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.