Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center

1111 S HIGHLAND AVE, CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 446-0581
Non profit - Corporation 115 Beds FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CARE Data: November 2025 5 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#640 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns regarding resident care. It ranks #640 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the bottom half, and #57 out of 64 in Pinellas County, meaning there are many better options nearby. Although the facility is showing improvement, decreasing from 16 issues in 2024 to 5 in 2025, it still reported critical deficiencies, including the failure to monitor seizure medication for several residents, which led to serious health risks. Staffing levels are rated at 2 out of 5, suggesting below-average care, and the facility has high fines totaling $268,860, which is concerning and indicates ongoing compliance issues. Additionally, RN coverage is less than 89% of Florida facilities, which may limit the quality of care residents receive.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Florida
#640/690
Bottom 8%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
16 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
45% turnover. Near Florida's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$268,860 in fines. Higher than 55% of Florida facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (45%)

    3 points below Florida average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 45%

Near Florida avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $268,860

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CAR

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 39 deficiencies on record

5 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Apr 2025 5 deficiencies 5 IJ (5 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from neglect for eleven re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to protect the residents' right to be free from neglect for eleven residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, and #11) out of eleven residents sampled related to seizure medication management and follow-up laboratory orders for seizure medication therapeutic levels. Serious harm occurred when Resident #1's seizure medication levels were not monitored, and neurology consultation was not obtained per the provider's request. Resident #1 experienced a seizure on 7/10/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 2/27/25. Resident #1 had to be transferred to a higher level of care as a result of the seizure suffered on 2/27/25. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 4/16/2025. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 4/17/2025 and the scope and severity was reduced to an E after verification of removal of immediacy of harm. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with medical diagnoses of generalized idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus, gastrostomy status as of 3/6/25, traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, hydrocephalus, paraplegia, adult failure to thrive, protein-calorie malnutrition, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, and Bell's palsy. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed the following: -Depakote (Valproic Acid) Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg (milligrams), give one capsule by mouth two times a day for seizures, start date 5/23/24 and discontinued on 7/5/24. -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg, give one capsule by mouth three times a day for seizures, start date 7/6/24 and discontinued on 4/2/25. Review of Resident #1's July 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 125 mg of Depakote three times a day starting on 7/6/24. Review of Resident #1's laboratory (lab) results, dated 7/6/24, revealed her Valproic Acid levels were low at 10 microgram per milliliter (ug/ml). with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/7/24 at 8:13 p.m., revealed Hard copy labs called to ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) . No new orders. Review of Resident #1's ARNP note, dated 7/7/24, revealed: CHIEF COMPLAINTS 7/7/24 fu [follow up] Visit She [Resident #1] has had some seizures in the past and had the recent seizure staff members reporting. Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. .ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure D-[NAME] [disorder] 7/7/24 Neurology consult, check medication levels .increased dose, depakote leve[sic] . Review of Resident #1's Progress note, dated 7/10/24 at 8:19 a.m., revealed Resident had a tonic-clonic seizure [a type of seizure with muscle stiffing followed by rhythmic jerking with a loss of consciousness] for 2 minutes. Resident was contracted and shaking the full time of the seizure. Resident is currently lying in bed. Dr. notified and waiting for a call back. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician called back, or further attempts were made to contact the physician. Review of Resident #1's physician order revealed an order with a start date of 7/12/24, and an end date of 7/12/24 for Depakote Valproic Acid levels one time only for 1 day notify MD [Medical Doctor] of results. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 7/12/24, revealed Valproic Acid results were low (12 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid level on 7/12/24. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order, with a revision date of 7/15/24, a start date of 7/22/24, and an end date of 7/23/24, to recheck Valproic Acid level in one week. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m., revealed Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today Review of Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the physician order for Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today was signed off as completed on 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History from the lab portal did not reveal a physician's order was in the lab portal for Valproic Acid to be drawn on 7/22/24. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the Valproic Acid was drawn on 7/22/24 and reported to the physician. Review of Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note, dated 9/13/24, revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/13/24-fu [follow up] Visit .Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. . ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure 9/13/24 Neurology Consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's Physician note, dated 9/20/24 revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/20/24 fu Visit . Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's and assist with feeding in general. .Assessment and Plan .Seizure 9/20/24 Neurology consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence she received neurology services. