NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING

90 CLARK LANE, WATERFORD, CT 06385 (860) 442-0471
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#182 of 192 in CT
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

New London Sub-Acute and Nursing in Waterford, Connecticut, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility’s quality and care. Ranked #182 out of 192 facilities in Connecticut and #14 out of 14 in the county, it falls in the bottom half of all local options. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from 1 in 2023 to 45 in 2025, raising serious red flags. While staffing received a 3 out of 5 rating, indicating average performance, the staff turnover rate of 46% is concerning since it is higher than the state average. The facility has incurred $80,505 in fines, which is more than 94% of Connecticut facilities, pointing to ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include failures in medication administration, where residents did not receive their prescribed medications, leading to critical safety issues. In one case, a resident with severe malnutrition was not given necessary medications as ordered, which is a serious risk. Additionally, the facility did not conduct required nutritional assessments for residents, further compromising care quality. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, the numerous critical violations and poor overall ratings suggest families should proceed with caution.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Connecticut
#182/192
Bottom 6%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 45 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
46% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$80,505 in fines. Lower than most Connecticut facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Connecticut. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
67 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2025: 45 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Connecticut average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 46%

Near Connecticut avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $80,505

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 67 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Aug 2025 8 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for three (3) of seven (7) sampled resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for three (3) of seven (7) sampled residents (Residents #1, #2 and #6) who were reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the residents received scheduled anti-anxiety medication, narcotic pain medication, or both for agitation and comfort as prescribed by the physician. The failures resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy. The findings include:1. Resident #1's diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the ovaries, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, delusional disorders, restlessness and agitation and depressive disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero (0) out of fifteen (15) indicating memory recall deficits. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/28/25 identified Resident #1 received hospice services for a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Interventions directed to administer medications per the physician's orders. a. A physician's order dated 1/11/25 directed to administer morphine sulfate oral solution 100 milligrams (mg) in 5 milliliters (mL), give 40 mg sublingually (under the tongue) every four (4) hours for pain, to be given around the clock. Review of the June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) identified the morphine sulfate was not administered from 6/5/25 at 8:00 AM through 6/9/25 at 12:00 PM therefore twenty-six (26) doses were omitted. Upon further review, doses were not administered on 6/25/25 at 8:00 PM and 6/26/25 at 8:00 AM. The nurse's electronic MAR (eMAR) notes dated 6/5/25 through 6/9/25 identified the morphine sulfate was not administered because the medication was not available and was on order. Both the nurse's note and eMAR note dated 6/8/25 identified Resident #1 was noted to be crying, moaning, and refused care and Tylenol (pain reliever) was administered. Review of the pain assessments from 6/7/25 to 6/9/25 identified pain levels of zero (0) through eight (8) on a scale of zero (0) to ten (10). b. A physician's order dated 6/26/25 directed to administer morphine sulfate oral solution 100 mg in 5 mL, give 1.5 mL sublingually every four (4) hours as needed for pain and start morphine sulfate Extended Release (ER) 60 mg tablet, give two (2) tablets (120 mg) by mouth every twelve (12) hours for pain. Review of the June and July 2025 MAR identified the morphine sulfate ER 120 mg was not administered from 6/26/25 12:00 PM when it was ordered until 7/4/25 when it was discontinued, Resident #1 had gone without the scheduled pain control, a total of sixteen (16) doses and the as needed morphine sulfate oral solution was not administered in it's place. Review of the pain assessments from 6/26/25 to 6/30/25 identified pain levels of zero (0) through five (5). The nurse's eMAR notes dated 6/26/25 through 7/4/25 identified the morphine sulfate ER 120 mg was not administered because the medication was on order and not available. Interview with Person #6 (pharmacy manager) on 8/20/25 at 8:40 AM identified on 6/2/25 when the pharmacy received a script for the morphine sulfate oral solution the quantity was not identified so they called the facility for clarification but never received follow-up. Person #6 reported the facility did not reach out for an update until 6/9/25 which by that time twenty-six (26) doses had been missed and the facility authorized the pharmacy to bill for 90 mL, three (3) bottles for a sixteen (16) day supply. Person #6 explained that on 6/26/25 when the morphine sulfate ER tablets were first ordered, the pharmacy called the facility for clarification because the script was dosed incorrectly, and the facility then never called back or communicated with them until 6/30/25 when the pharmacy informed the facility the dosage was on backorder and unavailable. Person #6 identified going without morphine from 6/26/25 through 7/1/25 could have caused increased discomfort, respiratory issues, pinpoint pupils, tremors, sweats, restlessness, nausea/vomiting and insomnia. Person #6 reported that the delay in the medication getting sent to the facility was due to the facility's lack in communication and not sending scripts prior to exhausting the supply. c. A physician's order dated 2/24/25 directed to administer lorazepam intensol oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 4 mg by mouth every four (4) hours for agitation and/or pain. Review of the MAR with associated eMAR notes from May through July 2025 identified the lorazepam was not administered ten (10) times in May 2025, thirteen (13) times in June 2025 and twenty-three (23) times in July 2025, as the medication was unavailable, on order or the resident was sleeping. The May 2025 MAR identified that from 4:00 PM on 5/22/25 through 4:00 AM on 5/24/25 there were ten (10) doses of lorazepam oral contrate not administered. Review of nurse's notes from 5/22/25 through 5/25/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. The June 2025 MAR identified that from 8:00 AM on 6/2/25 until 4:00 AM on 6/3/25 there were six (6) doses of lorazepam not administered, on 6/15/25 from 12:00 PM through 12:00 AM on 6/16/25 four (4) doses were not administered and on 6/18/25 through 6/19/25 there were four (4) doses not administered because the medication was on order. Review of the Controlled Drug Record dated 6/16/25 identified 150 mL (12.5 day supply) of lorazepam was delivered to and signed for by the facility on 6/16/25, so Resident #1 should have received the lorazepam on 6/18/25 and 6/19/25 as ordered. Review of nurse's notes from 6/1/25 through 6/20/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. Review of behavior monitoring from 5/1/25 through 8/1/25 with associated eMAR progress notes identified that on 6/8/25 at both 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM Resident #1 was noted to be crying and moaning. On 6/9/25 Resident #1 was noted to be anxious (last doses withheld/missed on 6/2/25 and 6/3/25). The July 2025 MAR identified that from 12:00 PM on 7/5/25 until 4:00 PM on 7/7/25 there were thirteen (13) doses of lorazepam not administered, and twelve (12) doses not administered from 4:00 PM on 7/26/25 until 4:00 PM on 7/28/25. Review of the nurse's notes from 7/4/25 through 7/29/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. Review of behavior monitoring from 5/1/25 through 8/1/25 with associated eMAR progress notes identified on 6/8/25 at both 12:00 AM and 12:00 PM Resident #1 was noted crying and moaning. On 6/9/25 Resident #1 was noted to be anxious (last doses withheld/missed on 6/2/25 and 6/3/25). Review of behavior monitoring on 7/1/25 at 4:00 AM Resident #1 was noted with behaviors, but no follow-up note was documented to explain what the behaviors observed were. On 7/7/25 at 11:43 PM Resident #1 was crying and calling out and on 7/8/25 at 1:31 PM Resident #1 was noted with increased anxiety (last doses withheld/missed 7/5/25 to 7/7/25). The Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note dated 7/7/25 identified she had been notified on 7/7/25 that Resident #1's morphine sulfate ER tablets and lorazepam intensol oral concentrate had not arrived from either the facility's pharmacy or the hospice pharmacy and Resident #1 was withdrawing from both the morphine and lorazepam and Resident #1 stated he/she felt like they were crawling out of their skin. The note reported Resident #1 was staring up at the ceiling, grinding his/her teeth and was notably anxious. The note identified the APRN re-faxed the scripts to the pharmacy, directed to continue the morphine concentrate as needed, would start lorazepam 4 mg tablets every four (4) hours around the clock until the lorazepam concentrate was delivered, and order a fentanyl patch 50 micrograms (mcg) to be applied every seventy-two (72) hours until the morphine sulfate ER tablets were delivered to the facility. Review of physician's orders for July 2025 failed to identify the order for the lorazepam 4 mg tablets every four (4) hours around the clock was entered or initiated. The nurse's note dated 7/30/25 at 2:46 PM, after not receiving the lorazepam from 7/26/25 until 7/28/25, two (2) days twelve (12) doses, identified Resident #1 was combative, refusing medications and care and on 8/1/25 at 9:46 AM Resident #1 was calling out, yelling, and was noted to be paranoid. The APRN note dated 7/31/25 identified Resident #1 was agitated, refusing medications, attempting to hit others and actively hallucinating and hospice was concerned Resident #1 may require a psychiatric hospitalization. A hospice note dated 7/31/25 identified Resident #1 was irritable, hallucinating, refusing medications and meals and struck a nurse the previous day due to agitation. The note indicated if the facility was unable to manage Resident #1's behaviors with the current regimen they should follow-up with the medical director for the behaviors and Resident #1 may require transport to next level of care. Interview with Person #3 (facility pharmacy representative) on 8/15/25 at 2:07 PM and review of the May 2025 MAR identified Resident #1 missed doses of lorazepam from 4:00 PM on 5/22/25 through 4:00 AM on 5/24/25. Person #3 indicated she had no documentation identifying the facility contacted them from 5/20/25 through 5/22/25 for a refill but the pharmacy did receive a new script on 5/23/25 and the pharmacy delivered the lorazepam on 5/24/25 at 3:55 AM because the facility did not request a STAT delivery. Person #3 explained she was not aware until 8/15/25, that with the 5/23/25 refill order, the pharmacy staff incorrectly calculated the amount and supply and set the next refill date to be available in eighteen (18) days when it should have been eligible for a refill in seven and one half (7.5) days. Person #3 identified the facility called on 6/2/25 to inquire about the next delivery and the facility was told the script could not be refilled until 6/11/25 so the Assistant Director of Nursing ADON approved a fifteen (15) day supply to be billed to the facility, which was processed and delivered on 6/3/25, however, Resident #1 missed six (6) doses of lorazepam from 6/2/25 through 6/3/25. Interview with Person #2 (Hospice clinical manager) on 8/15/25 at 10:22 AM identified due to ongoing issues with the facility's pharmacy not delivering Resident #1's narcotics timely where Resident #1 was missing doses, they started utilizing their own pharmacy on 7/9/25 and started having their hospice nurse conduct narcotic count with a facility nurse several times weekly so that they (hospice) were aware when the counts were low. Person #2 was unable to identify why hospice was not aware that Resident #1 ran out of the lorazepam from 7/26/25 until 7/28/25. Person #2 explained there was a cycle where hospice would adjust Resident #1's medications, get Resident #1 stable, then the facility would run out of the medications again and Resident #1 would become anxious and display behaviors. Interview with APRN #1 on 8/15/25 at 1:56 PM identified that on 7/7/25 she was notified Resident #1 had not received the morphine and lorazepam for several days and although she wrote in the note dated 7/7/25 Resident #1 was withdrawing from both the morphine and lorazepam due to the supply being unavailable, she was going to order lorazepam 4 mg tablets every four (4) hours around the clock until the lorazepam concentrate was delivered. APRN #1 indicated she could not recall being notified from May 2025 through July 2025 that the facility would run out of Resident #1's supply of lorazepam. APRN #1 identified the licensed nurses should be notifying a provider for all missed doses of medication so that they can order an alternative until the supply is delivered. APRN #1 explained that Resident #1 missing the morphine and lorazepam doses could have contributed to the behaviors and discomfort Resident #1 was experiencing on 6/8/25, 6/9/25, 7/7/25 and 7/30/25 per the nurses' notes. Interview with Person #4 (Hospice Manager) on 8/18/25 at 11:08 AM identified the facility did not notify them until 7/28/25 that the supply of lorazepam was exhausted on 7/26/25, two (2) days later, and the facility requested a STAT delivery. The Hospice Manager explained although their nurse would do narcotic count with the facility's nurse twice a week, they did not start the count of the lorazepam until after the supply was delivered on 7/29/25. Interview with Person #5 (pharmacist) on 8/19/25 at 1:40 PM identified lorazepam intensol withdrawal symptoms can include increased anxiety, combativeness, agitation, hallucinations, nausea/vomiting, insomnia, tremors and seizures. Person #5 indicated the behaviors Resident #1 exhibited on 6/8/25, 6/9/25, 7/7/25, 7/8/25, 7/30/25 and 7/31/25 could have been related to withdrawal from the lorazepam, and for a resident on as high of a dose and frequency as Resident #1, he/she could have started withdrawing anywhere between one (1) and five (5) days depending on the resident. Interviews with charge nurses Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) LPN #2, LPN #3, LPN #4, LPN #5, LPN #7, LPN #10, and LPN #11 identified they had been told by the facility prior, to August 2025 that they were not to call the pharmacy or the provider for medication issues, they were to notify the nursing supervisor on duty and the notifications were the supervisors responsibility. They stated they were not aware the provider had to be notified for each missed administration, with multiple staff stating another staff member communicated to them the pharmacy was notified and the supervisor was aware, so they took their word for it and did not notify the nursing supervisor that they still had not received a delivery and the medications continued to be omitted. Interviews with nursing supervisors, Registered Nurse (RN), RN #1 and RN #5 identified the charge nurses did not notify them consistently for all missed morphine and lorazepam doses between May and July 2025, stating if the charge nurses had informed them, they would have notified the pharmacy and provider. RN #1 and RN #5 reported when charge nurses did notify them, they did not always document in the clinical record when they had contacted the pharmacy or communicated with the provider. RN #5 stated she would not call the provider on the 11PM to 7AM shift for missed medication administration but would instead pass it on to the 7AM to 3PM shift to notify APRN #1. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/18/25 at 1:15 PM identified the facility should have never run out of the morphine or lorazepam, stating she was under the impression the hospice nurse was counting all of Resident #1's narcotic medications with the facility charge nurses twice weekly since Resident #1 was assigned to hospice's pharmacy early July 2025. The DON explained she had not observed the counts, and notes were not taken when the counts occurred. The DON identified the charge nurses should have been notifying the nursing supervisor at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the medication being exhausted and requesting a refill, in case there were issues with the script. The DON identified that for all doses of medication not administered, the charge nurse was to call the pharmacy to inquire on when the medication would be delivered, then notify the nursing supervisor of the missed administration so the nursing supervisor can contact the provider, and the charge nurses should be following-up with the nursing supervisor and ask if any new orders were obtained. 2. Resident #6's diagnoses included chronic pain, osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease where the tissues in the joints break down over time), kyphosis (excessive forward curve of the spine which can cause back pain and stiff muscles) and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5-325 mg tablet, give one (1) tablet every evening for pain. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #6 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) indicating Resident #6 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. The Resident Care Plan dated 6/12/25 identified Resident #6 was at risk for pain related to osteoarthritis, osteoporosis (weak and brittle bones), chronic pain, headache syndrome and intestinal and rectal fistulas (abnormal connection between two parts inside the body that don't normally connect). Interventions directed to administer pain relief medications per the physician's order, to anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaints of pain and to monitor and record characteristics of the pain. Review of the July 2025 MAR identified the hydrocodone/ acetaminophen was not administered 7/21/25 through 7/24/25, four (4) days and to see progress notes. The MAR identified pain assessments were completed every shift and no pain was noted from 7/21/25 through 7/24/25. The eMAR progress notes dated 7/21/25 through 7/24/25 identified the hydrocodone/ acetaminophen was not administered because it was not available and on order. Review of the Controlled Drug Record sheets identified the hydrocodone/acetaminophen had not been signed out from 7/21/25 through 7/24/25. Interview with LPN #2 on 8/18/25 at 9:48 AM identified that although she administered the last tablet of hydrocodone/acetaminophen to Resident #6 on 7/20/25 she could not recall if she had refilled the medication, contacted the pharmacy or notified the nursing supervisor. LPN #2 indicated she also did not administer the hydrocodone/acetaminophen on 7/21/25 through 7/23/25 because the medication was out of stock and not available, she did not notify the supervisor each day or call the pharmacy to inquire about the medication, explaining she did not have time to call the pharmacy and was unaware the nursing supervisor and provider had to be notified for each missed administration. Interview with Person #6 (Pharmacist Manager) on 8/20/25 at 8:40 AM identified they had no record the facility contacted them in July 2025 to inquire about a refill for Resident #6's hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets. Person #6 reported the pharmacy received a new script on the afternoon of 7/24/25 and the facility received the hydrocodone/acetaminophen on 7/25/25. 3. Resident #2's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral and mood disturbances and anxiety disorder. The Resident Care Plan dated 7/30/25 identified that Resident #2 utilized psychotropic medications related to diagnoses of adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, Alzheimer's dementia, delusional disorder and mood disorder. Interventions directed to administer psychotropic medications as ordered by the physician and monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of three (3) out of fifteen (15) indicating poor memory recall. The psychiatric APRN note dated 8/5/25 identified she was asked to evaluate Resident #2 for mood and anxiety, Resident #2 could become angry with an explosive temper without provocation, hostile with staff members of color and combative with care, was confused and could not recall anything for longer than a few minutes so when Resident #2 becomes agitated it was best to walk away and reapproach after a few minutes. The note identified they would trial lorazepam three (3) times daily to see if it improves the behaviors. A physician's order dated 8/5/25 directed to administer lorazepam oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 0.5 mL by mouth three (3) times daily for anxiety/agitation/irritability. Review of the August 2025 MAR identified the lorazepam oral concentrate was not administered to Resident #2 on 8/5/25 at 12:00 PM or 4:00 PM, 8/6/25 at 8:00 AM, 8/7/25 at 4:00 PM or 8/8/25 at 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Review of the nurse's notes and eMAR notes dated 8/5/25 through 8/8/25 identified the lorazepam was either unavailable, Resident #2 refused the medication or the resident was sleeping. Interview with LPN #1 on 8/19/25 identified although she did not administer the lorazepam to Resident #2 on 8/5/25, 8/6/25 and 8/8/25 she was unaware she had to notify the nursing supervisor for all missed medication administrations and refusals so the nursing supervisor can notify the provider for possible alternative orders. Interview with the Person #6 (Pharmacist Manager) on 8/20/25 at 8:40 AM identified the pharmacy received the script on 8/5/25 at 5:30 PM for the lorazepam oral concentrate for Resident #2, reporting that it was not requested STAT (immediately) so it was sent on the 9:00 PM run and was signed for by the facility on 8/6/25 at 2:31 AM. Interview with the DON on 8/19/25 at 3:42 PM identified that she was not aware Resident #2 and Resident #6 did not receive the scheduled narcotics as ordered in July and August 2025. The DON indicated that the pharmacy and provider should have been contacted for all unavailable medications, medication refusals and missed administrations and this should be documented in the clinical record. The DON explained residents should be woken up for the scheduled narcotic medications. The DON identified the facility's emergency stock for lorazepam intensol oral concentrate, morphine sulfate oral solution and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets had been depleted prior to 6/17/25 and the supply was not refilled. Review of the Administration of Medications policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that medications are to be given at the time ordered or within 60 minutes before or after the time designated. Medication errors and adverse drug reactions shall be immediately reported to the attending physician, charted in the clinical records, and described in Medication Error Report, and incident report if necessary, which is submitted to the State Health Department. Review of the Medication Omission/Withholding policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that all medications are to be administered as prescribed by the attending physician unless in the nurses professional judgement the medication(s) should be omitted/withheld. If the nurse makes the decision to omit/withhold medication(s) the nurse will notify the supervisor who will notify the MD and document in the clinical record. Nurses notes are to include the date, specific time, and pertinent details. Review of the Medication Refusal Policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that for medication refusals, the nurse will explain to the resident the possible consequences of medication refusal, and for non-competent confused residents, the nurse will go back and offer the medication again within an hour. The nursing supervisor will notify the MD once 3 consecutive doses of any medication is refused, will document the conversation with the MD in the clinical record and the nurse will properly document the medication refusal on the resident's electronic medical record. Review of the Medication Re-Order Procedure dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that the 3-11 shift nurse is responsible for re-ordering routine medications on a regular basis to ensure that a resident is never without an appropriate available supply of prescribed medications. Medications should be reordered when an eleven (11) day supply remains.
SERIOUS (H) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of seven (7) sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of seven (7) sampled residents (Residents #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to follow up with the pharmacy services to ensure new medication orders were filled and standing orders were refilled prior to exhausting the supply. The findings include:Resident #1's diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the ovaries, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, delusional disorders, restlessness and agitation and depressive disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero (0) out of fifteen (15) indicating memory recall deficits. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/28/25 identified Resident #1 received hospice services for a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Interventions directed to administer medications per the physician's orders. A physician's order dated 6/26/25 directed to administer morphine sulfate oral solution 100 mg in 5 mL, give 1.5 mL sublingually every four (4) hours as needed for pain and start morphine sulfate Extended Release (ER) 60 mg tablet, give two (2) tablets (120 mg) by mouth every twelve (12) hours for pain. Review of the June and July 2025 MAR identified the morphine sulfate ER 120 mg was not administered from 6/26/25 12:00 PM when it was ordered through 7/4/25 when it was discontinued, Resident #1 had gone without the scheduled pain control, a total of sixteen (16) doses and the as needed morphine sulfate oral solution was not administered in it's place. The nurse's eMAR notes dated 6/26/25 through 7/4/25 identified the morphine sulfate ER 120 mg was not administered because the medication was on order and not available. Interview with Person #6 (pharmacy manager) on 8/20/25 at 8:40 AM identified on 6/2/25 when the pharmacy received a script for the morphine sulfate oral solution the quantity was not identified so they called the facility for clarification but never received follow-up. Person #6 reported the facility did not reach out for an update until 6/9/25 which by that time twenty-six (26) doses had been missed and the facility authorized the pharmacy to bill for 90 mL, three (3) bottles for a sixteen (16) day supply. Person #6 explained that on 6/26/25 when the morphine sulfate ER tablets were first ordered, the pharmacy called the facility for clarification because the script was dosed incorrectly, and the facility then never called back or communicated with them until 6/30/25 when the pharmacy informed the facility communicated the dosage was on backorder and unavailable. Person #6 reported the delay in the medication getting sent to the facility was due to the facility's lack in communication and not sending scripts prior to exhausting the supply. c. A physician's order dated 2/24/25 directed to administer lorazepam intensol oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 4 mg by mouth every four (4) hours for agitation and/or pain. The May 2025 MAR identified that from 4:00 PM on 5/22/25 through 4:00 AM on 5/24/25 ten (10) doses of lorazepam were not administered. Review of nurse's notes from 5/22/25 through 5/25/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. Interview with Person #3 (facility pharmacy representative) on 8/15/25 at 2:07 PM and review of the May 2025 MAR identified Resident #1 missed doses of lorazepam from 4:00 PM on 5/22/25 through 4:00 AM on 5/24/25. Person #3 indicated she had no documentation identifying the facility contacted them from 5/20/25 through 5/22/25 for a refill but the pharmacy did receive a new script on 5/23/25 and the pharmacy delivered the lorazepam on 5/24/25 at 3:55 AM because the facility did not request a STAT delivery. Person #3 explained she was not aware until 8/15/25, that with the 5/23/25 refill order, the pharmacy staff incorrectly calculated the amount and supply and set the next refill date to be available in eighteen (18) days when it should have been eligible for a refill in seven and one half (7.5) days. Person #3 identified the facility called on 6/2/25 to inquire about the next delivery and the facility was told the script could not be refilled until 6/11/25 so the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) approved a fifteen (15) day supply to be billed to the facility, which was processed and delivered on 6/3/25, however, Resident #1 missed six (6) doses of lorazepam from 6/2/25 through 6/3/25. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/18/25 at 1:15 PM identified the facility should not have run out of the morphine or lorazepam. The DON identified that for all doses of medication not administered, the charge nurse was to call the pharmacy to inquire on when the medication would be delivered, then notify the nursing supervisor of the missed administration so the nursing supervisor can contact the provider, and the charge nurses should be following-up with the nursing supervisor and ask if any new orders were obtained.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, observations, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident #3) who were reviewed for an allegation of physical abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was supervised when ambulating within the facility per the plan of care to prevent a resident-to-resident altercation. The findings include:Resident #3's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, history of falls, muscle weakness, delusional disorder, anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. The significant change Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of four (4) out of fifteen (15) indicating poor memory recall, required moderate assistance for bed mobility and supervision assistance with transfers and ambulating. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/30/25 identified that Resident #3 has limited physical mobility related to Alzheimer's disease and gait abnormalities. Interventions directed to provide assistance of one (1) for transfers and ambulating without a device in the facility. The nurse's note dated 7/26/25 at 10:48 AM identified Resident #3 was wandering into other residents' rooms attempting to take their walkers and was combative with attempts at redirection. The noted indicated the as needed lorazepam (anti-anxiety medication) was administered at 10:40 AM and the nursing supervisor was notified. The nurse's note dated 7/26/25 at 1:44 PM identified the nursing supervisor was called to the unit at 10:45 AM by the charge nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #1, as Resident #3 was observed by LPN #1 in Resident #2's room, standing over Resident #2, who was in bed, and with two (2) hands Resident #3 was attempting to place a pillow over Resident #2. The note indicated that staff immediately removed the pillow from Resident #3's hands, escorted him/her out of the room and back into his/her own room, Resident #3 was immediately placed on one-to-one observation, and the psychiatric provider and the Director of Nursing (DON) were notified of the incident. The note identified an order was obtained to transfer Resident #3 to the Emergency Department (ED) for evaluation. Interview with LPN #1 on 8/19/25 at 10:49 AM identified Resident #3 had a history of wandering into other resident rooms and could become combative with redirection. LPN #1 explained that on 7/26/25, Resident #3 had been wandering into rooms and was starting to become agitated by taking other residents' walkers, so she walked with Resident #3 to the nursing station and sat him/her down in a chair. LPN #1 identified although she knew Resident #3 required an assist of one (1) for ambulation and Resident #3 would never stay seated, there were no other staff around to assist so she left Resident #3 in the chair and went to a different hallway to her medication cart to retrieve lorazepam for Resident #3. LPN #1 identified she removed the medication out of her cart and as she approached the nursing station, she noticed Resident #3 was no longer sitting in the chair, so she went to his/her room, where a nurse aide, Nurse Aide (NA) #1, was present giving care to the roommate and reported Resident #3 had not entered the room. LPN #1 identified as she walked by Resident #2's room (next door) she observed Resident #3 standing over Resident #2 who was lying in bed and Resident #3 was holding a pillow with both hands placing in over Resident #2's face. LPN #1 identified Resident #3 did not injure Resident #2 and Resident #2 was unphased by the incident. LPN #1 indicated she removed the pillow from Resident #3's hands immediately, redirected him/her into his/her own room without incident and NA #1 stayed with Resident #3 while she notified the nursing supervisor, Registered Nurse (RN) #1. Observations of Resident #3 on 8/19/25 at 2:50 PM, identified him/her standing in Resident #8's room with no staff around the area. Resident #3 sat in a recliner chair in the room alongside Resident #8 and was noted to be calm reporting that he/she was tired and then stood and walked into the hallway, where staff redirected Resident #3 without incident. Interview with the Rehab Manager, Occupational Therapist (OT) #1, on 8/20/25 at 12:44 PM identified Resident #3 does not utilize a walker for ambulation and prior to the 7/26/25 incident, Resident #3 was to be an assist of one (1) for transfers and ambulation for safety due to fluctuating cognition. OT #1 identified that they evaluated Resident # on 8/19/25 per request of the Director of Nursing (DON) and during the evaluation Resident #1 walked into a wall, so they determined that for safety Resident #3 would remain an assist of one (1) for ambulation and was placed on Physical Therapy (PT) services. Interview with the DON on 8/20/25 at 12:50 PM identified that on 7/26/25 Resident #3 was wandering and agitated prior to the incident and LPN #1 should have waited for assistance prior to leaving Resident #3 and going to a different hallway to her medication cart. The DON identified no one saw Resident #3 get up out of the chair and enter Resident #2's room because he/she was left unattended. Review of the Preventing Resident Abuse policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that the facility will assess, care plan and monitor residents with needs and behaviors that may lead to conflict and will assess residents with signs and symptoms of behavior problems and develop and implement care plans that can assist in resolving behavioral issues. Review of the Care Plan policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that the interdisciplinary care plan is used to achieve and maintain optimal status for each resident. The care plan will include physical, cognitive and psycho-social problems and will address the resident' needs on an individual basis, as well as identify which discipline is responsible for providing the care and services required.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility administered its resources effectively and to ensure effective a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the facility administered its resources effectively and to ensure effective administrative oversight of staff and resident care to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of residents. The findings include:The facility administration failed to: Ensure continued compliance with the plan of correction from a prior survey to ensure medications were administered per physician's orders. Ensure the residents were administered scheduled anxiety and narcotic pain medications. Ensure medications were refilled prior to exhausting the supply and ensure medications were delivered to the facility. Ensure the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) was notified of medication omissions. Ensure annual performance evaluations were completed when due. Ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate. Please cross reference F580, F730, F755, F760, F842 and F865. Based on the deficiencies during the survey, immediate jeopardy and substandard care was identified in the area of Pharmacy Services- Residents Are Free of Significant Medication Errors. The State Agency conducted a survey with an exit date of 6/30/25 with findings of significant medication errors. The Plan of Correction identified the facility would conduct staff education, audits and QAPI to ensure all nursing staff are administering medications according to provider orders and notifying the Registered Nurse (RN) supervisor and provider when medications were administered late, with a correction date of 7/31/25. Interview with the Administrator, Director of Nursing and RN #6 (the Corporate Regional Nurse) on 8/21/25 at 1:28 PM identified although the facility was cited for medication related errors on both their annual survey dated 3/27/25 and most recently, significant medications errors on 6/30/25 for failing to ensure medications were administered at the time the medications were due and failing to notify the nursing supervisor or the provider of the late medication administrations, they were not put back into compliance with their 6/30/25 survey findings as of 8/20/25, as it was identified medications continued to be administered late to residents. Interview failed to identify the facility was able to sustain compliance with the previously cited findings and failed to identify a process for administrative oversight of the facility processes for ensuring timely medication refills, ensuring medications are administered timely and ensuring that providers are notified of missed medication administrations. Review of the Administrator Job Description identified the responsibility of the Administrator was to plan, organize, develop, direct, control and supervise the overall operations of the facility in accordance with current federal, state, and local laws, regulations, standards and guidelines, and to ensure the highest degree of quality resident life is maintained.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of three (3) sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of three (3) sampled residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure complete and accurate documentation of medications in the Medication Administration Record (MAR). The findings include:1. Resident #1's diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the ovaries, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, delusional disorders, restlessness and agitation and depressive disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero (0) out of fifteen (15) indicating memory recall deficits. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/28/25 identified Resident #1 received hospice services for a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Interventions directed to administer medications per the physician's orders. a. A physician's order dated 1/11/25 directed to administer morphine sulfate oral solution 100 milligrams (mg) in 5 milliliters (mL), give 40 mg sublingually (under the tongue) every four (4) hours for pain, to be given around the clock. Review of the June 2025 MAR identified although the morphine sulfate oral solution was signed off as administered on 6/5/25 at 4:00 PM, it had previously been signed off as unavailable and on order for both the 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM doses on 6/5/25 and was signed off as unavailable from 8:00 PM on 6/5/25 through 12:00 PM on 6/9/25. The MAR identified the morphine sulfate was signed off as administered at 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM on 6/26/25, when it had previously been signed off as unavailable and on order since 8:00 PM on 6/25/25. Review of the morphine sulfate Controlled Drug Record disposition sheets failed to identify the morphine sulfate was signed out at 4:00 PM on 6/5/25, at 8:00 AM on 6/7/25, and at 12:00 AM and 4:00 AM on 6/26/25. Interview with the charge nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2, on 8/18/25 at 9:48 AM identified that if she did not sign the morphine sulfate out on the Controlled Drug Record disposition sheet on 6/5/25 at 4:00 PM she must have clicked off the administer button in error. The MAR identified the morphine sulfate was signed off as administered on 6/7/25 at 8:00 AM, when it had previously been signed off as unavailable and on order for more than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the 6/7/25 administration and more than twenty-four (24) hours after the 6/7/25 administration. b. A physician's order dated 2/24/25 directed to administer lorazepam intensol oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 4 mg by mouth every four (4) hours for agitation and/or pain. Review of the May 2025 MAR identified that although the lorazepam was signed off as administered on 5/23/25 at 4:00 PM, it had previously been signed off as unavailable and on order since 4:00 PM on 5/22/25 and was signed off as unavailable from 8:00 PM on 5/23/25 through 4:00 AM on 5/24/25. Review of the lorazepam Controlled Drug Record disposition sheets failed to identify the lorazepam was signed out at 4:00 PM on 5/23/25. Review of the June 2025 MAR identified although the lorazepam was signed off as not administered by LPN #8, reporting it was on order on 6/18/25 at 4:00 PM through 6/19/25 at 4:00 AM, four (4) doses, the lorazepam had been signed off as administered on 6/18/25 at 12:00 PM and on 6/19/25 at 8:00 AM. Review of the lorazepam Controlled Drug Record disposition sheets identified 150 milliliters (mL)/5 bottles, a twelve and one half (12.5) day supply had been delivered on 6/16/25. Review of the July 2025 MAR for identified although the lorazepam was signed off as administered on 7/6/25 at 4:00 PM, the lorazepam had previously been signed off as unavailable and on order since 4:00 PM on 7/5/25 and was signed off as unavailable until 7/8/25 at 8:00 AM. Review of the lorazepam Controlled Drug Record disposition sheets failed to identify that the lorazepam was signed out at 4:00 PM on 7/6/25. Interview with LPN #2 on 8/18/25 at 9:48 AM identified that if she did not sign the lorazepam out on the Controlled Drug Record disposition sheet on 7/5/25 at 4:00 PM she must have clicked off the administer button in error. 2. Resident #2's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral and mood disturbances and anxiety disorder. The Resident Care Plan dated 7/30/25 identified that Resident #2 utilized psychotropic medications related to diagnoses of adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, Alzheimer's dementia, delusional disorder and mood disorder. Interventions directed to administer psychotropic medications as ordered by the physician and monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. A physician's order dated 8/5/25 directed to administer lorazepam oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 0.5 mL by mouth three (3) times daily for anxiety/agitation/irritability. Review of the 2025 August MAR identified that the 8/5/25 at 12:00 PM administration of the lorazepam was blank and not signed off. Although requested a Controlled Drug Record disposition sheet for the lorazepam was not available. Interview with LPN #1 on 8/19/25 at 10:49 AM identified that she forgot to sign off the lorazepam as not administered on 8/5/25 at 12:00 PM, reporting that she should have checked the clinical record before leaving for her shift to ensure everything was signed off and she should have written a nurse's note to identify the medication was unavailable. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/19/25 at 3:42 PM identified all documentation in a resident's clinical record should be complete and accurate, reporting narcotic medication Controlled Drug Record disposition sheets should always match the resident's MAR for the same medication. The DON identified that she was unaware of the discrepancies between the Controlled Drug Record disposition sheets and the MARs for Residents #1 and #2 and staff should always be ensuring their work is complete and accurate before leaving the facility. Review of the Charting and Documentation policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that documentation in the medical record will be complete and accurate.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for three (3) of seven (7) sampled resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for three (3) of seven (7) sampled residents (Residents #1, #2 and #6) who were reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to notify the provider of medication omissions when the medications were not available. The findings include: 1. Resident #1's diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the ovaries, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, delusional disorders, restlessness and agitation and depressive disorder. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of zero (0) out of fifteen (15) indicating memory recall deficits. The Resident Care Plan dated 4/28/25 identified Resident #1 received hospice services for a diagnosis of ovarian cancer. Interventions directed to administer medications per the physician's orders. a. A physician's order dated 1/11/25 directed to administer morphine sulfate oral solution 100 milligrams (mg) in 5 milliliters (mL), give 40 mg sublingually (under the tongue) every four (4) hours for pain, to be given around the clock. Review of the June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) identified the morphine sulfate was not administered from 6/5/25 at 8:00 AM through 6/9/25 at 12:00 PM therefore twenty-six (26) doses were omitted. Upon further review, doses were not administered on 6/25/25 at 8:00 PM and 6/26/25 at 8:00 AM. The nurse's electronic MAR (eMAR) notes dated 6/5/25 through 6/9/25 identified the morphine sulfate was not administered because the medication was not available and was on order, the notes failed to identify a provider was notified. b. A physician's order dated 6/26/25 directed to administer morphine sulfate oral solution 100 mg in 5 mL, give 1.5 mL sublingually every four (4) hours as needed for pain and start morphine sulfate Extended Release (ER) 60 mg tablet, give two (2) tablets (120 mg) by mouth every twelve (12) hours for pain. Review of the June and July 2025 MAR identified the morphine sulfate ER 120 mg was not administered from 6/26/25 12:00 PM when it was ordered through 7/4/25 when it was discontinued, Resident #1 had gone without the scheduled pain control, a total of sixteen (16) doses and the as needed morphine sulfate oral solution was not administered in it's place. The nurse's eMAR notes dated 6/26/25 through 7/1/25 identified the morphine sulfate ER tablets were not administered because they were not available and on order, however the notes failed to reflect documentation the provider was notified. c. A physician's order dated 2/24/25 directed to administer lorazepam intensol oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 4 mg by mouth every four (4) hours for agitation and/or pain. Review of the MAR with associated eMAR notes from May through July 2025 identified the lorazepam was not administered ten (10) times in May 2025, thirteen (13) times in June 2025 and twenty-three (23) times in July 2025, as the medication was unavailable, on order or the resident was sleeping. The May 2025 MAR identified that from 4:00 PM on 5/22/25 through 4:00 AM on 5/24/25 there were ten (10) doses of lorazepam oral contrate not administered. Review of nurse's notes from 5/22/25 through 5/25/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. The June 2025 MAR identified that from 8:00 AM on 6/2/25 until 4:00 AM on 6/3/25 there were six (6) doses of lorazepam not administered, on 6/15/25 from 12:00 PM through 12:00 AM on 6/16/25 four (4) doses were not administered and on 6/18/25 through 6/19/25 there were four (4) doses not administered because the medication was on order. Review of the Controlled Drug Record dated 6/16/25 identified 150 mL (12.5 day supply) of lorazepam was delivered to and signed for by the facility on 6/16/25, so Resident #1 should have received the lorazepam on 6/18/25 and 6/19/25 as ordered. Review of nurse's notes from 6/1/25 through 6/20/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. The July 2025 MAR identified that from 12:00 PM on 7/5/25 until 4:00 PM on 7/7/25 there were thirteen (13) doses of lorazepam not administered, and twelve (12) doses not administered from 4:00 PM on 7/26/25 until 4:00 PM on 7/28/25. Review of the nurse's notes from 7/4/25 through 7/29/25 failed to reflect documentation that the charge nurses informed the nursing supervisors, and the supervisors informed the provider. The nurse's note dated 7/7/25 at 12:16 PM, after not receiving the lorazepam for two (2) days, thirteen (13) doses omitted identified Resident #1 was crying and had increased anxiety and the lorazepam was on order. On 7/7/25 at 11:43 PM Resident #1 was crying and calling out and on 7/8/25 at 1:31 PM Resident #1 was noted with increased anxiety (last doses withheld/missed 7/5/25 to 7/7/25). The Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note dated 7/7/25 identified she had been notified on 7/7/25 that Resident #1's morphine sulfate ER tablets and lorazepam intensol oral concentrate had not arrived from either the facility's pharmacy or the hospice pharmacy, Resident #1 was withdrawing from both the morphine and lorazepam and Resident #1 stated he/she felt like they were crawling out of their skin. The note indicated Resident #1 was staring up at the ceiling, grinding his/her teeth and was notably anxious. The note identified the APRN re-faxed the scripts to the pharmacy, directed to continue the morphine concentrate as needed, would start lorazepam 4 mg tablets every four (4) hours around the clock until the lorazepam concentrate was delivered, and fentanyl patch 50 micrograms (mcg) to be applied every seventy-two (72) hours until the morphine sulfate ER tablets were delivered to the facility. The nurse's note dated 7/30/25 at 2:46 PM, after not receiving the lorazepam from 7/26/25 until 7/28/25, two (2) days twelve (12) doses, identified Resident #1 was combative, refusing medications and care and on 8/1/25 at 9:46 AM Resident #1 was calling out, yelling, and was noted to be paranoid. Interview with APRN #1 on 8/15/25 at 1:56 PM identified that on 7/7/25 she was notified Resident #1 had not received the morphine and lorazepam for several days and although she wrote in the note dated 7/7/25 Resident #1 was withdrawing from both the morphine and lorazepam due to the supply being unavailable, she was going to order lorazepam 4 mg tablets every four (4) hours around the clock until the lorazepam concentrate was delivered. APRN #1 indicated she could not recall being notified from May 2025 through July 2025 that the facility would run out of Resident #1's supply of lorazepam. APRN #1 identified the licensed nurses should be notifying a provider for all missed doses of medication so that they can order an alternative until the supply is delivered. APRN #1 explained that Resident #1 missing the morphine and lorazepam doses could have contributed to the behaviors and discomfort Resident #1 was experiencing on 6/8/25, 6/9/25, 7/7/25 and 7/30/25 per the nurses' notes. Interviews with charge nurses Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) LPN #2, LPN #3, LPN #4, LPN #5, LPN #7, LPN #10, and LPN #11 identified they had been told by the facility prior, to August 2025, that they were not to call the pharmacy or the provider for medication issues, they were to notify the nursing supervisor on duty and the notifications to the pharmacy and providers were the supervisors responsibility. They stated they were not aware the provider had to be notified for each missed administration, with multiple staff stating another staff member communicated to them the pharmacy was notified and the supervisor was aware, so they took their word for it and did not notify the nursing supervisor that they still had not received a delivery and the medications continued to be omitted. Interviews with nursing supervisors, Registered Nurse (RN), RN #1 and RN #5 identified the charge nurses did not notify them consistently for all missed morphine and lorazepam doses between May and July 2025, stating if the charge nurses had informed them, they would have notified the pharmacy and provider. RN #1 and RN #5 reported when charge nurses did notify them, they did not always document in the clinical record when they had contacted the pharmacy or communicated with the provider. RN #5 stated she would not call the provider on the 11PM to 7AM shift for missed medication administration but would instead pass it on to the 7AM to 3PM shift to notify APRN #1. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/18/25 at 1:15 PM identified the facility should have never run out of the morphine or lorazepam and the charge nurses should have been notifying the nursing supervisor at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the medication being exhausted and requesting a refill, in case there were issues with the script. The DON identified that for all doses of medication not administered, the charge nurse was to call the pharmacy to inquire on when the medication would be delivered, then notify the nursing supervisor of the missed administration so the nursing supervisor can contact the provider, and the charge nurses should be following-up with the nursing supervisor and ask if any new orders were obtained. 2. Resident #6's diagnoses included chronic pain, osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease where the tissues in the joints break down over time), kyphosis (excessive forward curve of the spine which can cause back pain and stiff muscles) and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5-325 mg tablet, give one (1) tablet every evening for pain. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #6 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of fifteen (15) out of fifteen (15) indicating Resident #6 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. The Resident Care Plan dated 6/12/25 identified Resident #6 was at risk for pain related to osteoarthritis, osteoporosis (weak and brittle bones), chronic pain, headache syndrome and intestinal and rectal fistulas (abnormal connection between two parts inside the body that do not normally connect). Interventions directed to administer pain relief medications per the physician's order, to anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaints of pain and to monitor and record characteristics of the pain. Review of the July 2025 MAR identified the hydrocodone/ acetaminophen was not administered 7/21/25 through 7/24/25, four (4) days and to see progress notes. The MAR identified pain assessments were completed every shift and no pain was noted from 7/21/25 through 7/24/25. The eMAR progress notes dated 7/21/25 through 7/24/25 identified the hydrocodone/ acetaminophen was not administered because it was not available and on order. Review of the Controlled Drug Record sheets identified the hydrocodone/acetaminophen had not been signed out from 7/21/25 through 7/24/25. Interview with LPN #2 on 8/18/25 at 9:48 AM identified that although she administered the last tablet of hydrocodone/acetaminophen to Resident #6 on 7/20/25 she could not recall if she had refilled the medication, contacted the pharmacy or notified the nursing supervisor. LPN #2 indicated she also did not administer the hydrocodone/acetaminophen on 7/21/25 through 7/23/25 because the medication was out of stock and not available, she did not notify the supervisor each day or call the pharmacy to inquire about the medication, explaining she did not have time to call the pharmacy and was unaware the nursing supervisor and provider had to be notified for each missed administration. 3. Resident #2's diagnoses included dementia with behavioral and mood disturbances and anxiety disorder. The Resident Care Plan dated 7/30/25 identified that Resident #2 utilized psychotropic medications related to diagnoses of adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, Alzheimer's dementia, delusional disorder and mood disorder. Interventions directed to administer psychotropic medications as ordered by the physician and monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of three (3) out of fifteen (15) indicating poor memory recall. The psychiatric APRN note dated 8/5/25 identified she was asked to evaluate Resident #2 for mood and anxiety, Resident #2 could become angry with an explosive temper without provocation, was hostile with staff members of color and combative with care, was confused and could not recall anything for longer than a few minutes so when Resident #2 becomes agitated it was best to walk away and reapproach after a few minutes. The note identified they would trial lorazepam three (3) times daily to see if it improves the behaviors. A physician's order dated 8/5/25 directed to administer lorazepam oral concentrate 2 mg per mL, give 0.5 mL by mouth three (3) times daily for anxiety/agitation/irritability. Review of the August 2025 MAR identified the lorazepam oral concentrate was not administered to Resident #2 on 8/5/25 at 12:00 PM or 4:00 PM, 8/6/25 at 8:00 AM, 8/7/25 at 4:00 PM or 8/8/25 at 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM. Review of the nurse's notes and eMAR notes dated 8/5/25 through 8/8/25 identified the lorazepam was either unavailable, Resident #2 refused the medication or the resident was sleeping. The notes failed to reflect documentation the nursing supervisor and provider were notified that the lorazepam was omitted. Interview with LPN #1 on 8/19/25 identified although she did not administer the lorazepam to Resident #2 on 8/5/25, 8/6/25 and 8/8/25 she was unaware she had to notify the nursing supervisor for all missed medication administrations and refusals so the nursing supervisor can notify the provider for possible alternative orders. Interview with the DON on 8/19/25 at 3:42 PM identified that she was not aware Resident #2 and Resident #6 did not receive the scheduled narcotics as ordered in July and August 2025. The DON indicated that the pharmacy and provider should have been contacted for all unavailable medications, medication refusals and missed administrations and this should be documented in the clinical record. The DON identified the facility's emergency stock for lorazepam intensol oral concentrate, morphine sulfate oral solution and hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets had been depleted prior to 6/17/25 and the supply was not refilled. Review of the Administration of Medications policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that medications are to be given at the time ordered or within 60 minutes before or after the time designated. Medication errors and adverse drug reactions shall be immediately reported to the attending physician, charted in the clinical records, and described in Medication Error Report, and incident report if necessary, which is submitted to the State Health Department. Review of the Medication Omission/Withholding policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that all medications are to be administered as prescribed by the attending physician unless in the nurses professional judgement the medication(s) should be omitted/withheld. If the nurse makes the decision to omit/withhold medication(s) the nurse will notify the supervisor who will notify the MD and document in the clinical record. Nurses notes are to include the date, specific time, and pertinent details.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of five (5) nurse aides reviewed for performance evaluations, the facility failed to ensure annual performance eva...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of five (5) nurse aides reviewed for performance evaluations, the facility failed to ensure annual performance evaluations were completed. The findings include:1. NA #2 had a hire date of 7/13/23 and was due to have his/her annual performance review in 2024 and 2025, however documentation of the performance reviews was not available for review and could not be located. 2. NA #1 had a hire date of 4/30/24, had a probationary employee evaluation on 6/30/24 and was due to have his/her annual performance review on 6/30/25, however documentation of his/her performance review was not available for review in his/her personnel file and could not be located. Interview with the Administrator on 8/21/25 at 1:26 PM identified annual performance evaluations are to be done yearly but that he was unable to locate the performance evaluations for NA #1 and #2. Interview with Human Resources on 8/21/25 at 1:31 PM identified NA #1's annual performance evaluation for 2025 was due on 6/30/25 but that it had been overlooked and not completed. Human Resources identified she was unable to locate NA #2's 2024 annual performance evaluation, stating she believed it may not have been completed by the previous Director of Nursing and for 2025 she had the incorrect month documented for NA #2's hire date, so the evaluation was not completed. Human Resources identified performance evaluations are required for each nurse aide yearly on their month of hire. Review of the Certified Nurse Aide Evaluation policy directs CNAs to undergo an annual evaluation process to assess their performance, skills, and adherence to facility standards.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for facility QAPI review, the facility failed to maintain compliance with deficiencies previously cited. The findings inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility documentation, facility policies, and interviews for facility QAPI review, the facility failed to maintain compliance with deficiencies previously cited. The findings include:A complaint survey was completed on 6/30/25 with findings related to significant medication errors and failures in notifying the provider. The facility Plan of Correction (PoC) identified audits would be conducted for three (3) months or until substantial compliance with QAPI oversight. Resident record review identified three (3) residents (Residents #1, 2 and 6) who were not administered scheduled medications, and the provider was not notified of the missed administrations. Resident record review identified three (3) residents (Residents #4, #6 and #15) who were administered scheduled medications late and the provider was not notified of the late administrations. Review of the 7/16/25 QAPI meeting identified the meeting included a review of the 6/30/25 survey results, including medication pass timeliness and noted that audits were ongoing and showed ongoing compliance improvement. A facility re-visit on 8/20/25 for the 6/30/25 findings identified the facility failed to ensure medications were administered and was unable to be put back into compliance. The Director of Nursing identified on 8/20/25 at 3:25 PM while the facility had been completing chart audits for late medication administrations since 6/27/25, she was unaware that late medication administrations were still ongoing this information was not captured on their audits. Review of facility documentation identified the following late medication administrations during the PoC: 7/13/25, 7/17/25, 7/26/25, Resident #6Review of facility documentation identified the following late medication administrations after the PoC: 8/2/25, Resident #4 8/2/25, 8/18/25, Resident #6 8/4/25, 8/11/25, 8/13/25, Resident #15Review of facility documentation identified the following omitted medication administrations during the PoC: 6/30/25 through 7/9/25, 7/26/25, 7/27/25, 7/28/25, Resident #1 7/21/25 through 7/24/25, Resident #6Review of facility documentation identified the following omitted medication administrations after the PoC: 8/5/25 through 8/8/25, Resident #2 Interview and facility documentation review with the Administrator on 8/21/25 at 1:28 PM identified although they were conducting audits for medication administrations, they were random resident audits, and they did not identify that both late and omitted medication administrations were ongoing, and he was unable to explain why. The Administrator was unable to identify why their previous 6/30/25 PoC was ineffective and reported that they will be developing new processes and upcoming audits will be increased to daily to be done by multiple staff. Please cross reference F580 and F760. Review of the Quality Assurance Improvement Plan (QAPI) policy dated 4/2025 directed, in part, that the Administrator and DNS are responsible and accountable for developing, leading and closely monitoring the QAPI program and assures the facility has adequate resources for QAPI efforts.
