDS notified the power of attorney (POA) with transfer to ER. While EMS transferred the resident from asphalt to stretcher resident further complained of right knee pain above boot, back pain, and hip pain. 2. Facility investigation Review of the facility transportation accident investigation, dated 12/1/21, provided by the NHA 12/13/21 at 2:04 p.m., revealed: On 12/1/21, Resident #28 fell out of the facility ' s transport van when the transportation driver left the resident unattended to open the driver's side passenger door to allow for more room to get the resident fully into the van in order to secure the resident's manual wheelchair into place for safe transport to a medical appointment. Resident #28 fell approximately three feet out of the van onto the parking lot asphalt and sustained pain and bruising all over body and face, and multiple skin tears on face and arms. The transportation driver (TD) was interviewed on 12/1/21 at 12:45 p.m., by the NHA. The TD said the resident was in the middle of the van prior to the WC rolling out of the van. The TD told the resident that she was going to open the door on the other side of the van so she would not hit her foot. The TD went around the vehicle to the driver ' s side and opened the door, then the TD turned to go back to the passenger side and heard a squeal from the resident. When the TD turned around, the resident was still in the vehicle and was in the process of falling out of the vehicle. The TD saw the resident ' s body folding forward and ducking her head (like a somersault); she then fell out of the vehicle. An email witness statement from licensed practical nurse (LPN#2) addressed to the NHA, minimum data set coordinator (MDSC), and DON, obtained on 12/1/21 at 1:43 p.m.; revealed: LPN #2 was notified that during transport the resident fell out of the WC and was on the floor. LPN #2 observed resident lying supine in parking lot with right foot externally rotated more than normal while in boot. The resident complained of hip, back, and leg pain. Emergency medical services (EMS) were called for transport to the emergency room (ER). Contusion and bruise to left eye and cheek bone observed. Skin tears to the left arm with bleeding. Transport reported to the nurse that the resident was lying face down after falling and rolled herself onto the back (supine) position. While EMS transferred the resident from asphalt to stretcher, the resident further complained of right knee pain above boot, back and hip pain. The witness observed the resident's WC with the front wheels hanging from the vehicle on the driver's side passenger door. Brakes were not fully engaged on either side. Witness statement from minimum data set coordinator (MDSC) dated 12/1/21 at 12:50 p.m., revealed: the MDSC was asked to assist in the parking lot due to a resident fall. Upon arrival, the MDSC said she observed the transportation van had both the passenger ramp door and the driver's side passenger doors opened on either side of the van. The resident's WC with front wheels touching the asphalt. Observed resident lying on her back with her right lateral foot in boot and touching the asphalt parking lot. The resident was alert and talking and stated her head hurts, there was observed bruising to the left forehead and temporal region down to the cheek. The resident's glasses and face mask were on the ground near the resident's head. The nurse observed that the right wheelchair brake was not engaged, and that the left was not fully engaged. Resident #28 ' s interview statement dated 12/1/21 revealed the wheelchair was rolling in the van before she fell out of the van onto the parking lot below. 3. Facility investigative summary findings Skin assessment 12/6/21 at 10:44 p.m., documented post injury findings: Skin is pale in color. Mucous membranes are moist. Skin warm/dry to touch. Skin is dry/cracked. Skin is fragile. Decreased skin turgor. Resident has current skin issues. Skin issue:-Bruising left side of forehead Length: 2.0 width centimeters (cm), width 2.1 cm. -Bruising outside left eye socket Length: 4.0 Width:1.5. -Bruising below left eye.-Bruising left upper arm down left elbow irregular shape Length: 20.0 Width: 19.0. Skin Issue: -Skin Tear scab left upper arm near elbow Length: 1.5 Width: 2.0 Wound Exudate: None. Peri Wound Condition: Fragile.-Skin Tear below left elbow s shape with steri strips Length: approx 14.0 Wound Exudate: None. Peri Wound Condition: Fragile. Skin Issue: Discoloration left shin. -Bruising left top foot/ankle Length: 10.0 Width: 8.0. -Bruising top left foot Length: 5.5 Width: 4.5. -Abrasion top left 5th toe Length: 0.4 Width: 0.5 Wound Exudate: None. Peri Wound Condition: within normal limits (WNL). No wound odor. No tunneling. No undermining. -Abrasion left 2nd toe Length: 0.3 Width: 0.2 Wound Exudate: None. Peri Wound Condition: WNL. No wound odor. No tunneling. No undermining. -Bruising right thigh Length: approx 14.0 Width: 2.0. -Bruising upper right arm Length: various Width: various. -Bruising. Length: back left knee Length: 15.0 Width: 11.0. -Discoloration right shin callous to L plantar. scattered smaller bruises to bilateral upper extremities and bilateral lower extremities. The right inner ankle area has no further draining and appears healed. Had a fall on 12/1/21. -There were conflicting statements regarding brakes among all statements. Based on review of the facility ' s investigative report and the resident interview (see above), the resident did not remember brakes of her wheelchair being engaged, but remembers rolling out of the van and falling onto the asphalt, and being injured. The charge nurse (LPN#2) stated neither brake was on, and the DON and MDSC stated the left brake was not on and the right brake was halfway on. -Root cause analysis: 1.Resident boot and extended pedal bumping into vehicle prompting driver to open secondary sliding door (on the drivers side). The vehicle was not big enough to accommodate the length of the resident ' s WC with the leg rest pedal extended versus making pedal adjustments. 2.It was unclear if the WC brakes were fully engaged or even engaged at all due to conflicting reports among the resident, driver, and other responding witnesses. There was no system in place to do a safety check before staff left the resident unattended and moved to another task. 3. There were inconsistent procedures in place to ensure safe practices to establish standard protocol for communication of needed resources prior to a resident being taken to an appointment. No designated person/backup responsible for ensuring this task was completed. Processes were not in place to ask residents if they would like assistance, regardless of cognition. Transportation policies were not in place to establish a requirement for safety or to ask residents their preference for appointments. A request was made for documentation of competency check-off for all staff providing transportation assistance to ensure adequate skill for safe transportation was requested from the NHA on 12/14/21 at 11:00 a.m.; however, it was not provided during or after the survey. A request was made for documentation to show that the transportation driver involved in the resident falling out of the van was retraining on safe transportation practices was requested from NHA on 12/16/21 at 12:20 p.m.; however, it was not provided during or after the survey. 4. Hospital report Hospital notes 12/1/21 at 3:07 p.m. revealed: -CT scan of head due to fall from three feet, hit head, on blood thinners. Results read, no hemorrhage or other acute intracranial (skull) abnormality. -Right ankle x-ray due to fall and current right ankle fracture (from a prior fall at home). Results read, x-ray of the ankle show the prior fracture was stable, without any new fractures, compared to the prior exam. -Left ankle x-ray taken due to fall from the van and ankle pain. Results read, the resident had degenerative changes and slight irregularity of the medial malleolus (bump on the inner side of ankle), were inconclusive for a new fracture (not exactly known). The resident was found to have profound osteopenia (reduced bone mass). D. Staff interview The facility transportation driver (TD) was interviewed on 12/14/21 at 3:25 p.m. The TD said she had worked at the facility for 2.5 years. The TD said she had received on the job training for driving the facility bus and van. The TD said she had also received a certificate for defensive driving. -The TD said she went to get Resident #28 from her room on 12/1/21, and the resident stated that she wanted a certified nursing aide (CNA) to come to her appointment. The TD said this had not been pre planned although the NHA had said they should have a CNA go along with residents to all appointments. The TD said we usually had a CNA scheduled to go for safety and an extra set of hands, but no one was assigned that day. The social services director (SSD) decided to go. The TD said while she waited for the SSD to get ready for trip she loaded Resident #28 into the van alone. She pushed Resident #28 in her wheelchair up the ramp, into the middle of the van but positioned the wheelchair at a slant due to right foot being elevated and not being able to position the resident in the correct position for transport. The TD said she locked the wheelchair brakes. The TD said she went around to the driver's side of the van to open the opposite door of the van and returned to the passenger side ramp door, when she heard the resident squeal. The TD saw the resident leaning forward in her wheelchair and the chair was rolling out of