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/28/24 at 5:36 PM, revealed Resident had a seizure while lying in bed at 1730 [5:30PM]. Resident was laying on her side while seizure was occurring. Made sure of resident safety. Seizure was under 5 minutes long and not reoccurring. Resident is now alert and able to speak and move. No discomfort or pain noted. No injuries. MD [Medical Doctor] notified. New order placed for labs. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed, an order with an order date of 9/28/24,for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level. There was no start date or end date on the physician order. Review of Resident #1's September 2024 MAR revealed the physician order for Depakote level, Ammonia level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level was not documented as completed. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal did not reveal a physician order was placed on 9/28/24 for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), or a Lacosamide level. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/29/24 at 7:30AM, revealed Seizure activity noted this am [morning] lasting approximately 3.5 minutes s/p [status post] snoring lasting about 2 minutes then aroused making eye contact with staff alert and orientated to self-97.2 [temperature]-76 [pulse]-20 [respiratory rate]-128/82 [blood pressure]-97% [oxygen saturations] R/A [room air]. Review of the medical record did not reveal the resident's physician was notified of the seizure. Review of Resident #1's lab report with a collection date of 9/30/24 at 5:09 p. m., revealed Valproic Acid was low (14 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid (Depakote) lab results collected on 9/30/24. Review of Resident #1's physicians' orders, revealed an order, with a start date of 2/4/25 and an end date of 2/5/25, for a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Depakote level, and Ammonia level, every night shift for one day. Review of Resident #1's lab results with a collection date of 2/5/25, revealed abnormal CBC, CMP and Depakote Level results for the following lab values: Glucose: Low (67 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)) with a reference range of 70-99 mg/dL BUN: High (24 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6-20 mg/dL BUN /Creatinine Ratio: High (38.6 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6.0-25.0 mg/dL Calcium: Low (3.4 mg/dL) with a reference range of 8.6-10.2 mg/dL RBC: Low (3.93 million per microliter (M/uL)) with a reference range of 4.1-10.9) M/uL HGB: Low (11. grams per deciliter (8g/dL)) with a reference range of 12.0-16.0 g/dL HCT: Low (35.9%) with a reference range of 37.0-47.0% Valproic Acid (Depakote): low (25 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal revealed the Ammonia order, dated 2/5/25, had a status of collection pending, no results and there was no sample collection date. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence the physician was notified of the abnormal lab results collected on 2/5/25. The medical record revealed no Ammonia levels were collected or physician communication related to the Ammonia level lab not being collected. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal, and she said Collection pending, No Results means the labs were not drawn. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:18 a.m., revealed At approx. [approximately] 7:30am resident was having seizure activity. foaming[sic] at mouth and release of urine and feces noted. resident[sic] moved to[sic] onto her side until seizure ceased. Resident cont [continued] to be slow to wake and is nonverbal at this time. Resident has history of seizure activity. Family and MD aware. Review of Resident #1's change in condition, dated 2/27/25, revealed The change in condition .: Altered mental status The seizure was: New onset seizure activity, OR persistent seizure in someone with known intermittent seizure activity. Provider Notification and Feedback: .send to ER [emergency room] Review of Resident #1's hospital record revealed a physician note, dated 2/28/25, as: Impressions and Plan Breakthrough seizures due to noncompliance. The patient is currently unresponsive. This could be due to a postictal state, non-convulsive seizure activity or encephalopathy. I spoke to her [Resident #1's] nurse . at the nursing home . the patient has been refusing her medications. Yesterday she had a 4-minute convulsive seizure. Low Keppra level Low Depakote level but her dose of this medication may not be therapeutic. .Plan Prescribe telemetry Neurochecks every 2-4 hours Seizure precautions Lorazepam 2mg IV [intravenous] for convulsive seizure activity lasting more than 100 seconds IV Keppra IV Depakote IV Vimpat. She is also on oxcarbazepine that is not available in IV form, but the other AED's [anti-epileptic drugs] should be adequate. There is not yet clear how her refusal to take p.o. [by mouth] AEDs will get resolved. She may need a PEG [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy]. Review of Resident #1's hospital Gastrointestinal Physician note, dated 3/3/25, revealed: The patient presents with 50 yo [year old] f [female] who presented to the ed [emergency department] from her facility after a witnessed seizure. pt [patient] was also in the ed 2 days ago for glf [ground level fall]. I was asked to see the pt for a peg tube. Pt denies abdominal pain, n/v [nausea/vomiting] and dysphagia. Apparently, she frequently refuses to eat and take her medications due to her neurologic and psychiatric issues. Pt did not have issues swallowing during her vss [video swallow study]. per nursing if she is fed she will eat. She does pocket her food and requires verbal reminders. She has no abdominal pain, d/c [discomfort]. She has no gi [gastrointestinal] complaints. .plan Npo[nothing by mouth] after mn [midnight] Egd [esophagogastroduodenoscopy]/peg tomorrow. Review Resident #1's December 2024 through February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 10 ml's of Keppra (100 mg/ml) by mouth twice a day every day for seizures except on 12/12/24 at 5:00 p.m. the documentation revealed 10. Review of the chart codes revealed 10=spit out meds. On 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 6 review of the chart codes revealed 6= hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 2. Review of the chart codes revealed 2=drug refused. The February MAR review revealed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles 125 mg three times a day for seizures every day for the month of February until she was discharged on 2/27/25, except on 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the documentation revealed Resident #1 was hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. the documentation revealed Resident #1 refused the drug. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/6/25 at 2:12 p.m., revealed Resident returned to facility at approx. [approximately] 1;[sic]55pm via stretcher/ EMS [emergency medical services]. resident[sic] had no s/s [signs and symptoms] of distress noted .Resident has PEG tube in place and can eat by mouth. Jevity 1.2 @ 60 FWF [free water flush] 200ml q6 [every 6]. Resident can eat by mouth soft / bite sized. 1400 total in 24 hours. Two boxes a meal. Review of Resident #1's nutrition note, dated 3/7/25 at 9:59 a.m. revealed, Res [Resident] readmitted to facility 3/6/25 s/p [status/post] 7d [day] hospitalization. New Gtube [gastrostomy tube] inserted however res eats 75-100% of meals by mouth and requests snacks frequently. Will d/c [discontinue] enteral feed as res is able to meet needs via po [by mouth] at this time. Flush tube w/ [with] 150cc H20 [water] q [every] shift to maintain patency. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/7/25 at 10:21 a.m., written by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), revealed, This writer received order from NP [Nurse Practitioner] stating resident able to take medication by mouth if resident refuses then we may use PEG-Tube for medications; resident is currently eating meals w/o [without] issues or concerns. An interview was conducted on 3/31/25 at 3:10 p.m. with the DON. The DON stated she did not assign a primary person to oversee the labs and review results. She said if labs were not critical staff would put the lab results in the providers' boxes for them to sign. If the labs were critical staff would call the provider to inform them about the critical lab results. The DON stated labs for seizure medications should be drawn every three months, but she does not know why some resident's labs were not being checked. She stated Resident #1's Depakote levels were being monitored by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The DON stated she was aware that this was a system failure on the facility when it came to their lab process. She stated she would have expected her nurses to fax labs results to the doctor, put follow-up labs in to check the Depakote levels, and monitor the process. The DON stated Resident #1's labs from 9/30/2024 and 2/5/2025 were not signed off by the provider to show they reviewed the resident's lab results. She stated she thought Resident #1 had a neurology consultation while in the hospital, but the facility did not follow up to schedule a neurology appointment for Resident #1. The DON stated Resident #1's and Resident #2's labs were not done because the nurses were not transcribing the information from the orders to the lab reconciliation sheet and putting them in the lab book, so the tech knows which labs to draw for which residents. The DON stated it was her responsibility to ensure the resident's neurology consultation was followed up on. She stated there was a system failure because management did not have anyone assigned to pull labs, review lab results, and ensure all ordered labs were completed. The DON said their process was broken for following up with labs and completing documentation. An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 3:50 p.m. with Resident #1's Psychiatry Physician Assistant (PA). The Psychiatry PA said he does not manage Resident #1's Depakote levels. If a resident is on Depakote for Seizures Psychiatry would not manage the medication; that would be managed by a resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP). An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The APRN said he does not monitor residents Depakote because it is managed by Psychiatry. He stated Depakote is not a medication he would prescribe a resident for seizures. He stated that he made a referral to have Resident #1 seen by a Neurologist in September 2024 and then again when Resident #1 came back from her most recent hospital stay (3/6/25), but he is not sure if the facility had followed up on his referral. He stated it is possible the low seizure medication labs could have been caught before the resident had her seizure if the facility had been managing her lab results and followed up with neurology. He stated residents who are on Keppra and Depakote medications for seizures should have labs drawn every three to six months to ensure the medication level are therapeutic for the resident's diagnosis. The APRN confirmed the facility should be doing the labs as ordered by the provider. For abnormal labs the facility should notify him the day the labs resulted and for critical labs the facility should get a hold of him. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 1:50 p.m. with Staff B, LPN, she said she has worked at the facility on and off for four years and is very familiar with Resident #1. She said, Some years ago Resident #1 had a PEG tube for not eating, drinking, or taking her medications but she kept pulling the PEG tube out, so her family decided to just leave it out. She was doing well without it, eating, drinking, and taking her medications without any concerns. Staff B, LPN said for less than one day Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications and when she came in the next morning she had a huge gran-mal seizure, foaming at the mouth, lost control of her bowel and bladder, and then became post ictal (the period immediately following a seizure when the brain recovers, and the body returns to its normal state. During this phase, individuals may experience a range of symptoms, including confusion, drowsiness, headache, and cognitive difficulties.) Staff B, LPN said Resident #1's normal seizures are focal seizures, and she just stares, and they do not last long but this was a big one. Staff B, LPN said she called the physician and had Resident #1 sent to the hospital. Staff B, LPN said when Resident #1 returned the family must have agreed to a PEG tube again because she came back with a PEG tube but all we do is flush it in the morning with water. She said Resident #1 eats by mouth and takes her medications by mouth without any problems. She said since Resident #1 has returned from the hospital after her seizure she is still herself but not quite the same, we definitely fried some brain cells with that seizure. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 4/15/25 at 3:11 p.m., she said she was Resident #1's primary physician and she was familiar with the resident. She said, typically Resident #1's seizures are controlled, and she was on multiple seizure medications but, she did go to the hospital for a seizure. The Medical Director said when Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for the seizure, her Keppra levels were low and her Depakote levels were not therapeutic, because she was not eating and was pocketing her medications [storing medications in her cheek]. She needed intravenous (IV) Keppra and IV Depakote because her levels were very low and it was an emergency. The Medical Director reviewed Resident #1's hospital notes and said Resident #1 had a PEG tube placed in the hospital because she was not eating or taking her medication, so it was life saving for her to have the PEG tube. The Medical Director said she did not remember the staff at the nursing home notifying her Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications. She said the nursing notes will reflect if they notified her or her APRN. The Medical Director said when labs are ordered her expectation is they are collected and once they have resulted the nurses should notify them immediately if any labs are critical. If they aren't critical then the nurses are supposed to put the results in the folder so she or her APRN can check them when they come in three to five times a week. The Medical Director said seizure medication levels should be drawn upon admission and every six months and if the seizure medication labs are abnormal the nursing staff should be notifying the Neurologist because she is not the Physician for the seizure medications, she is just supporting. The Medical Director said if there is an order for a neurology consultation then the facility should coordinate so the resident sees a Neurologist. The Medical Director said the residents had to go out to see a Neurologist because the facility did not have one coming to the facility. But there are transportation problems for bed ridden patients. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:37 a.m. with Staff C, LPN she said she would get floated to take care of Resident #1. She said she works two double shifts a week the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. She said before Resident #1 had her big seizure (2/27/25) she didn't have any problems giving her, her medications. She said the nurses knew you had to give her the medications in foods she liked, such as a milk shake. She said Resident #1 used to self-propel herself up and down the hallways yelling cheeseburger and asking for coffee. Staff C, LPN said now she is just not as spunky as she used to be before the seizure. Staff C, LPN said when she returned from the hospital she came back with a PEG tube. She said Resident #1 does not use the PEG tube, it's only there if she refuses to take her medications by mouth. Staff C, LPN said she does not have any issues with Resident #1 taking her medications or eating and drinking. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:56 AM with Staff A, LPN 200 hall Unit Manager (UM) and the DON. Staff A, LPN, UM, said she has been a UM since the end of September and did not take over the 200 hall until the end of November. She said she knew Resident #1 for the most part, at the beginning, when Staff A, LPN, UM first started, she had only spit out her medications a couple of times and she was always eating so it was easy to give her medications. Only a day or two before her February seizure she was refusing her medications, But it wasn't long that she was refusing her meds before her seizure. The DON said it's their understanding she had a PEG tube a few years ago for failure to thrive but she had pulled it out and it was left out because she was eating and taking her medications by mouth without issues. The DON said when she came back from the hospital with the PEG tube, she worked with speech therapy and they were able to upgrade her diet right away and she continued to eat, drink, and take her medications without any problems. The DON said, she uses it for nothing and it is there just in case she does not take her medications. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 11:02 a.m. with the DON. She said all the clinical nurses did not have access to the lab portal because they changed to the current lab in June 2024, We didn't push to get everyone access, there was just a push to get the system online. The DON said she had noticed for the past couple of months that lab orders had been cancelled. She said the facility just reordered the labs and didn't question why. The DON said the labs were just reordered and it was not really looked at as a system failure. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 1:00 p.m. with Resident #1's Heath Care Proxy and family. They said they were informed Resident #1 went to the hospital in February for a seizure and when she was at the hospital, the hospital had called them and told them Resident #1 was pocketing her food, not drinking and not taking her medications that's why she had the seizure. The family gave the approval to put the PEG tube in and then they had a care plan meeting with the facility, and they were told Resident #1 was eating well and taking her medications by mouth and they were not using the PEG tube. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 2:27 p.m. with the Regional Lab Supervisor. She said the Phlebotomist comes to the facility six days a week Monday through Saturday regardless if there are lab orders or not. She said they provide a Phlebotomist for STAT (immediately or without delay) labs as they need it. The Lab Supervisor said the expectation is the facility puts the lab order into the lab portal, print out the reacquisition form, and put the reacquisition form in the lab book. She said if the nurses don not have access to the lab portal, they can hand write the order on a blank reacquisition form, that the lab company provides, and put that in the lab book. The Phlebotomist will not know a lab needs to be drawn on a resident if there is not a reacquisition form in the lab book. The Lab Supervisor said if the nurse has put the order into the lab portal, but they did not print the requisitions form and put it in the lab book then the Phlebotomist will not collect the lab and the order will sit in the portal and have a status of collection pending, no results. If the order is cancelled due to a collection error, then the lab will call the facility and have the nurse re-enter the order in the lab portal and print the reacquisition to put in the lab book so the Phlebotomist can redraw the labs the next day. Once the Phlebotomist has drawn the labs, they take the reacquisition forms with them and when they drop off the lab specimen someone from the lab makes sure the reacquisition was put into the portal because that's the only way the lab can print labels for the specimen. Once the test has resulted, then the result is uploaded into the lab portal and if there is a critical result the lab calls the facility. 