Jun 2025 6 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for eleven (11) of thirteen (13) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for eleven (11) of thirteen (13) residents (Resident #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13 and 14) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure that diabetic, cardiac, anti-seizure, pain and behavioral medications were administered timely per physician's orders. These failures resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy. The findings include:1. Resident #1 's diagnoses included epilepsy, type 2 diabetes mellitus with foot ulcers, osteomyelitis (an infection in the bone) and atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat).The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had severely impaired cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5), required moderate assistance for eating, substantial assistance for bed mobility and was dependent on staff for transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/19/2024 identified Resident #1 had diabetes mellitus, pain related to left first and fifth toe amputations and had the potential for seizure activity related to the diagnosis of epilepsy. Interventions included administering medications as ordered by the provider and monitoring and documenting side effects and effectiveness.Review of the facility census identified Resident #1 resided on the East unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #1 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/01/2025 at 9:00 PM: Keppra (anti-seizure medication) 750 milligrams (mg) (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 10:23 PM by LPN #1. 03/02/2025 gabapentin (used to treat nerve pain) (2) 100 mg capsules (three times daily medication) related to polyneuropathy (damage to peripheral nerves causing symptoms such as numbness, burning pain and weakness) and the 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM doses were signed off as administered together at 11:23 AM by LPN #1. 03/02/2025 at 9:00 AM: Keppra 750 mg (twice daily medication), metformin (medication used to treat diabetes mellitus) 1000 mg (twice daily medication) and lisinopril (medication used to treat high blood pressure) 5 mg which were not signed off as administered until 11:23 AM by LPN #1. 03/10/2025: gabapentin (2) 100 mg capsules (three times daily medication) and the 8:00 AM and 12:00 PM doses were signed off as administered together at 11:00 AM by LPN #1. 03/10/2025 at 9:00 AM: Keppra 750 mg (twice daily medication), metformin 1000 mg (twice daily medication) and lisinopril 5 mg, which were not signed off as administered until 11:00 AM by LPN #1. 04/22/2025 at 4:00 PM: gabapentin (2) 100 mg capsules (three times daily medication), Keppra 750 mg (twice daily medication) and metformin 1000 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 10:48 PM by RN #2. 04/22/2025 at 4:30 PM: Insulin Lispro (short-acting insulin) 2 units subcutaneously (under the skin) was ordered before meals and was not signed off as administered until 6:17 PM by RN #2. 05/21/2025 at 5:00 PM: metformin 1000mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 10:34 PM by RN #2. 05/21/2025 at 8:00 PM: gabapentin (2) 100 mg capsules (three times daily medication), Keppra 750 mg (twice daily medication) and Tylenol (pain reliever) 975 mg (three times daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 10:35 PM by RN #2. Review of nurse's notes from 01/01/2025 through 05/22/2025 failed to identify that the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #1.2. Resident #2's diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, seizures, hypertension (high blood pressure) and neoplasm (cancer) to the bone, soft tissue and skin.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 had severely impaired cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5), required setup assistance for eating and substantial assistance for bed mobility and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/12/2024 identified Resident #2 was at risk for alteration in comfort related to intracranial (inside the skull) injuries. Interventions included administering pain medication per physician's orders.Review of the facility census identified Resident #2 resided on the East unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report for January 2025 identified Resident #2 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/17/2025 at 8:00 AM: gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication) for pain which was not signed off as administered until 9:10 AM by LPN #1. 01/19/2025 at 8:00 AM: gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 9:22 AM by LPN #1. 01/20/2025 at 8:00 AM: gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 9:51 AM by LPN #1. 1/23/2025 at 4:00 PM: gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 5:18 PM by LPN #1.Review of nurse's notes from 01/17/2025 through 01/24/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #2.3. Resident #4's diagnoses included heart failure, chronic pain and type II diabetes mellitus.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/23/2024 identified Resident #4 had diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, altered cardiac status and an implanted cardiac defibrillator (an implanted device under the skin that corrects life threatening heart rhythms). Interventions included administering medications as ordered by the physician and monitoring and documenting side effects and effectiveness.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15) and was independent with eating, bed mobility and transfers.Review of the facility census identified Resident #4 resided on the South unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #4 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/12/2025 at 4:00 PM: methocarbamol (used to relieve pain) (2) 500 mg tablets (twice daily medication) for muscle spasms, coreg (used to treat heart failure and high blood pressure) (2) 6.25 mg tablets (twice daily medication) and gabapentin 300 mg (three times daily medication) for chronic pain which were not signed off as administered until 5:55 PM by LPN #1. 01/12/2025 at 4:30 PM: Insulin Lispro 4 units prior to meals which was not signed off as administered until 5:55 PM by LPN #1. 03/10/2025 at 12:00 PM: gabapentin 300 mg (three times daily medication) and Insulin Lispro 4 units before meals which were not signed off as administered until 2:39 PM by LPN #1. 04/10/2025 at 4:00 PM: methocarbamol (2) 500 mg tablets (twice daily medication), coreg (2) 6.25 mg tablets (twice daily medication), gabapentin 300 mg (three times daily medication) and hydrocodone-acetaminophen (narcotic pain medication) 5-325 mg (twice daily medication) for chronic pain syndrome which were not signed off as administered until 5:55 PM by LPN #1. 4/10/25 at 4:30 PM: Insulin Lispro 4 units prior to meals which was not signed off as administered until 6:31 PM by LPN #1. 05/17/2025 at 11:30 AM: Insulin Aspart (rapid acting insulin) 4 units which was not signed off as administered until 3:46 PM by LPN #1 05/17/2025 at 1:00 PM: gabapentin 300 mg (three times daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 3:44 PM by LPN #1. 06/19/2025 at 4:00 PM: methocarbamol (2) 500 mg tablets (twice daily medication), coreg (2) 6.25 mg tablets (twice daily medication) and hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 8:18 PM by RN #2. Review of nurse's notes from 01/12/2025 through 06/20/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #4.Interview with Resident #4 on 6/24/25 at 3:05 PM identified that when LPN #1 worked, he/she did not receive ordered medications until hours after they were ordered, at times, his/her blood sugar was not obtained and, at times, he/she did not receive medications at all, which caused increased pain. Resident #4 identified he/she reported the medication issues to the ADNS about three (3) weeks prior but LPN #1 continued to work on the unit. Interview with the ADNS on 6/24/25 at 3:11 PM identified Resident #4 reported the medication issues to her when she accompanied Resident #4 on an outpatient appointment, but she did not report the allegation to the DNS, or to the State Agency and did not investigate the allegation. The ADNS identified she was new to her position and was unaware of the requirements for an allegation of neglect. 4. Resident #5's diagnoses included cardiomyopathy (disease of heart muscle), atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), congestive heart failure and pain. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/29/2024 identified Resident #5 was at risk for altered cardiac status, had a cardiac pacemaker/defibrillator (implanted devices under the skin that help to regulate the heart), was taking an anticoagulant (blood thinner) related to atrial fibrillation and had chronic pain. Interventions included administering medications as ordered.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #5 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15) and was independent with eating, bed mobility and transfers.Review of the facility census identified Resident #5 resided on the South unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #5 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/12/2025 at 4:00 PM: Eliquis (blood thinner) 5 mg (twice daily medication) for atrial fibrillation which was not signed off as administered until 6:11 PM by LPN #1. 04/17/2025 at 4:00 PM: Eliquis 5 mg (twice daily medication) which not signed off as administered until 10:44 PM by RN #2 04/17/2025 at 9:00 PM: Entresto (for congestive heart failure) 24-26 mg (twice daily medication), divalproex (anti-convulsant) 625 mg for mood disorder, risperidone (anti-psychotic) (2) 1 mg tablets and trazodone (for insomnia) 100 mg which were not signed off as administered until 11:01 PM by RN #2. 06/19/2025 at 4:00 PM: Eliquis 5 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 10:19 PM by RN #2 06/19/2025 at 9:00 PM: Entresto 24-26 mg (twice daily medication), divalproex 625 mg, risperidone (2) 1 mg tablets and trazodone 100 mg which were not signed off as administered until 11:22 PM by RN #2. Review of nurse's notes from 01/12/2025 through 06/20/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #5.Interview with Resident #5 on 06/25/2025 at 9:27 AM identified there was a day during the prior week that a Nurses Aid (NA) administered his/her medications at 10:30 PM. Resident #5 could not describe the NA, but insisted the staff member was an NA and not a nurse. 5. Resident #6's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage caused by diabetes), heart failure, tachycardia (rapid heart rate) and chronic pain syndrome.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #6 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15) and was independent with eating, bed mobility and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/31/2024 identified Resident #6 had diabetes mellitus, chronic pain syndrome and altered cardiovascular status. Interventions included administering medications as ordered and monitoring/documenting for side effects and effectiveness.Review of the facility census identified Resident #6 resided on both the East Unit and the South unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #6 was ordered to receive the following medications: 02/04/2025 at 3:00 PM: 1.5 tablets of trazodone 100 mg for agitation and poor sleep pattern which was not signed off as administered until 8:28 PM by LPN #1. 02/04/2025 at 4:00 PM: 2 capsules of gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication) for pain which was not signed off as administered until 8:27 PM by LPN #1. 02/04/2025 at 5:00 PM: bumex 1 mg (twice daily medication) for congestive heart failure which was not signed off as administered until 8:27 PM by LPN #1. 02/07/2025 at 3:00 PM: 1.5 tablets of trazodone 100 mg which was not signed off as administered until 8:42 PM by LPN #1. 02/07/2025 at 5:00 PM: bumex 1 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 7:37 PM by LPN #1. 04/10/2025 at 8:00 AM: 2 capsules of gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication), Insulin Aspart 4 units with meals, metoprolol succinate (used to lower blood pressure and heart rate) 100 mg (twice daily medication) and bumex 1 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 2:32 PM by LPN #1. 04/10/2025 at 12:00 PM: Insulin Aspart 4 units with meals which was not signed off as administered until 2:39 PM by LPN #1 (7 minutes after the 8:00 AM dose of Insulin Aspart was signed off as administered). 04/22/2025 at 4:00 PM: 2 capsules of gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication), metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication) and bumex 1 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 8:32 PM by RN #2. 06/19/2025 at 4:00 PM: metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication) and bumex 1 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 7:52 PM by RN #2. 06/19/2025 at 5:00 PM: 2 capsules of gabapentin 300 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 7:54 PM by RN #2. Review of nurse's notes from 02/4/2025 through 06/20/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #6.Interview with Resident #6 on 06/25/2025 at 9:11 AM identified that when LPN #1 worked, he/she consistently received medications late in the shift and receiving medications late caused him/her increased pain to the lower back and feet. Resident #6 identified his/her family member often visited in the evening and would leave the room to find LPN #1 to administer the medications.6. Resident #7 's diagnoses included muscle spasms of the back, neuropathy, chronic pain and congestive heart failure.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15), required setup assistance for eating and was dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 01/11/2025 identified Resident #7 had chronic pain and altered cardiac function. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, anticipating the need for pain relief and responding immediately to complaints of pain.Review of the facility census identified Resident #7 resided on the South unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #7 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/01/2025 at 8:00 AM: hydralazine 10 mg (three times daily medication) for hypertension (high blood pressure), 2 tablets gabapentin 600 mg (three times daily medication) for spinal stenosis (when the space inside the backbone is too small which can put pressure on the spinal cord and nerves) and baclofen 10 mg (three times daily medication) for muscle spasms which were not signed off as administered until 9:27 AM by LPN #1. 03/10/2025 at 12:00 PM: baclofen 10 mg (three times daily medication) and 2 tablets gabapentin 600 mg (three times daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 2:28 PM by LPN #1 03/10/2025 at 1:00 PM: 2 tablets of hydralazine 10 mg (three times daily medication) and tramadol (used to treat pain) 50 mg (three times daily medication) for chronic pain syndrome which were not signed off as administered until 2:28 PM by LPN #1. 04/17/2025 at 9:00 PM: 2 tablets of gabapentin 600 mg (three times daily medication), doxazosin (used to treat high blood pressure) 4 mg, baclofen 10 mg (three times daily medication), tramadol 50 mg (three times daily medication) and 2 tablets of hydralazine (three times daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 11:07 PM by RN #2. 05/17/2025 at 1:00 PM: baclofen 10 mg (three times daily medication), 2 tablets of gabapentin (three times daily medication), tramadol 50 mg (three times daily medication) and 2 tablets of hydralazine 10 mg (three times daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 3:56 PM by LPN #1. 06/19/2025 at 9:00 PM: gabapentin 600 mg (three times daily medication), doxazosin 4 mg, baclofen 10 mg (three times daily medication), tramadol 50 mg (three times daily medication) and 2 tablets of hydralazine which were not signed off as administered until 11:11 PM by RN #2.Interview with Resident #7 on 06/25/2025 at 9:28 AM identified his/her medications were consistently administered late when LPN #1 and RN #2 worked, causing him/her increased pain and anxiety. Resident #7 indicated when he/she complained to the staff, he/she would eventually receive the medications but indicated he/she was worried about residents who could not self-advocate. Resident #7 identified that on 06/19/2025 at 10:00 PM he/she rang the call bell because he/she had not seen RN #2 since the start of the shift and both him/her and the roommate (Resident #5) had not yet received medications. Resident #7 identified a NA then administered a cup of pills to Resident #5 but he/she (Resident #7) received no medication that night. Resident #7 identified he/she wrote a complaint and gave it to staff to deliver to administration regarding the incident, but no one followed up with him/her regarding the complaint.Review of the letter dated 06/21/2025 from Resident #7 on 06/26/2025 identified, in part, that on the night of 06/19/2025, his/her nurse (RN #2) appeared to be absent and a NA brought Resident #5 (roommate) his/her medications at the end of the shift but he/she (Resident #7) did not receive any medications that night.Interview with the Administrator on 06/25/2025 at 10:48 AM identified there was a letter under his office door when he arrived to the facility on [DATE]. He identified he was unaware of who delivered the letter and that the facility was looking into it and indicated the DNS was given the letter for follow up.Interview with the DNS on 06/25/2025 at 10:53 AM identified she placed a call to RN #2 on 06/25/2025. She identified that RN #2 worked as an NA at the facility prior to becoming an RN and some residents still thought RN #2 was an NA. The DNS further identified she had not interviewed any other staff who worked during the evening/night shift on 06/19/2025. The DNS identified she reviewed the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Residents #5 and #7 which identified medications were signed off as administered late on 06/19/2025 and that the provider should have been notified but was not. The DNS identified that the allegation from Resident #7 should have been reported to the Administrator or herself immediately rather than staff sliding a letter under the Administrator's office door and the allegation should have been reported to the State Agency, fully investigated and followed up on timely. 7. Resident #8's diagnoses included hypertension (high blood pressure), heart failure, atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), pain of the joints and anxiety disorder.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #8 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15).The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/18/2024 identified Resident #8 had altered cardiovascular status, was on anticoagulant therapy related to atrial fibrillation and had the potential for pain related to a wedge compression fracture, scoliosis, osteoporosis and lower extremity edema. Interventions included administering medications per physician's orders and monitoring for side effects and effectiveness every shift.Review of the facility census identified Resident #8 resided on the South unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #8 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/24/2025 at 8:00 PM: metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication) for hypertension which was not signed off as administered until 1/25/25 at 3:19 AM by RN #2 01/24/2025 at 9:00 PM: Eliquis 2.5 mg (twice daily medication) for atrial fibrillation and acetaminophen (2) 500 mg tablets for pain to the joints which were not signed off as administered until 1/25/25 at 3:20 AM by RN #2 . 02/17/2025 at 8:00 AM: metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication) and Eliquis 2.5 mg (twice daily medication), which were not signed off as administered until 4:56 PM by LPN #1. 04/10/2025 at 8:00 AM: lisinopril (used to treat high blood pressure) 5 mg, Eliquis 2.5 mg (twice daily medication), metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication) and trazodone 12.5 mg for anxiety which were not signed off as administered until 2:18 PM by LPN #1. 04/22/2025 at 8:00 PM: metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication), acetaminophen (2) 500 mg tablets, and Eliquis 2.5 mg (twice daily medication), which were not signed off as administered until 9:57 PM by RN #2. 05/09/2025 at 8:00 AM: lisinopril 5 mg, Eliquis 2.5 mg (twice daily medication), metoprolol succinate 100 mg (twice daily medication) and trazodone 12.5 mg which were not signed off as administered until 10:27 AM by LPN #1. Review of nurse's notes from 01/24/2025 through 05/10/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #8.Interview with Resident #8 on 06/26/2025 at 2:06 PM identified that one night (could not recall the date) he/she did not receive evening medications until after 10:00 PM, he/she was worried and indicated that when he/she did not receive pain medications timely he/she could not sleep due to pain in the feet/toes. Resident #8 presented a notebook where he/she had written, LPN #1 comes too late at 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM referring to when he/she received medications when LPN #1 worked on the unit. 8. Resident #9's diagnoses included chronic pain, contracture of muscle of the right and left lower leg and polyneuropathy (damage or disease affecting the peripheral nerves outside the brain and spinal cord).The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #9 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15), required substantial assistance for bed mobility and transfers and was independent with eating.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/12/2024 identified Resident #9 was at risk for pain related to arthritis, polyneuropathy and muscle contractures of the right lower extremity and the left lower extremity. Interventions included administering medication per physician's orders, anticipating the need for pain relief and responding immediately to any complaint of pain.Review of the facility census identified Resident #9 resided on the South unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report from January 2025 through June 2025 identified Resident #9 was ordered to receive the following medications: 01/11/2025 at 8:00 AM: baclofen 7.5 mg (twice daily medication) for cramps and spasms which was not signed off as administered until 9:43 AM by LPN #1. 01/12/2025 at 4:00 PM: baclofen 7.5 mg (twice daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 7:45 PM by LPN #1 01/12/2025 at 5:00 PM: acetaminophen (2) 325 mg tablets (twice daily medication) for pain which was not signed off as administered until 7:45 PM by LPN #1. 04/10/2025 at 4:00 PM: baclofen 7.5 mg (twice daily medication) and acetaminophen (2) 325 mg tablets (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 6:37 PM by LPN #1. 04/17/2025 at 4:00 PM: baclofen 7.5 mg (twice daily medication) and acetaminophen (2) 325 mg tablets (twice daily medication) which were not not signed off as administered until 4/18/25 at 12:37 AM by RN #2. 05/17/2025 at 8:00 AM: baclofen 7.5 mg (twice daily medication) and acetaminophen (2) 325 mg tablets (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 10:18 AM by LPN #1. 06/19/2025 at 4:00 PM: baclofen 7.5 mg (twice daily medication) and acetaminophen (2) 325 mg tablets (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 7:16 PM by RN #2.Review of nurse's notes from 01/11/2025 through 06/20/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #12.Although attempted, an interview with Resident #9 was not obtained.9. Resident #12's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease and chronic pain.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #12 had severely impaired cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0), required setup assistance for eating and transfers and supervision assistance for ambulation.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 05/22/2025 identified Resident #12 had chronic pain. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, anticipating the need for pain relief and responding immediately to any complaints of pain.Review of the facility census identified Resident #12 resided on the [NAME] unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report for June 2025 identified Resident #12 was ordered to receive the following medications: 06/10/2025 at 5:00 PM: gabapentin 100 mg (three times daily medication) for chronic pain which was not signed off as administered until 6:33 PM by RN #2. 06/13/2025 at 5:00 PM: gabapentin 100 mg (three times daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 8:43 PM by RN #2. 06/18/2025 at 5:00 PM: gabapentin 100 mg (three times daily medication) which was not signed off as administered until 7:31 PM by RN #2.Review of nurse's notes from 06/10/2025 through 06/19/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #12.10. Resident #13's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), major depressive disorder and central pain syndrome (consistent moderate to severe neuropathic pain).The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #13 had severely impaired cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1) and required setup assistance for eating and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 05/15/2025 identified Resident #13 was at risk for behaviors due to delirium (serious change in mental abilities that results in confusion and a lack of awareness of one's surroundings) and used antipsychotic medication for the treatment of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. Interventions included administering medications per physician's orders, observing for side effects and effectiveness each shift and reporting any negative signs and symptoms to the provider.Review of the facility census identified Resident #13 resided on the [NAME] unit.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report for June 2025 identified Resident #13 was ordered to receive the following medications: 06/13/2025 at 5:00 PM: bupropion 150 mg daily for depression and 2 capsules of Depakote 125 mg daily for dementia with behavioral disturbances which were not signed off as administered until 7:18 PM by RN #2. 06/18/2025 at 5:00 PM: bupropion 150 mg daily and 2 capsules of Depakote 125 mg daily which were not signed off as administered until 7:42 PM by RN #2.Review of nurse's notes from 06/13/2025 through 06/19/2025 failed to identify that the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #13.11. Resident #14's diagnoses included dementia with agitation and type 2 diabetes mellitus.The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had severely impaired cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5), required setup assistance for eating, supervision assistance for bed mobility and was independent with transfers and ambulation.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 05/15/2025 identified Resident #14 had diabetes mellitus and utilized psychotropic medications related to adjustment disorder with anxiety, depressed mood and dementia. Interventions included administering medications as ordered by the physician and monitoring for side effects and effectiveness every shift.Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report for June 2025 identified Resident #14 was ordered to receive the following medications: 06/03/2025 at 4:00 PM: metformin 500 mg (twice daily medication) for diabetic management, Depakote 125 mg (twice daily medication) for behaviors and mood management and trazodone 25 mg (twice daily medication) for agitation which were not signed off as administered until 5:49 PM by LPN #1. 06/13/2025 at 4:00 PM: metformin 500 mg (twice daily medications), Depakote 125 mg (twice daily medication) and trazodone 25 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 6:17 PM by RN #2. 06/18/2025 at 4:00 PM: metformin 500 mg (twice daily medication), Depakote 125 mg (twice daily medication) and trazodone 25 mg (twice daily medication) which were not signed off as administered until 8:03 PM by RN #2.Review of nurse's notes from 06/03/2025 through 06/19/2025 failed to identify the nursing supervisor or the provider were notified of the late medication administrations for Resident #14. Interview with LPN #1 on 06/24/2025 at 12:10 PM identified there were times that she administered medications late and further identified she documented as she administered medications. She identified a heavy medication pass on day and evening shifts on both the East and South units but indicated she was not aware she needed to notify the nursing supervisor and call the provider for medications that were more than one (1) hour late. Interview with RN #1 (nursing supervisor) on 06/24/2025 at 12:23 PM identified licensed nurses and NA's complained about LPN #1 not beginning the medication pass until two (2) hours prior to the end of the shift. RN #1 identified that the East and South unit medication passes were heavy and LPN #1 did not appear to administer medications to all her assigned residents as she was frequently off the floor and often difficult to find. She identified she spoke with both the previous DNS and current DNS several times regarding LPN #1, but to her knowledge, the concerns regarding LPN #1 were left unaddressed.Interview with LPN #3 on 06/24/2025 at 1:36 PM identified she worked first shift four (4) to five (5) days per week, and residents complained about not receiving medications or waiting until after 10:00 PM to receive medications, during the evening prior, when LPN #1 and RN #2 worked. LPN #3 identified she worked alongside LPN #1 during the day shift on weekends, LPN #1 worked on the East unit and she (LPN #3) worked on the South unit and residents on the East unit consistently rang their call bells asking where their medications were. She indicated LPN #1 did not communicate times she would leave the floor and that she (LPN #3) had a difficult time locating her. LPN #3 identified she reported the concerns and resident complaints to the DNS, but LPN #1 continued to work and be absent from the units while on shift.Interview with the DNS on 06/24/2025 at 2:01 PM identified RN #1, LPN #3 and LPN
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of eleven (11) residents (Resident #1) review...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of eleven (11) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure the provider was notified of a change in condition when it was identified that the resident was having difficulty swallowing. The findings include:Resident #1 's diagnoses included dementia without behavioral disturbances, epilepsy (a brain disease where clusters of nerve cells signal abnormally causing a seizure), type 2 diabetes mellitus and adult failure to thrive.The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had severely impaired cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0), was dependent on staff for eating, bed mobility and transfers and identified Resident #1 exhibited no signs and symptoms of a swallowing disorder.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 6/7/25 identified Resident #1 had impaired cognitive functioning/dementia. Interventions included administering medications as ordered by the provider and monitoring and documenting side effects and effectiveness, asking yes and no questions to determine the resident's needs, and cueing, reorienting and supervising the resident as needed.Review of the June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #1 identified that on 6/7/25, the following medications were not administered by LPN #1 and the option 'see progress note' was selected within the MAR: Aspirin (pain reducer/anti-platelet) 81 milligrams (mg) by mouth daily for Peripheral Vascular Disease (circulation disorder causing reduced circulation of blood to body parts) at 8:00 AM. Levetiracetam (anticonvulsant) 750 mg twice daily for epilepsy at 8:00 AM. Cardizem Extended Release 120 mg capsule daily for hypertensive heart disease (high blood pressure) with heart failure at 8:00 AM. Simvastatin 40 mg daily for hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol) at 8:00 AM. Gabapentin (2) 100 mg capsules three times daily for neuropathic pain (chronic pain resulting from nerve damage) at 8:00 AM. Acetaminophen 975 mg three times daily for pain at 8:00 AM, 2:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Lactobacillus (probiotic) capsule twice daily at 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM. Liquid protein 30 milliliters (mL) twice daily at 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. Docusate Sodium (stool softener) 100mg twice daily for constipation at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Restasis ophthalmic solution 0.05 percent (%) 1 dop to each eye twice daily for dry eyes at 8:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Effer-K (used to treat/prevent low potassium levels) 20 milliequivalent (mEq) daily for low potassium at 9:00 AM Lisinopril (used to treat high blood pressure) 5 mg daily at 9:00 AM. Ciprofloxacin (antibiotic) 500 mg twice daily for sepsis at 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM.Review of the June 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #1 identified that on 6/7/25, the following medications were administered by LPN #1: Levetiracetam (anticonvulsant) 750 mg twice daily for epilepsy at 8:00 PM. Gabapentin (2) 100 mg capsules three times daily for neuropathic pain at 1:00 PM and 8:00 PM. Oxycodone (narcotic pain medication) 5 mg every six (6) hours as needed for pain was administered at 7:31 AM and 1:44 PM and was noted to be effective.A nurse's MAR progress note dated 6/7/25 at 9:13 AM by LPN #1 identified medications were not administered because Resident #1 was 'unable to swallow'. A nurse's MAR progress note dated 6/7/25 at 5:41 PM by LPN #1 identified medications were not administered because Resident #1 was 'unable to swallow'. A nurse's MAR progress note dated 6/7/25 at 8:15 PM by LPN #1 identified medications were not administered because Resident #1 refused.Review of nurse's notes dated 6/7/25 failed to identify a further detailed note or that the nursing supervisor or the provider had been notified that Resident #1 was unable to swallow his/her medication. Interview with LPN #1 on 6/24/25 at 12:10 PM identified that on 6/7/25, she worked both the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shifts. She identified Resident #1 had difficulty swallowing so she crushed the most important medications and omitted the rest. She identified she administered oxycodone twice on first shift and could not recall administering the 1:00 PM and 8:00 PM doses of gabapentin or the 8:00 PM dose of levetiracetam even though they were documented as administered. LPN #1 identified she reported Resident #1 was having difficulty swallowing to RN #1 (nursing supervisor) on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, but was never notified of new orders. Review of physician's orders identified an order dated 6/1/24 directing that staff may crush medications and mix in food/beverage when appropriate unless contraindicated.Interview with RN #1 (7 AM to 7 PM nursing supervisor) on 6/24/25 at 12:23 PM identified LPN #1 notified her that Resident #1 was unable to swallow but did not report an urgency or that she administered oxycodone. RN #1 indicated that LPN #1 should not have administered any medications if Resident #1 was unable to swallow. RN #1 identified she knew Resident #1 had dysphagia so did not assess Resident #1 and did not notify the provider, but identified that she should have. Interview with APRN #1 on 6/24/25 at 2:36 PM identified she was not notified that Resident #1 was unable to swallow on 6/7/25 and if she had been notified, she would have directed the medications be held, downgraded the diet, and directed a speech evaluation as soon as possible. APRN #1 identified LPN #1 should not have administered any medications to Resident #1 if she thought Resident #1 was unable to swallow to prevent choking or aspiration. Review of the Change of Condition in a resident status policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that the nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician or On-Call Physician when there has been a significant change in the resident's physical/emotional/ mental condition or a need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly. A significant change of condition is a decline or improvement in the resident's status that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions and requires interdisciplinary review and/or revision to the care plan.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of four (4) residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of four (4) residents (Resident #4 and #7) reviewed for neglect, the facility failed to ensure allegations of neglect were reported to the State Agency timely. The findings include:1. Resident #4's diagnoses included heart failure, chronic pain and type II diabetes mellitus.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/23/2024 identified Resident #4 had diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, altered cardiac status and an implanted cardiac defibrillator (an implanted device under the skin that corrects life threatening heart rhythms). Interventions included administering medications as ordered by the physician and monitoring and documenting side effects and effectiveness.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15) and was independent with eating, bed mobility and transfers.Interview with Resident #4 on 6/24/25 at 3:05 PM identified that when LPN #1 worked, he/she did not receive ordered medications until hours after they were ordered, at times, his/her blood sugar was not obtained and, at times, he/she did not receive medications at all, which caused increased pain. Resident #4 identified he/she reported the medication issues to the ADNS about three (3) weeks prior but LPN #1 continued to work on the unit. Review of the State Agency Reportable Events website on 6/24/25 failed to identify that the State Agency was notified of Resident #4's allegation of neglect.Interview with the ADNS on 6/24/25 at 3:11 PM identified Resident #4 reported the medication issues to her when she accompanied Resident #4 on an outpatient appointment, but she did not report the allegation to the DNS, or to the State Agency and did not investigate the allegation. The ADNS identified she was new to her position and was unaware of the requirements for an allegation of neglect. 2. Resident #7 's diagnoses included muscle spasms of the back, neuropathy, chronic pain and congestive heart failure.The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15), required setup assistance for eating and was dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers.The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 01/11/2025 identified Resident #7 had chronic pain and altered cardiac function. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, anticipating the need for pain relief and responding immediately to complaints of pain.Interview with Resident #7 on 06/25/2025 at 9:28 AM identified his/her medications were consistently administered late when LPN #1 and RN #2 worked, causing him/her increased pain and anxiety. Resident #7 indicated when he/she complained to the staff, he/she would eventually receive the medications but indicated he/she was worried about residents who could not self-advocate. Resident #7 identified that on 06/19/2025 at 10:00 PM he/she rang the call bell because he/she had not seen RN #2 since the start of the shift and both him/her and the roommate (Resident #5) had not yet received medications. Resident #7 identified a NA then administered a cup of pills to Resident #5 but he/she (Resident #7) received no medication that night. Resident #7 identified he/she wrote a complaint and gave it to staff to deliver to administration regarding the incident, but no one followed up with him/her regarding the complaint.Review of the letter dated 06/21/2025 from Resident #7 on 06/26/2025 identified, in part, that on the night of 06/19/2025, his/her nurse (RN #2) appeared to be absent and a NA brought Resident #5 (roommate) his/her medications at the end of the shift but he/she (Resident #7) did not receive any medications that night. Additionally, the letter identified that on 6/20/25, his/her second shift NA (NA #9) had a cold bedside manner, walked away from a water spill on Resident #7's floor and stated it was not her problem, and failed to provide personal care for Resident #7 that evening.Review of the State Agency Reportable Events website on 6/25/25 failed to identify that the State Agency was notified of Resident #7's allegations of neglect.Interview with the Administrator on 06/25/2025 at 10:48 AM identified there was a letter under his office door when he arrived to the facility on [DATE]. He identified he was unaware of who delivered the letter and that the facility was looking into it and indicated the DNS was given the letter for follow up.Interview with the DNS on 06/25/2025 at 10:53 AM identified she placed a call to RN #2 on 06/25/2025 in regards to Resident #7's complaint. She identified that RN #2 worked as an NA at the facility prior to becoming an RN and some residents still thought RN #2 was an NA. The DNS further identified she had not interviewed any other staff who worked during the evening/night shift on 06/19/2025 or on 6/20/25. The DNS identified she reviewed the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Residents #5 and #7 which identified medications were signed off as administered late on 06/19/2025 and that the provider should have been notified but was not. The DNS identified that the allegation from Resident #7 should have been reported to the Administrator or herself immediately rather than staff sliding a letter under the Administrator's office door and the allegation should have been reported to the State Agency, fully investigated and followed up on timely. Further, the DNS identified that the ADNS had not notified her regarding Resident #4's allegations regarding LPN #1 and medication administration and if she had been notified, LPN #1 would have been removed from the schedule pending investigation, and the allegation would have been investigated. The DNS identified that the ADNS should know what steps to follow for an allegation of neglect.Review of the Reportable Events policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that a Class B Reportable Event (RE) is an event that includes a complaint of patient abuse or an event that involves an abusive act to a patient by any person. The administrator, DNS, or designee shall report a class A, B or C to the state Department of Public Health via FLIS within the requested timeframes. An investigation will be conducted by the facility after the receipt of an allegation of abuse. The investigation and the findings shall be documented. Notation that a situation occurred will be made in the resident's medical record including details of the incident. The resident will be observed closely until their condition remains stable, with follow-up notations in the medical record on subsequent days after the RE was filed. Reports must be completed before end of shift on which incident occurred or was discovered and as soon as possible after the situation has been stabilized. These reports are then submitted to the supervisor, who will submit it to the DNS, or designee, preferably by the end of the shift.Review of the Abuse Reporting policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that neglect is defined as the failure of the facility, its employees or its service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that is necessary to avoid physicial harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. Any alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, must be reported to the administrator or his/her designee. When there is an allegation of a suspected case of mistreatment, neglect, or abuse is reported, the facility administrator, or his/her designee, will notify the Department of Public Health, Ombudsman, Resident Representative, Law Enforcement Officials and the Primary Physician. Report allegations involving abuse not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made. A completed copy of the Reportable Event Form and written statements from witnesses, if any, must be provided to the administrator within 24-hours of the occurrence of such incident and an immediate investigation will be made and the findings of such investigation will be provided to the administrator within five (5) working days of the occurrence of such incident. Any person who has knowledge or reason to believe that a resident has been a victim of mistreatment, abuse, neglect or any other criminal offense shall report the mistreatment or offense.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of four (4) residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for two (2) of four (4) residents (Resident #4 and #7) reviewed for neglect, the facility failed to ensure an investigation was completed timely and thoroughly following an allegation of neglect. The findings include: 1. Resident #4's diagnoses included heart failure, chronic pain and type II diabetes mellitus. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/23/2024 identified Resident #4 had diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, altered cardiac status and an implanted cardiac defibrillator (an implanted device under the skin that corrects life threatening heart rhythms). Interventions included administering medications as ordered by the physician and monitoring and documenting side effects and effectiveness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15) and was independent with eating, bed mobility and transfers. Interview with Resident #4 on 6/24/25 at 3:05 PM identified that when LPN #1 worked, he/she did not receive ordered medications until hours after they were ordered, at times, his/her blood sugar was not obtained and, at times, he/she did not receive medications at all, which caused increased pain. Resident #4 identified he/she reported the medication issues to the ADNS about three (3) weeks prior but LPN #1 continued to work on the unit. Interview with the ADNS on 6/24/25 at 3:11 PM identified Resident #4 reported the medication issues to her when she accompanied Resident #4 on an outpatient appointment, but she did not report the allegation to the DNS, or to the State Agency and did not investigate the allegation. The ADNS identified she was new to her position and was unaware of the requirements for an allegation of neglect. 2. Resident #7 's diagnoses included muscle spasms of the back, neuropathy, chronic pain and congestive heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 had intact cognition (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15), required setup assistance for eating and was dependent on staff for bed mobility and transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 01/11/2025 identified Resident #7 had chronic pain and altered cardiac function. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, anticipating the need for pain relief and responding immediately to complaints of pain. Interview with Resident #7 on 06/25/2025 at 9:28 AM identified his/her medications were consistently administered late when LPN #1 and RN #2 worked, causing him/her increased pain and anxiety. Resident #7 indicated when he/she complained to the staff, he/she would eventually receive the medications but indicated he/she was worried about residents who could not self-advocate. Resident #7 identified that on 06/19/2025 at 10:00 PM he/she rang the call bell because he/she had not seen RN #2 since the start of the shift and both him/her and the roommate (Resident #5) had not yet received medications. Resident #7 identified a NA then administered a cup of pills to Resident #5 but he/she (Resident #7) received no medication that night. Resident #7 identified he/she wrote a complaint and gave it to staff to deliver to administration regarding the incident, but no one followed up with him/her regarding the complaint. Review of the letter dated 06/21/2025 from Resident #7 on 06/26/2025 identified, in part, that on the night of 06/19/2025, his/her nurse (RN #2) appeared to be absent and a NA brought Resident #5 (roommate) his/her medications at the end of the shift but he/she (Resident #7) did not receive any medications that night. Additionally, the letter identified that on 6/20/25, his/her second shift NA (NA #9) had a cold bedside manner, walked away from a water spill on Resident #7's floor and stated it was not her problem, and failed to provide personal care for Resident #7 that evening. Interview with the Administrator on 06/25/2025 at 10:48 AM identified there was a letter under his office door when he arrived to the facility on [DATE]. He identified he was unaware of who delivered the letter and that the facility was looking into it and indicated the DNS was given the letter for follow up. Interview with the DNS on 06/25/2025 at 10:53 AM identified she placed a call to RN #2 on 06/25/2025 in regards to Resident #7's complaint. She identified that RN #2 worked as an NA at the facility prior to becoming an RN and some residents still thought RN #2 was an NA. The DNS further identified she had not interviewed any other staff who worked during the evening/night shift on 06/19/2025 or on 6/20/25. The DNS identified she reviewed the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Residents #5 and #7 which identified medications were signed off as administered late on 06/19/2025 and that the provider should have been notified but was not. The DNS identified that the allegation from Resident #7 should have been reported to the Administrator or herself immediately rather than staff sliding a letter under the Administrator's office door and the allegation should have been reported to the State Agency, fully investigated and followed up on timely. Further, the DNS identified that the ADNS had not notified her regarding Resident #4's allegations regarding LPN #1 and medication administration and if she had been notified, LPN #1 would have been removed from the schedule pending investigation, and the allegation would have been investigated. The DNS identified that the ADNS should know what steps to follow for an allegation of neglect. Review of the Reportable Events policy dated 7/2023 directed, in part, that a Class B Reportable Event (RE) is an event that includes a complaint of patient abuse or an event that involves an abusive act to a patient by any person. The administrator, DNS, or designee shall report a class A, B or C to the state Department of Public Health via FLIS within the requested timeframes. An investigation will be conducted by the facility after the receipt of an allegation of abuse. The investigation and the findings shall be documented. Notation that a situation occurred will be made in the resident's medical record including details of the incident. The resident will be observed closely until their condition remains stable, with follow-up notations in the medical record on subsequent days after the RE was filed. Reports must be completed before end of shift on which incident occurred or was discovered and as soon as possible after the situation has been stabilized. These reports are then submitted to the supervisor, who will submit it to the DNS, or designee, preferably by the end of the shift. Review of the Abuse Reporting policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that neglect is defined as the failure of the facility, its employees or its service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that is necessary to avoid physicial harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. Any alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, must be reported to the administrator or his/her designee. When there is an allegation of a suspected case of mistreatment, neglect, or abuse is reported, the facility administrator, or his/her designee, will notify the Department of Public Health, Ombudsman, Resident Representative, Law Enforcement Officials and the Primary Physician. Report allegations involving abuse not later than two (2) hours after the allegation is made. A completed copy of the Reportable Event Form and written statements from witnesses, if any, must be provided to the administrator within 24-hours of the occurrence of such incident and an immediate investigation will be made and the findings of such investigation will be provided to the administrator within five (5) working days of the occurrence of such incident. Any person who has knowledge or reason to believe that a resident has been a victim of mistreatment, abuse, neglect or any other criminal offense shall report the mistreatment or offense.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of four (4) sampled residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of four (4) sampled residents (Resident #3) who had an order for a leave of absence with a responsible party only and had left the facility without informing the staff, the facility failed to ensure the front entrance door was secured or monitored to prevent the resident from leaving the facility unattended. The findings include: Resident #3's diagnoses included dementia, depression, and convulsions. A physician's orders dated 4/1/25 directed the resident may go on a leave of absence with a responsible party only and supervision for transfers and ambulation in the room and hallways. The Elopement Risk Assessment conducted on 5/15/25 identified Resident #3 was not at risk of elopement. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 had poor short- and long-term memory recall, had not exhibited behaviors of wandering or elopement and ambulated without a device. The Resident Care Plan dated 5/16/25 identified Resident #3 had a self-care deficit, impaired cognition, and was at risk for falls. Interventions directed staff assistance of one (1) with ambulation, cue and reorient the resident when needed and to keep the routine consistent. The nurse's note dated 6/8/25 written at 4:03 PM identified the 7AM-3PM Nursing Supervisor was called to the unit at 10:15 AM on 6/8/25 because Resident #3 could not be located, Resident #3 was last seen in the dining room at 9:30 AM. The facility emergency search protocol was initiated and after a thorough search of the building the police were called. Resident #3 was found down the street at 10:40 AM in the Stop and Shop parking lot by facility staff and brought back to the facility, and when the Nursing Supervisor assessed Resident #3, there were no injuries noted. The social service note dated 6/9/25 at 8:15 AM identified Resident #3's Conservator of Person had been contacted on 6/8/25 and authorized to move Resident #3 to a secure memory unit. Interview with Resident #3 on 6/24/25 at 11:10 AM identified he/she was socializing in the dining room during coffee hour. Resident #3 identified he/she recalled walking to Stop and Shop alone but could not recall the reason or which door he/she had exited the building from, and stated that he/she would never do that again. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 6/24/25 at 11:25 AM identified the front door was kept locked when no one was sitting at the receptionist's desk. The ADON identified the receptionist comes in at 7:00 AM on weekdays, 9:00 AM on weekends and would unlock the door upon entering the building. The ADON explained that when the receptionist was not at the front desk someone would be there in her place and the receptionist had a list at the front desk that identified residents with a wander guard and those that had a physician's order to leave the building independently. Interview with the 7AM-3PM nurse aide, Nurse Aide (NA) #2, on 6/24/25 at 11:50 AM identified he last saw Resident #3 around breakfast time. NA #2 indicated a resident could leave the building without anyone's knowledge if they didn't have a wander guard and there was no one sitting at the front desk. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/24/25 at 12:20 PM identified the receptionist would unlock the door in the morning and lock it at night before leaving the building, and the Nursing Supervisor was responsible for locking and unlocking the door when there was no receptionist on duty. The DON identified based on Resident #3's orders, Resident #3 should have been supervised when he/she left the dining room on 6/8/25. Interview with the Occupational Therapist (OT) #1 and the Certified Occupational Therapist (COTA) #1 on 6/24/25 at 12:32 PM identified Resident #3 was able to ambulate independently without a device but required assistance of one (1) due to being at risk for falls, and Resident #3 required line of sight while ambulating. Interview with the Administrator on 6/24/25 at 1:15 PM identified the facility determined through their investigation that Resident #3 was able to exit the front door either because a staff member unlocked the front door and did not lock it back up or a family member pushed open the front door and the door did not shut all the way. The Administrator indicated the front door was supposed to be kept locked when the receptionist was not working and on 6/8/25 the receptionist arrived at work at 9:30 AM. Interview with the 7AM-3PM charge nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3, on 6/24/25 at 1:50 PM identified on 6/8/25 she saw Resident #3 walk from his/her room to the dining room around 9:00 AM and a little before 10:00 AM she went to administer Resident #3's medication and could not locate Resident #3 in his/her room or the dining room. LPN #3 explained someone in the dining room reported Resident #3 said he/she was going to the hairdressers, and she knew there was no hairdresser working in the building that day (Sunday). LPN #3 asked one of the nurse aides if she had seen Resident #3 and the nurse aide said no but had noticed someone sitting on a stone wall up the road and did not know that person was Resident #3. LPN #3 identified she immediately contacted the Nursing Supervisor, and the emergency search protocol was initiated. Interview with the Receptionist on 6/24/25 at 2:00 PM identified on 6/8/25 she arrived at work at 9:30 AM. In a subsequent interview with the Receptionist on 6/25/25 at 9:10 AM she identified when she arrived at work on 6/8/25 the front door was already unlocked. The Receptionist reported when she worked on weekends the front door was usually locked until she came in and unlocked it. The Receptionist indicated although she did not see Resident #3 exit the building, at around 10:00 AM when asked, she reported she had seen someone fitting Resident #3's description walking up the street when she was driving into work. Interview and observations with the Administrator on 6/25/25 at 9:20 AM identified the front slider doors are locked and unlocked by a switch at the top of the door. The Administrator explained although many staff enter the building through a back entrance where there is a keypad coded door, other staff enter through the front door. Interview with the 11PM-7AM charge nurse, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #7, on 6/25/25 at 10:00 AM identified the front door was always locked at night when he arrived at work and the only time it was unlocked was for a pharmacy delivery or for Emergency Medical Services. LPN #7 indicated either the charge nurse or supervisor would unlock and re-lock the door and explained in the past he had unlocked the door in the morning for convenience so staff could get into the building. Interviews with five (5) of nine (9) staff on 6/24/25 and 6/25/25 that worked the 11PM-7AM shift on 6/7/25 into 6/8/25 identified the door was locked at the beginning of their shift. Interviews with six (6) housekeepers on 6/25/25 that worked from 6:30AM-3:00 PM on 6/8/25 identified when they came into work, if they used the front door, it was typically unlocked. They indicated if the door was locked, they would either walk around the building to enter through a key-coded door or ring the doorbell at the front door until a nurse came to open it. They all reported when they entered the building through the front door a staff member was not sitting at the desk in the lobby. In a subsequent interview and observations with the Administrator on 6/25/25 at 2:00 PM there was a sign noted on the front door that identified the front door being locked from 8:00 PM until 6:00 AM and to gain access persons should call or ring the bell. The Administrator was not aware of the signage and was not aware that staff were unlocking the front door so that the housekeeping staff could enter the building at 6:30AM. The facility Elopement Policy identified, in part, that at no time would a resident be unsupervised while outside of the facility.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, facility documentation and interviews for eleven (11) of eleven (11) residents (Resident #1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, facility documentation and interviews for eleven (11) of eleven (11) residents (Resident #14, #15, #16, #17, #18, #19, #20, #21, #22, #23, and #24) reviewed for physician's orders, the facility failed to ensure residents' orders were reviewed and signed by the physician monthly. The findings include:1. Resident #14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.2. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.3. Resident #16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.4. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.5. Resident #18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.6. Resident #19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.7. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.8. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.9. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.10. Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 5/1/25 or 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.11. Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE].Review of physician orders identified medical orders were not reviewed and signed on 6/1/25 in accordance with facility practices.Interview with the Administrator and RN #8 (Regional) on 6/20/25 at 1:30 PM identified that the medical director (MD #1) was responsible for reviewing medical orders monthly and the facility's standard of practice was to have the physician's review and sign the resident's medical orders monthly. They identified they were unaware that the monthly orders had not been signed for May 2025 and June 2025. They indicated MD #1 (Medical Director) was new to the facility and they would contact her to have the orders signed.Interview with MD #1 on 7/8/25 at 2:30 PM identified the Administrator contacted her to sign monthly orders on 6/20/25 and she notified him that she did not have access within the electronic medical record to sign orders (the 'sign' button was grayed out). She reported she was new to long-term care, and no one reviewed the regulations for signing physician's orders or how often they needed to be signed. MD #1 identified that as of 7/8/25, the facility had still not given her access to sign physician's orders electronically or came up with an alternative means to have the orders signed and further identified the orders were still unsigned.The facility was unable to provide a policy detailing the frequency the physician's orders were to be reviewed.
