WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC

581 POQUONOCK AVE, WINDSOR, CT 06095 (860) 688-7211
For profit - Limited Liability company 108 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#192 of 192 in CT
Last Inspection: March 2024

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

Overview

Windsor Health and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns about care quality. They rank #192 out of 192 facilities in Connecticut and #64 out of 64 in Capitol County, placing them at the bottom of the list in both the state and county. The facility's trend is worsening, with issues increasing from just 1 in 2023 to 25 in 2024. While staffing is rated at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average, the staff turnover rate is 41%, slightly above the state average, suggesting some instability among caregivers. They have incurred $29,202 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 82% of facilities in the state, indicating ongoing compliance problems. Recent inspections revealed serious issues, including a critical incident where a resident was abused by another resident, highlighting significant safety concerns. Additionally, another finding showed that staff failed to follow care plans for transferring residents, increasing the risk of injury. Although there are some strengths, such as decent RN coverage, the overall picture raises serious alarms for families considering this nursing home for their loved ones.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Connecticut
#192/192
Bottom 1%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 25 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near Connecticut's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$29,202 in fines. Lower than most Connecticut facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Connecticut. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
42 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 1 issues
2024: 25 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below Connecticut average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Connecticut average (3.0)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near Connecticut avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $29,202

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 42 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Mar 2024 25 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, review of facility documentation, review of policy and staff interviews for 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident # 60) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the resident was free from abuse and failed to protect other residents following a resident-to-resident altercation resulting in the finding of Immediate Jeopardy and for 4 of 10 residents (Resident # 36, # 43, # 70, # 76), reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the residents were free from mistreatment. The findings included: An observation on 2/28/24 at 1:09 PM, in the dining room identified Resident #76 was standing over Resident #60 who was sitting in a wheelchair in front of her/him delivering three to four blows with a closed fist to the top of Resident #60's head while Recreational Staff #1 was attempting to stand between the two residents. Other staff members responded immediately, and the two residents were separated. Resident #60 was immediately removed from the area and staff stayed with Resident #76 who remained in the area still agitated and yelling but no longer physically aggressive. 1. Resident #60's diagnoses included dementia and cerebral infarction (stroke). The quarterly MDS assessment 12/6/23 identified Resident #60 required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers, ambulated with assist of one and a rolling walker or wheelchair. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 12/19/23 identified Resident #60 had impaired cognitive function related to dementia and limited physical mobility related to cerebral vascular accident (CVA). Interventions directed to monitor and report changes in cognitive function and provide ADL assistance with mobility as needed. 2. Resident#76's diagnoses included depression and chronic kidney disease. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #76 as severely cognitively impaired, did not demonstrate physical behavior towards others and required supervision with ambulation. The RCP dated 10/15/23 identified Resident #76 as independent with ADL skills including ambulation and had a history of resident-to-resident physical altercations. Interventions directed to provide close and distant monitoring, psychosocial support and provide a calm, quiet environment. A video surveillance dated 2/28/24 at 1:14 PM identified after the resident-to-resident altercation at 1:09 PM on the same day, Resident #76 was escorted by Licensed Practical Nurse, LPN #4 through the lobby and back to his/her room. At 1:15 PM LPN #4 was observed entering the lobby area again alone. At 1:16 PM Resident #76 returned to the lobby area before making his/her way back towards the dining area at 1:17 PM. Resident #76 was then greeted by Social Worker, SW #2 and went to her office. Resident # 76 then exited SW # 2's office and was observed returning to the dining room where there were more than five residents remaining. Resident #76 sat down in a chair along the wall within 3 feet of two other residents without staff supervision which resulted in a finding of Immediate Jeopardy. Resident #60 's nurses note dated 2/28/23 at 10:05PM identified at 1:30PM the resident was heard yelling from the dining room where it was witnessed Resident #60 was yelling with another resident (Resident #76) and was hit multiple times in the head and arm by Resident #76. The two residents were separated immediately. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were called, social worker, medical and police were notified. Resident #60 was escorted back to his/her room with staff until EMS arrived and subsequently transferred to the emergency room for an evaluation. A subsequent nurses' note dated 2/29/24 at 12:41 PM identified s/he returned from the hospital at approximately 11:55 PM skin warm to touch, no bruising noted, purpura to the back of right hand. Lung sounds clear to auscultation, drenched with urine with no swelling noted and no signs of discomfort. Resident #76's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) progress note dated 2/28/24 identified Resident #76 was in the dining room and observed by staff in a verbal altercation with Resident # 60. Resident # 76 was observed striking Resident # 60 on his/her head and arm. The residents were immediately separated and returned to their rooms on different units. Resident #76 was placed on one-to-one continuous observation. A hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] identified s/he was cleared by psychiatry before returning to the facility with no medication changes. Resident #76 was scheduled to be evaluated by psychiatry on 2/29/24. A subsequent nurses note dated 2/29/2024 at 1:09AM identified Resident #76 was back at the facility appeared to be calm and remained on 1:1 enhanced supervision. An interview with Recreational Staff #1 on 2/28/24 at 1:24 PM and 2: 21 PM identified residents in the dining area were involved in unstructured activities after lunch which did not require staff supervision. Resident #76 and Resident #60, both Spanish speaking and known to be friends, were sitting next to each other playing a game of Dominos. Recreational Staff #1 heard Resident #76 and Resident #60 conversing during the game while coming in and out of the room but did not understand what was being said. Recreational Staff #1 entered the room and observed Resident #60 push the dominos away from him/herself and Resident #76 and stood up from the chair and started yelling just as Recreational Staff #1 walked over to intervene, Resident #76 began delivering blows to the top of Resident #60's head who was sitting in a wheelchair. Recreational Staff #1 stated she stood between Resident #76 and Resident #60 to intervene and began calling out but was unable to prevent Resident #76 from continuing to deliver blows to Resident #1's head. Additional staff arrived to intervene, and the two residents were separated. Recreational Staff #1 removed Resident #60 from the area to receive medical attention. Recreational Staff #1 stated Resident #76 was known to have exhibited aggressive behavior towards other residents in the past while playing dominos and had reported the problem to the Recreation Director with no resolution. An interview with the Director of Nursing Services, DNS on 2/28/24 1:29 PM identified she had instructed LPN #4 to escort Resident # 76 back to h/her room and stay with h/her until EMS arrived. An interview with LPN #4 on 2/28/24 at 1:34 PM 2/29/24 at 10:48 AM identified she was directed by the DNS to bring Resident #76 back to h/her room following the altercation but needed to leave h/her to provide care to another resident on her assigned unit. LPN # 4 further indicated she left Resident #76 alone in h/her room following an altercation with Resident # 60. An interview with the Recreation Director on 2/28/24 at 2:56 PM identified Resident #76 loved playing Dominos and was competitive. There were times Resident #76 would yell at other residents while playing Dominos and that defusing and redirecting usually worked. If not, residents would be separated. The Director of Recreation stated Recreation Staff #1 did bring up the game of Dominos as a concern in the past, but the consensus was Resident #76 liked to play so dominos was provided without any additional intervention. A subsequent interview with the DNS on 2/28/24 at 3:07 PM identified she was aware of past resident to resident altercations centered around the game of Dominos and had set up additional rooms, purchased additional [NAME] games and indicated staff to be aware when Resident #76 was playing with Dominos. An interview with the Director of Maintenance on 2/28/24 at 4:01 PM identified he translated for Resident #76 when speaking with local law enforcement following the resident-to-resident altercation on 2/28/24. Resident #76 indicated he/she was playing Dominos with Resident #60 who began making moves in the game that made Resident #76 angry and was sworn at before slapping Resident #60. The facility failed to ensure a resident, Resident #60 was free from physical mistreatment resulting in a resident-to-resident altercation during a game where it was previously known to staff Resident #76 demonstrated increased aggressive behaviors while playing and had a previous resident altercation over the game and failed to protect other residents by providing enhanced supervision of Resident #76 until he was transferred to the Emergency Department for an evaluation following an assault of another resident. A review of the facility policy for Abuse directed that the facility maintains a zero-tolerance policy for any form of abuse including physical abuse defined as hitting, slapping, pinching kicking or controlling behavior through corporal punishment. The Administrator was presented with the Immediate Jeopardy Template on February 29, 2024, at 2:33 PM for F 600 Free from Abuse and Neglect. The facility submitted a removal plan on February 29, 2024, at 6:36 PM. The removal plan included the following: 1. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) will review daily the clinical record or observations to ensure no resident is exhibiting aggressive behavior or harm to another resident. 2. Staff will immediately separate any resident-to-resident altercations and remove both from area and de-escalate the situation. 3. Resident with be placed on frequent checks including but not limited to 1:1 until cleared by psychiatric services. 4. Ongoing assessment will include but not limited to offer or seek alternate placement as needed if determine that resident is still exhibiting behaviors that put other at risk. 5. Facility will continue to monitor Resident # 76 and any other resident for triggers that may cause harm or injuries from resident-to-resident altercations and provide safety interventions including but not limited to 1:1 and every 15-minute check of monitoring until behavior is safe. 6. Review and re-educate staff on abuse policy and revise as necessary 7. Staff will stay with the aggressor until additional interventions are implemented to ensure the safety of other residents. 8. Both the Social Worker and Director of Recreation are meeting with residents to ensure no other resident is harmed or fearful. 9. The IDT team will continue to have ongoing evaluations of residents to ensure no resident is susceptible to harm from another resident weekly times four and monthly thereafter. Additionally, noted the person responsible for monitoring the plan action was Administrator /Designee. 3. Resident #36's diagnoses included dementia, intellectual disability, and aphasia (difficulty communicating or understanding). The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #36 as cognitively intact and independent with activities of daily living (ADL) including ambulation. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 9/29/23 identified Resident #36 attended scheduled programs and expressed interest in more activities. Interventions directed to continue to invite and encourage participation in appropriate activities. An Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note dated 11/7/23 at 1:03 PM identified Resident # 36 was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation with another resident, Resident #76 the evening prior at 4:15 PM in the resident dining room. Resident #36 was struck on the back of the neck by Resident #76 with no reported injuries. A Psychiatric Evaluation dated 11/7/23 identified Resident #36 had a recent altercation with another resident, Resident #76, was unclear of the details, appeared calm and cooperative with no new medication changes. Resident#76's diagnoses included depression and chronic kidney disease. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #76 as severely cognitively impaired, did not demonstrate physical behavior towards others and required supervision with ambulation. The RCP dated 10/15/23 identified Resident #76 as independent with ADL skills including ambulation and had a history of resident-to-resident physical altercations. Interventions directed to provide close and distant monitoring, psychosocial support and provide a calm, quiet environment. A nurse's note dated 11/7/23 at 8:11 PM identified a resident was heard in the dining area yelling in Spanish and being aggressive. Another resident, Resident #36 was assisting in cleaning a table when Resident #76 became agitated and hit h/her on the back of the neck. Two staff members were hit while attempting to separate the two residents. Resident #76 was moved to a separate area, emergency services activated, and Resident #76 was subsequently transferred to the emergency department for further evaluation. The hospital After Visit Summary dated 11/6/23 identified Resident #76 was psychiatrically cleared for return to the facility with no medication changes and recommendations to follow up with providers. A Psychiatric Evaluation dated 11/7/23 identified Resident #76 was sent to the hospital for physical aggression after hitting another resident. Resident #76 was prescribed an increase in Trazadone (medication used for the treatment of depression) and recommendations for a neurocognitive psychiatric evaluation. A Police Case/ Incident Report dated 11/7/23 at 8:09 PM identified on 11/6/23 at approximately 4:10 PM the police responded to the facility following a report of a resident to staff and resident to resident incident where Resident #76 was reportedly playing Dominos when a staff member told Resident #76 it was time for dinner. Resident #76 became upset and lashed out because s/he did not want to put away the game of Dominos. A facility Reportable Event Summary dated 11/10/23 identified on 11/6/23 at 4:15PM in the dining area, Resident # 36 was struck in the back by Resident #76 when attempting to clean up after a game of dominos. Resident #76 was transferred to the emergency room (ER) for further evaluation, returned to the facility following medical clearance and received medication adjustments on 11/7/23 after being evaluated by in-house psychiatry. Resident #36 and Resident #76 resided on separate units and the [NAME] activity was moved to another room to facilitate additional space for card playing prior to supper time. An interview with Recreational Staff #1 on 2/28/24 at 1:24 PM and at 2: 21 PM following a subsequent resident-to-resident incident during a game of Dominos identified Resident #76 was known to have exhibited aggressive behavior towards other residents in the past while playing dominos and had reported the problem to the Recreation Director with no resolution. An interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/28/24 at 3:07 PM and 3/4/24 at 11:35 AM identified Resident #76 was evaluated by psychiatry following the incident and was prescribed medication adjustments following the incident. Another room outside of the dining room where the incident had occurred was designated for use for Dominos, however residents were not required to use the room for that purpose. The DNS indicated she would expect residents to be free from abuse. 4. Resident #70's diagnoses included hemiplegia (weakness) and hemiparesis (paralysis) following a cerebral infarction (stroke). The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #70 was cognitively intact, required extensive two person assist with bed mobility, transfers, one person assist with locomotion on the unit using a wheelchair. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 4/11/23 identified Resident #70 had limited physical mobility and had a history of being verbally abusive and combative telling people to get out of the way so s/he can navigate the hallways. Interventions included providing assistance of two and analyze times, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates the behavior and document. Resident #70 nurse's note dated 6/1/23 identified a resident-to-resident altercation had taken place between Resident #70 and Resident #26 and a police investigation was ongoing. 5. Resident #26' diagnoses included borderline personality disorder and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #26 as cognitively intact, did not express any indicators of psychosis, required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers and was independent with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair. The RCP dated 5/22/23 identified Resident #26 had a history of loud outbursts, past resident to resident physical abuse and often threw things at staff. Interventions directed to approach with two staff members for loud outbursts, call police and address behavior and inappropriateness immediately with resident. Resident #26's nurse's note dated 6/1/23 at 7:55PM identified a resident-to-resident altercation that took place at 7:45 PM. Resident #26 reported Resident #70 ran over h/her right lower leg while trying to pass, doing it on purpose. Resident #70 reported Resident #26 was calling h/her names because s/he was unable to get by in the hallway calling Resident #70 a B and a MF. Resident #70 stated s/he accidentally hit Resident #26 with the wheelchair because s/he was close. The Director of Nursing was notified, and a skin check was completed. Resident #26 complained of pain in the right lower leg. The right leg was able to move without limitations. An x-ray was scheduled, and police notified. An investigation statement dated 6/1/23 completed by Maintenance Staff #1 (former staff) identified at approximately 7:40 PM, Resident #26 was observed asking Resident #70 to move h/her wheelchair so s/he could go down the hall. Resident #70 attempted to move the wheelchair so Resident #26 could pass but ran over Resident #26's foot by accident. Resident #26 screamed and began cursing at Resident #70 and then threw water on h/her. Radiological Results for Resident #26 dated 6/2/23 identified x-rays of the right tibia/fibula (lower leg bones) were negative. A facility Reportable Event Summary dated 6/8/23 identified on 6/1/23 at 7:40PM, Resident #70 and Resident #26 were both in the hallway trying to get by each other. Resident #70 was in an electric wheelchair and in the process of trying to move the wheelchair s/he accidentally hit Resident #26's leg. Resident #26 had a glass of water, in a medicine cup in h/her hand and threw it at Resident #70. No injuries were noted to either resident. The residents were separated immediately and would continue to be seen by medical, psychiatry, and social services. Resident #70 and Resident #26 were educated to offer space to others when ambulating in common areas. Staff were directed to monitor for inappropriate interactions or escalation of the residents and separate as necessary or deescalate. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 3/4/24 at 11:35 AM identified she would expect residents to be free from abuse, the care plan updated to reflect the individualized need and the resident(s) to receive support from social services following the event. Efforts to interview the (former) Maintenance Staff #1 were unsuccessful. 6. Resident #43's diagnosis included depressive episodes and dementia. Resident #43's was admitted on [DATE] to the facility. Resident #43 was verbally appropriate, had adequate hearing and adequate vision with glasses. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 12/6/2024 indicated resident #43 had mild cognitive impairment. The baseline care plan from admission with no date of completion, indicated in part Resident #43 was admitted with depression, dementia and was sad/crying. 7. Resident # 250's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, psychotic disorder, and schizophrenia. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified cognition intact and independence with ambulation. The facility Reportable Event (RE) form dated 12/8/22 at 9:20 AM indicated Resident #43 alleged Resident #250 came to the door of the resident's room and verbally threatened to cause sexual harm. A Reportable Event Report dated 12/8/22 at 9:20 AM indicated another Resident #29 accused Resident #250 of touching his/her thigh while making verbal sexual advances. The report further indicated the facility immediately initiated an hourly check on Resident #250, and staff were educated to be vigilant of any inappropriate behavior. The Reportable Event Report also indicated Resident #250 was seen by psychiatric services and provided counseling and police were notified and came in to talk with the resident. An interview with the DNS on 2/28/24 at 10:40AM indicated copies of the police report were not requested as Resident #250 did not return from the hospital. Although, the DNS indicated he/she found the abuse allegations against Resident #250 were unsubstantiated indicating Resident #43 most likely was repeating something else heard outside the room. The DNS indicated Resident #29's incident may have happened days before. The conclusion was made without the additional evidence of interviews conducted by the police. The DNS agreed to obtain copies of the police report (2 years later). The police reports incident date 12/8/2022 at 10:17AM, 1:47PM and 7:00PM obtained after surveyor inquiry indicated in part Resident #250 did touch Resident #29's shoulder in a platonic way as they were hanging out but did not touch Resident #29 or show an imprint of his/her genital area. The officer advised Resident #250 to leave Resident#29 alone and if he/she continued to speak to Resident # 29 he/she could be arrested for harassment. The reports further indicated Resident #250 admitted to the police officer he/she told Resident #43 he/she wanted to rape Resident #43. The report further indicated Resident #43 did not want to press charges. The social service note dated 12/9/22 at 2:33 PM identified the Social Worker (SW) did a follow up visit with resident to see how s/he was doing after the alleged allegation of one of her/his peers. Resident # 43 was informed that Resident # 250 was no longer in the facility, so s/he does not have to fear. Resident # 43 stated that she was very happy Resident # 250 gone and s/he does not have to listen to her/him. Additionally, the resident was seen by psychiatric APRN and assured all safety measures were in place. The facility policy labeled Resident Abuse and Neglect indicated in part a summary of the facts, actions taken, conclusions and specific plan of correction are documented on the Incident/Accident investigation in the medical record and ensure the outcome is completed within 5 working days. The dates of completion of the police reports indicated 12/10 22 at 9:11 AM, 9:59 AM, and 10:19 AM (within 5 working days (12/14/2022) and could have been requested by the facility for use in their investigation. Interview with the DNS on 3/4/24 at 2:30 PM identified to hourly checks were safety measures put in place to address the resident-to-resident incident. 8. Resident #76's diagnoses that included traumatic brain injury, major depressive disorder, and seizures. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #76 as moderately cognitively impaired and required set up or clean up assistance for eating and required partial assistance for toileting and showering. The assessment noted the resident was independent for mobility. The MDS assessment further identified Resident #76 had 1 occasion of verbal behavioral symptoms. 9. Resident # 61's diagnoses included high blood pressure, chronic kidney disease and dementia. The quarterly MDS assessment date 12/27/22 identified Resident #61 as severely cognitively impaired and required limited assistance of one for eating, toileting and personal hygiene and was independent for dressing. The MDS assessment further identified Resident #61 did not display any verbal or physical behavioral symptoms towards other residents. a. A review of the Accident and Incident Report (A & I) form dated 2/13/23 at 7:00 AM identified a possible physical altercation that happened between Resident #76 and Resident #61. Resident #76 had slight left eye bruising and discoloration and stated Resident #61 hit h/him. The incident was unwitnessed, and police were called. The police report dated 2/13/2023 at 8:34 AM indicated Resident #76 was attempting to go to sleep when Resident #61, who was also his/her roommate was watching TV, and Resident #76 states that s/he stood up to turn the TV off and when s/he did, s/he was struck in the eye, fell to the ground and kicked in the right rib area while on the ground. Resident #76 and Resident # 61 were separated. The attending officer indicated that he observed Resident #76 ' s bruised left eye and bruised right ribs. Resident #61 stated to officers that s/he did not recall the event. Although the facility investigation indicated no bruising to the right ribs, police identified it. A review of the Reportable Events page findings for the state agency dated 2/17/2023 at 12:00 AM indicated Resident #76 was upset because h/her roommates TV was loud early in the morning. An argument occurred and Resident #76 was hit in the face by Resident #61. Resident #61 was moved back to h/his original room, on another wing. Resident #76 was seen by medical, social work, and psychiatry. Resident #76 was offered ear plugs or headphones for when their roommate is watching TV. The event was identified as resident to resident abuse without injury. b. A review of the A & I formed dated 6/4/23 at 7:45 PM identified that an argument over the TV occurred where Resident #76 asked resident #7, their roommate to turn down the TV. It is unclear whether Resident #76 tried to take the remote or attempted to turn the TV down, when Resident #7 pushed Resident #76, and both residents were hitting/punching each other. The residents were separated from each other, and the police were called. A hematoma was noted on the eye of Resident #76. The police report dated 6/4/23 at 6:44 PM indicated Resident #76 was trying to sleep when Resident #7, who was their roommate, turned the TV on in the room. Resident #76 asked Resident #7 to turn the volume of the TV down and Resident #7 turned the volume up. Resident #76 stated s/he stood up to turn the TV off and was pushed by Resident #7. Resident #7 stated s/he tried to keep the remote away from Resident #76 when Resident #76 fell. Resident #7 indicated to officers that s/he did not mean to push Resident #76. No injuries were identified by officers. A review of the Reportable Events page findings for the state agency dated 6/8/23 at 12:00 AM indicated Resident #76 became mad when Resident #7 would not turn the TV down after being asked. Resident #76 and Resident #7 began to argue when Resident #76 was pushed by Resident #7, and they proceeded to hit each other in the face. No injuries were noted to either resident in the report. Resident #7 was moved to another room and wing. Education regarding space in common areas was given. Resident #76 plan directed to continue to be seen by medical, psychiatry, and social work. Staff were to monitor for inappropriate interactions or escalation of the resident and separate as necessary or deescalate. The event was identified as resident to resident abuse without injury. Interview on 2/29/24 at 11:24 AM with the DNS indicated after the 2/13/23 resident to resident altercation that the facility provided Resident #76 with earplugs and headphones to help with the noise. A review of the facility Resident Abuse and Neglect policy (no date) directs the facility to maintain a zero-tolerance policy for any forms abuse, neglect, and exploitation of a resident. It further states that all residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 11 residents (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 1 of 11 residents (Resident # 275) reviewed for implementing plan of care, the facility failed to implement the resident's plan of care for bowel retraining program. The finding include: Resident #275's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea. A physician's order dated 3/8/24 directed to monitor bowel patterns every shift for 3 days. The facility's Bladder and Bowel Program Screener dated 3/8/24 identified Resident #275 was incontinent of stool 1-3 times a week categorized as a 'good candidate for retraining'. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #275 had moderately impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, utilized a walker for mobility, and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, helper performs more than half of the effort and noted difficulty hearing. Additionally, the assessment notes the resident does not wear a hearing aid. The Reportable Event dated 3/8/2024 at 12:00 AM identified Resident # 275 alleged that she waited for 45 minutes for the nurse aides to answer her/his call which resulted in an incontinent episode. The facility investigated on 3/8/24 removed staff members involved in incident from schedule pending investigation, assessed resident and no injuries identified and notified the local police. Facility investigation identified no substantiated abuse. However, a review of the clinical record from 3/8/24 to 5/3/24 failed to reflect to provide evidence that a bowel retraining program had been initiated as directed on 3/8/24 per plan of care. The care plan dated 3/25/24 identified a concern with skin/tissue integrity, moderate risk related to incontinence of bowel and bladder. Interventions included: applying skin care products to peri area as needed, weekly skin assessments, and a positioning pressure relieving devices as needed. A psychiatric evaluation and consultation dated 3/29/24 identified Resident #275 had memory impairment, and discontinued use of Seroquel (Antipsychotic) on 3/19/24. Interview and clinical record review with the Administrator and DNS on 5/3/24 at 2:00 PM identified the facility could not substantiate abuse. The Administrator and DNS failed to provide evidence of bowel diary retraining program as directed on 3/8/24. Although attempted, an interview with Resident #275 was not obtained. The policy for Incontinence/Bowel and Bladder stated for residents with fecal incontinence, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility will ensure that a resident who is incontinent of bowel receives appropriate treatment and services to restore as much normal bowel function as possible. The policy for care planning indicates that care planning is to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and any services that would otherwise be required but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of rights including the right to refuse treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