the van door on the driver's side. The TD was not sure how the wheelchair rolled out of the van because she was convinced she had locked both of the wheelchair brakes on either side of the chair. The TD said the wheelchair somehow moved out of the center of the van and rolled out of the driver ' s side door. The wheelchair got stuck on the side of the van causing Resident #28 to fall out of the van onto the asphalt below, landing on her left side. The TD said Resident #28 did not have a seatbelt on and the wheelchair tie down straps had not yet been applied because she was unable to get the resident fully into the van in the correct position for transport. The TD acknowledged the failure and most likely cause of the resident's fall was that the right brake did not hook or tighten all the way. The TD said her process was to lock the brakes, hook/strap the WC, then put on the seatbelt. -The TD said the prior transportation driver (DA#3) completed retraining with her last week. The TD said the training consisted of demonstrating safe WC loading and DA#3 was seated in the WC as she practiced the correct and safest methods. The TD said DA#3 said to make sure to secure brakes and WC tie downs (hook/strap) first, and to not open the other door. The TD said having two staff members to load was safer. The TD said she now goes through a double check system to make sure the wheelchair was locked. The TD said she was also trained by licensed practical nurse (LPN#1) how to adjust and move the wheelchair foot/leg pedals on the WC. The TD said she was not proficient with moving the leg pedals prior because usually a CNA would adjust that. The TD said the new corrective action was to have two staff members for all medical appointments. She said the van now had a blanket and a safety sign that says, brakes on, seat belt on, resident secured. The TD said that safety checks for wheelchairs was the maintenance department's responsibility and they recently ordered some new parts. The TD said the WC brakes were important so that you would not move around. The TD said the SSD will now be responsible for securing staff to go with on appointments. The TD said they did not have a transportation policy prior but now have one. The TD she had glanced at the new policy. The NHA was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 12:20 p.m. She said if a resident requires a CNA assistance during transportation they will go with them, but said that was not based on transportation safety. The NHA said new safety procedures were put in place following the fall of Resident #28 during transportation on 12/1/21. The NHA said they would ask the resident if they would like someone to go with them 24 hours prior; SSD would be responsible for that. The NHA said once the resident was in the vehicle they would put the WC brakes on, and place hook/straps on the WC. The NHA said the facility updated it ' s transportation policy to double check WC brakes and added signage in the van. The NHA said the right WC brake was tough but others did not think so. The NHA said policies and procedures were not followed. III. Follow-up No further documentation was provided after the survey that was requested during the survey or that the facility wanted to provide for review.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

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 notify the state mental health authority promptly after a signific...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority promptly after a significant change in condition for one (#17) of four residents reviewed for Pre-admission Screen Annual Resident Review (PASARR) program compliance of 36 sample residents. Specifically the facility failed to notify the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) coordinator when Resident #17's was diagnosed with new psychiatric conditions. Findings include: I. Facility policy The Resident Assessment - Coordination with PASARR Program policy, implemented 12/16/21, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/20/21 at 12:49 p.m., it read in pertinent part: This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Social Services Director shall be responsible for keeping track of each resident's PASARR screening status, and referring to the appropriate authority. -Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review. Examples include: A resident who exhibits behavioral, psychiatric, or mood related symptoms suggesting the presence of a mental disorder (where dementia is not the primary diagnosis) II. Resident #17 A. Resident status Resident #17, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 computerized physician's orders (CPO), diagnoses included major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety. The 11/3/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident's cognitive status was intact with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, with no signs or symptoms of psychosis or aggressive behaviors towards self or others. The assessment reviewed the resident scored a five PHQ9 assessment for depression indicates mild depression, related to the following self reported symptoms: feeling down, depressed or hopeless; having trouble falling or staying asleep; feeling tired or having little energy; and poor appetite. The resident took antidepressant medication on a daily basis. The resident was not diagnosed with any dementia related. B. Record review Review of the resident electronic medical record revealed the resident was given the following psychiatric diagnosis: -Anxiety disorder, initiated 7/5/18; -PTSD, imitated 1/17/2020; and, -Major depressive disorder initiated 4/21/2020; The resident ' s most recent post admission screen resident review (PASRR) level I update dated 12/19/18, documented, based on physician ' s orders, the resident had no new diagnosis of mental illness, dementia, or intellectual disability. The resident was taking Wellbutrin at 150 milligrams (mg) daily dose. A decrease in medication from the prior dosage on the 6/15/18 PASRR level I) for other specified depressive disorder. The documented reason for the updated PASRR level I form was to update the current condition; the OBRA coordinator was not notified of this update. None of the above listed major mental illness diagnoses were reported on the PASRR level I update, thus it did not trigger for a level II review. Review of the resident record did not review any other updates in the PASARR documentation and there was no record of a PASARR level 2 being conducted. Review of the resident progress notes revealed the following pertinent documented medical information: Social services note dated 11/11/2020 at 2:46 p.m., read: Resident #17 continues to spend most of her time in her room. She will listen to audio books, read the newspaper and watch television when she wants to. She talks to her family on occasion by telephone and through video chat. Resident #17 has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and anxiety. She currently takes Wellbutrin XL 150 mg for depression. She scored a 15/15 on BIMS and 10/25 (indicating moderate depression) on PHQ9 depression scale . Long-term care evaluation nursing note dated 2/1/21 at 7:10 a.m., read: Monthly evaluation Resident is under psych supervision . Mental Note: Wellbutrin XL 150mg by mouth once daily received for treatment of depression with previous failed GDR . Social services note dated 2/5/21 at 8:22 a.m., read: Resident #17 is doing well. She is alert and able to make her needs known. BIMS score 14/15 and PHQ9 score 6/25 (indicating moderate depression) . Resident #17 has a diagnosis of major depressive order, PTSD and anxiety disorder. She continues to take Wellbutrin XL 150 mg for depression. Nutrition note dated 8/5/21 at 1:47 p.m., read: Resident #17 is at potential nutritional risk related to fibromyalgia, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, hypothyroidism, osteoarthritis, hypertension and insomnia . Resident #17 has a history of refusing weight related to anxiety over leaving her room . Progress notes reviewed facility staff were aware of the resident ' s psychiatric diagnosis. 3. Staff interview The social services director (SSD) and NHA were interviewed on 12/16/21 at 11:54 a.m. The NHA said PASARR process was for the level I review to be completed upon admission and reassessment if the resident was out of the facility for a long-term hospitalization. The PASARR reviews were to be completed annually for accuracy. An updated assessment would be submitted to the OBRA coordinator if the resident had a new mental health diagnosis or a significant medication change related to a psychotropic medication. The nursing department was to notify the social services director of any change in relevant resident diagnoses or changes in psychotropic medication. The SSD would then complete an electronic submission to notify the OBRA coordinator of the change in resident status, the OBRA coordinator would update the resident status, and the PASARR level 2 would be completed as applicable. Going forward there will be regular scheduled audit where a designated staff member will check for changed in psychiatric diagnosis and psychotropic medication to make sure the PASARR assessment were completed. 4. Facility follow-up PASRR note dated 12/15/21 at 2:10 p.m., read: PASRR Level I screen submitted. Elder has diagnoses of depression, anxiety and PTSD. She currently takes Wellbutrin XL 150 mg per day. No additional symptoms outside of baseline; occasional tearfulness and expressions of sadness, withdrawal, anxiety.