2. Review of admission Records showed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified injury of head and unspecified convulsions. Review of Resident #2's care plan showed a focus area of Seizure disorder. Interventions included: give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness and obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated and monitor labs and report sub therapeutic or toxic results to MD. Dated 10/4/17. Review of Resident #2's order showed the following: -Fasting comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), lipids, complete blood count (CBC), Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. One time a day every 4 months starting on the 1st for 1 day for hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), drug monitoring. Schedule routine weekday mornings. Dated 3/9/22. -Fasting CMP, Lipids, CBC, Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. Every night shift for 1 day. Dated 12/1/24. -Divalproex Sodium HCL capsule delayed release 250 mg (Depakote). Give 250 mg by mouth at bedtime for seizure disorder related to unspecified convulsions. Dated 4/13/22. -Valproic Acid level. Dated 3/31/25. -Ammonia level. Dated 4/1/25. Review of lab results for Resident #2 showed Valproic Acid level and Ammonia level, dated 8/1/24. The Valproic Acid level was low at 23 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml and the ammonia level was high at 69 ug/ml with a reference range of 11.0-35.0 ug/ml. There were no results found for the labs ordered to be drawn on 12/1/24. The 3/31/25 order for Valproic Acid level was not completed. The labs were reordered and drawn on 4/15/25 with a low result of <13 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. The Ammonia level drawn on 4/1/25 was high at 80 umoL/ml with a reference range of 18-72 umoL/ml. Review of Resident #2's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified of the abnormal Valproic Acid and Ammonia results on 8/1/24. Review of Resident #2's Lab Order History on the lab portal showed no orders were input in their system for labs to be drawn on 12/1/24. There was an order put in on 3/31/25 for a Valproic Acid level. Review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated 4/15/25, showed obtained orders to redraw Valproic Acid due to alb [albumin] stating uncollected lab and Lab tech out to get STAT Valproic Acid. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON. She confirmed Resident #2 had a Valproic Acid level ordered on 3/31/25 that was not completed. She said they did not realize it was not done until 4/15/25. At 1:56 p.m. the DON reviewed Resident #2's medical record and confirmed there was an active order for labs every 4 months. She said the lab order was one that had fallen through the cracks and labs were not transcribed to the lab portal and lab reconciliation sheets. She confirmed the resident had labs in August 2024 and not again until 3/31/25. A follow-up interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 5:15 p.m. with the DON. She said somehow Resident #2's lab was cancelled on 4/15/25 by the lab or the nurse. She said the unit manager (UM) had been given this to check on the homework sheet and they should have caught the fact the lab was not completed. 3. Review of admission Records showed Resident #8 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed the following: -Levetiracetam (Keppra) Oral Tablet 500 mg. Give 3 tablet by mouth two times a day related to epilepsy. Dated 11/25/24. -Ammonia Level. Every night shift every Wednesday for 4 weeks. Dated 2/5/25. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 3/4/25, showed an Ammonia Level results of 118 umol/L (micromole per liter) with a reference range of 18-72 umol/L. This was indicated as a critical result. The lab showed the result was reported on 3/4/25 at 11:38 a.m. Review of Resident #8's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified on 3/4/25 of the critically high ammonia level. There was a progress note, dated 3/5/25 at 9:02 a.m.,. showing labs were sent to the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Review of Resident #8's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the Ammonia level that was scheduled to be rechecked on 3/20/25 was documented as 9 indicating Other/See Nurse Notes. Review of progress notes revealed no nurses' note showing why the lab was not drawn. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 4/1/25, showed a Keppra level high at 49.5 ug/mL with a reference range of 6.0-46.0 ug/mL. An interview was conducted on 4/1/25 at 2:35 p.m. with the DON. She reviewed Resident #8's medical record and confirmed documentation showed the provider was not notified of the critical high ammonia level until the day after the results were received. She said her expectation would be the provider to be notified immediately of critical results. The DON confirmed there was no documentation as to why the ammonia level scheduled for 3/20/25 was not
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide competent physician services for the treatment and monit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide competent physician services for the treatment and monitoring of seizure diagnoses for eleven residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11) out of eleven sampled residents. Serious harm occurred when Resident #1's seizure medication levels were not monitored, and neurology consultation was not obtained per the provider's request. Resident #1 experienced a seizure on 7/10/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 2/27/25. Resident #1 had to be transferred to a higher level of care as a result of the seizure suffered on 2/27/25. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to residents and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 4/16/2025. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 4/17/2025 and the scope and severity was reduced to an E after verification of removal of immediacy of harm. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with medical diagnoses of generalized idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus, gastrostomy status as of 3/6/25, traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, hydrocephalus, paraplegia, adult failure to thrive, protein-calorie malnutrition, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, and Bell's palsy. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed the following: -Depakote (Valproic Acid) Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg (milligrams), give one capsule by mouth two times a day for seizures, start date 5/23/24 and discontinued on 7/5/24. -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg, give one capsule by mouth three times a day for seizures, start date 7/6/24 and discontinued on 4/2/25. Review of Resident #1's July 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 125 mg of Depakote three times a day starting on 7/6/24. Review of Resident #1's laboratory (lab) results, dated 7/6/24, revealed her Valproic Acid levels were low at 10 microgram per milliliter (ug/ml). with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/7/24 at 8:13 p.m., revealed Hard copy labs called to ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) . No new orders. Review of Resident #1's ARNP note, dated 7/7/24, revealed: CHIEF COMPLAINTS 7/7/24 fu [follow up] Visit She [Resident #1] has had some seizures in the past and had the recent seizure staff members reporting. Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. .ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure D-[NAME] [disorder] 7/7/24 Neurology consult, check medication levels .increased dose, depakote leve[sic] . Review of Resident #1's Progress note, dated 7/10/24 at 8:19 a.m., revealed Resident had a tonic-clonic seizure [a type of seizure with muscle stiffing followed by rhythmic jerking with a loss of consciousness] for 2 minutes. Resident was contracted and shaking the full time of the seizure. Resident is currently lying in bed. Dr. notified and waiting for a call back. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician called back, or further attempts were made to contact the physician. Review of Resident #1's physician order revealed an order with a start date of 7/12/24, and an end date of 7/12/24 for Depakote Valproic Acid levels one time only for 1 day notify MD [Medical Doctor] of results. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 7/12/24, revealed Valproic Acid results were low (12 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid level on 7/12/24. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order, with a revision date of 7/15/24, a start date of 7/22/24, and an end date of 7/23/24, to recheck Valproic Acid level in one week. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m., revealed Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today Review of Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the physician order for Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today was signed off as completed on 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History from the lab portal did not reveal a physician's order was in the lab portal for Valproic Acid to be drawn on 7/22/24. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the Valproic Acid was drawn on 7/22/24 and reported to the physician. Review of Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note, dated 9/13/24, revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/13/24-fu [follow up] Visit .Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. . ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure 9/13/24 Neurology Consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's Physician note, dated 9/20/24 revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/20/24 fu Visit . Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's and assist with feeding in general. .Assessment and Plan .Seizure 9/20/24 Neurology consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence she received neurology services. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/28/24 at 5:36 PM, revealed Resident had a seizure while lying in bed at 1730 [5:30PM]. Resident was laying on her side while seizure was occurring. Made sure of resident safety. Seizure was under 5 minutes long and not reoccurring. Resident is now alert and able to speak and move. No discomfort or pain noted. No injuries. MD [Medical Doctor] notified. New order placed for labs. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed, an order with an order date of 9/28/24,for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level. There was no start date or end date on the physician order. Review of Resident #1's September 2024 MAR revealed the physician order for Depakote level, Ammonia level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level was not documented as completed. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal did not reveal a physician order was placed on 9/28/24 for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), or a Lacosamide level. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/29/24 at 7:30AM, revealed Seizure activity noted this am [morning] lasting approximately 3.5 minutes s/p [status post] snoring lasting about 2 minutes then aroused making eye contact with staff alert and orientated to self-97.2 [temperature]-76 [pulse]-20 [respiratory rate]-128/82 [blood pressure]-97% [oxygen saturations] R/A [room air]. Review of the medical record did not reveal the resident's physician was notified of the seizure. Review of Resident #1's lab report with a collection date of 9/30/24 at 5:09 p. m., revealed Valproic Acid was low (14 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid (Depakote) lab results collected on 9/30/24. Review of Resident #1's physicians' orders, revealed an order, with a start date of 2/4/25 and an end date of 2/5/25, for a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Depakote level, and Ammonia level, every night shift for one day. Review of Resident #1's lab results with a collection date of 2/5/25, revealed abnormal CBC, CMP and Depakote Level results for the following lab values: Glucose: Low (67 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)) with a reference range of 70-99 mg/dL BUN: High (24 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6-20 mg/dL BUN /Creatinine Ratio: High (38.6 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6.0-25.0 mg/dL Calcium: Low (3.4 mg/dL) with a reference range of 8.6-10.2 mg/dL RBC: Low (3.93 million per microliter (M/uL)) with a reference range of 4.1-10.9) M/uL HGB: Low (11. grams per deciliter (8g/dL)) with a reference range of 12.0-16.0 g/dL HCT: Low (35.9%) with a reference range of 37.0-47.0% Valproic Acid (Depakote): low (25 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal revealed the Ammonia order, dated 2/5/25, had a status of collection pending, no results and there was no sample collection date. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence the physician was notified of the abnormal lab results collected on 2/5/25. The medical record revealed no Ammonia levels were collected or physician communication related to the Ammonia level lab not being collected. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal, and she said Collection pending, No Results means the labs were not drawn. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:18 a.m., revealed At approx. [approximately] 7:30am resident was having seizure activity. foaming[sic] at mouth and release of urine and feces noted. resident[sic] moved to[sic] onto her side until seizure ceased. Resident cont [continued] to be slow to wake and is nonverbal at this time. Resident has history of seizure activity. Family and MD aware. Review of Resident #1's change in condition, dated 2/27/25, revealed The change in condition .: Altered mental status The seizure was: New onset seizure activity, OR persistent seizure in someone with known intermittent seizure activity. Provider Notification and Feedback: .send to ER [emergency room] Review of Resident #1's hospital record revealed a physician note, dated 2/28/25, as: Impressions and Plan Breakthrough seizures due to noncompliance. The patient is currently unresponsive. This could be due to a postictal state, non-convulsive seizure activity or encephalopathy. I spoke to her [Resident #1's] nurse . at the nursing home . the patient has been refusing her medications. Yesterday she had a 4-minute convulsive seizure. Low Keppra level Low Depakote level but her dose of this medication may not be therapeutic. .Plan Prescribe telemetry Neurochecks every 2-4 hours Seizure precautions Lorazepam 2mg IV [intravenous] for