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 2 residents (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 1 of 2 residents (Resident # 78) reviewed for discharge, the facility failed to ensure that other state agencies were notified of the resident's decision to (Leave Against Medical Advice). The finding included: Resident # 78's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, nutritional deficiency, and repeated falls. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident # 78 had intact cognition, used a rolling walker for mobility, and noted frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. The care plan dated 3/25/24 identified a concern with Resident #78's desire for long term care Intervention included: to evaluate motivation of the resident to remain in facility long term care, to discuss feelings and concerns with her/his expressed desire for long term care, and to monitor for and address episodes of anxiety, fear, and distress. The Advanced Practiced Registered Nurse (APRN) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #78 was seen for right knee swelling and redness secondary to a femur fracture with surgical fixation/hardware replacement on 3/14/24. Resident #78's surgical team agreed to have the facility remove surgical sutures and start Cephalexin (antibiotic) for 5 days for cellulitis. A nurses note dated 4/18/24 at 11:34 AM identified Resident #78 went on a leave of absence (LOA) with a resident representative at 9:30 AM, Resident #78 disclosed they were going to brunch and had an appointment with Primary Care Provider (PCP). A nurse's note (late entry) effective 4/18/24 at 9:34 PM identified Resident #78 went on a leave of absence (LOA) with the resident's representative and Resident #78 called the facility to advise them s/he did not desire to return to the facility. Resident #78 was advised by the facility if s/he decided not to return to the facility the leave would be considered as against medical advice (AMA), no home care, and no medications would be available. The local police department was notified to do a wellness check which was performed without incident. A review of the nurse's notes and the clinical record failed to reflect that the Department of Social Service had been notified of the resident's leaving the facility AMA and need to follow up with the resident in the community. Interview with Resident #78 on 5/3/24 at 11:40 AM identified she/he wanted to deal with financial matters at home with her/ his representative so she/he could enter a skilled nursing facility closer to home and have some money for that care. Interview with the Administrator and DNS on 5/3/24 at 2:00 PM confirmed Resident #78's unscheduled discharge. The Administrator indicated she had reached out to Resident #78 and had frequent conversations with the resident regarding his/her wellbeing. The Administrator also indicated she had previously instructed the facility to contact the resident's PCP physician to advise of him/her of the resident's AMA so an appointment could be scheduled to follow the resident in the community. After inquiry, a form for Department of Social Services-Report Form for Protective Services for the Elderly was submitted to the State Agency on 5/1/24 which was 12 days after the AMA discharge. Although requested a policy on discharge planning and AMA leaves was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, review of facility documentation, review of facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #46) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The facility failed to follow the resident plan of care. The findings include: Resident #46 's diagnoses included vascular dementia, malnutrition, and feeding difficulties. The physician's orders dated 10/18/23 directed ADL care as total assist at bed level and extensive assistance for feeding. The care plan with revision date of 11/26/23 identified Resident #46 has an ADL self-care performance deficit related diagnosis of dementia, occasional back pain, weakness, abnormal posture, and feeding difficulties. Resident #46 's goals for this focus included: will maintain current level of function in transfers, eating, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene through the next review date. Interventions dated 3/9/23 with a revision date of 11/26/23 included total assistance with ADLs at bed level, extensive assist with feeding. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #46 as severely cognitively impaired and requires extensive assistance for transfers, toileting and requires supervision of 1 person assisting with eating. Observation and interview with the Rehabilitation Director on 2/28/24 at 11:27 AM identified Resident #46 was discharged from OT/PT for reaching highest practical level achieved on 10/18/23. The Rehabilitation Director indicated upon discharge from OT, the recommendations directed Resident #46 be an extensive assist for feeding. She further identified extensive assistance for feeding meant that helper/ facility staff does 90% of the work, while Resident #46 would do 10% of the work and someone be present during the entire meal to also provide cueing. Observation and interview with NA #3 on 2/28/24 at 11:45 AM indicated Resident #46 feeds her/himself, does not let staff feed her/him, and staff do not sit with the resident during mealtimes. She further identified Resident #46's MDS [NAME] report directed to assist with all meals and that s/he needed extensive assistance of one person for eating. Observation of Resident #46 on 2/28/24 at 12:15 PM identified NA #4 brought the resident's lunch in, opened containers, cut up meat, and left the room. Observation and interview on 2/28/24 at 12:25 PM with NA #4 identified Resident #46 was a self-feed and did not require assistance with eating. NA #4 further indicated she usually checks the resident's [NAME] for directions in ADL care. She further identified Resident #46 ' s Care [NAME] directed to assist with all meals and that s/he was an extensive assistance of one person for eating. The facility policy for ADL notes ADL activities is related to personal care which includes bathing or showering, dressing, getting in and out of bed or a chair, walking, using the toilet, and eating. The policy also indicates that residents will be assisted with ADL as the plan of care dictates.
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, facility policy and interview for 1 of 3 sampled residents ( Resident # 51) at risk for pressur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy and interview for 1 of 3 sampled residents ( Resident # 51) at risk for pressure ulcer development, the facility failed to perform a weekly skin assessments as directed in the plan of care. The finding include: Resident #51's diagnoses included generalized muscle weakness, orthostatic hypotension (a form of low blood pressure that happens when you stand up from sitting or lying down), and high cholesterol. The care plan revises dated 12/26/23 identified Resident #51 had a reopened area to coccyx, start date of 11/24/23 with the goal to include area to sacrum will be resolved without complications by next review, resolved on 12/26/23. The care plan failed to identify the new wound to the right buttock. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #51 was severely cognitively impaired and required maximal assistance for eating and oral hygiene and was dependent on toileting, dressing and personal hygiene. The MDS further indicated Resident #51 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers/injuries. Interview and observation on 2/26/24 at 12:35 PM with RN #2 identified she had seen an open area on 2/23/24 on Resident #51 ' s buttocks and on Saturday 2/24/24 at which time she called a supervisor. RN# 2 received physician's orders for treatment by the on-call physician. RN #2 further indicated that when there is a new skin condition or a change in a resident's skin condition, she should do a skin assessment or write a nursing note about the open area but she did not do one. She further identified the last weekly skin observation tool filled out was on 1/10/2024. The physician's orders and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) reviewed for January and February 2024 identified a physician's order for clean buttocks with normal saline, pat dry, apply Silvadene cream followed by dry, clean, dressing, start date of 2/26/24. The physician's orders further directed on Wednesday on 3-11 PM shift, weekly skin assessment on shower day and document in facility software Electronic Medical Record a skin evaluation, under evaluations, every evening shift every Wednesday, start date of 10/26/22. The facility failed to follow physician orders to perform weekly skin assessment 9 out of 10 times for the months of January and February 2024. The Skin and Wound Management Program policy notes in part if the resident's skin integrity is compromised, the process moves into the wound management phase. The physician and responsible party are notified, a progress note is completed, and the care plan is updated with appropriate interventions.
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, observation, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, observation, facility documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 3 sampled residents (Resident #26) reviewed for accidents, the facility failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were inaccessible in resident occupied areas, failed to intervene when a resident acquired a hazardous liquid who subsequently assaulted staff in the presence of (Resident # 400), failed to ensure adequate supervision was implemented following the incident, failed to implement environmental changes to prevent future efforts to barricade him/herself in h/her room and failed to report a resident to staff potential hazard to the state agency. The findings included: 1. Resident #400's diagnoses included dementia and muscle weakness. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #400 as moderately cognitively impaired, required extensive two person assist with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. The Resident Care plan dated 5/29/23 identified Resident #400 had a self-care performance concern with activities of daily living (ADL) related to dementia and weakness. Interventions directed to provide assistance of one with ADL care, total assist with feeding. 2. Resident #26's included borderline personality disorder and anxiety. a. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #26 as cognitively intact, did not express any indicators of psychosis, required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers and was independent with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 5/22/23 identified Resident #26 had a history of loud outbursts, past resident to resident physical abuse and often threw things at staff. Interventions directed to approach with two staff members for loud outbursts, call police and address behavior and inappropriateness immediately with resident. A nurse's note dated 6/4/23 identified at 2:50 PM the nursing supervisor, Registered Nurse #1 was informed by Nurse Aide, NA #9 that Resident #26 sprayed her/him with bleach. On arrival, there was the smell of bleach, and the floor was wet. The incident was discussed with Resident #26 who indicated s/he obtained the (bleach) bottle from the floor. A staff member reported Resident #26 was observed going to another unit and returned to h/her unit with the (bleach) bottle. Upon further investigation, it was identified the bleach was taken off the housekeeper cart. Resident #26 was asked to give the bottle back but refused. NA# 9 cleansed her/himself with cold washcloth and applied A&D. The Director of Nursing and local police were updated. An internal facility Reportable Event dated 6/4/23 at 2:50 PM identified Resident #26 sprayed a staff member, Nurse Aide, (NA #9) with bleach. The Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) and local police were notified, and statements obtained. A Police Case/Incident Report dated 6/4/23 at 9:26PM identified NA #9 reported Resident #26 sprayed the back of her/his uniform with a bleach spray after becoming upset that someone did not clean h/her room after spilling food on the floor. NA #9 reported Resident #26 left the door ajar and blocked the door with h/her wheelchair. NA #9 asked Resident # 26 three times to open the door before observing h/her raise the spray bottle up towards the door, turned away when she (NA# 9) felt a liquid substance on her/his back that smelled like bleach and subsequently reported the incident to the nurse. Resident #26 stated s/he dropped food on the floor and used h/her wheelchair to grab the cleaning solution to clean the floor when no one was listening to her/his requests to clean up the spill. Resident #26 stated s/he did not spray NA #9 with any cleaning solution. An investigation statement dated 6/4/23 completed by (former) Maintenance Staff #1 identified h/she was cleaning a resident room on North Wing and noticed the bleach was gone. It was not observed who took the bleach. Someone later informed Maintenance Staff #1 a resident, Resident #26 came from the opposite unit and took the bleach. Staff Education dated 6/5/23 and (date illegible) directed to staff not to leave chemicals, wipes, hand sanitizers, wound supplies or any caustic liquid in a resident room, lobby, or resident care areas. A Psychiatric Evaluation dated 6/5/23 identified Resident #26 had an altercation with a staff member that could have potentially caused harm. Resident #26 reported s/he did not intentionally try to cause harm to the staff although staff reported the act as intentional. The seriousness of the actions and alternative measures to utilize when dealing with restlessness and anxiety were discussed. Resident #26 was determined not to be a danger to self/others and no medication changes were made. An interview with NA #9 dated 3/12/24 at 10:17AM identified she was a former employee who worked as a nurse aide during the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift on 6/4/23. NA #9 stated although she could not recall the time, Resident #26 had spilled h/her lunch tray on the floor in h/her room and requested it be cleaned up. After cleaning up, NA #9 told Resident #26 that housekeeping would mop the floor momentarily. According to NA #9 Resident #26 stated s/he was going to speak with the Administrator and then was observed leaving the unit by wheelchair, returning a short time later with the bottle of bleach. NA #9 encouraged Resident #26 to give her/him the bottle but did want to escalate the situation as Resident #26 was aggressive, swinging, and threatening to spray NA #9. Resident #26 quickly barricaded him/herself in h/her room before NA #9 could intervene further. NA #9 was concerned as there was another resident in the room (Resident # 400 who was cognitively impaired and bed bound who may be impacted by the fumes. With the door cracked open slightly, NA #9 attempted to reach for the bottle before being sprayed on the side of the face by Resident #26. NA #9 quickly removed her/himself from the area after being sprayed and was assisted by the nursing supervisor to get cleaned. An interview with RN #1 on 3/12/24 at 10:40AM identified she was working as the Nursing Supervisor on 6/4/23 when she was notified by NA #1 Resident #26 blocked the door to h/her room, preventing NA# 9 from entering and then sprayed her/him with bleach. RN #1 called the local police, Administrator, and the DNS. RN #1 could not recall what, if any direction was provided by the Administrator or DNS. RN #1 believed Resident #1 was being monitored every 15 minutes but was unable to explain why there was no documentation to support increased monitoring. An interview with APRN #1 on 3/12/24 at 11:01 AM identified Resident #26 had a history of poor safety awareness and impulsivity but was currently doing better. APRN #1 evaluated Resident on 6/5/23 and determined s/he was no longer a threat to him/herself or others. APRN #1 would have expected staff to monitor Resident #26 more frequently for other behaviors until determined safe and address how the hazardous liquid was acquired. An interview with Administrative Assistant #2 on 3/12/23 at 11:17AM identified she was working as the receptionist at the front desk on 6/4/23 at approximately 3:00 PM when Resident #26 approached her/him to request a housekeeper come to clean h/her room. Administrative Assistant #2 informed Resident #26 s/he would get someone. Administrative Assistant #2 stated s/he observed Resident #26 mobilize (in a wheelchair) to an alternate unit, North Wing, where s/he removed a spray bottle of bleach from the unattended housekeeping cart just outside a resident room and returned towards h/her unit. Administrative Assistant #2 asked Resident #26 to give her/him the bleach spray, but Resident #26 refused. Administrative Assistant #2 observed an (unidentified) Nurse Aide on the unit so returned to her/his station without further intervening or alerting other staff that Resident #26 had a hazardous liquid in h/her possession. Following the incident, Administrative Assistant #2 told NA #9 not to go near Resident #26 for the remainder of the shift and indicated s/he looked to the nursing supervisor to implement any further interventions. An interview with the DNS on 3/12/24 at 12:31 PM identified she was contacted on 6/4/23 at home by RN # 1 to report Resident #26 had removed liquid bleach off a housekeeping cart when a staff member, Maintenance Staff #1 was not looking, and allegedly sprayed the bleach on NA #9. It was unclear to the DNS if NA #9 got sprayed as her /his clothes were not stained, and Resident #26 denied spraying NA # 9. The local police were called in response to the incident, education was initiated to ensure hazardous material was inaccessible and the DNS directed maintenance staff lock chemicals up in the housekeeping carts. The DNS stated the hazardous liquid should not have been left on top of the housekeeping cart unattended and staff should have intervened immediately when Resident #26 was observed accessing the liquid bleach. The DNS indicated there was no need to initiate additional supervision as Resident #26 was calm following the incident and posed no risk of danger to others. Further, the incident was not reported to the state agency as the assault did not involve another resident. Attempts to interview the (former) Maintenance Staff #1 were unsuccessful. The facility failed to ensure hazardous chemicals were inaccessible in resident occupied areas, failed to intervene when a resident acquired a hazardous liquid who subsequently assaulted staff, failed to ensure adequate supervision was implemented following the attack, failed to implement environmental changes to prevent future efforts to barricade him/herself in h/her room and failed to report the incident to the overseeing state agency. A review of the facility policy for Behavior Intervention directed the facility to review any resident exhibiting behavior and may refer to a resident who is actively exhibiting unusual behavior to warrant urgent or immediate intervention. Psychiatry evaluation may be warranted to assess the psychiatric well-being of a resident. To determine if a residents behavior warrant Psychiatric transfer/placement in a psychiatric institution. The resident may be monitored for an ongoing period until the resident is deemed safe to self and others. Such monitoring may include but not limited to 1:1, Q15 (every) 15 minutes, 30, Q1hour or distant check or observation. If a resident is deemed safe, observation and monitoring may be discontinued. b. An observation on 3/12/24 at 9:19 AM identified one unattended housekeeping cart observed on Center Wing with a bottle labeled 'bleach spray' in a bucket on top of the housekeeping cart unattended. An interview with [NAME] #1 on 3/12/24 at 9:19 AM identified that although housekeeping was not his primary role, s/he was assisting with cleaning duties and had left the housekeeping cart momentarily with the bottle of bleach spray left on top of the cart unattended. [NAME] #1 stated the bleach should not have been left on top of the cart and instead secured and locked underneath the housekeeping cart. [NAME] #1 stated s/he did not have a key to lock the chemical bleach underneath. An interview with the Director of Maintenance on 3/12/24 at 9:22 AM identified no chemicals should be left on top of the cart unattended. Any chemical not in use should be locked beneath. [NAME] #1 normally worked in an alternate position but helps with housekeeping duties when short staffed and would provide him/her with a key. A review of the facility policy for Behavior Intervention directed the facility to review any resident exhibiting behavior and may refer to a resident who is actively exhibiting unusual behavior to warrant urgent or immediate intervention. Psychiatry evaluation may be warranted to assess the psychiatric well-being of a resident. To determine if a residents behavior warrant Psychiatric transfer/placement in a psychiatric institution. The resident may be monitored for an ongoing period until the resident is deemed safe to self and others. Such monitoring may include but not limited to 1:1, Q15 (every) 15 minutes, Q30, Q1hour or distant check or observation. If a resident is deemed safe, observation and monitoring may be discontinued. Although requested, a policy for accident prevention, accident/incident reporting and storage of hazardous material was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 275) reviewed for abuse...