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 resident observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#24) of three residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observation, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure one (#24) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers out of 23 total sample residents, received care consistent with professional standards of practice to prevent pressure injuries. Specifically, the facility failed to: -Update the comprehensive care plan to include implemented interventions to prevent potential pressure ulcers for Resident #24; and, -Ensure interventions for the prevention of pressure ulcers were followed for Resident #24. I. Professional reference According to the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline, [NAME] Haesler (Ed.), Cambridge Media: [NAME] Park, Western Australia; 2014, retrieved from https://www.ehob.com/media/2018/04/prevention-and-treatment-of-pressure-ulcers-clinical-practice-guidline.pdf on 12/9/21, pressure ulcer classification is as follows: Category/Stage I: Nonblanchable Erythema Intact skin with non-blanchable 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 I may be difficult to detect in individuals with dark skin tones. May indicate at risk individuals (a heralding sign of risk). Category/Stage II: 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. *Bruising indicates suspected deep tissue injury. Category/Stage III: 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 III pressure ulcer varies by anatomical location. The bridge of the nose, ear, occiput and malleolus do not have subcutaneous tissue and Category/Stage III ulcers can be shallow. In contrast, areas of significant adiposity can develop extremely deep Category/Stage III pressure ulcers. Bone/tendon is not visible or directly palpable. Category/Stage IV: 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 IV 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 IV ulcers can extend into muscle and/or supporting structures (e.g., 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. According to the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Clinical Practice Guideline, [NAME] Haesler (Ed.), Cambridge Media: [NAME] Park, Western Australia; 2014, from https://www.ehob.com/media/2018/04/prevention-and-treatment-of-pressure-ulcers-clinical-practice-guidline.pdf (12/9/21), Skin assessment is crucial in pressure ulcer prevention because skin status is identified as a significant risk factor for pressure ulcer development. The skin can serve as an indicator of early pressure damage. Skin and tissue assessment underpins the selection and evaluation of appropriate preventive interventions. Repositioning involves a change of position in the lying or seated individual, with the purpose of relieving or redistributing pressure and enhancing comfort. Repositioning and its frequency should be considered in all at risk individuals and must take into consideration the condition of the individual and the support surface in use. Repositioning should maintain the individual ' s comfort, dignity and functional ability. Support surfaces are specialized devices for pressure redistribution and management of tissue load and microclimate. The importance of using a high specification pressure redistribution support surface in all individuals at risk of pressure ulcers or with existing pressure ulcers is highlighted. Individuals with a medical device in situ are at a high risk of pressure ulcers related to the device. These pressure ulcers often conform to the pattern or shape of the device and develop due to prolonged, unrelieved pressure on the skin, often contributed to by associated moisture around the device, impaired sensation or perfusion and/or local edema, as well as systemic factors. Assessment of skin that is placed at risk due to a medical device is highlighted. II. Facility policy A. The Pressure Injury Risk Assessment policy, revised March 2020, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/16/21 at 1:45 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the structured assessment and identification of residents at risk of developing new pressure injuries or worsening of existing pressure injuries (PIs). The purpose of a pressure injury risk assessment is to identify all risk factors and then to determine which can be modified and which cannot, or which can be immediately addressed and which will take time to modify. Risk factors that increase a resident ' s susceptibility to develop or to not heal PIs include, but are not limited to: undernutrition, malnutrition, and hydration deficits; impaired/decreased mobility and decreased functional ability; the presence of previously healed PI; the presence of existing PI; altered skin status over pressure points; impaired perfusion, oxygenation or circulation deficits, for example, generalized atherosclerosis or lower extremity arterial insufficiency; conditions, such as end stage renal disease, thyroid disease or diabetes mellitus; advanced age; and cognitive impairment. Once the assessment is conducted and risk factors are identified and characterized, a resident-centered care plan can be created to address the modifiable risks for pressure injuries. B. The Prevention of Pressure Injuries policy, revised April 2020, was provided by the NHA on 12/16/21 at 1:45 p.m. It read in pertinent part, The purpose of this procedure is to provide information regarding identification of pressure injury risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. Review the resident ' s care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable. Reposition all residents with or at risk of pressure injuries on an individualized schedule, as determined by the interdisciplinary care team. Choose a frequency for repositioning based on the resident ' s risk factors and current clinical practice guidelines. Select appropriate support surfaces based on the resident ' s risk factors, in accordance with current clinical practice. Review and select medical devices with consideration to the ability to minimize tissue damage, including size, shape, its application and ability to secure the device. Monitor regularly for comfort and signs of pressure-related injury. For prevention measures associated with specific devices, consult current clinical practice guidelines. III. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included alcohol use, unspecified with alcohol-induced persisting dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, diastolic (congestive) heart failure, and adult failure to thrive. The 11/17/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of eight out of 15. He required one-person limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He was at risk of developing pressure ulcers/injuries. He had two Stage 2 pressure ulcers that were not present at the time of admission. He had a pressure reducing device for his chair and was on a turning/repositioning program. IV. Observations On 12/13/21 at 1:48 p.m., Resident #24 was seated in his recliner in his room. There was no cushion in the recliner. There was a covered air waffle cushion in his wheelchair. The resident was wearing the oxygen cannula attached to the oxygen concentrator in the room. There was no foam padding on the earpieces of the oxygen cannula. The oxygen cannula attached to the portable oxygen tank hanging from the resident ' s wheelchair did not have foam padding on the earpieces. On 12/14/21 at 9:58 a.m., Resident #24 was asleep in the recliner in his room. There was no cushion in the recliner. There was a covered air waffle cushion in his wheelchair. The resident was wearing the oxygen cannula attached to the oxygen concentrator in the room. There was no foam padding on the earpieces of the oxygen cannula. The oxygen cannula attached to the portable oxygen tank hanging from the resident ' s wheelchair did not have foam padding on the earpieces. On 12/15/21 at 11:17 a.m., Resident #24 was again sitting in his recliner in his room. There was no cushion in his recliner. He was wearing the nasal cannula attached to the oxygen concentrator. There was no foam padding on the nasal cannula to protect his ears. There was no nasal cannula attached to the portable oxygen canister on his wheelchair. The resident was agreeable to observation of the area behind both ears. There was pink scar tissue observed behind both or Resident #24 ' s ears. There were no open areas observed. V. Record review The Braden Scale Assessment (a tool used to determine a resident ' s risk for pressure ulcer development) dated 12/12/21 documented Resident #24 was at low risk for developing pressure ulcers. -Despite the assessment indicating the resident was at low risk for developing pressure ulcers, review of Resident #24 ' s electronic medical record (EMR) revealed he had a history of three stage 2 facility-acquired pressure ulcers. Review of Resident #24 ' s November and December CPO revealed the following physician orders: Cleanse pressure ulcer to left upper/inner gluteal with wound wash solution. Skin prep periwound, and apply hydrocolloid dressing over site one time a day every Wednesday and Saturday until healed. The order had a start date of 7/14/21, and was discontinued on 11/6/21. Cleanse the open area to both ears with wound wash solution. Apply hydrocolloid dressing one time a day every Wednesday and Saturday for open areas caused from nasal cannula until healed. The order had a start date of 11/17/21, and was discontinued on 12/4/21. Review of Resident #24 ' s EMR revealed the resident developed a Stage 2 pressure ulcer to his left upper gluteal region on 7/13/21. The pressure ulcer was resolved on 11/6/21. Further review of the resident ' s EMR revealed the resident developed a stage 2 pressure ulcer behind his left ear and a stage 2 pressure ulcer behind his right ear on 11/16/21 due to his oxygen nasal cannula. The pressure ulcers were resolved on 11/23/21. Review of Resident #24 ' s comprehensive care plan, initiated 5/21/21, revealed the resident had a potential for pressure ulcer development related to diabetes mellitus and fragile skin. Pertinent interventions included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness, to follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown, and inform the resident/family/caregivers of any new area of skin breakdown. -There had been no revisions to the care plan since 5/21/21 despite the resident having developed a stage 2 pressure