AVIATA AT BRADENTON

105 15TH ST E, BRADENTON, FL 34208 (941) 747-8681
For profit - Corporation 110 Beds AVIATA HEALTH GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
60/100
#318 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: June 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Aviata at Bradenton has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating a decent performance that is slightly above average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #318 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the top half, and #7 out of 12 in Manatee County, meaning there are only six local facilities that are better. The overall trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2023 to 3 in 2025, which is a positive sign. Staffing rates average at 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 45%, which is close to the state average, suggesting some stability in staff but room for improvement. Notably, the facility has not incurred any fines, indicating compliance with regulations, and offers average RN coverage, meaning residents receive adequate nursing attention. However, there are concerns to be aware of. For example, there was a serious incident where a resident was hospitalized due to a lack of timely wound care, which resulted in a severe infection. Additionally, there were multiple deficiencies noted, including failures to provide consistent incontinence care for residents and not completing necessary mental health assessments for some residents. While there are positive aspects to consider, families should weigh these strengths against the identified issues as they make their decision.

Trust Score
C+
60/100
In Florida
#318/690
Top 46%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
45% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 9 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Florida average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 45%

Near Florida avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Chain: AVIATA HEALTH GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a functioning grievance process for one resident (#2) of four residents reviewed for grievances.Findings included: A ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a functioning grievance process for one resident (#2) of four residents reviewed for grievances.Findings included: A review of Resident #2's admission record revealed an admission date of 05/2024 with diagnoses to include but not limited to Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side and muscle weakness. On 08/12/2025 at 9:49 a.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #2's room. The light in the hallway above the door was sounding repeatedly with a flashing red light blinking. At 10: 50 a.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #2's room, the light above the door was still flashing and sounding. No residents were in the room at the time of observation. An interview was conducted on 08/12/2025 at 11:01 a.m. with the Social Service Director (SSD). A grievance from Resident #2 was reviewed, dated as received on 07/21/2025: Resident stated his call light was not answered timely on 3pm-11pm shift on 07/18/2025. The findings documented: Explained to resident that call light is malfunctioning and maintenance team are working on getting it fixed. Resident provided with a bell to ring in the meantime. The grievance was documented to have been resolved on 07/22/2025. The form documented the outcome was verbally communicated the outcome of the investigation and the resident was satisfied. During the interview with the SSD, she stated, his call light was dysfunctional. It was staying on continuously. We could not get it to cut off. We gave the residents (in the room) bells to ring during that period. They like to keep them, even though the light is fixed. We offered room changes until that got resolved; and we offered them staff to round more frequently in that room. During the interview on 08/12/2025 at 11:15 a.m., the SSD and the surveyor observed Resident #2's room, the red light above the door was flashing and sounding. Resident #2 was in the room, in his wheelchair, he stated the call bell light had been going off for about a month and a half. he said, They gave me a bell. Sometimes they do not hear it. It can take a while. Bells were observed at Resident #2's bedside and the roommate's bedside, and one on the back of the commode in the bathroom. At this time, the SSD said it was a shock to her; the residents had bells; she thought maintenance was fixing the call lights. On 08/12/2025 at 12:08 p.m., the Maintenance Director was interviewed. He stated for Resident #2's room, We changed the box in the wall, he (the resident) purposely pulled at the box; I have seen him bang it. I could be wrong. I used all the spare parts. For the grievance, there was a whole new box installed in the bathroom at the time the grievance was done. The Maintenance Director reported the continuous sounding of the light in the hall stopped at that time, it worked for about a week and then started up again. He stated he was waiting for a technician from an electric company to come to the facility to bring spare parts. When asked how long it took for the electric company to respond to a request from him, he stated, It takes about a week, sometime 2-3 days. When asked if he had any documentation to support the effort by the facility to resolve the resident's concern regarding the continuous call bell light, he did not respond. He stated he would call today. On 08/12/2025 at 3:40 p.m. a telephone interview was conducted with Resident #2's family member. He stated he would visit the resident all the time. He worked around the corner from the facility and will come in at various times. He stated the call bell light has been going off continuously for weeks. The family member said, I could understand if it were a couple to a few days, but it had been a month. They should have fixed it. The family member stated the resident has to wait for help. They had given him a bell to ring. The family member stated sometimes the staff do not hear it and reported having to go into the hall to ring the bell for them to hear it. The family member stated, I do his laundry; his clothing is soiled. They are not getting to him quick enough. I talked to Maintenance and the Nursing Home Administrator. A review of the facility's policies and procedures for Complaint/ Grievance, N-1042, last revised 10/24/2022, documented the policy: The Center will support each resident's right to vice a complaint/ grievance without fear of discrimination or reprisal. The center will make prompt efforts to resolve the complaint; Grievance and informed (sic) the resident of progress towards resolution.The procedure included: .4. The grievance follow-up should be completed in a reasonable time frame; this should not exceed 14 days.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a timely repair of a call bell light for one resident (#2) of five sampled residents. Findings included: On 08/12/2025...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure a timely repair of a call bell light for one resident (#2) of five sampled residents. Findings included: On 08/12/2025 at 9:49 a.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #2's room. The light in the hallway above the door was sounding repeatedly with a flashing red light blinking. At 10: 50 a.m., the light above Resident #2's door was observed still flashing and sounding. No residents were in the room at the time of observation. Resident #2's call bell light was identified to blink and sound continuously on 07/21/2025 and the light was still malfunctioning as of 08/12/2025.On 08/12/2025 at 11:01 a.m. a grievance from Resident #2 was reviewed with the Social Service Director (SSD). Resident #2's grievance was dated as received on 07/21/2025 with a resolution date of 07/22/2025. The concern in the grievance, Resident stated his call light was not answered timely on 3 p.m.-11 p.m. shift on 07/18/2025. The findings documented: Explained to resident that call light is malfunctioning and maintenance team are working on getting it fixed. Resident provided with a bell to ring in the meantime. During the interview with the SSD, she stated, his call light was dysfunctional. It was staying on continuously. We could not get it to cut off. We gave the residents (in the room) bells to ring during that period. They like to keep them, even though the light is fixed. We offered room changes until that got resolved; and we offered them staff to round more frequently in that room.On 08/12/2025 at 11:15 a.m., Resident #2's room was observed with the SSD present. The red light above the door was flashing and sounding. Resident #2 was in the room, in his wheelchair, he stated the call bell light had been going off for about a month and a half. Resident #2 stated, They gave me a bell. Sometimes they do not hear it. It can take a while. Bells were observed at Resident #2's bedside and the roommate's bedside, and one on the back of the commode in the bathroom. At this time, the SSD said it was a shock to her; the residents had bells; she stated she thought maintenance was fixing it. On 08/12/2025 at 3:40 p.m. a telephone interview was conducted with Resident #2's family member. He stated he would visit (Resident #2) all the time. He worked around the corner from the facility and will come in at various times. He stated the call bell light had been going off continuously for weeks. The family member said, I could understand if it were a couple to a few days, but it had been a month. They should have fixed it. He stated my (Resident #2) has to wait for help. They had given him a bell to ring. Sometimes the staff do not hear it. (Resident #2) will have to go into the hall to ring the bell for them to hear it. I do his laundry; (Resident #2's) clothing is soiled. They are not getting to him quick enough. I talked to Maintenance; I talked to the Nursing Home Administrator. On 08/12/2025 at 12:08 p.m., the Maintenance Director was interviewed. He stated for Resident #2's room, We changed the box in the wall, he (the resident) purposely pulled at the box; I have seen him bang it. I could be wrong. I used all the spare parts. For the grievance, there was a whole new box installed in the bathroom at the time the grievance was done. The Maintenance Director reported the continuous sounding of the light in the hall stopped at that time, and it worked for about a week and then started up again. He stated he was waiting for a technician from an electric company to come to the facility to bring spare parts. When asked how long it took for the electric company to respond to a request from him, he stated, It takes about a week, sometime 2-3 days. When asked if he had any documentation to support the effort by the facility to resolve the resident's concern regarding the continuous call bell light, he did not respond. He stated he would call today.On 08/12/2025 at 1:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director who stated he had two methods of receiving work orders from the staff, the (electronic work order) system and a binder at the nurses' station. He stated there was no order in either places for (Resident #2's) call bell light not functioning. The Maintenance Director said, I just walk by and fix it.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely and consistent incontinence services were provided for three residents (#3, #4, and #2) of four residents samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure timely and consistent incontinence services were provided for three residents (#3, #4, and #2) of four residents sampled for incontinence care. Findings included: 1.Review of Resident #3's admission Record revealed an admission date of 10/2022 with diagnoses to include Chronic kidney disease, Stage 3 unspecified, overactive bladder, unspecified dementia, muscle weakness (generalized) and essential (primary) hypertension. A review of a social services progress note dated 12/17/2024 revealed Resident #3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impairment.A review of Resident #3's Care Plan, documented a focus area for ADL (Activity of Daily Living) self-care deficits, . Decline from prior level of functioning, needs assistance with self-performance, bed mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toilet use, personal hygiene, oral hygiene, and bathing, initiated 04/15/2022. The interventions included: Toilet Use - I require extensive assist by one staff for toileting. Transfer - I require supervision with transfers.A review of Resident #3's progress notes revealed the following:On 07/24/2025 at 9:15 a.m., Staff A, Registered Nurse, (RN) documented a skin note: Skin observation complete and new MASD (moisture-associated skin damage) noted to Inner Buttocks crease. (Medical Doctor) notified and new order received for skin TX (treatment).On 07/25/2025 at 5:07 p.m., Staff A, RN documented, Resident started on PO (by mouth) ABT (antibiotic) for abnormal urine results.On 07/27/2025, a note documented by the Nurse Practitioner showed, The patient has been seen at the bedside. The patient was lying in bed. Staff noticed an open area on the right gluteal fold, during the skin checks. On assessment the (sic) is an open area on the right gluteal fold (a horizontal crease on the inferior aspect of the buttocks and the posterior upper thigh) noted, has no drainage or odor noted it is consistent with moisture-associated skin damage (MASD). New order was initiated for zinc oxide cream application with every brief change and as needed. The patient is to be repositioned every two hours as tolerated to aid in prevention of further skin breakdown.A review of Resident #3's ADL documentation for Toileting Hygiene for the dates of 07/18/2025, through 07/27/2025, a ten-day period, reflected the following documented assistance for Toileting Hygiene:Three of the 10 days, 07/19, 07/21, and 07/24, staff documented providing toileting services once during the 24-hour period.Three of the 10 days, 07/18, 07/20, and 07/22, staff documented providing toileting services two times during the 24-hour period.The other 4 dates, 07/23, 07/25, 07/26, and 07/27, staff documented providing toileting services three times during the 24-hour period.On 08/12/2025 at 1:51 p.m., an interview was conducted with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) regarding Resident #3's ADL documentation for toileting/ hygiene. During the review, she stated she could provide better documentation, she stated she was not familiar with the presented documentation. She confirmed it looked like documentation was lacking. On 08/12/2025 at 2:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), she stated she wanted to clarify what was needed for the ADL documentation. A review of the Toileting Hygiene documentation provided for Resident #3 was conducted with her. She stated, I know the care is being provided, the staff are not documenting. Subsequently, at approximately 3:20 p.m., the NHA, she provided a 2nd set of ADL paperwork. She could not decipher the code; she said, Let me get the unit manager; they review the documentation.On 08/12/2025 at 3:51 p.m. An interview was conducted with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) with the NHA in the room. She reviewed the ADL documentation. She stated, you should see documentation every shift. She stated her monitoring of the ADL documentation was, she would receive an alert if the resident had not had a bowel movement or urinated within three days, Nothing further. Staff B stated she had been familiar with Resident #3, the resident was not on her unit but would come over and need to be redirected to the other side; Staff B stated she would have an incontinent episode. You could see the urine/ damp clothes and staff would have to change her frequently.On 08/12/2025 at 5:00 p.m., the NHA returned with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS), RN. She provided additional forms for ADL assistance; The forms were reviewed with both of them and reflected no additional information. The MDS/RN stated there was an issue with documentation.2. A review of Resident #4's admission Record documented admission in 06/2021 with diagnoses including but not limited to; muscle weakness, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and unspecified dementia.A review of a social services progress note dated 11/04/2024 revealed Resident #4 had a BIMS score of 4, which indicated severe cognitive impairment.A review of Resident #4's care plan revealed a focus area for the resident being at risk for urinary incontinence due to overactive bladder and BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) with an intervention: Clean peri-area with each incontinence episode.In addition, Resident #4 had a focus area for the resident being at risk of ADL self-care performance deficit due to impaired balance and history of stroke with an intervention for toilet use: extensive assist X 2 (two) staff. A review of Resident #4's progress notes dated 07/04/2025 revealed, skin issues: Moisture associated skin damage (MASD). Skin issue location: back and neck.A review of a Nutrition/ Dietary note, dated 07/29/2025, . Resident has MASD to his back/ neck; skin is otherwise intact.A review of Resident #4's ADL documentation for Toileting Hygiene for the dates of 08/01/2025, through 08/11/2025, an eleven-day period, reflected the following documented assistance for Toileting Hygiene:08/01, 11:02, Dependent08/01, 2208, Dependent08/02, 11:48, Dependent08/02, 21:52, Dependent08/03, 14:59, Dependent08/03, 21:42, Dependent08/04, 22:39, Dependent08/05, 10:43, Dependent08/05, 19:22, Dependent08/06, 6:59, Dependent08/06, 14:03, Dependent08/06, 22:16, Dependent08/07, 13:20, Dependent08/07, 2250, Dependent08/08=No documented services.08/09, 0400, Dependent08/09, 16:15, Dependent08/10, 14:59, Dependent08/10, 16:21, Dependent08/10, 23:36, Dependent08/11, 14:59, Dependent08/11, 22:12, DependentThe review showed seven of the 11 days, 08/01, 08/02, 08/03, 08/05, 08/07, 08/09, 08/11, staff documented providing toileting services two times during the 24-hour period. One of the 11 days, 08/04, staff documented providing toileting services one time during the 24-hour period. One of the 11 days, 08/08, no documentation of providing toileting services during the 24-hour period. Two of the 11 days, 08/06, 08/10, staff documented providing toileting services three times during the 24-hour period.On 08/12/2025 at 9:51 a.m. an interview was conducted with Resident #4's family member and Resident #4 who was sitting in a wheelchair at bedside, observed to be dressed in seasonally appropriate clothing. The family member stated it was hard to get (Resident #4) to respond. The family member stated she would come to the facility five days a week. For (Resident #4's) incontinence care, she would visit during the day, it was ok; for the 3pm-11pm shift, they will check him. For the 11pm-7am shift it is bad. I have come in early and found him so wet up past his neck. The smell: it is like old urine, like ammonia. I brought it up at the family council meeting. They said they were educating. It is not working. 3. A review of Resident #2's admission record, documented an admission date of 05/2024. The diagnosis list included but not limited to Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side and muscle weakness.A review of Resident #2's care plan, documented a focus area, (Resident) was incontinent of bowel and at risk for impaired bowel elimination such as constipation and or diarrhea, effective 06/30/2021. Interventions included: Provide incontinence care after incontinence episodes, PRN (as needed).An interview and observation was conducted on 08/12/2025 at 11:15 a.m., with the Social Service Director (SSD). Resident #2's room was observed, the red light above the door was flashing and sounding. Resident #2 was in the room, in his wheelchair, he stated the call bell light had been going off for about a month and a half. The resident stated, they gave me a bell. Sometimes they do not hear it. It can take a while. Bells were observed at Resident #2's bedside and the roommate's bedside, and one on the back of the commode in the bathroom. At this time, the SSD said it was a shock to her; the residents had bells; she thought maintenance was fixing the call lights. A telephone interview was conducted on 08/12/2025 at 3:40 p.m. with Resident #2's family member, who stated he will visit (Resident #2) all the time, and he will come in at various times. The family member stated, the call bell light has been going off continuously for weeks. The family member said, I could understand if it were a couple to a few days, but it has been a month. They should have fixed. (Resident #2) has to wait for help. They had given him a bell to ring. Sometimes the staff do not hear it. (Resident #2) will have to go into the hall to ring the bell for them to hear it. I do his laundry; (Resident #2's) clothing is soiled. They are not getting to him quickly enough. I talked to maintenance; I talked to the NHA.The facility did not provide a policy.