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 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 275) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to assist implement a bowel retraining program when the resident was identified as a good candidate for retraining. The findings include: Resident #275's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea. A physician's order dated 3/8/24 directed to monitor bowel patterns every shift for 3 days. The facility's Bladder and Bowel Program Screener dated 3/8/24 identified Resident #275 was incontinent of stool 1-3 times a week categorized as a 'good candidate for retraining'. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #275 had moderately impaired cognition, was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder, utilized a walker for mobility, and required substantial/maximal assistance with toileting, helper performs more than half of the effort and noted difficulty hearing. Additionally, the assessment notes the resident does not wear a hearing aid. The Reportable Event dated 3/8/2024 at 12:00 AM identified Resident # 275 alleged that she waited for 45 minutes for the nurse aides to answer her/his call which resulted in an incontinent episode. The facility investigated on 3/8/24 removed staff members involved in incident from schedule pending investigation, assessed resident and no injuries identified and notified the local police. Facility investigation identified no substantiated abuse. Interview on 5/2/24 at 2:20PM with NA#13 identified whenever Resident #275 rings the call bell for assistance with toileting, the resident is assisted to the walker, walks to the bathroom without incident. Interview with Person # 5 on 5/3/24 at 9:40 AM identified Resident #275 is continent of bowel, however depending on the urgency, the time it takes to ambulate to the walker and the walk to the toilet can result in an incontinent episode, in urgent cases the bedpan is better to prevent incontinence of stool. The resident is confused at times and may have difficulty knowing the exact time. Person # 5 indicated he/she received a call regarding the delayed response Resident # 275's toileting the evening of 3/27/24 and notified the police. Interview and clinical record review with the Administrator and DNS on 5/3/24 at 2:00 PM identified the facility could not substantiate abuse. The Administrator and DNS failed to provide evidence of bowel diary retraining program as directed on 3/8/24 to identify the resident's bowel retraining program. The policy for Incontinence/Bowel and Bladder stated for residents with fecal incontinence, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility will ensure that a resident who is incontinent of bowel receives appropriate treatment and services to restore as much normal bowel function as possible.
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 record review, observation, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident #20), reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, review of facility policy and staff interviews for 1 of 1 resident, (Resident #20), reviewed for specialized treatment, the facility failed to ensure that the specialized treatment communication log was consistently completed before the resident left for the specialized treatments. The findings include: Resident #20 was admitted on [DATE] to the facility. The resident diagnoses included. dementia, end-stage kidney disease requiring specialized treatment. The clinical record also noted the utilization of an acquired arteriovenous (AV) fistula on the left arm, which is a surgically created connection of a vein and artery that is used to connect the specialized machine. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #20 had severe cognitive impairment and required partial to moderate assistance with eating, toileting, and personal hygiene. A care plan dated 2/6/24 identified Resident #20 received specialized treatment on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Friday. Interventions included weighing the resident as ordered and providing diet as ordered. A care plan dated 2/14/24 identified that Resident #20 had a potential for impaired communication problems related to dementia and a potential for skin integrity issues related to end-stage kidney disease and a left arm AV fistula. Interventions included anticipating and meeting the resident needs and assessing the skin weekly. The physician's orders dated 2/2/23 directed the facility to administer 10 milligrams (mg) of amlodipine (a medication for high blood pressure) every morning, 40 mg of lisinopril (a medication for high blood pressure) every morning, and 50mg of metoprolol (a medication for high blood pressure) every morning. A physician's order dated 2/3/24 directed obtain Resident #20's vital signs and weigh the resident before the specialized treatment. A review of the facility's dialysis communication log identified that section one of the communication form was not fully completed for 2/5/24, 2/14/24, 2/16/24, and 2/23/23 (days in which Resident #20 went for their scheduled specialized treatments). For 2/5/24, the areas filled out were the time Resident #20 had his/her last meal and an LPN signature. The areas that were omitted for 2/5/24 included a list of medications the resident may have received before being sent to specialized treatment center, an assessment of the AV fistula, and if there were any bleeding complications after the prior specialized treatment. For 2/14/24, 2/16/24, and 2/23/23, no areas in section one of the communication form were filled out. The areas that were omitted included a list of medications the resident may have received before being sent to specialized treatment, an assessment of the AV fistula, if there were any bleeding, complications after the prior specialized treatment, the time the resident had his/her last meal, and a signature of a facility nurse. An observation and interview with RN#6 on 2/27/24 at 12:47 PM identified that section one of the facilities communication log for 2/5/24 was partially completed and that for 2/14/24, 2/16/24, and 2/23/23, section one of the facilities communication logs was blank. RN#6 indicated the resident-specific dialysis book, including the communication logs, is how the facility communicated with the specialized clinic. An interview with the DNS on 2/29/24 at 10:43 AM indicated the specialized treatment clinic does not have access to the facility's electronic medical record and relies on the documentation in the specialized treatment book. On 3/6/25 documentation was provided by the DNS on 3/6/25 identified a nursing note dated 2/16/24 which indicated Resident #20 's specialized treatment book was left at the facility during the previous specialized treatment session on 2/14/24. An interview with the DNS on 3/6/24 at 9:30 AM indicated that when the specialized treatment book does not return with the resident from the clinic, the book is returned after the subsequent specialized treatment. The DNS further indicated that the facility would not have filled out the communication log since the facility would not have had the book at that time, but that in those instances, the facility would communicate over the phone with the specialized treatment clinic if there were any issues to communicate. The DNS further indicated that a note is written in the medical record when the specialized treatment book is left at the clinic. A review of the facility's Specialized Treatment Management policy identified the facility's clinical responsibilities included ensuring daily observation and documentation of the fistula site utilizing facility-specific tools. Additionally, the policy identified that the facility would instruct the specialized center to complete the communication form to correspond with the nursing facility staff. A review of the facility's medical record documentation policy identified that documentation in the medical record should be sufficient to promote continuity of care among healthcare providers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

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 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident ...

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 2 of 5 sampled residents (Resident #70 and Resident #26) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure ongoing psychosocial support following a resident-to-resident physical altercation. The findings include: 1. Resident #70's diagnoses that included hemiplegia (weakness) and hemiparesis (paralysis) following a cerebral infarction (stroke). The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #70 as cognitively intact, required extensive two person assist with bed mobility, transfers, one person assist with locomotion on the unit using a wheelchair. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 4/11/23 identified Resident #70 had limited physical mobility and had a history of being verbally abusive and combative telling people to get out of the way so s/he can navigate the hallways. Interventions directed to provide assist of two, analyze times, places, circumstances, triggers and what de-escalates the behavior and document. 2. Resident #26 's diagnoses that included borderline personality disorder and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #26 as cognitively intact, did not express any indicators of psychosis, required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers and was independent with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair. The RCP dated 5/22/23 identified Resident #26 had a history of loud outbursts, past resident to resident physical abuse and often threw things at staff. Interventions directed to approach with two staff members for loud outbursts, call police and address behavior and inappropriateness immediately with resident. A facility Reportable Event Summary dated 6/8/23 identified on 6/1/23 at 7:40PM, Resident #70 and Resident #26 were both in the hallway trying to get by each other. Resident #70 was in a motorized wheelchair and in the process of trying to move the wheelchair Resident #70 accidentally hit Resident #26's. Resident #26 had a glass of water, in a medicine cup in h/her hand and threw it at Resident #70. No injuries were noted to either resident. The residents were separated immediately. The report noted residents will continue to be seen by medical, psych, and social services. Resident #70 and Resident #26 were educated to offer space to others when ambulating in common areas. Staff were directed to monitor for inappropriate interactions or escalation of the residents and separate as necessary or deescalate. A review of the social service progress notes dated 6/1/23 through /6/8/23 failed to identify documentation of social service support following the resident-to-resident physical altercation. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 3/04/24 at 11:35 AM identified she would expect that each resident received social service support following a resident-to-resident physical altercation. An interview with Social Worker #2 on 3/05/24 10:54 AM identified that although she was not employed at the facility at the time of the incident, the social worker was responsible for meeting with the residents for three days following the altercation with documentation following each event with each resident. A review of the Social Worker Job Description directed that ongoing psychosocial support be conducted in 72-hour meetings with the resident and ensure mistreatment allegations were properly investigated and followed up.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0790 (Tag F0790)

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, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, facility documentation, and interviews for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for dental, the facility failed to arrange dental appointment and assist with transportation timely. The findings include: Resident #7 's diagnoses included, Immuno- compromised, Stage 3 chronic kidney disease and schizophrenia. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 was cognitively intact and independent in ADL. The MDS further identified Resident #7 experiences mouth or facial pain, discomfort, or difficulty with chewing. The care plan dated 2/9/24 indicated Resident #7 has oral/dental health problems related to partially edentulous, no upper teeth. Interventions include coordinating arrangements for dental care, transportation as needed and as ordered. A physician's order dated 11/4/22 directed to monitoring pain using verbal/non-verbal cues. A nurse's note dated 2/17/24 at 10:09 AM identified Resident # 7 complained of pain to right lower back teeth. A visual inspection identified no signs of active bleeding, no swelling, resident expressed on going dental pain. A nurses note dated 2/18/24 at 12:33 PM and 9:00 PM indicated Resident #7 complained of pain to right lower back teeth, no signs of active bleeding, no swelling, resident states dental pain has been on-going. A nursing note dated 2/19/24 at 3:22PM indicated Resident #7 complained of pain to right lower back teeth, stating dental pain has been on-going. Interview with Social Worker (SW #2) on 2/26/24 at 1:35 PM indicated the receptionist or the DNS are responsible for scheduling dental appointments (due to her/his recent employment). SW#2 indicated the expectation is that attempts to schedule appointments are made within 1-2 weeks and all attempts should be documented. Interview with Receptionist #1 on 2/26/24 at 1:50 PM indicated s/he makes the appointment for all residents who were recently admitted from the hospital/ community and has services providers in the community. Receptionist #1 indicated s/he makes notes of the appointments on her/his electronic calendar revised weekly. Receptionist #1 reported March 2024 schedule has not been made yet. Receptionist #1 indicated long term care residents 'appointments are scheduled by the charge nurse or DNS and stated in house dental services are done by the facility dental vendor. Review of facilities scheduled medical appointments for the months of January and February 2024 failed to identify Resident #7 has been scheduled for a dental appointment. Interview with DNS on 2/26/24 at 3:02 PM indicated the dental vendor provides dental services. S/he also indicated that if a resident were to complain about tooth issues, they should be assessed by APRN/ MD and the practitioner is responsible for providing an update to dental vendor. Interview with DNS on 2/26/24 at 3:27PM indicated that the procedure is to inform the APRN of any changes or pain (via APRN book) reported by the resident. S/he indicated APRN was not informed. DNS is unsure why the APRN was not informed. Review of APRN notification log failed to indicate that the APRN was notified of Resident #7 dental concerns. Interview with RN #4 on 2/27/24 at 11:50 AM indicated s/he did not report the complaint to anyone. RN # 4 indicated the previous shift nurse informed her/him (RN#4) that the resident was already referred to dental. However, s/he does not recall the RN that provided the information. RN # 4 indicated Resident #7 was given Tylenol for pain. Clinical record review during the survey indicated Resident #7 was assessed by the facility dental vendor on 2/9/24 with follow up appointment for 6/23/24 for x ray and 7/1/24 for annual. After surveyor's inquiry, the facility tried to schedule Resident # 7 a sooner appointment. Policy request for dental services but was not provided.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