ulcer to his left upper gluteal region (buttocks) in July 2021 and stage 2 pressure ulcers behind both ears due to his oxygen nasal cannula in August 2021. -The care plan did not include interventions for offloading, turning/repositioning of the resident, a pressure reducing cushion for his recliner or wheelchair, or foam pads on his oxygen nasal cannula tubing. -The 11/17/21 MDS assessment documented the resident had a pressure reducing device for his chair and was on a turning/repositioning program, however, neither intervention was included on the care plan. VI. Interviews Certified nurse aide (CNA) #1 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 11:17a.m. CNA #1 said Resident #24 sat in his recliner a lot. She said he was supposed to have a cushion in his recliner. She said he did not lay down in bed very often. She said the staff would reposition him and get him out of the chair to walk him. CNA #1 said there was not a specific timeframe for how often Resident #24 was repositioned. She said he would let the staff know when he wanted to get out of his chair. CNA #1 said the resident was wearing foam padding on his oxygen nasal cannula when his ears were red. She said he did not need to wear the padding anymore because his ear sores had healed. Registered nurse (RN) #1 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 11:57 a.m. RN #1 said Resident #24 had a pressure ulcer on his left buttock that had healed. He said the resident could shift himself in the recliner. He said there was not a specific timeframe for the staff to ensure the resident was shifting himself or being repositioned. RN #1 said the resident would sometimes get angry and not want to be bothered with. He said the resident had a waffle cushion that staff was supposed to transfer back and forth between his recliner and his wheelchair. He said the cushion should be care planned as an intervention for pressure ulcer prevention. RN #1 said Resident #24 had also had a stage 2 pressure ulcer behind his left ear and a stage 2 pressure ulcer behind his right ear. He said both pressure ulcers were caused by his oxygen nasal cannula but they had resolved quickly. He said the resident used to cinch his nasal cannula tightly under his chin which put pressure on the tubing behind his ears. He said the resident was no longer doing that. RN #1 said the resident had foam padding on his oxygen tubing but the oxygen company replaced the tubing on 12/13/21 and the padding had not been replaced. He said the new tubing was more flexible than the old tubing, however, he said the foam padding should probably still be on the tubing to add more protection. RN #1 said there should be an order to check the placement of the foam padding. He said the foam padding should be added to the care plan as an intervention to prevent pressure ulcers. CNA #2 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 12:14 p.m. CNA #2 said Resident #24 could shift himself in his recliner and staff tried to walk him when he was awake. She said the resident had a cushion that was supposed to be in his recliner when he was sitting in it. She said the resident was supposed to have foam padding on his oxygen tubing, but only if he had sores behind his ears. She said she did not think he had the sores anymore. The minimum data set coordinator (MDSC) was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 10:44 a.m. The MDSC said the facility did not have a designated wound nurse in the facility. She said they used a wound consultant and would consult her for any wounds that were not progressing. She said the floor nurses did weekly skin assessments on residents and measured wounds during the assessments. She said the wound consultant had trained all the facility nurses on how to stage and measure wounds. The MDSC said Resident #24 had initially been admitted in May 2021 with a stage 2 wound to his buttocks. She said the wound healed and then reopened again in July 2021. She said the wound resolved again in November 2021. The MDSC said the resident preferred sleeping in his recliner and refused to sleep in his bed. She said he was supposed to have a waffle cushion that staff was to transfer between the recliner and the resident ' s wheelchair. She said she would provide education to the staff to ensure that they were putting the cushion in the resident ' s recliner when he was sitting in it. The MDSC said residents should be repositioned every two hours. The MDSC said Resident #24 had two stage 2 pressure ulcers, one behind each ear in November 2021. She said the pressure ulcers were caused by the resident ' s oxygen tubing. She said he would pull his oxygen tubing really tight under his chin when he got confused, but he was not doing that anymore. The MDSC said there was foam padding on the resident ' s oxygen tubing before the tubing had been replaced by the oxygen company on 12/13/21. She said the staff should have noticed there was no longer foam padding on the tubing and replaced it. The MDSC said if the resident could tolerate the foam padding on the oxygen tubing, it should be utilized to prevent skin breakdown from occurring again, especially for a resident with a history of pressure ulcers. She said if the resident refused the foam padding or could not tolerate it then that information should be included on the care plan. The MDSC said all preventative skin breakdown interventions, such as foam padding, repositioning, and cushions should be included in the resident ' s pressure ulcer care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the correct installation, use and maintenance o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the correct installation, use and maintenance of transfer bar, (fixed bed rail assistive device) for five of 14 residents (#18, #28, #15, #13 and #29) using bed canes or transfer bars (type of bed rail) for positioning; out of 22 sample residents. Specifically, the facility did not ensure resident safety risk when the use of transfer bar/rails were in use, for Resident #18, #28, #15, #13, and #29 by failing to: -Attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing bed rails/transfer bars/rails; -Assess each resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation; -Assess and review the risks and benefits of the bed transfer bar assistive device with the resident and or the resident's representative; -Obtain informed consent from the resident and or the resident representative for the use of the assistive device prior to instillation; -Ensure periodic assessment of the residents' use of the bed rails after they were installed; and, -Follow the manufacturer's recommendations for ongoing maintenance of the assistive device. Findings include: I. Professional standard The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Recommendations for Health Care Providers about Bed Rails, last updated 7/9/18, retrieved on 12/20/21, from https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/HomeHealthandConsumer/ConsumerProducts/BedRailSafety/ucm362848.htm; the reference included the following recommendations: -Inspect and regularly check the mattress and bed rails to make sure they are still installed correctly and for areas of possible entrapment and falls. Regardless of mattress width, length, and/or depth, the bed frame, bedside rail, and mattress should leave no gap wide enough to entrap a patient's head or body. -Regularly assess that bed rails remain appropriately matched to the equipment and to the patient's needs, considering all relevant risk factors. -Inspect, evaluate, maintain, and upgrade equipment (beds/mattresses/bed rails) to identify and remove potential fall and entrapment hazards. -Be aware that gaps can be created by movement or compression of the mattress which may be caused by patient weight, patient movement or bed position, or by using a specialty mattress, such as an air mattress, mattress pad or water bed. II. Facility policy and procedure The Bed Safety policy, revised December 2007, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/16/21 at 10:02 a.m., it read in pertinent part: Our facility shall strive to provide a safe sleeping environment for the resident. The resident's sleeping environment shall be assessed by the interdisciplinary team, considering the resident's safety, medical conditions, comfort, and freedom of movement, as well as input from the resident and family regarding previous sleeping habits and bed environment. To try to prevent deaths/injuries from the beds and related equipment ., the facility shall promote the following approaches: -Inspection by maintenance staff of all beds and related equipment as part of our regular bed safety program to identify risks and problems including potential entrapment risks; -Review that gaps within the bed system are within the dimensions established by the FDA; -Ensure that when bed system components are worn and need to be replaced, components meet manufacturer specifications; -Ensure that bed side rails are properly installed using the manufacturer's instructions and other pertinent safety guidance to ensure proper fit (e.g., avoid bowing, ensure proper distance from the headboard and footboard, etc.); and -Identify additional safety measures for residents who have been identified as having a higher than usual risk for injury including entrapment (e.g., altered mental status, restlessness, etc.). The maintenance department shall provide a copy of inspections to the administrator and report inspection results . If side rails, transfer bars, grab bars, etc. are used, there shall be an interdisciplinary assessment of the resident, consultation with the attending physician, and input from the resident and/or legal representative. The staff shall obtain consent for the use of side rails from the resident or the resident's legal representative prior to their use. After appropriate review and consent as specified above, side rails may be used at the resident's request to increase the resident's sense of security . III. Assistive device manual The Panacea Fixed Assistive Device Owner's Manual dated 2015, was provided by the NHA on 12/16/21 at 10:02 a.m. The manual read in pertinent part: Warning: An optimal bed system assessment should be conducted on each resident by a qualified clinician or medical provider to ensure maximum safety of the resident. The assessment should be conducted within the context of, and in compliance with, the state and federal guidelines related to the use of restraints and bed system entrapment guidance, including the Clinical Guidance for the Assessment and Implementation of Side Rails published by the Hospital Bed Safety Workgroup of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. -Note: The assist rail is intended for use as an aid in entering or exiting the bed sleep area, as well as a stable handhold during self-positioning within the bed sleep area. The device may deform or break when subjected to excessive side pressure. Do not exert side pressure on the bed rails. Do not use them as push handles for moving the bed. These activities could result in personal injury and damage to the bed rails. - Routine Inspection: 1. Review Reducing the Risk of Entrapment listed in this manual. 