Mar 2025 30 deficiencies 3 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 6 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 6 residents, (Resident #43) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to thoroughly investigate an allegation of abuse, failed to remove the staff member from the schedule following the allegation, and once the allegation was substantiated by the State Agency again failed to remove the staff member from the schedule to ensure the residents were protected from abuse. These failures resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy. The findings include: Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, personality disorder, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, did not experience episodes of delusions, and required maximal assistance for his/her toileting hygiene and chair to bed and bed to chair transfers. The MDS further indicated that Resident #43 did not reject evaluations of care including ADL assistance and was always incontinent of urine. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 experienced frequent episodes of incontinence of bladder with an intervention of an assist of 2 with toileting upon request. The RCP further identified he/she had a behavior problem of making accusatory statements towards staff. Interventions included explaining all procedures to him/her before starting and allowing him/her to adjust to the changes, monitoring behavior episodes to determine the underlying cause, and documenting the behavior and potential cause. The Resident Care Card in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 was to have 2 staff members present at all times when in his/her room including when performing medication passes, answering call lights, and performing bathing and toileting tasks. An observation and interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:43 AM identified that he/she was sitting in the hallway in a wheelchair, hands flailing, crying, verbalizing he/she was upset regarding a financial matter. The resident verbalized, in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8, he/she had been hurt by staff on multiple occasions, most recently by LPN #7. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was called by LPN #8 to come to the resident's room regarding the allegation of abuse. An interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:51 AM was conducted in the presence of the DNS by the surveyor. Resident #43 alleged a few weeks prior, while he/she was trying to get into bed from his/her wheelchair, LPN #7 reached over the back of the wheelchair and pushed him/her onto the bed in a non-sexual manner. Resident #43 further identified that he/she was alone in the room with LPN #7 and started yelling for help, at which point LPN #7 grabbed the phone out of his/her hand and threw it across the room. It was noted by Resident #43, that Nurse Aide (NA) #7 entered the room and assisted him/her into bed in order to provide incontinence care. Resident #43 stated he/she experienced great humiliation over the event and continued to be afraid of LPN #7, noting LPN #7 continued to come into his/her room to provide care after the alleged incident of abuse. The DNS identified he was aware of the allegation of abuse and stated he had completed an investigation and reported the incident to the State Agency (SA). An interview and review of the abuse documentation with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 7:51 AM identified a Reportable Event (RE) form dated 1/3/25 indicating Resident #43 alleged LPN #7, with help from NA #7, picked up the resident threw him/her into bed. Actions taken indicated LPN #7 and NA #7 were off of the schedule until the investigation was completed and would no longer provide routine care. Review of the RE failed to identify that the allegation of mistreatment had been reported to the SA. Although requested, the DNS failed to provide documentation of a thorough investigation or any investigation whatsoever, except for a summary that he had created indicating what had transpired on 1/3/25. The summary of events was typewritten, noted to be undated, unsigned, and lacked the alleged staff member's name. The investigation provided lacked any staff interviews, staff statements, an interview with Resident #43, any resident interviews who may have witnessed or overheard the incident, or an interview with the staff member (LPN #7) against whom the allegation was made. The DNS indicated that the summary provided was created by him following his conclusion to the investigation into Resident #43's allegation of abuse dated 1/3/25. The DNS stated that he would have to look for the sworn and signed statements by the staff as he was unable to locate the information, and he would have to reach out to Information Technology (IT) to obtain the creation date of the investigation summary that was provided to the surveyor. Further, the RE indicated that the immediate action taken by the facility was that LPN #7 would no longer deliver care to Resident #43 unless it was in an emergency. The DNS stated that once the investigation had been completed, he had proven that the allegation of abuse was unfounded because Resident #43 had a history of allegations against staff, which were noted in the Resident Care Plan. The DNS was unable to further explain how he had reached his conclusion other than based on Resident #43's history of allegations. Additionally, the DNS identified that LPN #7 was allowed to return to providing care to Resident #43 upon the conclusion of the investigation. Interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/19/25 at 9:45 AM identified the summary provided by the DNS to the surveyor had not been created following the conclusion of the investigation of mistreatment as previously stated. The DNS indicated that when he realized he had not submitted the RE to the SA, he had become nervous and wrote up the summary on 3/18/25 based on his memory of the events on 1/3/25. Further, the DNS indicated the nursing note written by LPN #7 on 1/5/25, which stated Resident #43 alleged to be thrown into bed, and not pushed, invalidated the allegation as the DNS deduced LPN #7 was not strong enough to throw the resident, adding this made all the difference in the outcome of his investigation. On 3/19/25 at 10:30 AM the DNS stated that he was unable to locate any of the sworn statements from the investigation he indicated was conducted following the abuse allegation on 1/3/25. Interview with NA #7 on 3/19/25 at 10:54 AM identified that she had no recollection of any incident that occurred on 1/3/25 and that the DNS had never asked her about the incident or to write a statement for the investigation. Following the interview with NA #7 the DNS informed the surveyor he would have NA #7 write a statement to replace the one he indicated was written at the time of the incident on 1/3/25 but he was unable to locate. An interview and review of nursing progress notes with LPN #7 on 3/19/25 at 4:26 PM identified that Resident #43 refused to be assisted with incontinence care when he worked on the second shift (7:00 PM to 10:45 PM) and remained wet. LPN #7 stated he worked on third shift (10:45 PM to 7:30 AM) and indicated that Resident #43 again declined to be assisted with incontinence care and that was when LPN #7 informed the resident that he/she had to be changed. LPN #7 stated that he would not be held responsible for the development of a urinary tract infection or [pressure] sore for Resident #43, so he provided the incontinence care despite Resident #43's objections. When NA #7 assisted putting the resident back to bed with LPN #7 they began to provide the incontinence care, and that is when Resident #43 began crying and yelling for help. LPN #7 remarked that was when he removed the phone from the resident's hand and told Resident #43 he/she could call for help when he was done. LPN #7 indicated he removed the phone because he could not reposition the resident if he/she was holding onto the phone. On the advice of the DNS, to protect himself, LPN #7 indicated he wrote a late progress note on 1/5/25 at 6:30 AM (2 days after the incident). Further, the progress note documented that the resident drew blood from LPN #7 in the process of LPN #7 transferring him/her back to the bed and that Resident #43 screamed, yelled, scratched, and hit staff during the incontinence care. LPN #7 indicated that Resident #43 was always crying about everything Boo Hoo Hoo this and Boo Hoo Hoo that and no one wanted to work with him/her because he/she cried about everything. LPN #7 stated that although he had subsequently spoken to the DNS about the incident, he was never asked by the DNS to write a statement. In a follow up interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/20/25 at 8:36 AM the DNS indicated he had not yet begun an investigation into the allegation from 1/3/25, per the facility policy, and following the 3/18/25 interview with Resident #43 and the surveyor. The DNS stated the reason he had not done so was that he wanted to confirm with the surveyor first, but did not specify what he wanted to confirm. An interview and review of NA #7's newly written and undated statement with the DNS on 3/20/25 at 2:14 PM identified Resident #43 was fighting back and needed redirection multiple times during the 1/3/25 incident. The DNS reiterated that because Resident #43 was not thrown on the bed [was pushed], the abuse was unfounded. The DNS was informed by the surveyor that the abuse had been investigated and had been substantiated through the investigative process, by the surveyor. The DNS indicated that he would redo his investigation. According to punch in and punch out records, LPN #7 had punched in on 3/24/25 at 11:00 PM and punched out on 3/25/25 at 7:30 AM. A review of the staffing schedules identified that LPN #7 had been assigned to Resident #43's unit. Despite informing the DNS on 3/20/25 at 2:14 PM that the allegation of abuse had been substantiated by the surveyor, and LPN #7 had admitted to providing care to the resident against his/her will, LPN #7 was allowed to return to the facility, scheduled to work on Resident #43's unit, and worked in the facility on 3/24/25 on the 11:00 PM to 7:30 AM shift. An interview on 3/25/25 at 11:03 AM with the DNS identified that residents have the right to refuse care. He further identified if a resident refuses care, staff should document the refusal and reapproach later. The DNS identified that forcing a resident to receive care they had refused fell under the category of abuse. Although the DNS indicated to the surveyor that he would begin an investigation on 3/20/25, he stated that he still had not read LPN #7's progress indicating Resident #43 had drawn blood, although the DNS summary written 3/18/24 did identify blood was drawn during the resistance of care and he indicated he needed to investigate the 1/3/25 incident more thoroughly. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, LPN #7 was removed from the staff schedule. A review of LPN #7's punch card identified LPN #7 had access to Resident #43 on 62 different shifts for the time period of 1/4/24 through 3/19/25, and again on 1/24/25. Review of the facility's Reportable Events Policy identified that a Class B event, (state classification) including a complaint of resident abuse, should be reported to the State Department of Public Health by the Administrator or DNS within the required time frame. An investigation will be conducted by the facility after the discovery of an allegation of abuse. The police are to be notified if an assault or suspected assault has occurred. Review of the facility's Abuse Reporting Policy identified when an allegation of abuse is reported, the facility administrator or his/her designee will notify the following persons of the incident: Department of Public Health; Ombudsman; Resident Representative; Law Enforcement Officials; and Primary Physician. Allegations of abuse must be reported no less than 2 hours after the allegation is made. A completed copy of the Reportable Event Form and written statements from witnesses must be provided to the Administrator within 24 hours of the occurrence of said incident.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 22 of 40 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 22 of 40 residents (Resident #3, Resident #9, Resident #12, Resident #18, Resident #27, Resident #31, Resident #33, Resident #42, Resident #45, Resident #49, Resident #56, Resident #59, Resident #61, Resident #63, Resident #67, Resident #68, Resident #69, Resident #72, Resident # 74, Resident #78, Resident #81, Resident #92) reviewed during a tour of the secured memory unit, the facility failed to ensure the 5 Rights of medication administration, and professional standards of practice, were adhered to during the administration of medications. These failures resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy. The findings include: 1. Resident #3's diagnoses included severe protein calorie malnutrition, cerebral infarction, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 12/18/24 directed to administer Clopidogrel Bisulfate (antiplatelet) 75 milligrams (mg) orally once a day, Escitalopram Oxalate (antidepressant) 20 mg orally one a day, Multivitamin (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin B Complex (supplement) 1 capsule orally once a day, Vitamin C (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/19/25 directed to administer Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) chewable orally once a day. A physician's order dated 2/2/25 directed to administer Trazadone 50 mg (antidepressant) orally twice a day, a physician's order dated 3/16/25 directed to administer Bupropion HCL ER (antidepressant extended release) 150 mg orally twice a day. 2. Resident #9 diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. A physician's order dated 8/6/24 directed to administer Memantine HCL (Anti-Alzheimer's) 5 mg orally1 tablet twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/7/24 directed to administer Aspirin 81 mg chewable orally once a day, Furosemide 20 mg (diuretic) 1 tablet orally once a day hold if systolic blood pressure is less than 100, Metformin HCL (antidiabetic) 500 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Multivitamin 1 tablet orally once a day, Polysaccharide iron complex (supplement) 150 mg 1 capsule orally once a day, Toprol XL (extended release for high blood pressure) 25 mg 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/9/24 directed Midodrine HCL (elevates blood pressure) 5 mg 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/21/25 directed to administer Tylenol extra strength 500 mg 2 tablets orally twice a day, 3. Resident #12's diagnosis included Parkinson's disease, dementia and emphysema. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine (lowers blood pressure) 2.5 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Carb/Levo (Parkinson's) 25-100 mg 1 tablet orally three times a day, Polyethylene Glycol powder (constipation) 3350 1 tablet once a day, Rivastigmine dis (Alzheimer's/Parkinson's) 9.5/24 apply 1 patch once a day trans dermally, Alendronate (osteoporosis) 70 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, aspirin chewable 81 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Calcium /D 600-400 mg (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day, Memantine 5 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D 1000 international units (IU) 2 caps orally once a day, Acetaminophen (pain) 500 mg 2 tablets orally twice a day, Budes/[NAME] Aer( emphysema) 160-4.5 120 Inh 2 puffs orally twice a day, Celecoxib cp (anti-inflammatory) 100 mg 1 capsule twice a day, Entacapone (Parkinson's) 200 mg 1 tablet orally twice a day. 4. Resident #18 diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes, and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine 10 mg 1 tablet once a day, Aspirin low 81 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Escitalopram 10 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Hydrochlorothiazide (lowers blood pressure) tablet 25mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Losartan (lowers blood pressure) 50 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Acetaminophen 500 mg tab orally twice a day, Metformin 1000 mg 1 tablet twice a day, Metoprolol Tar (lowers blood pressure) 50 mg 1 tab twice a day, A physician's order dated 10/29/24 directed to administer Potassium Chloride (elevates potassium) Liquid 20 milliequivalent/15 milliliter (mEq/ml) 20 met orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/14/25 directed Lantus Solostar (antidiabetic) subcutaneous solutions pen injector 100 unit/ml inject 16 units subcutaneously once a day. A physician's order dated 3/6/25 directed to administer Atorvastatin Calcium (lowers cholesterol) 20 mg 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/7/25 directed to administer Fenofibrate (lowers cholesterol) 145 mg 1 tablet once a day. 5. Resident # 27 diagnosis included Dementia, Diabetes, and Epilepsy. A physician's order dated 5/30/24 directed to check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Levetiracetam tabs (antiseizure) 500 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Lisinopril ( lowers blood pressure) 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Metformin tab 1000mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Metoprolol Tar 25mg tablet give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day, Risperidone (antipsychotic) 2 mg tabs Give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Insulin lisp injection 100/ml inject per sliding scale if blood sugar is 150 - 199 give 2 units, 200-249 give 3 units, 250-299 give 4 units, 300-349 give 5 units, 350-399 give 6 units, grated than 399 give 8 units and call the physician subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 7/15/24 directed to administer Gabapentin (antiseizure) capsule 300 mg give 1 capsule orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 7/23/24 directed to administer Depakote(antiseizure) oral tablet delayed release 250 mg give 2 tablets orally once a day. A physician's order dated 9/17/24 directed to administer oyster shell (supplement) oral tablet 500 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 9/28/24 directed to administer Celexa (antidepressant) oral tablet 20 mg give 30 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 10/16/24 directed Celebrex (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory) oral capsule 100 mg give 1 capsule orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 10/24/24 directed to administer Oxycodone HCL (opioid pain reliever) tablet 5 mg, give 5 mg orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 11/5/24 directed to administer Amantadine (Parkinson's like symptoms) 100 mg caps give 2 capsules orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 11/6/24 directed to administer Cholecalciferol (supplement)oral capsule 1.25 mg give 1 capsule orally once a day every 7 days. A physician' order dated 1/15/25 directed to administer Xifaxan (treatment for high ammonia levels) 550 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day. 6. Resident #31's diagnosis included heart failure, depression and dementia. A physician's order dated 7/4/24 directed to administer Amlodipine besylate tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Cyanocobalamin (supplement) tablet 1000 micrograms (mcg) give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lipitor oral tablet 10 mg give 10 mg orally once a day, MiraLAX oral packet 17 grams (gm) give 1 packet orally once a day, Multiple vitamins with minerals give 1 tablet orally once a day, Senna (laxative) oral tablet give 8.6 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 7/11/24 directed to administer Ferrous sulfate (iron supplement) tablet 2 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Folic acid (supplement) oral tablet 1 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 7/13/24 directed to administer Trelegy Ellipta (reduce bronchospasms in asthma/COPD) inhalation aerosol powder breath activated 200-62.5-25 mcg/act 1 puff inhale orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/28/24 directed to administer Lubiprostone (constipation) oral capsule 24 mcg give 2 mcg orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 10/12/24 directed to administer Singulair (prevents asthma attacks) oral tablet 10mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 11/6/24 directed to administer Allegra allergy oral tablet give 180 mg orally once a day for allergies. A physician's order dated 12/19/24 directed to administer Escitalopram oxalate tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/20/25 directed to administer Prednisone (steroid) oral tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 2/3/25 directed to check blood glucose twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/13/25 directed to administer Lasix oral tablet 20 mg give 40 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 2/19/25 directed to check blood sugar before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 2/23/25 directed to administer Gabapentin tab 600 mg give 1 tablet oral three times a day, Freestyle Libre 2 reader device apply 1 application trans dermally before meals and at bedtime. Novolog injection solution 100 unit/ml inject 4 units subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime, Novolog injection solution 100 unit/ml as per sliding scale if 150-199 give 4 units, 200-249 give 6 units, 250-299 give 8 units, 300-349 give 10 units, 350-399 give 12 units, 400-449 give 14 units, 450-499 give 16 units, 500 give 20 units and notify the provider before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 2/24/25 directed to administer Metformin HCL oral tablet 500 mg Give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/26/25 directed to administer Trazadone (antidepressant) HCL oral tablet 50 mg give 25 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/5/25 directed to administer Oxycodone HCL oral tablet 5 mg give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 3/12/25 directed to administer Protonix (excessive stomach acid) oral tablet delayed release 40 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day for 8 weeks. 7. Resident # 33's diagnosis included dementia, congestive heart failure and Parkinson's disease. A physician's order dated 12/18/24 directed to administer Carb/Levo 25mg/100 tab give 2 tablets orally three times a day, Gabapentin 300 mg capsules give 1 capsule orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 12/28/24 directed to administer pantoprazole 40 mg tablets give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 12/19/24 directed to administer Sertraline 100 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, aspirin low tab 8 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Clopidogrel tab 75 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Seroquel oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, A physician's order dated 1/28/25 directed to administer Amlodipine tab 10 mg Give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lisinopril tab 40 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Carvedilol 6.25 mg tab give 2 tablets orally twice a day, A physician's order dated 1/30/25 directed to administer Lantus subcutaneous solution 100 units/ml inject 40 units subcutaneously once a day. A physician's order dated 2/13/25 directed to administer Primidone tab 50 mg Give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. Trazadone 50 mg tabs give 25 mg orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/14/25 directed to administer Humalog Kwik pen subcutaneous solution 100units/ml inject 5 units subcutaneously before meals. A physician's order dated 2/28/25 directed to administer Isosorbide Mononitrate ER tablet extended release 24-hour 60 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/16/25 directed to administer Insulin lisp injection 100/ml per sliding scales if blood sugar is 150-199 give 3 units if less than 70 notify the provider, 200-249 6 units, 250-299 9 units, 300-349 12 units 350-399 15 units, greater than 400 18 units and notify the physician before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 3/24/25 directed to administer Hydralazine HCL 50 mg tablets give 1.5 tablets orally three times a day. 8. Resident # 42's diagnosis included dementia, anxiety and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, fluticasone/vilanterol inhaler (steroid/bronchodilator for treatment of COPD) 100/25/60 1 puff inhale orally once a day, Divalproex (antiseizure) tab 250 mg DR give 250 mg orally twice a day, Guaifenesin (expectorant) tab 400 mg give 1 tab twice a day, omeprazole tab 20 mg give 1 tab twice a day, omeprazole tab 20 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/13/24 directed to administer Tylenol extra strength oral tablet 500 mg give 1000mg orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 3/2025 directed to administer Escitalopram 5 mg tablet give 20 mg orally once a day, 9. Resident # 45's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes and seizures. A physician's order dated 5/30/24 directed to monitor glucose with Freestyle Libre device check resting blood sugar before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 1/18/25 directed to administer Aspirin low 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Calcium citrate tab 200 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Polyether glycol powder 3350 NF give 17(Gram) gm orally once a day, Primidone tab 50 mg give 1 tablet orally every 12 hours, Tab a vit tab give 1 tablet orally once a day, Tresiba Flex injection 100 unit inject 12 units subcutaneously once a day, Vitamin C 500 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lexapro oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Novolog flex pen subcutaneous solution pen injector 100 unit/ml inject 4 units subcutaneously once a day, Tamsulosin 0.4 mg caps give 1 capsule orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/20/25 directed to administer Sodium Bicarbonate (antacid) oral tablet 650 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Sodium chloride oral tablet 1 gm give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/29/25 directed to administer Norvasc oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Coreg oral tablet 12.5 mg give 12.5 mg orally twice a day hold for systolic blood pressure less than 100 or heart rate less than 55 and notify physician, Hydralazine HCL oral tablet give 15 mg orally three times a day. 10. Resident #49's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. A physician's order dated 8/22/24 directed to administer Tetrahydrozoline-dextran-polyethylene glycol povidone (eye irritation) eye drops instill 2 drops in left eye twice a day, Preparation H (hemorrhoid relief) rectal suppository insert 1 suppository rectally twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/23/24 directed to administer Citalopram Hydrobromide oral tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Cyanocobalamin tablet 1000mcg give 2 tablets orally once a day, Folic acid oral tablet 1 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lidocaine HCL external patch 4 % apply to lower back topically once a day, Lisinopril oral tablet 2.5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day hold for systolic blood pressure less than 90 or diastolic blood pressure less than 60 and notify the physician, Pravastatin sodium oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, PreserVision AREDS (supplement) 2 oral capsule with minerals give 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D3 oral tablet 25 mcg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/30/24 directed to administer Lasix oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Tylenol oral tablet 325 mg give 2 tablets twice a day. A physician's order dated 10/1/24 directed to administer Ferrous Sulfate oral tablet 325 mg give 325 mg orally one a day. A physician's order dated 2/6/25 directed to administer Eliquis oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. 11. Resident # 56's diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Tab a Vite tab give 1 tablet orally once a day, 12. Resident # 59's diagnosis included dementia, congestive heart failure and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/26/24 directed to administer Cyanocobalamin oral tablet 1000 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, folic acid oral tablet 1 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lactulose (laxative)oral solution 20 gm/30 ml give 30 ml orally once a day, MiraLAX oral packet 17 gm give 17 gm orally once a day, multivitamin oral tablet give 1 tablet orally once a day, Thiamine HCL oral tablet 100 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 10/8/24 directed to administer Lasix oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 11/23/24 directed to administer Prozac (antidepressant) oral capsule 10 mg give 10 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/13/25 directed to administer Potassium chloride ER oral tablet 20 mEq give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/16/25 directed to administer Risperdal oral tablet 0.5 mg give 0.25 mg orally once a day. 13. Resident #61's diagnosis included Diabetes, Dementia and Cerebral infarction. A physician's order dated 5/28/24 directed to administer Gabapentin cap 100 mg give 1 capsule twice a day, Metoprolol Tar tablet 50 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Aspirin low tab 81 mg give 1 tablet once a day, Escitalopram 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet once a day, Ezetimibe (lowers cholesterol) tab 10 mg give 1 tab orally once a day, fluticasone vilanterol inhaler 200/25 60 inhaler 1 inhalation orally once a day, Oxybutynin tab 15 mg ER give 1 tablet orally once a day, Pantoprazole 40 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Rosuvastatin (lowers lipids) tab 40 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Acidophilus (probiotic) oral capsule give 1 capsule orally once a day, Eliquis 2.5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Metformin tab 1000mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 9/26/24 directed to administer Cholestyramine (lowers cholesterol) powder 4 gm lite give 4 grams orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/12/25 directed to administer Trulicity subcutaneous solution autoinjector 0.75 mg/0.5 ml inject 1 syringe subcutaneously once a day every Wednesday. Humalog Kwik pen subcutaneous solution pen injector 1unit/ml inject 2 units subcutaneously before meals. Fasting blood sugar check before meals and at bedtime. Humalog 100 units/ml Kwik pen 3ml inject as per sliding scale if blood sugar is 100-199 give 10 units call physician if glucose is less than 70, 200-400 give 15 units call physician if blood sugar is greater than 400 subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. 14. Resident #63's diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes, and cerebral infarction. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Aspirin low tab 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Donepezil 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Escitalopram 10gm tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Tab a Vite tab give 1 tablet once a day, Vitamin B1 tab 100mg give 2 tablets orally once a day, Midodrine tab 5 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Reguloid (fiber) powder orange give 2 tablespoons orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 6/4/24 directed to administer Cholecalciferol oral tablet give 25 mcg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/20/24 directed to administer Acetaminophen oral tablet 325 mg give 2 tablets orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 12/6/24 directed to administer Tramadol HCL oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. 15. Resident #67's diagnosis included dementia, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease. A Physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Allopurinol (gout) tab 100 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Amlodipine tab 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Eliquis 2.5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Hydralazine tab 25 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Acetaminophen 500 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 7/31/24 directed to administer Vitamin B12 oral tablet give 1000 mcg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 12/18/24 directed to administer Trazadone 50 mg tabs give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. 16. Resident # 68's diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, depression and hyperkalemia. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Vitamin D 1000 IU caps give 1 capsule orally once a day, Amlodipine besylate tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lisinopril tab 40 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 11/2/24 directed to administer Trazadone HCL oral tablet 50 mg give 25 mg orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 12/19/24 directed to administer Escitalopram oxalate oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/18/25 directed to administer Aspirin EC tablet delayed release 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. 17. Resident # 69's diagnosis included dementia, psychotic disorder with delusions, and chronic kidney disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine tab 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Aspirin low 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Ondansetron (nausea and vomiting) tab 4 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Potassium chloride cap 10 mEq ER give 2 capsules once a day, Sertraline 100 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day as part of 125 mg dose in am, Sertraline 25 mg tabs give 1 tablet once a day as part of 125 mg dose in am, Multivitamin with minerals oral tablet give 1 tablet orally once a day, Calcium carb 500 mg tab give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Vitamin C 500 mg tab give 2 tablets orally twice a day. 18. Resident #72's diagnosis included dementia, hypothyroidism, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Famotidine 10 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally once a day, Valsartan tab 160 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D 3 50000 IU caps give 1 capsule orally once a day, Hydralazine tab 10 mg Give 1 tablet orally three times a day, A physician's order dated 6/20/24 directed to administer Aspirin tablet 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/4/25 directed to administer Sodium Chloride oral tablet 1 gm give 1 tablet orally twice a day. 19. Resident # 74's diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, hypokalemia, and hypothyroidism. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Escitalopram 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lisinopril 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Memantine 5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/17/25 directed to administer Vitamin B 12 oral tablet 100 mcg give 1 tablet orally once a day. 20. Resident # 78's diagnosis included Alzheimer's Dementia, hypothyroidism, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Docusate sodium cap 100 mg give 1 capsule orally twice a day, Meloxicam tab 15 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Potassium chloride solution 10% give 15 ml orally once a day, Acetaminophen 500 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally twice a day, genteal tear (dry eyes) solution instill 2 drops in left eye twice a day. A physician's order dated 7/16/24 directed to administer Lisinopril tablet 2.5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/24/25 directed to administer Multiple vitamins with minerals give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/16/25 directed to administer Combigan (glaucoma) 0.2-0.5% ophthalmic solution instill 1 drop in both eyes twice a day. 21. Resident # 81's diagnosis included dementia, anxiety and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine 2.5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Atenolol 25 mg tabs give 0.5 tablet orally once a day, Memantine tab 10 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Senna 8.6 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally once a day. 22. Resident #92's diagnosis included Paranoid schizophrenia, hypokalemia and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/19/24 directed to administer Amlodipine besylate oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 7/27/24 directed to administer Oyster shell calcium oral tablet 500mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 12/4/24 directed to administer Trazadone HCL oral tablet 50 mg give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. Observations on 3/26/25 at 10:30 AM, identified Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 was having difficulty accessing Point Click Care (PCC) the electronic medical record system (EMAR). LPN #6 was heard to state I can't get into these computers, I don't know what is wrong with these computers, I have not been able to get into PCC all morning. I hate these computers, I wish we just went back to paper. Interview with LPN #6 on 3/26/25 at 10:30 AM identified she was unable to access PCC since the start of her shift at 7:00 AM. She stated she had tried 2 laptops and 2 desktop computers unsuccessfully. LPN #6 indicated she had administered medications to the 22 residents on her assignment, for the morning medication pass by memory, without the benefit of the use of a Medication Administration Record (MAR). (An MAR ensures the 5 rights of medication administration, right patient, right drug, right dose, right route, and right time). LPN #6 stated that she had failed to document any of the non-narcotic medications that she had administered by any alternate means of record keeping. LPN #6 was able to show a written record of each of the residents who received narcotics as narcotic medications required a signature in the narcotic book, on the proof of use sheet, that the medication had been signed out for a specific resident. Additionally, LPN #6 identified she had failed to notify a supervisor or the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) when she was unable to access the EMAR or the software used for medication administration, PCC, because she wanted to get the medications passed and planned on documenting what she had given after the medication pass was completed. LPN #6 indicated that if any resident medications had changed since her last shift, she would have expected the off-going nurse to communicate this verbally, during a nurse-to-nurse report, for each of the residents who may have had changes. LPN # 6 further indicated that it was not an appropriate practice to administer medications to residents without utilizing an MAR, and that the policy was to call a supervisor when locked out of the EMAR and PCC. Interview on 3/26/25 at 11:00 AM with the Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS) identified that she was not made aware LPN #6 was unable to access the EMAR or PCC and had not received any communication from LPN #6 to reset her password. The ADNS stated that LPN #6 had passed medications to 22 residents without the benefit of an MAR and should have contacted the supervisor or herself to reset her password. The ADNS identified it was inappropriate and against the policy to administer medications without the benefit of utilizing the MAR to ensure the 5 rights of medication administration were performed. The ADNS was unable to explain why LPN #6 would administer medications to 22 residents, by memory, without utilizing an MAR. Interview with the Corporate Regional Nurse, Registered Nurse (RN) #4 on 3/26/25 at 11:26 AM identified that the physician, Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), and responsible parties had been notified of LPN #6's inappropriate use of memory to administer medications to 22 residents, without the benefit of utilizing an MAR. Interview with APRN #1 on 3/26/25 at 12:22 PM identified she was made aware that 22 residents were administered medications by LPN #6, by memory, without the benefit of an MAR, and that she had reviewed all of the medications ordered for the affected residents under her care. APRN #1 stated that for the residents who required blood sugar monitoring, she had ordered blood sugar checks immediately and to continue per the established schedule. All affected residents were to have vital sign checks every shift for 24 hours to monitor their health status. APRN #1 additionally ordered labs to be checked for the residents who were receiving sodium chloride tablets and that she was to be notified of any abnormalities. Interview with APRN #2 on 3/26/25 at 12:30 PM identified that she was made aware that 22 resident's medications were administered without the benefit of an MAR, by memory, by LPN #6. APRN #2 identified she had just observed all of the residents under her care, would review those resident medications, and would determine if further monitoring would be required. Additionally, APRN #2 identified that she would review the vital signs and blood sugars for her residents and leave orders to be notified for any abnormalities. Review of the charting and documentation policy dated 6/2023 revised, in part, directed that documentation in the medical record may be electronic, manual or a combination. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: Objective observations, medication administered, treatment or services performed. Review of the job description for a charge nurse, is that the LPN/RN is responsible for the overall operation and optimal quality of care for the residents on the assigned unit, follows all health, sanitary and infection control policies, and maintains established standards of practice set forth by the facility's administration and nursing policies and procedures. The direct supervisor is the RN supervisor. Qualifications included knowledge of nursing theory and practice including the administration of medications. According to the National Library of Medicine dated 9/4/23 Nurses have a unique role and responsibility in medication administration, in that they are frequently the final person to check to see that the medication is correctly prescribed and dispensed before administration. It is standard during nursing education to receive instruction on a guide to clinical medication administration and upholding patient safety known as the 'five rights' or 'five R's' of medication administration.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 22 of 40 resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 22 of 40 residents (Resident #3, Resident #9, Resident #12, Resident #18, Resident #27, Resident #31, Resident #33, Resident #42, Resident #45, Resident #49, Resident #56, Resident #59, Resident #61, Resident #63, Resident #67, Resident #68, Resident #69, Resident #72, Resident # 74, Resident #78, Resident #81, Resident #92) reviewed during a tour of the secured memory unit, the facility failed to ensure safe medication administration practices during the morning medication pass. These failures resulted in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy. Additionally, based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record and facility policy for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #52) reviewed for nutrition, the facility failed to conduct reweights according to the facility policy. The findings include: 1. a. Resident #3's diagnoses included severe protein calorie malnutrition, cerebral infarction, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 12/18/24 directed to administer Clopidogrel Bisulfate (antiplatelet) 75 milligrams (mg) orally once a day, Escitalopram Oxalate (antidepressant) 20 mg orally one a day, Multivitamin (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin B Complex (supplement) 1 capsule orally once a day, Vitamin C (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/19/25 directed to administer Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) chewable orally once a day. A physician's order dated 2/2/25 directed to administer Trazadone 50 mg (antidepressant) orally twice a day, a physician's order dated 3/16/25 directed to administer Bupropion HCL ER (antidepressant extended release) 150 mg orally twice a day. b. Resident #9 diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes, and congestive heart failure. A physician's order dated 8/6/24 directed to administer Memantine HCL (Anti-Alzheimer's) 5 mg orally1 tablet twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/7/24 directed to administer Aspirin 81 mg chewable orally once a day, Furosemide 20 mg (diuretic) 1 tablet orally once a day hold if systolic blood pressure is less than 100, Metformin HCL (antidiabetic) 500 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Multivitamin 1 tablet orally once a day, Polysaccharide iron complex (supplement) 150 mg 1 capsule orally once a day, Toprol XL (extended release for high blood pressure) 25 mg 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/9/24 directed Midodrine HCL (elevates blood pressure) 5 mg 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/21/25 directed to administer Tylenol extra strength 500 mg 2 tablets orally twice a day, c. Resident #12's diagnosis included Parkinson's disease, dementia and emphysema. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine (lowers blood pressure) 2.5 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Carb/Levo (Parkinson's) 25-100 mg 1 tablet orally three times a day, Polyethylene Glycol powder (constipation) 3350 1 tablet once a day, Rivastigmine dis (Alzheimer's/Parkinson's) 9.5/24 apply 1 patch once a day trans dermally, Alendronate (osteoporosis) 70 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, aspirin chewable 81 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Calcium /D 600-400 mg (supplement) 1 tablet orally once a day, Memantine 5 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D 1000 international units (IU) 2 caps orally once a day, Acetaminophen (pain) 500 mg 2 tablets orally twice a day, Budes/[NAME] Aer( emphysema) 160-4.5 120 Inh 2 puffs orally twice a day, Celecoxib cp (anti-inflammatory) 100 mg 1 capsule twice a day, Entacapone (Parkinson's) 200 mg 1 tablet orally twice a day. d. Resident #18 diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes, and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine 10 mg 1 tablet once a day, Aspirin low 81 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Escitalopram 10 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Hydrochlorothiazide (lowers blood pressure) tablet 25mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Losartan (lowers blood pressure) 50 mg 1 tablet orally once a day, Acetaminophen 500 mg tab orally twice a day, Metformin 1000 mg 1 tablet twice a day, Metoprolol Tar (lowers blood pressure) 50 mg 1 tab twice a day, A physician's order dated 10/29/24 directed to administer Potassium Chloride (elevates potassium) Liquid 20 milliequivalent/15 milliliter (meq/ml) 20 met orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/14/25 directed Lantus Solostar (antidiabetic) subcutaneous solutions pen injector 100 unit/ml inject 16 units subcutaneously once a day. A physician's order dated 3/6/25 directed to administer Atorvastatin Calcium (lowers cholesterol) 20 mg 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/7/25 directed to administer Fenofibrate (lowers cholesterol) 145 mg 1 tablet once a day. e. Resident # 27 diagnosis included Dementia, Diabetes, and Epilepsy. A physician's order dated 5/30/24 directed to check blood sugars before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Levetiracetam tabs (antiseizure) 500 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Lisinopril ( lowers blood pressure) 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Metformin tab 1000mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Metoprolol Tar 25mg tablet give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day, Risperidone (antipsychotic) 2 mg tabs Give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Insulin lisp injection 100/ml inject per sliding scale if blood sugar is 150 - 199 give 2 units, 200-249 give 3 units, 250-299 give 4 units, 300-349 give 5 units, 350-399 give 6 units, grated than 399 give 8 units and call the physician subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 7/15/24 directed to administer Gabapentin (antiseizure) capsule 300 mg give 1 capsule orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 7/23/24 directed to administer Depakote(antiseizure) oral tablet delayed release 250 mg give 2 tablets orally once a day. A physician's order dated 9/17/24 directed to administer oyster shell (supplement) oral tablet 500 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 9/28/24 directed to administer Celexa (antidepressant) oral tablet 20 mg give 30 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 10/16/24 directed Celebrex (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory) oral capsule 100 mg give 1 capsule orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 10/24/24 directed to administer Oxycodone HCL (opioid pain reliever) tablet 5 mg, give 5 mg orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 11/5/24 directed to administer Amantadine (Parkinson's like symptoms) 100 mg caps give 2 capsules orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 11/6/24 directed to administer Cholecalciferol (supplement)oral capsule 1.25 mg give 1 capsule orally once a day every 7 days. A physician' order dated 1/15/25 directed to administer Xifaxan (treatment for high ammonia levels) 550 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day. f. Resident #31's diagnosis included heart failure, depression and dementia. A physician's order dated 7/4/24 directed to administer Amlodipine besylate tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Cyanocobalamin (supplement) tablet 1000 micrograms (mcg) give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lipitor oral tablet 10 mg give 10 mg orally once a day, MiraLAX oral packet 17 grams (gm) give 1 packet orally once a day, Multiple vitamins with minerals give 1 tablet orally once a day, Senna (laxative) oral tablet give 8.6 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 7/11/24 directed to administer Ferrous sulfate (iron supplement) tablet 2 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Folic acid (supplement) oral tablet 1 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 7/13/24 directed to administer Trelegy Ellipta (reduce bronchospasms in asthma/COPD) inhalation aerosol powder breath activated 200-62.5-25 mcg/act 1 puff inhale orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/28/24 directed to administer Lubiprostone (constipation) oral capsule 24 mcg give 2 mcg orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 10/12/24 directed to administer Singulair (prevents asthma attacks) oral tablet 10mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 11/6/24 directed to administer Allegra allergy oral tablet give 180 mg orally once a day for allergies. A physician's order dated 12/19/24 directed to administer Escitalopram oxalate tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/20/25 directed to administer Prednisone (steroid) oral tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 2/3/25 directed to check blood glucose twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/13/25 directed to administer Lasix oral tablet 20 mg give 40 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 2/19/25 directed to check blood sugar before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 2/23/25 directed to administer Gabapentin tab 600 mg give 1 tablet oral three times a day, Freestyle Libre 2 reader device apply 1 application trans dermally before meals and at bedtime. Novolog injection solution 100 unit/ml inject 4 units subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime, Novolog injection solution 100 unit/ml as per sliding scale if 150-199 give 4 units, 200-249 give 6 units, 250-299 give 8 units, 300-349 give 10 units, 350-399 give 12 units, 400-449 give 14 units, 450-499 give 16 units, 500 give 20 units and notify the provider before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 2/24/25 directed to administer Metformin HCL oral tablet 500 mg Give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/26/25 directed to administer Trazadone (antidepressant) HCL oral tablet 50 mg give 25 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/5/25 directed to administer Oxycodone HCL oral tablet 5 mg give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 3/12/25 directed to administer Protonix (excessive stomach acid) oral tablet delayed release 40 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day for 8 weeks. g. Resident # 33's diagnosis included dementia, congestive heart failure and Parkinson's disease. A physician's order dated 12/18/24 directed to administer Carb/Levo 25mg/100 tab give 2 tablets orally three times a day, Gabapentin 300 mg capsules give 1 capsule orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 12/28/24 directed to administer pantoprazole 40 mg tablets give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 12/19/24 directed to administer Sertraline 100 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, aspirin low tab 8 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Clopidogrel tab 75 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Seroquel oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, A physician's order dated 1/28/25 directed to administer Amlodipine tab 10 mg Give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lisinopril tab 40 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Carvedilol 6.25 mg tab give 2 tablets orally twice a day, A physician's order dated 1/30/25 directed to administer Lantus subcutaneous solution 100 units/ml inject 40 units subcutaneously once a day. A physician's order dated 2/13/25 directed to administer Primidone tab 50 mg Give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. Trazadone 50 mg tabs give 25 mg orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 2/14/25 directed to administer Humalog Kwik pen subcutaneous solution 100units/ml inject 5 units subcutaneously before meals. A physician's order dated 2/28/25 directed to administer Isosorbide Mononitrate ER tablet extended release 24-hour 60 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/16/25 directed to administer Insulin lisp injection 100/ml per sliding scales if blood sugar is 150-199 give 3 units if less than 70 notify the provider, 200-249 6 units, 250-299 9 units, 300-349 12 units 350-399 15 units, greater than 400 18 units and notify the physician before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 3/24/25 directed to administer Hydralazine HCL 50 mg tablets give 1.5 tablets orally three times a day. h. Resident # 42's diagnosis included dementia, anxiety and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, fluticasone/vilanterol inhaler (steroid/bronchodilator for treatment of COPD) 100/25/60 1 puff inhale orally once a day, Divalproex (antiseizure) tab 250 mg DR give 250 mg orally twice a day, Guaifenesin (expectorant) tab 400 mg give 1 tab twice a day, omeprazole tab 20 mg give 1 tab twice a day, omeprazole tab 20 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/13/24 directed to administer Tylenol extra strength oral tablet 500 mg give 1000mg orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 3/2025 directed to administer Escitalopram 5 mg tablet give 20 mg orally once a day, i. Resident # 45's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes and seizures. A physician's order dated 5/30/24 directed to monitor glucose with Freestyle Libre device check resting blood sugar before meals and at bedtime. A physician's order dated 1/18/25 directed to administer Aspirin low 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Calcium citrate tab 200 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Polyether glycol powder 3350 NF give 17(Gram) gm orally once a day, Primidone tab 50 mg give 1 tablet orally every 12 hours, Tab a vit tab give 1 tablet orally once a day, Tresiba Flex injection 100 unit inject 12 units subcutaneously once a day, Vitamin C 500 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lexapro oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Novolog flex pen subcutaneous solution pen injector 100 unit/ml inject 4 units subcutaneously once a day, Tamsulosin 0.4 mg caps give 1 capsule orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/20/25 directed to administer Sodium Bicarbonate (antacid) oral tablet 650 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Sodium chloride oral tablet 1 gm give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/29/25 directed to administer Norvasc oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Coreg oral tablet 12.5 mg give 12.5 mg orally twice a day hold for systolic blood pressure less than 100 or heart rate less than 55 and notify physician, Hydralazine HCL oral tablet give 15 mg orally three times a day. j. Resident #49's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. A physician's order dated 8/22/24 directed to administer Tetrahydrozoline-dextran-polyethylene glycol povidone (eye irritation) eye drops instill 2 drops in left eye twice a day, Preparation H (hemorrhoid relief) rectal suppository insert 1 suppository rectally twice a day. A physician's order dated 8/23/24 directed to administer Citalopram Hydrobromide oral tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Cyanocobalamin tablet 1000mcg give 2 tablets orally once a day, Folic acid oral tablet 1 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lidocaine HCL external patch 4 % apply to lower back topically once a day, Lisinopril oral tablet 2.5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day hold for systolic blood pressure less than 90 or diastolic blood pressure less than 60 and notify the physician, Pravastatin sodium oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, PreserVision AREDS (supplement) 2 oral capsule with minerals give 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D3 oral tablet 25 mcg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/30/24 directed to administer Lasix oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally every Monday, Wednesday and Friday, Tylenol oral tablet 325 mg give 2 tablets twice a day. A physician's order dated 10/1/24 directed to administer Ferrous Sulfate oral tablet 325 mg give 325 mg orally one a day. A physician's order dated 2/6/25 directed to administer Eliquis oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. k. Resident # 56's diagnosis included Alzheimer's disease, anxiety and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Tab a Vite tab give 1 tablet orally once a day, l. Resident # 59's diagnosis included dementia, congestive heart failure and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/26/24 directed to administer Cyanocobalamin oral tablet 1000 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, folic acid oral tablet 1 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lactulose (laxative)oral solution 20 gm/30 ml give 30 ml orally once a day, MiraLAX oral packet 17 gm give 17 gm orally once a day, multivitamin oral tablet give 1 tablet orally once a day, Thiamine HCL oral tablet 100 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 10/8/24 directed to administer Lasix oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 11/23/24 directed to administer Prozac (antidepressant) oral capsule 10 mg give 10 mg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/13/25 directed to administer Potassium chloride ER oral tablet 20 mEq give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/16/25 directed to administer Risperdal oral tablet 0.5 mg give 0.25 mg orally once a day. m. Resident #61's diagnosis included Diabetes, Dementia and Cerebral infarction. A physician's order dated 5/28/24 directed to administer Gabapentin cap 100 mg give 1 capsule twice a day, Metoprolol Tar tablet 50 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Aspirin low tab 81 mg give 1 tablet once a day, Escitalopram 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet once a day, Ezetimibe (lowers cholesterol) tab 10 mg give 1 tab orally once a day, fluticasone vilanterol inhaler 200/25 60 inhaler 1 inhalation orally once a day, Oxybutynin tab 15 mg ER give 1 tablet orally once a day, Pantoprazole 40 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Rosuvastatin (lowers lipids) tab 40 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Acidophilus (probiotic) oral capsule give 1 capsule orally once a day, Eliquis 2.5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Metformin tab 1000mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 9/26/24 directed to administer Cholestyram (lowers cholesterol) powder 4 gm lite give 4 grams orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/12/25 directed to administer Trulicity subcutaneous solution autoinjector 0.75 mg/0.5 ml inject 1 syringe subcutaneously once a day every Wednesday. Humalog Kwik pen subcutaneous solution pen injector 1unit/ml inject 2 units subcutaneously before meals. Fasting blood sugar check before meals and at bedtime. Humalog 100 units/ml Kwik pen 3ml inject as per sliding scale if blood sugar is 100-199 give 10 units call physician if glucose is less than 70, 200-400 give 15 units call physician if blood sugar is greater than 400 subcutaneously before meals and at bedtime. n. Resident #63's diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, diabetes, and cerebral infarction. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Aspirin low tab 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Donepezil 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Escitalopram 10gm tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Tab a Vite tab give 1 tablet once a day, Vitamin B1 tab 100mg give 2 tablets orally once a day, Midodrine tab 5 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Reguloid (fiber) powder orange give 2 tablespoons orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 6/4/24 directed to administer Cholecalciferol oral tablet give 25 mcg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 8/20/24 directed to administer Acetaminophen oral tablet 325 mg give 2 tablets orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 12/6/24 directed to administer Tramadol HCL oral tablet 25 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day. o. Resident #67's diagnosis included dementia, hypothyroidism, and chronic kidney disease. A Physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Allopurinol (gout) tab 100 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Amlodipine tab 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Eliquis 2.5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Hydralazine tab 25 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Acetaminophen 500 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 7/31/24 directed to administer Vitamin B12 oral tablet give 1000 mcg orally once a day. A physician's order dated 12/18/24 directed to administer Trazadone 50 mg tabs give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. p. Resident # 68's diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, depression and hyperkalemia. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Vitamin D 1000 IU caps give 1 capsule orally once a day, Amlodipine besylate tablet 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lisinopril tab 40 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 11/2/24 directed to administer Trazadone HCL oral tablet 50 mg give 25 mg orally three times a day. A physician's order dated 12/19/24 directed to administer Escitalopram oxalate oral tablet 20 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/18/25 directed to administer Aspirin EC tablet delayed release 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. q. Resident # 69's diagnosis included dementia, psychotic disorder with delusions, and chronic kidney disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine tab 10 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Aspirin low 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Ondansetron (nausea and vomiting) tab 4 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Potassium chloride cap 10 mEq ER give 2 capsules once a day, Sertraline 100 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day as part of 125 mg dose in am, Sertraline 25 mg tabs give 1 tablet once a day as part of 125 mg dose in am, Multivitamin with minerals oral tablet give 1 tablet orally once a day, Calcium carb 500 mg tab give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Vitamin C 500 mg tab give 2 tablets orally twice a day. r. Resident #72's diagnosis included dementia, hypothyroidism, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Famotidine 10 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally once a day, Valsartan tab 160 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Vitamin D 3 50000 IU caps give 1 capsule orally once a day, Hydralazine tab 10 mg Give 1 tablet orally three times a day, A physician's order dated 6/20/24 directed to administer Aspirin tablet 81 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/4/25 directed to administer Sodium Chloride oral tablet 1 gm give 1 tablet orally twice a day. s. Resident # 74's diagnosis included Alzheimer's dementia, hypokalemia, and hypothyroidism. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Escitalopram 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Lisinopril 10 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Memantine 5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally twice a day. A physician's order dated 1/17/25 directed to administer Vitamin B 12 oral tablet 100 mcg give 1 tablet orally once a day. t. Resident # 78's diagnosis included Alzheimer's Dementia, hypothyroidism, and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Docusate sodium cap 100 mg give 1 capsule orally twice a day, Meloxicam tab 15 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day, Potassium chloride solution 10% give 15 ml orally once a day, Acetaminophen 500 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally twice a day, Genteal tear (dry eyes) solution instill 2 drops in left eye twice a day. A physician's order dated 7/16/24 directed to administer Lisinopril tablet 2.5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 1/24/25 directed to administer Multiple vitamins with minerals give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 3/16/25 directed to administer Combigan (glaucoma) 0.2-0.5% ophthalmic solution instill 1 drop in both eyes twice a day. u. Resident # 81's diagnosis included dementia, anxiety and depression. A physician's order dated 6/3/24 directed to administer Amlodipine 2.5 mg tabs give 1 tablet orally once a day, Atenolol 25 mg tabs give 0.5 tablet orally once a day, Memantine tab 10 mg give 1 tablet orally twice a day, Senna 8.6 mg tabs give 2 tablets orally once a day. v. Resident #92's diagnosis included Paranoid schizophrenia, hypokalemia and anxiety disorder. A physician's order dated 6/19/24 directed to administer Amlodipine besylate oral tablet 5 mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 7/27/24 directed to administer Oyster shell calcium oral tablet 500mg give 1 tablet orally once a day. A physician's order dated 12/4/24 directed to administer Trazadone HCL oral tablet 50 mg give 0.5 tablet orally twice a day. Observations on 3/26/25 at 10:30 AM, identified Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #6 was having difficulty accessing Point Click Care (PCC) the electronic medical record system (EMAR). LPN #6 was heard to state I can't get into these computers, I don't know what is wrong with these computers, I have not been able to get into PCC all morning. I hate these computers, I wish we just went back to paper. Interview with LPN #6 on 3/26/25 at 10:30AM identified she was unable to access PCC since the start of her shift at 7:00 AM. She stated she had tried 2 laptops and 2 desktop computers unsuccessfully. LPN #6 indicated she had administered medications to the 22 residents on her assignment, for the morning medication pass by memory, without the benefit of the use of a Medication Administration Record (MAR). (An MAR ensures the 5 rights of medication administration, right patient, right drug, right dose, right route, and right time). LPN #6 stated that she had failed to document any of the non-narcotic medications that she had administered by any alternate means of record keeping. LPN #6 was able to show a written record of each of the residents who received narcotics as narcotic medications required a signature in the narcotic book, on the proof of use sheet, that the medication had been signed out for a specific resident. Additionally, LPN #6 identified she had failed to notify a supervisor or the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) when she was unable to access the EMAR or the software used for medication administration, PCC, because she wanted to get the medications passed and planned on documenting what she had given after the medication pass was completed. LPN #6 indicated that if any resident medications had changed, she would have expected the off-going nurse to communicate this verbally, during a nurse-to-nurse report, for the resident medications that changed . LPN #6 further indicated that it was not an appropriate practice to administer medications to residents without utilizing an MAR, and that the policy was to call a supervisor when locked out of the EMAR and PCC. Interview on 3/26/25 at 11:00 AM with the Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS) identified that she was not made aware LPN #6 was unable to access the EMAR or PCC and had not received any communication from LPN #6 to reset her password. The ADNS stated that LPN #6 had passed medications to 22 residents without the benefit of an MAR and should have contacted the supervisor or herself to reset her password. The ADNS identified it was inappropriate and against the policy to administer medications without the benefit of utilizing the MAR to ensure the 5 rights of medication administration were performed. Further, the ADNS was unable to explain why LPN #6 would administer medications to 22 residents, by memory, without utilizing an MAR. Interview with the Corporate Regional Nurse, Registered Nurse (RN) #4 on 3/26/25 at 11:26 AM identified that the physician, Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), and responsible parties had been notified of LPN #6's inappropriate use of memory to administer medications to 22 residents without the benefit of utilizing an MAR. Interview with APRN #1 on 3/26/25 at 12:22 PM identified she was made aware that 22 residents were administered medications by LPN #6, by memory, without the benefit of an MAR, and that she had reviewed all of the medications ordered for the affected residents under her care. APRN #1 stated that for the residents who required blood sugar monitoring, she had ordered blood sugar checks immediately and to continue per the established schedule. All affected residents were to have vital sign checks every shift for 24 hours to monitor their health status. APRN #1 additionally ordered labs to be checked for the residents who were receiving sodium chloride tablets and that she was to be notified of any abnormalities. Interview with APRN #2 on 3/26/25 at 12:30 PM identified that she was made aware that 22 resident's medications were administered without the benefit of an MAR, by memory, by LPN #6. APRN #2 identified she had just observed all of the residents under her care, would review those resident medications, and would determine if further monitoring would be required. Additionally, APRN #2 identified that she would review the vital signs and blood sugars for her residents and leave orders to be notified for any abnormalities. Review of the policy Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) revised 6/2023 directed the licensed nurse will read the physician order and complete the 5 checks, administer the medication as ordered and document the administration in the EMAR. Although requested, the facility failed to provide a policy for MAR utilization. 2. Resident #52 had a diagnosis that included dementia, anxiety, heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation (an irregular and rapid heartrate resulting in poor blood flow). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #52 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, required set up assistance for eating, maximum assistance for personal hygiene, and was dependent on toileting and supervision/touching assistance for bed mobility and transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/7/24 identified Resident #52 was at risk for alteration in cardiovascular status related to congestive heart failure (CHF) and atrial fibrillation (an irregular and rapid heartrate resulting in poor blood flow). Interventions included a diet consult as necessary, monitoring/documenting and reporting any changes in lung sounds on auscultation, edema, and changes in weight. A physician's order dated 10/21/24 directed to obtain weekly weights every Wednesday and notify the supervisor if the resident refused. Review of the Weights and Vitals Summary identified Resident #52's weights as: Date Weight (Lbs.) Discrepancy (Lbs.) 10/21/24 222.0 0 10/23/24 222.0 0 10/30/24 220.0 -2 11/6/24 220.8 +0.8 11/13/24 229.6 +8.8 11/18/24 228.6 -1 11/20/24 229.0 +1.6 11/27/24 230.0 +1 11/27/24 223.8 -6.2 12/4/24 223.2 -0.6 12/11/24 220.6 -2.6 12/18/24 228.0 +7.4 1/1/25 226.1 -2.1 1/8/25 225.2 -0.9 1/15/25 219.9 -5.3 1/22/25 226.0 &nbs[TRUNCATED]
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, clinical record reviews, facility documentation, and facility policy for 3 of 6 sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, clinical record reviews, facility documentation, and facility policy for 3 of 6 sampled residents, (Resident #43, Resident #42, and Resident #84) reviewed for abuse, for Resident #43, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from physical abuse by staff, and for Resident #42 and Resident #84, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from physical abuse by a resident. The findings include: 1. Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, personality disorder, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, did not experience episodes of delusions, and required maximal assistance for his/her toileting hygiene and chair to bed and bed to chair transfers. The MDS further indicated that Resident #43 did not reject evaluations of care including Activity of Daily Living assistance and was always incontinent of urine. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 experienced frequent episodes of incontinence of bladder with an intervention of an assist of 2 with toileting upon request. The RCP further identified he/she had a behavior problem of making accusatory statements towards staff. Interventions included explaining all procedures to him/her before starting and allowing him/her to adjust to the changes, monitoring behavior episodes to determine the underlying cause, and documenting the behavior and potential cause. The Resident Care Card in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 was to have 2 staff members present at all times when in his/her room including when performing bathing and toileting tasks. An observation and interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:43 AM identified that he/she was sitting in the hallway in a wheelchair, hands flailing, crying, verbalizing he/she was upset regarding a financial matter. The resident verbalized, in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8, he/she had been hurt by staff on multiple occasions, most recently by LPN #7. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was called by LPN #8 to come to the resident's room regarding the allegation of abuse. An interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:51 AM was conducted by the surveyor in the presence of the DNS. Resident #43 alleged a few weeks prior, while he/she was trying to get into bed from his/her wheelchair, LPN #7 reached over the back of the wheelchair and pushed him/her onto the bed in a non-sexual manner. Resident #43 further identified that he/she was alone in the room with LPN #7 and started yelling for help, at which point LPN #7 grabbed the phone out of his/her hand and threw it across the room. It was noted by Resident #43, that Nurse Aide (NA) #7 entered the room and assisted him/her into bed in order to provide incontinence care. Resident #43 stated he/she experienced great humiliation over the event and continued to be afraid of LPN #7, noting LPN #7 continued to come into his/her room to provide care after the alleged incident of abuse. The DNS identified he was aware of the allegation of abuse and stated he had completed an investigation. An interview and review of abuse documentation with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 7:51 AM identified a Reportable Event (RE) form dated 1/3/25 indicating Resident #43 alleged LPN #7, with help from NA #7, picked up the resident threw him/her into bed. Actions taken indicated LPN #7 and NA #7 were off of the schedule until the investigation was completed and would no longer provide routine care to Resident #43. Although requested, the DNS failed to provide documentation of a thorough investigation or any investigation whatsoever, except for a summary that he had created describing what had transpired on 1/3/25. The summary of events was typewritten, noted to be undated, unsigned, and lacked the alleged staff members name. The investigation/summary provided lacked any staff interviews, staff statements, an interview with Resident #43, any resident interviews who may have witnessed or overheard the incident, or an interview with the staff member (LPN #7) against whom the allegation was made. The DNS indicated he would have to look for the completed investigation he had done and for the creation date of the summary provided. Other than a history of allegations by Resident #43 against staff, (noted in the resident's care plan), the DNS was unable to explain how he had reached a conclusion that the allegation was unsubstantiated, and LPN #7 was allowed to return to providing care to Resident #43 upon the conclusion of the investigation. In an interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/19/25 at 9:45 AM the DNS identified the nursing note written by LPN #7 on 1/5/25 (2 days after the allegation), which stated Resident #43 alleged to be thrown into bed, and not pushed, invalidated the allegation. The DNS deduced LPN #7 was not strong enough to throw the resident, adding this made all the difference in the outcome of his investigation During a review of the facility abuse policy with the DNS, he stated that he had not needed to remove LPN #7 from the schedule as the LPN was not scheduled to work on 1/4/25 when he concluded his investigation. On 3/19/25 at 10:30 AM the DNS stated that he was unable to locate any of the sworn statements from the investigation following the abuse allegation on 1/3/25. An interview and review of nursing progress notes with LPN #7 on 3/19/25 at 4:26 PM identified that Resident #43 refused to be assisted with incontinence care when he worked on the second shift (7:00 PM to 10:45 PM) and remained wet. LPN #7 stated he worked on third shift (10:45 PM to 7:30 AM) and indicated that Resident #43 again declined to be assisted with incontinence care and that was when LPN #7 informed the resident that he/she had to be changed. LPN #7 stated that he would not be held responsible for the development of a urinary tract infection or (pressure) sore for Resident #43, so he provided the incontinence care despite Resident #43's objections. When NA #7 assisted putting the resident back to bed with LPN #7 they began to provide the incontinence care, and that was when Resident #43 began crying and yelling for help. LPN #7 remarked this was when he removed the phone from the resident's hand and told Resident #43 he/she could call for help when he was done. LPN #7 indicated he removed the phone because he could not reposition the resident if he/she was holding onto the phone. On the advice of the DNS, to protect himself, LPN #7 indicated he wrote a late progress note on 1/5/25 at 6:30 AM (2 days after the incident and when he worked on 1/4/25 into 1/5/25). Further the progress note documented that the resident drew blood from LPN #7 in the process of LPN #7 transferring him/her back to the bed and that Resident #43 screamed, yelled, scratched, and hit staff during the incontinence care. LPN #7 indicated that Resident #43 was always crying about everything Boo Hoo Hoo this and Boo Hoo Hoo that and no one wanted to work with him/her because he/she cried about everything. LPN #7 stated that although he had subsequently spoken to the DNS about the incident, he was never asked by the DNS to write a statement. In a follow up interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/20/25 at 8:36 AM the DNS indicated he had not yet begun an investigation into the allegation from 1/3/25, per the facility policy, and following the 3/18/25 interview with Resident #43 and the surveyor. The DNS stated the reason he had not done so was that he wanted to confirm with the surveyor first, but did not specify what he wanted to confirm. An interview and review of NA #7's written and undated statement (created on 3/19/25 at the DNS request) with the DNS on 3/20/25 at 2:14 PM identified Resident #43 was fighting back and needed redirection multiple times during the 1/3/25 incident. The DNS reiterated that because Resident #43 was not thrown on the bed (was pushed), the abuse was unfounded. The DNS was informed by the surveyor that the abuse had been investigated and had been substantiated through the investigative process, by the surveyor. The DNS indicated that he would redo his investigation. According to punch in and punch out records, LPN #7 punched in on 3/24/25 at 11:00 PM and punched out on 3/25/25 at 7:30 AM. A review of the staffing schedules identified that LPN #7 had been assigned to Resident #43's unit. Despite informing the DNS on 3/20/25 at 2:14 PM that the allegation of abuse had been substantiated by the surveyor, and LPN #7 had admitted to providing care to the resident against his/her will, LPN #7 was allowed to return to the facility, scheduled to work on Resident #43's unit, and worked in the facility on 3/24/25 on the 11:00 PM to 7:30 AM shift. An interview on 3/25/25 at 11:03 AM with the DNS identified that residents have the right to refuse care. He further identified if a resident refused care, staff should document the refusal and reapproach later. The DNS identified that forcing a resident to receive care they had refused fell under the category of abuse. Although the DNS indicated to the surveyor that he would begin an investigation on 3/20/25, he stated that he still had not read LPN #7's progress note indicating Resident #43 had drawn blood (although the DNS summary written on 3/18/24 did identify LPN #7's blood was drawn) during the incident. The DNS stated he needed to investigate the 1/3/25 incident more thoroughly. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, LPN #7 was removed from the staff schedule. A review of LPN #7's punch card identified LPN #7 had access to Resident #43 on 62 different shifts for the time period of 1/4/24 through 3/19/25, and again on 1/24/25. 2.a. Resident #42 had diagnoses that included dementia and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #42 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview of Mental Status BIMS of 0 and was independent with ambulation. The Resident Care Plan dated 10/23/24 identified Resident #42 had impaired thought processes, and an ADL deficit related to cognition. Interventions included to cue, orient and supervise as needed and provide supervision with ambulation. A nurse's note dated 11/23/24 at 7:07 PM identified Resident #42 was in the hallway when s/he attempted to prevent another resident (Resident #84) from pushing an item. During the interaction, Resident #84 became agitated and struck Resident #42 open handed on the right cheek. The residents were immediately separated and Resident #84 placed on 1:1 monitoring. The DNS, responsible party, physician and police were notified. Resident #42 had no complaints of pain, and no signs of bruising at the time of the incident. The Resident Care Plan was revised to include redirection away from situations that may cause conflict. b. Resident #84 had diagnoses that included dementia and delusional disorders. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #84 had moderately impaired cognition and was independent with bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation. The Resident Care Plan dated 10/7/24 identified Resident #84 had a history of inappropriate/disruptive behavioral symptoms evidenced by unprovoked aggression towards others. Interventions included anticipating needs and intervene as necessary to protect the rights of others. An unsigned Resident Monitoring Sheet dated 11/23/24 identified 6:15 PM through 6:30 PM Resident #84 was in the hall. A nurses note dated 11/23/24 at 7:09 PM identified Resident #84 was walking down the hall pushing an item. (Resident #42) attempted to stop him/her (from further movement) resulting in Resident #84 striking Resident #42 on the right cheek open handed. Resident #84 was placed on 1:1 supervision and returned to his/her room. The responsible party, physician. DNS, and police were notified. A facility Reported Event Summary dated 11/26/24 identified on 11/23/24 at approximately 6:30 PM, Resident #84 was pushing a wheelchair in the hallway. Resident #42 stepped in front (of resident #84) to prevent further movement. This upset Resident #84 who slapped Resident #42 with an open hand on the right side of his/her face. LPN #14 was passing medication in the hallway and observed the altercation but was unable to respond quickly enough to intervene. The residents were separated and immediately placed on a 1:1 sitter until details could be obtained and assessments by the RN supervisor completed. An assessment identified both residents at baseline with no injuries to Resident #42. Once details were sorted out, Resident #84 remained on a 1:1 sitter until cleared by the health provider. Resident #84's prescribed Trazadone (an antidepressant) was increased from 25 mg daily to 50 mg. Resident #84 was subsequently transported to an alternate (psychiatric) facility for evaluation and treatment on 11/25/24. An interview with LPN #14 on 3/24/25 at 11:49 AM identified she was the assigned nurse on 11/23/24 during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift. LPN #14 indicated while passing medications, she observed Resident #84 pushing a cart down the hall. Resident #42 attempted to stop Resident #84 from pushing the cart at which point, Resident #84 slapped Resident #42 open handed on the side of the face. In response, Resident #42 pushed Resident #84 into the wall. LPN #14 immediately intervened, separated the two residents and notified the nursing supervisor. An interview with the DNS on 3/24/25 at 1:30 PM identified Resident #84 was pushing an item down the hallway when Resident #42 attempted to stop him/her. Resident #84 slapped Resident #42 in the face. No injuries were noted as a result of the incident. The DNS further identified he was not aware Resident #42 had also pushed Resident #84 as this detail was not previously reported or documented in any written statements, though it should have been reported at the time of the incident. Attempts to interview RN #3, the assigned nursing supervisor were unsuccessful. A review of the facility policy for Abuse directs that the facility does not condone abuse by anyone including staff members and other residents. Further, abuse is defined as the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm of pain or mental anguish that are necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Willful as used in this definition of abuse, means the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm.
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 3 of 6 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 3 of 6 residents, (Resident #42, Resident #43, and Resident #84) reviewed for abuse, for Resident #42 and #84, the facility failed to ensure that a resident-to-resident altercation, and for Resident #43 that a staff-to-resident altercation, involving physical mistreatment was properly reported according to policies, failed to implement policies to ensure a resident was protected from abuse, and failed to establish abuse procedures for coordination with the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The findings include: 1.a.Resident #42 had diagnoses that included dementia and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #42 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview of Mental Status, BIMS of 0 and was independent with ambulation. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/23/24 identified Resident #42 had impaired thought process, and an ADL deficit related to cognition. Interventions included to cue, orient and supervise as needed and provide supervision with ambulation. b. Resident #84 had diagnoses that included dementia and delusional disorders. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #84 had moderately impaired cognition and was independent with bed mobility, transfers, and ambulation. The RCP dated 10/7/24 identified Resident #84 had a history of inappropriate/disruptive behavioral symptoms evidenced by unprovoked aggression towards others. Interventions included anticipating needs and intervening as necessary to protect the rights of others. An unsigned Resident Monitoring Sheet dated 11/23/24 identified from 6:15 PM through 6:30 PM Resident #84 was in the hall. A statement dated and signed 11/23/24 identified at 6:30 PM Resident #42 was slapped by Resident #84 while pushing a cart. A facility Reported Event Summary dated 11/26/24 identified on 11/23/24 at approximately 6:30 PM, Resident #84 was pushing a wheelchair in the hallway. Resident #42 stepped in front (of resident #84) to prevent further movement. This upset Resident #84 who slapped Resident #42 with an open hand on the right side of his/her face. LPN #14 was passing medication in the hallway and observed the altercation but was unable to respond quickly enough to intervene. The residents were separated and immediately placed on a 1:1 sitter until details could be obtained and assessments by the RN supervisor completed. An assessment identified both residents at baseline with no injuries to Resident #42. Once details were sorted out, Resident #84 remained on a 1:1 sitter until cleared by the health provider. Resident #84's prescribed Trazadone (an antidepressant) was increased from 25 mg daily to 50 mg. Resident #84 was subsequently transported to an alternate (psychiatric) facility for evaluation and treatment on 11/25/24. An interview with LPN #14 on 3/24/25 at 11:49 AM identified she was the assigned nurse on 11/23/24 during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift. LPN #14 indicated while passing medications, she observed Resident #84 pushing a cart down the hall. Resident #42 attempted to stop Resident #84 from pushing the cart at which point, Resident #84 slapped Resident #42 open handed on the side of the face. In response, Resident #42 pushed Resident #84 into the wall. LPN #14 immediately intervened, separated the two residents and notified the nursing supervisor. LPN #14 further identified that although she had completed and signed a written statement, the statement failed to include the detail of Resident #42 pushing Resident #84 against the wall per the facility reporting policy, further explaining the omission as an oversight. An interview with the DNS on 3/24/25 at 1:30 PM identified he was not aware Resident #42 had also pushed Resident #84 as this detail was not previously reported or documented in any written statements, though it should have been at the time of the incident per the reporting policy. Attempts to interview RN #3, the assigned nursing supervisor were unsuccessful. 2. Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, personality disorder, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 was cognitively intact, did not experience episodes of delusions, and required maximal assistance for his/her toileting hygiene and chair to bed and bed to chair transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 experienced frequent episodes of incontinence of bladder with an intervention of an assist of 2 with toileting upon request. The RCP further identified he/she had a behavior problem of making accusatory statements towards staff. Interventions included explaining all procedures to him/her before starting and allowing him/her to adjust to the changes, monitoring behavior episodes to determine the underlying cause, and documenting the behavior and potential cause. The Resident Care Card in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 was to have 2 staff members present at all times when in his/her room including when performing medication passes, answering call lights, and performing bathing and toileting tasks. An observation and interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:43 AM identified that he/she was sitting in the hallway in a wheelchair, hands flailing, crying, verbalizing he/she was upset regarding a financial matter. The resident verbalized, in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8, he/she had been hurt by staff on multiple occasions, most recently by LPN #7. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was called by LPN #8 to come to the resident's room regarding the allegation of abuse. An interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:51 AM was conducted by the surveyor in the presence of the DNS. Resident #43 alleged a few weeks prior, while he/she was trying to get into bed from his/her wheelchair, LPN #7 reached over the back of the wheelchair and pushed him/her onto the bed in a non-sexual manner. Resident #43 further identified that he/she was alone in the room with LPN #7 and started yelling for help, at which point LPN #7 grabbed the phone out of his/her hand and threw it across the room. It was noted by Resident #43, that Nurse Aide (NA) #7 entered the room and assisted him/her into bed in order to provide incontinence care. Resident #43 stated he/she experienced great humiliation over the event and continued to be afraid of LPN #7, noting LPN #7 continued to come into his/her room to provide care after the alleged incident of abuse. The DNS identified he was aware of the allegation of abuse and stated he had completed an investigation and reported the incident to the State Agency (SA). An interview and review of abuse documentation with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 7:51 AM identified a Reportable Event (RE) form dated 1/3/25. Review of the RE failed to identify that the allegation of mistreatment had been reported to the SA, per the facility policy. Although requested, the DNS failed to provide documentation of a thorough investigation or any investigation whatsoever, per the facility policy, except for a summary he created following what had transpired on 1/3/25. (The summary was later found to have been created by DNS memory on 3/18/25). The investigation provided lacked any staff interviews, staff statements, an interview with Resident #43, any residents interviews who may have witnessed or overheard the incident, or an interview with the staff member (LPN #7) against whom the allegation was made. Further, the RE indicated that the immediate action taken by the facility was that LPN #7 would no longer deliver care to Resident #43 unless it was in an emergency. The DNS stated that once the investigation had been completed, he had proven that the allegation of abuse was unfounded because Resident #43 had a history of allegations against staff, which were noted in the Resident Care Plan. The DNS was unable to produce an investigation or to further explain how he had reached his conclusion other than based on Resident #43's history of allegations. Additionally, the DNS identified that LPN #7 was allowed to return to providing care to Resident #43 upon the conclusion of the investigation. An interview and review of nursing progress notes with LPN #7 on 3/19/25 at 4:26 PM identified that Resident #43 refused to be assisted with incontinence care when he worked on the second shift (7:00 PM to 10:45 PM) and remained wet. LPN #7 stated he worked on third shift (10:45 PM to 7:30 AM) and indicated that Resident #43 again declined to be assisted with incontinence care and that was when LPN #7 informed the resident that he/she had to be changed. LPN stated that he would not be held responsible for the development of a urinary tract infection or (pressure) sore for Resident #43, so he provided the incontinence care despite Resident #43's objections. When NA #7 assisted putting the resident back to bed with LPN #7 they began to provide the incontinence care, and that is when Resident #43 began crying and yelling for help. LPN #7 remarked that it was when he removed the phone from the resident's hand and told Resident #43 he/she could call for help when he was done. LPN #7 indicated he removed the phone because he could not reposition the resident if he/she was holding onto the phone. On the advice of the DNS, to protect himself, LPN #7 indicated he wrote a late progress note on 1/5/25 at 6:30 AM (2 days after the incident). Further the progress note documented that the resident drew blood from LPN #7 in the process of LPN #7 transferring him/her back to the bed and that Resident #43 screamed, yelled, scratched, and hit staff during the incontinence care. LPN #7 indicated that Resident #43 was always crying about everything Boo Hoo Hoo this and Boo Hoo Hoo that and no one wanted to work with him/her because he/she cried about everything. LPN #7 stated that although he had subsequently spoken to the DNS about the incident, he was never asked by the DNS to write a statement. According to punch in and punch out records, LPN #7 had punched in on 3/24/25 at 11:00 PM and punched out on 3/25/25 at 7:30 AM. A review of the staffing schedules identified that LPN #7 had been assigned to Resident #43's unit. Despite informing the DNS on 3/20/25 at 2:14 PM that the allegation of abuse had been substantiated by the surveyor, and LPN #7 had admitted to providing care to the resident against his/her will, LPN #7 was allowed to return to the facility, scheduled to work on Resident #43's unit, worked in the facility on 3/24/25 on the 11:00 PM to 7:30 AM shift, and had access to Resident #43. The facility failed to implement its abuse policy. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, LPN #7 was removed from the staff schedule. A review of LPN #7's punch card identified LPN #7 had access to Resident #43 on 62 different shifts for the time period of 1/4/24 through 3/19/25, and again on 3/24/25. A review of the facility policy for Abuse Reporting directs all personnel must promptly report any incident or suspected incident of resident abuse. Additionally, the abuse policy directs facility staff who have been accused of abuse to be removed from the schedule pending the outcome of the investigation. Review of the facility's Reportable Events Policy identified that a Class B event, (state classification) including a complaint of resident abuse, should be reported to the State Department of Public Health and an investigation will be conducted by the facility after the discovery of an allegation of abuse. Review of the facility's Abuse Reporting Policy identified when an allegation of abuse is reported, the facility administrator or his/her designee will notify Department of Public Health; A completed copy of the Reportable Event Form and written statements from witnesses must be provided to the Administrator within 24 hours of the occurrence of said incident. Review of the Abuse Allegation and Investigation Policy directed, in part, to not allow employees to provide care independently or remove the employee from that unit or from the facility. 3. An interview with the Administrator on 3/27/25 at 9:46 AM identified the facility did not include QAPI as a component of their staff or volunteer training. Further the DNS identified the facility did not have any QAPI plan for abuse nor was the topic of abuse reviewed during QAPI/Quality Assurance and Assessment (QAA) meetings, stating he was not aware that he should have included abuse during QAPI meetings. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, the Administrator noted that a QAPI plan for abuse would be developed and reviewed at future QAPI meetings. Review of the facility's Quality Assurance Improvement Plan policy identified, in part, that the DNS or Administrator are responsible and accountable for developing, leading and closely monitoring the QAPI program. Components of the QAPI plan included clinical care, quality of life, and resident choice. The QAPI plan failed to include how staff communicate and coordinate situations of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation with the QAPI program.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #59) reviewed for unnecessary medications, the facility failed to review and revise the Resident Care Plan (RCP). The findings include: Resident #59's diagnoses included dementia, congestive heart failure, and bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #59 had severe cognitive impairment, required set-up assistance with eating, required supervision with personal hygiene, and was independent with ambulation. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect on 3/24/25 identified Resident #59 had a communication problem related to being severely hard of hearing. Interventions included discussing with the resident and his/her family concerns or feelings regarding communication difficulties and encouraging the resident to continue stating his/her thoughts. A review of social service progress notes and Resident Care Conference (RCC) sign in sheets identified Resident #59 had a RCC on 10/8/24 but had not had any subsequent RCCs. An interview on 3/24/25 at 9:00 AM with Social Worker (SW) #2 identified RCCs were held on a quarterly basis to allow for RCP updating. SW #2 identified that the facility failed to hold a quarterly RCC for Resident #59 in January 2025 due to oversight. She further indicated Resident #59 was not on her list of RCCs to be scheduled in January 2025 and the MDS Coordinator made an error in not placing him/her on January's list. SW #2 noted Resident #59 was on her list of residents to schedule in March 2025 and she would try to hold his RCC during the week of 3/25/25-3/27/25. An interview with the MDS Coordinator, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #15 on 3/24/25 at 9:18 AM identified she was responsible for creating a list of residents who needed a RCC, which is based off of their MDS completion date. She further identified she gives her list to the Administrative Assistant to call resident families and to collaborate with SW #2 in setting a date for the RCC. LPN #15 failed to locate a copy of the list of residents she provided to the Administrative Assistant for RCC scheduling in January 2025. Review of the Care Plan Policy identified, in part, the facility will complete an initial care plan within 21 days of a resident's admission and quarterly thereafter. The quarterly care plan will be developed no later than 7 days after the comprehensive MDS is completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 3 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and facility policy for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to turn and reposition a resident with a pressure ulcer according to the physician's order. The findings include: Resident #4's diagnoses included dementia, generalized muscle weakness, anxiety and hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicating severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and transfers, and required maximum assistance for bed mobility. The MDS identified that Resident #4 had impairment on both sides of the upper and lower extremities and was always incontinent of urine and bowel. Additionally, the MDS identified that Resident #4 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers and had a pressure reducing device for bed, but did not have a current pressure ulcer. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect for the month of March 2025, identified Resident #4 was at potential/actual impairment to skin integrity related to fragile skin, impaired mobility and incontinence. Interventions included encouraging good nutrition and hydration, following facility protocols for treatment of injury, monitoring/documenting location, size and treatment of skin injury, and reporting abnormalities to the provider. The Resident Care Card in effect for the month of March 2025, identified Resident #4 was non-ambulatory, required the assistance of 2 staff for turning and repositioning every 2 hours, and assistance of 2 staff for mechanical lift transfers. The RCC identified that Resident #4 used wheelchair for mobility and directed Resident #4 to be transferred to an adaptive tilt in space wheelchair up to 8-hour intervals. A Physician' s order in effect for the month of March 2025 directed to turn and reposition Resident #4 at least every 2 hours while in bed. Review of the Integrated Wound Care progress note dated 3/13/25 by Medical Doctor (MD) #2 identified a stage III facility acquired pressure ulcer (PU) to the left heel measuring 4 centimeters (cm.) by 5 cm. by 0 cm. which was described with scant serous (clear, watery fluid from a wound) exudate, 85 percent (%) epithelial tissue (type of body tissue covering internal and external surfaces), positive ecchymosis (skin discoloration that results from bleeding underneath the skin) in the peri wound with no odor present. Observation and interview with Resident #4 on 3/20/25 at 9:00 AM, identified that he/she was lying on his/her back with the head of bed slightly elevated. Resident #4 identified that he/she had not been turned/repositioned and had been lying on his/her back since she woke up. Constant observation on 3/20/25 from 9:00 AM through 11:50 AM identified the following: At 9:22 AM, Resident #5 was noted to be lying on his/her back with the head of the bed raised. Registered Nurse (RN) #5 entered Resident #4's room, administered his/her morning medications, and exited without repositioning Resident #4. At 10:00 AM, Resident #5 was noted to be lying on his/her back with the head of the bed raised. Social Worker (SW) #2 entered Resident #4's room and exited room [ROOM NUMBER] minute afterwards without repositioning Resident #4. At 10:30 AM Nurse Aid (NA) #10 and NA#11 were observed providing incontinent care. Resident #26 was left in the same position as prior to the incontinent care, lying on his/her back. At 11:40 AM, Resident #4 remained on his/her back with the head of bed slightly elevated. Interview with NA #10 on 3/20/25 at 11:50 AM, identified that she was not aware Resident #4 needed to be turned and repositioned every 2 hours. NA #10 indicated that resident specific tasks triggered in the task section of the electronic charting system, and she would then sign off the task when performed, but Resident #4 did not have a directive triggered that would alert her to turn and reposition the resident. Further, she stated that she had not turned or repositioned Resident #4 since the beginning of her shift which started at 7:00 AM. NA#10 identified that she was responsible for turning and repositioning Resident #4. Subsequent to surveyors' inquiry Resident #4 was turned and repositioned and was observed lying on his/her right side facing the window at 12:00 PM. Interview and Record review with LPN #8 on 3/20/25 at 2:30 PM identified that NAs were responsible for turning and repositioning residents. LPN #8 identified there was a physician order to turn and reposition Resident #4 every 2 hours. LPN #8 indicated that Resident #4 sometimes refused to be turned and repositioned but identified that she had not attempted to turn and reposition him/her during her shift which began at 7:00AM. LPN #8 was unable to identify a refusal care plan or a progress note indicating that Resident #4 had refused to be turned or repositioned. Interview with the DNS on 3/20/25 at 3:00 PM identified that NA #10 should have checked her care card to determine Resident #10's care and would be re-educated. The DNS further identified that Resident #4 should have been turned and repositioned every 2 hours and any refusals reported to the nurse or nurse supervisor for appropriate interventions to be placed and documentation completed. Review of facility policy titled, Turning and Repositioning Policy, identified in part, the purpose was to promote circulation and relieve pressure from pressure points to maintain skin integrity. Position changes are to be implemented every 2 to 3 hours and when necessary, and if the resident is dependent on staff for mobility, check for toileting needs during repositioning.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #39...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #39) reviewed for positioning and mobility, the facility failed to ensure a pelvic positioning belt was applied per the physician's order. The findings include: Resident #39's diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia, and muscle weakness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #39 was severely cognitively impaired, dependent with toileting, and required partial/moderate assistance with bed mobility and transfers. A Morse fall scale dated 1/20/25 identified Resident #39 had a history of falling and was a high risk for falls. The Resident Care Plan dated 3/3/25 identified Resident #39 was non-ambulatory, required assistance of 1 for transfers, and was a fall risk. Interventions included providing assistive and adaptive devices as ordered and to ensure proper positioning when sitting in a chair. An Occupational Therapy (OT #1) note dated 3/4/25 identified Resident #39 was provided with a seat belt on the wheelchair to improve his/her positioning. The note indicated that Resident #39 demonstrated increased positioning and increased safety with the seatbelt applied. OT #1 note dated 3/12/25 identified Resident #39 was noted with no pelvic positioning belt in place and that caregiver education was provided on the importance of the positioning belt and its benefits. The note indicated Resident #39 demonstrated the ability to doff (remove) the positioning belt with frequent verbal cues. A rehabilitation in-service form dated 3/12/25 identified Resident #39 was to have a pelvic positioning belt for proper body alignment when in his/her manual wheelchair to promote optimal positioning, decrease skin breakdown, and increase safety. The in-service form was signed by staff in attendance and by the in-service provider (OT #1). A physician's order dated 3/17/25 directed Resident #39 was to sit up in the manual wheelchair per tolerance with a pelvic positioning belt applied for proper body alignment. OT #1's note dated 3/18/25 identified continued caregiver education was required for staff on use of the wheelchair pelvic positioning belt for Resident #39. The note indicated that Resident #39 demonstrated good positioning in the wheelchair with the positioning belt in place. Observations on 3/18/25 at 10:06 AM identified Resident #39 was seated in his/her wheelchair in front of the nurse's station without the benefit of having the pelvic positioning belt applied. Observation on 3/18/25 at 11:00 AM identified Resident #39 was seated in his/her wheelchair in the recreation room without the benefit of having the pelvic positioning belt applied. Observation and interview with NA #4 on 3/19/25 at 11:07 AM identified Resident #39 was seated in his/her room in the wheelchair without the benefit of having the pelvic positioning belt applied. NA #4 indicated that although it would have been her responsibility to apply the belt for Resident #39, she had forgotten to apply it after transferring the resident into the wheelchair. NA #4 further identified that Resident #39 was supposed to wear the belt because the resident tended to slide forward when in the wheelchair. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, NA #4 applied the pelvic positioning belt for Resident #39. Observation and interview with LPN #1 on 3/19/25 11:11 AM identified that Resident #39's assigned NA would have been responsible to apply and maintain application of the belt for the resident while seated in the wheelchair. LPN #1 indicated the NA would know to apply the pelvic positioning belt by referencing her NA assignment information in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR). Interview and review of the clinical record with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) on 3/19/25 at 1:17 PM identified Resident #39 had a pelvic positioning belt ordered as the resident tended to slide out of the wheelchair. The DNS indicated the belt should have been applied by the nursing staff and the NA must have forgotten to apply it. The DNS identified he would speak with the nursing supervisor about the application of Resident #39's positioning belt. Observation and Interview with LPN #6 on 3/20/25 at 2:20 PM identified Resident #39 was leaning forward in the wheelchair while self-propelling past the nurse's station using his/her bilateral lower extremities. Resident #39 was observed doing so without the benefit of having his/her pelvic positioning belt applied. LPN #6 indicated Resident #39 needed to have the belt applied but the NA must have forgotten to apply the positioning belt. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, LPN #6 applied the pelvic positioning belt for Resident #39. Interview and review of the clinical record with PT #1 on 3/24/25 at 10:18AM identified Resident #39 had the pelvic positioning belt ordered to help keep proper position when seated in the wheelchair. PT #1 indicated that OT #1 conducted an in-service on 3/12/25 with the nursing staff on the application and usage of the belt. Review of the clinical record with PT #1 reflected a physician's order was put in place for the pelvic positioning belt on 3/17/25. PT #1 identified that if the pelvic positioning belt was not applied for Resident #39 then his/her positioning in the wheelchair would not be optimal and the resident would be at higher risk for falls. PT #1 further indicated that nursing staff would have been responsible to apply and maintain the application of the pelvic positioning belt for Resident #39 when the resident was seated in the wheelchair. Review of the facility policy, Physician's Orders, dated 7/23, directed orders must be documented and entered into the clinical record by the licensed nurse with the purpose to provide residents with prompt and accurate treatment. Review of the facility policy, Nursing Policy and Procedures, dated 7/23, directed physical therapy is provided in accordance with the resident's needs and shall be prescribed by the physician to ensure all resident's rehabilitative services are met. Although requested, a policy on wheelchair equipment/pelvic positioning belts was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #57) reviewed for accidents and hazards, the facility failed to provide an assistive device and supervision with ambulation per the physician's order for a resident who was a high fall risk and for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #84) reviewed for dementia care, the facility failed to provide supervision with ambulation at mealtime per the physician's order for a resident with dementia and dysphagia. The findings include: 1. Resident #57's diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on his/her feet and a history of falling. A Morse fall scale evaluation dated 2/7/25 identified Resident #57 used an ambulatory aide (walker) and was a high risk for falling. A Physical Therapy (PT) evaluation and plan of treatment dated 2/7/25 identified Resident #57 was a fall risk and required supervision with a 2 wheeled walker as an assistive device. An Occupational Therapy (OT) evaluation and plan of treatment dated 2/7/25 identified Resident #57 had a history of falls, had moderately impaired safety awareness, and an impairment of balance and strength. A physician's order dated 2/11/25 directed transfers and ambulation with supervision and the use of a 2 wheeled walker in Resident #57's room and hallways. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #57 was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision or touch assistance for transfers, toileting, and bed mobility. The MDS indicated the use of a mobility device/walker. The Resident Care Plan dated 3/2/25 identified Resident #57 had limited physical mobility, a self-care performance deficit, and a risk for falls. Interventions included ambulation and transfers with supervision and a 2 wheeled walker in his/her room and hallways, provide supportive care and assistance with mobility as needed and assistance of 1 for bathing, dressing, and toileting. Observation on 3/17/25 at 12:30 PM identified Resident #57 was ambulating to the recreation room for lunch without the benefit of staff supervision or a 2 wheeled walker. Observation and interview with NA #1 on 3/18/25 at 10:53 AM identified Resident #57 was an assist of 1 for ambulation and did not have or use an assistive device for ambulation. NA #1 was unable to locate a 2 wheeled walker in Resident #57's room and indicated she had not observed the resident ambulate with an assistive device ever before. NA #1 identified she was not aware Resident #57 needed a 2 wheeled walker, and she would need to ask the charge nurse about the wheeled walker use. Observation and review of the clinical record with LPN #6 and NA #9 on 3/20/25 at 2:20 PM identified Resident #57 was ambulating from his/her room to the nurse's station without the benefit of staff supervision and a 2 wheeled walker. LPN #6 and NA #9 indicated they were not aware Resident #57 was supposed to be supervised and use an assistive device when ambulating. LPN #6 went to Resident #57's room where a 2 wheeled walker was found folded and leaning against the wall. LPN #6 brought the walker to Resident #57 where he/she was seated in front of the nurse's station and instructed the resident on its use. Review of the clinical record with LPN # 6 and NA #9 indicated that Resident #57 had a current order for supervision and a 2 wheeled walker when ambulating in his/her room and hallways. LPN #6 identified that ambulation orders were determined by recommendations from the Physical Therapist (PT) and that she would follow-up with them regarding Resident #57's status. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, on 3/21/25 a physician's order indicating supervision with ambulation in his/her room and hallways was in the clinical record for Resident #57 (the 2 wheeled walker was removed). Interview and review of the clinical record with PT #1 on 3/24/25 at 10:18 AM identified that Resident #57 had a 2 wheeled walker ordered which should have been utilized with staff supervision while the resident was ambulating. PT #1 indicated that it would have been her department that would have provided Resident #57 with a 2 wheeled walker when it was first ordered, and she was unsure why the walker was not provided. PT #1 identified that although Resident #57 was re-evaluated and determined to not need the 2 wheeled walker on 3/21/25, Resident #57 continued to need staff supervision because the resident was a high fall risk. Review of the facility policy, Ambulation with a Walker, dated 6/23, directed that assistance with the use of a walker during ambulation will be provided to residents by nursing or rehab as indicated by a physician's order. 2. Resident #84's diagnoses included dementia, dysphagia, and muscle weakness. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #84 was severely cognitively impaired and required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. Coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications and complaints of difficulty or pain when swallowing. a. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/13/25 identified Resident #84 had a self-care performance deficit, limited physical mobility, and was at risk for falls with a history of falls. Interventions included 1:1 assistance for meals, transfers and ambulation assistance of 1 (hand-held assistance). A Morse fall scale evaluation dated 1/14/25 identified Resident #84 was a moderate risk for falling. A physician's order dated 2/20/25 directed transfers and ambulation with assistance of 1 via hand-held assistance in room and hall for Resident #84. Observation on 3/18/25 at 2:00 PM identified Resident #84 was ambulating without the benefit of staff supervision or assistance in the [NAME] hallway towards the nurse's station. Observation, interview, and review of the clinical record with LPN #1 on 3/19/25 at 10:54 AM identified Resident #84 was ambulating without the benefit of staff assistance in the [NAME] hallway towards the nurse's station where LPN #1 was standing. LPN #1 indicated that although Resident #84 was an assist of 1 and a hand-held assist for ambulation per his/her current physician's orders, she was too busy to watch him/her and hold his/her hand all day. LPN #1 further identified that she would notify the provider that Resident #84 needed another physical therapy (PT) evaluation. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, an interview with LPN #1 on 3/19/25 at 11:00 AM identified she had spoken to the provider and a new PT evaluation was being initiated for Resident #84. Interview and review of the clinical record with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) on 3/19/25 at 1:17 PM identified Resident #84 was an assist of 1 and hand-held assist with ambulation in his/her room and hallway per the current physician's orders. The DNS indicated that although nursing staff have tried to keep Resident #84 in common areas of the unit for closer monitoring, the root cause of the resident's fall earlier in his room was a lack of staff supervision. The DNS further identified Resident #84 should not have been ambulating in his room or hallway without staff supervision/hand-held assistance and that he needed to speak with the nursing staff further. Interview and review of the clinical record with PT #1 on 3/24/25 at 10:18 AM identified per her recommendations and the current physician's order, Resident #84 was an assist of 1/hand-held assist in his/her room and hallway when ambulating. PT #1 indicated that if Resident #84 was allowed to ambulate independently he/she was a high risk for falls due to unsteadiness and a recent decline in function. PT #1 further stated that although the nursing staff was provided education after Resident #84's last PT eval, the staff should have continued to review the resident's orders, progress notes, and ambulation status to provide the appropriate level of supervision and assistance. PT #1 indicated that she would need to provide further education to the nursing staff regarding Resident #84. Review of the facility Ambulation policy, dated 6/23, directed staff are to assist residents to ambulate as per the physician order or plan of care. b. The RCP dated 2/13/25 indicated Resident #84 had a swallowing problem related to a diagnosis of dysphagia. Interventions included instructing resident to eat slowly and monitor for signs of aspiration or choking during meals. A physician's order dated 2/20/25 directed Resident #84 was a 1:1 assist for meals. Review of the North/West unit mealtime guidelines, updated 3/17/25, identified Resident #84 required supervision with meals. Observation on 3/19/25 at 9:16 AM identified NA #6 entered Resident #84's room with a breakfast tray, exited the room without the tray, and closed the door to the resident's room. LPN #1 was notified and entered Resident #84's room. LPN #1 indicated she found the resident in the room with his/her breakfast and needed to get a NA to assist Resident #84 with his/her meal. LPN #1 proceeded to leave Resident #84's room, without the meal tray, and closed the door. Observation at 3/19/25 at 9:18 AM identified a loud noise was heard from Resident #84's room and LPN #1 opened the door to Resident #84's room and found the resident seated on the floor with the bedside table tipped over and breakfast items spilled on the floor. A nurse's note dated 3/19/25 at 9:58 AM identified Resident #84 had an unwitnessed fall in his/her room and was observed sitting on the floor in front of his/her bedside table. Resident #84 stated he/she was eating breakfast. The nurse's note indicated after the fall Resident #84 was assisted to a common area of the unit. Interview and review of the clinical record with LPN #1 on 3/19/25 at 10:35 AM identified Resident #84 was a 1:1 assist with meals and NA #6 should not have left the resident alone with his/her meal. LPN #1 indicated NA #6 was responsible to know what supervision and assistance level was necessary for Resident #84 to eat, and if unsure, should have asked her. LPN #1 identified she would need to review NA #6's assignment with her again. Interview with NA #6 on 3/19/25 at 10:40 AM identified she brought Resident #84 his breakfast tray, put it on the tray table in front of the resident and left the room. NA #6 indicated that although she exited Resident #84's room to serve other breakfast trays on another hallway, she did not let anyone know that she had served Resident #84 his breakfast and left the resident alone in his/her room. NA #6 further stated Resident #84 did not need help with his/her meals and was able to eat by him/herself. When asked to access the Kardex/care card for Resident #84, NA #6 was unable to locate the resident's care specific information on her tablet and proceeded to ask LPN #1 for assistance. Interview and review of the clinical record on 3/19/25 at 10:50 AM with LPN #1 and NA #6 identified Resident #84's Kardex/care card indicated the resident was a 1:1 assist with meals and review of the resident's care plan directed the resident required supervision with meals. NA #6 indicated she should have known Resident #84's care specific information before serving the breakfast tray to the resident. Interview and review of the clinical record with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 1:17 PM identified Resident #84 was a 1:1 assist at mealtime and the resident needed set up, cueing and supervision during meals. The DNS indicated Resident #84 should not have been served his breakfast tray and then left alone in his/her room. The DNS identified the NA or LPN should have stayed with Resident #84, or the resident should have been served the meal in a common area. Additionally, the DNS was unable to indicate why NA #6 could not access Resident #84's care specific information and stated he would need to speak to NA #6 and provide her further training. Interview and review of the clinical record with OT #1 on 3/24/25 at 10:25 AM identified Resident #84 was a 1:1 assist and needed staff supervision with meals. OT #1 indicated that Resident #84 should have all meals in the dining room but if dining in his/her room then he/she was to be supervised and assisted by staff. OT #1 further identified Resident #84 required help and encouragement to eat and had a potential for choking due to a swallowing difficulty (dysphagia). OT #1 indicated that although she had just recently updated the mealtime guidelines for the nursing staff on this unit, she was unable to indicate why Resident #84 was not supervised and assisted while eating and stated she would need to provide further education to the nursing staff. Although requested, a policy on dining guidelines/meal supervision was not provided. Surveyor: Otwoma, [NAME]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #96) reviewed for pressure ulcers...