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 and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #248) reviewed for food quality, the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record and interviews for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #248) reviewed for food quality, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a severe seafood allergy did not receive fish during a meal. The findings include: Resident #248's diagnosis included congestive heart failure and respiratory failure. A physician's order dated 2/16/24 directing to provide an Epi-Pen 2 Pak Injectable solution (epinephrine) auto injector 0.3mg/0.3 ml inject 3 ml intramuscularly as needed for anaphylaxis. The care plan dated 2/16/24 indicated resident #248 could self-administer an Epi-pen to treat a severe or life-threatening allergic reaction with interventions that included to assist reside to secure medication after administration as needed, educate on proper storage of the drug to prevent unauthorized access and side effects of medication as needed. A nurses note dated 2/16/2024 at 6:56 PM indicated Resident #248 had an allergy to any seafood which caused an anaphylactic reaction was given an Epi-pen to have at the bedside after the demonstration of the ability to self-inject. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #248 was cognitively intact. An interview with the Director of Dietary on 2/28/24 at 1:15 PM indicated s/he interviewed staff who worked that in of the incident except [NAME] #2 who was off. Review of the meal slip for Resident #248 noted allergy to seafood on the meal slip. The Director of Dietary further indicated he/she does not keep the original paperwork sent from nursing regarding diet orders and the date the information was communicated to dietary. An interview on 2/29/2024 at 11:15 AM with Dietary aide # 2 indicated s/he was not working on 2/23/24 but when s/he return to work on 2/24/23 s/he was told by a coworker that Resident #248 was receiving fish. An interview on 2/29/2024 at 11:18 AM with the Director of Dietary identified after having learned about Resident # 248's food allergy the day before. The Director of Dietary also informed the cook about Resident #248's severe food allergy and the need to change gloves between food handling. The Dietary Director indicated s/he was not aware Resident # 248 was served fish until 2/26/2024. At which time s/he spoke to the staff who said they communicated the meal tickets, changed gloves but could not explain how Resident # 248 received fish. An interview with [NAME] #1 indicated he/she listened to the other cook who called out the food items and plated was stated. [NAME] #1 did not recall how Resident #248 received fish. Attempts to interview [NAME] #2 on 2/29/2024 at 11:25 and 11:34 AM were unsuccessful. An interview on 2/29/2024 at 11:36 Am with Dietary Aide # 1 although had not worked the tray line on 2/23/2024 at lunch time, s/he had informed the cook of the need to change gloves between plating food for Resident #248. Dietary Aide # 1 indicated later a nurse came to the door with a tray that had fish and said Resident #248 received fish, cannot have fish, and needed a new lunch tray. Dietary Aide #1 further indicated he/she did not know the name of the nurse who brought the tray to the kitchen but informed the cook about Resident #248's returned tray that had fish on the tray. The cook was made aware Resident # 248 needed a new tray and on 2/26/2024 s/he informed the Dietary Director about the incident. On 2/29/2024 at 12:02 12:04 12:06 attempts to interview staff who worked on Resident #248's unit on 2/23/2024 during the 7-3 PM shift were unsuccessful. On 2/29/2024 at 12:38 PM a telephone interview with LPN #5 (new agency nurse) identified no one reported to him/her Resident #248 had received the wrong food. On 2/29/2024 at 1:30 PM and interview via phone with the RN supervisor who worked the 7-3 PM shift on 2/23/2024, (RN# 8), indicated no one had informed him/her about a resident with a severe food allergy receiving fish on a meal tray. On 2/28/24 at 3:14 PM attempts to interview nurse aides on duty 2/23/24 7-3 shift when cod fish was served at the noon meal were unsuccessful. An interview on 3/4/24 at 12:40 PM with the Dietary Director indicated the day Resident #248 received fish the staff were reminded of the needs required for a resident who has a severe fish allergy. Although staff were informed verbally no written proof of in servicing was provided. The Dietary Director further indicated the food line process is for the staff to call out 3 meal tickets (three different residents), the first cook places the food onto the plates after it is called out from the ticket and the second cook is the one who is ultimately responsible (Cook #2) as this person checks the plated food and places the ticket on the plate. The Dietary Director further indicated that all staff except the second cook were re-in serviced(verbally) after the incident and the second cook when returned to duty on 3/1/2024 was questioned about the incident and verbally re-in serviced. The Dietary Director indicated [NAME] #2 did not know how fish got on Resident #248's tray and stated the delay in questioning [NAME] #2 about the incident was a week due to [NAME] #2 was difficult to reach by phone and was off until 3/1/2024. The facility policy labeled Food Allergies, indicated in part individuals with food allergies would be provided with safe foods and fluids and appropriate substitutions to maintain health. The policy further indicated food allergies would be identified during the resident admission process, communicated to the dietary department and the Dietary Director will be responsible to training the dietary staff on how to handle foods to avoid any inappropriate foods being served to individuals with food allergies using documentation systems including the meal identification card.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0826 (Tag F0826)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
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 review, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for non-pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions, the facility failed to ensure a complete and accurate clinical record for a resident with newly identified non- pressure wound(s). The findings include: Resident #30's diagnoses included muscle weakness and seborrheic dermatitis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 as moderately cognitively impaired, required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The resident also required one person assist with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair and had no unhealed pressure or non-pressure skin injuries. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/5/23 identified Resident #30 had the potential for skin integrity issues related to fragile skin, incontinent episodes of bowel and bladder, seborrheic dermatitis, and limited mobility. Interventions included keeping skin clean and dry, using lotion on dry scaly skin, and using caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against any sharp or hard surface. The Braden Skin assessment dated Braden 11/28/23 identified a score of 1 indicating Resident #30 was at risk for the development of pressure ulcers. The Skin Weekly Observation Tool dated 2/15/24 identified Resident # 30 had no newly identified skin integrity issues. The physician's orders dated 2/22/24 directed to cleanse the left heel with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing daily. The physician's orders dated 2/23/24 directed to cleanse the right inner ankle wound with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing daily. The clinical record failed to identify a documented assessment of the newly identified skin condition. An interview with Registered Nurse, RN #3 on 2/26/24 1:42 PM identified s/he was responsible for the identification and tracking of all pressure and non-pressure wounds. RN #3 stated Resident #30 was receiving a skin prep treatment to the left heel for a previously identified dry area. On 2/21/23 RN #3 observed the area had opened and was draining. RN #3 stated she initiated a treatment of calcium alginate to the area. RN #3 indicated s/he should have documented her assessment of the newly identified wound in the clinical record. An interview with RN #7 on 2/27/24 at 10:22 AM identified s/he was the assigned nursing supervisor who worked the 11:00PM- 7:00AM shift on 2/21/24 overnight to 2/22/24. RN #7 started during the 11:00PM- 7:00AM shift on 2/22/24 overnight to 2/23/24, s/he identified a second new skin injury to the right inner ankle. After completing and assessment, RN #7 added a second physician order of calcium alginate for the newly identified area and should have documented the assessment in the clinical record. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 3/4/24 at 11:15 AM identified s/he would expect wound assessments to be documented in the clinical record. Although a policy for maintaining complete and accurate documentation in the clinical record was requested, none was provided.
CONCERN (E)

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 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident ...

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 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions, the facility failed to ensure the physician was notified of a newly identified non-pressure skin condition(s) in a timely manner. The findings include: Resident #30 diagnoses included muscle weakness and seborrheic dermatitis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 had moderate cognitive impairment, required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, transfers, one person assist with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair and had no unhealed pressure or non-pressure skin injuries. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/5/23 identified Resident #30 had the potential for skin integrity issues related to fragile skin, incontinent episodes of bowel and bladder, seborrheic dermatitis, and limited mobility. Interventions directed to keep skin clean and dry, use lotion on dry scaly skin and use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against any sharp or hard surface. The Braden Skin assessment dated [DATE] identified a score of 1 indicating Resident #30 was at risk for the development of a pressure ulcer. The Skin Weekly Observation Tool dated 2/15/24 identified Resident # 30 had no newly identified skin integrity issues. The physician's orders dated 2/23/24 directed to cleanse the right inner ankle wound with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing. An interview with Registered Nurse, RN #3 on 2/26/24 1:42 PM identified she was responsible for the identification and tracking of all pressure and non-pressure wounds. RN #3 indicated Resident #30 was receiving a skin prep treatment to the left heel for a previously identified dry area. On 2/21/23 RN #3 observed that the area had opened and was draining. RN #3 stated she initiated a treatment of calcium alginate to the area without first notifying the physician. An interview with RN #7 on 2/27/24 at 10:22 AM identified she was the assigned nursing supervisor who worked the 11:00PM to 7:00AM shift on 2/22/24 overnight to 2/23/24 when she identified a second skin injury to the right inner ankle. RN #7 added a second physician order of calcium alginate for the newly identified area without first notifying the physician to obtain orders and indicated s/he planned to inform the RN #3 for follow up. An interview with the Wound Physician on 2/27/24 at 11:36 AM identified he was made aware of a previously dry area to the left heel and ordered skin prep. The Wound Physician stated he had not previously evaluated Resident #30, was not made previously aware of the newly identified wound and was planning on evaluating the resident after surveyor inquiry. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 3/4/24 at 11:15 AM identified she would expect nursing staff to notify the physician for a resident with a newly identified wound. The facility failed to ensure the physician was notified in a timely manner, 11 days following the identification of a newly identified non-pressure skin condition(s). A review of the facility policy for the Skin and Wound Management Program directed to notify the physician and collaborate on a treatment order.
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
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

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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 4 residents (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 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 17) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to report a fracture of unknown origin timely to the state agency. The findings include: Resident # 17's diagnoses included hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side, muscle weakness and adjustment disorder. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #17 had severely impaired cognition, noted utilized a wheelchair, and had diagnosis dementia. The care plan dated 3/22/24 identified a concern with activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit. Interventions included: to monitor Resident #17 pain during ADL tasks. A physician's order dated 4/1/24 directed nursing to monitor for hemiplegia/hemiparesis and potential signs and symptoms of complication. The nurse's note dated 4/12/24 at 11:20 AM identified Resident #17 complained of left foot pain. The nursing supervisor was notified and assessed the resident and noted mild edema, pain to touch, positive blood flow. The Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) was notified, and x-rays were ordered for the left ankle and foot. The nurse's note dated 4/12/24 at 3:10 PM identified Resident #17 was sent to the emergency room for further evaluation. An Incident Reported dated 4/15/24 at 12:00 PM identified Resident #17 complained of ankle/foot pain on 4/12/24, the APRN was notified. An x-ray identified a tibia fracture of the lower left extremity. Resident #17 was sent to the emergency room for further evaluation and was diagnosed with a tibia fracture. A review of the nurse's notes dated 4/3/24 through 4/11/24 failed to reflect any recent falls or bruises. An interview and clinical record review with the Administrator and DNS on 5/3/24 at 2:00 PM identified Resident #17 was diagnosed with pain of an unknown origin of 4/12/24. The APRN was notified and requested x-rays to be done at the bedside. The x-rays identified a tibia fracture and Resident #17 was sent to the emergency room for further evaluation on 4/12/24 at 3:10 PM. The Administrator or DNS was unable to determine the origin of Resident # 17's tibia fracture of the lower left extremity. The Administrator identified she did not think this was abuse even though the facility did not know root cause analysis of Resident #17's tibia fracture of the lower left extremity. She did not report injury of unknown origin to the state agency until 4/15/24 which was 3 days after event. The facility policy for abuse and neglect notes in part that it is the policy of the facility to assess, and document suspected or observed abuse, neglect, mistreatment, bruise of unknown origin and/or misuse of resident's property. The policy further states that an investigation will be undertaken if a bruise of unknown origin results in a serious injury and will be reported to the regulatory agency within 2 hours.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 documentation, facility policy and interviews for 1 of 10 sampl...

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 1 of 10 sampled residents (Resident #26) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was revised to reduce the risk of further physical mistreatment following a resident-to-resident physical altercation where Resident #70 was the victim. For 2 of 6 residents, (Resident #30 and #42), the facility failed to revise the care plan following a newly developed non pressure injury For Resident #43, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised in atimely manner following an allegation of abuse. The findings include: 1. Resident #26's diagnoses included borderline personality disorder and anxiety. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #26 as cognitively intact, did not express any indicators of psychosis, required one person assist with bed mobility, transfers and was independent with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair. The RCP dated 5/22/23 identified Resident #26 had a history of loud outbursts, past resident to resident physical abuse and often threw things at staff. Interventions directed to approach with two staff members for loud outbursts, call police and address behavior and inappropriateness immediately with resident. A facility Reportable Event Summary dated 6/8/23 identified on 6/1/23 at 7:40PM, Resident #70 and Resident #26 were both in the hallway trying to get by each other. Resident #26 was in an electric wheelchair and in the process of trying to move the wheelchair Resident #70 accidentally hit Resident #26's. Resident #26 had a glass of water, in a medicine cup in h/her hand and threw it at Resident #70. No injuries were noted to either resident. The residents were separated immediately and will continue to be seen by medical, psychiatry, and social services. Resident #70 and Resident #26 were educated to offer space to others when ambulating in common areas. Staff were directed to monitor for inappropriate interactions or escalation of the residents and separate as necessary or deescalate. The Resident Care Plan for Resident #26 was revised to monitor mood and behavior but failed to include interventions to reduce further risk of potential harm to another resident following the resident-to-resident incident of physical mistreatment. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DNS) on 3/04/24 at 11:35 AM identified the care plan should have been updated to reflect Resident #26's need following the resident-to-resident physical altercation. 2. Resident #30's diagnoses included muscle weakness and seborrheic dermatitis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 had moderate cognitive impairment, required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, transfers, one person assist with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair and had no unhealed pressure or non-pressure skin injuries. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/5/23 identified Resident #30 had the potential for skin integrity issues related to fragile skin, incontinent episodes of bowel and bladder, seborrheic dermatitis, and limited mobility. Interventions directed to keep skin clean and dry, use lotion on dry scaly skin and use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against any sharp or hard surface. The Skin Weekly Observation Tool dated 2/15/24 identified Resident # 30 had no newly identified skin integrity issues. The physician's orders dated 2/22/24 directed to cleanse the left heel with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing daily. The physician's orders dated 2/23/24 directed the cleanse of the right inner ankle wound with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing. An interview with Registered Nurse, RN #3 on 2/26/24 1:42 PM identified she was responsible for the identification and tracking of all pressure and non-pressure wounds. RN #3 stated Resident #30 was receiving a skin prep treatment to the left heel for a previously identified dry area. On 2/21/23 RN #3 observed that the area had opened and was draining. RN #3 stated she believed the MDS Coordinator would be responsible for the revision of the care plan but was unsure if she had communicated the information to them. An interview with RN #7 on 2/27/24 at 10:22 AM identified she was the assigned nursing supervisor who worked the 11:00PM- 7:00AM shift 11:00PM- 7:00AM shift on 2/22/24 overnight to 2/23/24 where she identified a second skin injury to the right inner ankle. RN #7 added a second physician's order of calcium alginate for the newly identified area and planned to inform the RN #3 for follow up. RN #7 indicated the MDS Coordinator or wound nurse, RN #3 would have been responsible for updating the resident care plan. An interview with the DNS on 3/4/24 11:15 AM identified she would expect the wound nurse, RN #3 to revise the care plan following the identification of a newly identified wound. A review of the facility policy for Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plan directed that the Resident Care Plan will contain information about the physical, emotional, psychological, psychosocial, spiritual, educational, and environmental needs of a resident. The comprehensive care plan will be modified between care plan conferences when appropriate to meet the resident's current needs, problems, and goals. 3. Resident #42's diagnosis included cerebral infarction and contractures of the right and left hands left knee, right and left ankles and left elbow. The care plan dated 6/27/2023 indicated in part Resident #42 had the potential for skin/tissue integrity changes due to decreased mobility, need for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's) diabetes mellitus, decreased safety awareness, multiple contractures. Interventions included monitor and document location size and treatment of skin injury following facility protocols, use caution during transfers to prevent injury to extremities, seizure pad to siderails of bed, turn and reposition as tolerated, and notify provider if no signs of improvement to wounds. The care plan further indicated Resident #42 had limited physical mobility related to weakness, Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA) and multiple contractures with interventions included monitor and report to physician signs of contractures forming or worsening skin breakdown, provide gentle range of motion as tolerated with daily care and obtain therapy referrals as ordered. A physician's order dated 10/19/2023 at 8:41AM and 8:44 AM directed to apply Right and Left upper extremity hand splints after AM care as tolerated, take off before PM care and check for skin breakdown every day and evening shift. A physician's order dated 10/19/2023 at 8:47 AM directed to apply Left upper extremity elbow splint to apply after AM care as tolerated and remove before PM care every day and evening shift and to check for skin breakdown. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #42 was rarely or never understood and had no limitation of functional range of motion to upper and lower extremities. A wound evaluation management and summary dated 2/13/2024 indicated a non-pressure wound of the left elbow due to trauma/injury was identified and a treatment of gauze island dressing with border to apply every 3 days for 30 days and recommendations to offload the wound and reposition per facility policy. Interview with OT #1 on 2/29/2024 at 10:10 AM indicated s/he was not made aware Resident #42 was not wearing an elbow splint and had a wound on the elbow and OT #1 indicated s/he would inform the Rehabilitation Director who was not available at the time. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 11:30 AM with Physical Therapy (PT #1) and After surveyor inquiry, PT 1 indicated Resident #42 would be screened for potential therapy needs and the elbow splint will be put on hold until the screen is completed. An interview and record review with the DNS on 2/27/2024 at 12:55 PM indicated the care plan was not updated when the left elbow wound reopened, and the care plan did not have hand or elbow splints as ordered. The DNS further indicated The MDS nurse who work the evening shift was responsible for updating care plans. An interview with the wound nurse LPN#3 and interview and record review with the DNS on 2/28/2024 at 11:15 AM identified an intervention to offload the elbow was in place prior to the reopening of the left elbow wound but the care plan was not updated after the elbow wound reopened. LPN#3 indicated care plans are now being reviewed. After surveyor inquiry, the Left elbow splint order was discontinued on 2/27/2024 at 10:37 AM due to left elbow wound. On 2/28/2024 at 8:47 AM the Left upper extremity hand splint was discontinued and on 2/28/2024 at 8:48 AM the Right upper extremity hand splint was discontinued. On 3/4/3034 at 1:30 PM with the DNS indicated the care plan did not mention any prevention in place regarding self-rubbing of the elbow causing injury and offloading was not in the care plan and both would be added. The facility policy labeled Skin and Wound Management Program indicated in part the Interdisciplinary team develops an individualized care plan to prevent or treat skin breakdown. 4. Resident #43's diagnosis included depressive episodes and dementia. Resident #43 was admitted on [DATE] to the facility. Resident #43's admit/Readmit Screener 1.1-V 5 dated 12/2/2022 indicated Resident #43 was verbally appropriate, had adequate hearing and adequate vision with glasses. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated 12/6/2024 indicated Resident #43 had mild cognitive impairment. The baseline care plan from admission with no date of completion, indicated in part Resident #43 was admitted with depression, dementia and was sad/crying. The facility Reportable Event form dated 12/8/22 at 9:20 AM indicated Resident #43 alleged Resident #250 came to the door of the resident room and verbally threatened to cause sexual harm. Interview and record review on 3/4/2024 at 1:30 PM with the DNS indicated the care plan was not updated until 1/7/2023 (30 days after the incident of 12/8/22) and s/he did not know why it was not updated timely.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
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 documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that foods were stored and prepared under sanitary conditions. The findings included: During tour and observ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, facility documentation and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that foods were stored and prepared under sanitary conditions. The findings included: During tour and observation of the kitchen with the [NAME] #2 on 2/25/24 at 10:20 AM revealed the following: 1. Tray with clean coffee mugs to be used for lunch was on the counter next to the hand washing sink and above the sink divider. Above the tray with cups was a single electric outlet covered with dust and caked in dirt. The wall behind the electrical outlet was dirty and damaged with a hole above the outlet. The conduit was rusty, with marred and/or chipped paint and with grime or dust. There was a rust-colored liquid dripping on the conduit. On the side of the sink and above the conduit was a soap dispenser that was dripping down after use. The hand sink had dry grime on the upper part and soiled wet cloth was stored on the side. Cook #2 identified at the time of observation that coffee mugs should be stored away from the handwashing sink to prevent any possible splatter. 2. The metal shelves storing spices and plastic white buckets with flower and thickener had buildup of grime and debris. The white buckets had dried dark spills and smears on them. 3. The tile floor along the walls was dirty with debris, food crumbs and other unrecognizable particles with dry dark patches of dirt. There were multiple mice and insect glue traps in the corners of the kitchen floor. 4. The initial tour of the kitchen also identified inside the three-door refrigerator there were 28 plastic cups with facility prepared pudding, plastic container with canned fruit that was covered with plastic wrap and three glasses of orange juice nectar covered with plastic wrap. None of the items were labeled to indicate the day they were prepared or their expiration date. The outside of the three-door refrigerator had a sign All items must be dated and labeled, no personal items. 5. Inside the walk-in freezer on the shelves were two packages of hamburger patties, three bags with cooked pasta and a blue unsealed plastic bag with cut mixed vegetables that were not labeled or dated. Further observation identified large open plastic bags with sliced croissants that were not labeled or dated and exposed to the air. There was a metal container with aluminum wrap cover labeled chilly and dated 2/5/24 but the aluminum wrap was ripped, and the chili was also exposed to the air. An interview with [NAME] #2, at the time of observation identified s/he expected all open food items to be sealed, labeled, and dated and explained that staff was aware of the expectation. [NAME] #2 identified that s/he will dispose of all food items that were not dated and/or not sealed correctly. A further interview identified that the evening shift employees were responsible for cleaning the floor and the inside of the kitchen. Interview with Dietary Director on 2/26/24 at 3:00 PM identified, although cleaning schedule was implemented, the kitchen was not cleaned as it should have been, and s/he will update the cleaning schedule to be more specific in what needs to be cleaned and how. The Dietary Director further identified that dietary staff will be reeducated on labeling and storing food items safely and it was the expectation that food will be dated when opened. Interview with the Administrator on 2/26/24 at 3:19 PM identified dietary staff will receive ongoing education related to cleaning, labeling food, safe food storage, and weekly audits will be conducted including weekends. Facility Food Storage policy revised 12/1/23 directed refrigerated, ready-to-eat, potentially hazardous food opened or prepared shall be clearly marked at the time of preparation to include the date opened. Facility Infection Control for Dietary Staff policy revised 12/1/24 directed staff must follow specific policies and practices for preparing and storing food; cleaning equipment and surfaces; washing, sanitizing, and handling utensils; silverware and tableware.
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