2. Review and inspect for compliance the warnings listed in this manual. 3. Inspect all components for damage or excessive wear. 4. Visually examine all welds for cracks. 5. Inspect all bolts and fasteners (Do not over tighten bolts at pivot points). -This assist rail is only one part of your healthcare bed system. Proper combinations of bed, mattress, head/ foot panels and assist rails are needed to minimize the risk of entrapment. IV. Observations A list of all resident's with transfer bar/rails was provided by the physical therapy assistant (PTA), on 12/15/21 at 4:05 p.m. The PTA said this list was developed from memory as they had no official list of residents who had transfer bars installed on their beds. The list included the names of 13 residents known by the facility to have transfer bars/rails on their beds. On 12/15/21 at 4:40 p.m. a tour was conducted to assess the condition of the residents transfer bars/rails. During the tour it was discovered that 14 not 13 resident had transfer bars/rails installed on both sides of their hospital beds. The transfer rail/bars were bolted to the resident bed on the frame towards the head of the bed (each of the 14 residents had transfer rails on both sides of their beds). The transfer rails looked like an upside down U shape, which flared out at the base and was attached to the hospital bed frame with two large bolts. The transfer rail devices depending on resident placement in the bed would have lined up between the resident's shoulder and elbow. The rails of five of the 14 with bars were found to have one or both bars loose and wobbly enough to stick an enter fist or several fingers in between the rail/bar and the mattress. -Resident #18's transfer bar was so loose at the base where it bolted to the bed that when applying moderate pressure the mattress slid back and forth across the bed causing a fist-sized gap, an approximate three and a half inch space, on each side between the transfer bar and the mattress. -Residents #13, #15, and #29's transfer bars were loose on the side away from the wall; the side they got out of bed from. Each of these observed transfer bars were loose enough to stick two fingers (an approximate inch and a half space), in between the mattress and the transfer bar. -Resident #28's transfer bars were loose on both sides of the bed creating an approximate two-inch gap between the bar and the mattress. V. Residents A. Resident #18 1. Resident status Resident #18, over the age of 90, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO) diagnosis included dementia with behavioral disturbance, polyosteoarthritis and anxiety. The 11/10/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident had severely impaired cognition with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of one out of 15; and experienced difficulty focusing attention, difficulty keeping track of what was being said and disorganized or incoherent thinking. The resident required extensive assistance from two staff members for all activities of daily living including bed mobility, transfers, move to a standing position, and used a manual wheelchair with staff assistance to move about the community. The resident had no impairment in either the upper or lower extremities but was unable to walk. The MDS assessment did not document the use of bedrails. 2. Resident interview The resident was unable to answer questions about use and need for the transfer bars installed on her bed. 3. Resident record Resident #18's, December 2021, CPO revealed the following order: Transfer bars to bed to help aid in bed mobility, start date 8/16/19. The 11/15/21 comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had poor communication/comprehension, was unaware of safety needs and required two staff members to assist for bed mobility due to pain. The plan included a care focus for the resident's functional status, initiated 8/19/2019, revised 11/27/2020. Interventions included: Transfers pivot with one to two staff assist; as needed use of the sit to stand lift; transfer bars to assist with independent mobility in bed; use of a wheelchair for transporting me in hallways and in and out of the facility; and use of front pedals for positioning. -There were no interventions to educate the resident on safety and proper use of the transfer rail and no interventions to assess the resident safety and routine maintenance while using the transfer rail. Review of the resident record failed to reveal any evidence that Resident #18 was assessed and evaluated for the use of transfer bars on the resident's bed, was appropriate, beneficial as the least restrictive device to assist with bed mobility; and there was no entrapment risk prior to the installation of the transfer bar/rail. -There was no evidence that the transfer bar assistive device was routinely monitored and maintained for safety by the facility. B. Resident #28 1. Resident status Resident #28, over the age of 90, was admitted on [DATE], with reentry 11/21/21. According to the December 2021 CPO, diagnoses included fracture of the right lower leg, atrial fibrillation, and post-polio syndrome. The 11/28/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. The resident required total assistance from two staff members with bed mobility and transfers. The resident used a manual wheelchair with staff assistance to get around the community and was not able to walk. The resident had impairment of both upper and lower extremities both left and right side. The MDS assessment did not document the use of bedrails. 2. Resident interview Resident #28 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 3:50 p.m. Resident #28 said the transfer rail was helpful and she used them daily with turning so she could participate in bed mobility. The resident felt the bed rails were functional and had no concerns using them. The resident was unaware of the rails being loose until it was brought to her attention and was relieved to hear that a work order would be placed to have the rail assessed and tightened. 3. Resident record Resident #28's December 2021, CPO revealed the following order: Transfer bars to bed to help aid in bed mobility, start date 8/10/21. The 12/3/21 comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had a self-care performance deficit with activities of daily living related to post-polio syndrome and required two staff members to reposition and turn in bed. The plan included a care focus for the resident's functional status, revised 12/15/21, related to limitations incurred during a fractured lower extremity. Interventions included: The use of a mechanical lift until cleared by therapy to begin to stand and walk. -The care plan did not document the use of transfer bars/rails assistive devices on her bed. There were no interventions to educate the resident on safety and proper use of the transfer rail and no interventions to assess the resident safety and routine maintenance while using the transfer rail. Review of the resident record failed to reveal any evidence that Resident #28 was assessed and evaluated for the use of transfer bars on the resident's bed, was appropriate, beneficial as the least restrictive device to assist with bed mobility; and there was no entrapment risk prior to the installation of the transfer bar/rail. -There was no evidence that the transfer bar assistive device was routinely monitored and maintained for safety by the facility. C. Resident #15 1. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 CPO diagnoses included dementia, diabetes mellitus, and fracture of first cervical vertebra. The 11/2/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident with moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance from two members for bed mobility and transfers. The resident did not walk and use a wheelchair with extensive assistance from staff to get around the community. The resident had no impairments of the lower or upper extremities and was unable to stand without extensive staff assistance. The MDS assessment did not document the use of bedrails. 2. Resident interview Resident #15 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 3:52 p.m. Resident #15 said she used the transfer bars to help while turning in bed. She acknowledged the rails were a little wobbly. 3. Resident record Resident #15's, December 2021, CPO revealed the following order: Transfer bars to assist with self-positioning and sitting up in bed, start date 7/23/21. The 11/3/21 comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had a self-care performance deficit with activities of daily living related to dementia, fatigue, impaired balance and required two staff members to reposition and turn in bed. The plan documented the resident was able to turn with the use of transfer bars with cuing. The plan included a care focus for the resident's functional status, revised 11/15/21. Interventions included the use of transfer bars to bed to assist with independent positioning. -There were no interventions to educate the resident on safety and proper use of the transfer rail when staff were not present to provide cuing for and no interventions to assess the resident safety and routine maintenance while using the transfer rail. Review of the resident record failed to reveal any evidence that Resident #15 was assessed and evaluated for the use of transfer bars on the resident's bed, was appropriate, beneficial as the least restrictive device to assist with bed mobility; and there was no entrapment risk prior to the installation of the transfer bar/rail. -There was no evidence that the transfer bar assistive device was routinely monitored and maintained for safety by the facility. D. Resident #13 1. Resident status Resident #13, under the age of 65, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 CPO, diagnoses included chronic inflammatory demyelinating (damage to the nerves outer surface) polyneuritis. The 10/15/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 15 out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance from two staff members with bed mobility and transfers. The resident used a walker or manual wheelchair with limited staff assistance to get around the community. The resident had no impairment in either the upper and lower extremities. The MDS assessment did not document the use of bedrails. 