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and facility policy for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #96) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to provide adequate hydration to a resident with a potential for a fluid deficit. The findings included: Resident #96's diagnoses included pressure ulcer of the sacral region, neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder, and congestive heart failure (CHF). A Dietary Nutritional admission assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #96's fluid intake goal was 1400-1700 ml per 24 hours. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #96 was cognitively intact, required set up for eating/drinking, and was dependent on staff for hygiene. Additionally, the MDS identified Resident #96 was on a diuretic (a medication that promotes fluid loss through urination). The Resident Care Plan dated 2/13/25 identified Resident #96 had a potential for a fluid deficit related to congestive heart failure, diuretic therapy, and bilateral lower extremity edema. Interventions included educating the resident/family/caregivers on the importance of fluid intake, monitoring and documenting intake and output per facility policy, and monitoring/documenting/reporting any signs and symptoms of dehydration as needed. A record review of Resident #96's intake for 3/1/25 through 3/19/25 failed to identify that the resident met his/her estimated fluid goals for any of the 19 days reviewed. (24-hour intake ranged from 240cc to 1200cc). A registered dietician note dated 3/12/25 at 11:25 AM identified a follow up visit secondary to the resident's appetite and intake, Resident #96 reported a decline in appetite and intake at the time, and education was provided on the importance of adequacy of intake. A physician's order dated 3/13/25 directed for Resident #96 to have a fluid intake goal of 1400-1700 ml every 24 hours. Additionally, the nurse was directed to document Resident #96's intake and output every shift and the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift nurse was to total the entire 24-hour intake and output. APRN #1's progress note on 3/18/25 identified increased confusion and urinary retention, with foley placement and an order for Resident #96 to start on antibiotics, a follow up visit on 3/19/25 identified Bumex (diuretic) was discontinued and that Resident #96 continued to be able to push fluids by mouth. A review of nurses notes from 3/1/25 to 3/24/25 identified on 3/17/25 at 6:22 AM Resident #96 was alert and forgetful, not voiding, denied pain or discomfort and hematuria (blood in the urine) during urination, He/she had 240 ml fluid intake, and an attempt at foley placement was unsuccessful with Resident #96 voiding 25cc in the process. Fluids were encouraged. Additionally, on 3/17/25, Resident #96 was seen by APRN #1 due to not voiding, a urinalysis and laboratory work was ordered, the resident was alert and confused, tolerated fluids well, and a foley was inserted for urine retention with an output of 200cc that shift. On 3/18/25 at 6:44 AM the resident was alert and confused, with light amber urine draining via urinary catheter, at 2:28 PM identified Resident #96 was started on Ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic), for a Urinary Tract Infection (UTI). On 3/19/25 at 11:31 PM Resident #96 was alert and oriented with increasing confusion at baseline, but overall confusion was worse on the shift and on 3/24/25 at 2:49 PM it was identified that Resident #96 was confused, tolerated fluids well with dark yellow urine draining via urinary catheter. Review of Resident #96's BUN/Creatinine laboratory results (indicative of kidney function and potential dehydration) identified the following laboratory results: on 3/17/25 BUN/Creatinine was 39/2.2, 3/20/25 was 34/1.7, 3/24/25 was 35/2.1 and 3/27/25 was 40/2.0. The BUN/Creatinine laboratory results for Resident #96 from 3/13/25 were normal at 21/1.3. (The normal reference range for BUN is 10-24, and creatinine is 0.7 to 1.5, indicating potential dehydration.) APRN #1's progress note on 3/24/25 identified increased confusion with light yellow urine, with the plan of care to continue pushing fluids by mouth and to start a voiding trial so that the urinary catheter could be discontinued. A record review failed to identify a Dehydration Assessment was completed from 3/1/25 through 3/19/25, with the most current Dehydration Assessment being completed on 1/14/25. An interview with Licensed Practical Nurse #2 on 3/18/25 at 2:46 PM identified the Nursing Assistants were responsible for documenting intake and output into a book at the nurses' station, then the nurse on each shift entered the information into the electronic health record. Additionally, the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM nurse was responsible to calculate the 24 hour total and notify the Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor if there was an issue with the resident's intake. Interview with RN Supervisor #1 on 3/19/25 at 1:28 PM identified Resident #96 did not void on the 3/17/25 night shift, and per a verbal report from that RN and Resident #96's history of urinary retention APRN #1 was notified and gave orders to insert a urinary catheter. Additionally, RN #1 identified the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift was responsible for calculating the 24 hour intakes. If the intake was insufficient, the facility notified the provider and pushed fluids. RN #1 indicated that this had occurred for Resident #96. Interview and intake and output review with APRN #1 on 3/19/25 at 3:06 PM identified she gave orders for a urinary catheter because it was reported that Resident #96 did not void on the 3/17/25 night shift. She failed to identify that she reviewed Resident #96's intake and output and stated she does not go by that, just the information that is given to her, which was Resident #96 had not voided all shift with a 25cc output when the nurse attempted to insert a urinary catheter. APRN #1 could not identify if she would expect Resident #96 to have sufficient output considering the intake that did not meet Resident #96's fluid goals or if the low output was due to dehydration. She stated that she ordered laboratory work, with follow up labs ordered for 3/18/25 and that Resident # 96's Bumex (diuretic) was held. Interview and record review with the Dietician on 3/20/25 at 2:06 PM identified she evaluated residents quarterly, weekly, and as needed and she calculated estimated fluid intake needs during the initial Nutritional Assessment. Resident #96's fluid needs were calculated by weight, Body Mass Index (BMI) and diagnosis of CHF, and were estimated to be 1400-1700 cc in a 24-hour period. She added that especially for a resident with CHF fluid intake needs to be realistic, and not over 1800 cc in a 24 hour period, additionally if a resident was consistently not meeting their fluid goals she would expect them to be assessed for dehydration, and lab work to be performed. Review of the Dehydration policy dated 7/12 directed that it is the facility policy to ensure residents are meeting their estimated fluid needs and/or identify resident at risk for dehydration. Additionally, the policy outlined that the dietician will recommend an estimated fluid goal, and if a resident has consumed less than their estimated fluid goal for 3 consecutive days the resident would be evaluated for signs and symptoms of dehydration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #50) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed to ensure a physician's order was in place when administering continuous oxygen. The findings include: Resident #50's diagnoses included pneumonitis, Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), pleural effusion, and resolved bronchitis and hypoxia (low oxygen). The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #50 was severely cognitively impaired and was dependent with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. The Resident Care Plan dated 1/5/25 identified altered cardiovascular status and anemia. Interventions included monitoring for shortness of breath and deterioration of respiratory status, monitor vital signs, and administer medications as ordered. Review of Resident #50's March 2025 Treatment Administration Record (TAR) identified a physician's order, beginning on 2/24/25 for Oxygen 0 to 4 liters per minute (lpm) to maintain an oxygen saturation greater than 92%. The end date of the order was noted as 3/10/25. The March 2025 TAR failed to reflect a physician's order directing oxygen was to be in place from 3/11/25 until 3/18/25. A nurse's note dated 3/12/25 at 10:19 PM identified Resident #50 was receiving oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal cannula with an oxygen saturation of 97%. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note dated 3/14/25 at 5:41 PM identified Resident #50 had a chest x-ray which showed pneumonitis and improved CHF. The progress note indicated Resident #50 had an oxygen saturation of 97% on oxygen at 2 liters and mild shortness of breath. A nurse's note dated 3/15/25 at 11:30 PM identified Resident #50 was receiving oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal cannula with an oxygen saturation of 96%. An observation on 3/17/25 at 10:00 AM identified Resident #50 was in bed with his/her eyes closed with continuous oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal cannula in place. An observation on 3/17/25 at 11:00 AM identified Resident #50 was seated in his/her wheelchair in the recreation room with portable continuous oxygen in place at 2 lpm via nasal cannula. An observation and interview with LPN #3 on 3/18/24 at 10:11AM identified Resident #50 was seated in his/her wheelchair in the recreation room without oxygen in place. LPN #3 obtained an oxygen saturation on room air for Resident #50 and received a reading of 86%. LPN #3 identified that although Resident #50 has been on continuous oxygen recently, she was unsure why he/she was not on it now. LPN #3 placed Resident #50 on portable continuous oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal cannula and obtained an updated oxygen saturation reading of 95%. An interview and review of the clinical record with LPN #4 on 3/18/25 at 10:21 AM identified that Resident #50 did not have a current physician's order for oxygen in his/her clinical record. LPN #4 identified Resident #50 was recently put on continuous oxygen and she was unsure why there was not a current physician's order in place. LPN #4 identified it would have been the responsibility of the charge nurse or nursing supervisor to ensure there was a current order for Resident #50 to receive continuous oxygen and that she would call the provider to get an order. Interview and review of the clinical record with the RN supervisor (RN #1) 3/18/25 at 10:28 AM identified that although oxygen was being continuously administered to Resident #50, the resident did not have a current physician's order in his/her clinical record. RN #1 indicated that continuous oxygen should not have been administered to Resident #50 without a physician's order and that it would have been up to her or the charge nurse to obtain an order from the provider. RN #1 identified she was not sure why a new oxygen order was not obtained for Resident #50 following the 3/10/25 end of oxygen administration treatment, and that she would call the provider for a new order. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, on 3/18/25 at 10:45 AM a physician's order for Oxygen 0 to 4 liters to keep oxygen saturation greater than 92% was obtained from the provider for Resident #50. An NP progress note dated 3/18/25 at 3:37 PM identified Resident #50 was found to have an oxygen saturation in the high 70% range on room air and he/she was placed on 4 lpm of oxygen with an improved oxygen saturation of 99%. On exam, Resident #50 was tachypneic (elevated respiratory rate) with an elevated heart rate in the 110's while seated in the wheelchair in the common room and he/she was also found to be grunting and short of breath. The NP progress note indicated Resident #50 would be treated for atypical pneumonia and to administer oxygen to keep the resident's oxygen saturation greater than 92%. Interview and review of the clinical record with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 1:17 PM identified oxygen administration required a physician's order, and that Resident #50 had needed and received continuous oxygen for several weeks. The DNS indicated that the RN supervisor would have been responsible to contact the provider to obtain an order for oxygen administration for Resident #50. The DNS further identified that the resident's oxygen order had not been renewed after 3/10/25 due to poor follow through. Review of the facility policy, Oxygen Administration, undated, directed that a physician's order is required for continuous administration of oxygen. The policy further directed that when oxygen therapy is ordered the licensed clinician would verify the physician's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident, (Resident #...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for the only sampled resident, (Resident #66), reviewed for hemolytic treatment, the facility failed to ensure appropriate communication occurred between the hemolytic treatment center and the facility. The findings include: Resident #66's diagnoses included end stage renal disease, dependence on hemolytic treatment, and anemia. A physician's order dated 1/19/25 directed to send Resident #66 to hemolytic treatments 3 times per week. On the resident's return, staff were to record the resident's hemolytic center weight from the communication book to ensure consistency. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #66 was cognitively intact and required partial moderate assistance with personal hygiene, dressing, bed mobility, transfer, and toileting, and required set up assistance with eating. Additionally, Resident #66 was receiving hemolytic treatment. A. The Resident Care Plan dated 1/25/25 identified, for consistency, the facility was to record weights from the hemolytic communication book, encourage Resident #66 to go for the scheduled hemolytic treatment appointments, weigh the resident as ordered, and notify the physician of any significant weight changes. Review of the hemolytic treatment center's communication book and clinical record documentation of visits from 1/27/25 through 3/19/25 identified that on 2/19/25, 2/24/25, 2/28/25, and 3/5/25 hemolytic treatment center documentation was missing. Review of the nurse's notes failed to indicate facility staff contacted the hemolytic treatment center for a treatment report. Interview and observation with LPN #5 on 3/19/25 at 10:38 AM identified that although Resident #66 went for treatment, the treatment book used for communication between the center and facility lacked paperwork from the 3/17/25 visit. LPN #5 indicated that the hemolytic treatment communication book was sent with Resident #66 but sometimes Resident #66 did not return with paperwork. Further, the communication book came back to the floor nurse and the supervisor received the paperwork. An interview with RN Supervisor #1 on 3/19/25 at 12:22 PM identified that she did not have any paperwork from the hemolytic treatment center for the 3/17/25 visit, but she would call and request they send over the information. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, the center was called, documentation of vital signs and a post treatment weight was faxed to the facility. A nurse's note dated 3/19/25 at 1:14 PM identified Resident #66 went for hemolytic treatment at 10:15 AM, and that the hemolytic treatment communication book was sent. A nurse's note dated 3/19/25 at 4:49 PM identified Resident #66 returned from hemolytic treatment without a progress note in the hemolytic treatment binder. Review of the treatment center binder identified a blank documentation form with a date of 3/19/25. A nurse's note dated 3/20/25 at 7:44 AM identified the Assistant Director of Nursing spoke to a nurse at the hemolytic treatment center, requested a note from the 3/19/25 visit, the documentation was received, and the information included a post treatment vital signs and weight. Review of Resident #66's clinical information identified that for 6 out of 25 opportunities, the facility failed to ensure communication documentation was received from the hemolytic treatment center. Further, for 6 out of 25 opportunities, Resident #66's weight was missing, therefore the facility was unable to follow the physician order dated 1/20/25 to record post treatment weights. Interview with RN #6 (hemolytic treatment center nurse) on 3/20/25 at 1:54 PM identified that on 3/17/25 and 3/19/25, Resident #66 arrived without his/her hemolytic treatment communication book. Interview on 3/20/25 at 3:30 PM with Director of Nursing and Administrator identified that Resident #66's communication binder was supposed to be sent with Resident #66 to hemolytic treatment. The binder included Resident #66's list of medications, a transfer sheet, and a consult sheet. If the binder did not contain documentation from the hemolytic treatment center upon the residents return, the facility practice was to call the hemolytic treatment center to obtain the information. The DNS was unable to explain why the information had not been requested from Resident #66's visits on 3/17/25 and 3/19/25, but that he would ensure the facility called to receive missing information. Additionally, he could not explain any of the missing forms. Review of the nursing home hemolytic treatment agreement, in part, identified the facility will provide for the interchange of information useful or necessary for the care of the designated resident and will inform the center of a contact person at the facility whose responsibilities include oversight of provision of hemolytic treatment services by the center to the designated resident of the facility. Although requested, a facility specific policy for hemolytic treatment communication and documentation was not provided. B. A physician's order dated 1/20/25 directed nursing staff, every shift, to document intake and output, and that the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift was to total and document the entire fluid intake over a 24 hour period. A Resident Care plan dated 1/22/25 identified Resident #66 was assessed with moderate malnutrition, on hemolytic treatment, weight fluctuations, and on a fluid restriction. Interventions included providing a diet as ordered, double portions, fluid restriction, and supplements as ordered. A Physician's order dated 1/22/25 directed a fluid restriction of 1200 cubic centimeters (cc) in 24 hours. The updated Resident Care Plan dated 1/25/25 identified that Resident #66's had a Fluid Restriction (FR) of 1200cc per 24-hour period. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 2/1/25 through 3/19/25 identified that although fluid amounts for each shift were entered, the facility failed to ensure the total amounts of fluid taken in by Resident #66 for each 24 hour period were totaled on the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift and per the physician order. This occurred for the entire time period reviewed (47 days). When fluid amounts were totaled by the surveyor the following 24 hour amounts were noted to exceed the 1200 cc fluid restriction: On 2/1/25 the 24 hour intake was 1320 cc (120 cc over the 1200 cc FR), on 2/6/25 the 24 hour intake was 1360 cc (over 160 cc), on 2/11/25 the 24 hour intake was 1300cc (over 100 cc), on 2/12/25 the 24 hour intake was 1320 cc (120 cc over), on 2/13/25 the 24 hour intake was 1680 cc (480 cc over), on 2/14/25 the 24 hour intake was 1240 cc (40 cc over), on 2/22/25 the 24 hour intake was 1380 cc (180cc over), on 2/23/25 the 24 hour intake was 1380 cc (180 cc over), on 2/24/25 the 24 hour intake was 1400 cc (200 cc over), on 3/4/25 the 24 hour intake was 1620 cc (420 cc over), on 3/5/25 the 24 hour intake was 1500 cc (300 cc over), on 3/6/25 the 24 hour intake 1320 cc (120 cc over), on 3/8/25 the 24 hour intake was 1440 c (240 cc over), on 3/15/25 the 24 hour intake was 1320 cc (120 cc over), and on 3/17/25 the 24 hour intake was 2550 cc (1350 cc over). Out of 47 days, Resident #66 exceeded his/her fluid restriction of 1200 cc 15 times. An interview with Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor #1 on 3/19/25 at 12:22 PM identified she was unaware Resident #66 had exceeded the 1200 cc fluid restriction 15 times. RN #1 stated that Resident #66 was non-compliant with maintaining his/her fluid restriction, but it was not her responsibility to monitor Resident #66's fluid intake. RN #1 further stated it was the responsibility of the dietician or the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) to oversee Resident #66's intake and that the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift nursing staff were responsible for totaling the 24-hour intake amounts. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing Services (ADNS) on 3/19/25 at 12:29 PM identified she was unaware that Resident #66 had exceeded his/her fluid restriction of 1200 cc. Additionally, although she was to receive the 24 hour totals, she was unable to explain why she did not know Resident #66 exceeded his/her fluid restriction or why no one was notified of the overage. Interview on 3/20/25 at 3:24 PM with the Dietician identified that she follows Resident #66's fluid restriction and weights with the hemolytic treatment center dietician. Interview with RN Supervisor #2 on 3/20/25 at 5:05 PM identified that although she thought the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift was responsible for totaling the 24-hour intake, it may have been the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift's responsibility. She was unsure if the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM supervisor was notified of the 24-hour totals and further stated that she thought that the ADNS reviewed the 24-hour totals. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) and Administrator on 3/20/25 at 3:30 PM identified that the facility policy indicates the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift was responsible for totaling the daily 24 hour intake amounts. Once the 24 hour amounts were totaled, the information went to the ADNS. The DNS was unable to explain why the facility had not totaled the 24 hour intakes and had not identified when Resident #66 exceeded his/her fluid limit. Review of the intake and output policy dated 6/23 directed to provide an accurate record of the resident's intake and output. Intake and output will be monitored by the resident's hydration status, risk for dehydration, and/ or physician's order. Intake and output are documented on each shift beginning with the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift. Intake and output are totaled daily by the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM nurse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #57 and Resident #84), the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #57 and Resident #84), the facility failed to ensure staff competency related to electronic medical record (EMR) use. The findings include: 1. Resident #57's diagnoses included dementia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet and a history of falling. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #57 was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision or touch assistance for transfers, toileting, and bed mobility. The MDS indicated use of a mobility device/walker. The Resident Care Plan dated 3/2/25 identified Resident #57 had limited physical mobility, a self-care performance deficit, and a risk for falls. Interventions included ambulation and transfers with supervision and a 2 wheeled walker in the room and hallways, provide supportive care and assistance with mobility as needed, and assistance of 1 for bathing, dressing, and toileting. An interview, observation, and review of the clinical record on 3/20/25 at 2:20 PM with LPN #6 and NA #9 identified NA #9 was unable to access the EMR when requested to determine the current ambulation status and level of supervision for Resident #57. NA #9 indicated she did not know how to access the requested information via the facility tablet or laptop devices and needed to ask LPN #6 to obtain the information. LPN #6 was able to access Resident #57's information on the computer at the nurse's station and proceeded to instruct NA #9 how to do so herself. LPN #6 identified NA #6 should have been able to retrieve Resident #57's information in the EMR when asked and indicated she would let the DNS know. Interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN #5) on 3/24/25 at 10:42AM identified that NA #9 should have been able to access Resident #57's care specific information on the care card and [NAME] in the EMR. RN #5 was unable to indicate why NA #9 was unable to operate the device or access Resident #57's EMR information when requested. RN #5 indicated that the facility's nursing staff had been trained on technology and NA #9 should have had the knowledge and competencies to access the resident's EMR information to provide individualized care to the resident. RN #5 further identified that she would make the DNS aware so additional training could be provided. 2. Resident #84's diagnoses included dementia, dysphagia, and muscle weakness. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #84 was severely cognitively impaired and required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/13/25 identified Resident #84 had a self-care performance deficit, limited physical mobility, and was at risk for falls with a history of falls. Interventions included 1 to 1 assistance for meals with transfers and ambulation assistance of 1 (hand-held assistance). The RCP further indicated Resident #84 had a swallowing problem related to a diagnosis of dysphagia. Interventions included instructing Resident #84 to eat slowly and monitor for signs of aspiration or choking during meals. An interview, observation, and review of the clinical record on 3/19/25 at 10:40 AM with LPN #1 and NA #6 identified NA #6 was unable to access the EMR when requested to determine the current ambulation status and level of supervision for Resident #84. NA #6 indicated she did not know how to access the requested information via the facility tablet device and was unable to recall Resident #84's mealtime guidelines and needed to ask LPN #1 to obtain the information. LPN #1 was able to access Resident #84's information on the computer on the medication cart and proceeded to instruct NA #6 how to do so herself. LPN #1 identified NA #6 should have been able to retrieve Resident #84's information in the EMR when asked to and indicated the NA needed to receive additional training. Interview with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN #5) on 3/24/25 at 10:42 AM identified that NA #6 should have been able to access Resident #84's care specific information on the care card and [NAME] in the EMR. RN #5 was unable to indicate why NA #6 was unable to operate a device or access Resident #84's EMR information when requested. RN #5 indicated that the facility's nursing staff had been trained on the technology and NA #6 should have had the knowledge and competencies to access the resident's EMR information to provide individualized care to the residents. RN #5 further identified that she would make the DNS aware so additional training could be provided. Interview with the DNS on 3/24/25 at 10:51AM identified that NA #6 and NA #9 should have been able to access Resident #57 and # 84's care specific information on the care card or [NAME] tab in the EMR. The DNS indicated that the facility's nursing staff was trained to access the resident specific care information via tablet, laptop or the touch screen wall monitors (located within the units of the facility). The DNS identified that NA #6 and #9 were provided education and a 4-hour class, which was mandatory, when the facility transitioned to a new EMR system in June 2024. The DNS indicated he would expect to be notified by the charge nurse or nursing supervisor if a NA was unable to operate a device or access the EMR system and if it had been brought to his attention, he would have provided direct education to ensure NA #6 and NA #9 possessed the necessary skill sets to provide safe care. The DNS further identified he needed to schedule another EMR training for the NA staff at the facility. Although requested a policy on EMR training for nursing staff was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for the only sampled resident (Resident #66) reviewed for hemolytic treatments, the facility failed to provide appropriate packaging for medication being sent with a resident for hemolytic treatments and failed to assess a resident for self-administration of medication. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure narcotic keys for the medication cart were safely kept with the charge nurse, failed to ensure bimonthly narcotic audits were conducted, and failed to ensure narcotics for destruction in the Director of Nursing (DNS) office were stored appropriately. The findings include: 1. Resident #66's diagnoses included end stage renal disease, dependence on hemolytic treatment and anemia. A Physician's order dated 1/17/25 directed to send hydralazine (lowers blood pressure) 100 milligrams 1 tablet on Monday, Wednesday and Friday with Resident #66 to his/her hemolytic treatments. A physician's order dated 1/19/25 directed hemolytic treatment 3 times a week. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #66 was cognitively intact and required partial moderate assistance with personal hygiene, dressing, bed mobility, transfer, and toileting, and required set up assistance with eating. Additionally, Resident #66 was receiving hemolytic treatment. The Resident Care Plan dated 1/25/25 identified hemolytic treatment related to renal failure. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, hemolytic treatment 3 times a week on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and encourage the resident to go for the scheduled treatment appointments. A nurse's note dated 3/4/25 at 4:44 AM identified Resident #66 was on leave of absence at 3:45 PM via wheelchair and returned via wheelchair at approximately 8:00 PM. Resident #66 did not return with the hemolytic treatment binder. A call was placed to the hemolytic treatment center, but the hemolytic treatment center had closed. All medications were given with the exception of the 9:00 PM Hydralazine. Resident #66 could not confirm if this medication was taken at hemolytic treatment provider, stating I took some pills there, I don't know what. Observation on 3/19/25 at 8:24 AM of the hemolytic communication binder identified a clear plastic pouch with a single orange pill; handwritten in black marker read hydralazine 100 mg, Resident #66's name, and 2 staples were noted to close the pouch. The clear pouch was tucked into the binder's plastic sleeve containing a consultation document. Interview with LPN #5 on 3/19/25 at 10:38 AM identified that the hemolytic communication book and medication were sent with Resident #66. LPN # 5 further identified that she removed the medication from Resident #66's blister card of medication, placed it into the plastic pouch, labeled it and sent the medication in the hemolytic treatment communication binder with Resident #66. The medication to be sent with Resident #66 failed to be packaged from the pharmacy. LPN #5 was unable to identify how the nurse at the center would confirm that the medication in the plastic pouch in the binder was hydralazine. A nurse's note dated 3/19/25 at 1:14 PM identified Resident #66 went to his/her hemolytic treatment at 10:15 AM, and the hemolytic treatment book and medication were sent with Resident #66. Interview with RN #6 on 3/20/25 at 1:54 PM identified that on 3/17/25, Resident #66's hemolytic communication book was never sent. RN #6 further identified that the policy of the hemolytic center required that the only medication given during treatments were the medications prescribed by the dialysis center physician. Medications that were sent with Resident #66 had to be self-administered by the resident and were not documented on the hemolytic treatment records. RN #6 could not confirm if Resident #66 had taken the medication sent or not. Additionally, the hemolytic center was not allowed to supply Resident #66's facility prescribed medications. Interview with APRN #1 on 3/20/25 at 2:29 PM identified that she was unaware that hydralazine was being placed in a handwritten plastic pouch to accompany Resident #66 to treatment at the center. She further identified that she was unaware the center's nurse would not administer the medication to Resident #66 and that Resident #66 would have to self-administer. APRN #1 indicated she would discontinue the medication, and indicated she had concerns about Resident #66's poor decision making abilities. APRN #1 identified she requested the Psychiatric APRN to see Resident #66 to evaluate Resident #66's decision making ability. Interview on 3/20/25 at 2:43 PM with Pharmacist #1 identified the facility failed to request packaging from the pharmacy for the medication to be sent with Resident #66 to his/her treatment center. If the facility had requested alternate packaging, Resident #66 could have properly packaged containers of his/her medication, and that the pharmacy would have been able to accommodate packaging in the form of Leave of Absence (LOA) packaging. Interview on 3/20/25 at 3:30 PM with Director of Nursing (DNS) and Administrator identified that Resident #66's communication binder accompanied Resident #66 to hemolytic treatments. The binder included a transfer sheet, consult sheet, and his/her medication list. The DNS indicated that the medication should have been packaged as an LOA medication from the pharmacy and that the medication should not have been removed from Resident #66's blister card and placed in a plastic pouch with handwritten identification. The DNS did not know why the medication was improperly packaged. The DNS stated that he was unaware the hemolytic treatment center would not administer the medication sent and that Resident #66 had to self-administer. The DNS additionally identified the facility failed to complete a self-administration assessment because he did not feel Resident #66 was appropriate to self-administer medication. Review of the nursing home hemolytic agreement, in part, identified the center shall have the sole responsibility for administering hemolytic treatments to a designated resident, providing intra-dialytic medication to designated residents as ordered by such designated Resident's nephrologist and providing ESRD related lab tests to the designated resident. The center will provide only hemolytic treatment services to the designated residents and will perform no other services, medical or otherwise, except as such services are related to or are an integral part of the provision of hemolytic services. Review of the facility out on pass/leave of absence policy dated November 2021 directed the charge nurse on duty assures that residents have their necessary medications before leaving the facility on pass or therapeutic leave of absence. When receiving a physician's order for a resident to go out on pass, the charge nurse on duty reviews the resident's medication orders and directions for use with the physician and determines if pass medications are needed. If the resident's physician concurs and gives an order to do so, the physician's order should list the medications to be dispensed for the leave of absence including controlled substances. All medications provided to the resident and/or responsible party for administration while on pass are properly labeled by the pharmacy with full directions for use. Review of the revised Self-Administration of Medication policy dated July 2023 directed residents who request self-administer medications will be assessed for capability. If it is determined whether the resident is able to self-administer a physician order is required, self-administration must be care planned, residents must be instructed in self-administration, and periodic evaluations of capability must be performed. 2. An observation of a medication cart on the Pavillion Unit on 3/20/25 at 9:53 AM identified that LPN #1 had locked her narcotic keys in the top right-side drawer of the medication cart. An interview with LPN #1 on 3/20/25 at 9:53AM identified she was not aware that the narcotic keys for the medication cart could not be locked in the medication cart and needed to be kept on her person. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, LPN #1 removed the keys from the medication cart and placed them in her pocket. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 3/20/25 at 10:30AM identified that nurses must always keep narcotic keys always from other keys and the nurse must keep the narcotic keys on his/her person. He stated that the narcotic keys could not be locked in the medication cart. 3. Interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) on 03/20/25 10:35AM identified that she was not completing bimonthly narcotic audits (twice monthly reconciliation of narcotics) on the units. She indicated that she was not aware it was her responsibility to complete the audits as she had never been instructed to do so or educated how to do so by the DNS. The ADNS stated she kept a copy of the Controlled Substance Disposition Record for every individual resident in the facility that was prescribed a narcotic. The pharmacy sends one copy of the Controlled Substance Disposition Record, and the charge nurse or supervisor makes a copy for the ADNS files. The ADNS stated when the unit Controlled Substance Disposition Record copy comes back to the office and the medication has been used up, she matches the sheet with her copy and files both copies in her office. Interview with the DNS on 3/20/25 at 10:45AM identified that he was not aware that the ADNS was not completing the bimonthly narcotic audits. He stated that he had not completed any bimonthly narcotic audits on the units since he started his position 18 months ago. The DNS was unable to state if he had reviewed how to complete bimonthly narcotic audits with the ADNS. 4. Interview with the DNS on 3/20/25 at 10:50AM identified that he stored unused narcotics for destruction in a double locked cabinet in his office. The DNS indicated that he does not keep a log (accountability record) of the narcotics after receiving discontinued or discharged resident narcotic medications. He stated that when narcotics are received from the nursing units for destruction, he counts the number of narcotics received in the medication blister pack with the nurse returning the narcotics, they verify the number of medications, and both sign off on the Controlled Substance Disposition Record. He then wrapped the Controlled Substance Disposition Record around the blister pack container, placed a rubber band around both and stored the items in the double locked cabinet. The DNS indicated that he was unaware that the Controlled Substance Disposition Record could not be kept with the narcotic blister pack. A review of the Medication distribution and control policy dated July 2023 directed, in part, the access system to controlled medications is not the same as other medications. The key system that opens the medication cart differs from the key that opens the narcotic compartment. The narcotic keys are kept on a separate key ring and the medication nurse on duty always maintains possession of the key ring to the controlled substance area. A review of the Medication Storage in the Facility policy dated November 2021 directed, in part, controlled substance inventory is regularly reconciled to the Medication Administration Record. Controlled substances remaining in the facility after the order has been discontined or the resident has been discharged are retained in the facility in a securely locked area with restricted access until destroyed. Accountability records for discontinued controlled substances are maintained with the unused supply until they are disposed of or destroyed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 11 sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 11 sampled residents (Resident #48) observed in the east dining area during meals, the facility failed to provide adaptive equipment as identified on the meal ticket. The findings include: Resident #48's diagnoses included Parkinson's disease, severe dementia with anxiety, and adult failure to thrive. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #48 was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial maximum assistance with eating and was dependent on staff for personal hygiene, dressing, toileting, bed mobility, and transfer. The Resident Care Plan dated 1/23/25 identified Resident #48 had a dementia diagnosis which could affect appetite/intake, has a history of significant weight loss, is taking psychotropic medications which can affect appetite/intake, and used adaptive equipment to help with independent eating. Interventions included diet as ordered, provide adaptive equipment, personal sippy cup, built up spoon, lip plate, and supervise the resident with meals. An Occupational Therapy note dated 3/2/25 at 4:16 PM identified self-feeding with minimal assistance. Resident #48 was able to perform 75% or more of the activity but requires weight bearing assistance from 1 caregiver to complete. An interview on 3/20/25 at 10:55 AM with a family member identified that Resident #48 does not always have drinks and silverware when the family member observed Resident #48 in the dining room. The family member stated that when they had previously gone to the staff with their concerns about drinks and adaptive equipment, the staff seemed unaware of Resident #48's needs. The family member further indicated that the Director of Nursing had been made aware of the lack of drinks and silverware. Observation on 3/20/25 at 5:40 PM identified NA #18 assisting Resident #48 to eat. The meal ticket next to the resident indicated that Resident #48 was to have a built up curved gray spork and handled cup with a straw. The sippy cup was not available, and the built-up spork was noted in a plastic bag on the delivery cart not being utilized by the resident. Interview with NA #18 identified that she was unaware Resident #48 required adaptive equipment for eating. Review of the meal ticket with NA #18 indicated the adaptive equipment required (built up, curved gray spork, lip plate, and a handle cup with a straw). Interview on 3/20/25 at 5:40 PM with LPN #9 identified that Resident #48 would decide whether he/she was going to eat independently or wanted staff to assist. LPN #9 further indicated that she thought Resident #48 needed to be assisted with all his/her meals. An interview with the Food Service Director on 3/20/25 at 5:50 PM identified that resident adaptive equipment was placed on the silverware carts and labeled with the resident's name on a plastic bag containing the adaptive equipment and adaptive equipment was identified on the meal tickets. NAs distribute adaptive equipment when serving the residents their meal. Observation on 3/21/25 at 12:15 PM identified Resident #48 was in the dining room with a family member present. Resident #48 was without the benefit of a sippy cup. The Occupational Therapist was present and began working with Resident #48 for self-feeding. Review of the Dining Tray ticket policy directed, in part, the purpose of dining tray tickets is to ensure that residents receive the correct meals according to their dietary preferences, restrictions, and needs. A tray card is prepared with the resident's name, room number, diet order, food allergies, food preferences, portion sizes, and adaptive equipment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to administer its resources effectively and to ensure timely and effective ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews, the facility failed to administer its resources effectively and to ensure timely and effective administrative oversight of staff and resident care to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being of residents. The findings include: The facility administration failed to: Ensure the State Agency was notified, in a timely manner, of reportable events Ensure allegations of abuse were investigated timely and thoroughly Ensure staff accused of abuse were removed from the schedule timely Ensure residents were provided with an environment free from involuntary seclusion. Ensure medications were administered timely and according to professional standards. Ensure narcotics were properly stored and bimonthly narcotic audits were performed. Ensure the clinical record was complete and accurate. Ensure staff received adequate training per federal guidelines. Ensure residents were provided with a sufficient number of clean bed and bath linens. Ensure care plans were reviewed, updated timely, and included resident participation. Ensure the kitchen was maintained in a sanitary condition and maintained food items required for a 3 day emergency supply. Please cross reference F584, F600, F603, F607, F609, F610, F658, F684, F755, F759, F812, F943, F944, F946, F949. Based on the deficiencies during the survey, immediate jeopardy and substandard care were identified in the areas of: Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation; Quality of Care; and Training Requirements. Interview on 3/19/25 at 9:45 AM with the Director of Nursing Services (DNS) and the Administrator identified that the Administrator was aware that an allegation of staff-to-resident abuse was made on 1/3/25, that the State Agency (SA) was not notified of the Reportable Event (RE), and the DNS created a summary on 3/18/25 for the event that happened on 1/3/25 to present to the state agency. Interview on 3/20/25 at 8:36 AM with the DNS and Administrator identified that the Administrator failed to provide adequate oversight of the DNS in ensuring the reporting of an allegation of abuse was submitted to the SA and that the facility's policy for reporting was followed, following a conversation on 3/20/25 at 8:36 AM at which time both the DNS and Administrator were informed of the lack of reporting and lack of starting an investigation for an incident on 1/3/25. The Administrator was responsible for signing the Reportable Events. Interview on 3/27/25 at 9:46 AM with the Administrator, Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #4, and Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #8 identified that although the Administrator stated he met with the DNS on a weekly basis, he failed to keep a record of those conversations in meeting minutes, his personal notes, or email correspondences. Further, the Administrator was aware the facility had no ethics or compliance policy, nor did the facility discuss issues pertaining to resident abuse in Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings. The facility failed to utilize resources effectively to attain/maintain the resident's well-being. Review of the Administrator Job Description identified the responsibility of the Administrator was to plan, organize, develop, direct, control and supervise the overall operations of the facility in accordance with current federal, state, and local laws, regulations, standards and guidelines, and to ensure the highest degree of quality resident life is maintained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #4) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to ensure appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was worn prior to personal care, for 1 of 5 sampled resident units (for Resident #96, Resident #404, and Resident #407) reviewed for infection control practices, for Resident #96, failed to implement the appropriate precautions for an active Multi-Drug Resistant Organism (MDRO) and failed to perform appropriate hand hygiene during wound care for Resident #404, failed to ensure appropriate PPE was worn upon entering the resident's room and failed to implement appropriate precautions for an active MDRO, and for Resident #407 failed to ensure appropriate hand washing for a resident with an active MDRO. The findings include: 1. Resident #4's diagnoses included dementia, generalized muscle weakness, anxiety, and hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #4 had severe cognitive impairment (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5), and was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, transfers and required maximum assistance for bed mobility. The MDS identified that Resident #4 had impairment on both sides of the upper and lower extremities and was always incontinent of urine and bowel. The Resident Care Plan in effect for the month of March 2025 identified Resident #4 was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Interventions included maintaining EBP per facility policy and observing for signs and symptoms of infection and reporting accordingly. The care card (NA Resident Assignment) identified EBP was in place and directed staff to wear a gown and gloves when delivering direct care to Resident #4. Observations on 3/20/25 at 10:30 AM, identified EBP signage on the right side of the wall outside of Resident #4's room directing to wear gloves and a gown for high contact resident care (dressing, bathing, changing linen, device care and wound care) and a precaution cart stocked with gloves and gowns was present on the opposite side of Resident #4's room in the hallway. Further, NA #10 and NA #11 were in Resident #4's room providing incontinent care wearing gloves but without the benefit of gowns. Interview on 3/20/25 at 11:00 AM, with NA #10 and NA #11 identified that they were not aware that Resident #4 was on EBP precautions. Although NA #10 and NA #11 were aware of the EBP sign posted outside Resident #4's room and the yellow dot indicating EBP next to Resident #4's name, they stated they were unaware that Resident #4 was on EBP and NA #11 indicated this was due to the precaution cart being located across the hall. Interview with RN #5 on 3/20/25 at 11:10 AM, identified EBP signage on the wall meant staff should wear personal protective equipment (gowns and gloves) with high contact activities such as providing personal care and transfers. The facility's Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy identified, in part, that the use of gowns and gloves for high contact resident care activities is indicated, when contact precautions do not otherwise, apply, in residents with wounds and/or indwelling devices regardless of MDRO colonization. 2. Resident #96's diagnoses included pressure ulcer of sacral region, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and obstructive uropathy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #96 was cognitively intact, dependent on staff for toileting, hygiene and lower body dressing. Additionally, the MDS identified pressure ulcer/injury care was required. a. The Resident Care Plan dated 2/13/25 identified that Resident #96 was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP). Interventions included following precautions per the facility policy and monitoring for signs and symptoms of infection. A physician's order dated 3/17/25 directed staff to obtain a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity. A physician's order dated 3/18/25 directed to maintain EBP precautions every shift for a history of Methicillin Resistant Staph Aureus (MRSA). Observations intermittently throughout the day on 3/17/25, 3/18/25, and 3/19/25 identified Resident #96 had an EBP sign posted outside his/her room. Review of the clinical record identified that on 3/19/25 APRN #1 had reviewed the urinalysis culture and sensitivity results from the physician order dated 3/17/25. Resident #96 was noted to be positive for Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) (an active Multi-Drug Resistant Organism (MDRO) infection) and ordered antibiotic treatment. Further review of the physician orders identified that although a culture sensitivity indicated an active MDRO, the orders failed to indicate the EBP (gloves and gown) had been changed to the appropriate contact precautions, gown and gloves, and in certain instances restriction of movement/precautions for the resident in the facility for an active MDRO infection. Observation on 3/20/25 at 10:47 AM identified the EBP sign had been removed and replaced with a contact precaution sign. In an interview with the Laboratory Customer Service Representative on 3/20/25 at 11:18 AM identified the laboratory had called Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 3/17/25 at 12:17 PM and verbally notified her of Resident #96's positive ESBL result, in addition to the results being faxed to the facility. Interview with LPN #2 on 3/20/25 at 11:34 AM identified Resident #96 was changed to contact precautions by the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 3/20/25 in the morning due to something in his/her urine. Interview with RN #1 on 3/20/25 at 11:41 AM identified it was the facility policy to notify the IP when a resident was identified to have an active MDRO, and if the MDRO was determined by lab work, RN #1 would provide the results to the IP and APRN so they could review the results and potentially obtain new physician orders. RN #1 identified she was knowledgeable of what an MDRO was, denied ever receiving a call from the lab with the positive ESBL results, but stated she had passed Resident #96's faxed laboratory results to the APRN. She failed to identify if she had reviewed the lab work result prior to providing the information to the APRN. Additionally, RN #1 identified that it was the responsibility of the Infection Preventionist to initiate the appropriate precautions. Interview with the Infection Prevention nurse (IP) on 3/20/25 at 1:11 PM indicated she identified positive laboratory and culture results through the nursing supervisor, who also notified the APRN and charge nurse. If results were positive for an active MDRO, it was the charge nurse's or RN supervisors' responsibility to initiate the appropriate precautions immediately. Additionally, she stated Resident #96 was not changed from EBP to contact precautions for the 3/17/25 positive ESBL result in his/her urine because the MDRO was not identified by any staff until this morning (3/20/25 3 days after the results were obtained) when she reviewed the results and changed Resident #96 to the appropriate contact precautions. Interview with APRN #1 on 3/20/25 at 1:57 PM identified she was aware of the laboratory result showing Resident #96 was positive for ESBL, and that is why she changed resident #96's antibiotic to one that was sensitive for ESBL. She stated that she had not initiated an order for contact precautions because that was the facility's responsibility. b. The Resident Care Plan dated 12/2/24 identified Resident #96 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer on the sacrum. Interventions included consultation and treatment by a wound nurse, and special mattress in place. The physician's order dated 3/6/25 directed for the pressure ulcer on the sacrum to be cleansed with hibiclens solution, patted dry, skin prep applied to the peri wound, followed by a silver alginate sheet to the wound bed, then cover with super absorbent dressing every shift. The physicians order dated 3/18/25 directed to maintain EBP precautions every shift for history of MRSA. Observation of the pressure ulcer dressing change with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #2 and Nurse Aide (NA) #3 on 3/19/25 at 10:14 AM identified an EBP sign and precaution cart outside Resident #96's room. Both LPN #2 and NA #3 applied gloves and gowns without the benefit of hand hygiene prior. NA #3 assisted the resident onto his/her left side. LPN #2 prepared a sterile field, then removed her gloves and applied a new pair without the benefit of performing hand hygiene. LPN #2 opened Resident #96's brief, removed the dressing and provided him/her with peri care. She then removed her gloves and applied new gloves without the benefit of hand hygiene. LPN #2 performed the treatment per the physician's order, removed her gloves, then gown and washed her hands. NA #3 stayed with Resident #96 to assist with morning care. Interview with LPN #2 on 3/19/25 at 10:25 AM identified it was facility policy to perform hand hygiene between glove changes only when there was an active infection, otherwise it was not necessary. Interview with the IP on 3/19/25 at 10:27 AM identified the hand hygiene policy was to perform hand hygiene between glove changes. 3. Resident #404's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cough, and esophageal obstruction. The hospital Plan of Care Summary dated 3/3/25 identified Resident #404 was on contact precautions for MRSA in the wound and lower respiratory tract. The baseline Resident Care Plan dated 3/6/25 identified Resident #404 had Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), colonization (not an active MRSA infection). Interventions included contact isolation, bagging and transporting used linen according to facility protocol prevent skin exposure or contamination and a provide a private room. The New admission Alert dated 3/6/25 identified Resident #404 was MRSA positive (had an active infection). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #404 was cognitively intact and required partial/moderate assistance from staff for toileting, transfers, and personal hygiene. The MDS failed to identify that Resident #404 had an MDRO. A physician's order dated 3/12/25 directed to ensure MRSA droplet (sputum) precautions; place a sign and cart outside room, and wear gown and gloves every shift as instructed. Review of nurses notes from 3/7/25 through 3/18/25 intermittently identified both an active and colonized MRSA infection. Observations on 3/17/25 at 9:17 AM, 3/18/25 at 11:37 AM and 3/18/25 at 11:44 AM identified Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) signage outside Resident #404's room. The sign directed gloves and gown be applied for high contact activities such as dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, assisting with toileting, device care, and wound care. Observation on 3/18/25 at 11:55 AM identified 2 physical therapy staff members walking into Resident #404's room without the benefit of applying PPE per the EBP sign. Interview and observation with LPN #2 on 3/18/25 at 11:57 AM identified that Resident #404 had been diagnosed with an active MRSA in the sputum. Observation of the EBP precaution sign with LPN #2 identified the precaution sign posted was not accurate given the active MRSA diagnosis. She stated the sign should have indicated droplet precautions, (to apply a mask, gown and gloves) and that the 2 physical therapy staff members would not have known to wear the correct personal protective equipment due to the incorrect signage. Additionally, the physical therapy staff members were on their way out the door with Resident #404 when LPN #2 stopped them. She informed the physical therapists of Resident #404 diagnosis indicating the Resident #404 required a mask on exiting his/her room. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry LPN #2 explained the active MRSA infection to the physical therapists, that Resident #404 should not have been on EBP, and he/she should have been on droplet precautions. The physical therapists had Resident #404 remain in his/her room. LPN #2 verbalized that she would be changing the signage to reflect the appropriate droplet precautions for Resident #404. 