Social Worker (Tag F0850)

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 and interviews for 4 of 5 residents, (Resident 23, #28, #49 and #498) r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation and interviews for 4 of 5 residents, (Resident 23, #28, #49 and #498) reviewed for quarterly social service review, the facility failed to conduct quarterly social service visits timely. The findings include: 1. Resident #23 ' s diagnoses included Respiratory Failure, Essential Hypertension, and Alcoholic Cirrhosis of liver with ascites. A physician's order dated 9/25/21 directed to monitor symptoms and signs such as malaise, dizziness, diarrhea, sore throat, oxygen desaturation, loss of appetite, or mental status changes. Particular attention should be made to identify sudden changes in behavior and temperature greater than 100 degrees F every day/shift. The Resident Care Plan dated 10/22/21 with a revision date of 5/3/22 identified Resident #23 had a BIMS less than 13. Interventions included social services to provide emotional support, assessment, and intervention as needed. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #23 as moderately cognitively impaired and required moderate assistance for bathing, set up assistance for dressing, and eating. A Psychiatric Evaluation note dated 3/3/22 identified Resident #23 would benefit from continued behavioral health services. Additionally identified Resident #23 was referred for a psychiatric evaluation after an altercation with his/her roommate. Review of the clinical record for the time frame 2/1/22 through 4/1/22 failed to identify that quarterly social services reviews had been conducted by social services. 2. Resident #28 ' s diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes mellitus, anemia, and schizophrenia. The Resident Care Plan dated 10/15/21 identified Resident #28 had a psychosocial well-being problem related to schizophrenia. Interventions included consultation with pastoral care, and social services. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #28 was severely cognitively impaired and required set up assistance for eating, oral hygiene, and toileting. A physician's order dated 2/23/22 directed to monitor and document behaviors each shift. A psychiatric evaluation and consultations notes dated 2/26/22, 3/11/22 and 3/14/22 indicated Resident #28 would benefit from ongoing behavioral health services. Review of the clinical record for the time frame 2/1/22 through 4/30/22 identified no quarterly social service review from social services. 3. Resident #49's diagnoses included Cerebral Infarction, vascular dementia, and anxiety disorder. The Resident Care Plan dated 11/5/21 identified Resident #49 had psychiatric medications due to dementia. Interventions included social services to provide support, assessment, and interventions as needed. Further the care plan identified Resident #49 had a diagnosis of vascular dementia. Interventions included social service to provide support, assessment, and interventions as needed. A physician's order dated 11/10/21 directed behavior monitoring and to document number of episodes per shift for behavior #1, pacing. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #49 was severely cognitively impaired and did not require any assistance with personal hygiene, dressing, or bathing. A Psychiatric Evaluation and Consultation notes dated 2/18/22 and 3/21/22 identified Resident #49 would benefit from ongoing behavioral health services. Review of the clinical record for the time frame 2/1/22 through 4/30/22 identified there was no quarterly review from social services. 4. Resident #498 ' s diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes mellitus, anemia, and hypertension. A physician's order dated 1/19/21 identified Resident #498 as independent with ambulation, transfers, and all ADL. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #498 was cognitively intact and was independent with eating, toileting, and bathing. The Resident Care plan dated 5/3/22 identified Resident #498 had discharge potential. Interventions included nursing, case management, social services, and Rehabilitation would discuss progress and discharge plan weekly and as needed. A psychiatric Evaluation and Consultation note dated 2/24/22 identified Resident #49 would benefit from ongoing behavioral health services. Review of the clinical record for the time frame 2/1/22 through 4/30/22 identified there was no quarterly social service review from social services. In an interview with Administrator on 2/27/2024 at 12:45 PM, the clinical record failed to reflect evidence of quarterly social service notes for Residents #23, #28, #49 and #498. Additionally, the Administrator identified that there was a vacancy for the Social Worker position during this time frame as Social Worker #3 resigned. The Administrator stated that they were using a nurse who was enrolled in a social worker program and was interning with the facility during the time of 2/1/22 through 4/18/22. Social Worker #3 was providing supervision to the intern until his/her resignation in February 2022. Further the Administrator asked, Supportive Care, which is the facilities, Behavioral Health provider, to be on site more frequently.
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 observation, interview, and review of facility policy for 1 of 3 bathrooms, the facility failed to ensure resident care...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of facility policy for 1 of 3 bathrooms, the facility failed to ensure resident care equipment was stored in a sanitary manner according to infection control practices and for 1 of 6 sampled residents (Resident #30) reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions, the facility failed to ensure wound care was performed in accordance with infection control standards regarding hand hygiene. The findings included: 1. Observation on 2/25/24 at 11:29 AM of resident's bathroom of rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] on North Wing identified two sets of gray color wash basins stacked on top of each other and stored on the floor under the sink by to the garbage container. One wash basin had a small amount of soapy liquid. All four wash basins were uncovered and without resident name. Further observation identified a grey color bedpan stored on the floor by the toilet. The bedpan had some light color dried debris inside, was uncovered and without resident name on it. Four residents shared this bathroom. Interview and observation with NA #2 on 2/25/24 at 11:35 AM identified resident's wash basins and bedpans should be labeled and stored in a protective bag in each resident's nightstand at the bedside. NA #2 immediately removed all four wash basins and bedpan out of the residents' bathroom. Interview with the Administrator on 2/26/24 at 2:30 PM identified the wash basins and bedpan were improperly stored. The Administrator further identified that all nurse aides had previously been educated about the proper storage of resident personal care items. Review of the facility policy for Bedpans and Urinals Cleaning dated 12/1/23 identified to prevent contamination and spread of infection the resident's name and room number is to be placed on their bedpan/urinal. After cleaning bedpan/urinal is to be placed on paper towel, allow to air dry then, cover and return to resident's bedside cabinet (bottom shelf). 2. Resident #30's diagnoses that included muscle weakness and seborrheic dermatitis. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #30 had moderate cognitive impairment, required partial to moderate assistance with bed mobility, transfers, one person assist with locomotion with the use of a wheelchair and had no unhealed pressure or non-pressure skin injuries. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 11/5/23 identified Resident #30 had the potential for skin integrity issues related to fragile skin, incontinent episodes of bowel and bladder, seborrheic dermatitis, and limited mobility. Interventions directed to keep skin clean and dry, use lotion on dry scaly skin and use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against any sharp or hard surface. The Braden Skin assessment dated [DATE] identified a score of 1 indicating Resident #30 was at risk for the development of a pressure ulcer. The Skin Weekly Observation Tool dated 2/15/24 identified Resident # 30 had no newly identified skin integrity issues. The physician's orders dated 2/22/24 directed to cleanse the left heel with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing daily. The physician's orders dated 2/23/24 directed to cleanse the right inner ankle wound with normal saline and apply calcium alginate followed by a dry clean dressing. An observation on 2/26/24 at 3:10 PM identified Registered Nurse, RN #3 attempted to place calcium alginate on the right inner ankle wound after cleansing with it normal saline without first doffing soiled gloves used to cleanse the wound, perform hand hygiene, and don a clean pair of gloves. An interview with RN #3 on 2/26/24 at 3:10 PM identified she forgot to doff the soiled gloves after cleansing the wound as she was nervous. RN #3 subsequently doffed the soiled gloves, performed hand hygiene, and donned a clean pair of gloves before completing the wound care task. A review of the facility policy for Infection Control Hand Hygiene directed the facility to perform hand hygiene after contact with a resident's mucous membranes or body fluids or excretions.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · 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 3 of 3 residents (Residents # 7, 22...

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 3 of 3 residents (Residents # 7, 22 and 78) reviewed for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ( PASRR) and for 1 of 3 residents (Resident # 59) reviewed for pressure ulcers, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment. The findings included: 1. Resident #7's diagnoses included schizophrenia, immune-compromised and Stage 3 chronic kidney disease. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #7 was cognitively intact and is independent in ADLs areas. MDS additionally indicated Resident #7 does not require a PASRR II (this signifies resident does not have a serious mental health diagnosis) The care plan dated 11/9/23 identified Resident #7 as at risk of potentially causing harm to him/herself and others. Interventions included monitoring signs and symptoms of agitation. Review of facility documentation indicated Resident # 7 had a PASRR Level II assessment with a determination date of 10/25/23. A physician's order dated 11/4/22 directed to monitor daily behaviors. The nursing notes from 2/2/24 through 2/22/24 indicated Resident #7 daily behaviors were being assessed. The social service note dated 2/11/24 at 10:05 AM indicated the resident is receiving supportive psychotherapy to assist with reducing behaviors. 2. Resident #22 's diagnoses included schizophrenia, Acute Kidney Failure and Hypoxemia. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #22 as moderately cognitively impaired. Requiring one person to assist with bed mobility, transfers, eating and toileting. The MDS did not have a section identifying residents' need for PASRR level II. Resident #22 annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified No that resident is not currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. The care plan dated 1/25/24 identified Resident # 22 as Level II in Ascend due to diagnosis of schizophrenia. Interventions included monitoring/documenting resident's feelings relative to isolation, unhappiness, anger, and loss. A physician's order dated 9/6/23 directed to monitor behaviors and document in progress notes. The nurse's notes between 2/1/24 through 2/26/24 indicated sporadic documentation Resident # 22 behaviors in progress notes. 3. Resident #78 's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder, depression, and acute Kidney failure. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #78 was cognitvely intact and is independent in bed mobility, transfers and eating. The MDS additional identified No that resident is not currently considered by the state level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition. The care plan dated 12/19/23 identified Resident #78 has mood problems related to history of schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. Interventions included behavioral health consults as needed through Supportive Care Psychological Service and to provide education regarding expectations of treatment, concerns with side effects and potential adverse effects, evaluation, maintenance. A physician's order dated 5/22/23 directed to monitor behaviors and document number of episodes per shift of target behavior. Additionally, to specify the type of behaviors. The nurse's progress notes reviewed from 12/2023 through 2/2024 failed to identify staff were documenting behaviors. Treatment Administration Record (ARD) records reviewed for 2/24 failed to identify behaviors were documented. Interview with the Administrator on 2/26/24 at 1:14 PM related to Residents #7,22 and 78 indicated the MDS Coordinator or/ Social Workers are responsible to ensuring the information is correctly coded on the MDS. The Administrator indicated she is unsure why this was not done and indicated training will be done. Interview with RN #5 on 2/27/24 at 9:50 indicated that the No PASRR II was a coding error for Residents #7, 22 and 78. Facility failed to provide requested policy. 4. Resident #59's diagnosis includes a pressure ulcer of the left lower back, stage 4 (Full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon, or muscle). The Wound Evaluation and Management Summary form dated 9/7/2023 indicated in part the identification of wound #7 as an unstageable deep tissue injury (DTI) of the left lower back full thickness, 18.4 Centimeter (CM) long x 1.2 CM wide x 0.3 CM deep with 80 % viable tissue the unstageable DTI was within and around the wound. With leaking of cerebrospinal fluid from the wound. The Discharge Tracking Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #59 did not have one or more pressure ulcers/injuries. The Entry Tracking Record MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident #59 returned to the facility on 9/19/2023. The hospital discharge paperwork dated 9/20/2023 at 9:49 AM indicated Resident #59 had a Computed Tomography (CT) scan that indicated hardware from previous lumbar spinal surgery had failed and Resident #59 was not a candidate for further spinal surgery. The resident was treated for infection of this prior surgical wound. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] indicated Resident #59 was at risk for developing a pressure ulcer and had no pressure ulcers but had a surgical wound. The Wound Evaluation and Management Summary dated 10/4/2023 indicated wound #7 an Unstageable Deep tissue injury of the left lower back full thickness, 18.4 CM long x 1.2 CM wide and 0.3 CM deep, 20% slough tissue, with the unstageable DTI within and around the wound. The Wound Evaluation and management summary dated 10/10/2023 indicated wound #7 as an Unstageable pressure ulcer of the left lower back full thickness due to necrosis. The Wound evaluation and management summary dated 10/24/2023 indicated wound #7 of the left lower back is a stage 4 pressure ulcer, 12 CM long 1.2 CM wide and 0.8 CM deep with 30 percent granulation tissue. The Significant Change MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #59 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer present on admission even though Resident #59 had remained in the facility since readmission on [DATE]. On 2/28/24 at 10:52 AM review of the clinical record and interview with the DNS identified on 9/7/2023 by the wound physician, Medical Doctor (MD) #2 the wound area was an unstageable pressure ulcer, the resident was sent to the hospital and returned with a facility acquired pressure ulcer not community acquired. An interview with MD #2 on 2/28/2024 at 12:49 PM indicated the hardware inside the open wound was pressing on the surrounding tissue inside the wound after taking into consideration the appearance of the wound and how Resident #59 sat and lie in relation to the wound made the determination of an Unstageable Deep Tissue Injury (DTI, pressure ulcer). On 2/28/2024 at 1:54 PM an interview and review of the clinical record via phone with RN#2 indicated on 9/7/2023 the wound MD determined there was a Deep Tissue Injury and the Discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE] was incorrectly coded and should have indicated Resident #59 had one or more pressure ulcers/injures, facility acquired .After surveyor inquiry, RN # 2 indicated the facility would modify the MDS assessment to reflect the correct information. RN#2 further indicated the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] was coded incorrectly not reflecting the resident accurately and should have coded a pressure ulcer was present, the number of pressure ulcers at each stage and not present on admission.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, facility documentation review, facility policy review and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse, the facility failed to ensure staff transferred the resident in accordance with the plan of care. The findings include: Resident #1's diagnoses included cerebral infarction, dementia, adult failure to thrive, anxiety disorder, and disorders of bone density and structure. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive assistance of two (2) staff for transfers. The Resident Care Plan (RCP) dated 2/5/2023 identified Resident #1 had a self-care deficit related to weakness, dementia, history of subdural hematoma, seizure disorder, failure to thrive, weakness, and cerebral infarction. Interventions directed to transfer resident by a Hoyer lift with assist of two (2) staff. A nursing note written by the DNS dated 4/7/2023 at 11:56 PM identified the DNS was requested to see Resident #1 related to complaints of left leg pain. The note indicated swelling of the left knee, the leg was rotated out, and Resident #1 was unable to move the leg. Resident #1 indicated it happened when he/she was transferred into bed. New orders were obtained for an x-ray. Review of the Radiology Result Report dated 4/8/2023 at 4:37 AM identified Resident #1 had a fracture involving the left distal femur with no displacement identified. Review of the hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] identified x-ray results indicated a left acute, mildly displaced fracture of the left inferior pubic ramus (part of the pelvic bones), and a slightly angulated fracture of the distal femoral metaphysis with marked osteopenia (bone loss). Resident #1 was seen by orthopedics, and recommendations for non-weight bearing of the left leg with use of a knee immobilizer, and to follow up with orthopedic physician in one (1) week. Directions further included to administer Lovenox (blood thinner) 40 mg daily for six (6) weeks. Interview with NA #1 on 4/25/2023 at 10:10 AM identified on 4/7/2023, Resident #1 requested to be transferred back into bed. NA #1 indicated he went to find additional help to assist with the Hoyer transfer, but all staff on the unit were busy. NA #1 identified although he knew he should have two (2) staff for the transfer, he decided to transfer Resident #1 via the Hoyer lift by himself, so the resident to not have to wait any longer. NA #1 indicated Resident #1 was slouched in the wheelchair, he straightened the resident first and then performed the Hoyer lift transfer with no issues or concerns noted. Once Resident #1 was in bed, he/she complained of left knee pain. NA #1 immediately notified the nurse. NA #1 identified a Hoyer lift transfer is performed with two (2) people and he should have waited for another staff member to assist with the resident transfer. Interview with Resident #1 on 4/25/2023 at 11:45 AM identified his/her leg bumped into the side of the bed during the transfer on 4/7/2023 by NA #1. Interview with MD #1 on 4/25/2023 at 12:25 PM identified they type of fracture Resident #1 experienced could be caused by trauma. Interview with DNS on 4/25/2023 at 2:00 PM identified two (2) staff are required for Hoyer lift transfers, and upon assessing Resident #1 on 4/7/2023 his/her left knee was swollen, and the leg was externally rotated. The DNS indicated NA #1 did not follow Resident #1's plan of care for transfers, and performed a Hoyer lift transfer by himself. The DNS indicated she expected staff to follow resident's plan of care, and indicated NA #1 should have waited for additional assistance prior to transferring Resident #1. DNS identified NA #1 and all staff have received education regarding Hoyer lift transfers and audits were initiated. Review of the Care Plan Policy directed in part, the care plan will describe the services that are to be furnished (to the resident) to attain or maintain the resident's highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and any services that would otherwise be required but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of rights, including the right to refuse treatment.
Dec 2021 5 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 reviews, facility policy and interviews for one of three residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #34...