2. Resident interview Resident #13 was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 10:17 a.m. Resident #13 said she used the transfer bars regularly to help while getting up and turning in bed. They were nice and tight now since the nurse had the maintenance man checked and tightened them yesterday. 3. Resident record Resident #13's December 2021, CPO did not have a physician's order for the use of transfer bars/rails assistive devices to the resident's bed. The 10/26/21 comprehensive care plan revealed the resident had a self-care performance deficit initiated 7/30/21, with activities of daily living related to fatigue, impaired balance. The resident required transfer bars/rail to facilitate independent bed mobility. On occasion, the required assistance with movement of the lower extremities from one or two staff when in bed depending on fatigue level. -There were no interventions to educate the resident on safety and proper use of the transfer rail and no interventions to assess the resident safety and routine maintenance while using the transfer rail. Review of the resident record failed to reveal any evidence that Resident #13 was assessed and evaluated for the use of transfer bars on the resident's bed, was appropriate, beneficial as the least restrictive device to assist with bed mobility; and there was no entrapment risk prior to the installation of the transfer bar/rail. There was no evidence that the transfer bar assistive device was routinely monitored and maintained for safety by the facility. E. Resident #29 1. Resident status Resident #29, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 CPO, diagnoses included dementia, abnormalities of gait, mobility, and weakness. The 10/15/21 MDS assessment revealed the resident severely impaired cognition with a BIMS score of five out of 15. The resident required extensive assistance from two staff members with bed mobility and transfers from surface to surface and to move from a seated to standing position. The resident was able to walk independently with a walker once stabilized with staff assistance. The resident occasionally used a manual wheelchair with limited staff assistance to get around the community. The resident had no impairment in either the upper and lower extremities. The MDS assessment did not document the use of bedrails. 2. Resident interview Resident #29 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 3:56 p.m. Resident #29 said he needed the transfer bars/rails on his bed and was not willing to give them up. 3. Resident record Resident #29's, December 2021, CPO did not have a physician's order for the use of transfer bars/rails assistive devices to the resident's bed. The 12/10/21 comprehensive care plan revealed the resident lacked insight into and risk factors. The resident also had a self-care performance deficit initiated 3/23/21, and needed assistance to turn and reposition at least every two hours, and more often as needed or requested. -There was no care focus for the use of transfer bars/rail and no interventions to educate the resident on safety and proper use of the transfer rail and no interventions to assess the resident safety and routine maintenance while using the transfer rail. Review of the resident record failed to reveal any evidence that Resident #29 was assessed and evaluated for the use of transfer bars on the resident's bed, was appropriate, beneficial as the least restrictive device to assist with bed mobility; and there was no entrapment risk prior to the installation of the transfer bar/rail. -There was no evidence that the transfer bar assistive device was routinely monitored and maintained for safety by the facility. VI. Staff interviews The facility's director of nursing was unavailable for interview throughout the survey. The DON resigned her position the weekend prior to the start of the survey and the interim DON was not due to start working in the facility until 12/20/21. The minimum data set coordinator (MDSC) was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 1:01 p.m. The MDSC said the transfer bars were installed for resident use to promote mobility and maximize independence in bed mobility. The facility had not conducted risk assessments for the use of transfer bars because they were considered an assistive device for bed mobility. The device was not considered a restraint because it was small and the residents were able to get around them easily. In some cases the resident physician would place an order to physical therapy or occupational therapy to assess the resident use of the transfer bar; in other situations the nurse would just request a physician's order and the transfer bar would be installed. Transfer bars were installed by the maintenance department. The MDSC was not sure if the maintenance department conducted any regular checks of the transfer bars once they were installed. The nursing staff were to put in a work order if they noticed any problems with the transfer bar including if it became loose or dangerous for the residents continued use. The physical therapy assistant (PTA) was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 2:10 p.m. The PTA said residents with transfer bars were sometimes assessed for use of the transfer bar, to make sure the resident would benefit from the assistive device for bed mobility. They did not conduct a risk assessment. If it was determined appropriate it would be a goal during therapy to educate the resident on safety and proper use of the transfer bar. Once placed and the resident finished therapy the use of the transfer bar would not be reassessed. It would be left in place for the resident's continued use. On occasion the nurse may determine the resident needed a transfer bar for bed mobility and the nurse would call the resident physician and the transfer bar would be installed by facility maintenance based on the physician's order only. Registered nurse (RN) #2 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 3:45 p.m. RN #2 said if she felt a resident would benefit from a transfer bar for bed mobility she would talk with the therapy department so the resident mobility needs could be assessed. The therapy department would contact the resident physician for an order to assess the resident's need. RN #2 said it was not a nursing decision to have a transfer bar installed, it had to be a team effort and the resident had to be assessed to need the device. The RN said she was not aware of any concerns with any of the resident transfer bars. The certified nurse aides (CNA) were making beds daily and they were expected to report any problems with bed rails including loose bed rails. RN #2 was not aware of the loose transfer bars/rails but said loose transfer bars could pose a risk to the resident and said she would place a work order to get the transfer bar tightened. RN #1 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 4:01 p.m. RN #1 said the CNA's were to check the resident transfer bars daily during bed making and were to report problems with the residents transfer bars immediately. If the transfer bars were loose the CNA should complete a work order request to have the transfer bar fixed or replaced immediately. CNA #2 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 4:05 p.m. CNA #2 said the CNA's check the bed rails daily when they make beds and look for anything out of place. If the CNA noticed any problems, she would report it to the nurse on duty or call maintenance. CNA #5 was interviewed on 12/15/21 at 4:11 p.m. CNA #5 said she did not pay much attention to the resident's transfer bars because she worked the evening shift and did not usually make resident beds, but if a problem occurred with a resident's transfer bar should be reported to maintenance. The restorative aide (RA) was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 10:23 a.m. The RA said she went with the maintenance director (MTD) yesterday to assist with the work order, to tighten the bed rails. The RA said she does not keep track of the transfer bars and does not know who does a safety check on those devices. Any staff noticing a problem with any assistive device like a transfer bar, hospital bed, wheelchair was to place a work order so maintenance could address the problem. The PTA was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 10:28 a.m. The PTA did not know who or if anyone does a safety check on the transfer bars on a regular basis. Once the resident was done with therapy the therapy department would have no regular involvement with the resident's assistive devices unless another referral was placed for therapy services. The MTD was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 10:54 a.m. The MTD said he responded to a work order to tighten some bed rails. Beside the five identified residents with loose bed rails he found and additional four residents whose transfer bars needed to be tightened. All transfer bars were now tightened. The MTD said the transfer bars were tightened as needed when identified by the nursing staff and a work order was provided, and they will continue with this practice. There was no routine transfer bar maintenance or checks being done. The last time the maintenance department had worked on any of the transfer bars was back in August 2021. The bed rails were in good condition. They attach to the resident bed frame with two bolts that do get loose and need occasionally tightening. The MDT was not aware of any other issues or concerns with resident transfer bars. The NHA was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 1:40 p.m. The NHA said they had not considered the transfer bars to be bed rails or restraints and had not conducted a risk assessment for potential injuries based on use of the assistive devices or obtained informed consent. Going forward the facility will review the regulation and implement regulator practices.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure four (#24, #4, #20 and #15) of five residents reviewed out ...

