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.