Sept 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a grievance was investigated and tracked through to a concl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure a grievance was investigated and tracked through to a conclusion for one resident (#1) out of five sampled residents. Findings included: On 9/18/2023 at 8:55 a.m. an interview was conducted with Resident #1's family member via telephone. Resident #1's family member stated she was not Resident #1's responsible party, and the responsibility was with another family member. Resident #1's family member stated she visited Resident #1 regularly and when she visits, she routinely finds care concerns. Resident #1's family member stated she had been in contact with many staff members to include floor nurses, the Social Service Director, the Director of Nursing, and the Nursing Home Administrator related to the care concerns. She stated staffing at the facility changes often. She stated she has voiced her concerns with care to the facility. She stated her concerns with care have been related to staff not assisting Resident #1 with checking and changing, not providing sufficient hydration, and lying in bed nude with only wearing an adult brief. She stated she has mentioned these concerns on more than one occasion to management and feels the concerns have not been investigated. She stated there has been no communication from the facility about the concerns or any type of resolution. Resident #1's family member stated she had verbalized these complaints to the Administrator, the Social Service Director, and the Director of Nursing. On 9/18/2023 at 10:00 a.m. the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Social Service Director (SSD) provided the last nine months of the facility's Complaint/Grievance log for review. A review of the log for the months of 1/2023, 2/2023, 3/2023, 4/2023, 5/2023, 6/2023, 7/2023, 8/2023, and 9/2023 revealed the following complaints related to Resident #1: 1. The Grievance log dated 1/7/2023 revealed Resident #1's family member lodged a complaint related to care and services, which was investigated and confirmed with resolution on the same date. The Grievance log revealed Resident #1's family member was communicated back with investigation results. 2. The Grievance log dated 6/12/2023 revealed Resident #1's family member lodged a complaint related to a missing phone, which was investigated and confirmed with resolution on the same date. The Grievance log revealed Resident #1's family member was communicated back with investigation results. On 9/19/2023 an interview with the SSD was conducted. She stated Resident #1's family member's complaints were investigated, and timely resolution and communication to the family member was completed. A review of the medical record for Resident #1 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The Advance Directives revealed the resident had a Power of Attorney in place to make his medical and financial decisions. The diagnosis sheet revealed diagnoses to include but not limited to, Parkinson's Disease, abnormal posture, depression, anxiety, and a history of falls. A review of the Progress Notes revealed the following: 7/16/2023 10:59 p.m. Nurse writer entered the room same time as resident's [family member] found resident naked on bed. Resident denied taking off his clothes. [Family member] got upset about resident left without clothes. Nurse writer started to get resident dressed up, and his [family member] began to take picture of resident and nurse. Writer asked [family member] nicely to stop taking her picture without authorization. [Family member] told nurse to stop putting clothes on resident if she continued to take picture. Writer reminds [family member] this is a HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] violation, so she has to stop. A review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) Annual assessment dated [DATE] revealed the following: Brief Interview Mental Score (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Activities of Daily Living (ADL) functional capacity listed as, Extensive assist with two person assist to include Bed Mobility, Transfers, Dressing, Toileting, Bathing. Supervision with Eating with one person. On 9/18/2023 at 12:03 p.m. an interview with the SSD revealed she was aware of Resident #1 and also aware of his Power of Attorney (POA). She revealed the POA was another family member. She stated a family member visits routinely but is not the POA. She stated the resident was a pleasant man and needed assistance with most of his ADL's and sometimes goes out to activities. She stated the resident has lower cognitive function but was able to speak with relation to his day. The SSD stated if a complaint is brought up to a staff member, the staff member must follow through with getting the complaint either on the written complaint form, or passing it along to the Unit Manager, and then the complaint is brought to her department's (Social Services) attention. The Social Service Director stated once she receives the complaint, she logs it and starts the investigation by way of communicating with the complainant, and passing the concern to the DON, the Administrator, and respective department related to the complaint. She stated the grievance should be identified and then addressed in a timely manner with investigation and communication back to the person who made the complaint. She stated the facility addressed a complaint from a family member of Resident #1 on 6/12/2023 and 1/7/2023. She stated the complaints were related to a missing phone and nursing care and both were investigated and resolved within the same day they were lodged. The Social Service Director stated there were no other voiced or written grievances for Resident #1 6/12/2023. The Social Service Director reviewed the resident's medical record to include a nurse progress note, dated 7/16/2023. She confirmed the note revealed the resident's family member had concerns with him lying naked on the bed and this concern was not addressed. The SSD stated the information was never forwarded to her in order for her to investigate it. She stated she was not sure of the nurse who wrote the note, but the staff member should have forwarded the concern to the Social Service Department. On 9/19/2023 at 1:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with the NHA and the DON. They stated Resident #1's family member routinely speaks with them regarding her concerns with care and services. They stated they felt all areas of concern had been sufficiently identified and investigated. They stated they were not aware of the concern that occurred on 7/16/2023. They confirmed the nurse note dated 7/16/2023 did explain Resident #1's family member voiced concerns, but stated the concern was not forwarded to them or the Social Service Director to investigate. The DON stated management is responsible for reading daily progress notes and are to report any concerns during daily meetings. On 9/18/2023 the Nursing Home Administrator provided the Resident and Family Concerns and Grievances policy and procedure with an implementation date of 11/28/2017 for review. The policy revealed the following: Policy: To comply with federal regulation, the facility has implemented the policy to support and facilitate each resident's and family member's right to voice grievances without discrimination, reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal. The Definitions section of the policy revealed; Prompt efforts resolve include facility acknowledgement of a complaint/grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline section revealed; 1. The Administrator has appointed the facility Grievance Official to be the Social Service Director and his/her designee. Revised 9/7/2022. 2. The Grievance Official is responsible for overseeing the grievance process; receiving and tracking grievances through to their conclusion; leading any necessary investigations by the facility; maintaining confidentiality of all information associated with grievances; issuing written grievance decisions to the resident; and coordinating with state and federal agencies as necessary in light of specific allegations. 3. A resident or family member may voice grievances with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and other residents, and other concerns regarding their LTC facility stay. 4. Information on how to file a grievance or complaint will be available to the resident. Information may include, but is not limited to: a. The contact information of the grievance official with whom a grievance can be filed, including his or her name, and phone number. 5. Grievances may be voiced in the follow forums: a. Verbal complaint to a staff member or Grievance Official. b. Written complaint to a staff member or Grievance Official. c. Written complaint to an outside party. d. Verbal complaint during resident or family council meetings. e. Via the company toll free Customer Service Line (if applicable). 6. Procedure: a. The staff member recording the grievance will record the nature and specifics of the grievance on the designated grievance form or assist the resident or family member to complete the form. (i) Take any immediate actions needed to prevent further potential violations of any resident right. (ii) Report any allegations involving neglect, abuse, injuries of unknown source, and/or misappropriation of resident property immediately to the administrator and follow procedures for those allegations. b. Forward the grievance form to the Grievance Official as soon as practicable. c. The Grievance Official will take steps to resolve the grievance, and record information about the grievance, and those actions, on the grievance form. (i) Steps to resolve the grievance may involve forwarding the grievance to the appropriate department manager for follow up. (ii) All staff involved in the grievance investigation or resolution should make prompt efforts to resolve the grievance and return the grievance form to the Grievance Official. Prompt efforts include acknowledgement of complaint/grievances and actively working toward a resolution of that complaint/grievance. (iii) All staff involved in the grievance investigation or resolution will take steps to preserve the confidentiality of files and records relating to concerns/grievances and will share them only with those who have a need to know. d. The Grievance Official, or designee, will keep the resident appropriately apprised of progress towards resolution of the grievances. e. In accordance with the resident's right to obtain a written decision regarding his or her grievance, the Grievance Official will issue a written decision regarding his or her grievance, the Grievance Official will issue a written decision on the grievance to the resident or representative at the conclusion of the investigation. The written decision will include at a minimum. (i) The date the grievance was received. (ii) The steps taken to investigate the grievance. (iii) A summary of pertinent findings or conclusions regarding the resident's concern(s). (iv) A statement as to whether the grievance was confirmed or not confirmed. (v) Any corrective actions taken or to be taken by the facility as a result of the grievance. (vi) The date the written decision was issued. f. For investigations regarding allegations of neglect, abuse, injuries of unknown source, and or misappropriation of resident property, a report of the investigative results will be submitted to the State Survey Agency, and other officials in accordance with State law, within five business days of the incident. 7. Evidence demonstrating the results of all grievances will be maintained for a period of no less than 3 years from the issuance of the grievance decision. 8. The facility will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances. 9. The concern/grievance will be logged after it's resolved by the resident and/or responsible party.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Resident #3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical diagnoses include but are not limited to; fracture of the left acetabulum, history of falling, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's disease, adjustment disorder with anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section C: Cognitive Patterns, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's Elopement Risk evaluations dated 8/8/23 and 9/6/23 revealed the resident was at risk for elopement. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 12:50 p.m. with Resident #3. The resident was observed to be sitting in his wheelchair, in the therapy gym. The resident was observed to be pleasantly confused and unable to describe past events with accuracy. An observation was made on 9/18/23 at 12:52 p.m. there was no wandering device observed on the resident or his wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 9/19/23 at 12:52 p.m. with Staff F, Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA) she felt the residents' wrists and observed his ankles and observed his entire wheelchair and she confirmed there was no wandering device on the resident or his wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 12:54 p.m. with Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), she stated she was Resident #3's nurse. She stated the resident was supposed to have a wandering device on. She stated she had not checked for it yet. She reviewed the Physician orders and confirmed the resident was ordered to have a wandering device attached to the back of his wheelchair on the left side. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 12:55 p.m. with Staff E, LPN, Unit Coordinator she confirmed the resident only had one wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 1:10 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) he stated the location of the resident's wandering device is located in the elopement books and wouldn't necessarily be on the Physician orders. He located an elopement book and confirmed Resident #3's wandering device should be on the left side of his wheelchair. Resident #3 was observed being propelled down the hall by Staff F, OTA and the DON observed the resident's wheelchair and confirmed there was no wandering device on the resident or the wheelchair. Staff F, OTA stated Resident #3 received a new wheelchair last week sometime. She stated she was not the one who changed the wheelchair, but he got a new one because it was too low for him. She stated his old wheelchair would be in the therapy storage area in the therapy room. On 9/18/23 at 1:14 p.m. Staff G, Occupational Therapist (OT) stated she did not change his wheelchair Staff F, OTA did. The DON said Staff F, OTA said she didn't change it. Staff G, OT went to the computer to see what therapist changed the wheelchair and confirmed there was no documentation related to changing his wheelchair. Staff H, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) was in the therapy room, and she said she changed the chair on Wednesday of last week (9/13/23). She said his other chair was way too small for him. She said she does not remember there being a wandering device on his old chair because she would have seen it. She entered the therapy storage area, and she said, I believe this was his wheelchair and there was no wandering device on it. She stated she did not remember ever seeing it on the wheelchair. The wheelchair was observed not to have a wandering device on it. On 9/18/23 at 1:18 p.m. the DON said when the wheelchairs get changed the wandering device stays with the resident no matter what. Review of Resident #3's Physician orders revealed an order with a start date of 9/12/23 and no end date as; Roam alert for safety. Check placement and function every shift. Review of Resident #3's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed a physician's order to start on 9/12/23 and was discontinued on 9/18/23 as; Ensure [wandering device] is in place every shift back of w/c (wheelchair) left side. Review of the documentation revealed the order was signed off as completed every shift starting from the evening shift on 9/12/23 through the night shift on 9/17/23. Further physician orders review on the TAR revealed; Roam alert for safety. Check for placement and function every shift with a start date of 9/12/23 and no end date. Review of the documentation revealed the order was signed off as completed every shift starting from the evening shift of 9/12/23 through the night shift on 9/18/23. Based on observations, interviews, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan interventions were implemented according to orders for two residents at risk for elopement (#3 and #4) related to use of a Roam Alert bracelets out of five sampled residents. Findings included: On 9/18/2023 at 1:35 p.m. Resident #4 was observed in her room lying in bed. Her arms were exposed, and a yellow Roam Alert bracelet was observed on her right wrist. An interview was unable to be conducted. On 9/19/2023 at 7:27 a.m. Resident #4 was observed in her bed and lying flat with head on the pillow. Resident #4 had a Roam Alert bracelet on her right wrist. An interview was conducted on 9/18/2023 at 2:00 p.m. with Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff E confirmed Resident #4 was an elopement risk and should wear a Roam Alert bracelet on her arm. Staff E stated the Roam Alert bracelet would sound off a door alarm should the resident get near the alarm system at any of the exit doors. The LPN stated Resident #4 had not had any exit seeking behaviors but utilized the Roam Alert bracelet due to her cognition and diagnosis of dementia. The LPN stated she and the other Unit Managers update the Roam Alert books to reflect who is an elopement risk throughout the facility and will keep the books at the nurse stations as well as the front lobby desk. She stated she and the other unit managers ensure all staff are knowledgeable of where the book is and how to identify if a resident is an elopement risk. Review of the North Wing Roam Alert book revealed a blank floor plan with room numbers, an elopement policy and procedure, and photos with names of residents who were elopement risks. Further review of the book revealed a sheet of paper that indicated; Roam Alert Log North Unit. Resident #4 was identified as an elopement risk and revealed she is to wear a Roam Alert bracelet on her right wrist. The book also revealed a face sheet with Resident #4's photograph. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Advance Directives revealed the resident had a Power of Attorney who made her medical and financial decisions. Review of the diagnosis sheet revealed diagnoses to include but not limited to dementia, altered mental status, and history of falls. Review of the current Physician's Order Sheet dated for the month 9/2023 revealed the following: Roam Alert for Safety. Check placement and function every shift. Place on Right Wrist and check skin for integrity; original order date 8/17/2023. Review of the most current Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment Medicare 5 day dated 8/13/2023 revealed: Cognition/Brief Interview Mental Status Score (BIMS) of 8, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Activities of Daily Living (ADL) revealed Supervision as one person assistance with most ADLs. However, requires limited assistance with dressing; Behaviors revealed no behaviors exhibited with relation to wandering. Review of the most recent Elopement Risk assessment dated [DATE], revealed; Not wandering/seeking to find spouse and/family, and checked as not at risk for elopement. Review of the current care plans with a next review date 11/19/2023, revealed the following: 1. ADL self-care performance deficit related to metabolic encephalopathy, Hypertension, Dementia, Syncope, Altered Mental Status, History of falling, with interventions in place as reviewed and observed. 2. High risk for fall and related injury related to: Disease process/condition, Functional problem, Hypertension Dementia, Syncope, Altered Mental Status, History of falling, Medication usage and unavoidable decline. Use of assistive device to include wheelchair, fall risk factors present as determined by fall risk screen, with interventions in place as reviewed and observed. 3. Tend to wander aimlessly due to impaired cognitive function. However, is not actively seeking an exit at this time, and with interventions in place to include but not limited to: Check for proper functioning of the audible alarm system every shift and as need. On 9/19/2023 at 9:36 a.m. both MDS/Care Plan Coordinators Staff Band C revealed they were aware of Resident #4 and her being an Elopement risk. They stated the resident utilized a Roam Alert bracelet per the order and care plan. They reviewed the current care plans, and confirmed there was not any specific direction related to the use and maintenance of this Roam Alert band. Staff B and C both confirmed the intervention was not as descriptive with use and maintenance of this device, and confirmed other residents who have the same device are care planned specifically with the maintenance and us. On 9/202023 at 1:00 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator provided the Comprehensive Care Plans, with an implementation date of 11/28/2017, for review. The Policy revealed the following; It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet at resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The Definitions section of the policy revealed; Person-centered-care means to focus on the resident as the focus of control and support the resident in making their own choices and having control over their daily lives. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline section of the policy revealed; 1. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. b. Any services that would otherwise be furnished but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of his or her right to refuse treatment. c. The resident's goals for admission, desired outcomes, and preferences for future discharge. 2. The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS assessment. 3. The comprehensive care plan will include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs as identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The objectives will be utilized to monitor the resident's progress. Alternative interventions will be documented, as needed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a wandering device was placed on one resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure a wandering device was placed on one resident (#3) out of 5 residents reviewed to be at risk for elopement. Findings included: Resident #3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical diagnoses include but are not limited to; fracture of the left acetabulum, history of falling, muscle weakness, Alzheimer's disease, adjustment disorder with anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Section C: Cognitive Patterns, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3's Elopement Risk evaluations dated 8/8/23 and 9/6/23 revealed the resident was at risk for elopement. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 12:50 p.m. with Resident #3. The resident was observed to be sitting in his wheelchair, in the therapy gym. The resident was observed to be pleasantly confused and unable to describe past events with accuracy. An observation was made on 9/18/23 at 12:52 p.m. there was no wandering device observed on the resident or his wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 9/19/23 at 12:52 p.m. with Staff F, Occupational Therapy Assistant (OTA) she felt the residents' wrists and observed his ankles and observed his entire wheelchair and she confirmed there was no wandering device on the resident or his wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 12:54 p.m. with Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), she stated she was Resident #3's nurse. She stated the resident was supposed to have a wandering device on. She stated she had not checked for it yet. She reviewed the Physician orders and confirmed the resident was ordered to have a wandering device attached to the back of his wheelchair on the left side. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 12:55 p.m. with Staff E, LPN, Unit Coordinator she confirmed the resident only had one wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 9/18/23 at 1:10 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) he stated the location of the resident's wandering device is located in the elopement books and wouldn't necessarily be on the Physician orders. He located an elopement book and confirmed Resident #3's wandering device should be on the left side of his wheelchair. Resident #3 was observed being propelled down the hall by Staff F, OTA and the DON observed the resident's wheelchair and confirmed there was no wandering device on the resident or the wheelchair. Staff F, OTA stated Resident #3 received a new wheelchair last week sometime. She stated she was not the one who changed the wheelchair, but he got a new one because it was too low for him. She stated his old wheelchair would be in the therapy storage area in the therapy room. On 9/18/23 at 1:14 p.m. Staff G, Occupational Therapist (OT) stated she did not change his wheelchair Staff F, OTA did. The DON said Staff F, OTA said she didn't change it. Staff G, OT went to the computer to see what therapist changed the wheelchair and confirmed there was no documentation related to changing his wheelchair. Staff H, Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA) was in the therapy room, and she said she changed the chair on Wednesday of last week (9/13/23). She said his other chair was way too small for him. She said she does not remember there being a wandering device on his old chair because she would have seen it. She entered the therapy storage area, and she said, I believe this was his wheelchair and there was no wandering device on it. She stated she did not remember ever seeing it on the wheelchair. The wheelchair was observed not to have a wandering device on it. On 9/18/23 at 1:18 p.m. the DON said when the wheelchairs get changed the wandering device stays with the resident no matter what. Review of Resident #3's Physician orders revealed an order with a start date of 9/12/23 and no end date as; Roam alert for safety. Check placement and function every shift. Review of Resident #3's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed a physician's order to start on 9/12/23 and was discontinued on 9/18/23 as; Ensure [wandering device] is in place every shift back of w/c (wheelchair) left side. Review of the documentation revealed the order was signed off as completed every shift starting from the evening shift on 9/12/23 through the night shift on 9/17/23. Further physician orders review on the TAR revealed; Roam alert for safety. Check for placement and function every shift with a start date of 9/12/23 and no end date. Review of the documentation revealed the order was signed off as completed every shift starting from the evening shift of 9/12/23 through the night shift on 9/18/23. Review of Resident #3's care plan with an initiated date of 8/8/23 revealed I am an elopement risk/wanderer r/t [related to] History [sic] of attempts to leave facility unattended the goal included I rely upon staff to monitor my location to decrease my ability to elope from the facility through interventions as provided. The interventions included but are not limited to apply roam alert- Check for working condition, placement and skin integrity as ordered. Review of the facility's Elopements and Wandering Residents policy with an implementation date of 11/28/2017 revealed Policy: This facility ensures that residents who exhibit wandering behavior and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .3. The facility is equipped with door locks/alarms to help avoid elopements. 4. alarms are not a replacement for necessary supervision. Staff are to be vigilant in responding to alarms in a timely manner. 5. the facility shall establish and utilize a systemic approach to monitoring and managing residents at risk for elopement or unsafe wandering, including identification and assessment of risk, evaluation and analysis of hazards and risks, implementing interventions to reduce hazards and risks, and monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary .
Jun 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to follow their grievance policy for one (#2) out of thirty Residents related to ensuring a prompt resolution of missing hygiene products. Findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to follow their grievance policy for one (#2) out of thirty Residents related to ensuring a prompt resolution of missing hygiene products. Findings Included: On 06/14/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Resident #2 was observed sitting in the hallway outside of his bedroom and was receptive to an interview. He said next month it would be two years since he had resided at the facility. Resident #2 said he had received a gift box at Christmas that contained a bottle of body wash, shampoo, and deodorant. He said he had placed it inside of his bedside table for about a week. When he was ready to use it, the entire box was missing. Resident #2 stated you can look for yourself it's not there. When asked if he had told anyone about it, he stated I have been here long enough to know if you want something done you need to go the head of nursing. I did just that, I told the former Director of Nursing (DON) and the DON that is working here now. He said they both told me the same thing; they would look into it. Resident #2 denied anyone had followed up with him toward a resolution as of today. Review of the facility Grievance Log from December 2022 to June 2023 failed to reflect Resident #2 concern/grievance. On 06/15/2023 at 9:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with the DON that confirmed Resident #2 had informed him about the missing hygiene products. The DON stated, it's been missing for a while even before I started working here. He continued to say he was just going to replace the products. He denied he filed a formal grievance concern, indicating the facility process was not followed. On 06/15/2023 at 2:21 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Social Social Director (SSD). She said she was the Grievance Coordinator, and anyone could write a grievance. She said their grievance process included a concern from a resident that verbalized a missing item. The SSD stated, it can even be written down on a piece of paper. I'm not at the facility on weekends but whoever is in charge, or the designated supervisor is responsible to write it down. She said, The written concern could be placed in my mailbox. I have had notes slipped under my office door before They can also call me directly. The SW indicated at the time she had no knowledge of Resident #2 missing a box of hygiene products. She stated Yes, I will replace it. Review of the facility policy titled 1995 Resident and Family Concerns and Grievances Revision date: 9/7/22. Policy Statement: To comply with federal regulation, 42 C.F.R.483.10(i), the facility has implemented the policy to support and facilitate each resident's and family member's right to voice grievances without discrimination, reprisal or fear of discrimination or reprisal. Definitions: Prompt efforts to resolve-include facility acknowledgement of a complaint. Grievance and actively working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 8. Grievances may be voiced in the following forums: a. Verbal complaint to a staff member or Grievance Official. 10. Procedure: a. The staff member receiving the grievance will record the nature and specifics of the grievance on the designated grievance form or assist the resident or family member to complete the form. c. Forward the grievance form to the Grievance Official as soon as practicable. d. The Grievance Official will take steps to resolve the grievance, and record information about the grievance and those actions, on the grievance form. i. Steps to resolve the grievance may involve forwarding the grievance to the appropriate department manager for follow-up. ii. all staff involved in the grievance investigation or resolution should make prompt efforts to resolve the grievance and return the grievance form to the Grievance Official. Prompt efforts included acknowledgment of complaint/grievance and activity working toward resolution of that complaint/grievance. e. The Grievance Official, or designee, will keep the resident appropriately appraised of progress towards resolution of the grievance.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to two (Residents#31 and #4...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services to two (Residents#31 and #45) out of two residents sampled for Midline and Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #45's admission record revealed he was re-admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical diagnoses included but were not limited to chronic osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot, Type 2 diabetes with foot ulcer, acquired absence of right toe(s), non-pressure chronic ulcer of right ankle with unspecified severity, Methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus infection as the cause of diseases, chronic venous hypertension with other complications of bilateral lower extremity. Review of Resident #45's physician orders only revealed an order dated to start on 6/3/23 for Cefazolin sodium reconstituted 1 gram. Use 2 grams intravenously every 8 hours for osteomyelitis until 6/16/23. Further physician review did not reveal any other physician orders related to Resident #45 having an intravenous (IV) catheter. On 6/15/23 at 10:00 a.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #45's right upper arm and revealed he had a IV catheter in place with a clean and intact dressing that was not labeled. The IV catheter observation was conducted with Staff C, RN, minimum data set (MDS) Coordinator. She observed Resident #45's IV catheter dressing and confirmed the dressing was not dated or labeled. Resident #45 stated, they changed the bandage last night and the girl tried to write on it but it wouldn't write Staff C was observed writing 6/14/23 on Resident #45's IV catheter dressing. She stated she was not the person who changed the IV dressing last night. Resident #45 had a care plan initiated on 4/20/23 which revealed I at [sic] risk of complications from IV ABT [antibiotics] for osteomyelitis. Goal included: Infection will resolve without complications. Will minimize risk for complications from IV therapy through the duration of ABT. Interventions include administer meds per orders, consult with ID [infectious disease] as indicated, IV dressing changes per orders, maintain IV patency, observe IV site for s/sx [signs/symptoms] infection: redness, drainage, and irritation. Wound care per MD [medical doctor] orders. An interview was conducted 06/15/23 at 10:17 a.m. with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed IV dressings should be dated and labeled when they are changed. He also confirmed Resident #45 is on IV antibiotics for osteomyelitis of his right foot. 2. On 06/14/2023 at 10:38 a.m., Resident #31 was observed sitting in his wheelchair removing a small volume nebulizer mask from his face. As he removed the mask a fine aerosol mist continued to expel into the air. When asked about his breathing treatment he did not respond verbally as cognitive deficit was noted. On 06/14/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse was sitting at the nursing station and was informed Resident # 31 had removed the nebulizer mask. Staff B entered Resident #31 bedroom and turned off nebulizer machine. Resident #31 picked up his left arm as the nurse moved the mask from the bedside table that revealed a catheter device. Staff B confirmed the placement of a catheter to his left upper arm that was dated 06/06/2023. Review of Resident #31's admission Record form revealed he had resided at the facility for two years. The form did not contain a diagnosis for the placement of the midline catheter. Review of Resident #31's progress notes dated 06/06/2023 at 5:44 p.m. (17:44), showed urinary (UA) results obtained this A.M. MD notified. New order received for Ertapenem (antibiotic) 500 mg intravenous (IV) daily for (x) 10 days for Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL). Call placed to IV department for midline insertion. At 10:42 p.m. (22:42) Midline inserted to left arm by IV nurse. Review of Physician orders Change midline dressing 24 hours after initial insertion; then weekly on Wednesday every evening shift every Wed dated 06/06/2023. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed documentation in place that reflected the midline dressing was changed on 06/07/2023. The next scheduled midline dressing change was on 06/14/2023. There was no documentation to show that the dressing change had been done as ordered. On 06/15/2023 at 10:28 a.m., Resident #31 was observed sitting up in his wheelchair and appeared comfortable when approached. His left arm midline dressing just above the antecubital area was no longer occlusive to the skin. The dressing presented with a moderate amount of dried bloody drainage (photographic evidence was obtained). On 06/15/2023 at 10:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and he confirmed after observation, Resident #31's dressing was dated 06/06/2023. The DON reviewed the TAR that contained documentation that reflected Resident #31's dressing was changed on 06/07/2023. Along with the omission of the dressing change on 06/14/2023. The DON indicated he was unaware Resident #31 had not received care and services to his midline. He confirmed it was his expectation the Licensed nurse's provide care and services as ordered for all vascular/catheter devices. Review of the facility policy titled Vascular Access Devices and Infusion Therapy Procedures dated 08/21. Dressing Change for Vascular Access Devices Purpose: To prevent local and systemic infection related to the IV catheter. Policy: 2. Central venous access device and midline dressing changes will be done at established intervals and immediately if the integrity of the dressing is compromised, if moisture, drainage or blood present, or for further assessment if infection is suspected. Transparent semi-permeable membrane dressing are changed every 7 days and as needed (PRN). 4. Initial dressing are catheter placement will be changed PRN if saturated, and 24-48 hours post insertion of midlines, PICC's, or other central venous access devices if gauze is present under the dressing or/or there is blood/drainage under the dressing. 5. A dressing change is immediately if: The dressing is non-occlusive or soiled. There is drainage or moisture under the dressing.
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 and interview the facility failed to communicate with the dialysis center for one (Resident #51) out of o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to communicate with the dialysis center for one (Resident #51) out of one resident sampled for dialysis. Findings included: Review of Resident #51's admission record revealed she was admitted on [DATE] from home. Her medical diagnoses included but were not limited to Alzheimer's disease, arteriovenous fistula, end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. A family interview was conducted on 6/12/23 at 11:10 a.m. the family stated, [Resident #51] goes to dialysis 3 times a week. Our [family member] takes her and sometimes she [Resident #51] doesn't want to go to dialysis, she has Alzheimer's and we asked her if she wants to stop going but she said she's not ready to die so our family needs to have a meeting about her and what we want to do. An interview was conducted on 06/14/23 at 10:45 a.m. with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She said, usually for dialysis residents we take the vitals and complete the top of the communication form, they take the dialysis book with them, and the dialysis center completes their portion. Today [the resident's family member] took the resident [Resident #51] to dialysis he must have forgotten the dialysis book. Normally it is [another family member] that brings her . An interview was conducted on 06/14/23 at 11:00 a.m. with Staff E, LPN. She stated residents who go to dialysis the vitals are documented in the computer, there is a form. We don't use the books anymore. Review of the Resident #51's dialysis communication forms in conjunction with the medical record indicated there was only one communication form for the month of June dated 6/14/23 and the form was incomplete without any post dialysis assessment. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted on 6/15/23 at 10:15 a.m. He stated, the dialysis communication forms should be completed by our nursing staff, sent with the resident to dialysis, and dialysis will email me their information, and then it should be uploaded into the residents medical record. The DON reviewed Resident #51's medical record and her dialysis book and confirmed she did not have any dialysis communication sheets or documentation from the dialysis center in her medical record. Review of Resident #51's care plan initiated on 8/19/21 revealed, [Resident #51] needs hemodialysis r/t [related to] end stage renal failure. M/W/F [Monday/Wednesday/Friday] at [dialysis facility] . family to transport. The goal included the resident will have no s/sx {signs/symptoms] of complications from dialysis through the review date. The interventions included but are not limited to monitor labs and report to doctor as needed. Monitor vital signs pre and post dialysis. Notify MD (medical doctor) of significant abnormalities. Review of the facility's policy hemodialysis with an implantation date of 11/28/2017 revealed Policy Statement This facility will provide the necessary care and treatment, consistent with professional standards of practice, physician orders, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences, to meet the special medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs of residents receiving hemodialysis. Purpose: The facility will assure that each resident receives care and services for the provision of hemodialysis dialysis consistent with professional standards of practice, which include the following: 1. The ongoing assessment of the resident's condition and monitoring for complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility. 2. Ongoing assessment and oversight of the resident before, during, and after dialysis treatments, including monitoring of the resident's condition during treatments, monitoring for complications, implementation of appropriate interventions, and using appropriate infection control practices; and 3. Ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services. .Compliance Guidelines: .2. The facility will coordinate and collaborate with the dialysis facility to assure that: a. The resident's needs related to dialysis treatment are met; b. The provision of the dialysis treatments and care of the resident meets current standards of practice for the safe administration of the dialysis treatments; c. Documentation requirements are met to assure that treatments are provided as ordered by the nephrologist, attending practitioner and dialysis team; and d. There is ongoing communication and collaboration for the development and implementation of the dialysis care plan by nursing home and dialysis staff . Review of the facility's Long Term Care Facility Outpatient Dialysis Services Coordination Agreement singed by the facility on 8/14/2019 and signed by the dialysis center on 8/15/2019 revealed .Mutual Obligations 11. Collaboration of Care. Both parties shall ensure that there is documentation evidence of collaboration of care and communication between Long Term Care Facility and ESRD [end stage renal disease] Dialysis Unit .
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Twenty-eight medication administration opportunities were observed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Twenty-eight medication administration opportunities were observed, and two errors were identified for two (Residents #136 and #45) out of five sampled residents. These errors constituted a 7.14 % medication error rate. Findings Included: On 06/14/2023 at 11:14 a.m., Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse, Unit Coordinator entered Resident #136 bedroom and informed him it was time for his blood glucose level. Resident #136 was sitting up in his wheelchair and was receptive to the observation. Staff F performed a blood glucose level (BGL) that registered at 265 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). Staff F informed the resident she would return with his insulin. Staff F reviewed Resident #136 orders and stated, the sliding scale indicates 6 units of Aspart. Staff F removed an insulin pen labeled Aspart and cleaned the top of the pen with a alcohol pad and added a new needle. She turned the dose selector to 6 units and stated, See 6 units. Staff F reentered Resident # 136 bedroom and administered the insulin into his left lower abdomen. On 06/15/2023 at 11:25 p.m. Staff H Licensed Practical Nurse, Unit Coordinator was observed as she performed a BGL procedure for Resident # 45 that registered at 199 mg/dL. Staff H returned to the medication cart and stated, his sliding scale indicates he requires 2 units of insulin. Staff H removed a Novolog R pen from the cart and cleaned the top with an alcohol wipe. Placed a new needle on the pen and turned the dial dose to 2 units. Staff H returned to Resident #45 bedroom and administered the insulin to his right upper abdomen. On 06/15/2023 at 12:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing that confirmed insulin pens need to be prepared by utilizing the airshot method prior to utilizing. He indicated he was unaware two Licensed staff members failed to perform the air shot method prior to the administration of insulin. The DON confirmed it was his expectation manufactures instructions were followed to ensure residents were receiving the correct amount of insulin. On 06/15/2023 at 2:35 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff F related to the insulin administered to Resident # 136 she stated, I totally forgot to prepare the insulin pen. On 06/15/2023 at 2:40 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff H she stated the DON already told me about the insulin pen. I didn't know you had to do that. Review of the facility policy titled Insulin Pen review date 11/23/2022. Policy: It is the policy of this facility to use insulin pens in order to improve the accuracy of insulin dosing. Provide increased resident comfort and serve as a teaching aid to prepare resident for self-administration of insulin therapy upon discharge. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 6. Insulin pens will be primed prior to each use to avoid an air of the insulin reservoir. 11. Procedure: h. Prime the insulin pen: i. Dial 2 units by turning the dose selector clockwise. ii. with the needle pointing up, push the plunger, and watch to see that at least one drop of insulin appears on the tip of the needle. If not, repeat until at least one drop appears. i. Set the insulin dose: Turn the dose selector to ordered dose.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice as it relat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice as it relates to maintaining complete and accurate medical records related to wound care services for one (Resident #45) out of 30 sampled residents. Findings included: Review of Resident #45's admission record revealed he was re-admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical diagnosis included but were not limited to chronic osteomyelitis of the right ankle and foot, Type 2 diabetes with foot ulcer, acquired absence of right toe(s), non-pressure chronic ulcer of right ankle with unspecified severity, Methicillin susceptible staphylococcus aureus infection as the cause of diseases, chronic venous hypertension with other complications of bilateral lower extremity. On 06/12/23 at 10:55 a.m., Resident #45 was observed to have a gauze dressing on his right foot. He stated they were changing it every day and it was getting a teensy bit better. He stated he used to have a wound vacuum (vac) but it kept leaking so he did not have it anymore. Review of Resident #45's minimum data set (MDS), section, C, cognitive patterns, dated 5/22/23 revealed he had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. On 6/15/23 at 10:00 a.m., Resident #45 was observed to have a wound vac in place on his right foot. He stated they just put that on last night. They were changing my bandage every day after the wound vac broke. Review of Resident #45's physician orders revealed an order to start on 6/13/23 without an end date revealed wound vac to right lateral foot and bottom of right foot continuous pressure setting at 125 mmHg, change wound vac 2 times a week (Tuesday-Friday) every day shift every Tuesday, Friday. Review of the June treatment administration record (TAR) revealed the wound vac was documented as competed on 6/13/23. Further physician order dated to start on 5/16/23 without an end date revealed check wound vac for proper functioning every shift. Review of the June TAR documentation revealed the order was signed off as completed on all three shifts from day shift on 6/10/23 thru the night shift on 6/13/23. An interview was conducted 06/15/23 at 10:17 a.m. with the Director of Nursing he stated on Friday [6/10/23] Resident #45's wound vac broke and they ordered a new one. The wound vac came in last night [6/14/23] and was applied. When the wound vac broke, we got an order for wet to dry dressings. The DON reviewed the wound vac documentation for Resident #45 and confirmed the staff should not have been signing off on the wound vac orders because it was not in place from 6/10/23 through the evening of 6/14/23. He stated the orders should have been placed on hold. Review of the facility's policy Documentation in Medical Record implemented on 11/28/2017 revealed Policy Statement Each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation .
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Le...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to complete the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II upon a new qualifying mental health diagnosis for four (Resident #19, #1, #5, and #12) of four residents sampled for PASARR Level II. Findings included: 1. Resident #19 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease with late onset. Review of Resident #19's PASARR Level I Assessment, dated 04/02/19 revealed no qualifying mental health diagnosis and that no PASARR Level II was required. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed new diagnoses of unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition documented on 09/08/22, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance, other specified persistent mood disorders documented on 01/23/23, and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. Section I Active Diagnoses of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a diagnosis of psychotic disorder and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. 2. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and major depressive disorder. Review of Resident #1's PASARR Level I Assessment, dated 02/24/21 revealed a qualifying mental health diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and that no PASARR Level II was required. Section I Active Diagnoses of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed diagnoses of schizophrenia and depression and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. 3. Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of unspecified psychosis not due to a substance of known physiological condition. Review of Resident #5's PASARR Level I Assessment, dated 10/09/20 revealed no qualifying mental health diagnosis and that no PASARR Level II was required. Review of Resident #5's medical record revealed new diagnoses of anxiety disorder documented on 06/14/21, schizophrenia disorder, mood disorder documented on 05/27/21, and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. Section I Active Diagnoses of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed diagnoses of anxiety disorder, psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. On 06/15/23 at 12:41 p.m., Staff D, Lead MDS Coordinator, reported she was filling in to complete the PASARRs since January 2nd [2023]. She said she created a PASARR if the resident was being admitted from home or did not have the ability to get a PASARR completed. Diagnoses should be listed on the PASARR. Staff D, stated she reviewed medication, history and physical, and psych notes to assist with completing the PASARR. She had never done a referral for a level II PASARR. If a resident had a mental illness, they must have a level II PASARR completed. 4. On 06/12/2023 at 2:00 p.m., Resident #12 was observed lying in bed and receptive to an interview. When approached he appeared comfortable but stated he was having pain to his left heel and asked for two pain pills. He was able to use his call light for assistance. Resident #12 denied getting out of bed daily and stated, I don't want to, and no one is going to make me. Medical record review of the admission Record form revealed Resident #12 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses listed as social phobia, paranoid schizophrenia, major depression disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #12's Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 05/18/2023, Section I Active Diagnoses showed Anxiety disorder, Depression, Psychotic disorder, and Schizophrenia. Review of the Resident #12 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) dated 01/26/2021 showed qualifying mental health diagnoses of Depressive disorder and Schizophrenia and no PASARR Level II was required. The facility failed to complete the PASRR Level II upon a new qualifying mental health diagnosis. Review of the facility's policy titled Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program implemented 11/28/17 revealed .9. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review .
Jul 2021 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observation and interview, medical record and policy reviews and interviews with nursing staff, the Director o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident observation and interview, medical record and policy reviews and interviews with nursing staff, the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator, the facility failed to ensure that one resident (#60) out of twenty-seven sampled residents was properly assessed and monitored for self-administration of a nebulizer treatment. Findings included: On 7/12/21 at 10:05 a.m. Resident #60 was observed sitting in a wheelchair at the bedside with a nebulizer treatment in progress with no nursing staff present in the room. Resident #60 stated he does the treatments on his own all the time and he receives several treatments a day. Resident #60 stated the nurse comes into the room and puts the medication into the cup and he does the treatment until all the medicine is done. Resident #60 stated the nurse does not stay in the room while the treatment is in progress. After five minutes had passed the resident took off the nebulizer mask, reached over and turned off the machine, and set the mask on the bedside table. Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) arrived in the room and asked the resident if he was done with the treatment. An interview was conducted with Staff F, LPN at this time. Staff F stated she went down the hall to bring her medication cart back to the room and left Resident #60 doing his nebulizer treatment. Staff F, LPN stated she was not aware if a self-administration of medications assessment had been completed for Resident #60. On 7/12/21 at 10:35 a.m. an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the expectation for nurses when giving nebulizer treatments was to follow the doctors' orders. The DON indicated there was a policy in place for self-administration of medications and there was an assessment that is completed for residents who wish to do self-administration of medications. The DON was not aware if Resident #60 had an assessment completed. A copy of the policy for self-administration of medications and a copy of the assessment for Resident #60 was requested. A review of the medical record revealed Resident #60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy, atrial fibrillation, major depressive disorder, hypertension, sleep apnea, transient ischemic attacks, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A review of the July 2021 physician orders for Resident #60 revealed respiratory care orders for Albuterol Sulfate nebulizer solution 2.5 milligrams/3 milliliters 0.083% one vial inhale orally via nebulizer three times a day related to COPD with acute exacerbation; Breo Elllipta 100-25 micrograms/inhale aerosol powder breath activated one inhalation inhale orally one time a day for COPD and rinse mouth with water after use. An order dated 7/12/21 was written as may self-administer nebulizer treatment with license nurse. A review of the admission Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. A review of the comprehensive care plan for Resident #60 indicated the following focus areas associated with respiratory care: Focus: Resident #60 has COPD, and it makes him short of breath and increases his chances of re-hospitalization (initiated 6/14/21). Goal: Will have a reduction of symptoms relating to COPD by allowing staff/doctor to provide interventions. Interventions: Administer medications as ordered. Focus: Resident #60 cognition is impaired as evidenced by decision making problems, short term memory problems, long term memory problems, diagnosis encephalopathy and noted with BIMS score of 7 (initiated 6/21/21). Goal: Maintain my current cognitive ability. Interventions: Report unanticipated changes in cognitive status to my physician. Focus: Resident #60 has a physician's order for self-administration of nebulizer treatments as ordered (set up by a licensed nurse) (initiated 7/12/21). Goal: The resident will take medications safely and as prescribed through the review date. Interventions: Monitor resident's self-administration and check on intervals through review date; Review medication self-administration with resident routinely and as needed to reassess abilities. On 7/13/21 at 3:40 p.m. the DON was asked again for a policy on self-administration of medications and the assessment for Resident #60. On 7/13/21 at 4:09 p.m. the DON brought the policy for review and stated he was not aware if an assessment had been done for Resident #60. The DON stated it may be in the chart on the floor. A review of the policy entitled, Resident Self-Administration of Medication, was implemented on 11/28/2017 and last reviewed/revised in 3/2021, an indicated the following: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to support each resident's right to self-administer medication. A resident may only self-administer medications after the facility's interdisciplinary team has determined which medications may be self-administered safely. Policy explanation and compliance guidelines: 1. Resident preference will be documented on the appropriate form and placed in the medical record. 2. When determining if self-administration is clinically appropriate for a resident, the interdisciplinary team should at a minimum consider the following: --The medications appropriate and safe for self-administration --The resident's physical capacity to swallow without difficulty and to open medication bottles --The resident's cognitive status, including their ability to correctly name their medications and know what conditions they are taken for --The resident's capability to follow directions and tell time to know when medications need to be taken --The resident's comprehension of instructions for the medications they are taking, including the dose, timing, and signs of side effects, and when to report to facility staff --The resident's ability to understand what refusal of medication is, and appropriate steps taken by staff to educate when this occurs --The resident's ability to ensure that medication is stored safely and securely 3. The results of the interdisciplinary team assessment are recorded on the Self-Administration Assessment Form, which is placed on the resident's medical record. A review of the medical record on 7/13/21 at 4:15 p.m. revealed a document entitled Self-Assessment for Medication Administration dated 7/12/21 on the back of the form by provider. The form was two sided and contained the following information: Side one Section A No response listed for Does resident wish to self-administer medications? Section B Assessment Criteria Had a check mark under Not Applicable for Question 1 Can correctly read aloud instructions for use on medication container? A check mark under Not Applicable for Question 10 Can correctly state situations warranting administration of PRN medications? A check mark under Not Applicable for Question 14 Can correctly self-administer inhalants. A signature was on the bottom of the page for Resident #60 with the room number. No other assessment questions were completed for Resident #60 on the Self-Administration Assessment. Side two Quarterly evaluation results--A check mark is indicated under Resident is deemed able to safely self-administer medications and yes is circled. No notes are provided. A signature is present and a date of 7/12/21. On 7/13/21 at 4:30 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Administrator and the DON. The Administrator stated the self-assessment document appeared to be incomplete. The DON confirmed the document did not appear complete and was dated 7/12/21 after the initial observation occurred for Resident #60. The Administrator stated they try to make sure any areas brought to their attention are corrected and she would make sure the self-administration concern would be brought to Quality Assurance. On 7/14/21 at 11:55 a.m. Resident #60 was observed seated in his room in his wheelchair. The resident stated he had no recollection of anyone asking him to sign a document about self-administration of medications. Review of policy entitled, Nebulizer Therapy, with an implementation date of 11/28/17 indicated the following: Policy: It is the policy of this facility for nebulizer treatments, once ordered, to be administered by nursing staff as directed using proper technique and standard precautions. Care of the Resident: 6 Obtain resident's vital signs and perform respiratory assessment to establish a baseline. 8 Place ordered medications into nebulizer cup, and mouthpiece per manufacturer's specifications and ensure connections are secured tightly. 9 Assist resident into a comfortable position. If possible, place resident in an upright position to encourage full lung expansion and promote aerosol dispersion. 13 Keep nebulizer vertical during treatment 14 Observe resident during the procedure for any change in condition.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide one resident (#28) of five sampled residents or their repre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide one resident (#28) of five sampled residents or their representative, with a completed written copy of the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Form when transferred emergently to an acute care facility. Findings included: A review of the admission Record revealed that Resident #28 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her principal diagnosis was for unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction, other pertinent diagnoses included but were not limited to a cognitive communication deficit, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis following the cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominant side. Her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment from the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a score of 00 indicating that Resident #28 either did not respond to the questions or answered all of the questions incorrectly. The Resident's family member was noted as the responsible party on Resident #28's admission Record. A review of the nursing progress note dated 03/20/21 at 02:15 a.m. revealed that Resident #28 was observed to be flushed, non-communicative and glassy eyed. The objective symptoms included a capillary blood sugar of 424 and blood pressure readings of 154/116. The medical doctor was called and an order to send Resident #28 to the hospital for evaluation was obtained. The progress note documented the notification and agreement of Resident #28's emergency contact for the transfer. A review of the Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Form dated 03/20/21 revealed a partially filled-out form. The section of the form identifying the Nursing Home Administrator/Designee Name was blank with an illegible signature, the Physician/Designee Name was blank, the Notice Received by section included the words contacted name of family member, and was dated 03/20/21 and there was no signature. The Notice give to section for Resident, Legal Guardian or Representative had a date of 3/20/21 documented. An interview with Staff K, Social Services was conducted on 07/13/21 at 3:22 p.m. Staff K confirmed that he sends a notification at the time of the transfer to the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman's office via fax. Staff K stated he does not send any other notifications. He stated that nursing calls the resident's representative or emergency contact when they send the resident out, he stated that he was not aware of any other notifications. A review of the facility's policy dated 11/28/17 last revised 01/04/21, entitled, Transfer and Discharges & Against Medical Advice (AMA), revealed the following, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility except in the limited situations when the health and safety of the individual or other residents are endangered .7. Emergency Transfer/Discharges - initiated by the facility for medical reasons .i. Provide a notice of the resident's bed hold policy to the resident and representative at the time of transfer, [as soon] as possible, but no later than 24 hours of the transfer. J. Provide transfer notice as soon as practicable to [the] resident and representative. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) conducted on 07/15/21 at 11:22 a.m. confirmed that a written notice, and a notice of the bed hold including charges was not given to Resident #28 responsible party. The NHA stated that she had just become aware that there was a lapse in the facility's process related to the written notifications required with a resident transfer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide two residents (28 and 66) of five sampled, or their represe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility failed to provide two residents (28 and 66) of five sampled, or their representative, with a written copy of the bed hold notice when they were transferred emergently to an acute care facility. Findings included: 1. A review of the admission Record revealed that Resident #28 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her principal diagnosis was for unspecified sequelae of cerebral infarction, other pertinent diagnoses included but were not limited to a cognitive communication deficit, and hemiplegia/hemiparesis following the cerebral infarction affecting the left non-dominant side. Her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment from the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a score of 00 indicating that Resident #28 either did not respond to the questions or answered all of the questions incorrectly. The Resident's family member was noted as the responsible party on Resident #28's admission Record. A review of the nursing progress note dated 03/20/21 at 02:15 a.m. revealed that Resident #28 was observed to be flushed, non-communicative and glassy eyed. The objective symptoms included a capillary blood sugar of 424 and blood pressure readings of 154/116. The medical doctor was called and an order to send Resident #28 to the hospital for evaluation was obtained. The progress note documented the notification and agreement of Resident #28's emergency contact for the transfer. A review of the form titled, Temporary Leave - Bed Hold Policies, indicated that Resident 28's family member was verbally notified on 3/20/21 and provided consent. There was no documentation in the medical record to indicate the bed hold notice was provided in writing to the family member. 