3. Resident # 407's diagnoses included Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci (VRE), an MDRO in the urine, gastroenteritis, and alcoholic hepatitis. a. Observation of NA #3 on 3/19/25 at 11:25 AM identified him outside of Resident #407's room with a contact precautions sign posted, he applied the gown then one glove without the benefit of hand hygiene prior to applying the PPE. Interview with NA #3 on 3/19/25 at 11:30 AM identified it was facility policy to foam in and out, stating that although it was not facility policy, he always performs hand hygiene before applying gloves and after taking them off. NA #3 identified he did not perform hand hygiene prior to applying the gown and glove, but he should have, he then removed his gloves and performed hand hygiene by using the alcohol-based hand rub that was located on the wall. b. Observation of NA #2 on 3/17/25 at 10:11 AM identified her walking down the hallway while wearing gloves, she took off one glove at the nurses' station, picked up a drink and took a sip, then reapplied the same glove without the benefit of hand hygiene. Interview with NA #2 on 3/17/25 at 10:16 AM identified the facility policy was no gloves in the hallway, but hers were clean. She failed to identify the facility policy on hand hygiene, with glove removal and reapplication, stating she was new and just orienting and could not recall if she received education on infection control. Review of the new hire orientation packet identified that infection control; hand hygiene training was provided. Review of the MDRO policy dated 4/16 directed that when a resident tests positive for a MDRO, they will be placed on appropriate precautions as soon as the facility is notified of a positive result. Review of the Hand Hygiene policy dated 4/2017 directed, in part, the facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections and directed use of alcohol based hand rub before and after direct care with residents, before handling clean or soiled dressings, after removing gloves, before and after isolation precaution settings and as a final step after removing and disposing of PPE. Review of the Non-sterile Dressing policy dated 6/2023 directed in part to wash hands or hand sanitize prior to the procedure and between glove changes. Review of the Enhanced Barrier Protection policy dated 8/2023 directed in part the use of gown and gloves for high-contact resident care activities is indicated, when contact precautions do not otherwise apply, in residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices regardless of MDRO colonization as well as for a resident with a MDRO infection or colonization. Review of the Contact Precautions policy dated 8/2023 directed contact precautions were required for care of specified residents with documented or suspected infections for highly transmittable or epidemiologically significant pathogens.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #43) reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, interviews, and review of facility policy for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #43) reviewed for care planning, the facility failed to allow a resident to participate in Resident Care Conferences (RCC). The findings include: Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, and osteoarthritis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating no cognitive impairment, required maximal assistance for his/her personal hygiene and chair/bed to chair transfers, and used a manual wheelchair. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/28/25 identified Resident #43 was dependent on staff for meeting his/her emotional, physical, and social needs related to physical limitations. Interventions included inviting the resident to scheduled activities, inviting the resident to attend special events, and providing the resident with materials for individual activities as desired. An interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 12:02 PM identified that he/she does not get invited to RCC's and would like to be invited and attend the meetings. A review of social service progress notes and RCC sign in sheets for the time period of October 2023 through March 2024 identified RCP meetings for Resident #43 were held on 10/24/23, 2/26/24, 5/29/24, 10/28/24, and 2/4/25. The RCC notes for the meetings failed to indicate if Resident #43 was invited, attended, or declined to attend. An interview with Social Worker #2 on 3/24/25 at 9:00 AM identified that residents were invited to RCC's even if they had a conservator. It was further identified if residents attended the RCC that would be documented on the sign-in sheet, while if a resident declined to attend the RCC then documentation would occur in social service progress notes. Social Worker #2 identified that Resident #43 was not being invited to RCP meetings and stated this was due to a request made by the resident's conservator for him/her not to attend as he/she takes over the meeting by voicing his/her concerns. Social Worker #2 failed to provide any documentation referencing the request made by the conservator not to invite Resident #43 to attend his/her own RCC. Attempts to contact Resident #43's conservator were unsuccessful. Review of the facility's Care Plans Policy identified that RCPs are to be completed and reviewed by the 21st day after admission and quarterly thereafter at the RCC. RCPs will include physical, cognitive, and psycho-social problems and will address the residents' needs on an individualized basis.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy for 6 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #2, Resident #7, Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy for 6 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #2, Resident #7, Resident #43, Resident #70, Resident #79, and Resident #82) reviewed for dignity, the facility failed to provide clean bed and bath linens that were in good condition and in sufficient quantity for performing resident care tasks, and for the environment, the facility failed to ensure a safe and secured area on a locked, memory care unit. The findings include: 1a. Resident #2's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, and type 2 diabetes. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #2 was cognitively intact, dependent with showering and bathing, required set-up assistance with personal hygiene, and was independent with ambulation. An interview on 3/24/25 at 9:34 AM with Resident #2 identified the facility ran out of washcloths quite often, but he/she was not sure how many times a week there were no washcloths available. A lack of towels has impacted his/her ability to get a shower on a few occasions resulting in his/her having to use baby wipes purchased independently. Resident #2 stated he/she was not happy with the insufficient number of towels and washcloths and felt too intimidated to complain to management. b. Resident #7's diagnoses included disease of the spinal cord, malignant neoplasm of the transverse colon, and chronic systolic heart failure. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 was cognitively intact, dependent with showering and bathing, required maximal assistance with personal hygiene, and utilized a motorized wheelchair for mobility. An interview on 3/17/25 at 12:36 PM with Resident #7 identified he/she only showered once a week and his/her shower day was often delayed due to the facility running out of towels. According to Resident #7, washcloths were made of cut up used towels, and sheets and that pillowcases were not changed often enough resulting in him/her having to sleep on dirty bed sheets. A follow-up interview on 3/20/25 at 11:57 AM with Resident #7 identified when the staff did not use washcloths to clean him/her, he/she felt unclean and demeaned by the facility because he/she was not important enough to have adequate supplies. c. Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, and osteoarthritis. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 was cognitively intact, required maximal assistance with showering/bathing, personal hygiene, and chair/bed to chair transfers. An interview on 3/19/25 at 1:26 PM with Resident #43 identified NA's ran out of towels and instead use a bed sheet to dry him/her off. Resident #43 further identified that the facility also ran out of washcloths and when he/she needed incontinence care the NA's used Chux (blue, disposable, incontinence protectors) pads, or one half of a towel to wash and the other half to dry. Resident #43 stated he/she has complained to the Director of Nursing Services but was told there were not enough washcloths and towels in the facility. d. Resident #70's diagnoses included type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and an amputation. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #70 was cognitively intact, required moderate assistance with showering and bathing, and was independent with personal hygiene, and used a manual wheelchair for mobility. An interview on 3/24/25 at 9:34 AM with Resident #70 identified the facility ran out of washcloths 1 to 2 times per week. Although it did not directly impact him/her receiving care, Resident #70 stated it was unacceptable for the facility to not care enough to ensure the residents had washcloths to use. Resident #70 noted that not having washcloths and towels to wash up with felt undignified. e. Resident #79's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #79 had moderately impaired cognition, required moderate assistance with showering and bathing, required set-up assistance with personal hygiene, and was independent with ambulation. An interview on 3/24/25 at 9:34 AM with Resident #79 identified that he/she had not received a shower several times due to lack of washcloths and towels. It was further identified the facility ran out of washcloths a lot, although he/she cannot recall the dates this occurred. f. Resident #82's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and dementia. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #82 had moderately impaired cognition, required moderate assistance with showering and bathing, required supervision with personal hygiene, and was independent with ambulation. An interview on 3/24/25 at 9:34 AM with Resident #82 identified he/she had experienced the facility's lack of washcloths, but this had not caused a delay in his/her care. Resident #82 further identified his/her Nurse Aide (NA) had always been able to search to find a towel while the resident waited, if one was needed. An interview on 3/17/25 at 2:16 PM with Housekeeper #2 identified laundry was not washed in the facility and was sent out for washing services. She further identified that towels, face cloths, hospital gowns, and pads were delivered by truck twice a day, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. An interview with the Director of Environmental Services (EVS) on 3/17/25 at 2:18 PM identified that the afternoon delivery of laundry had been delivered for this day and the next delivery would occur between 7:30 AM and 8:00 AM on 3/18/25 from their sister facility who provided laundry services. An observation and count of linens located in the facility was performed with the Director of EVS, identifying 14 washcloths, 58 hospital gowns, and 17 hand towels. This amount of linen was noted to be for the entire facility census of 104 residents and needed to service both the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM and 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shifts to provide resident care. It was further identified that the same number of linens was delivered daily, the laundry turn-around time was 24 hours, and if she was notified by staff that washcloths or towels had run out there was nothing that she could do until the next scheduled delivery of laundry. The Director of EVS stated the Administrator was aware of the low stock and she completed a laundry count with him daily. An interview on 3/17/25 at 2:27 PM with NA #8 identified the facility ran out of washcloths and towels several times a month. She noted that when staff ran out of washcloths, they would cut up blankets to make their own. An interview with the Administrator on 3/17/25 at 2:38 PM identified he participated in a count of laundry items daily or every other day with the Director of EVS. He identified each resident was budgeted for 3 washcloths. An observation and count of washcloths with the Administrator identified 12 washcloths total on the main unit and an additional 2 washcloths on the locked memory care unit. The Administrator stated he was informed in the morning that laundry items were running low and noted he failed to take any action to get more laundry delivered. Furthermore, he identified he was aware that staff needed to cut up blankets to make washcloths when the facility supply of washcloths had run out. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry the Administrator contacted their sister facility for an additional laundry delivery. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) on 3/20/25 at 8:23 AM identified staff had complained to her about the insufficient numbers of laundry items being delivered to the facility. She further identified she was aware staff cut up bedcovers and blankets when laundry items ran out, and she had notified the Administrator and Director of EVS of the staff complaints in the past. The Linen Stocking Policy and Procedure identified the facility maintains a systematic process for receiving, storing, and distributing linens to each unit to ensure all units have an adequate supply of laundry. The policy failed to outline a process for what occurs when there is not an adequate supply of laundry. 2. An observation with the Director of Maintenance on 3/17/25 at 11:50 AM on the secured locked memory care unit identified the locking mechanism on the door jamb labeled Shower Room was broken preventing the keypad from locking. The unlocked door allowed resident access to the shower room. There were no accessible sharps in the room and a stationary container of wall soap containing pink liquid was noted. An interview with the Director of Maintenance on 3/17/25 at 11:50 AM identified he was unaware the door lock was malfunctioning and would address the matter immediately. A subsequent observation and interview with the Administrator on 3/17/25 at 12:05 PM identified he was unaware of the shower room locking mechanism malfunction on the secured unit and would have staff stationed at the entrance of the door until repaired for resident safety. A third observation on 3/17/25 at 12:30 PM identified no staff at the entrance of the door or immediate area with a resident standing at the nurse's station approximately 10-15 feet from the entrance to the shower room. The Administrator was summoned to the unit where he remained stationed by the shower room door. An interview with the Administrator on 3/17/25 at 12:30 PM identified the staff assigned to monitor the area had to leave but was unable to explain why the responsibility was not reallocated to a different staff member. The Administrator indicated that he would remain at the entrance until supervision could be reassigned. The door was subsequently repaired on 3/17/25 in the afternoon. Although requested, a policy for ensuring a safe and secure environment on the memory care unit was not provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0603 (Tag F0603)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, facility policy, and interviews for 11 of 40 sampled residents (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, facility policy, and interviews for 11 of 40 sampled residents (Resident #12, Resident #23, Resident #33, Resident #39, Resident #45, Resident #50, Resident #57, Resident #59, Resident #84, Resident #92 and Resident #254) reviewed for a placement on a secured memory care unit, the facility failed to identify the clinical criteria for the unit, failed to document the resident or representative was included in the decision for placement on the unit, failed to ensure a physician order for placement on the unit, failed to assess for initial placement on the unit, failed to reassess for continued appropriate placement on the unit, and failed to document that information for independent egress had been provided. The findings include: 1. Resident #12's diagnosis included Parkinson's disease, dementia and emphysema. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #12 was severely, cognitively impaired and required substantial/maximal assistance with dressing, and supervision/touching assistance with transfers, and walking. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 12/23/24 through 3/27/25 identified Resident #12 was at risk for wandering and elopement and had impaired cognition, Interventions included to ensure a name bracelet was in place, name was posted outside of the resident's door, utilize a check in check out log, and wander guard bracelet per the physician order. 2. Resident #23's diagnosis included Parkinson's disease, dementia and diabetes. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #23 was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision/touching assistance with dressing and independently transferred and walked. The Resident Care Plan dated 12/31/24 through 3/27/25 identified Resident #23 with impaired Cognition secondary to dementia and behavior symptoms: socially inappropriate/disruptive behaviors. Interventions included administering medications per physician's order, monitor and record effectiveness and any adverse side effects, allow distance in seating other residents, obtain a psychiatric consult/psychosocial therapy, and assess for placement in a specially designated therapeutic unit. 3. Resident #33's diagnosis included dementia, congestive heart failure and Parkinson's disease. The annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] identified Resident #33 was moderately cognitively impaired and required partial moderate assistance with dressing, was independent with transfers, was independent walking short distances and required supervision/touching assistance for walking up to 150 feet. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 1/4/25 through 3/27/25 identified Resident #33 had cognitive loss related to dementia and was admitted for long term care. Interventions included assistance with medication management, therapy, and recreational activities. An elopement evaluation dated 2/14/25 at 2:00 PM identified an elopement attempt in the last 30 days and Resident #33 was at risk for elopement. 4. Resident #39's diagnosis included Parkinson's disease, dementia, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #39 was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial/maximal assistance with dressing, partial/moderate assistance with transfers, and supervision/touching assistance for walking. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 12/30/24 through 3/27/25 identified Resident #39 had impaired cognitive function and thought process related to dementia. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, ask yes/no questions to determine Resident #39's needs, cue, reorient, and supervise as needed. 5. Resident #45's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes, and seizures. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #45 was severely cognitively impaired and required supervision/touching assistance for upper body dressing and partial/moderate assistance for lower body dressing and was independent with transfers and walking. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 12/25/24 through 3/27/25 identified impaired cognition related to inattention, and wandering. Interventions included to ensure Resident #45 had an identification band in place, maintain a calm environment, check wander guard placement and function per physician's order, and when Resident #45 began to wander, provide comfort measures for basic needs, pain, hunger, toileting, too hot or too cold. 6. Resident # 50's diagnosis included dementia, hypothyroidism, and adult failure to thrive. The annual Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] identified Resident #50 had long and short term memory problems, had severely impaired decision making skills, and was totally dependent on staff for transfers and dressing, and did not walk. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 12/18/24 through 3/27/25 identified impaired cognitive function and/or impaired thought process related to Alzheimer's dementia. Interventions included administering medications as ordered, monitor and document side effects and effectiveness, ask yes/no questions in order to determine Resident #50's needs, present just one thought, idea, question or command at a time. 7. Resident # 57's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes and colon cancer. An elopement evaluation dated 2/7/25 identified Resident #57 was not an elopement risk. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #57 was severely cognitively impaired and required partial/moderate assistance with dressing, supervision/touching with transfers and walking. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 2/13/25 to 3/27/25 identified impaired cognition or thought process related to dementia and Resident #57 was admitted for long term care. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, engage in simple, structured activities, and avoid overly demanding tasks. 8. Resident #59's diagnosis included dementia, congestive heart failure and hypokalemia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #59 was cognitively intact and required supervision/touching with dressing and was independent with transfers and ambulation. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 2/3/25 through 3/27/25 identified Resident #59 was an elopement risk/wanderer related to dementia. Interventions included distract from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, food, conversation, and participation in recreation activities. Resident #59's triggers for wandering and eloping were restlessness, give medication per physician's orders, observe and report changes in cognitive status. 9. Resident # 84's diagnosis included dementia, diabetes, and congestive heart failure The admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] identified Resident #84 was severely cognitively impaired and was dependent on staff for dressing, partial/ moderate assistance with transfers, and required supervision/touching assistance to walk 10 feet, and was dependent on staff to ambulate up to 150 feet. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 1/20/25 through 3/27/25 identified cognitive loss related to dementia, socially inappropriate, disruptive behavioral symptoms as evidenced by unprovoked aggression toward others. Intervention included assess orientation every shift, encourage socialization and recreation, administer medications as ordered, anticipate and meet Resident #84's needs. Additionally, to assess Resident #84 for continued placement in a specially designated therapeutic unit, provide psychiatric/psychologist consult. 10. Resident #92's diagnosis included paranoid schizophrenia, adult failure to thrive and anxiety disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] identified Resident #92 was cognitively intact and required set-up/clean up assistance with dressing and independent with transfers and dressing. The Resident Care Plan from 1/3/25 through 3/27/25 identified Resident #92 was admitted for long term care, had impaired cognition and was at risk for elopement/wandering, with impaired safety awareness, and history of attempts to leave the facility unattended. Interventions included involving in day-to-day activities, Resident #92 triggers for wandering/eloping with difficulty adjusting to placement, thoughts of returning to apartment, distract from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, monitor location every 15 minutes if refused to wear a wander guard as ordered. 11. Resident #254's diagnosis included dementia, pleural effusion and chronic kidney disease. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #254 was severely cognitively impaired and required substantial/maximal assistance with dressing, transfers, and walking 50 feet. The Resident Care Plan in effect from 12/9/24 through 3/27/24 identified cognitive loss related to dementia and was admitted for long term care. Interventions included assessing orientation every shift, encouraging socialization and recreation, providing a calendar and clock, referring to the time of day, date and recent events, and using Resident #254's name when speaking with him/her. Observations during all days of the survey 3/17/25, 3/18/25, 3/19/25, 3/20/25, 3/21/25, 3/24/25, 3/25/25, 3/26/25, and 3/27/25 identified Resident #12, #23, #33, #39, #45, #50, #57, #59, #84, #92, and #254 residing on the secured memory care unit. The entrance and exit to the secured memory care unit had a door with a keypad that required a number code to enter and exit. Intermittent observations on all days of the survey identified only staff inputting the code for visitors and residents to enter and exit the unit. Review of the clinical records for Resident #'s 12, #23, #33, #39, #45, #50, #57, #59, #84, #92 and #254; residents on the secured memory unit, failed to identify clinical criteria for placement, failed to identify initial assessment and/or periodic reassessment for placement, failed to identify involvement by the resident or resident representative, failed to identify a physician order, and failed to document that information for independent egress had been provided for any of the residents residing on the unit. Interview with The Director of Nursing (DNS) on 3/24/25 at 1:27 PM identified the criteria for placement on the secured memory care unit was a diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's and wandering behaviors. Interview with the DNS and RN #4 on 3/24/25 at 1:30 PM identified there was no written criteria for admission to the secured memory care unit. There was no initial assessment for placement on the secured memory unit. There was no re-assessment performed for continued placement to remain on the secured memory care unit. There was no documentation that the resident or resident representative consented to being admitted to a secure memory care unit. The facility failed to have a policy for admission to the secured memory care unit. Additionally, after reviewing the regulation for involuntary seclusion, the DNS and RN #4 identified that the noted residents were involuntary secluded. Although requested, a facility policy for the secured memory care unit was not provided.
CONCERN (E)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 4 of 6 sampled residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record reviews, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 4 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #42, Resident #43, Resident #45, and Resident #84) reviewed for abuse for Resident #84 and #42, and Resident #84 and #45, the facility failed to ensure resident to resident physical mistreatment was reported to state protective services, for Resident #84 and Resident #43, the facility failed to report resident to resident physical mistreatment to state protective services and failed to report the allegation timely to the state agency, and for Resident #43 for a staff to resident allegation of physical mistreatment, failed to report the allegation to state protective services and failed to report the allegation to the state agency. The findings include: 1. Resident #84 had diagnoses that included dementia and delusional disorders. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #84 had long and short term memory problems with moderately impaired cognition, decisions poor, cues supervision required, and was independent with bed mobility, transfers and ambulation. The RCP dated 10/7/24 identified Resident #84 had a history of inappropriate/disruptive behavioral symptoms evidenced by unprovoked aggression towards others. Interventions included anticipating needs and to intervene as necessary to protect the rights of others. a. Resident #42 had diagnoses that included dementia and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #42 had severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview of Mental Status, BIMS of 0 and was independent with ambulation. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/23/24 identified Resident #42 had impaired thought process and ADL deficit related to cognition. Interventions included to cue, orient and supervise as needed and provide supervision with ambulation. A facility Reported Event dated 11/23/24 identified Resident #42 was struck open handed on the right side of the face by Resident #84 which did not result in any injury. The police, physician, and the party responsible were notified. A review of the clinical record for Resident #42 and Resident #84 failed to identify that protective services were notified of the alleged resident-to-resident physical altercation. b. Resident #45 had diagnoses that included dementia, anxiety disorder, and stroke. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #45 had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of 9 and required 1 person assist with bed mobility and transfers, and was supervision with ambulation. The RCP dated 10/17/24 identified Resident #45 had a communication deficit related to a stroke and expressive aphasia (partial loss of ability to produce sentences), and used psychotropic medications for anxiety, agitation, and depression. Interventions included anticipate/meet needs, provide a safe environment, observe resident state/behavior and report any changes to the physician. A facility Reported Event dated 11/15/24 identified Resident #45 alleged Resident #84 struck him/her in the right side of the face in response to Resident #45 telling him/her to f*** her/himself. The incident was unwitnessed. Both residents were separated and placed on 1:1 supervised monitoring. The medical director, APRN, DNS, responsible party, administrator, and police were notified of the incident. A review of the clinical record for Resident #45 and Resident #84 failed to identify that protective services was notified of the alleged resident-to-resident physical altercation. c. Resident #43 had diagnoses that included dementia and adult personality disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 was cognitively intact with a BIMS of 15 and required substantial assist with bed mobility, transfer, and used a wheelchair for locomotion. The RCP dated 7/4/24 identified Resident #43 had a diagnosis of a serious mental illness and exhibited accusatory behavior. Interventions included providing socialization, monitor behavior to determine underlying cause and reassure the resident she/he was safe. A facility Reported Event submitted on 8/8/24 identified on 7/26/24 at 6:30 PM, (13 days post incident), that Resident #43 reported Resident #84 entered his/her room and slapped him/her 3 times. The nursing supervisor was notified, and an investigation was initiated. Staff confirmed Resident #84 was observed in a common area at the time Resident #43 reported she/he was being slapped. A review of the clinical record and facility documentation for Resident #43 and Resident #84 failed to identify that protective services were notified of the alleged resident-to-resident physical altercation. Additionally, the facility failed to report the allegation to the overseeing state agency in a timely manner. An interview with SW #1 on 3/24/25 at 9:39 AM identified, subsequent to recent surveyor inquiry, she indicated it was her responsibility to report allegations of mistreatment to protective services; however, she stated that she had not done so in the past. An interview with the DNS on 3/24/25 at 1:30 PM identified the facility did not report to any other state agencies outsight of Department of Public Health (DPH) but came to understand, subsequent to surveyor inquiry, that it was a requirement. Additionally, the DNS further indicated that for Resident #43, the report was not submitted to DPH timely due to an oversight. 2. Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, osteoarthritis, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 was cognitively intact, required maximal assistance for chair to bed and bed to chair transfers and for personal hygiene, and used a manual wheelchair for ambulation. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 had a self-care deficit related to dementia and impaired mobility. Interventions included monitoring for a decline in mobility function and notifying the supervisor, physician, and physical therapy as needed. The Resident Care Card in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 was to have 2 staff members present at all times when in his/her room including when performing bathing and toileting tasks. An observation and interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:43 AM identified that he/she was sitting in the hallway in a wheelchair, hands flailing, crying, verbalizing he/she was upset regarding a financial matter. The resident verbalized, in the presence of Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #8, he/she had been hurt by staff on multiple occasions, most recently by LPN #7. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) was called by LPN #8 to come to the resident's room regarding the allegation of abuse. An interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:51 AM was conducted in the presence of the DNS. Resident #43 alleged a few weeks prior that while he/she was trying to get into bed from his/her wheelchair, LPN #7 reached over the back of the wheelchair and pushed him/her onto the bed in a non-sexual manner. Resident #43 further identified that he/she was alone in the room with LPN #7 and started yelling for help, at which point LPN #7 grabbed the phone out of his/her hand and threw it across the room. It was noted by Resident #43, that Nurse Aide (NA) #7 entered the room and assisted him/her into bed for the provision of incontinence care. Resident #43 stated she experienced great humiliation over the event and continued to be afraid of LPN #7, noting LPN #7 continued to come into his/her room to provide care after the alleged incident of abuse. The DNS identified he was aware of the allegation of abuse and stated he had completed an investigation and reported the incident to the State Agency (SA). An interview and review of facility documentation with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 7:51 AM requesting copy of a Reportable Event (RE) form referring to the incident of 1/3/25 and dated 1/4/25, identified the form had not been submitted to the SA. Interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/19/25 at 9:45 AM identified the DNS had not submitted the RE form to the SA because Resident #43 was care-planned for prior allegations and did not like multiple staff members. Although the DNS identified that the allegation of mistreatment was an allegation of abuse, and that all allegations of abuse should be treated the same way, he indicated he made a mistake when he failed to submit the 1/3/25 allegation to the SA. The facility failed to report the incident of abuse to the SA or protective services after the interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:51 AM and after the interview with the surveyor on 3/19/25 at 7:51 AM during which the DNS was made aware that the surveyor substantiated Resident #43's allegation of abuse. In a follow up interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/20/25 at 8:36 AM the DNS indicated he had not yet reported the allegation of mistreatment to the SA or protective services as he wanted to confirm first with the surveyor. The DNS was unable to specify what he wanted to confirm. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry on 3/20/25 at 8:43 AM, the facility faxed a report of the 1/3/25 incident to protective services. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, on 3/20/25 at 10:00 AM, the facility generated a report of the 1/3/25 incident which was submitted to the SA. A review of the facility policy for Abuse Reporting directs that any alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse, must be reported to the administrator or designee, i.e. immediate supervisor. When there is an allegation of suspected mistreatment, neglect, injuries of unknown source, or abuse is suspected, the facility administrator, or designee will notify the following agencies to include State Licensing and Certification Agency (Department of Public Health) no later than two hours after the allegation is made. Review of the facility's Reportable Events Policy identified that a Class B event, (state classification) including a complaint of resident abuse, should be reported to the State Department of Public Health by the Administrator or DNS within the required time frame. An investigation will be conducted by the facility after the discovery of an allegation of abuse. Although requested, a policy for reporting to state protective services was not provided. Connecticut state laws for Mandatory Reporting of Elder Abuse require certain professionals (i.e. mandated reporters) to report suspected abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation of the elderly to the Department of Social Services (DSS) within 72 hours. They must also report to the department if they suspect an elderly person needs protective services [Connecticut Department of Social Service. (2018). Mandatory Reporting of Elder abuse Policy No. 2018-R-0068].
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #20 and Resident #47) reviewed for medication administration, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5% and for 1 of 5 sampled units, Pavillion Unit, for Residents #1, #24, #37, #79, #65, #60, #45, #72, #31, #78, and # 27, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered at the correct time per the physician's orders. The findings include: 1. Resident #20's diagnoses included paranoid schizophrenia, anxiety, acute angle closure glaucoma, and hypertension. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #20 as being cognitively intact. Physician's orders dated 1/10/25 directed to administer Coreg 12.5 mg (milligrams) 1 tablet (tab) 2 times a day and hold for a heart rate less than 50, Pilocarpine Solution 1% 1 eye drops to both eyes 3 times a day, and Trazadone HCL 100 mg give one tab 2 times a day. Observation on 3/17/25 at 10:05 AM with LPN #1 during medication administration for Resident #20 identified that Resident #20's 8:00 AM medications were administered at 10:05 AM, an hour and 5 minutes after the allowed timeframe. 2. Resident #47's diagnoses included atrial fibrillation and heart failure. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #47 as being cognitively intact. Physician's orders dated 2/5/25 directed to administer Eliquis 2.5 mg give 1 tab 2 times a day and Metoprolol Succinate 100 mg extended release give 1 tab 2 times a day. Observation on 3/17/25 at 10:30 AM of medication administration with LPN #1 for Resident #47 identified that Resident #47's 8:00 AM medications were administered at 10:30 AM, an hour and a half after the allowed timeframe. An interview with LPN #1 on 3/17/25 at 10:30 AM indicated that medication administration on the unit was very difficult to complete timely. She indicated that although she is a regular nurse on the unit for the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, she is unable to complete the morning medication pass before 11:00 AM. Furthermore, LPN #1 indicated that she has made nursing administration (DNS/ADNS) aware of late medication pass several times. Due to the late administration, (wrong time) the facility medication error rate was 15.6%. Observation on 3/17/25 at 10:50 AM, LPN #1 was still administering 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM medications on the East Unit. The ADNS indicated that the providers would be notified of any residents that received medications late. The ADNS identified that Resident #1, Resident #24, Resident #34, Resident #37, Resident #65, Resident #60 Resident and Resident #79 (who had medications ordered for 8:00 AM and 9:00 AM) received their morning medications after 11:00 AM. 3. Resident #1's diagnoses included COPD, Hypertension and bipolar disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 as being cognitively intact. Physician's orders dated 2/10/25 directed to administer Potassium Chloride liquid 20 milliequivalents (mEq) 2 times a day, benztropine 0.5 mg 2 times a day, cranberry tabs 450 mg 2 times a day, Ascorbic Acid 500 mg 2 times a day, Divalproex delayed release 125 mg 2 times a day, and Eliquis 2.5 mg 2 times a day. 4. Resident #24's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, gastrointestinal bleed, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #24 was cognitively intact. Physician's orders dated 1/24/25 directed to administer Baclofen 5 mg tab give 2 times a day, Metoprolol Tartrate 25 mg give 2 times a day, Mucus relief 600 mg extended release give 2 times a day. 5. Resident #34 diagnoses included Sjogren syndrome (autoimmune disease), hypertension, and heart disease. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #34 as being cognitively intact. Physician's orders dated directed to administer Chlorhex Solution 0.12% 5 ml (milliliters) 2 times a day, Clear eye drops 0.5-0.6% 1 drop both eyes 2 times a day, Clonazepam 0.25 mg 2 times a day, Fluticasone 50 mcg (micrograms) 2 sprays each nostril 2 times a day, Gabapentin 300 mg capsules 2 times a day, and Xiidra 5% instill 1 drop in both eyes 2 times a day. 6. Resident #37's diagnoses included hypertension with chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and dementia without behavioral disturbances. MDS assessment date 12/20/24 identified Resident #37 as having severe cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 1/15/25 directed to administer Gabapentin 300 mg 3 times a day, Metoprolol Tartrate 50 mg 2 times a day, Pantoprazole 40 mg 2 times a day. Potassium Chloride 20 mEq extended release give 2 tabs, 2 times a day, Sucralfate 1 GM (gram) give 4 times a day. 7. Resident #60's diagnoses included chronic kidney disease, alcoholic polyneuropathy, and hypertension. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #60 as being cognitively intact. Physician's orders dated 1/30/25 directed to administer Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg 2 times a day, Phos-Nak oral packet 280-160-150 MG (potassium and sodium phosphate) 1 packet by mouth 2 times a day, and Veltassa Powder 8.4 GM give one packet 3 times a day 8. Resident #65's diagnoses included coronary artery disease, heart failure, and dementia. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #65 as having severe cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 2/12/25 directed to administer Carvedilol 25 mg 2 times a day, MiraLAX 17 gm (grams) with water 2 times a day, Senna S 8.6 mg give 2 tabs, 2 times a day, Acetaminophen 500mg give 2 tabs, 2 times a day, Oxycodone HCL 5 mg 3 times a day, Lactulose 30 ml 2 times a day and Lantus Solostar pen injector 100 unit/ml give 34 units SC (subcutaneously) 2 times a day. 9. Resident #79's diagnoses included COPD, hypertension and anxiety disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #79 as having moderately cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 1/30/25 directed to administer Metformin 500 mg 2 times a day. Interview with APRN #1 on 3/17/25 at 3:00 PM identified that the facility had notified her of all the residents that received medications late for the morning medication pass on 3/17/25. She indicated that there were no significant concerns related to late administration and there were no orders. On 3/26/25, RN #4 identified that Resident #27, Resident #31, Resident #45 Resident #72, , Resident #78, and did not receive their AM medications within the given timeframe. 11. Resident #27's diagnoses included epilepsy, type 2 diabetes, and failure to thrive. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #26 as having moderate cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 2/15/25 directed to administer Xifaxan 550 mg 2 times a day and Gabapentin 300 mg 3 times a day. A review of facility documentation identified that Xifaxan and Gabapentin were administered at 2:24 PM. Xifaxan was administered 4 hours and 24 minutes after the allowed administration timeframe. Gabapentin was administered 1 hour and 24 after the allowed scheduled administration timeframe. 12. Resident #31's diagnoses included dementia, heart failure and type 2 diabetes. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #31 as having severe cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 1/16/25 directed to administer Novolog Flex Pen 100 unit/ml give 4 units, Trazadone 25 mg once a day at 12: 00 PM, Gabapentin 600 mg 3 times a day. Review of facility documentation on 3/27/25 identified that NovoLog insulin, Trazadone and Gabapentin were administered at 2:55 PM, 1 hour and 55 minutes after the scheduled administration timeframe. 13. Resident #45's diagnoses included dementia with agitation, type 1 diabetes and hypertension. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #45 as having severe cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 1/20/25 directed to administer Novolog Flaxen 100 unit/ml insulin, inject 3 units SC at lunch time and Hydralazine 15mg 3 times a day. A review of facility documentation on 3/27/25 identified that the Novolog insulin and Hydralazine were administered at 2:41 PM, 2 hours and 41 minutes after scheduled administration time. 14. Resident #72's diagnoses included dementia, hypertension and failure to thrive. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #72 as having severe cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 2/15/25 directed to administer Hydralazine 100 mg 3 times a day. A review of facility documentation on 3/27/25 identified that Hydralazine was administered at 2:42 PM, 2 hours and 42 minutes after scheduled administration time. 15. Resident #78's diagnoses included dementia, hypertension, and depressive episodes. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #26 as having severe cognitive impairment. Physician's orders dated 1/5/25 directed to administer Trazadone 25 mg once a day at 12:00 PM. A review of facility documentation identified that Trazadone was administered at 1:59 PM, 59 minutes after the allowed scheduled administration timeframe. Interview with APRN #1 on 3/26/25 indicated that she was aware of late medication pass and any medication errors that may have occurred. APRN #1 indicated that the late medications were not significant medication errors. A review of the Administration of Medications Policies and Procedures policy dated 7/23 directed, in part, medication errors and adverse drug reaction shall be immediately reported to the attending physician, charted in the clinical records and described in the Medication Error Report. Medications are to be given at the time ordered or within 60 minutes before or after the time designated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on tour of the Dietary Department, staff interview and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was maintained in sanitary manner, failed to ensure open food items were d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on tour of the Dietary Department, staff interview and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure kitchen equipment was maintained in sanitary manner, failed to ensure open food items were dated to include dates opened/expired/use by, and failed to recheck temperatures of a resident's reheated food. The findings include: 1. Tour of the Dietary Department kitchen on 3/17/25 at 10:15 AM with the Food Service Director (FSD) identified the following: a. A heavy accumulation of white and brown debris/lint on the juice machine vent located on the upper front section of the chiller/juice machine. b. A heavy accumulation of congealed black and brown burnt residue on the stove, and surrounding surfaces. c. A large amount of white and brown congealed buildup on the conventional oven doors. An interview on 3/17/25 at 10:30 AM with the FSD identified that kitchen staff only clean the outside/surface of the juice machine, but the facility use a contracted company for a comprehensive cleaning of the machine every 3 months and as needed. The FSD indicated that the company last serviced and cleaned the juice machine in December of 2024, but she was unable to provide documentation of the visit. She stated that the machine needed to be taken apart for the vent section to be cleaned, it was her responsibility to inform the chiller machine company to come in for a comprehensive cleaning, but she had not done so for quite some time. The FSD also indicated that dietary staff were responsible for wiping down the stove daily after use and thoroughly cleaning it monthly using a decreasing agent. The FSD stated that it seemed someone spilled something on the stove over the weekend and it was never cleaned. Additionally, she identified that even though the oven was cleaned every week, an accumulation of residue in between the glass doors could not be cleaned by staff and indicated that the oven glass doors needed to be taken apart to access the accumulated residue on the inside of the glass doors. The FSD identified that the Maintenance Department would be requested to help with taking apart the oven door and kitchen staff would perform the cleaning. The FSD indicated she was responsible for ensuring cleaning tasks were completed. The facility General Cleaning Guidelines directed the cleaning and sanitization of most equipment and surfaces in the kitchen included: the daily cleaning the stove including the loosening of baked on grease or carbonized food with a stiff bush or scraper as needed, spraying with cleaner, and wiping until the surface is restored. 2. Observation and interview of the dry storage room with FSD on 3/17/25 at 11:44 AM identified an opened 5 pound (lb.) bag of yellow cake mix (that was 1/4 full). The bag was not labeled/dated when opened. There were 6 unopened 5 lb. bags of yellow cake mix that were out their original boxes with no expiration date or label, and a 5 lb. bag of pasta (that was ½ full) with no open date or expiration date. The FSD indicated that all food items that are opened or taken out of their original boxes or containers needed to be labelled with an open date and/or an expiration date. Review of the Date Marking policy dated 4/29/24 directed, in part, that foods will be date marked with the name of the product, the date of the production or opening and referenced to a quick reference list for discard date. A designated employee will be assigned to monitor products within the department and the process will be monitored by the FSD. 3. Observation and Interview with NA #4 on 3/21/25 at 9:30 AM identified that she brought a resident's tray into the nourishment room to reheat the food per the resident request. NA #4 indicated that she asked residents if they needed any items or their food reheated when delivering meal trays, and if a resident requested food to be reheated, she would use the microwave in the nourishment room to heat the food for about 30 seconds. She would then place the back of her hand over and above the food to gauge how warm the food was before adding additional reheating time. Observation of the nourishment room failed to identify a thermometer located in the room. Interview with the FSD on 3/21/25 at 11:47 AM identified that nursing staff were permitted to reheat food. The FSD further indicated that food was to be heated until the temperature was 165 degrees Fahrenheit and verified by the thermometer in the nourishment room. FSD was notified that there was no thermometer in the nourishment room. Review of the Reheating Food Policy identified that all reheated food must reach 165 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 15 seconds and would be verified by use of a thermometer to check the internal temperature. Reheated food should be served immediately or held at 135 degrees Fahrenheit or above until served. If using a microwave, food should be heated to 165 degrees Fahrenheit, covered, stirred, and allowed to stand for even heating.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide all staff with abuse and neglect training ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to provide all staff with abuse and neglect training and failed to develop staff training for abuse that included federal components for abuse education. The findings included: 1. A review of abuse and neglect training documentation identified education was provided for new hires during orientation and during in-services that had occurred in May 2024, September 2024 and March 2025. Review of the sign-in sheets identified 31 employees had not received any abuse and neglect training (19% of the facility employees). Interview with the Administrator on 3/27/25 at 2:03 PM identified that the facility policy training program for abuse and neglect training directed all staff were in-serviced annually. Additionally, the Staff Development nurse was responsible for ensuring all employees received the mandatory in-service training on neglect and abuse. Interview and in-service signature record review with the Staff Development Nurse on 3/27/25 at 3:25 PM identified that it was her as well as the Director of Nurses responsibility to provide staff with abuse and neglect education annually according to the facility training program policy. Review of the abuse and neglect training sign-in sheets with the Staff Development nurse identified that 31 staff members, employed prior to 2024, had not received the directed mandatory abuse and neglect training. The Staff Development nurse was unable to explain why the facility failed to implement their policy ensuring all staff received abuse and neglect training on an annual basis. Interview with the HR Director on 3/27/25 at 4:07 PM identified there were 164 staff members currently employed at the facility, and the 31 employees identified as not having had abuse and neglect training since prior to 2024 were still currently employed with the facility. The Director of Nurses was not available for an interview. The facility assessment dated [DATE] identified staff is educated on abuse, neglect and exploitation. The Preventing Resident Abuse training policy dated 4/2016 directed, in part, the facility abuse prevention/intervention program included regularly scheduled in-service programs. 2. A review of the Abuse Training for staff identified that in-services occurred on 9/13/2024, 9/16/2024, 9/19/2024, 9/20/2024, 9/27/2024, and 10/18/2024. The seven components of the requirement include: Screening Training Prevention Identification Investigation Protection Reporting/response Although the training did discuss investigation, protection, and a portion of reporting/response (page 1), it failed to address the screening of residents (current and new admissions) for abuse, identification of physical or psychosocial indicators of abuse (including injuries from an unknown source), mandated reporting, and/or reporting allegations without fear of reprisal. Additionally, the training lacked misappropriation of resident property, resident exploitation, chemical and physical restraints, recognizing signs of burnout, frustration, and stress that may increase the risk for abuse, and dementia management for resident abuse prevention. Interview with the Staff Development nurse on 3/25/2025 at 10:48 AM identified she did not create the abuse training she provided to staff, and it was given to her when she started her role as Staff Development nurse. She further indicated the DNS was responsible for the accuracy of the abuse education and ensuring it matched the facility policy. The Staff Development nurse stated she had never seen the facility policy on abuse and believed the training did not match the policy on abuse because someone didn't take the time to read the policy when creating the education. A follow-up interview with the Staff Development nurse on 3/25/2025 at 12:02 PM identified that she was aware the staff abuse education was not sufficient, and she failed to review and update the information. Further, she indicated she was directed to include the abuse policy to staff during abuse training beginning in November 2024 and failed to start distributing the abuse policy until March of 2025. An interview with the DNS on 3/25/2025 at 11:03 AM identified that abuse education was created by the Staff Development nurse, and it had been reviewed by him prior to staff distribution. He further identified that the abuse education should be based off the facility policy. Review of the facility's Preventing Resident Abuse policy identified, in part, that the facility will not condone any form of resident abuse and will continually monitor the facility's policies, procedures, training programs, systems, etc. to assist in preventing resident abuse.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0946 (Tag F0946)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, facility documentation review, and facility policy, the facility failed to develop a compliance and ethics program and failed to provide staff with compliance and ethics training....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, facility documentation review, and facility policy, the facility failed to develop a compliance and ethics program and failed to provide staff with compliance and ethics training. The findings included: Interview with the Administrator, Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #4, and Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #8 on 3/27/25 at 9:46 AM identified the facility did not have a compliance and ethics program and also did not have a compliance and ethics policy. It was further identified that compliance and ethics training is not part of new hire orientation or annual training. RN #4 and RN #8 stated there was a Code of Conduct policy, but this Code of Conduct is not communicated to the entire facility staff. The DNS was unavailable for interview. Although requested, a policy on Compliance and Ethics was not provided. The Code of Conduct policy failed to include the basic components of an ethics and compliance program including but not limited to: identification of a compliance officer or committee; how and who to report ethical concerns to; secure, confidential, and timely reporting of concerns; conducting internal monitoring and auditing for compliance and ethical concerns; response and corrective action to detected offenses; and risk assessment.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0570 (Tag F0570)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on review of the facility's Personal Funds Account, review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure necessary coverage through a surety bond for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of the facility's Personal Funds Account, review of facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure necessary coverage through a surety bond for the Resident Trust Accounts. The findings include: On 3/20/25 at 3:23 PM, interview and review of the Resident Trust Account (RTA) balances with the Business Office staff indicated that the RTA balance for the period of 2/1/25 through 2/28/25 ranged from $76,586.13 dollars to $142,392.69. Additionally, the RTA balance for the period of 6/1/24 through 6/30/24 indicated a balance ranging from $63,261.77 to $109,338.53. The RTA balance for the period of 8/1/24 to 8/31/24 identified a balance ranging from $65,134.70 to $118,534.21 during that time. The RTA balance for the period of 9/1/24 through 9/30/24 identified a balance ranging from $66,003.21 to $116,259.39 during that time. The RTA balance for the period of 10/1/24 through 10/31/24 identified a balance ranging from $62,879.01 to $105,474.01 during that time. The RTA balance for the period of 11/1/24 through 11/30/24 identified a balance ranging from $65,868.36 to $120,533.78 during that time. The RTA balance for the period of 12/1/24 through 12/31/24 identified a balance ranging from $72,205.01 to $141,842.27 during that time. Furthermore, the RTA balance for the period of 1/1/25 through 1/31/25 indicated a balance ranging from $72,682.68 to $149,270.15. Review of the facility's surety bond identified the Resident Trust Accounts were insured for $50,000 effective June 30, 2024, through June 30, 2025. An interview with the Administrator on 3/20/25 at 3:43 PM identified the facility did not regularly monitor if the Resident Trust Account $50,000 surety bond coverage was adequate and indicated he was unaware that the Resident Trust Account regularly exceeded the $50,000 coverage limit. The Administrator failed to identify who was responsible for monitoring the Resident Trust Account and indicated he was going to reach out to the Executive [NAME] President to raise the surety bond amount to cover resident funds. The facility failed to provide a Surety Bond Policy upon request.