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 four (#24, #4, #20 and #15) of five residents reviewed out of 23 total sample residents were as free from unnecessary drugs as possible. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure residents and/or their responsible parties were informed of psychotropic medications with black box warnings (the Food and Drug Administration's strictest and most serious type of warning which describes a medication's serious or life-threatening side effects or risks) for Residents #24, #4, #20, and #15. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The Use of Psychotropic Medication policy, dated 12/16/21, during the survey, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) via email on 12/20/21 at 3:48 p.m. It read in pertinent part, Residents are not given psychotropic drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition, as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and the medication is beneficial to the resident, as demonstrated by monitoring and documentation of the resident's response to the medication(s). A psychotropic drug is any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior. Psychotropic drugs include, but are not limited to the following categories: antipsychotics, antidepressants, anti-anxiety medications, and hypnotics. Residents and/or representatives shall be educated on the risks and benefits of psychotropic drug use, as well as alternative treatments/non-pharmacological interventions. II. Resident #24 A. Resident status Resident #24, age [AGE], was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included alcohol use, unspecified with alcohol-induced persisting dementia and insomnia. The 11/17/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of eight out of 15. He required one-person limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. He received an antidepressant daily. B. Record review Review of Resident #24's December 2021 CPO revealed the following physician order: Trazodone HCl tablet give 25 milligrams (mg) by mouth one time a day related to insomnia. The order had a start date of 10/21/21. The comprehensive care plan, initiated 5/23/21 and revised 11/18/21 revealed Resident #24 had a diagnosis of insomnia and was prescribed medication. Pertinent interventions included adjusting lighting to resident's preference and educating on any safety concerns for the resident, lowering the blinds per resident's preference, making sure the temperature of room was adjusted to resident's preference, and utilizing a white noise machine if needed for the resident. -Review of Resident #24's electronic medical record (EMR) failed to show documentation that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party was provided education of the risks and benefits (including the black box warning) of the prescribed antidepressant medication for the specific identified symptoms the medication was prescribed to treat, prior to the resident starting on the medications. III. Resident #4 A. Resident status Resident #4, age greater than 90, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 CPO, diagnoses included major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified. The 9/8/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS score of 12 out of 15. She required one-person limited assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene. She required one-person extensive assistance for transfers, dressing, and toilet use. She received an antidepressant daily. B. Record review Review of Resident #4's December 2021 CPO revealed the following physician order: Prozac capsule give 10 mg by mouth one time a day related to major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified. The order had a start date of 4/21/21. The comprehensive care plan, initiated 5/26/2020 and revised 12/10/21, revealed Resident #4 had a diagnosis of depression and was prescribed medication. Pertinent interventions included administering medications as ordered and monitoring/documenting side effects and effectiveness, allowing the resident time to talk about her feelings and missing her family, monitoring for signs/symptoms of depression, including: hopelessness, anxiety, sadness, insomnia, anorexia, verbalizing, negative statements, repetitive anxious or health-related complaints, tearfulness, and encouraging family/friends to continue to remain in contact with the resident via phone and in person visits. -Review of Resident #4's EMR failed to show documentation that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party was provided education of the risks and benefits (including the black box warning) of the prescribed antidepressant medication for the specific identified symptoms the medication was prescribed to treat, prior to the resident starting on the medications. IV. Resident #20 A. Resident status Resident #20, age greater than 90, was admitted on [DATE]. According to the December 2021 CPO, diagnoses included major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified and anxiety disorder, unspecified. The 11/10/21 MDS assessment revealed that the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of 11 out of 15. She required one-person extensive assistance for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. She received an antidepressant daily. B. Record review Review of Resident #20's December 2021 CPO revealed the following physician order: Remeron tablet give 15 mg by mouth one time a day related to major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified and anxiety disorder, unspecified. The order had a start date of 11/30/2020 and was revised on 11/4/21. The comprehensive care plan, initiated 11/24/2020 and revised 11/11/21, revealed the resident had a diagnosis of depression and was prescribed medication. Pertinent interventions included allowing the resident to cry and offering support/encouragement, encouraging the resident to identify those things in her life that brought her joy and a sense of accomplishment, encouraging conversations with staff, family and friends, encouraging group and individual activities of her choice as tolerated by the resident, and encouraging her to participate in daily decision making to increase her sense of empowerment. Further review of the comprehensive care plan, initiated 11/24/2020 and revised 11/11/21 revealed the resident had a history of becoming anxious over her weight and appearance which could be exacerbated due to her dementia. Pertinent interventions included ensuring her routines were the same as possible every day, complimenting her and voicing positive affirmations to her whenever possible, and redirecting her whenever possible if she made comments stating that she was concerned about her weight and appearance. -Review of Resident #4's EMR failed to show documentation that the resident and/or the resident's responsible party was provided education of the risks and benefits (including the black box warning) of the prescribed antidepressant medication for the specific identified symptoms the medication was prescribed to treat, prior to the resident starting on the medications. V. Resident #15 A. Resident status Resident #15, age [AGE], was readmitted on [DATE], initially admitted [DATE]. According to the December 2021 computerized physician orders (CPO), diagnoses included depressive episodes, anxiety disorder, insomnia, and chronic pain. The 11/2/21 minimum data set (MDS) assessment revealed the resident with moderate cognitive impairment with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15. She required extensive assistance with two persons for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, locomotion on the unit, toilet use, personal hygiene, and was totally dependent on staff assistance for showering. At the time of the assessment, the resident was taking daily psychotropic medication for chronic pain. B. Resident representative interview The resident's medical power of attorney (MPOA) was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 1:27 p.m. The MPOA said the facility called him yesterday about the psychotropic medication cymbalta and explained it was being used for pain management. The MPOA said the facility usually gives frequent updates on the resident's status but he could not recall if they had called before to discuss the benefits and risks of the resident taking cymbalta; this was the first time they had called about the benefits, risk and side effects of the medication. C. Record review Resident #15's December 2021 CPO revealed the following physician orders: Cymbalta capsule delayed release particles 60 milligrams (mg) (duloxetine HCl). Give 60 mg by mouth one time a day related to chronic pain, start date 10/27/21. Review of the resident's comprehensive care plan revealed a care plan focus for psychotropic medications. The care focus updated 11/1/21 revealed Resident #15 used psychotropic medication to ensure maximum functional ability both mentally and physically. Interventions included: communicating changes and any pharmacy/interdisciplinary team recommendations to resident and physician. Educate resident and/or family on potential risks/benefits of psychotropic drug use. Evaluate resident for changes that may suggest my dose may need adjusted. Monitor for effectiveness of psychotropic medication (target symptoms were controlled). Observe for any adverse psychotropic medication-related side effects. Report any troublesome symptoms that could be associated with use of the medication to my physician. -Although the care plan was updated 11/1/21, and stated to educate the family of potential risks/benefits of psychotropic drug use. The POA was not informed of the benefits and risk of the resident taking an antidepressant for pain management, until 12/15/21 after the failure to provide informed consent was brought to the facility's attention during the survey. Progress notes reveal no documentation of education or discussion with the MPOA concerning starting psychotropic medication Cymbalta on 10/26/21. A review of the resident's electronic medical record revealed the facility failed to obtain boxed warning informed consent, nor provide education on the risk vs benefits of the medication to the MPOA//legal representative for the psychotropic medication. VI. Interviews The social services director (SSD) and the NHA were interviewed together on 12/16/21 at 11:52 a.m. The SSD said when a resident was admitted to the facility with a psychotropic medication or the facility started a resident on a new psychotropic medication, the resident and/or the resident's responsible party should be notified of the medication prior to the resident receiving the medication. She said education should be provided regarding the risks/benefits, including the black box warning, for the medication, as well as informing the resident and/or the resident's responsible party of the reason for the medication and the dosage. She said consent from the resident and/or the resident's responsible party should be obtained prior to the resident receiving the medication. The SSD said the nurses would generally review the consent and black box warning form with the resident and/or the resident's responsible party and obtain a signature for consent. She said a risk/benefit consent form should be obtained for each psychotropic medication the resident was receiving. The NHA said staff should educate the resident and/or the resident's responsible party regarding the risks/benefits of the psychotropic medication, the side effects of the medication, including the black box warning, the dosage of the medication, and the reason the medication was prescribed. She said a signature from the resident and/or the resident's responsible party should be obtained on the consent form. She said a risk/benefit consent form should be completed for each psychotropic medication a resident was prescribed. The NHA said the facility did not have a good process for ensuring that the risk/benefit consent forms with the black box warning information were obtained and thoroughly completed for all psychotropic medications. She said the facility would be working on a new process to ensure all psychotropic medications had consent forms completed and education provided. She said the facility had obtained a risk/benefit consent form for Resident #15 on 12/15/21 (during the survey), and the SSD was working on getting the consent forms completed for Residents #24, #4, and #20. VII. Facility follow-up On 12/16/21 at 8:55 a.m. the nursing home administrator (NHA) provided documentation that the psychoactive medication informed consent was completed for Resident #15, after the failure was brought to the facility's attention during survey. The documentation revealed that, on 12/15/21, the resident and MPOA (via phone) were notified of the benefits and risk of the resident taking Cymbalta for pain relief.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