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 of three residents reviewed for accidents (Resident #341) failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care for the resident's Leave of Absence (LOA) and for one of three residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (Resident #11), the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan consistent with resident's participation in treatment. The findings included: 1.Resident #341 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included viral meningitis and hearing loss. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified the resident as cognitively intact, clear speech, without behaviors. and independent for all activities of daily living. The physician's admission orders dated 10/29/21 directed (resident) may go independent Leave of Absence (LOA). A second physician's order dated 10/29/21 directed (resident) may go on LOA with wife or son for three hours. The nurse's progress notes dated 10/31/21 at 12:20 P.M. identified in part Resident #341 was accidentally let out of the facility by Nurse Aide (NA#4) who mistaken the resident as a visitor when he/she approached NA#4 for help. The resident was escorted back into the facility unharmed. On 12/3/21 at 9:25 A.M. an interview and review of the clinical record with Medical Doctor (MD#1) indicated the resident was cognitively aware and capable of going out on a leave of absence (LOA) independently. On 12/3/21 at 1:30 P.M. an interview and review of the clinical record with the DNS in the presence of the Administrator lacked documentation to reflect a plan of care with intervention related to the resident's LOA status. The DNS indicated at the time that she would have expected the resident to have a plan of care with interventions to address the resident's LOA status. 2. Resident #11 had diagnoses that included cerebral infarction, dementia without behavioral disturbance, chronic kidney disease and myocardial infarction. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #11 had moderate cognitive impairment and was limited assistance of one-person physical support for transfers. Resident #11 was exhibited no behaviors related to rejection of care. Observations on 11/30, 12/01, 12/02 and 12/6/21 during the 7:00AM to 3:00PM, Resident #11 remained in bed without the benefit of getting up into a wheelchair. A review of the resident's care plans in the clinical record on 12/6/21 failed to identify a care plan that addressed the resident's refusal to get out of bed. Interview with NA #3 on 12/6/21 at 1:15 PM identified Resident #11 refused to get out of bed today. NA #3 who frequently provide care to Resident #11 indicated Resident # 11 refuses most times to get out of bed. NA #3 identified it's the NA's responsibility to document the refusal in electronic health records and notify the RN. Medical record review of the Transfer: Self Performance documentation in the electronic health records on 12/6/21 at 1:30 PM identified in the last 30 days, out of 75 opportunities, 1/75 opportunities the facility documented the resident refused. Additionally, medical record review of the Transfer: Support Provided identified in the last 30 days, out of 78 opportunities, 1/78 opportunities documentation the resident refused. Subsequent to surveyor inquiry and medical record review of the Transfer: Self Performance and Transfer: Support Provided documentation in the electronic health records on 12/6/21 at 2:25 PM identified resident refused dated 12/6/21 at 1:10 PM. Interview with RN #5 on 12/06/21 at 2:30PM identified the Resident #11 refuses frequently to get out of bed. Resident #11 refuse to get out of bed during family visits, even if the family encourages the resident themselves. Documentation of refusal should be performed by NA's in the electronic health records. Interview and medical record review with DNS on 12/6/21 at 7:45 PM identified Resident #11 has a care plan for refusal of weights but was unable to verify refusal of ADL's which would include getting out of bed. DNS believes that when the NA's are charting non-Applicable, they might mean refuse instead. DNS identified Resident #11 is known to refuse to get out of bed on numerous occasions including when family visits. DNS identified she will include a care plan to identify refusal of ADL care and to include getting out of bed. Review of the care plan policy identified the facility will develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The care plan will describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and any services that would otherwise be required but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of rights, including the right to refuse treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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, review of facility policy and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #3) review...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and interviews for one of three residents (Resident #3) reviewed for ADL, the facility failed to provide care per resident's preferences. The findings include: Resident #3's diagnoses included cerebral infarction, sickle-cell, hemiplegia and hemiparesis and paralytic syndrome. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with two or more people for physical assist and the resident was identified to have a tracheostomy. The care plan identified 11/2021 identified the resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit related to bedfast, deteriorating physical condition, limited mobility and stroke. Resident requires caregiver to be able to assist resident to perform grooming, dressing and bathing. Interventions include resident in dependent on staff for foley care and ostomy management. Wheelchair positioning plan 24 hours. Out of bed to specialized wheelchair after AM care as tolerated and in wheelchair and back to bed prior to PM care. Monitor resident's pain during ADL tasks. Provide medication per physician's order as needed. Resident requires total assistance with all ADL, bed mobility, positioning, personal hygiene, dressing, bathing and mouth care. Assist with frequent position change. Interview with Person #1 on 11/30/21 at 2:10 PM identified Resident #3 is not being turn and repositioned timely on many occasions. Person #1 identified s/he can't always be at the facility to be with Resident #3 but does have a video camera in place and identified he/she has evidence displaying multiple incidences of the resident not being turned and repositioned, one example noting up to 14 hours total where Resident #3 was not identified to be turn or repositioned. Review of the Resident Care Card on 11/30/21 at 2:45 PM identified Resident #3 had bilateral arm and leg paralysis and was a turn and reposition every 2 hours with an assist of 2 people. Interview and photo record review with Person #1 on 12/05/21 at 2:25 PM identified on 12/3/21, Resident #3 was not turned or repositioned for a total of 7 hours and 48 minutes. Review of the photos identified the following: a. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 6:27 AM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears to be parallel with bed. A pillow under each arm identified. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face. b. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 8:09 AM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears unchanged from 6:27 AM. Pillows under each arm remain unchanged. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face remains unchanged c. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 8:46 AM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears unchanged from 8:09 AM. Pillows under each arm remain unchanged. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face remains unchanged. d. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 9:01 AM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears unchanged from 8:46 AM. Pillows under each arm remain unchanged. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face remains unchanged. e. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 11:39 AM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears unchanged from 9:01 AM. Pillows under each arm remain unchanged. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face remains unchanged. f. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 1:32 PM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears unchanged from 11:39 AM. Pillows under each arm remain unchanged. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face remains unchanged. g. Photo dated 12/3/21 at 2:15 PM, Resident #3 identified to be positioned on his/her back. Body alignment appears unchanged from 1:32 PM. Pillows under each arm remain unchanged. Television positioned approximately 1 foot away from resident's face remains unchanged. Person #1 identified on 12/3/21 after 2:15 PM, Resident #3 was changed and repositioned. Interview with NA #2 on 12/6/21 at 10:30 AM identified she was working as a float on 12/3/21 during the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift and indicated s/he came in after 11:00 AM to cover. NA #2 identified Resident #3 was changed, turned and repositioned prior to the end of the shift, but believes resident was turned twice. NA #2 was unable to verify approximately what other time during 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift that Resident #3 may have been turned or repositioned. Interview with NA #1 on 12/6/21 at 11:15 AM identified for Resident #3, (Person #1) requests staff to keep resident mainly on his/her back for increased comfort. NA #1 states Resident #3 may cry out if he/she's uncomfortable. NA #1 identified she was working on the night shift from 12/2/21 at 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM on 12/3/21, but also worked an additional 4 hours from 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM on 12/3/21. NA #2 identified she was unable to verify what time(s) she turned or repositioned Resident #3, but believes she performed the task prior to leaving at 11:00 AM. Observations on 12/6/21 during the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift identified the following: a. At 9:48 AM, Resident #3 was identified in bed and positioned on his/her back with the head of bed above 45 degrees. b. At 10:39 AM, Resident #3's position remained unchanged from 9:48 AM. c. At 11:53 AM, Resident #3's position remained unchanged from 10:39 AM. d. At 12:15 AM, Resident #3's position remained unchanged from 11:53 AM. e. At 1:00 PM, NA #3 was observed exiting resident's room while performing hand hygiene. Resident #3 was identified to be positioned on his/her left side. Interview with NA #3 on 12/6/21 at 2:30 PM identified that she and staff have been turning Resident #3 every two hours per plan of care. Interview with DNS on 12/6/21 at 7:35 PM identified her expectation for staff to provide ADL assistance to all resident's and including turn and repositioning accordingly to resident's plan of care. Review of the Turning and Positioning Policy identified residents that are bedfast or cannot ambulate and or wheelchair bound will benefit from turning and positioning. Turning and positioning will be achieved by assist of staff and or alternating pressure relieving device. Staff will assist in maintaining good body alignment and proper positioning of bedfast or wheelchair bound residents. Staff will encourage and or assist residents to change positions at dictated by their plan of care to stimulate circulation and prevent decubitus and deformities.
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 clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interviews for one resident (Resident #3) reviewed for res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, review of facility documentation and interviews for one resident (Resident #3) reviewed for respiratory care, the facility failed obtain active physician's order for the resident's tracheostomy. The findings include: Resident #3's diagnoses included cerebral infarction, sickle-cell, hemiplegia and hemiparesis and paralytic syndrome. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #3 was severely cognitively impaired and required extensive assistance with two or more people for physical assist and indicated the resident was noted utilizing a tracheostomy. The hospitalization Intra- Agency Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 12:30PM identified Resident #3's tracheostomy was originally a #8 Shiley but was subsequently changed at the hospital to a #7 Portex. Interview with RN #2 on 11/30/21 at 11:30AM identified she was unable to verify the size and type of the tracheostomy. RN #2 identified RN #4 would know the correct size and type. Interview with RN #4 on 11/30/21 at 11:35AM identified she was unable to verify the size and type of tracheostomy. RN #4 identified the RN #5 would know the correct size and type. Interview with RN #5 on 11/30/21 at 11:40AM identified Resident #3's tracheostomy was a #7 Portex. Resident #3 was originally a #8 Shiley, but it was changed during the past hospitalization almost two weeks ago. Review of physician's order with RN #2, RN #4 And RN #5 on 11/30/21 at 11:45AM identified no order in place for tracheostomy size or type. A discontinued order on 10/14/20 for Resident #3 identified an order for Trach Type: [NAME], Trach Size: 8. Subsequently to surveyor inquiry, review of physician's orders identified an active order on 11/30/21 for Trach: Portex Size 7. 7PBL Cuff deflated with subglottic.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy review and interviews for one of three nursing units ( South Unit) review of the Controlled Drug Count Record Sheet (CDCRS) for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility documentation, facility policy review and interviews for one of three nursing units ( South Unit) review of the Controlled Drug Count Record Sheet (CDCRS) for reconciliation, the facility failed to consistently reconcile or sign off on the CDCRS for controlled medications every shift. The findings included: Observation by the surveyor on 12/1/2021 at 8:15 AM on the South Unit during medication administration by RN #1 identified after RN # 1 signed out a narcotic. Surveyor reviewed of the Controlled Drug -Count Record Sheet, for November 2021 identified 2 out of 28 occasions where the licensed staff nurses failed to sign or initial the Controlled Drug Count Record as an oncoming or an off going nurse. Further observation of the December 1, 2021, Controlled Drug -Count Record Sheet with RN #1 identified a blank space for count for 11-7 A.M. shift. RN #1 indicated she forgot to sign and immediately initial the 11-7 AM 12/1/21 Controlled Drug -Count Record Sheet. Interview with RN #1 on 12/1/21 at 8:25 AM identified that she always signs the Narcotic Book after counting with the off going nurse and again later when she is leaving her shift. Subsequent to inquiry, the Administrator on 12/1/21 indicated that she has scheduled an education in-service for the nurses to review procedure for signing the Controlled Drug-Count Record. A review of the facility Policy titled Control Substance Policy notes in part in paragraph three titled Change of Shift Verification-Narcotic Count the following: At the change of shift, the on-coming and out-going staff person jointly count all controlled medications, including discontinued or expired medications awaiting destruction. The out-going staff person will read the Individual Resident's Narcotic Record book pages while the on-coming person examines the containers of controlled medications and record count. In the event a staff person is working two consecutive shifts, the staff person would sign at the normal change of shift time for both shifts worked.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #60 and Resident #89) reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility policy and interviews for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #60 and Resident #89) reviewed for Resident Assessment, the facility failed to accurately reflect the resident's status on the assessment. The findings included: 1.Resident #89's diagnoses included urinary tract infection, major depressive disorder, diabetes mellitus type II and malignant neoplasm of prostate. The physician's order dated 5/02/18, with an end date identified on 5/10/18 directed Resident #89 to receive Lantus Solution 100 Unit/mL. Inject 20 units subcutaneously in the evening related to diabetes mellitus. The physician's order dated 5/10/18, with an end date identified on 5/24/18 directed Resident #89 to receive Lantus Solution 100 Unit/mL. Inject 10 units subcutaneously at bedtime related to diabetes mellitus. Resident # 89 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. The 5-day MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident # 89 received insulin during the last 7 days. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #89 received insulin during the last 7 days. Review of the facility matrix on 11/30/21 at 2:00PM identified Resident #89 was on insulin. Interview with RN #6 on 12/06/21 at 2:30 PM identified Resident #89 was not on insulin and indicated the insulin was documented on quarterly MDS assessment in error. RN #6 identified she would correct the mistake and ensure future accuracy. 2. Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included non-displaced fracture of cervical vertebra and multiple fractures related to an MVA. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #60 received an anticoagulant during the last 7 days. Review of the facility matrix on 11/30/21 at 2:00 PM identified Resident #60 was on an anticoagulant. The physician's order dated 7/24/21, with an end date identified on 9/22/21directed Resident #60 to receive Enoxaparin Sodium 30mg/0.3mL. Inject 30mg subcutaneously two times a day for DVT prophylaxis for 60 days. Review of the resident's care plan on 12/02/21 at 1:40 PM identified no active or discontinued care plan related to anticoagulant usage Interview with DNS on 12/06/21 at 5:15PM identified the matrix was incorrect and s/he will change to the correct identifications. DNS identified the expectation of MDS coding is to ensure the assessment is completed accurately. Review of the MDS Submission Policy identified the facility follows the RAI Manual.
Jul 2019 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and review of facility documentation for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for dining (Resident #1), th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and review of facility documentation for 1 of 7 residents reviewed for dining (Resident #1), the facility failed to ensure a dignified dining experience. The findings include: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included functional quadriplegia and legal blindness. Physician's orders dated 6/19/19 directed regular texture diet, no added salt, plastic utensils on food tray. The quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #1 had severe cognitive impairment, required limited assistance of one staff for eating, and did not have a mechanically altered diet. The resident care plan dated 7/2/19 identified an activity of daily living deficit in self-care with interventions that included that Resident #1 required staff participation to eat. Observation in the Recreation Area used for dining on 7/9/19 at 12:36 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 identified the Recreation Director feeding Resident #1 while standing for approximately 9 minutes. Observation and interview with RN #1 on 7/9/19 at 12:45 PM identified that the staff should not be feeding residents while standing up, RN #1 asked the Recreation Director to sit while feeding residents. Interview with the Recreation Director on 7/9/19 at 1:38 PM identified that he/she had been assisting to feed residents for about 7 years, was not a certified Nurse Aide and had not been educated regarding how to assist with feeding, was not told prior to today to sit when feeding or given any other training about feeding. Interview with the DNS on 7/9/19 at 2:00 PM identified that the Recreation Director was trained regarding feeding, the DNS will ensure and reeducate. The DNS identified that the Recreation Director was likely trained a long time ago, as she was here many years. Interview with the Administrator on 7/11/19 at 11:44 AM identified that there is no facility policy for dining or related policy known.
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 review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of the clinical records, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #11 and Resident #30), the facility failed to establish policies and procedures for abuse consistent with current regulatory guidelines and/or failed to ensure that staff followed their practice or policy for safeguarding money to prevent misappropriation of money. The finding include: 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pneumonia, transient cerebral ischemic attack and anxiety disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #11 was moderately cognitively impairment and required extensive one person assist in bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, toilet use and personal care. The care plan dated 4/11/19 identified a problem with having an alteration in self-care/activities of daily living for mobility. Interventions included the use of a rolling walker and assist of 1 to 2 for safety from falls when ambulating. A late entry nurse's note dated 5/19/19 at 8:50 PM identified Resident #11 reported he/she was on his/her knees for an hour at the bedside at approximately 4:00 AM and called out for help when a girl came in and helped him/her but was rough and pulled at his/her arm roughly and almost punched him/her. A skin audit revealed a 1.0 centimeter (cm) by 1.0 cm skin tear to the right forearm and a faint old bruise to the left thigh. Resident #11 denied pain. The police were notified and responded. The physician was notified and a new order for a bilateral shoulder x-ray was ordered and obtained STAT. Results were negative for fracture. Resident #11 was placed on monitoring every 15 minutes for 48 hours. Family was notified of incident and the DNS was made aware. A radiological report dated 5/19/19 noted both shoulders to be negative for fracture. A Reportable Event (RE) form dated 5/19/19 at 1:28 PM identified on 5/19/19 at 10:30 PM Resident #11 reported an allegation of mistreatment that took place on 5/19/19 at 4:00 AM where a Nurse Aide (NA) on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift pulled on his/her arm that resulted in a skin tear to the right shoulder. Resident #11 complained of discomfort to both shoulders. The physician and family were notified. Orders were given for an x-ray to the shoulders and was negative for fracture. Resident #11 was placed on every 15 minute checks for 48 hours. A Social Worker progress note dated 5/20/19 noted other than expressed frustration about bloodwork, Resident #11 was adjusting well to a new room and reported no other issues. A Behavior psychiatric consultation dated 5/25/19 identified nursing reported Resident #11 alleged someone had grabbed him/her, however, denied sadness and was responsive at the time of evaluation. An interview on 7/8/19 at 10:30 AM with Resident #11 identified he/she was alert, confused and unable to recall the incident of alleged mistreatment. An interview on 7/8/19 at 11:10 AM with the DNS identified that she accidentally selected 10:30 PM on the RE form instead of 10:30 AM as being when the incident first became known to the facility when submitting the RE to the State Agency. The DNS believed the initial Reportable Event was submitted within the mandated time frame as she was aware submission was required within 2 hours if an injury was suspected. The time of submission was recorded as 5/19/19 at 1:28PM (3 hours after the facility becoming aware of the allegation). An interview on 7/8/19 at 1:20 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) #5 identified a NA reported Resident #11 alleged staff mistreatment from the night before. While RN #5 could not recall the exact time, it was during the dayshift and the DNS and police were immediately notified. A review of the Abuse and Neglect policy directed for all allegations of abuse, the overseeing State Survey Agency was to be notified within 24 hours of when the event is known. The current guidelines direct that the facility must ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. Although a policy that reflected the current guidelines for reporting resident abuse and neglect was requested, none was provided. The facility failed establish policies and procedures for abuse consistent with current regulatory guidelines 2. Resident # 30's diagnoses included muscle weakness, diabetes mellitus, depression and osteoarthritis. The annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS of 13 (indicating the resident's cognition and memory were intact. The 5/16/18 and 10/19/18 RCP for alteration in ADL secondary to needs oversight with hygiene. Intervention included to assist with ADL and indicated the resident requires one person for transfer. A review of the Reportable Event form dated 12/31/18 identified Resident # 30 reported to the social worker that she/he was missing close to 200.00 dollars in her/his purse hanging on the wheelchair on 12/28/18 in the room. Resident # 30 further indicated that when she/he returned to the facility from an acute care hospital on [DATE] her/his purse was in the nightstand and the money was gone. A review of the facility investigation dated 12/18/18 and 12/31/18 identified Resident # 30 reported missing 200.00 dollars when she/he returned from the hospital, the facility could only verify that the resident had 130.00 dollars. The investigation dated 12/18/18 further identified the resident was given a lock key and was not reimburse due to questionable ordering out for food. Additionally, the facility investigation on 12/31/18 identified NA #2 reported that when she/he came to work on 12/28/18 and found out Resident # 30 had been sent to the hospital, she/he immediately went to the resident's room to obtain the resident's purse with the money to take to the licenses staff for safe keeping. However, when NA # 2 took the purse to the nurse on 12/28/18 to safeguard the resident's money, no money was found in the resident's purse. NA # 2 on 12/31/18 during the investigation verbalized that she/he on 12/19/18 was aware that Resident # 30 had 130.00 dollars in his/her purse because she /he helped the resident count the 130.00 dollars. The investigation also noted NA # 2 denied taking Resident # 30's 200.00 dollars. Resident # 30 was interviewed at the time of the investigation and denied ordering out to the restaurant. The facility investigation conclusion dated 12/31/18 identified on 12/28/18 Resident # 30 had a history of ordering food and giving money to people 12/19/18 through 12/2718, the resident had withdrew 5.00 dollars on 12/17/18 from his/her business account at the facility. NA #2 was educated to notify the supervisor or social worker if she/he observes a resident with money, so the money can be locked up or the resident can be given an option to open up a business account. Interview with Resident # 30 on 7/8/19 at 3:50 P.M. identified when she/he returned from the hospital on 7/8/19 she/he noticed her/his 200.00 dollars was missing from his/her purse hanging on the wheelchair. Resident # 30 also indicated she/he notified the facility of the missing money. The facility made attempts to relocate the money but was unsuccessful and indicated she/he was given a lock key but received no reimbursement for the 200.00 dollars. Interview with the Administrator and DNS on 7/9/19 at 11:55 A.M. identified on 12/28/18 Resident # 30 reported that when she/he returned from the hospital her/his purse was moved from the wheelchair to the nightstand and her/his 200.00 dollars was missing. The Administrator indicated the resident will sometimes keep money on her/his person to go shopping. Resident # 30 was an alert and oriented resident who had the right to keep money on his/her person. Resident # 30 had a history of ordering food outside the facility. The DNS also indicated the resident would keep money to go out shopping sometimes with NA # 2. The Administrator during an interview on 7/9/19 further indicated NA # 2 should have reported to the nurse or the social worker when she/he observed Resident # 30 with 130 .00 dollars per facility practice. Interview with the Social Worker on 7/9/19 at 10:17 A.M. 1:07 P.M. identified the resident did report to the facility that someone took her/his 200.00 dollars on 12/28/18 when she/he went to an acute care hospital. The money was not found and the Social Worker indicated she/he offered support to the resident when she/he visited the resident. Resident # 30 was given a lock key but the resident would go back and forth about keeping money on his/her person or locking money up. Interview with NA # 2 on 7/9/19 at 1:15 P.M. on 12/28/18 identified when she/he found out Resident # 30 had went to the hospital, she/he immediately went to Resident # 30's room to get the purse because she/he knew the resident had money in the purse. NA # 2 indicated Resident # 30 had 130.00 dollars before she /he went to the hospital because she/he counted the money. NA # 2 further indicated that Resident # 30 had the money so she/he (NA # 2) could take her/him shopping during the week. NA # 2 indicated when she/he went to get the purse to give to the nurse to keep for the resident, the purse was empty and the wallet gone. NA # 2 indicated on 7/9/19 that although she/he could not remember the date she /he observed the 130.00 cash on Resident # 30, she/he do recall counting the cash and leaving the resident with the cash. NA # 2 indicated she/he could not recall if she/he notified the nursing staff that Resident # 30 had 130.00 cash on his/her person the day she/he counted the resident's cash.
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 review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residents reviewed fo...