2. A review of the admission record for Resident # 66 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the primary diagnosis of encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. Other pertinent diagnoses included but were not limited to bipolar disorder, panic disorder, Type II Diabetes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and mild cognitive impairment. Resident # 66's BIMS score from the MDS dated [DATE] was documented as a 10, indicating a mild cognitive impairment. Review of the nurse progress notes for Resident #66 revealed that she began to complain of abdominal pain during the late afternoon on 06/11/21, despite orders for treatment and medication administration Resident #66's condition did not improve and Resident #66 called 911 for transfer to the hospital at 8:15 p.m. that evening. A progress note on 06/11/21 at 10:22 p.m. documented by nursing revealed that Resident #66's physician and responsible party were notified of this event. An interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/13/21 at 3:05 p.m. revealed that Resident #66 called the emergency services herself, the DON stated that nursing called the physician to let him know. The physician decided to send her to the hospital for evaluation and nursing completed an emergency transfer, the DON provided the patient transfer form completed on 06/11/21 at 19:35 (7:35 p.m.), it documented a phone notification to Resident #66's family. The reason for the transfer was documented as abdominal pain. An interview with Staff J, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was conducted on 07/14/21 at 4:47 p.m. Staff J, LPN stated that the nurse sends a copy of the bed hold policy with the resident when there is a transfer to the hospital. Staff J, stated that a signature is obtained by the resident or the responsible party at admission and that the admission nurse instructs the resident or family member that the form will be used in the event that a transfer is needed during the stay. The Resident or responsible party's signature is obtained at admission for the acknowledgement of the bed hold policy. The form at that time does not include any of the specifics such as the amount the Resident would be charged for holding the bed, or the availability of a bed for the Resident to return to. An interview with Staff K, Social Services was conducted on 07/13/21 at 3:22 p.m. Staff K confirmed that he sends a notification at the time of the transfer to the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman's office via fax. Staff K stated he does not send any other notifications. He stated that nursing calls the resident's representative or emergency contact when they send the resident out, he stated that he was not aware of any other notifications. A review of the facility's policy dated 11/28/17 last revised 03/21, entitled, Bed Hold Notice Upon Transfer, revealed the following, Policy: At the time of transfer for hospitalization or therapeutic leave, the facility will provide to the resident and/or the resident representative written notice which specifies the duration of the bed-hold policy and addresses information explaining the return of the resident to the next available bed .2. In the event of an emergency transfer of a resident, the facility will provide within 24 hours written notice of the facility's bed-hold policies, as stipulated in the State's plan . 5. The facility will keep a signed and dated copy of the bed-hold notice information given to the resident and/or resident representative in the resident's file. An interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) conducted on 07/15/21 at 11:22 a.m. confirmed that a written notice, and a notice of the bed hold including charges was not given to Resident # 28's or Resident # 66's responsible parties. The NHA stated that she had just become aware that there was a lapse in the facility's process related to the written notifications required with a resident transfer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#45) of twenty-sev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interview and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#45) of twenty-seven sampled residents was provided with supervision and assistance with eating during three of four days observed (7/12/2021, 7/13/2021, and 7/14/2021). Findings included: On 7/12/2021 at 1:24 p.m. Resident #45 was observed in her room with her lunch meal tray placed in front of her on the over the bed table. There were no staff in the room during the time of the observation. Resident #45 was not interviewable as she was not able to answer questions related to her care and services. She was observed with a pureed textured diet and with several cups of juices. Resident #45 was observed with her right hand, pushing, and scraping food off of the plate and it was falling on her lower neck and shirt. Resident #45 was also observed trying to scoop her juice from her cup with her fork. Resident #45 was served her meal at 12:50 p.m. and had not been visited from staff until after 1:26 p.m. The resident did not receive any supervision, assistance, nor was checked on for over thirty-six minutes. Staff came into the room at 1:26 p.m. to remove the tray. On 7/13/2021 at 7:36 a.m. Staff G, South Unit Manager was observed to walk a breakfast tray into Resident #45's room and placed it on top of the over the bed table. Resident #45 was observed with the head of her bed at approximately forty-five degrees. However, her head was level with the top surface of the over the bed table. The Staff G set up the breakfast tray and left the room at 7:38 a.m. Then at 7:51 a.m. Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) walked to the room doorway and asked how the roommate was. She did not check on Resident #45. Then at 7:52 a.m. Resident #45 was observed again with her head at the same level as the top surface of the over the bed table. She was trying to scoop food from her plate, and scooped some food onto the top surface of the table and brought food to her mouth. Food was observed to drop off onto her gown. Resident #45 continued to push food all around her plate with her fork. She was not observed grabbing her juice or water glass since being served at 7:36 a.m. Staff F, LPN was observed at 7:58 a.m. to walk to the room again and check on the roommate. She opened the milk carton and then went into the bathroom. Staff G, South Unit Manager at 8:00 a.m. walked into the room to check on Resident #45, which was twenty minutes after he left from setting up the meal. There was no assistance, checking on the resident or cueing for over twenty minutes. On 7/14/2021 at 7:20 a.m. Resident #45 was observed in her room and lying in bed flat with her head on her pillow with her eyes closed. She was observed under the sheets and with the call light placed within her reach. She had the over the bed table at the side of her bed and with the top surface positioned away from her head approximately one foot and with her head below the table surface approximately one foot. The table was observed with one carton (unopened) of milk, a glass of red juice and a glass of water. They were all out from her reach. On 7/14/2021 at 7:30 a.m. Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed to bring a breakfast tray into the Resident 45's room and set it up and left the room at 7:31 a.m. Then at 7:48 a.m. the resident was observed with her breakfast tray to include one plate with pureed food items, two bowls with pureed food items, four cups of thickened liquids. Resident #45 was able to scoop from the plate, but she did not do so from the bowls. Drinks were untouched as well. Staff G, South Unit Manager was observed to go in the room at 7:50 a.m. and check on the resident, which was 19 minutes after being served. On 7/14/21 at 12:33 p.m. an aide was observed to bring Resident #45 a lunch meal tray and placed it on the over the bed table. She was observed to set up the meal tray for the resident and then left the room at 12:36 p.m. Staff A, CNA was observed to walk in the room at 12:40 p.m. and went over to the resident. Resident #45 was observed tapping the plate with a fork, in an area where there was no food. Staff A then turned the plate in a direction where the resident could easily scoop the food items. Staff A confirmed Resident #45 did not have a scoop plate, divider plate, or builtup eating utensils. She confirmed that she does have to turn the plate for her at times in order for her to reach the food items easily. Staff A revealed she believes the resident had speech therapy in the past but not currently and does require limited eating assistance with one person assist. Review of Resident #45's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the admission diagnosis sheet revealed diagnoses to include: dementia, speech and language deficit, major depression, anxiety, adult failure to thrive, and dysphagia. Review of the following Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments revealed: - Annual MDS dated [DATE] - (Cognition/Brief Interview Mental Status BIMS score - no score but indicated Long Term/Short Term memory problems and with severely impaired decision making skills); Activity of Daily Living ADL - Eating supervision with set up only. - Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] - (Cognition/BIMS score - no score Long Term/Short Term memory problems and with severely impaired decision making skills); ADL - Eating Limited Assistance with one person physical assist. Through review of the last two MDS assessments, it was determined that Resident #45 had declined with her Eating ADLs. A review of the Speech Therapy Screen dated 7/8/2021 documented: Self feeding - Limited verbal limitations. Speech Therapy not recommended at this time. Review of the Speech Therapy assessment dated with start of care 7/12/2201 through to (no date) revealed: Treatment diagnosis: Dysphagia, oropharyngeal, Reason for referral - Resident was referred to therapy as patient who no longer receiving Hospice services. Has history of Dysphagia. Review of the nurse progress notes revealed: -7/3/2021 05:00 (a.m.) - Alert needs anticipated and met by staff requires total assist of one with all care fed by staff with 50 - 75% of meals consumed remains on honey thick liquids with good intake consumes 100% of med shake supplement incontinent of B&B. -7/8/2021 09:52 (a.m.) - DIETARY - Significant change. During this review period resident is on a Puree with Honey thick liquids. She has swallowing problems. She will eat 25 - 100% of most of her meals. No longer followed by Hospice. -7/10/2021 03:15 (a.m.) - Alert with confusion needs anticipated met by staff incontinent of B&B kept clean dry by staff skin warm dry intact. Pureed diet with honey thick liquids consumes 25 - 100% of meals fed by staff honey thick shake for supplement three times a day. Review of the current care plans with next review date of 7/16/2021 revealed the following; - Has chewing and swallowing difficulties and has dementia. She is at a nutritional risk and with interventions to include: Assist with meals as need - able to feed self at times, needs assist at times. - ADL self care performance deficit r/t (related to) dementia, impaired balance, generalized weakness, and is comfort and care. She requires extensive to total assist with ADL self care, with interventions to include, but not limited to: Assist with ADL self care as needed to maintain dignity; EATING, Provide finger foods when the resident has difficulty using utensils. On 7/14/2021 at 1:30 p.m. an interview with two MDS coordinators, Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) revealed that Resident #45 has had a recent significant change with her Minimum Data Set (MDS), which included resident coming off of Hospice services. Both MDS coordinators reviewed the last Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] and confirmed the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) section revealed Resident #45 only required Supervision and with Set up only for Eating ADLs. Staff C, RN revealed that Supervision meant that staff would be in the room and set up the meal tray and then to continually check on the resident to see how they were effectively eating. Staff C revealed that staff would not necessarily have to stay in the room the entire time but would need to check on the resident frequently. Staff B and Staff C confirmed the most current MDS assessment (Significant Change) dated 7/7/2021) related to the ADL section that revealed Resident #45 had declined with eating and now required Limited Assistance, with One Person Physical Assist. Further interview with the MDS Coordinators revealed that expectation for Limited Assist, and with One Person Assist. The expectation was that staff are in the room with the resident and assist at times with feeding assistance, and cueing. The MDS Coordinators further confirmed that it would be expected that staff check on the resident frequently. When asked if revisiting Resident #45 every fifteen minutes or twenty-six minutes would be a good expectation, both indicated that a resident who was Limited Assist, or with One Person Assist, would mean staff would have to check on them more frequently than that and the above mentioned timeframes were not acceptable. The MDS Coordinators both confirmed that Resident #45 has a very low cognition and would not be able to speak and be interviewed related to her care and services, to include ADL assistance. On 7/15/2021 at 7:47 a.m. Resident 45's room was observed. She was being visited by multiple staff members to include an Occupational Therapist, Staff P. Staff P indicated he was referred yesterday on 7/14/2021 to assess and observe the resident. He said, per his observation this morning during the breakfast meal, the resident was able to mostly do her eating tasks on her own but knows that she does have times when she needs assistance with eating. He revealed that it could be beneficial for her to use built up eating utensils to help her scoop food better and will now pick the resident up for Occupational Therapy case load. On 7/15/2021 at 10:00 a.m. the Staff G, South Unit Manager was interviewed related to Resident #45 and her ADL assistance requirements. He did indicate that Resident #45 does need supervision and some assistance at times with Eating assistance and she has been known to push food off her plate at times. He revealed that staff should be checking on her often and would have needed supervision more frequently than the observed thirty-six minutes on 7/12/2021, twenty minutes on 7/13/2021, and nineteen minutes on 7/14/2021. He confirmed that staff should have been visiting Resident #45 before those times. On 7/15/2021 at 2:00 p.m. the Director of Nursing provided the Activities of Daily Living (ADL), policy and procedure, with a last revised date of 4/14/2021. The Policy showed: The facility will ensure a resident's abilities in ADLs do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable to include Eating abilities. Further review, under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: #3., revealed: A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During the lunch meal observation on 07/12/21 at 12:09 p.m. Staff A, CNA was observed through the open door from the hallway ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During the lunch meal observation on 07/12/21 at 12:09 p.m. Staff A, CNA was observed through the open door from the hallway assisting Resident #7. Staff A was standing next to Resident #7 who was sitting up in the bed, Staff A was standing facing Resident #7 who was on her right, and was serving from the bedside table on her left, the window bed resident was being assisted by Staff C, RN who was seated at the resident ' s right bedside. During the lunch meal observation the following day on 07/13/21 at 12:21 p.m. Staff M, LPN was observed through an open door from the hallway assisting Resident #63 who was seated in a recliner chair at the door bedside. Staff M, LPN was standing next to the chair on the resident's right with the meal on the bedside table to her right and was assisting with the dining experience. A subsequent observation at 12:41 p.m. of Staff M, LPN from an open door from the hallway, revealed she was assisting Resident #58 with the lunch meal, who was seated in a high back wheelchair in her room by the window, Resident #58 was sitting facing the hallway and Staff M, LPN was on her left with the lunch meal on the bedside table in front of her, Staff M, LPN was at times assisting with the dining experience and at other times was providing cueing for the resident who was feeding herself all the while standing over Resident #58. An interview with Staff Q, CNA on 07/15/21 at 12:01 p.m. revealed that the training she received