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #43 and Resident #46) for Resident #43 reviewed for abuse and Resident #46 reviewed for falls, the documentation failed to correctly reflect actual events. The findings include: 1. Resident #43's diagnoses included dementia, chronic kidney disease, and hypertensive heart disease with heart failure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #43 was cognitively intact, did not experience episodes of delusions, and required maximal assistance for his/her toileting hygiene and chair to bed and bed to chair transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 experienced frequent episodes of incontinence of bladder with an intervention of an assist of 2 with toileting upon request. The Resident Care Card in effect on 1/3/25 identified Resident #43 was to have 2 staff members present at all times when in his/her room including when performing bathing and toileting tasks. An interview with Resident #43 on 3/18/25 at 11:51 AM was conducted by the surveyor in the presence of the DNS. Resident #43 alleged a few weeks prior that while he/she was trying to get into bed from his/her wheelchair, LPN #7 reached over the back of the wheelchair and pushed him/her onto the bed in a non-sexual manner. Resident #43 further identified that he/she was alone in the room with LPN #7 and started yelling for help, at which point LPN #7 grabbed the phone out of his/her hand and threw it across the room. It was noted by Resident #43, that Nurse Aide (NA) #7 entered the room and assisted him/her into bed for the provision of incontinence care. Resident #43 stated she experienced great humiliation over the event and continued to be afraid of LPN #7, noting LPN #7 continued to come into his/her room to provide care after the alleged incident of abuse. The Director of Nursing Services (DNS) identified he was aware of the allegation of abuse and stated he had completed an investigation and reported the incident to the State Agency (SA). An interview and review of abuse documentation with the DNS on 3/19/25 at 7:51 AM failed to produce investigation documentation following the 1/3/25 incident. The DNS, in lieu of investigation documentation, provided an undated and unsigned summary of the incident. The DNS stated the summary was created at the time of his investigation. An interview with the DNS and Administrator on 3/19/25 at 9:45 AM identified the summary of the alleged abuse event was not created at the time of the investigation but instead created on 3/18/25. A review of the DNS's undated summary of the 1/3/24 allegation of abuse created on 3/18/25 inaccurately identified Resident #43 was admitted on [DATE], was [AGE] years old, had a BIMS of 13, had a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbances, and wanted to be changed for incontinence care during the 1/3/25 incident. Further, the DNS summary stated the DNS assessed Resident #43 for injuries of any kind and there were no new areas or signs of injury. Contrary to the DNS statement, a review of Resident #43's MDS dated [DATE], in effect at the time of the 1/3/25 allegation of abuse, identified that Resident #43 was admitted on [DATE], was [AGE] years old, and had a BIMS of 15, an inaccurate account of Resident #43's information. A review of Resident #43's facility face-sheet dated 3/19/25 identified an admitting diagnosis of dementia without behavioral disturbance. A review of Resident #43's progress notes from 1/3/25 through 1/10/25 identified there were no progress notes or assessments for Resident #43 documented by the DNS within the electronic medical record for the 1/3/25 allegation of abuse. An interview on 3/19/25 at 4:26 PM with LPN #7 identified that Resident #43 declined incontinence care the shift previous to his shift with him/her on 1/3/25. LPN #7 further indicated that Resident #43 declined incontinence care during his shift, and he informed the resident he/she had to be changed. LPN #7 stated that Resident #43 was crying and yelling for help during the provided incontinence care, and he removed the phone from his/her hand and told Resident #43 he/she could call for help when he was done. LPN #7 stated the reason he made the late entry nurses note regarding the incident 2 days after it occurred was he was advised to do so by the DNS to protect himself. The DNS's summary document indicated that Resident #43 had wanted to be changed. Review of an email dated 3/20/25 at 1:23 PM from LPN #7 to the DNS identified Resident #43 refused incontinence care twice during his shift on 1/3/25 and he instructed the NA to perform care to which Resident #43 had been opposed. A review of the Reportable Event Form, submitted on 3/20/25 for the allegation of abuse occurring on 1/3/25, incorrectly identified the event type to be resident to resident abuse without injury, the age of Resident #43 to be [AGE] years old (resident was [AGE] years old), date of admission to be 2/9/24 (date of admission was 10/10/23), and that the resident had no injury, distress, or discomfort. 2. Resident #46 diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, heart failure, cerebral palsy, contracture of muscle, right upper arm and mild intellectual disabilities. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #46 was severely cognitively impaired (Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5), was dependent on staff for toileting and personal hygiene and required maximum assistance for toilet transfers. The MDS identified Resident #46 with an impairment on one side of his/her upper extremity and further identified that he/she ambulated in a wheelchair. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/21/24 identified Resident #46 was at risk for falls related to impaired mobility. Interventions included, ensuring Resident #46 was wearing appropriate footwear while mobilizing in his/her wheelchair, following facility fall protocol, placing call light within reach and encouraging Resident#46 to use it for assistance as needed. The Resident Care Card (RCC) for the month of March 2025 identified Resident #46 was at risk of falls and required assistance of 1 staff for personal care, bed mobility, and stand pivot transfers and wheelchair for mobility. The Reportable Event form dated 11/16/24 at 12:30 PM identified Resident #46 was with Nurse Aide (NA#5) in the bathroom being toileted, Resident #46 lost his/her grip on the grab bar, slipped to the right and struck his/her head on the wall. A Post Fall Assessment form completed identified Resident #46 was oriented to person and place. The Post Fall assessment further identified a gait imbalance during transfer as the predisposing physiological factor related to the incident. RN #3's nurse's note dated 11/16/24 at 5:29 PM identified that Resident #46 was being toileted by NA #5 when she/he became unsteady and leaned over placing the right side of his/her head on the wall. Resident #46 did not complain of pain at the time of the incident and no marks or bruises were observed. Vital signs and neuro vital signs were initiated, and Resident #46's family member and physician were notified. A DNS late entry nurse's progress note dated 11/18/24 at 7:31 AM dated back to 11/16/24 at 1:02 PM, identified that he was called to Resident #46's room related to a witnessed fall in bathroom. The DNS indicated that according to NA #5 while she was transferring Resident # 46 to the toilet, he/she became weak and leaned against the wall. The DNS identified that Resident #46 was lowered to ground by NA #5 with a gait belt, to sitting then lying position. The note identified that when Resident#46 leaned against the wall initially his/her head hit the wall. Additionally, the note identified that neurological, vital signs, a head to toe assessment, and range of motion were all within normal limits and Resident #46 did not lose consciousness. The note indicated that Resident #46 denied pain and there was no injury or new skin issue noted, and that two staff members assisted Resident #46 back to the toilet to finish using bathroom as originally intended. Interview with NA #5 on 3/19/25 at 11:06 AM, identified that she responded to Resident #46's call light, and he/she requested to be assisted to the bathroom urgently. NA #5 indicated that she did not have a gait belt and assisted Resident #46 to the bathroom without using a gait belt. NA #5 stated that when Resident #46 stood up, he/she lost her grip on the pull bar and hit the right side of his/her head on the wall. NA #5 identified that she managed to safely assist Resident #46 to the toilet and stayed with him/her until he/she was done, then transferred him/her back to wheelchair safely without the use of a gait belt. NA #5 further indicated that she wheeled Resident #46 to the nurse's station and reported the incident to RN #3. NA #5 stated that she completed a paper incident report and handed it to RN#5. NA#3 identified that Resident #46 did not fall during transfer in the bathroom but only bumped his/her head on the wall. NA #5 further identified that the DNS did not respond to the incident in Resident #46's bathroom, nor had he interviewed her regarding the bathroom accident with Resident #46. Interview on 3/19/25 at 2:50 PM with DNS identified that he responded to Resident #46's bathroom incident but could not recall details of the incident. The DNS was unable to explain if he responded to the incident in person as he stated in his progress note regarding the incident or whether his documentation was based on an interview with NA #5 and RN #3. The DNS indicated that he would seek clarification from RN # 3 and NA#5. Interview with RN #3 on 3/25/25 at 2:37 PM identified that she assessed Resident #46 after the bathroom accident with NA #5. RN #3 identified that Resident #46 was not lowered to ground by NA #5 with the use of a gait belt as indicated in the DNS progress note. RN#3 further identified that the DNS was not present when she assessed Resident #46. The DNS's documentation failed to describe an accurate representation of Resident #46's incident and actual experience in the bathroom. Review of the facility's Charting and Documentation policy, identified in part, that documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete and accurate, and be completed for treatments or services provided and for events, incidents, or accidents involving the resident.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on staff interviews, facility policy, and documentation reviewed for the facility Quality Assurance Improvement Plan (QAPI), the facility failed to include the Infection Preventionist in the Qua...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, facility policy, and documentation reviewed for the facility Quality Assurance Improvement Plan (QAPI), the facility failed to include the Infection Preventionist in the Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) meetings. The findings include: An interview on 3/20/25 at 10:20 AM with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #9 identified she began her oversight of the Infection Prevention program around September/October of 2024. An interview and QAPI documentation review with the Administrator on 3/24/25 at 11:13 AM identified the facility meets on a monthly basis for QAPI/QAA meetings. A review of the meeting sign-in sheets with the Administrator identified meetings were held in July 2024, August 2024, September 2024, October 2024, November 2024, December 2024, and January 2025. Although the Infection Preventionist did attend the January 2025 meeting she failed to attend the meetings in July through December of 24 (missing 6 of 7 opportunities for attendance). The Administrator indicated the reason an Infection Preventionist did not attend the QAPI/QAA meetings was due to staffing issues, with the prior Infection Preventionist resigning her position in August 2024, and the facility's current Infection Preventionist not being hired immediately after August 2024. The Administrator noted that although some staff are shared between facilities within the parent organization, the Infection Preventionist position is not shared. Review of the facility's QAPI policy identified the facility will establish an interdisciplinary QAPI committee. The committee shall consist of a minimum of the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Medical Director, and three other staff members. The QAPI policy failed to identify that per Federal guidelines, an Infection Preventionist must be included in the QAPI committee.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0944 (Tag F0944)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews, facility documentation review, and facility policy, during the extended survey, the facility failed to provide staff with mandatory training on the QAPI program or how to communic...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, facility documentation review, and facility policy, during the extended survey, the facility failed to provide staff with mandatory training on the QAPI program or how to communicate concerns, problems or opportunities for improvement. The findings included: Interview with the Administrator, Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #4, and Regional Registered Nurse (RN) #8 on 3/27/25 at 9:46 AM identified the facility had a Code of Conduct policy, but this Code of Conduct was not communicated to the entire facility staff. The DNS was unavailable for interview. Although requested, a policy was not provided. The Code of Conduct policy failed to include the basic components of utilizing a QAPI program.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0949 (Tag F0949)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and the facility assessment, the facility failed to provide facility staff with behavioral ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record reviews, and the facility assessment, the facility failed to provide facility staff with behavioral health education as identified on the annual assessment. The findings included: A review of the facility assessment dated [DATE] identified the facility was able to admit residents that needed care for psychiatric/mood disorders such as psychosis, impaired cognition, mental disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety disorder and behaviors that need interventions. Additionally, the assessment identified Nursing Assistants (NA's) were provided with education on combative care and those with behavioral disturbances. Review of the in-service calendars dated March 2024 through March 2025 failed to identify scheduled behavioral health training by the facility or by the psychiatry services group. Review of the behavioral health education dated 3/26/25 identified a Personality Disorders in-service provided by the psychiatry services provider with a sign-in sheet consisting of 19 staff members (the facility employs 164 employees, a compliance rate of 11.5%). The facility failed to provide any other in-services with sign-in sheets on the topic of behavioral health. Interview with the Administrator on 3/27/25 at 2:03 PM identified, on average, 50 residents residing in the facility had behavioral health needs (average census ranging between 102 and 108). He identified that staff should be receiving behavioral health education, and the education was provided by the psychiatry services provider on a regular basis. Interview with the Staff Development nurse on 3/27/25 at 3:11 PM identified behavioral health education was provided on a regular basis by the psychiatry services group, and her role is to schedule the education and put the information on the in-service calendar. She could not provide any past in-service sign in sheets where behavioral health education occurred. Although requested, a policy for behavioral health was not provided.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for one (1) of three (3) residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure the resident was safely transferred in the mechanical lift resulting in minor injuries on two (2) separate occasions. The findings include: Resident #1 had diagnoses including morbid obesity, chronic pain, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, localized edema to the bilateral lower extremities and depression. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/17/22 identified that Resident #1 had an alteration in Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) related to difficulty walking and generalized weakness post hospitalization for dyspnea (shortness of breath), pulmonary edema (excess fluids in the lungs), Congestive Heart Failure (CHF), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) and lymphedema (swelling cause by a lymphatic system blockage) with interventions that included providing assistance as needed and Physical Therapy (PT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) to evaluate and treat per physician's order. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of fifteen (15) indicative of intact cognition and required moderate assistance with transfers. A physician's order dated 2/23/22 directed that Resident #1 was a Hoyer (mechanical) lift with an assist of two (2) staff for transfers. a) A nurse's note dated 4/30/22 at 12:30 PM identified that at 11:15 AM Resident #1 was observed laying on the floor next to the Hoyer lift. The note identified that staff identified that they were transferring the resident with the Hoyer lift and while making a turn, the lift started to tip, and they were unable to prevent the resident and Hoyer lift from tipping over. The resident was alert and oriented following the incident and he/she stated that they hit their head as well as complaining of pain to the right leg. The resident sustained a scrape to the right great toe but no other open areas or bruising was noted on assessment. The APRN was notified and due to the resident being on Eliquis (blood thinner), the resident was transferred to the Emergency Department (ED) at 11:30 AM for evaluation. Review of the facility Accident & Investigation (A & I) documentation identified that on 4/30/22 at 11:15 AM, Resident #1 was being lowered into the chair and began to shift his/her weight resulting in the Hoyer lift tipping and the staff was unable to stabilize the machine due to the resident's weight resulting in both the resident and the Hoyer lift falling to the floor, subsequent to the incident, Resident #1 was made an assist of three (3) staff for transfers with the Hoyer lift. Review of hospital documentation dated 4/30/22 identified that Resident #1 was seen in the ED stating that he/she was being transferred from bed to a chair when he/she was 'dropped', complaining of left sided pain. The resident reported that he/she did hit their head but denied loss of consciousness. Imaging was completed of the left shoulder, left ankle and the head with no fractures or abnormalities identified. Review of Resident #1's body weights identified that he/she was 433.8 pounds (lbs) on 4/29/22. Observation on 1/13/25 at 2:00 PM identified that the facility had a standard Hoyers and a Bariatric Hoyer. Interview and review of statement with NA #6 on 1/13/25 at 1:22 PM identified that she assisted NA #8 in transferring Resident #1 from the bed to the shower chair with the Hoyer lift on 4/30/22. She reported that the resident was secured in the Hoyer sling and when they started to lift him/her with the Hoyer, Resident #1 started to wiggle their left leg and the Hoyer started rocking and although they attempted to stop it from tipping, they were unable to stop the Hoyer from tipping due to the residents weight and the resident fell on his/her left side alongside the Hoyer machine which also fell on its side with the top hook falling on the resident's left thigh. She identified that although not mentioned in her statement and she was unsure if she had been asked by RN #3 (previous DNS), the resident was in the correct bariatric Hoyer sling, the legs at the base of the Hoyer machine were opened (to help with stabilization) and stated they did not pull the resident by the Hoyer pad instead of using the handlebars on the machine. She reported that she was unable to recall if there had been any hazards (water, cords) on the floor that could have caught up the wheels and made pushing the Hoyer lift difficult. She identified that she checked the Hoyer lift machine specifications after the incident and stated it said it could be used with residents up to 600 lbs. NA #6 stated she believed they did everything correct with the transfer of Resident #1 that day and did not believe that any errors on their part led to the incident. Interview with Resident #1 on 1/13/25 at 2:09 PM identified that on 4/30/22, NA #6 and NA #8 started to connect the loops on the Hoyer sling to the machine when one of the NA's (NA #6) stated, You're not using the right Hoyer machine, he/she is supposed to have the bigger one and the other NA (NA #8) replied back stating, It will be fine, I'll be quick. She reported that she did not shift her weight or move her legs during the Hoyer transfer. Additionally, she reported that no one had asked her what had happened following the incident, including RN #3, stating she would have reported to them that the staff reported that they were using the incorrect Hoyer lift. Interview with RN #3 (previous DNS) on 1/13/25 at 2:39 PM identified that when she investigated the 4/30/22 accident, the staff involved reported that the resident shifted his/her weight while suspended up in the Hoyer lift and she attributed the tipping of the lift to the weight redistribution due to the resident's excess bodyweight. She reported that she was unable to recall the details of the incident and was unsure if she had asked the staff involved if they had used the correct Hoyer machine (there was a bariatric hoyer for Resident #1 and other Hoyers available in the facility), correct Hoyer pad, if the legs of the Hoyer machine were opened during the transfer and if any hazards were in the way of the machine, but stated she should have and she was unsure why the details weren't documented. Review of NA #8's statement dated 4/30/22 identified that she was controlling the Hoyer machine and NA #6 was assisting her. She reported that they had the resident suspended over the shower chair and the next thing she knew the Hoyer machine flipped and the resident was on the floor and she was unable to explain what had happened. Although attempted, an interview with NA #8 was not obtained. b. The 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had a Brief Mental Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (fifteen) indicative of intact cognition and was dependent on staff for assistance with transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 7/22/24 identified that Resident #1 required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) with interventions that included providing an assist of two (2) to three (3) for transfers with a bariatric Hoyer lift. A nurse's note dated 8/23/24 at 3:05 PM identified that she (ADNS) was called to Resident #1's room to assess the resident. The resident was observed to be sitting in a chair and staff reported that they were transferring the resident to the chair with the Hoyer lift when the Hoyer slightly tipped resulting in the Hoyer bar hitting the resident on the right side of the face and in the chest. A slight abrasion was noted to the right eyelid with scant bleeding and swelling was noted and a purple, tender bruise was noted to the midline/ right chest. The resident complained of moderate pain (four out of ten) and Tylenol (pain reliever) was administered. Physical Therapy (PT) and three (3) NA's transferred the resident back to bed per his/her request, the physician was notified directed that a STAT (immediate) chest x-ray and facial x-ray be obtained and to apply ice to the affected areas as needed. Review of the facial and chest x-ray's dated 8/23/24 did not identify any fractures. Review of the facility Accident & Investigation (A & I) documentation identified that on 8/23/24 at 1:30 PM while NA #1, NA #2 and NA #3 were transferring the resident to the chair, the Hoyer lift tipped, resulting in the bar hitting the resident on the face and chest. It identified that the resident was then lowered into the chair and assessed by the RN. The A & I documentation identified that staff education was provided on the use of the Hoyer lift, and the Hoyer lift was inspected and found to be in proper working order. Review of Resident #1's body weights identified that he/she was 471 pounds (lbs) on 8/23/24. Interview with Person #3 (Hoyer lift customer service representative) on 1/13/25 at 9:28 AM identified that the bariatric lift that Resident #1 was using was appropriate for up to 700 lbs. He/she reported that the only way to tip the Hoyer lift is if staff are pulling on the resident and the Hoyer pad instead of pushing the lift with the handlebars or if the base of the lift is in the narrow position and the legs are not opened to stabilize the weight of the resident. He/she identified that when trying to turn the lift and maneuver out of a tight position, the casters (wheels) can be difficult to push and pull due to a resident's weight but reported that staff should only use the handlebar and never pull the resident or the pad, as it can put the machine off balance and cause it to tip. Person #3 identified that his/her company does not provide education on the Hoyer lift, but that a manual comes with the lift. Interview with Resident #1 on 1/9/25 at 10:53 AM identified that on 8/23/24 while transferring him/her to the chair with the Hoyer lift, they pulled the Hoyer pad to position him/her above the chair, the Hoyer lift started to tip and the main upwards bar hit him/her in the face and on the chest. The resident identified that he/she sustained bruising and bleeding to the areas and that the areas were tender for a while following the incident. Interview with NA #1 on 1/9/25 at 12:43 PM identified that NA #2, NA #3 and herself were present at the time of the incident regarding Resident #1 on 8/23/24. She reported that they had provided incontinent care and put the bariatric Hoyer pad under the resident and then opened the legs of the lift and started lifting the resident in the air. She identified that they started to pull the lift out and positioned it over the chair when the lift started to tip, they were unable to stabilize it, and it subsequently hit the resident on the face and chest. She reported that the resident did not fall, and they were able to finish lowering him/her into the chair. She identified that she was unable to identify any errors that they made resulting in the Hoyer lift to tip. Interview with NA #2 on 1/9/25 at 12:59 PM identified that the legs of the Hoyer lift were opened as they prepared to lower the resident into the chair. She reported that they pulled the back of the Hoyer pad to position the resident over the chair and the machine started to tip and the arm of the Hoyer lift hit the resident in the face and chest. She reported that she was unaware that pulling the Hoyer pad could cause the Hoyer lift to tip when the legs were opened on the lift. Interview with NA #3 on 1/9/25 at 1:05 PM identified that NA #1 and NA #2 requested her help with the transfer of Resident #1 on 8/23/24. She reported that on 8/23/24 she assisted NA #1 and NA #2 by pulling Resident #1's Hoyer pad to get him/her to move, as they were unable to get the Hoyer lift to roll and move in the direction they were trying to go with only one person pulling and pushing the lift by the handlebar. She reported that the lift could not bare the resident's weight so they all had to push him/her, stating she knew they shouldn't have pulled the resident by the Hoyer pad but that it was the only way to move the resident and get him/her out of bed. She identified that she didn't directly tell anyone that she had difficulty with the bariatric Hoyer lift, as all the staff communicated that they had the same problem. Interview with the ADNS on 1/9/25 at 11:59 AM identified that she was unable to identify what caused the Hoyer lift machine to tip onto Resident #1 on 8/23/24, stating that although she did not ask the staff during her investigation if the legs at the base of the machine were open at the time of the transfer, she stated that the resident was obese and she believed the staff did everything they should have done in relation to the transfer and that she was unsure if the incident could have been prevented. Additionally, she reported that the staff involved was educated on the spot, PT inspected the Hoyer lift with no irregularities noted and education related to the Hoyer lift had been started on 8/1/24 and was ongoing throughout the month of August 2024. Interview with the DNS and ADNS on 1/13/25 at 9:50 AM identified that they were unable to conclude how the Hoyer lift tipped onto Resident #1 on 8/23/24 reporting that's why they initiated immediate education, watched NA #1, NA #2 and NA #3 transfer the resident back to bed after the incident and had therapy inspect the Hoyer lift. They identified that they also made education booklets on how to safely transfer residents with a Hoyer lift and placed them on each unit. Interview with the DNS, ADNS and Administrator on 1/13/25 at 12:00 PM identified that Resident #1 was safely transferred on both the 4/30/22 and 8/23/24 incidents stating that ideally if the facility does everything correctly an incident should not occur but reported that they were unable to identify that the resident had been transferred incorrectly in both incidents. Interview with the DNS and Administrator on 1/13/25 at 3:49 PM identified that they were unaware that staff had pulled the resident by the Hoyer pad on 8/23/24 due to difficulties in maneuvering the Hoyer lift, stating that through prior education staff had not communicated they were having difficulties with only pushing the resident by the handlebar on the Hoyer lift. They identified that had they known, they could have implemented another staff for assistance. Although attempted, a re-interview with NA #1 was not obtained. The Hoyer policy identified that the Hoyer lift should be used for residents who are too heavy to move or who are not able to be transferred by other means, be sure to clear the path of the Hoyer lift before moving the resident. Review of the Accidents and Incidents Investigation policy dated 6/2023 directed, in part, that the investigation is initiated to define causative/contributing factors and institute preventative measures to avoid further occurrences as part of the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement process. An accident is defined as any unexpected or unintentional incident which may result in injury or illness to a resident. An incident is defined as any occurrence not consistent with the routine operation of the facility or normal care of the patient. An incident can involve a staff member, malfunctioning equipment, or observation of a situation that poses a threat to safety or security.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for a change in condition, the facility failed to ensure complete neurological assessments were completed timely for a resident after an unwitnessed fall. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, dementia, seizures, anxiety disorder, and depression. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) form dated 5/10/2023 identified Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment and was independent for bed mobility, transfers, and locomotion. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/17/2023 identified an alteration in ADLs performance. Interventions directed to assist as needed and provide assistive/adaptive device: walker/wheelchair. A reportable event form and investigation dated 8/5/2023 at 11:30 PM identified Resident #1 was observed on the floor in his/her room and was lethargic, weak, and confused, and indicated he/she was going to the bathroom. RN #1 was notified immediately and assessed Resident #1. Resident #1 denied pain, had active range of motion of all extremities and a blood glucose was checked, found to be in the 300's. Approximately 30 to 45 minutes later, Resident #1 was noted to be increasingly disoriented, drooling, vomiting and unable to stand up, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was called. The facility investigation indicated the hospital assessment identified Resident #1 had a left intertrochanteric hip fracture. A nursing progress note by LPN #1 dated 8/6/2023 at 12:30 AM identified LPN #1 was called to Resident #1's room again by nurse aide due to resident vomiting and drooling. LPN #1 went to residents' room; LPN #1 checked resident's blood glucose level and was found to be 284. Resident #1 appeared to be more disoriented, shaking, vomiting with fixed pupils and was unable to stand and RN #1 was notified. Review of the clinical documentation failed to identify neurological checks were performed after Resident #1's fall on 8/5/2023. Clinical record review identified Resident #1 was discharged from the facility on 8/6 and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Although attempted, an interview with RN #1 and the DON were unable to be obtained during the survey. Interview with Administrator on 8/23/2023 at 2:45 PM identified although staff should perform neurological assessments after an unwitnessed fall, and should have completed the assessments for Resident #1, the Administrator was unable to provide documentation that neurological assessments were completed after the fall on 8/5/2023. The Administrator was unable to explain why the assessments were not completed. Review of the Fall Prevention Program Policy dated 6/2023 identified if a resident suffers a head injury or an unwitnessed fall, a neurological assessment is to be completed and neuro signs are to be documented according to the following timeline: every 15 minutes for the first two hours, every 30 minutes for the next two hours, every hour for the next 4 hours, every 4 hours for the next 16 hours, and every shift for the remaining 48 hours. Review of the Neurological Vital Signs Policy dated 7/2023 identified in cases of possible head injury, neuro vital signs are to be obtained and documented every 15 minutes for 2 hours, every 30 minutes for 2 hours, every 1 hour for 4 hours, and then every shift for the duration of a seventy-two (72) hour time period or longer per nursing judgment or physician orders.
Nov 2022 15 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews for one resident (Resident # 54) reviewed for skin conditions, non-pressure, the facility failed to ensure that the care plan comprehensive and individualized with goals and interventions to reflected the resident's psoriasis skin condition. The findings include: Resident #54's diagnoses included psoriasis and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #54 had no cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfer, toileting, bathing, and personal hygiene. Additionally, the assessment identified the resident was at risk for pressure ulcer but did not have any unhealed pressure ulcers. The care plan dated 8/21/2022 identified a problem due to a fungal rash to bilateral groin, interventions included : to ensure skin is clean and free from moisture and to provide treatment as ordered. The care plan further indicated that there was a potential for skin breakdown, pressure areas, skin tears, bruising secondary to fragile skin, aspirin use and decreased mobility. Interventions included in part to ensure skin was clean and free from prolonged moisture to provide treatment as ordered, to inspect skin daily during care and alert charge nurse of any changes and directed the licensed nurse to complete a weekly skin assessment. The physician's order dated 9/26/2022 directed to apply Triamcinolone cream 0.025% one large application to left elbow and may apply a kerlix wrap over area to help prevent scratching twice daily. The weekly body audit dated 10/6/2022 at 5:00 PM indicated dry scaly skin with abrasion with no location indicated. Treatment Administration Record ( TAR) dated 10/7/2022 and discontinued on 10/13/2022 directed to cleanse left elbow self-excoriations with wound cleanser apply bacitracin followed by dry protective dressing change daily and as needed. The weekly body audit dated 10/13/2022 at 5:00PM indicated intact skin condition to elbows and knees along with abrasion related to picking skin and that treatment was ongoing. The weekly body audit dated 10/20/2022 at 3:00 PM indicated skin condition was intact and had abrasions to elbows. The weekly body audit dated 10/27/2022 at 6:28:PM indicated skin intact. Observation on 10/31/22 at 11:30 AM identified Resident #54's left arm was noted to have white patches and some bloody areas. Resident #54 indicated it was eczema and that he scratches at it. On 11/03/22 at 09:16 AM Observation and interview with Resident #54 indicated that the resident's arms were itchy on and off and that the right elbow is bothersome. Resident # 54 further indicated s/he scratches the area a lot and the dressing if applied never stay on. Observations on 11/3/22 further revealed no dressings and dried blood was noted over the skin areas of the left and right elbows. On 11/03/22 at 9:26 AM an interview with LPN #3 indicated this was her first working independently the unit and after her med pass is completed she will complete the treatments and will consult with the APRN regarding the treatment for Resident #54's right and left arm/elbows and to see what could be done to help keep the dressing in place. On 11/03/22 at 11:00 AM an interview with RN #4 indicated she was responsible for placing care plans and updating them. RN #4 further indicated that it has been a challenge and but now she has another nurse who started on 10/18/22 assisting with care plans. Review of the resident's diagnosis list and treatment orders revealed a diagnosis of psoriasis which RN #3 indicated Resident #54 was admitted with the diagnosis. Review of the physician's orders with RN#3 identified a treatment order from 9/26/2022 for a treatment of Triamcinolone cream to left elbow and a kerlix dressing if needed. Further review of the TAR identified new treatment orders obtained on 11/3/2022 subsequent to surveyor inquiry. RN #3 could not provide evidence that the skin condition for psoriasis was addressed in Resident #54's care plan and indicated that it should have been and she would update the care plan immediately. The physician'S orders dated 11/03/2022 directed to apply Triamcinolone cream 0.025% to bilateral elbows and forearms and may apply kerlix over area to help with scratching. The physician's order dated 11/03/2022 directed to cleanse left and right elbow and left forearm unroofed scabs with normal saline apply an xeroform dressing followed by a protective dressing every three days and as needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of policy and staff interviews for 1 sample resident (Resident # 337) reviewed for infec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of policy and staff interviews for 1 sample resident (Resident # 337) reviewed for infection, the facility failed to monitor the resident's Vancomycin trough level according to the professional standard when resident was receiving intravenous (IV) Vancomycin medication. The findings include: Resident #337 diagnoses included sepsis, cellulitis of left lower limb, osteomyelitis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, non-pressure chronic ulcer of other part of right foot and Methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus infection. The physician's order dated 10/10/22 directed to administered Vancomycin reconstitute solution 1.25 gram once a day intravenously every evening. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/10/22 identified Resident #337 required intravenously antibiotic related to gangrene. Intervention included: administered IV antibiotic per physician ordered, follow regimen when caring for IV site and laboratory per physician order. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #337 had moderate impaired cognition and required supervision to limited assistance of 1 person with toileting, dressing, transfer, personal hygiene, and ambulation. A review of the physician's orders and nurse's notes for October 10, 2022, through November 1, 2022, failed to reflect that Resident # 337's Vancomycin trough level had been monitored by the facility within accordance to professional standards. Interview with Advance Practice Registered Nurse (APRN #1) on 11/1/22 at 2:00 PM identified the attending physician would be responsible for coordinating the care of the resident. She also indicated that she would obtain a Vancomycin trough level at least weekly. Subsequent to inquiry, APRN #1 ordered a Vancomycin trough level for Resident # 337 to be done on 11/1/22. She further indicated that the Vancomycin trough level was missed and should be monitored when a patient is taking IV Vancomycin medication. Interview with physician (MD #2) on 11/2/22 at 2:30 PM identified the physician or APRN was responsible for ordering Vancomycin trough level. MD #2 also indicated that he was aware Resident #337 was taking IV Vancomycin for cellulitis/osteomyelitis. MD #2 further indicated he thought the Vancomycin trough level was included in the weekly laboratory test for the resident. He further indicated that the Vancomycin trough level should be monitored to maintain the therapeutic level of the Vancomycin medication. Interview with Director of Nursing Services (DNS) on 11/2/22 at 2:40PM identified the physician or APRN would be responsible for ordering Vancomycin trough level. She also indicated that her nursing staff would follow the physician order. Subsequent to inquiry, the DNS created a standing physician's order to prompt the nursing supervisor to check for Vancomycin trough level when a resident admitted with IV Vancomycin medication. The facility failed to monitor the Vancomycin trough level according to the professional standard to maintain therapeutic level of the Vancomycin medication. Although a policy for Vancomycin level monitoring was requested during the survey, the facility did not have a policy for Vancomycin trough level test.
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 clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility policy and interviews, for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #76), the facility failed to consult the dietician regarding a new pressure area within 7 days per facility policy. The findings include: Resident #76 was admitted with diagnoses that included vascular dementia without behavioral disturbance and displaced intertrochanteric fracture of right femur. A quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident # 76 was severely cognitively impaired requiring extensive assistance of 2 staff members for bed mobility and extensive assistance of 1 staff member for personal hygiene. Additionally, the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] identified Resident #76 was at risk for development of pressure ulcers/injuries and indicated the resident did not have any unhealed pressure ulcers/injuries. The care plan reviewed on 7/27/22 identified that Resident #76 was at risk for skin breakdown-skin tears-abrasions-bruising secondary to fragile skin, at risk for further skin breakdown related to his dementia and incontinence of B&B. Interventions included Braden scale quarterly and when needed, always encourage to off load heels when in bed, and to inspect skin daily while providing care alerting the charge nurse of any changes. A weekly body audit dated 8/18/22 at 3:05PM Braden scale for prediction of pressure sore risk identified Resident #76 is at high risk for skin breakdown. Interventions included turning and positioning program, nutrition, or hydration intervention to manage skin and surgical wound care. A dietician progress note dated 8/25/22 at 9:02 AM identified] Resident #76 was readmitted secondary to status post Right hip fracture, food intake 75-100%; 7.1% weight (wt.) loss x 30 days. Wt. loss occurred in hospital; body mass index is underweight for age. Able to self-feed. Receiving modified diet and thickened liquids. No pressure injury noted, increased nutrient needs related to acute injury fracture and surgical incision. Continue supplements for nutrition adequacy. Continue plan of care. A weekly body audit dated 8/31/22 at 10:43 AM identified Resident #76 had an open area to the bottom of the resident's right heel. The area was cleaned and covered. A nursing progress not dated 8/31/22 at 1:54 PM identified Resident # 76 with an open area to left lower heel, reported to Infection Control Nurse and APRN. A wound physician's progress note dated 9/1/22 at 11:48 AM identified Resident #76 had an unstageable area due to necrosis of the right heel for at least 3 days duration measuring 7.4 Centimeter (CM x 6.2 CM x 0.1 CM with a recommendation for daily treatment timed 30 days. A nursing progress note dated 9/1/22 at 2:02 PM identified Resident #76 was assessed by the wound care nurse and Medical Doctor (MD) for an unstageable right heel wound measuring 7.4 CM x 6.2 CM x 0.1 CM with moderate serosanguinous exudate with 100 percent necrotic tissue. The care plan dated 9/1/22 identified Resident #76 had a pressure ulcer to right heel (Stage 3). Interventions include to apply dressings per MD order, provide incontinence care after each incontinent episode and to encourage the resident to turn and reposition every 2 hours. A dietician progress note dated 9/9/22 at 10:03 AM identified Resident #76 had altered skin integrity, continues supplement, will include Zinc sulfate at this time and to continue to monitor for further intervention need. Interview and review of Resident #76's medical record with the DNS on 11/3/22 at 10:00 AM identified she expected a dietician evaluation within 7 days of identification of a new pressure area and Resident #76's medical record lacked a dietician evaluation within 7 days of the nurses identifying the new pressure area on 8/31/22. The DNS continued by stating that the primary communication method for the dietician was via a communication book on the nursing units. The nursing staff would update the dietician based on a resident's change of condition such as a new pressure area to alert the dietician the resident needed to be evaluated. The nursing staff could also text the dietician if they urgently needed her. The DNS indicated in review of Resident #76's delayed dietician evaluation, she had determined on 8/31/22 when Resident #76's new pressure area was identified, Dietician #1 was on out on a leave and Dietician #2 was on vacation resulting in Dietician #1 not evaluating Resident #76 until she returned from her leave on 9/9/22. Interview with Dietician #1 on 11/3/22 at 12:00 PM identified she was on leave and had evaluated Resident #76 upon her return 9/9/22 (9 days later). She also indicated she believed the DNS was aware her coverage was on vacation the last week of August 2022 into the beginning of September 2022. She continued by stating that upon her return she immediately evaluated Resident #76. Dietician #1 also indicated after her evaluation she recommended to add a protein supplement to Resident #76's treatment plan. The facility policy: Pressure ulcer prevention and assessment plan directs in part that notification of the dietician for follow up within 7 days of admission or onset for residents with identified pressure ulcers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 14) reviewed for hospitalizations, the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 1 resident (Resident # 14) reviewed for hospitalizations, the facility failed to obtain a physician order for an increase in oxygen therapy for a resident experiencing a change in condition according to standards of practice and facility policy. The findings include: Resident #14 was admitted with diagnoses that included end stage small cell lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes mellitus Type II. The MDS 5-day assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had moderate cognitive impairment and required total assist with personal care. The care plan dated 10/6/22 identified Resident #14 was at risk for altered respiratory status related to history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypoxia. Interventions included: to administer oxygen as ordered, assess and record for signs of impaired gas exchange, to monitor oxygen saturation per physician order and to position upright for optimal breathing. The physician's orders dated 10/7/22 directed oxygen at 3 liters/minute via nasal cannula and oxygen saturation to be monitored every shift. The nursing progress note dated 10/29/22 at 11:34 PM identified Resident #14 was alert and aware. The resident was able to make needs known. The nurse Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN #4) was called by staff to assist Resident #14 who had reported difficulty in breathing. Oxygen saturation (O2 sat) was 43% on 3 Liters/minute (Baseline 88-93%) Normal Range 96- 100 percent. The supervisor was made aware. Resident #14 ' s oxygen was increased to 5 liters/minute, the head of bed was elevated, breathing treatment administered, and inhaler was administered. O2 sat went to 72%. The supervisor spoke with the family. Resident #14 was given morphine as scheduled along with Ativan to provide comfort as per family wish. O2 sat 85% on 10 L supervisor made aware. Resident # 14 was resting in bed. The plan was to continue to monitor and inform the incoming nurse. An interview on 11/2/22 at 1:16 PM and 11/03/22 at 11:35 AM with Registered Nurse (RN #1) identified she was the assigned Nursing Supervisor on the evening shift on 10/29/22, RN #1 indicated Resident #14 's health status had been declining and the resident had recent hospitalizations. The code status was recently changed to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) with comfort care. On 10/29/22. RN #1 reported sometime during the evening shift she was called to Resident #14's bedside with a report from the charge nurse (LPN #4) that Resident # 14's O2 (oxygen) saturations were in the high 70's and low 80's. Resident #14 looked comfortable, was in no distress and the responsible party did not want him/her sent out. RN #1 increased Resident #14 ' s oxygen to a higher flow oxygenator at 5 liters/minute and Resident #14 received Ativan and morphine. Resident #14 ' s oxygen saturation improved to the 80's. RN #1 indicated she notified the on call APRN to report Resident #14 ' s O2 saturation were in the 80's that the resident received Ativan and morphine, the family did not want Resident # 14 transferred out and that the resident looked comfortable. RN #1 indicated she may have told the on call APRN Resident #14 was placed on a high liter flow of oxygen but did not obtain a physician order to increase the oxygen rate. An interview on 11/2/22 at 5:24 PM with LPN #4 indicated she was the assigned charge nurse on the evening of 10/30/22. LPN #4 indicated she had obtained an oxygen saturation in the 40 ' s. LPN #4 notified the nursing supervisor at the time who told her to increase Resident #14 ' s oxygen to 5 liters a minute. LPN #4 also elevated the head of bed, repositioned Resident #14 and administered a nebulizer treatment. Resident #14 ' s O2 saturation increased to 69-70%. LPN #4 indicated she called an alternate nursing supervisor (RN #1) who instructed LPN #4 to increase the oxygen to 10 liters/min. RN #1 came down to assess the resident spoke with family at the bedside and then contacted the responsible party who did not want Resident #14 sent out to the hospital. Resident #14's O2 saturations remained in the 80 ' s for the remainder of the shift which was consistent with her/his baseline. LPN #4 believed the APRN was notified who indicated to continue to monitor. LPN #4 indicated she also worked the following morning, and she received information Resident #14 remained stable throughout the night. The daytime Nursing Supervisor reassessed Resident #14 and was able to reduce the oxygen down to 5 liters/minute. An interview on 11/03/22 at 11:43AM with the DNS indicated that although the administration of oxygen was a nursing measure. RN #1 should have obtained a physician's order when increasing the liter flow for a resident with COPD. An interview on 11/03/22 at 11:55AM with MD #1 indicated he was the medical Director of the facility. MD #1 indicated in an acute situation, it would be acceptable to increase the oxygen and then notify the physician to obtain orders. The facility policy for Oxygen Therapy directed oxygen is to be administered only as ordered by a physician or as an emergency measure until an order could be obtained. The physician's order would specify the rate and flow of oxygen. Attempts to interview the on call APRN were unsuccessful.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for one resident (Resident # 14) reviewed for hospitalizations,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for one resident (Resident # 14) reviewed for hospitalizations, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for a resident who experienced a change of condition and for one sampled resident ( Resident # 65), reviewed for dental, the facility failed to ensure the resident's dental visit was uploaded to the clinical record within accordance to facility practice. The findings included: 1. Resident #14 was admitted on with diagnoses that included end stage small cell lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and diabetes mellitus Type II. The 5-day MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #14 had moderate cognitive impairment and required total assist with personal care. The care plan dated 10/6/22 identified Resident #14 was at risk for altered respiratory status related to history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and hypoxia. Interventions included: to administer oxygen as ordered, assess and record for signs of impaired gas exchange, to monitor oxygen saturation per physician's order and position upright for optimal breathing. The physician's orders dated 10/7/22 directed oxygen at 3 liters/minute via nasal cannula and oxygen saturation to be monitored every shift. The nursing progress note dated 10/29/22 at 11:34 PM identified Resident #14 was alert and aware. Able to make needs known. The nurse (LPN #4) was called by staff to assist Resident #14 who had reported difficulty in breathing. Oxygen saturation (O2 sat) was 43% on 3 Liters/minute (Baseline 88-93%). The supervisor was made aware. Resident #14 ' s oxygen was increased to 5 liters/minute, the head of bed was elevated, breathing treatment administered, and inhaler was administered. O2 saturation went to 72%. The supervisor spoke with the family. Resident# 14 given morphine as scheduled along with Ativan to provide comfort as per family wish. O2 saturation 85% on 10 L supervisor was made aware. Resident #14 was noted resting in bed. The plan was for staff to continue to monitor and inform incoming nurse of any changes. However, review of the nursing progress notes dated 10/29/22 to 11/1/22 failed to include an RN assessment, documented notification to the covering on call medical provider. An interview on 11/2/22 at 1:16 PM and 11/03/22 at 11:35 AM with RN #1 identified she was the assigned Nursing Supervisor on the evening shift on 10/29/22, RN #1 indicated Resident #14's health status had been declining and had the resident had recent hospitalizations. The code status was recently changed to Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) with comfort care. On 10/29/22. RN #1 reported sometime during the evening shift she was called to Resident #14's bedside with a report from the charge nurse (LPN #4) that the resident's O2 saturations were in the high 70's and low 80 's. During assessment, Resident #14 looked comfortable, was in no distress and the responsible party did not want him/her sent out to the hospital for an evaluation. RN #1 increased Resident #14's oxygen to a higher flow oxygenator at 5 liters/minute and Resident #14 received Ativan and morphine. Resident #14's oxygen saturation improved to the 80's. RN #1 indicated she notified the on call APRN to report Resident #14's O2 saturation were in the 80's, that s/he received Ativan and morphine, the family did not want him/her transferred out to the hospital and Resident #14 looked comfortable. RN #1 indicated she failed to document her RN assessment and notification to the on call APRN as an oversight. The facility policy for nursing documentation directs nursing documentation to follow the guidelines of good communication, be concise, clear, and accurate. 2. Resident #65's diagnosis included acute respiratory disease, adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, post-traumatic stress disorder and dementia. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated a moderately impaired cognitive status. The MDS assessment further indicated Resident #65 required supervision of one person for personal hygiene, dressing, and bathing. The care plan dated 9/21/2022 indicated that Resident #65 would refuse activities of living including oral care showers and change of clothes at times. Interventions included in part to discuss treatment plan with resident, explain, medical consequences of not following the plan of care and if refuses care to notify the supervisor. The care plan further indicated Resident #65 had an alteration in oral status due to need for a partial denture as left upper canine with a filling hits the lower tooth. Interventions include in part to have a dental consult as needed and diet as tolerated. A dental visit note dated found in the chart dated 6/22/2021 indicated no resident concerns. Further review of the clinical record from 7/2021 to 10/30/22 failed to reflect any additional dental consultation. On 10/31/22 at 11:25 AM Resident #65 indicated s/he has not seen a dentist recently. The resident also indicated s/he is missing some teeth has only one front tooth on left lower and the upper left side tooth needs to be filled. Resident #65 also indicated s/he has no pain but can feel the dental problem areas. Resident # 65 further indicated there is only so much soft food one can eat. Interview and record review with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 10/31/2022 at 2:15 PM indicated no dental visit notes were found in Resident #65's chart after 6/22/2021 through 10/31/22 during surveyor inquiry. The DNS indicated she would obtain the dental visits that were completed within the last year. On 11/1/2022 at 2:45 PM interview with the Scheduler identified she placed a call to the dental consultant and requested the visits be printed out and sent to the facility. The Scheduler acknowledged that Resident # 65's visits within the last year were not in the chart. She also identified that she was the person responsible for ensuring that dental consultation or visits are place in the chart. The Scheduler explained the process of how dental visit notes are obtained as the notes are emailed to her which she prints them out for the medical records person who scans the notes into the computerized chart for each resident. The Scheduler further indicated that the turnaround time from the actual visit to her receiving them in her email is usually 24 hours and indicated she was not aware the visit notes were not being uploaded into the chart. On 11/1/2022 at 2:50 PM an interview with Administrator #2 with the Scheduler present, indicated the dental visit notes should be in the Resident # 65's and that s/he would follow up to ensure visits are placed in the charts timely.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective, comprehensive, data driven Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (Q...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective, comprehensive, data driven Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The findings include: On 11/02/22 at 12:52 PM an Interview with Administrator #2 and the Director of Nursing (DNS) during a reviewed the QAPI meeting agenda for 10/27/2022 shared minutes and meeting attendees. The DNS indicated that the Medical Director does not attend quarterly .The DNS further indicated that a while back it was noted there was an uptick in the number of falls. The DNS further indicated that since falls were addressed in QAPI, falls had been reduced dramatically and the facility is continuing to use the audits. However, the facility was unable to share evidence of follow-up on QAPI issues regarding fall prevention and statistical data to monitor the effectiveness of the plan. The facility policy named Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement/Corporate Compliance Program dated 9/2020 indicated in part the facility would establish and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program (QAPI) by utilizing information and data to define and measure goals.
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that the QAPI committee tracked, analyzed, and acted on data obtained. The findings include...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility documentation review, facility policy review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that the QAPI committee tracked, analyzed, and acted on data obtained. The findings include: On 11/02/22 at 12:52 PM an Interview with Administrator #2 and the Director of Nursing (DNS) indicated that they had noticed an uptick in resident falls and since brought to QAPI Falls have been dramatically reduced and they continue to complete audits. The facility was unable to share evidence of follow-up on QAPI issues that require Follow-up and documentation. The facility policy named Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement/Corporate Compliance Program dated 9/2020 indicated in part that the facility would establish and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program (QAPI) by utilizing information and data to define and measure goals.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and interviews for one of one resident (Resident # 65) reviewed for dementia care, The facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and interviews for one of one resident (Resident # 65) reviewed for dementia care, The facility failed to ensure that the resident and or the resident representative was informed in advance of the risk and benefits of a psychotropic medication and failed to obtain a consent before initiation of a psychotropic medication. The findings include. Resident # 65's diagnosis included adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), unspecified dementia, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. A psychiatric consultation note dated 3/18/2021 directed to add Trazadone(antidepressant) 25 Milligrams (MG) every 6 hours as needed for anxiety/sleep. A physician's order dated 6/18/2021 directed the use of Trazadone 75 MG at bedtime. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #65 was moderately cognitive impairment and required set up for bed mobility, eating and showering. The care plan dated 9/21/2022 identified a problem related to use of psychotropic drugs due to diagnosis of adjustment disorder, PTSD, and dementia. Interventions included in part to administer medications as ordered, complete an Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) every 6 months, assess for dehydration, side effects, behaviors, movement disorders and changes in behavior and mood. A review of the nurse's notes and psychiatric notes dated 3/2022 to present failed the resident and or responsible party was made aware of the risk and benefits of the utilization of the Trazadone. Interview, clinical record review, and facility documentation review with the DNS on 11/03/22 at 10:50 AM indicated consent and authorization for Psychiatric services and use of Abilify (10/27/2020). However, the DNS could provide evidence of a consent for use of the Trazadone started in March 2021. The DNS further indicated that the consent if not obtained by the psychiatric Medical Doctor (MD) could have been obtained by the nurse and consent would be in the nurse's notes. A review of the nursing notes reviewed for the month of March 2021 to present identified no discussion and or documentation of the resident's responsible party consent for use of Trazadone and any discussion regarding risk and benefits for taking the medication. The DNS stated that consent was obtained, and she will continue to look for it.