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 2 residents reviewed for abuse (Resident #11), the facility failed to report an allegation of mistreatment within the mandated timeframes. The findings include: Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included pneumonia, transient cerebral ischemic attack and anxiety disorder. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #11 had moderate cognitive impairment and required extensive one person assist in bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, toilet use and personal care. The resident care plan dated 4/11/19 identified an alteration in self-care/activity of daily living for mobility with interventions that included the use of a rolling walker and assist of 1-2 for safety from falls when ambulating. A late entry nursing progress note dated 5/19/19 at 8:50 PM identified Resident #11 reported he/she was on his/her knees for an hour at the bedside around 4:00 AM and called out for help when a girl came in and helped him/her but was rough and pulled at his/her arm roughly and almost punched him/her. A skin audit revealed 1.0 centimeter (cm) by 1.0 cm skin tear to the right forearm and a faint old bruise to left thigh. Resident #11 denied pain. The police were notified and responded. The physician was notified and new order for a bilateral shoulder x-ray was ordered and obtained STAT. Results were negative for fracture. Resident #11 was placed on monitoring every 15 minutes for 48 hours. Family was notified and of the incident and the DNS was made aware. A radiological report dated 5/19/19 noted both shoulders to be negative for fracture. A Reportable Event (RE) form dated 5/19/19 at 1:28 PM identified on 5/19/19 at 10:30 PM (interview on 7/8/19 at 11:10 AM with the DNS identified that she accidentally documented 10:30 PM on the RE in error as the time of the event occurence instead of 10:30 AM when the incident first became known to the facility) identified Resident #11 reported an allegation of mistreatment that took place on 5/19/19 at 4:00 AM where a NA on the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift pulled on his/her arm that resulted in a skin tear to the right shoulder. Resident #11 complained of discomfort to both shoulders. The physician and family were notified. Orders were given for an x-ray to the shoulders was negative for fracture. Resident #11 was placed on every 15 minute checks for 48 hours. A Social Worker progress note dated 5/20/19 noted other than expressed frustration about bloodwork, Resident #11 was adjusting well to a new room and reported no other issues. A behavior psychiatric consult dated 5/25/19 identified nursing reported Resident #11 alleged someone had grabbed her, however, denied sadness and was responsive at the time of evaluation. An interview on 7/8/19 at 10:30 AM with Resident #11 identified he/she was alert, confused and unable to recall incident of alleged mistreatment. Additionally, further interview with the DNS on 7/20/19 at 11:10 AM identified that she believed the initial RE was submitted within the mandated time frame as she was aware submission was required within 2 hours if an injury was suspected. The time of submission was recorded as 5/19/19 at 1:28PM (3 hours after the facility was notified of the allegation of mistreatment). An interview on 7/8/19 at 1:20 PM with RN #5 identified a NA reported Resident #11 alleged staff mistreatment from the night before. While RN #5 could not recall the exact time, it was during the dayshift on 5/19/19 and the DNS and police were immediately notified. A review of the Abuse and Neglect policy directed for all allegations of abuse, the overseeing State Survey Agency was to be notified within 24 hours of when the event is known. The current guidelines direct that the facility must ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. The facility failed to report an allegation of mistreatment within mandated timeframes.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility documentation and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #32) reviewed for activities of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of facility documentation and interviews for 1 resident (Resident #32) reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's), the facility failed to provide personal care in a timely manner to a resident who was dependent on staff for ADL's. The findings include: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included morbid obesity, multiple sclerosis, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, pressure ulcers and urinary incontinence. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #32 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of 2 persons for bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. Additionally, Resident #32 was dependent on staff for transfers, used a wheelchair for mobility, and did not ambulate. A resident care plan (RCP) dated 4/30/19 identified Resident #32 was incontinent of bowel and bladder and had the potential for urinary tract infections related to the constant dribbling of urine. Additionally, the RCP identified Resident #32 does not wear briefs and prefers to use towels instead of briefs for incontinence. The RCP also identified Resident #32 had self-care performance deficit and was dependent on staff for bathing and dressing and required assistance with personal hygiene, required staff participation to reposition and turn in bed and required a mechanical lift for transfers. The RCP further identified an intervention to complete incontinence checks on rounds, with repositioning and care as needed and to keep skin clean and dry. A nurse aide's (NA) information sheet dated 5/2/18 identified Resident #32 should be turned and repositioned every two hours and uses towels for incontinence in place of briefs. A nurse's note dated 6/23/19 identified Resident #32 was on the facility bowel or bladder program. A wound note dated 7/1/19 identified Resident #32 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to the right and left medial buttock and the left hip. Observation and interview with Resident #32 on 7/8/19 at 12:10 PM identified Resident #32 lying in bed and he/she identified that he/she had not received morning personal care yet and it was routinely provided every morning around 10:45 AM. Interview with NA # 4 on 7/8/19 at 2:45 PM identified that he/she provided incontinent care and a bed bath for Resident #32 at approximately 2:00 PM. Additionally, NA #4 identified that she had given Resident #32 breakfast and lunch but had not provided incontinent care, repositioning, bed bath, or personal hygiene for Resident#32 prior to 2:00 PM. Further, NA #4 identified the unit was short staffed with only 3 NA's when 4 NA's were scheduled, and that was the reason she was late providing care. Interview with LPN #1 on 7/8/29 at 2:50 PM identified Resident #32 received incontinent care every two hours and he/she was not aware that NA #4 was late providing care to Resident #32. Interview with the DNS on 7/9/19 at 2:20 PM identified incontinent care is provided every two hours at a minimum and more frequently if needed. Interview with the DNS on 7/10/19 at 9:53 AM identified that NA staffing on 7/8/19 on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift included 3 NA's and 4 NA's were scheduled. Further, the DNS identified the expectation would be for the Charge Nurse on the floor to assist with care if the unit was down a NA and the aides were unable to provide care. Although requested, the facility failed to provide a policy related to bathing and repositioning and identified the facility follows standards of practice. Review of a policy for incontinence/bladder program identified it is the policy of the facility to ensure that a resident who is incontinent and not appropriate for bladder retraining or a toileting schedule receive prompt incontinence acre as needed.
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, review of the clinical record, facility documentation, facility policy, and interviews for 1 of 2 residen...