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 food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions for one out of one dining rooms and two room trays. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure residents were offered and encouraged to complete hand hygiene prior to eating their meals. Findings include: I. Facility policy and procedures The Handwashing/Hand Hygiene policy, revised 12/14/21, during the survey, was provided by the nursing home administrator (NHA) on 12/14/21 at 6:25 p.m. It read in pertinent part, This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. All personnel shall be trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare-associated infections. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. Staff will offer assistance to residents to perform hand hygiene before and after eating and when moving from one activity to the next. Alcohol-based hand rub will be readily available for staff, residents, volunteers and visitors. Hand washing sinks with soap are available in public areas, public restrooms and resident rooms. Residents, family members and/or visitors will be encouraged to practice hand hygiene through the use of fact sheets, pamphlets and/or other written materials provided at the time of admission and/or posted throughout the facility. II. Observations A. Dining room observations 12/13/21 -At 11:28 a.m., certified nurse aide (CNA) #3 assisted Resident #9 in a wheelchair to a table in the dining room. CNA #3 assisted the resident with putting on a clothing protector. She did not offer the resident the opportunity to sanitize his hands before eating. 12/14/21 -At 10:50 a.m., Resident #26 was assisted in his wheelchair to his table in the dining room by CNA #4. CNA #4 did not offer the resident the opportunity to sanitize his hands. Dietary aide (DA) #1 asked Resident #26 what he wanted to eat and drink, however she did not offer him the opportunity to sanitize his hands. -At 10:56 a.m., CNA #3 approached Resident #22 who was ambulating with a wheelchair from the bird atrium near the dining room. Resident #22 had been observed seated in his wheelchair just prior to lunch visiting with his daughter and holding a small black dog on his lap. He had not returned to his room prior to ambulating by a wheelchair to the dining room. CNA #3 assisted the resident in his wheelchair to his table and asked him what he wanted to eat for lunch. She did not offer him the opportunity to sanitize his hands. -At 11:01 a.m., DA #2 brought Resident #26 his meal and placed it in front of him. DA #2 did not ask the resident if he wanted to sanitize his hands before she left the table. Resident #26 began to eat his meal with his silverware. -At 11:03 a.m., DA #1 asked Resident #22 what he wanted to drink and helped him put his clothing protector on. She did not offer him the opportunity to sanitize his hands. -At 11:04 a.m., Resident #26 was eating his lunch and dropped a portion of his baked potato on the table. He proceeded to pick the piece of potato up with his fingers and put it in his mouth. After putting the potato in his mouth with his fingers, Resident #26 licked his fingers to clean the butter off of them. -At 11:06 a.m., Resident #22 waited for his lunch. He had his hands folded together and his fingers were touching his mouth as he rested his elbows on the table. -At 11:10 a.m., DA #2 brought Resident #22 his lunch. She cut up his food for him and asked him if he wanted sour cream on his potato and salt and pepper. She did not offer him the opportunity to sanitize his hands. -At 11:14 a.m., Resident #22 reached for his apple juice and picked it up to bring it closer to him. He picked the glass up with his left hand and his fingers were touching the outside rim of the glass. He set the glass down on the table, then picked it up with his right hand to take a drink from it. His lips were touching where his fingers had just been on the rim. -At 11:18 a.m., Resident #26 was eating his cherry pie with his fingers, holding it by the crust. -At 11:18 a.m., CNA #4 assisted Resident #29 in his wheelchair to the same table with Resident #26. DA #1 took Resident #29 ' s lunch order. Neither CNA #4 or DA #1 offered Resident #29 the opportunity to sanitize his hands. -At 11:21 a.m., Resident #22 was eating his cherry pie with a fork. He was using the fingers of his left hand to help get the pie onto the fork which he held with his right hand. He then used his fork to take a bite of the pie. B. Room tray observations On 12/13/21 at 11:30 a.m., a dietary aide was delivering lunch trays to residents in their rooms. She delivered trays to room [ROOM NUMBER]-A and room [ROOM NUMBER]-A. The DA delivered and set up the resident's trays but did not offer or encourage either resident a method to sanitize their hands. Both residents had been observed in their rooms handling various personal items just prior to eating lunch. III. Resident interviews Resident #13 and Resident #25 were interviewed together on 12/14/21 at 12:32 p.m. Resident #13 said she was not aware of any hand wipes or hand hygiene methods available for residents in the dining room. She said she assumed staff offered residents the opportunity to sanitize their hands prior to bringing them to the dining room or delivering a room tray. Resident #13 said she ambulated herself in her wheelchair to the dining room. She said staff did not offer her an opportunity to sanitize her hands before she ate, even though she had just been touching the wheels on her wheelchair. She said there was no hand sanitizer or hand wipes on any of the tables in the dining room to use before meals. Resident #25 confirmed and agreed with what Resident #13 said. Resident #25 said she was not offered the opportunity to sanitize her hands before she ate her meals. IV. Staff interviews CNA #3 was interviewed on 12/14/21 at 11:50 a.m. CNA #3 said staff tried to take residents to the bathroom before meals and washed their hands afterward. She said if residents ambulated themselves in their wheelchairs to the dining room for meals, their hands were not sanitized prior to eating. She said there were hand wipes in the dining room, but she said those were used to clean residents' hands after they ate. DA #1 was interviewed on 12/14/21 at 11:55 a.m. DA #1 said she did not offer residents the opportunity to sanitize their hands before they ate. She said she assumed the CNAs provided hand hygiene for the residents prior to bringing them to the dining room. She said residents could use the hand sanitizer hanging on the wall at the entrance of the dining room if they wheeled themselves to the dining room. The NHA was interviewed on 12/14/21 at 1:29 p.m. The NHA said residents should be encouraged and offered the opportunity to sanitize their hands after they used the restroom, and before and after eating. She said staff should help residents that needed help to sanitize their hands. She said independent residents should be directed to use the hand sanitizer on the walls as they entered the dining room. The NHA said the residents could be offered the little bottles of alcohol based hand rub (ABHR) at the dining room tables or in their rooms when they received room trays. She said the residents should be offered the opportunity to sanitize their hands before every meal whether they ate in the dining room or their rooms. The NHA said she would provide more education to the staff to ensure they were offering hand hygiene opportunities to residents before meals. The minimum data set coordinator (MDSC) was interviewed on 12/16/21 at 11:32 a.m. The MDSC said staff should offer residents the opportunity to sanitize their hands before and after every meal and after they used the restroom. She said staff should make sure it was offered to all residents, even if they were independent.
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

  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $49,385 in fines. Higher than 94% of Colorado facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
  • • 64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 55/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Hillcrest's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HILLCREST CARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Hillcrest Staffed?

CMS rates HILLCREST CARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 17 percentage points above the Colorado average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hillcrest?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at HILLCREST CARE CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 18 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Hillcrest?

HILLCREST CARE CENTER 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 45 certified beds and approximately 41 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WRAY, Colorado.

How Does Hillcrest Compare to Other Colorado Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Colorado, HILLCREST CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hillcrest?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Hillcrest Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HILLCREST CARE CENTER 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 4-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 Hillcrest Stick Around?

Staff turnover at HILLCREST CARE CENTER is high. At 64%, the facility is 17 percentage points above the Colorado average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Hillcrest Ever Fined?

HILLCREST CARE CENTER has been fined $49,385 across 5 penalty actions. The Colorado average is $33,573. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Hillcrest on Any Federal Watch List?

HILLCREST 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.