at this facility related to a dignified dining experience included being seated at eye level with the resident, she added that if there wasn't a chair at the bedside when she was delivering the tray and she would not leave the tray in the room but would return with the tray once she had secured a chair for herself while she assisted. A subsequent interview completed at 12:25 with Staff B, LPN confirmed that in order to provide a dignified dining experience for the resident, the facility trains the staff to ensure that there is seating available next to the resident in order to be at eye level. Staff B, LPN provided the most recent training record related to assisting residents with a meal. A review of the attendance and content of this in-service completed on 05/17/21 revealed the following, Topic: Assisting Patient With Meals: Patient [s] who require assist [ance] with meals must be set up and staff is to frequently check and assist patient with meal trays. When assisting a patient with their meals staff must sit. Allow patient [s] who are able to feed self [to] do so, this will encourage independence, provide queuing and assistance when needed. The attendance sheets included signatures from Staff A, CNA and Staff M, LPN. Based on observations, staff interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain resident dignity during dining for four of four days observed (7/12/2021, 7/13/2021, 7/14/2021, and 7/15/2021). It was determined that seven staff members (A, B, C, D, E, H, and L) were not consistently knocking or announcing themselves prior to entering 12 occupied resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 104, 105, 108, 113, 119, 121, 130, 131, 132, 203, and 207), and two staff members (A and M) were observed standing up as they provided eating assistance for four residents (#7, #58, #63, and #38), who were seated, of a total sample of twenty-seven residents. Findings included: On 7/12/2021 the following observations were made: a. At 12:20 p.m. a certified nursing assistant (CNA), Staff A was observed to walk up to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and proceed to walk in the room to drop off a lunch tray without first knocking and or announcing. There was a resident in the room at the time she walked in. b. At 12:22 p.m. a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff B was also observed to walk up to room [ROOM NUMBER] and walk in to drop off a lunch meal tray without first knocking or announcing. There was a resident in the room at the time. c. At 12:24 p.m. a Registered Nurse (RN), Staff C was observed to walk up to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and walk in to drop off a lunch meal tray without first knocking and or announcing. There was a resident in the room at the time. d. At 12:25 p.m. Staff B, LPN was observed to walk into resident room [ROOM NUMBER] to take in a lunch meal tray and did not knock or announce prior to entering the room. There was as resident in the room at the time. e. At 12:26 p.m. Staff C, RN was observed to walk up to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and walk in without first knocking and or announcing. There was a resident in the room at the time of the observation. f. At 12:27 p.m. Staff A, CNA was also observed to take a meal tray to room [ROOM NUMBER] and walk in without first knocking and or announcing. There was a resident in the room at the time of the observation. On 7/13/2021 the following observations were made: g. At 7:17 a.m. Staff D, CNA was observed to walk up to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] with a breakfast tray and proceeded to walk in the room without first knocking and announcing. There were residents in the room at the time of the observation. h. At 7:18 a.m. Staff E, CNA was observed to walk up to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and proceeded to walk in the room without first knocking and or announcing. There were residents in the room during the time of the observation. i. At 7:23 a.m. Staff E, CNA was observed to walk into resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and did not first knock or announce prior to walking in. There were residents in the room during the time of the observation. j. At 7:45 a.m. a Unit Supervisor, Staff G was observed carrying a breakfast tray down the hall to room [ROOM NUMBER]. He proceeded to walk in the room without first knocking and or announcing. There was a resident in the room during the time of the observation. On 7/14/2021 the following observations were made: k. At 12:20 p.m. Staff H, LPN was observed to take a meal tray from the tray cart and walk to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and proceeded to walk in with the tray without first knocking and our announcing. There were two residents in the room at the time of the observation. l. At 12:24 p.m. Staff A, CNA was observed to carry a lunch meal tray to resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. She proceeded to walk in the room without first knocking or announcing. There was one resident in the room during the time of the observation. m. At 12:35 p.m. Staff L, CNA was observed to walk to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and proceeded to walk in with a meal tray without first knocking and or announcing. There were residents in the room during the time of the observation. n. At 12:38 p.m. Staff H, LPN was observed to walk to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and walked into the room without first knocking and or announcing. She spoke to the resident after already halfway into the room. There were residents in the room during the time of the observation. On 7/15/2021 the following observations were made: o. At 7:30 a.m. Staff A, CNA was observed to walk to resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and proceeded to walk in the room without first knocking and or announcing. There were residents in the room during the time of the observation. p. At 7:38 a.m. Staff L, CNA was observed to walk down the hallway from the nurse station and then walked into resident room [ROOM NUMBER] without first knocking or announcing. There were two resident in the room during the time of the observation. On 7/14/2021 at 7:29 a.m. Resident #38 was observed in her room and dressed for the day, seated and reclined slightly while in her Specialized chair. Staff I, CNA had brought in a breakfast tray for Resident #38. Staff I set up the tray on the over the bed table and positioned it next to the resident. Further, the CNA was observed to stand up and assist the resident with eating. She took forkfuls of food items and brought them to the resident's mouth. Staff I stood up and assisted Resident #38 from 7:29 a.m. to 7:37 a.m. The South Unit Manager at 7:38 a.m. went into the room and then told Staff I to sit down while providing eating assistance. She then got a chair and sat down next to the resident and continued to assist with feeding Resident #38 forkfuls of food items. Following this observation, Staff I confirmed that she should have been seated next to the resident at head level and not standing up when assisting the resident with eating. On 7/12/2021 at 1:00 p.m. random interviews with Residents #16, #68, #42, who were deemed interviewable per observations and review of their medical record; as well as four random alert and oriented residents, who all wished to remain anonymous, revealed that staff, during all shifts, walk in the room and don't say anything until they are in the room. The residents interviewed confirmed that staff are not consistently knocking and or announcing prior to entering their room. Some revealed that they have not complained about it because they did not feel things would get better and did not want to get staff in trouble. The residents interviewed did say they would like for staff to announce or knock prior to coming in their rooms. On 7/15/2021 at 1:40 p.m. an interview with the Staff G, South Unit Manager confirmed that staff should be seated at resident level when providing Eating assistance. He further confirmed that staff, after setting up the meal tray, should not be standing up to assist the resident. The South Unit Manager further confirmed that staff should always knock and or announce prior to entering occupied resident rooms. On 7/15/2021 at 2:00 p.m. during an interview with both the Director of Nursing and the Nursing Home Administrator both confirmed that staff should always knock and or announce prior to entering occupied rooms, even when they have a meal tray in hand. On 7/15/2021 at 2:15 p.m. the Director of Nursing provide the Resident Rights, Policy and Procedure, dated 11/28/2017, for review. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines #11 showed; The facility will ensure that all staff members are educated on the rights of residents and the responsibility of the facility to properly care for its residents. Further review of the policy #5 Respect and Dignity revealed; The resident has the right to be treated with respect and dignity, C. The right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preference, except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents. The Director of Nursing, at this time, explained that they did not have a specific Policy and Procedure related to Eating assistance dignity and or not Knocking and or Announcing prior to entering resident rooms. He did say that the Resident Rights Policy would encompass those areas.
Oct 2019 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide one (Resident #54) of one resident receiving outside wound ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide one (Resident #54) of one resident receiving outside wound care, with physician ordered antibiotics for seven days after wound debridement and bone biopsy for a toe infection, resulting in a hospitalization for cellulitis directly from the wound care physician's office. Findings included: During an interview, on 10/14/19, at 10:15 a.m. with staff member J, LPN, she confirmed Resident #54 received wound care outside the facility and was sent to the hospital during the appointment on 10/10/19. During an interview with staff member G, LPN, unit manager, on 10/14/19 at 10:20 a.m., the unit manager confirmed Resident #54 was sent to the hospital during his appointment. They had not heard any updates. The chart was filed in medical records. During an interview on 10/15/19 at 2:34 p.m. with staff member C, RN, she stated she worked with Resident #54 on 10/10/19 before his wound care appointment and stated she did not change his dressing that day due to his appointment. During an interview. on 10/15/19 at 3:45 p.m with the Director of Nursing (DON), she stated the resident went to wound care for a debridement on 10/3/19 and had a follow up on 10/10/19. The DON asked staff member G, unit manager, to join the interview, and he confirmed Resident #54 went to wound care on 10/10/19 after debridement on 10/3/19 and stated they may be amputating the right second toe. Review of the wound care physician notes, dated 10/3/19, reflected: wound #32 right toe second treated with topical lidocaine 4% to wound bed prior to debridement. Change dressing every other day. Primary dressing - apply adaptic or adaptic touch over sutures. Secondary dressing wound #32 Right toe second gauze - fold 4x4 in half lengthwise and cover toe from base to to toe over the top of toe. (Do how was done at wound care center when dressing changes is done). Edema control, wound #32 right toe second, Tubigrip Fx1, taped over toe area to form sock. If questions call wound care center. Bacteria identified in wound by culture - bone culture right second toe. Bone biopsy right second toe Medications clindamycin HCI 300 mg capsule - one capsule four times a day for ten days. Review of the transcribed physician order, dated 10/4/19, for wound #32 right 2nd toe reflected to discontinue current treatment. Start cleanse right 2nd toe with normal saline, pat dry and apply adaptic to suture line wrap with kerlix, secure with tubigrip and change every other day and as needed for surgical wound. Review of the transcribed physician order, dated 10/4/19, reflected monitor suture to right second toe during wound care treatment for signs and symptoms of infection for surgical wound. There was no evidence of the physician's order for clindamycin HCL 300 mg. being transcribed on the medication administration record. During an interview, on 10/15/19 at 4:34 p.m., with staff member G, LPN unit manger, confirmed he spoke to the nurse that documented the nursing progress note dated 10/6/19, and stated he told the nurse he did not agree that the resident had a change in condition after debridement and stated the resident's toe would have been swollen and warm after the debridement. The 10/6/19 nursing note reflected dressing change per order, second toe, slightly discolored, warmer than adjacent tissue/toes, color purplish, positive sensation, pre medicated prior to treatment. Resident has 4 intact sutures, toe nail intact, flap like separation, sutures in place, no drainage during dressing change but previous dressing serosanginous. New dressing applied, feet up, off heal. Tramadol effective, will continue to observe, toe does appear swollen. Vital signs stable and signed by Registered Nurse. Staff member G, LPN unit manager confirmed the nurses progress note, dated 10/4/19, reflected the toe without signs or symptoms of infection noted. Staff member G, LPN unit manager, reviewed the wound care note dated 10/3/19 which reflected Resident #54 with a bone culture and bone biopsy to the right second toe, positive for bacteria with clindamycin HCI 300 mg, one capsule four times a day for ten days. After reviewing the Medication administration sheets, staff member G, LPN unit manager, confirmed that the antibiotic should have been ordered and started on 10/3/19 and confirmed Resident #54 did not receive the antibiotics from 10/3/19 to 10/10/19 and confirmed the physician was not notified of the 10/6/19 documented changes. During an interview, on 10/15/19 at 4:52 p.m., with staff member K, LPN unit manager, stated, when a resident goes out to an appointment, the nurse would update the information and go over the information with the unit manager to confirm the information was changed and up to date. During a phone interview, on 10/16/19 at 09:53 a.m., with the wound care center, the nurse case manager stated, on 10/3/19 the resident came in for a bone biopsy and culture which showed multi organism growth and she called the facility on 10/9/19 to alert the staff. She confirmed she was transferred twice and did not know who she ended up speaking with, but it was a nurse that knew Resident #54 and she alerted the female nurse the resident was positive for MRSA and two strains of proteus. The nurse confirmed the clindamycin should have been started on 10/3/19, at latest 10/4/19, and she was not informed, as of 10/16/19, that the facility never ordered the medication. The nurse stated a concern she observed was the dressing would be changed the day of the appointment or the day before, which was not always correct, due to the dressing change ordered. The nurse described the right second toe as: blown up, angry, red and significantly inflamed. The nurse confirmed the goal was to order IV medication on 10/10/19 when the resident came to the wound appointment but, due to the changes observed, the resident was sent to the emergency room and had been in the hospital six days currently receiving IV medication for cellulitis. During an interview, on 10/16/19 at 12:45 p.m., with the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP), he stated that he was not made aware of any changes with Resident #54 and confirmed the facility should have either sent a physician order to the appointment for them to fill out, or followed through on the wound care order for the antibiotic. The ARNP stated the unit managers get so busy with reports and meetings that they don't have time to assure the charts are correct. The ARNP stated he was not contacted about the wound or changes, and confirmed he reviews the entire record every month but does not go page to page. The ARNP stated he wanted to make sure the residents receive continuity of care, but does not dig through the notes with each visit. The ARNP stated the resident required total assistance and has been observed with urine soaked dressings on his legs in the past. The ARNP stated the resident relies on the staff to change his briefs and has discussed amputation in the past with the resident, but he refused and has been treated for wounds for the last two years, so the wound center has been aggressively treating the resident. During an interview, on 10/16/19 at 11:54 a.m., with the DON, she stated that she was made aware of the medication error for Resident #54 on 10/15/19 in the afternoon, after the unit manager was reviewing the record with the surveyor. The DON stated that inservices and trainings were started last night and a medication error investigation was started with the nurse that documented on 10/6/19. However, that nurse is out of state and unavailable. The DON stated that they did not contact the wound center to let them know that the resident did not receive his antibiotic for seven days. The DON confirmed that when a resident goes out to a wound center and comes back the unit manager, nurse manager and nurse on duty should look at the new information and call the facility physician to get an order from the consult doctor, and should have called the wound care center when the change in condition was noticed for the resident. The DON confirmed that the facility physician was notified last night, 10/15/19. The DON