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 2 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers (Resident #38), the facility failed to ensure measures were in place to prevent a pressure ulcer. The findings include: Resident # 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, cerebrovascular disease and cancer. The Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] identified a deep tissue injury (DTI) to the right heel measuring 0.5 centimeter (cm) by 0.5 cm. Physician's orders dated 5/2/19 directed multipodus boots to bilateral feet, while off-loading every shift, skin prep bilateral heels, and monitor reddeneed area to right heel every shift for change in skin integrity. A physician's order dated 5/6/19 directed to elevate leg(s), float heels in bed, off-load wound and reposition per facility protocol. The care plan dated 5/7/19 identified Resident #38 had a pressure ulcer or potential for pressure ulcer development with interventions of air mattress on bed, supplemental protein as ordered, treatments as ordered and monitor for effectivness, assess/record/monitor wound healing, follow facility policies/protocols for prevention/treatment of skin breakdown, no shoes, offload heels, pressure relieving boots and wound care per order. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified moderately impaired cognition, required limited assistance of one staff for bed mobiity, transfer, ambulation dressing, toilet use and hygiene, at risk for developing pressure ulcers and one unstageable-deep tissue injury. Wound consultant documentation dated 5/13/19 identified a 1 centimeter (cm) by 1 cm unstageable (DTI) to the right heel with dressing plan of skin prep and recommendations to elevate leg(s), float heels in bed, off-load wound, and reposition per facility protocol. Physician orders dated 6/7/19 directed no shoes at this time, non skid socks every shift for protection and offload heels when in bed every shift for protection. A nurse's note dated 6/10/19 identified that the nurse was called to the room by the Nurse Aide (NA) and noted a suspected deep tissue injury (SDTI) to the left heel that measured a 9.0 cm by 5.0 cm cluster. The Charge Nurse, Supervisor, MD and family were updated. New orders in place. Wound MD to assess tomorrow. Will continue to monitor. Weekly wound observation and wound consultant documentation dated 6/11/19 identified the new unstageable deep tissue injury to the left heel measuring 3 cm by 3 cm. Review of the Nurse Aide (NA) Information Sheet identified Resident #38 is to wear blue boots (bunny boots) in bed (physician orders dated 5/2/19 directed multi-podus boots not bunny boots). The information sheet also indicated to off-load heels every shift and to have no shoes, only non-skid socks in place. Observation of Resident #38 on 7/9/19 at 8:39 AM identified Resident #38 in his/her room lying in bed on his/her left side. Resident #38's feet were on the bed without the benefit of being suspended with closed blue boots (bunny boots) or suspension boots in place. An air mattress was noted to be on. Observation of Resident #38 on 7/9/19 at 12:40 PM and on 7/10/19 at 11:02 AM identified Resident #38 located outside his/her room in the hallway. Resident #38 was seating in a wheelchair with his/her feet in the blue boots/bunny boots (not multi-podus boots) with a pillow pushing up against the bottom of the feet parallel with the blue boots. The leg stands attached to the wheelchair used as a holder for the pillow to maintain pressure. Interview with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) #3 on 7/9/19 at 12:45 PM identified that the resident obtained a facility acquired wound to the left heel. LPN #3 stated while Resident #38 was out of bed, he/she should have the blue boots (bunny boots) in place and not the multipodus boots in place (yet the physician order dated 5/2/19 directed multi-podus boots). A search of Resident #38's room identified no multipodus boots to be found. Interview with LPN #1 on 7/9/19 at 12:55 PM identified that Resident #38 should wear multipodus boots while out of bed, and not the blue boots (bunny boots). LPN #1 verified the multipodus boots should be in the room, but if they became soiled, they would then be sent down to laundry. Upon calling laundry, the laundry personnel identified they don't have them currently but will look for them. Interview with LPN #3 on 7/9/19 at 1:05 PM indicated LPN #3 placed an order for review of changing the multipodus boots to pressure-relieving boots to bilateral feet. Interview with NA #9 on 7/9/19 at 1:05 PM identified that he/she places non-skid socks followed by blue boots (bunny boots) on Resident #38 when placing him/her into a wheelchair. NA #9 also identified he/she had never seen multipodus boots in the room or used any different type of boots for this resident. Interview with LPN #3 on 7/10/19 at 11:00 AM identified that wearing bunny boots with a pillow against the bottom of the feet was not pressure relieving. Interview and review of clinical record with LPN #1 on 7/10/19 at 11:05 AM stated Resident #38 had new multipodus boots. Upon further observation of Resident #38 with LPN #1, the boots were noted to be blue boots (bunny boots). A search of the resident's room for the new multipodus boots were not found. Review of the NA Sheet with the LPN #1 verified that the resident was only to wear bunny boots only in bed, and not out of bed. Interview with MD #1 on 7/10/19 at 4:25 PM identified the resident should always have his/her heels off the bed. MD #1 identified blue boots (bunny boots) should not be in place compared to multipodus boots when out of bed. MD #1 stated the multipodus boots are more effective than blue boots (bunny boots) in regards to relieving pressure and wound prevention. Review of the facility's skin management protocol includes developing an individualized skin care plan. Based on the resident's assessment the team develeop an individaulized care plan to prevent or treat skin breakdown and in preparing the plan, the team tries to meet the resident's individualized needs and updates the nursing assistant care card with this information. Once the care plan is written, the tream must ensure that all planned interventions and treatments are carried out as written in the care plan. The facility failed to provide heel off loading via multi-podus boots when Resident #38 was observed in bed on 7/9/19 at 8:39 AM. Additionally, the facility failed to follow the physician orders directing the use of multi-podus boots, and were utilizing bunny boots as an offloading device.
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 observation, interviews and review of facility documentation for 1 of 20 resident bathrooms, (room [ROOM NUMBER]), the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and review of facility documentation for 1 of 20 resident bathrooms, (room [ROOM NUMBER]), the facility failed to ensure razors were stored securely. The findings include: Observation of the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] and interview with the Administrator on 7/8/19 at 11:19 AM identified two blue plastic razors hanging from a toothbrush holder attached to the wall and two toothbrushes uncovered placed on the back edge of the sink, one with toothpaste on it. The Administrator indicated that these items should not have been there. Interview with RN #1 on 7/8/19 at 11:22 AM identified that no razors should have been left with a resident or left in a room. The facility policy for Razor disposal identified that all used disposable razors will be disposed of in the sharps container and further identified that after completion of shaving a resident, staff are to dispose of used razors in the sharps container.
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 observation, review of the clinical record, interviews and review of facility documentation for 1 resident reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, interviews and review of facility documentation for 1 resident reviewed for hydration (Resident #71), the facility failed to ensure and/or identify that Resident #71 was not meeting fluid goals and/or failed to ensure low urinary catheter output was addressed. The findings include: Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, congestive heart failure, severe kidney disease and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. The annual Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #71 was rarely to never understood and had severely impaired cognitive skills, required extensive assistance for toilet use and eating, and had an indwelling urinary catheter. A Dietician note dated 6/11/19 identified Resident # 71's estimated fluid needs was 1180 milliliters (ml) per day. A nursing dehydration risk screener form dated 6/13/19 identified a score of 7 and identified that scores of 10 or higher indicate the resident was at risk for dehydration and further assessment should be conducted to review the resident's fluid status. Physician's orders dated 6/19/19 directed to encourage fluids every shift and to provide Foley catheter care every shift. The resident care plan (RCP) dated 6/20/19 identified Resident #71 had an indwelling catheter due to a neurogenic bladder. Interventions included to empty bag every shift and to provide, encourage and assist with fluids as needed. The RCP further identified a potential for fluid deficit related to poor intake with interventions to monitor and document intake and output as per facility policy. Fluid intake report from 6/26/19 to 7/10/19 identified intake of 480 ml on 6/26/19, 385 ml on 6/27/19, 170 ml on 6/28/19, 0 ml (zero) on 6/29/19, 360 ml on 6/30/19, 310 ml on 7/1/19, 650 ml on 7/2/19, 480 ml on 7/3/19, 285 ml on 7/4/19, 300 ml on 7/5/19, 480 ml on 7/6/19, 0 (zero) ml on 7/8/19, 515 ml on 7/9/19 and 740 ml on 7/10/19. Urine output documentation from 6/27/19 to 7/7/19 identified output was 500 ml on 6/27/19, 200 ml on 6/28/19, 400 ml on 6/29/19, 500 ml on 6/30/19, 360 ml on 7/1/19, 800 ml on 7/2/19, 450 ml on 7/3/19, 550 ml on 7/4/19, 450 ml on 7/5/19, 1550 ml on 7/6/0, and 500 ml on 7/7/19. Nurse's notes reviewed from 6/13/19 to 7/9/19 failed to reflect information regarding urine output or fluid intake except for nurse's note dated 7/6/19 which identified that the urinary catheter was blocked, smelly, catheter changed, urine cloudy, sediment, foul odor, urine collected for culture and sensitivity, continue to monitor, increased fluids; and nurse's note dated 7/7/19 which identified urinalysis results reviewed with the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN), ordered to increase fluids. Interview and record review with the DNS on 7/10/19 at 12:32 PM identified that the facility completes intake/output for residents with Foley catheters and that the intake/output documented for the past 14 days showed low and/or concerning amounts for intake and output. Interview and record review with Registered Nurse (RN) #1 on 7/10/19 at 1:20 PM identified that the record does not reflect any totaling, review or reporting of any intake or output. RN #1 further identified that the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM nurse was responsible to tally and address any intake and output concerns. Interview and record review with the DNS on 7/11/19 at 9:16 AM identified that the record does not reflect any review of fluid intake totals and/or Foley catheter output, and/or reflect that Resident #71 was not meeting fluid goals. The DNS further identified that the change to electronic records may be related to the reason this occurred. The DNS identified that it is a nursing responsibility to ensure fluid goals are met and addressed if not meeting fluid goals. No policy was provided by the facility regarding tallying intake/output to ensure estimated fluid intake goals were met.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations and interviews for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for sufficient and competent nurse st...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations and interviews for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for sufficient and competent nurse staffing (Resident #32 and Resident #69), the facility failed to ensure sufficient staff was provided to meet the needs of the resident. The findings include: 1. Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included morbid obesity, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, pressure ulcers and urinary incontinence. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified Resident #32 was cognitively intact, required extensive assistance of 2 persons for bed mobility, dressing, and toilet use. Additionally, Resident #32 was dependent on staff for transfers, used a wheelchair for mobility, and did not walk. A resident care plan (RCP) dated 4/30/19 identified Resident #32 was incontinent of bowel and bladder and had the potential for urinary tract infections related to the constant dribbling of urine. Additionally, the RCP identified Resident #32 does not wear briefs and prefers to use towels instead of briefs for incontinence. The RCP also identified Resident #32 had self-care performance deficit and was dependent on staff for bathing and dressing and required assistance with personal hygiene, required staff participation to reposition and turn in bed and required a mechanical lift for transfers. The RCP further identified an intervention to complete an incontinence check on rounds, with repositioning and care as needed and to keep skin clean and dry. A Nurse Aide's (NA) information sheet dated 5/2/19 identified Resident #32 should be turned and repositioned every two hours and uses towels for incontinence in place of briefs. A nurse's note dated 6/23/19 identified Resident #32 was on the facility bowel or bladder program. A wound note dated 7/1/19 identified Resident #32 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer to the right and left medial buttock and the left hip. Observation and interview with Resident #32 on 7/8/19 at 12:10 PM identified Resident #32 lying in bed and he/she identified that he/she had not received morning personal care and it was routinely provided every morning around 10:45 AM. Additionally, Resident #32 identified that there was usually not enough staff on the unit and there were a lot of call outs. Resident #32 identified there are sometimes only 2 or 3 NAs when there should be 4 NA's and care is not timely on a regular basis. Interview with NA # 4 on 7/8/19 at 2:45 PM identified that he/she provided incontinent care and a bed bath for Resident #32 at approximately 2:00 PM. Additionally, NA#4 identified that she had given Resident #32 breakfast and lunch but had not yet provided incontinent care, repositioning, bed bath, or personal hygiene for Resident#32 prior to 2:00 PM. Further, NA #4 identified the unit was short staffed with only 3 NAs when 4 NAs were scheduled, and that was the reason she was late providing care. Interview with LPN #1 on 7/8/29 at 2:50 PM identified Resident #32 receives incontinent care every two hours and he/she was not aware that NA #4 was late providing care to Resident #32. Interview with the DNS on 7/9/19 at 2:20 PM identified incontinent care is provided every two hours at a minimum and more frequently if needed. Interview with the DNS on 7/10/19 at 9:53 AM identified that NA staffing on 7/8/19 on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift on units Center North and South included 3 NAs but 4 NAs were scheduled to work. Further, the DNS identified the expectation would be for the Charge Nurse on the floor to assist with care if the unit is down a NA and the aides are unable to provide care. Although requested the facility failed to provide a policy related to bathing and repositioning and identified the facility follows standards of practice. Review of a policy for incontinence/bladder program identified it is the policy of the facility to ensure that a resident who is incontinent and not appropriate for bladder retraining or a toileting schedule receive prompt incontinence acre as needed. 2. Resident #69 diagnoses include dementia, cerebral vascular disease and diabetes. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified intact cognition, requiring extensive assistance of two staff with transfers, and toilet use and limited assistance of one staff for dressing and personal hygiene. The resident care plan identified a problem with a cerebral vascular accident with interventions to monitor/document resident's abilities for activities of daily living and assist as needed, encourage to do what he/she is capable of doing for self. Interview with Resident #69's roommate, (Resident#20 and intact cognition), on 7/8/18 at 11:30 AM indicated Resident #69 was crying yesterday (7/7/19) because Resident #69 was gotten up late because of not enough staff and was late for church. Interview with Resident #69 at that time indicated that he/she did not get up on time on 7/7/19 to be ready for church (which was located at a church outside of the facility). Resident #69 further indicated that on 7/7/19 he/she had a familiar NA but the NA did not get him/her up until later, resulting in not getting to the church ceremony until it was almost over. Resident #69 indicated staff know the resident's ride comes to the facility for a 10:30 AM pick up time to drive the resident to a 11:30 AM mass outside of the facility. Interview with NA #5 on 7/9/19 at 1:30 PM indicated the unit was short staffed with 2 instead of 3 NAs on the unit on 7/7/19.
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 Dietary department, staff interviews and review of facility policies, the facility failed to appropriately store, label and date food items and/or remove dented, damaged ca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of the Dietary department, staff interviews and review of facility policies, the facility failed to appropriately store, label and date food items and/or remove dented, damaged canned foods from the general food storage area. The findings include: A tour of the kitchen on 7/8/19 at 10:00 AM with the Dietary Manager, identified the following observations: 1. The reach in refrigerator identified: (a) A container with sliced onion dated 7/2/19 (6 days old). (b) A container with ground beef unlabeled and undated. (c) A container with a thick brown liquid (gravy) unlabeled and undated. (d) A slab of pink meat wrapped in saran wrap unlabeled and undated. (e) A three bean salad unlabeled and undated. (f) A container of pureed garlic dated 6/25/19 (13 days old). 2. Observation of the dry food storage area identified 3 large dented cans of banana pudding, potato powder, and whole mandarin oranges. Interview with the Food Service Director (FSD) on 7/8/19 at 10:00 AM identified the dated food items were good for 5 days from the date that was noted on the label. The FSD further identified that he/she did not know the reason the food items were stored without a label and/or a date. Additionally, the FSD identified it was the responsibility of the cook to date, label and remove outdated items from the refrigerator, and there were two new cooks in training and that could possibly be the reason the items were not labeled, dated and/or discarded. Interview with the FSD at 10:15 AM identified it was the responsibility of the dishwasher to put cans of food away when they are delivered, and place any dented cans in the dented can storage area for return to the vendor. Additionally, the FSD identified the food from the dented cans should not be used. Review of the facility date marking policy identified foods will be properly labeled with the name of the product, date of production and date marking systems are in place to reduce foodborne illness caused by Listeria, a pathogen that continues to grow in refrigerated temperatures. The policy further identified the basic concept of the date marking system is a process to identify how old foods are and when those foods must be discarded. Review of the dented can policy identified dented cans will be removed from the general food storage area and placed within the dented can area.
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation of the dumpster area, staff interviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to properly dispose of trash in the dumpster area. The findings include: A tour of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of the dumpster area, staff interviews, and review of facility policies, the facility failed to properly dispose of trash in the dumpster area. The findings include: A tour of the dumpster area with the Food Service Director (FSD) on 7/7/19 at 10:25 AM identified 2 large plastic bags that were ripped open. Trash was observed on the ground and on a wooden pallet around the dumpster. The following items were observed: (a) 6 tomato cans (b) 3 peach cans (c) 3 tuna cans (d) 1 red kidney bean can (e) 1 mashed potato can (f) 2 ginger ale bottles (g) 1 cola bottle (h) 1 box of Ready Care drink (i) 1 cardboard box, (j) 1 1% low fat milk box (k) 1 dirty glove Interview with the FSD on 7/8/19 at 10:25 AM identified that on 7/7/19 the dumpster was full and the dishwasher put the trash on the pallet near the dumpster and on the ground. Additionally, the FSD identified something must have gotten into it, possibly a squirrel. Further, the FSD identified the trash should not be placed on the ground and it was the dishwashers responsibility to remove the trash from the kitchen and place it in the dumpster. Interview with Administrator on 07/11/19 11:43 AM identified the dumpster trash is removed from the facility weekly. The Administrator identified the dumpster trash was picked up on Friday 7/5/19 and this schedule has been adequate. Interview with the Administrator on 7/11/19 at 2 identified an outside trash disposal company picks up the dumpster trash once a week and this has been sufficient. Although requested the facility failed to provide a policy for dumpster and/or trash disposal.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on review of quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) reports and interviews, the facility failed to implement plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. The finding...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of quality assurance and performance improvement (QAPI) reports and interviews, the facility failed to implement plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies. The findings include: Review of the results from the previous standard survey completed on 5/18/18 identified cited deficiencies of inadequate staffing resulting in not meeting the needs of the resident, (F #677 and F #725). Review of the results of the current standard survey completed on 7/11/19 identified cited deficiencies in the same regulatory areas of F #677 and F #725 as previously cited in 2018. Review of the facility's QAPI plan dated 2019 indicated measuring about 10 call light responses per week with the measure of evaluation of call light received response within 10 minutes. Review of the call bell audits identified audits were completed 3/3/19 through 3/6/19, 4/17/19, and 6/30/19. Interview with the Administrator on 7/11/19 at 2 PM indicated there is an additional folder containing call bell audits but the Administrator cannot locate it. The Adminstrator also indicated staff have been completing random audits but those audits have not been documented.
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
  • • 41% turnover. Below Connecticut's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 1 harm violation(s), $29,202 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 42 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $29,202 in fines. Higher than 94% of Connecticut facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • 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 Windsor Center, Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 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 Windsor Center, Llc Staffed?

CMS rates WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the Connecticut average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Windsor Center, Llc?

State health inspectors documented 42 deficiencies at WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 37 with potential for harm, and 3 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 Windsor Center, Llc?

WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 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 108 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WINDSOR, Connecticut.

How Does Windsor Center, Llc Compare to Other Connecticut Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Connecticut, WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (41%) 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 Windsor Center, Llc?

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 Windsor Center, Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 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 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (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 Windsor Center, Llc Stick Around?

WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC has a staff turnover rate of 41%, 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 Windsor Center, Llc Ever Fined?

WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC has been fined $29,202 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Connecticut average of $33,371. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Windsor Center, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

WINDSOR HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 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.