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interview for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #36), the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interview for 1 of 2 sampled residents (Resident #36), the facility failed to provide evidence that recommendations were followed in accordance with professional standards. the findings included: Resident #36 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses included transient ischemic disorder, anxiety disorder, personality disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and unsteadiness with walking. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #36 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of thirteen out of fifteen, indicating no cognitive impairment. Resident #36 required extensive assistance of one staff member with transfers, and partial assistance of one staff member with toileting and activities of daily living (ADL). The Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) consult provided dated 2/8/22 identified the need for weekly individualized counseling, physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) to help with improving strength and movement and directed the resident to allow the nursing staff to assist him/her with ADL and help manage his/her pain. The nurse's note dated 2/10/22 at 4:20 PM identified that the resident received psychiatric services. A gradual dose reduction (GDR) of Clonazepam was recommended, to decrease the morning dose from 0.5 mg to 0.25 mg. Physician's Order dated 3/22/22 directed to administer Clonazepam 0.25 mg at 9:00 AM and 0.5 mg at night. A review of the clinical record from 2/8/22 through 11/3/22 identified Resident # 36 was seen by social services on a quarterly basis. Psychiatric services were being provided monthly, not weekly as recommended by the psychiatric evaluation company. Interview with Social Worker #2 and DNS on 11/3/22 at 10:50 AM identified the resident was visited weekly by psychiatric services but was often resistant. The facility failed to inform the psychiatric evaluation company that their recommendations were not being followed for weekly individualized counsel. The DNS also indicated there was no PASARR facility policy for surveyor review.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation of the kitchen, review of facility documentation, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of the kitchen, review of facility documentation, facility policy review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the kitchen was maintained in a clean and sanitary manner and the facility failed to ensure the dishwasher water temperatures were consistently documented and failed to ensure food was handled in accordance with infection control standards. The findings included: An observation on 10/31/21 at 10:05AM with the Food Service Director (FSD) of the kitchen identified the following: 1 A large amount of white and brown congealed buildup on the front and side of oven. 2. A large amount of brown congealed buildup behind the stove where the floor meets the wall and behind the side counter where the floor meets the wall. An interview on 10/31/22 at 10:05 AM with the FSD identified the facility used to have a contracted company who provided more comprehensive cleaning services. The facility has not utilized the cleaning company for approximately 6 months. The FSD further indicated that although the staff should have ensured the cleaning of the stove and behind counters was completed it has been difficult for staff to complete all the cleaning tasks. The FSD indicated she was responsible for ensuring cleaning tasks were completed. The facility General Cleaning Guidelines direct the cleaning and sanitization of most equipment and surfaces in the kitchen included: the daily cleaning the stove including the loosening of baked on grease or carbonized food with a stiff bush or scraper as needed, spraying with cleaner and wiping until surface is restored. Additionally, the floors were to be cleaned by sweeping under equipment, mopping away from walls and under equipment and vigorously mopping to remove food spills and stains. The housekeeping is to be contacted to clean the floor monthly with a scrubbing machine or as needed. 3. An observation on 10/31/22 at 10:05AM with the FSD identified the rinse cycle display on the high temperature dishwasher read 112 degrees (Normal 180 degrees). An interview and review of the dishwasher temperature logs dated 10/6/22 through 10/30/22 identified 36 of 72 opportunities did include documented temperature logs. An interview on 10/31/22 at 10:05AM and 11/01/22 at 12:50 PM with the FSD identified beginning approximately two weeks prior, the company who services the facility dishwasher was called out after experiencing a problem with the control panel where temperature readings were displayed. The company came out and determined there was not an issue with the rinse temperatures, only in the display reading during the rinse cycle. The FSD had instructed all staff to stop taking dishwasher temperatures because the display was not working properly. The FSD indicated she had checked the water temperatures herself at intermittent times. When not in range, the facility would utilize paper products and sanitizing solution for cleaning dishes. Although there was a note section for detailing any issues related to temperature readings for that day, there was no documented recording of low dishwasher temperatures and an alternate plan to use paper products. Additionally, the FSD indicated she had been experiencing problems with staff recording water temperatures that were not actually obtained and this was an issue she was trying to address. An interview on 10/31/22 at 12:16 PM with the Director of Maintenance identified he was aware of the issue concerning low rinse cycle readings. A vendor came out to the facility and determined there was an issue with the display readings of the rinse cycle and not actual low rinse cycle temperatures. The Director of Maintenance indicated the vendor directed that water temperatures be checked manually before use. The facility policy for High Temperature Dishwasher directed high temperature dishwasher temperatures be maintained between 150-160 degrees Fahrenheit for the wash cycle and 180 degrees Fahrenheit for the rinse cycle. Dietary staff are to record dish machine temperatures on a dish machine temperature log before they begin dishes from each meal. Any unusual or substandard readings should be reported to the Nutrition Services Director (FSD) and maintenance department., discontinue use of the dish machine and manually wash all equipment and wares. 4. An observation on 11/01/22 at 12:15 PM identified the FSD entered the walk-in refrigerator with a paper plate in the left hand, open the walk-in refrigerator with her ungloved right hand, place an unwrapped sandwich wrap on the plate using the same right hand used to open the refrigerator door and return to the food line to serve. The task was interrupted and corrected. An interview with the FSD identified she was obtaining alternate food items directly from the refrigerator as needed and, in doing so, should have been utilizing infection control standards so she was not handling the food directly to avoid cross contamination. The facility policy for Food Handling Guidelines direct food to be handled according to local guidelines to avoid contamination. Minimize hand contact with food by using utensils or disposable gloves.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on Facility Assessment review, facility documentation review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Facility Assessment was updated yearly. The findings include: An interview on ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Facility Assessment review, facility documentation review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Facility Assessment was updated yearly. The findings include: An interview on 10/31/2022 with the Director of Maintenance who stated that he was asked to find the Facility Assessment. The Director of Maintenance further indicated he could only find the Facility assessment dated 2018. The Maintenance Director also indicated that it was the Administrator's responsibility to maintain the Facility Assessment and indicated that the old administrator left last month, and the Interim administrator (Administrator #1) last day was today. A review of the facility's Facility Assessment on 10/31/22 failed to reflect that yearly Facility Assessments had been conducted for 2020, 2021 and 2022, Interview on 10/31/2022 with Administrator #1 in the presence of Maintenance Director identified she did not know if the Facility Assessment Form presented to surveyor from 2018 was the most up to date. Administrator 1 indicated her last day was today and the new Administrator was due to start on 11/1/2022. Interview on 11/2/2022 at 10:00 AM with the Maintenance Director indicated that that the Director of Nursing was placing a call to the previous administrator to ask if there was an updated Facility Assessment. Interview on 11/2/202 at 2:00 PM with the Director of Nursing identified that she believed the Facility Assessment was reviewed in March 20222 but was unable to provide evidence of a March 2022 Facility Assessment form. The DNS also indicated the Maintenance Director had placed a call to the previous administrator for any information. Interview on 11/03/22 at 8:50 AM with Administrator #2 and the Director of Nursing identified the last review and completed Facility Assessment available was completed in 2018 and could not provide evidence of yearly review for 2020, 2021 and 2022.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director consistently attended the quarterly QA meetings to maintain an effecti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director consistently attended the quarterly QA meetings to maintain an effective and comprehensive Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The findings include: On 11/02/22 at 12:52 PM an Interview with Administrator #2 and the Director of Nursing (DNS) during a reviewed the QAPI meeting agenda for 10/27/2022 shared minutes and meeting attendees. The DNS indicated that the Medical Director does not attend quarterly QA meetings consistently from 1/2022 to 10/27/22. She further indicated although the Medical Director does not attend all the QA meetings, she provides an update to the Medical Director of the quarterly minutes when he comes to the building. The DNS was unable to provide signature sheets from 1/2022 to 10/27/22 of the Medical Directors attendances at the QA quarterly meetings. Interview with the Medical Director on 11/2/22 at 4:00 PM identified he does not attend the scheduled QA meetings at the facility. The Medical Director further indicate he is in facility during the week at which time the DNS does update him through review of meeting minutes and indicated he would investigate other options for attending the meeting. The Facility policy for Quality Assurance Performance Improvement/Corporate compliance Program dated 9/2020 indicated the facility would establish and maintain a Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI) to identify and address quality issues and to implement corrective action plans as necessary to facilitate positive outcomes. The policy further indicated the purpose of the program was to provide a means of continuous assessment of care and services to the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to document the completion of the legionell...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to document the completion of the legionella mitigation steps as per the facility plan and for 1 sampled resident ( Resident # 12) who utilized a urinary device, the facility failed to store the device in a bag to prevent the spread of infection and for 1 resident ( Resident # 35) who utilized oxygen, the facility failed to store the oxygen and label tubing in the manner that was sanitary and prevent the spread of infection and or 1 of 2 residents ( Resident # 54) reviewed for reviewed for Respiratory Care, the facility failed to ensure that appropriate infection control practices were followed for storage of respiratory equipment .The findings included: An Environmental Assessment and Procedure document dated January 2019 identified the facility posed a medium risk to promote growth of legionella and the mitigation steps in part were outlined to include: 1. Hot water storage area: hot water should be maintained at or above 140 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and should be verified daily. The circulation pump installed on the water lines should be verified for proper operation as well. These practices should be documented and kept in the service records of this plan. The hot water storage tank should be flushed at its lowest point at least quarterly to help blow down any sediment that may be building at the bottom of the tank. 2. Showers, tubs, and faucet taps: hot and cold-water taps. Shower heads and tubs should be periodically flushed to mitigate the potential for stagnation. 3. Eyewash stations: Plumbed eyewash stations should also be flushed for 3 minutes monthly. This practice should be documented. Interview and review of facility documents with the Maintenance Director on 11/1/22 at 1:00 PM identified this was the first time he had seen the Environmental Assessment and Procedure document dated January 2019 and although he had completed the mitigation steps as outlined in the Environmental Assessment and Procedure document dated January 2019, he lacked documentation of verification of Hot water storage area daily temperature checks, circulation pump installed on the water lines should be verification for proper operation, and that the hot water storage tank should be flushed at its lowest point at least quarterly. The Maintenance Director also lacked documentation that the Shower heads and tubs were periodically flushed and that the eye wash stations were flushed for 3 minutes monthly. He continued by stating he started employment at the facility in 2020 and that the previous Maintenance Director had already left. He further indicated he was never told he was on the Water Management Committee, nor had he attended meetings of that committee since his hire. Interview with the Administrator on 11/2/22 at 9 AM identified that she had just started her employment at the facility on the previous day (11/1/22) and did not know why the Maintenance Director did not document the elements of the Environmental Assessment and Procedure document dated January 2019 as it was his responsibility. She continued by stating subsequent to inquiry, she reviewed the Environmental Assessment and Procedure document dated January 2019 and updated the Water Compliance Committee Members to include herself, the DNS, the Infection Control Nurse, the Director of Maintenance, and the Food Service Director on 11/1/22. The administrator also indicated she was currently working with the Director of Maintenance to ensure proper documentation will be completed in the future as outlined in Environmental Assessment and Procedure document dated January 2019. 4. Resident # 12's diagnoses included congestive heart failure, urinary tract infection and retention of urine. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #12 was cognitively intact and required supervision of one person for bed mobility transfer and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment further indicated Resident #12 required limited assistance of one person for toilet use and bathing. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/27/2022 identified that Resident # 12 has a diagnosis of Congestive heart failure with interventions that include in part to monitor and record intake of food and fluids and to monitor and record output. The Resident Care Plan further indicated that Resident # 12 has a potential for fluid volume deficit related to use of a diuretic (water pill) with interventions that included in part, to monitor intake and output per MD order. Observation made on 10/31/2022 at 10:40 AM identified a white specimen collection device (urine Hat) sitting in the front part of the toilet seat to catch a sample for urine or to measure urine, was upside down on the bathroom floor near the trash can but in front of the toilet in Resident # 12's bathroom. It was also noted that there was no bag or other container to keep the urine collection device in when not in use. Observation and interview with LPN #1 on 10/31/22 at 2:30 PM identified the urine hat (white specimen collection device) upside down on the floor in Resident # 12's bathroom and LPN #1 indicated the hat should not have been on the floor and verbalized the resident does not need to use that anymore. LPN #1 further indicated that there should have been a bag available on the rail to place the hat in when not in used. LPN #1 removed the hat from the floor and placed it in the trash. On 11/1/22 at 9:30AM an interview with the Director of Nursing identified when she spoke to Resident #12 s/he indicated urine hat was on the floor because he/she did not want to use it. Interview with Resident #12 on 11/3/2022 at 11:50 AM indicated s/he does not use the toilet but instead use the commode at my bedside. Interview on 11/3/2022 at 12:15PM with RN # 3 indicated Resident #12 as of today would have urinary output measured and recorded and will use the urine hat collection device. Observation on 11/3/2022 at 12:30 PM of Resident # 12's bathroom with a bag for the urine hat collection device attached to the handrail on the wall next to the toilet. 5. Resident #35's diagnoses included fracture of the left femur with routine healing, unspecified dementia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified that Resident #35 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of three out of fifteen, indicating severe cognitive impairment and the resident required extensive assistance of a staff member with activities of daily living (ADL). A physician's order dated 10/24/22 directed to check Oxygen (O2) saturation and lung sounds every shift and to chart the results. Additionally, the physician's orders directed to apply O2 at 2 liters/minute via nasal cannula as needed. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 10/24/22 identified the resident was diagnosed with COVID-19 which could cause severe illness by worsening the pre-existing condition of COPD. Interventions directed to check lung sounds every shift, document in the progress notes, to apply O2 if ordered by MD, and to change O2 tubing as ordered. The nurse's note dated 10/27/22 at 5:22 AM identified Resident #35's oxygen saturation was 87-89%, and O2 was administered at 2 liters/minute via nasal cannula. Subsequently, the resident's O2 saturation was 94%. Flow sheets for Resident #35 dated from 10/25/22 through 11/3/22 identified that his/her lung sounds ranged from clear to diminished. Observations on 10/31/22 at 10:40 AM identified Resident #35 was lying in bed with the head of the bed raised. The resident was dressed and had his/her eyes closed. An oxygen machine was noted at the beside and the resident's oxygen tubing was laying on the floor, unlabeled as to when it was last changed. Interview with LPN #2 indicated the facility's policy was to store oxygen tubing in a clean bag at the bedside. Further, the policy directed staff to change the tubing when stained, fell on the floor, and at least every week during the 11:00 PM -7:00 AM shift. LPN #2 indicated leaving it on the floor could cause spread of infection. Observations on 11/01/22 at 9:59 AM identified the resident was lying in bed, with his/her eyes closed. An oxygen machine remained beside his/her bed with the oxygen tubing unlabeled and on the floor. Review of facility Replace O2 tubing & Setup Policy directed in part: To replace O2 tubing for nasal cannula every week or as needed, to record date and initials on tape and label tubing and to place O2 tubing and accessories in a plastic bag when not in use. The facility failed to follow its policy on storage and labeling of oxygen tubing to ensure a sanitary oxygen delivery system and prevent the spread of infection. 5.: Resident # 54's diagnoses included Type 2 Diabetes, morbid obesity, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), acute respiratory infection, pneumonia, and obstructive sleep apnea. The physician's orders dated 8/2/2022 in part directed to apply continuous Positive airway Pressure (CPAP) at bedtime at setting of 16 cmH2O) and to remove in the AM, to cleanse the CPAP mask with soap and water daily on 7-3 PM shift, to hand wash headgear with soap and water monthly and as needed. admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] identified Resident #54 was cognitively intact and required extensive assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing. The Resident Care Plan dated 8/31/2022 indicated in part that Resident #54 had an ineffective airway clearance related to COPD, asthma, and sleep apnea. Interventions included in part to administer medications and oxygen as ordered, observe for signs of ineffective airway clearance, monitor oxygen saturations, and assist with positioning for optimal breathing. The Resident Care Plan further indicated Resident #54 required Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine at night due to obstructive sleep apnea. Interventions included in part to administer CPAP per physician's order, to clean the CPAP machine per orders, ensure appropriate setting prior to start of use and monitor respiratory status. Observation on 10/31/22 at 11:45 AM in Resident #54's bedside noted Resident #54 had a CPAP and an oxygen concentrator with attached tubing and mask that was noted on the floor under the bed. On 10/31/22 at 2:15 PM observation and interview with LPN # 1 indicated the tubing and CPAP mask should not have been on the floor, and they should have been labeled and in a bag. LPN #1 indicated that the equipment on the floor will need to be cleaned. The Facility Policy for maintaining CPAP, dated 11/1/2022 signed by the Director of Nursing, indicated CPAP units must be cleaned daily and disinfected weekly, run under warm water and dried before placing back into the unit and if the unit has a humidifier, it must be cleaned with soap and water every morning and allowed to air dry.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to obtain written signatures for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to obtain written signatures for consent or refusal of required vaccinations for 5 of 5 residents) reviewed for vaccinations (Resident #21, #25, #47, #63) and for (Resident #76 the facility failed to provide documentation of screening for eligibility and education provided for pneumococcal vaccination within accordance to facility practice and policy. The findings included: 1. a. Resident #21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Preventative Health report with a run date of 11/1/22 at 3:24 PM identified that from 3/8/22 to 11/1/22, Resident #21 refused the pneumococcal vaccination on 3/14/22. The report also identified that Resident #21 had received a COVID 19 booster shot at the facility on 4/11/22. b. Resident #25 was last admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Preventative Health report with a run date of 11/1/22 at 5:46 PM identified that from 3/7/15 to 11/1/22, Resident #25 received the influenza vaccination on 10/28/20 and 10/28/21 as well as Covid 19 vaccinations on 9/30/22 10/8/21, 1/8/21, 1/29/21 at the facility. c. Resident # 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Preventative Health report with a run date of 11/1/22 at 5:50 PM identified that from 5/30/17 to 11/1/22, Resident #47 received the influenza vaccination on 10/28/20 and 10/28/21, pneumococcal vaccination on 10/28/21 as well as Covid-19 vaccinations on 10/8/21, 1/11/21, 1/29/21 and 4/11/22 at the facility. d. Resident # 63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Preventative Health report with a run date of 11/1/22 at 3:22 PM identified that from 1/31/17 to 11/1/22, Resident # 63 received a pneumococcal vaccination on 2/4/20 and 10/8/21, Influenza vaccinations on 10/28/20 and 10/28/21, Covid 19 vaccinations on 1/11/21, 1/29/2, 10/8/21 at the facility. 2. Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Preventative Health report with a run date of 11/1/22 at 3:22 PM identified that from 1/31/17 to 11/1/22, Resident #76 received Covid 19 vaccinations on 8/12/22, 9/12/22. The medical record lacked documentation of screening for eligibility, education provided for pneumococcal vaccination. The facility was unable to provide documentation of a signed consent form and education for adverse side-effects of the medication as requested for Residents #21, #25, #47, #63 and #76 and additionally for Resident #76, the facility could not provide documentation of screening for eligibility and education provided for pneumococcal vaccination. Interview with the RN #3, the infection control nurse, on 11/2/22 at 12:00 PM identified that it is the facility's policy that consent for vaccination can be obtained either by a written consent form signed by the resident or responsible party or obtained verbally from the resident or responsible party. She provided medical record progress note entries for Residents #21, #25, #47, #63 and #76 that identified that verbal consent and education was provided to each resident. She stated that the CDC vaccine information sheets were utilized to educate the Resident or responsible part prior to obtaining the consent or refusal. She continued by stating that she could not speak directly about the consent and education process for the identified residents as she had just stated in the role about 3 weeks ago. Interview with the DNS on 11/3/22 at 10 AM identified that it is the responsibility of the Infection Control nurse to educate and obtain consent either by written consent form signed by the resident or responsible part or obtained verbally from the resident or responsible party prior to administration of the vaccines. She indicated that per CDC guidance, signed consent forms were not required prior to vaccine administration of the vaccine to the resident. Interview with RN #3 (previous infection control nurse) on 11/3/22 at 11 AM identified that she was educated on vaccinations utilizing the CDC vaccine information sheets and received either consent or refusal for Residents #21, #25, #47, #63 and #76 verbally and documented the discussions in the resident's respective medical records prior to administration of a vaccination. She stated that for Resident #76, they were working with his/her decision maker and had not yet screened Resident #76 or gotten consent/refusal for the pneumococcal vaccination as there had been communication issues with Resident #76's decision maker. The facility policy, Vaccine administration directs in part that consent can be obtained by written or verbal consent from the resident or responsible part by an RN or verified by 2 nurses. This policy is not consistent with CMS requirements for consents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure essential kitchen equipment was maintained in safe working condition. The findings include: Invoice for s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on facility documentation, facility policy and interviews, the facility failed to ensure essential kitchen equipment was maintained in safe working condition. The findings include: Invoice for services performed dated 8/29/22 noted a problem with the control board with the display board being replaced. Recommendations were made at that time to replace the dishwasher. A quote dated 9/22/22 noted the cost of a new dishwasher. An observation on 10/31/22 at 10:05AM with the FSD identified the rinse cycle display on the high temperature dishwasher read 112 degrees. The company who services the facility dishwasher was called out after experiencing a problem with the control panel where temperature readings were displayed. The company came out and determined there was not an issue with the rinse temperatures, only in the display reading during the rinse cycle. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, purchase order dated 11/2/22 for a new dishwasher was placed with a delivery date of 11/17/22. An interview on 11/03/22 at 1:31 PM with the Director of Maintenance identified all previous recommendations regarding replacement of the dishwasher were submitted to corporate for review and as he was unable to make independent decisions with corporate approval. Although a policy for maintaining essential kitchen equipment in safe working condition was requested, none was provided.
Dec 2019 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, policy review, and interviews for one of three sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, policy review, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #35) who was reviewed for an allegation of mistreatment, the facility failed to ensure the allegation of mistreatment was reported to the administrator and state agency at the time the incident occurred. The findings include: Resident #35's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety, major depression, and multiple sclerosis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #35 had no memory recall deficits, was alert and oriented to the year, month and day, exhibited no behavioral symptoms, required extensive assistance of one (1) person with toilet use, personal hygiene and dressing, was non-ambulatory and utilized a wheelchair for mobility on and off the unit. The Resident Care Plan dated 8/27/19 identified Resident #35 had an alteration in activity of daily living related to physical status. Interventions directed the assistance of one (1) for all care and allow adequate time for the resident to perform the activity. A September 2019 physician's order directed assist of one (1) with activity of daily living at bed level or wheelchair level and supervision for feeding. The nurse's note dated 9/4/19 at 8:40 PM indicated Resident #35 complained that a nurse aide poured water on the resident and upon investigation Resident #35 identified that he/she was upset about the wheelchair getting washed. The Reportable Event Form dated 9/5/19 at 4:00 PM indicated Resident #35 made an allegation that a nurse aide poured water on his/her back while assisting the resident in the bathroom. The investigation dated 9/6/19 identified on 9/5/19, one (1) day after the incident, a staff member informed the Administrator that Resident #35 had made a comment that a nurse side had poured water on his/her back while providing care. During an interview with the 3-11PM nurse aide, Nurse Aide (NA) #3, on 12/17/19 at 12:05 PM she indicated that on 9/4/19 at approximately 7:30 PM she provide incontinent care to Resident #35 and while providing care Resident #35 indicated that he/she did not want to go to bed and wanted to stay in the wheelchair. NA #3 stated she was informed by the supervisor that Resident #35 made an allegation she threw water on the resident's back. In an interview with the 3-11PM Nursing Supervisor, Registered Nurse (RN) #4, on 12/17/19 at 1:25 PM she indicated on 9/4/19 it was reported to her Resident #35 made an allegation that NA #3 poured water on the resident's back. RN #4 stated she spoke with the resident and the aide and it was her understanding that Resident #35 was upset about his/her wheelchair getting washed, therefore she did not report the allegation to the Director of Nursing until 9/5/19. RN #4 identified subsequent to the incident she was educated on the importance of notifying the Director of Nursing whenever a resident made a complaint regardless of the outcome. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/17/19 at 2:50 PM she indicated that an allegation of mistreatment was reported to RN #4 on 9/4/19 and although RN #4 documented in the nurse's note the DON was updated, she was not aware of the allegation of mistreatment until 9/5/19 and the allegation was then reported to the state agency on 9/5/19. The DON indicated that RN #4 should have reported the incident to her at the time it occurred and RN #4 was educated on the importance of reporting allegations in a timely manner. Review of the facility abuse reporting policy indicated that all personnel must promptly report any incident or suspected incident of resident abuse, including injuries of an unknown source and misappropriation of resident property. The policy further indicated that any alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect or abuse, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriating of resident's property must be reported to the administrator or his or her designee.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, a clinical record review, a review of the facility documentation, a review of the facility policy, and in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, a clinical record review, a review of the facility documentation, a review of the facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #75), the facility failed to consistently document intake and output for a resident who had a suprapubic catheter and received tube feedings, and for one sampled resident (Resident #85), the facility failed to appropriately label dressings following a dressing change. The findings include: a. Resident # 75 diagnoses included Parkinson's disease neurogenic bladder and obstructive uropathy. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] identified moderate cognitive impairment, extensive assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility and transfers, extensive assistance of one person for dressing and toileting, total dependence for personal hygiene and had an indwelling catheter. A physician order dated 11/1/19 directed to administer Jevity 1.2 240 cubic centimeters (cc) bolus feeds every 3 hours between 6:00 AM and midnight and free water flushes of 100 cc every 6 hours. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/12/19 identified a neurogenic bladder as a problem that required a suprapubic catheter with interventions that included to assess drainage and record the amount, type, color, and odor of urine. Additionally, the RCP identified Resident #75 was at risk for dehydration related to a gastrostomy-tube (GT) placement with interventions that included to monitor intake and output per physician's orders. The Medication Administration Record for November 2019 and December 2019 identified the staff documented Resident #75's fluid intake during the administration of the tube feeding and water flushes. Review of the intake and output record for November 2019 failed to document Resident #75's fluid intake and urine output in the vital signs section of the medical record on each shift for 29 of 30 days. Review of the intake and output record for 12/1/19 through 12/17/19 identified the staff failed to document Resdient #75's fluid intake and urine output in the vital signs section of the medical record each shift on 17 of 17 days. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) and review of the intake and output record for Resident #75 on 12/18/19 at 8:14 AM identified Resident #75's intake and output documentation was incomplete and it was the responsibility of both the nurse aides and nurses to document fluid intake and urine output each shift. Additionally, the DNS indicated Resident #75's fluid intake was documented in the medication administration record and several nurses' notes, however the documentation did not include urine output. Furthermore, the DNS identified it was the expectation and facility policy for the nurse to document tube feeding intake and the nurse aides responsibility to document urine output in the intake and output section of the medical record so that a 24 hour total could be evaluated by the 11-7 nurse each day to ensure fluid needs were met. Subsequent to the surveyor inquiry the DNS indicated she obtained an order that directed the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM nurse to total up all intake for the day and add the intake and output in the vitals section of the electronic health record. A physicians order dated 12/18/19 directed the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM nurse to total up all intake and record the 24 hour intake for the day. Interview with LPN # 1 on 12/18/18 at 12:33 PM identified both the nurses aides and nurses were responsible to chart intake and output. The charge nurse on each shift was responsible for reviewing the documentation. Additionally, LPN #1 identified she did not know why the documentation was incomplete and would only know if Resident #75 met fluid needs and had a catheter that was functioning properly by reviewing the documentation in the computer and on the daily work sheet for Resident #75. Further, the intake and output worksheet was used daily and discarded. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADNS) on 12/18/19 12:40 PM identified the nurse aides were responsible for entering fluid intake and urine output in the computer and it was the responsibility of the charge nurse to look over the documentation each shift and report discrepancies with fluid intake and output to the supervisor. Interview with NA # 6 on 12/18 19 at 2:00 PM identified it was the responsibility of the nurse aides to document intake and output in the computer and on the daily worksheet. Additionally, NA #6 indicated the documentation for Resident #75 was incomplete because the nurse aides may have too many chores and may not have time to document the intake and output in the computer. The policy and procedure for intake and output monitoring identified an intake and output record was maintained to ensure residents needs were monitored for adequate fluid balance by the nurses aide or licensed nurse. Additionally the procedure, indicated the nurses aides would be accurately record the input and output and report to the nurse. The nurse would add the amount of fluid given with medications tube feedings. The policy further directed that each shift would document the input and output for their shift and the last shift to enter the input and output within a twenty four hour period would total the input and output for a 24 hour grand total. b. Resident #85 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis of the ankle and right foot, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infection (MRSA), Diabetes and Schizophrenia. A physician's order dated 11/27/19 directed to measure the right upper extremity PICC external catheter length and arm circumference with dressing changes on Wednesday on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift and as needed. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/27/19 identified a Percutaneous Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line in place to provide IV antibiotic therapy. Interventions included to administer IV medications per the physician's order, change the dressing per the physician's order and date and sign the dressing, and to measure the external catheter length and arm circumference on admission and with dressing changes and as needed, notify the physician of changes in condition. A physician's order dated 11/29/19 directed to cleanse the right plantar foot with wound cleanser/normal saline, pack with ½ inch Iodoform then apply Calcium Alginate with Silver followed by a dry protective dressing, then wrap in gauze once daily on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #85 was without cognitive and required extensive assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. Additionally, the MDS identified Resident #85 received Intravenous (IV) medications while a resident. A physician's order dated 12/4/19 directed to change the IV dressing every 7 days and as needed, once a day on Wednesdays on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, date and sign the dressing. Observation of Resident #85's PICC dressing and right foot dressing and interview with the ADNS on 12/17/19 at 2:50 PM identified that a dressing was in place over Resident #85's PICC site and right foot, but failed to identify that Resident #85's dressings were labeled with the date, time and nursing initials from the last dressing change performed. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) identified Resident #85's PICC dressing was last changed on 12/11/19 by LPN #2. The ADNS identified that following a dressing change, all dressings should be labeled with the nurse's initials, time and date. Observation, review of the clinical record and interview with the ADNS and LPN #2 on 12/17/19 at 3:15 PM identified that although there was no date, time, or initials on Resident #85's PICC dressing, he/she believed that he/she had signed it, but that maybe the pen didn't write. Additionally, LPN #2 identified that he/she had checked the PICC dressing the previous day but the dressing remained the same as it was today, lacking the appropriate documentation. Additionally, LPN #2 identified that he/she had asked LPN #3 to change the PICC dressing on 12/11/19 to assist her in the completion of her duties for the shift and signed the TAR for LPN #3 using his/her initials (LPN#2's). Subsequent to surveyor inquiry, the ADNS directed LPN #2 to change and label the dressing to the PICC line. Review of the pharmacy infusion therapy central venous access device dressing change policy identified, in part, that a label with the date and nurse's initials.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, policy review, and interviews for one of three sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, policy review, and interviews for one of three sampled residents (Resident #22) who was dependent on staff for transfers in and out of the bed via a mechanical lift, the facility failed to provide appropriate supervision of the mechanical lift to prevent an accident with an injury. The findings include: Resident #22's diagnoses included vascular dementia, Alzheimer's disease, major depressive disorder, psychotic disorders with hallucinations and delusions, and chronic pain. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #22 had some difficulty with making decisions regarding tasks of daily life, difficulty focusing attention, disorganized thinking and required extensive two (2) person assistance with turning and repositioning when in bed and personal hygiene, was totally dependent on two (2) person assistance with transfers in and out of the bed and chair, was non-ambulatory, utilized a wheelchair for mobility, and had no history of falls. The Resident Care Plan dated 12/15/18 identified Resident #22 had an alteration in activity of daily living related to the dementia and a lack of insight into personal healthcare needs. Interventions directed to assist of one (1) with care and assist of two (2) with mechanical lift to an adaptive wheelchair. A February 2019 physician's order directed a mechanical (Hoyer) lift transfer to an adaptive wheelchair with foot boxes and a Roho cushion. The nurse's note dated 2/23/19 at 8:45 AM indicated that the nursing supervisor was called to Resident #22's room to assess a laceration Resident #22 sustained to the left back of the resident's head which the resident received from the Hoyer lift bar. The note identified per the nurse aide Resident #22 was lying in bed getting ready to be transferred into wheelchair and the hanging bar of the Hoyer was like a pendulum and knocked Resident #22 in the back of the head. The note indicated Resident #22 sustained a one (1) inch open area that was cleansed with normal saline, pressure was applied, the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) was notified and Resident #22 was sent to the hospital for an evaluation and treatment. The hospital documentation dated 2/23/19 indicated Resident #22 presented to the emergency department with an occipital laceration from the Hoyer lift bar and the wound was cleansed and closed with two (2) surgical staples and a CT scan of head identified no acute intracranial abnormalities. The nurse's note dated 2/23/19 at 4:51 PM indicated Resident #22 returned from the hospital around 4:00 PM and the laceration on the back of head had two (2) staples and area was noted to have slight swelling and was painful to touch. The Reportable Event Form dated 2/23/19 indicated that the bar from the Hoyer lift struck Resident #22 on the left side of head and the resident received a laceration. The incident report identified after providing morning care the nurse aide was preparing Resident #22 for transfer and when the nurse aide moved the Hoyer lift closer to the resident to clip the Hoyer pad to the swivel bar, the nurse aide bumped into the swivel bar of the Hoyer causing the bar to swing and hit Resident #22 on the left side towards the back of the resident's head causing a laceration. In an interview with the 7AM-3PM nurse aide, Nurse Aide (NA) #2, on 12/16/19 at 2:30 PM she indicated that after providing care she was getting Resident #22 ready for transfer from the bed to the chair and while positioning the Hoyer lift over the bed the handle swung and hit Resident #22 in the back of the head. NA #2 stated Resident #22 was in the bed at the time of the incident. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/17/19 at 3:00 PM she indicated that Resident #22 was injured with the Hoyer lift swivel bar during setup for a transfer out of bed. The DON stated at the time of the incident it was the facility's practice for one (1) nurse aide to set up the resident on the mechanical lift and the resident should not have received laceration on back of head from the lift. Subsequent to incident the facility policy was updated to reflect two (2) staff present for the process of attaching a resident to a mechanical lift as well as with the transfer of a resident via the Hoyer lift.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, a clinical record review, a review of facility documentation, staff interviews, and a review of facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, a clinical record review, a review of facility documentation, staff interviews, and a review of facility the policy, for one sampled resident (Resident #6) reviewed for weight loss, the facility failed to implement dietary recommendations and/or failed to follow physician orders and/or failed to reweigh the resident in accordance with the facility policy. The findings include: Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included feeding difficulties, hypokalemia, major depressive disorder, constipation, generalized muscle weakness, and a Vitamin D Deficiency. A physician order dated 9/1/19 directed to provide a snack at bedtime and document the percentage taken. A physician order dated 9/4/19 directed to obtain weekly weights. A physician order dated 9/10/19 directed to re-weigh Resident #6. The September 2019 weight log identified on 9/3/19 a recorded wight of 146.4 pounds (lbs), the weight on 9/5/19 was 138.6 lbs which identified a weight loss of 5.33%. The reweigh was not obtained until five days later on 9/10/19 with a weight recorded as 139 lbs. The dietician progress note dated 9/13/19 at 1:20 PM indicated Resident #6 with a weight discrepancy and a decline noted. Resident #6 was observed during meal time with intakes that were low and variable. Spoke with nursing supervisor Resident #6 not accepting supplement. It was not appropriate to increase at this time as the resident was not accepting 100% of the current supplements. The dietician would begin to follow the resident at weekly risk meetings. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified mild cognitive impairment, independent with eating, and edentulous. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 9/30/19 identified the resident was at risk for weight loss related to poor appetite with interventions that included to offer snacks between meals, fortified pudding, honor food preferences, and document percentage of intake consumed. An annual nutritional assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #6 weighed 142.6 lbs with a current diet that consisted of carbohydrate controlled foods with thin liquids, boost breeze and fortified pudding twice per day. If the resident refused the meal offer a grilled cheese sandwich. Supplements continue to support nutritional adequacy and continue to monitor trends for interventions as needed. A physician's order dated 10/2/19 directed to provide a carbohydrate controlled consistent diet, place in 90 degree when eating, provide small bites, keep resident upright for 15 minutes after meals, and offer grilled cheese if the meal was refused. A physician order dated 10/4/19 directed to provide snacks between meals twice per day. A review of the October weight log on 10/3/19 was 141 lbs, on 10/10/19 the residents weight was 134.2 lbs which indicated a weight loss of 6.8 lbs in 7 days. The next weight was completed on 10/16/19 and recorded as 140.2 lbs. The weight on 10/24/19 was recorded as 140.2 lbs, on 10/29/19 the weight was recorded as 138.5 lbs. A physician order dated 10/10/19 directed to provide a half of chicken or egg salad sandwich as an evening snack. A review of the weight log dated 11/27/19 recorded a weight of 135.2 lbs., and on 12/3/19 the weight was 132 lbs. A dietician progress note dated 12/3/19 identified Resident #6's weight declined. Resident #6 was seen during meal time with some intake variability. Supplements were noted with intermittent acceptance and refusal. Preferences reviewed, would decrease boost breeze to once per day and provide health shakes once per day. Interview and clinical record review with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 12/18/19 at 1:00 PM was unable to provide documentation to reflect the percentage of the bedtime snack taken by Resident #6 per physician order. The DNS indicated it should have been recorded on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and was not. The DNS could not explain why the amount of snack consumed was not recorded in the MAR. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry the MAR dated 12/19/19 had a section to reflect the percentage of the bedtime snack taken. Interview with the Director of Food Services on 12/20/19 at 9:10 AM identified he/she was not aware that a bedtime snack was ordered for Resident #6. An interview with RN #5 on 12/20/19 at 9:20 AM. RN #5 indicated although the dietician's recommendation directed to administer Boost breeze twice per day on 10/1/19 Resident #6 received Boost breeze once per day as reflected in the MAR. In addition RN #5 identified Resident #6 did not receive the health shakes once per day as per the recommendation on 12/3/19. RN #5 could not explain why. RN #5 indicated Resident #6 should have been started on health shakes once per day on 12/3/19 per the dietician's recommendation. An interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing Service (ADNS) on 12/20/19 at 9:30 AM indicated when a resident has weight loss he/she would expect a reweigh to be obtained to determine accuracy. If it is then identified that the resident in fact had actual weight loss the dietician should be notified. Further interview with the ADNS indicated he/she would expect residents identified with weight loss would be receiving nourishments and supplements to prevent further weight loss. In addition the ADNS identified Resident #6 should have been receiving the daily health shake due to a weight loss of 5.92% in a 28 day period and had not (11/5/19-12/3/19). An interview and clinical record review with the Dietician on 12/20/19 at 9:40 AM identified when a residents weight is obtained if it is indicated the resident had weight loss he/she would expect a second weight to be obtained within 24 hours to determine accuracy. If the second weight reflects weight loss he/she would expect to be notified. The Dietician could not explain why when Resident #6's weights were obtained indicating weight loss the reweighs were not conducted consistently. The Dietician indicated he/she reviewed Resident #6's clinical record weekly; however, he/she could not explain why he/she did not identify Resident #6's bedtime snacks were not documented. A review of Resident #6's weight with the Dietician identified on 11/5/19 Resident #6's weight recorded as 140.3 lbs and on 12/3/19 weight recorded as 132 lbs indicating a 5.92% weight loss in 28 days. The Dietician identified he/she made recommendations on 12/3/19 to decrease Boost breeze to once per day and start health shakes once per day due to the significant weight loss. The Dietician indicated he/she was not aware Resident #6 was not receiving the health shakes. The Dietician indicated he/she was not aware that the kitchen was not delivering a bed time snack nor that the evening snack was not a half of chicken or egg salad sandwich per the physician's orders. The Dietician indicated he/she would speak to the kitchen to ensure Resident #6 received half of chicken or egg salad sandwich as an evening snack and a bedtime snack. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry a physician's order dated 12/20/19 directed to administer a health shake once per day. Review of the facility weight monitoring policy identified in part that a discrepancy of five pound weight loss or gain from previous documented weight will be verified by a second weight within 48 hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for one sampled resident (Resident #85) reviewed for infections, the facility failed to identify a discrepancy in the measurement of a Percutaneously Inserted Central Catheter (PICC). The findings include: Resident #85 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included osteomyelitis of the ankle and right foot, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus infection (MRSA), Diabetes and Schizophrenia. A physician's order dated 11/27/19 directed to measure the right upper extremity PICC external catheter length and arm circumference with dressing changes on Wednesday on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift and as needed. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/27/19 identified a Percutaneously Inserted Central Catheter (PICC) line in place to provide IV antibiotic therapy. Interventions included to administer IV medications per the physician's order, change the dressing per the physician's order and date and sign the dressing, and to measure the external catheter length and arm circumference on admission and with dressing changes and as needed, notify the physician of changes in condition. Interview and review of facility documentation with the ADNS on 12/18/19 at 1:21 PM identified that according to the hospital PICC line RN insertion note, the catheter was inserted to 44 centimeters (CM) with 0 cm exposed and the mid-upper arm circumference was 30 cm. Tip placement was confirmed. According to the DNS' nursing note dated 11/27/19 at 6:48 PM and created on 12/4/19 at 2:49 PM a clarification note was being written that the arm circumference was 28 cm around and 15 cm from the cap to the insertion point (a discrepancy from the hospital discharge PICC insertion length note). Interview with the DNS on 12/18/19 at 2:03 PM identified that he/she did not see the hospital discharge paperwork, but would have called the physician and requested a chest x-ray to verify tip placement due to the discrepancy from the hospital discharge note to the re-admission measurement. The DNS identified that LPN #3 on 12/4/19 documented a length measurement of 15 cm and arm circumference of 28. LPN #2 documented on 12/11/19 a length measurement of 13.5 cm but lacked an arm circumference measurement. LPN #2 documented on 12/16/19 a length of 15 cm but lacked an arm circumference. The DNS identified that when there are discrepancies in measurements for length, the physician or APRN should be contacted. The DNS identified that per the physician's order, the arm circumference should have been measured on 12/11/19 and 12/16/19. Interview with APRN #2 on 12/18/19 at 2:19 PM identified that it was possible for the catheter to be measured at 0 cm, that there should be no discrepancy in measurements, there should be standardization, and all nurses should be educated to measure in the exact same way. If a discrepancy was identified, then he/she or the physician should be contacted. APRN #2 identified that as a precaution, an order for a STAT chest x-ray for tip placement was ordered. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility with a PICC line inserted from the hospital. The arm circumference was not consistently monitored and a discrepancy in the length of the catheter was not initially identified.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, facility policy and interviews during the initial tour of the Dietary Department, the facility failed to discard expired refrigerated food and failed to ensure a sanitary enviro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, facility policy and interviews during the initial tour of the Dietary Department, the facility failed to discard expired refrigerated food and failed to ensure a sanitary environment. The findings include: During the initial kitchen tour of the Dietary Department on 12/16/19 at 10:10 AM with the Food Service Director (FSD) the following was identified: sour cream that expired on 12/2/19, low fat cottage cheese that expired on 11/8/19, and non-fat cottage cheese that expired on 12/11/19. Additionally, the cooking hood baffles were coated in grease and black debris and located above a cheese sauce that was cooking on the stove. The hot water steam feed pipe to the steamer, that was no longer functioning, was coated with grease and hanging black debris located above the griddle that had been used, according to the FSD, for breakfast. The ceiling above the cooking area was stained and dirty with dark debris. The paint was noted to be peeling above the food preparation counter with bare areas where the paint had come off. In the corner, by the hand washing sink the wall board was noted to be crumbled onto the floor. The ice machine was observed with black debris on the hinge inside of the ice machine door that came off when rubbed with a white towel. Interview with the FSD on 12/16/19 at 10:10 AM identified that the facility policy was to discard expired items. Additionally, the FSD identified that although all dietary staff were responsible to ensure expired food was discarded, no one was officially assigned to that task. The FSD identified that since no one was assigned to the task for discarding expired food items, he/ she was ultimately responsible and must not have noticed the items were expired. The FSD identified that he/she sweeps the wall board up from the floor regularly (from behind the hand washing sink), but that the debris always comes back. Additionally, the FSD identified that he/she had informed the Maintenance Department that the wall board debris, the peeling paint on the ceiling, and that the cooking hood baffles and steam pipe that were coated in grease and debris needed cleaning, but that Maintenance has not responded. The FSD identified that the cooking hood was to be on a maintenance cleaning schedule and that the last time the hood was professionally cleaned was September 2019 and the ice machine was cleaned a couple of months ago. Interview, review of facility policy and review of the kitchen inspection log with the Maintenance Director on 12/16/19 at 10:40 AM identified that the exhaust hood was maintained professionally every six months and the facility Maintenance Department was not responsible for routine cleaning. The steam pipe that was non-functioning and coated in grease and debris was also not the responsibility of the Maintenance Department, but that a replacement pipe had been in the basement for a couple of weeks and they were working on replacement of the pipe and repair of the steamer. The Maintenance Director identified that the Maintenance Department was responsible for cleaning the ice machine and had been cleaned a couple of months ago. The Maintenance Director identified that although there was a work request book on the nursing units, the kitchen did not have one, and the FSD just usually called for assistance. The Maintenance Director identified that he/she was aware that the wall board was in need of replacement, but had not yet purchased the materials for the project. Review of the inspection logs for September 2019, October 2019, and November 2019 identified that although the floors, walls, ceiling, and plumbing had been inspected and fixed or in good repair, the December 2019 log identified the wall board by the stove required repair, the ceiling company was going to be coming into the facility in February to fix the peeling ceiling paint and the ice machine was not checked. Interview with the Administrator on 12/17/19 at 1:57 PM identified that the Maintenance Director should immediately fix any issues that are brought forward by the FSD. Additionally, the Administrator identified that the facility should not wait until February to repair the ceiling and subsequently went to speak with both the FSD and the Maintenance Director to expedite the repairs. Review of the facility Purchasing and storage policy identified that food items that are expired are to be discarded immediately.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 2 harm violation(s), $80,505 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 67 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $80,505 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Connecticut. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is New London Sub-Acute And Nursing's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Connecticut, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is New London Sub-Acute And Nursing Staffed?

CMS rates NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 46%, compared to the Connecticut average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 59%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at New London Sub-Acute And Nursing?

State health inspectors documented 67 deficiencies at NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING during 2019 to 2025. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 55 with potential for harm, and 5 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates New London Sub-Acute And Nursing?

NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 103 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WATERFORD, Connecticut.

How Does New London Sub-Acute And Nursing Compare to Other Connecticut Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Connecticut, NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (46%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting New London Sub-Acute And Nursing?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is New London Sub-Acute And Nursing Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Connecticut. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at New London Sub-Acute And Nursing Stick Around?

NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING has a staff turnover rate of 46%, which is about average for Connecticut nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was New London Sub-Acute And Nursing Ever Fined?

NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING has been fined $80,505 across 5 penalty actions. This is above the Connecticut average of $33,884. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is New London Sub-Acute And Nursing on Any Federal Watch List?

NEW LONDON SUB-ACUTE AND NURSING is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.