stated if the wound care center called the facility, the nurse or person at the desk should have documented the new information in the resident record. The DON stated the nurse that signed off on the TAR (Treatment Administration Record) was new. During an interview, on 10/16/19 at 3:10 p.m., with the DON and Staff member C, RN, confirmed staff member C was the nurse on duty that day. Staff member C, RN, stated the initials were hers and confirmed the initials did not look the same as her initials on other days. Staff member C, RN, confirmed she changed the dressing on 10/10/19 before sending the resident to wound care, but did not document on the wound and could not remember what the wound looked like. The DON stated that his toe looked the same from the debridement on 10/3/19 and confirmed the chart did not reflect any documentation from 10/3/19 after the wound care appointment, and wound progress notes were missing from 10/8/19 and 10/10/19. Staff member C, RN, confirmed she documented on the wounds before, but did not document on the 8th or 10th. The DON stated, we chart by exception and we completed 24 hour chart checks. The chart record did not have a 24 hour chart check sheet. Review of the nursing progress notes dated 10/7/19 from staff member G, LPN unit manager, reflected the resident had a wound care follow up appointment on 10/3/19 at the wound care center. There was a excisional skin/subcutaneous tissue/muscle/bone debridement with a total of 1.1 sq cm performed to the right 2nd toe per the wound care center, pain was managed and controlled using lidocaine 2% injectable. Patient tolerated 4 intact sutures. Return to facility treatment wash with normal saline adaptic to suture line changed every other day. No signs or symptoms or complaints of pain. Facility physician and contact updated on current wound progression and changes. Review of the hospital medical record, dated 10/17/19, reflected Resident #54 currently receiving pipercillin-tazobactam/D5W 3.375 gm 50 ml IV piggyback every 6 hour every intervals and Vancomycin plus dextrose 5% in water 500 ml 1.75 gm 35 ml IV piggyback every 36 hours for cellulitis. Review of the wound care center progress notes, dated 9/26/19, reflected Resident #54 with follow up to wound #32 right toe second, debrided, change dressing every other day. Dress wound with calcium alginate with silver- cut to fit the size of wound bed, non boarder foam, medfix tape, use foam to cover wound and tip of toe. tubigrip F x 1, taped over toe to form sock. If questions call wound care center. Additional orders, patient to be toileted and changed every two hours to prevent urine into wound dressing and contaminating. Please document. Review of the wound care center progress notes, dated 9/12/19, did not reflect a wound #32 right toe second. Review of the medication administration form reflected Resident #54 not documented on 10/4/19 or 10/10/19 as receiving tramadol HCL 50 mg one tablet by mouth 30 minutes prior to dressing change daily as needed for pain. Review of the treatment administration form for Resident #54 documented on 10/4/19, 10/6/19, 10/8/19, 10/10/19 and 10/12/19 as receiving a dressing change. Further review of the treatment administration form found, monitor sutures to right 2nd toe during wound care treatment for signs and symptoms of infection for surgical wound, dated 10/4/19. The 10/4/19 to 10/10/19 dates were blank. Review of the physician order, dated 10/10/19, reflected the resident direct admit to the emergency room at 3:00 p.m. Review of the wound care progress note. dated 10/10/19 at 2:00 p.m reflected Resident #54 was sent to the emergency room. Review of the care plan reflected resident with vascular ulcer of the right second toe related venous insufficiency, dated 9/27/19, with a goal to have no signs or symptoms of infection through the review date. Interventions include wound care center to treat, monitor, document, report as needed for signs and symptoms of infection including redness and swelling, red lines coming from the wound. Supplements as ordered to promote wound healing. Treatment as ordered. Review of Resident #54's record reflected the resident with recent re-admission on [DATE] with a diagnoses of acquired absence of right great toe, atherosclerosis of native arteries of right leg with ulceration of other part of right lower leg, diabetes type 2. Review of facility policy for physician orders revised on 1/16/19, 2 pages reflected: 5. Specific procedures for medication orders: c. Written transfer orders: Orders are reconciliated and transcribed on the physician order sheet. Physician orders should be signed per state specific guidelines. Review of facility policy for Documentation in Medical Record, revised on 3/6/19, 1 page, reflected: Each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation. The facility will document at minimum daily for all skilled residents and monthly for long term residents not limited to episodic events. 1. Licensed staff and interdisciplinary team members shall document all assessments, observations, and services provided in the resident's medical record in accordance with state law and facility policy. 2. Documentation shall be completed at the time of service, but no later than the shift in which the assessment, observation, or care service occurred. Review of the policy for Notification of Changes, revised on 3/26/19, 2 pages, reflected: The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility promptly informs the resident, consults the resident's physician, and notify, consistent with his or her authority, resident's representative when there is a change requiring notification.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a urinary catheter was inserted according to pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a urinary catheter was inserted according to professional standards to prevent urinary tract infection for one (Resident #63) of one observed catheter insertion. Findings Included: During an interview and observation of Resident #63, on 10/14/19 at 9:50 a.m., the daughter stated she was concerned with the catheter drainage and color of the tubing which changed to purple since yesterday morning. The daughter picked up the catheter bag and asked why the tubing was purple and the urine draining was thick reddish brown, and stated she was going to speak to the nurse and left. During an interview on 10/14/19 at 10:48 a.m. staff member J, LPN, stated she was going to set up and change the catheter, after contacting the physician about the purple catheter tubing. Staff member J, LPN, stated she was nervous. She set up a barrier on the tray table which she placed on the (left) window side of the bed. The tray table was arranged longwise with the narrowest area near the nurse extending back. Staff member J, LPN, arranged the garbage and washed her hands and donned gloves. Staff member J, LPN, arranged the red bag on the bed and removed the water from the balloon and removed the catheter and placed in the red bag. Staff member J, LPN, doffed gloves, washed her hands and donned gloves to open the catheter supplies. Staff member J, LPN, doffed gloves without hand hygiene and donned sterile gloves, opened the betadine, lube. Staff member G, LPN unit manager, stopped her and stated she contaminated the field letting the betadine run through the barrier onto the tray table. Staff member J, LPN, closed up the supplies in the barrier and threw it away. She doffed gloves without hand hygiene and left the room. While staff member G, LPN unit manager, was washing hands, staff member J, LPN, placed the sterile drape on the tray table, then patted the drape with her bare hands to flatten the drape. Staff member J, LPN, confirmed she patted the drape and disposed of the drape. At 11:12 a.m. staff member J, LPN, washed her hands, donned gloves and opened and placed the drape on the tray table, while opening the supplies' staff member J, LPN, was leaning over the field as she opened the supplies and contaminated the supplies again by letting them fall over the edge of the barrier on to the table. Staff member J, LPN, doffed gloves and left the room without hand hygiene. During this time, the tray table was moved so the nurse would not contaminate the field leaning over it, then staff member G, LPN unit manager, asked the nurse what hand she used as a primary hand. Staff member J, LPN, stated right hand, so he moved the table to the right side of the bed and instructed the nurse to keep her right hand sterile and maintain the left hand as the non sterile hand. While staff member J, LPN obtained more supplies, at 11:22 p.m., staff member G, LPN unit manager, stated the nurse was new and completed competency training before, then stated she had never inserted a catheter before. Staff member J, LPN, obtained more supplies at 11:26 a.m., washed her hands, opened supplies, doffed gloves without hand hygiene, donned sterile gloves, touched the sterile gloves on the contaminated glove container, kept touching the glove packet to move it, opened the lube, connected the catheter tubing and cleaned the tip of the penis three times, picked up the catheter to insert using her right hand crossed over her left hand. As she picked up the catheter, it rubbed across her arm prior to insertion. Staff member G, LPN Unit Manager, stated it just touched your arm! The nurse looked at him and he stated just finish it!; she finished inserting the catheter and inflated the balloon. The urine flowed yellow after insertion. The catheter was not connected secured to the resident's leg. It was placed under a pillow with the bag attached to the window side of the bed. During an interview, on 10/14/19 at 12:09 p.m., with staff member J, LPN, she confirmed she had inserted a catheter on a female once but not a male. She stated she completed the competency but was extremely nervous and did not realize the catheter touched her arm prior to inserting. Staff member J, LPN, confirmed she should be washing her hands after removing gloves and before donning new gloves. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), on 10/14/19 at 1:48 p.m., she confirmed she completes competency training by going through the motions but not physically practicing set up on catheter insertion. The ADON confirmed when staff member J, LPN, completed competency, she did not complete it on a resident, only verbally. Review of Resident #63's record reflected the resident re-admitted on [DATE] with initial admit date on 5/6/14, with diagnoses of Parkinson disease, metabolic encephalopathy, retention of urine and urinary tract infection. Recently added to hospice for comfort measures only on 9/3/19. Review of the suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) SBAR dated 10/14/19 reflected the resident with blood pressure of 110/76, heart rate 80, respirations 20 and temp of 98.1. Flank pain and acute pain checked of with an order for urine culture and sensitivity due to foul smelling urine. Review of the physician order dated 10/14/19 reflected to change Foley 16 fr and Foley bag today. Review of the hospice notes dated 10/14/19 reflected the resident with complaint of pain to back. Review of the hospice notes dated 10/13/19 reflected the resident with complaint of pain all over. During an interview on 10/15/19 at 3:33 p.m. with staff member G, LPN unit manager, he confirmed the daughter's concern was the reason they were ordering the urine culture and sensitivity because of the purple color in the tube. Staff member G, LPN, confirmed he did not look at the urine and did not know it was a thick reddish brown consistency. Review of the policy for catheterization of a male, revised on 3/1/19, two pages, reflected: Urinary catheterizations will be performed in accordance with current standards of practice to minimize risk for bacterial contamination or urethral trauma. 7. Wash and dry hands. Perineal cleansing shall be performed prior to catheterization in accordance with the facility's perineal care procedure. 8. Procedure for catheterization of a male: (c) remove the catheter tray from its outer package using sterile technique. Place the tray next to the residents hips. (d) open the sterile wrap. remove the gloves and put them on. (e) place the sterile towel underpad under the resident's scrotum and over his thighs. Avoid contamination. Keep the plastic side down. (f) Place the catheter tray on the sterile towel underpad and open the lubricant container. (g) open the antiseptic solution and pour it over the cotton balls (a pre-moistened applicator may be used. (h) Place the sterile drop towel over the pubic area. (I) lift the penis and retract the foreskin to expose the meatus. (Note: this hand is now contaminated). (j) use a pre-moistened applicator. Begin cleansing the penis glands from the meatus outward in a circular motion. Only one pre-moistened applicator with each stroke. (i) Apply a large amount of lubricant to the penis and lubricate the tip of the catheter 2 to 2 1/2 inches. (s) (i) inflate the balloon to its capacity with sterile water. (ii) Secure the catheter to the resident's upper thigh and position the penis with a slight upward curve to decrease pressure on the penile scrotal junction. (iii) attach the tubing to a drainage bag and position the bag lower than the abdomen.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on medical record reviews and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the required Interdisciplinary Team participated in resident care planning for 13 of 28 sampled residents (#62, #65, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on medical record reviews and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the required Interdisciplinary Team participated in resident care planning for 13 of 28 sampled residents (#62, #65, #63,#39,#78,#59, #81, #33, #48, #42, #10, #32, #26 ). Findings included: A review of Resident #62's Interdisciplinary Care plan Conference (ICPC) sign in sheet from 8/27/19 revealed no evidence that a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #65's ICPC sign in sheets from 9/10/19 and 6/11/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #63's ICPC sign in sheet from 9/18/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #39's ICPC sign in sheet from 8/14/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #78's ICPC sign in sheets from 10/2/19 and 7/10/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #59's ICPC sign in sheets from 9/18/19 and 6/19/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #81's ICPC sign in sheet from 9/25/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse ( who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #33's ICPC sign in sheets from 8/21/19 and 5/22/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #48's ICPC sign in sheets from 9/10/19 and 6/4/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #42's ICPC sign in sheets from 8/27/19 and 5/28/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #10's ICPC sign in sheets from 10/15/19 and 7/16/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #32's ICPC sign in sheets from 5/22/19 and 2/19/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. A review of Resident #26's ICPC sign in sheet from 8/13/19 revealed no evidence that a CNA or Nurse (who was directly involved with care) attended either meeting. These findings were reviewed with the facility's MDS Coordinator during an interview on 10/16/19 at 03:10 PM. During this interview the MDS Coordinator stated, Oh no .I have never asked a CNA or nurse to attend the care plan meetings. I feel that I represent the nursing staff when I'm in the meetings because I'm a nurse. I complete the assessments, so I feel I have a complete understanding of the resident nursing needs. Record review of the facility's Assessment-Service/Care Plan policy revealed that it was last revised on 1/16/2016. This review further revealed that that the policy was not up-to-date with current regulatory standards as 11/01/2017.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Florida facilities.
Concerns
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 60/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Aviata At Bradenton's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns AVIATA AT BRADENTON an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Aviata At Bradenton Staffed?

CMS rates AVIATA AT BRADENTON's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 45%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Aviata At Bradenton?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at AVIATA AT BRADENTON during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Aviata At Bradenton?

AVIATA AT BRADENTON is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by AVIATA HEALTH GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 110 certified beds and approximately 94 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in BRADENTON, Florida.

How Does Aviata At Bradenton Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, AVIATA AT BRADENTON's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aviata At Bradenton?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Aviata At Bradenton Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, AVIATA AT BRADENTON has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Aviata At Bradenton Stick Around?

AVIATA AT BRADENTON has a staff turnover rate of 45%, which is about average for Florida nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Aviata At Bradenton Ever Fined?

AVIATA AT BRADENTON has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Aviata At Bradenton on Any Federal Watch List?

AVIATA AT BRADENTON is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.