convulsive seizure activity lasting more than 100 seconds IV Keppra IV Depakote IV Vimpat. She is also on oxcarbazepine that is not available in IV form, but the other AED's [anti-epileptic drugs] should be adequate. There is not yet clear how her refusal to take p.o. [by mouth] AEDs will get resolved. She may need a PEG [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy]. Review of Resident #1's hospital Gastrointestinal Physician note, dated 3/3/25, revealed: The patient presents with 50 yo [year old] f [female] who presented to the ed [emergency department] from her facility after a witnessed seizure. pt [patient] was also in the ed 2 days ago for glf [ground level fall]. I was asked to see the pt for a peg tube. Pt denies abdominal pain, n/v [nausea/vomiting] and dysphagia. Apparently, she frequently refuses to eat and take her medications due to her neurologic and psychiatric issues. Pt did not have issues swallowing during her vss [video swallow study]. per nursing if she is fed she will eat. She does pocket her food and requires verbal reminders. She has no abdominal pain, d/c [discomfort]. She has no gi [gastrointestinal] complaints. .plan Npo[nothing by mouth] after mn [midnight] Egd [esophagogastroduodenoscopy]/peg tomorrow. Review Resident #1's December 2024 through February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 10 ml's of Keppra (100 mg/ml) by mouth twice a day every day for seizures except on 12/12/24 at 5:00 p.m. the documentation revealed 10. Review of the chart codes revealed 10=spit out meds. On 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 6 review of the chart codes revealed 6= hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 2. Review of the chart codes revealed 2=drug refused. The February MAR review revealed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles 125 mg three times a day for seizures every day for the month of February until she was discharged on 2/27/25, except on 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the documentation revealed Resident #1 was hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. the documentation revealed Resident #1 refused the drug. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/6/25 at 2:12 p.m., revealed Resident returned to facility at approx. [approximately] 1;[sic]55pm via stretcher/ EMS [emergency medical services]. resident[sic] had no s/s [signs and symptoms] of distress noted .Resident has PEG tube in place and can eat by mouth. Jevity 1.2 @ 60 FWF [free water flush] 200ml q6 [every 6]. Resident can eat by mouth soft / bite sized. 1400 total in 24 hours. Two boxes a meal. An interview was conducted on 3/31/25 at 3:10 p.m. with the DON. The DON stated she did not assign a primary person to oversee the labs and review results. She said if labs were not critical staff would put the lab results in the providers' boxes for them to sign. If the labs were critical staff would call the provider to inform them about the critical lab results. The DON stated labs for seizure medications should be drawn every three months, but she does not know why some resident's labs were not being checked. She stated Resident #1's Depakote levels were being monitored by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The DON stated she was aware that this was a system failure on the facility when it came to their lab process. She stated she would have expected her nurses to fax labs results to the doctor, put follow-up labs in to check the Depakote levels, and monitor the process. The DON stated Resident #1's labs from 9/30/2024 and 2/5/2025 were not signed off by the provider to show they reviewed the resident's lab results. She stated she thought Resident #1 had a neurology consultation while in the hospital, but the facility did not follow up to schedule a neurology appointment for Resident #1. The DON stated Resident #1's and Resident #2's labs were not done because the nurses were not transcribing the information from the orders to the lab reconciliation sheet and putting them in the lab book, so the tech knows which labs to draw for which residents. The DON stated it was her responsibility to ensure the resident's neurology consultation was followed up on. She stated there was a system failure because management did not have anyone assigned to pull labs, review lab results, and ensure all ordered labs were completed. The DON said their process was broken for following up with labs and completing documentation. An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 3:50 p.m. with Resident #1's Psychiatry Physician Assistant (PA). The Psychiatry PA said he does not manage Resident #1's Depakote levels. If a resident is on Depakote for Seizures Psychiatry would not manage the medication; that would be managed by a resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP). An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The APRN said he does not monitor residents Depakote because it is managed by Psychiatry. He stated Depakote is not a medication he would prescribe a resident for seizures. He stated that he made a referral to have Resident #1 seen by a Neurologist in September 2024 and then again when Resident #1 came back from her most recent hospital stay (3/6/25), but he is not sure if the facility had followed up on his referral. He stated it is possible the low seizure medication labs could have been caught before the resident had her seizure if the facility had been managing her lab results and followed up with neurology. He stated residents who are on Keppra and Depakote medications for seizures should have labs drawn every three to six months to ensure the medication level are therapeutic for the resident's diagnosis. The APRN confirmed the facility should be doing the labs as ordered by the provider. For abnormal labs the facility should notify him the day the labs resulted and for critical labs the facility should get a hold of him. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 1:50 p.m. with Staff B, LPN, she said she has worked at the facility on and off for four years and is very familiar with Resident #1. She said, Some years ago Resident #1 had a PEG tube for not eating, drinking, or taking her medications but she kept pulling the PEG tube out, so her family decided to just leave it out. She was doing well without it, eating, drinking, and taking her medications without any concerns. Staff B, LPN said for less than one day Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications and when she came in the next morning she had a huge gran-mal seizure, foaming at the mouth, lost control of her bowel and bladder, and then became post ictal (the period immediately following a seizure when the brain recovers, and the body returns to its normal state. During this phase, individuals may experience a range of symptoms, including confusion, drowsiness, headache, and cognitive difficulties.) Staff B, LPN said Resident #1's normal seizures are focal seizures, and she just stares, and they do not last long but this was a big one. Staff B, LPN said she called the physician and had Resident #1 sent to the hospital. Staff B, LPN said when Resident #1 returned the family must have agreed to a PEG tube again because she came back with a PEG tube but all we do is flush it in the morning with water. She said Resident #1 eats by mouth and takes her medications by mouth without any problems. She said since Resident #1 has returned from the hospital after her seizure she is still herself but not quite the same, we definitely fried some brain cells with that seizure. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 4/15/25 at 3:11 p.m., she said she was Resident #1's primary physician and she was familiar with the resident. She said, typically Resident #1's seizures are controlled, and she was on multiple seizure medications but, she did go to the hospital for a seizure. The Medical Director said when Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for the seizure, her Keppra levels were low and her Depakote levels were not therapeutic, because she was not eating and was pocketing her medications [storing medications in her cheek]. She needed intravenous (IV) Keppra and IV Depakote because her levels were very low and it was an emergency. The Medical Director reviewed Resident #1's hospital notes and said Resident #1 had a PEG tube placed in the hospital because she was not eating or taking her medication, so it was life saving for her to have the PEG tube. The Medical Director said she did not remember the staff at the nursing home notifying her Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications. She said the nursing notes will reflect if they notified her or her APRN. The Medical Director said when labs are ordered her expectation is they are collected and once they have resulted the nurses should notify them immediately if any labs are critical. If they aren't critical then the nurses are supposed to put the results in the folder so she or her APRN can check them when they come in three to five times a week. The Medical Director said seizure medication levels should be drawn upon admission and every six months and if the seizure medication labs are abnormal the nursing staff should be notifying the Neurologist because she is not the Physician for the seizure medications, she is just supporting. The Medical Director said if there is an order for a neurology consultation then the facility should coordinate so the resident sees a Neurologist. The Medical Director said the residents had to go out to see a Neurologist because the facility did not have one coming to the facility. But there are transportation problems for bed ridden patients. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:37 a.m. with Staff C, LPN she said she would get floated to take care of Resident #1. She said she works two double shifts a week the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. She said before Resident #1 had her big seizure (2/27/25) she didn't have any problems giving her, her medications. She said the nurses knew you had to give her the medications in foods she liked, such as a milk shake. She said Resident #1 used to self-propel herself up and down the hallways yelling cheeseburger and asking for coffee. Staff C, LPN said now she is just not as spunky as she used to be before the seizure. Staff C, LPN said when she returned from the hospital she came back with a PEG tube. She said Resident #1 does not use the PEG tube, it's only there if she refuses to take her medications by mouth. Staff C, LPN said she does not have any issues with Resident #1 taking her medications or eating and drinking. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:56 AM with Staff A, LPN 200 hall Unit Manager (UM) and the DON. Staff A, LPN, UM, said she has been a UM since the end of September and did not take over the 200 hall until the end of November. She said she knew Resident #1 for the most part, at the beginning, when Staff A, LPN, UM first started, she had only spit out her medications a couple of times and she was always eating so it was easy to give her medications. Only a day or two before her February seizure she was refusing her medications, But it wasn't long that she was refusing her meds before her seizure. The DON said it's their understanding she had a PEG tube a few years ago for failure to thrive but she had pulled it out and it was left out because she was eating and taking her medications by mouth without issues. The DON said when she came back from the hospital with the PEG tube, she worked with speech therapy and they were able to upgrade her diet right away and she continued to eat, drink, and take her medications without any problems. The DON said, she uses it for nothing and it is there just in case she does not take her medications. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 11:02 a.m. with the DON. She said all the clinical nurses did not have access to the lab portal because they changed to the current lab in June 2024, We didn't push to get everyone access, there was just a push to get the system online. The DON said she had noticed for the past couple of months that lab orders had been cancelled. She said the facility just reordered the labs and didn't question why. The DON said the labs were just reordered and it was not really looked at as a system failure. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 1:00 p.m. with Resident #1's Heath Care Proxy and family. They said they were informed Resident #1 went to the hospital in February for a seizure and when she was at the hospital, the hospital had called them and told them Resident #1 was pocketing her food, not drinking and not taking her medications that's why she had the seizure. The family gave the approval to put the PEG tube in and then they had a care plan meeting with the facility, and they were told Resident #1 was eating well and taking her medications by mouth and they were not using the PEG tube. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 2:27 p.m. with the Regional Lab Supervisor. She said the Phlebotomist comes to the facility six days a week Monday through Saturday regardless if there are lab orders or not. She said they provide a Phlebotomist for STAT (immediately or without delay) labs as they need it. The Lab Supervisor said the expectation is the facility puts the lab order into the lab portal, print out the reacquisition form, and put the reacquisition form in the lab book. She said if the nurses do not have access to the lab portal, they can hand write the order on a blank reacquisition form, that the lab company provides, and put that in the lab book. The Phlebotomist will not know a lab needs to be drawn on a resident if there is not a reacquisition form in the lab book. The Lab Supervisor said if the nurse has put the order into the lab portal, but they did not print the requisition form and put it in the lab book then the Phlebotomist will not collect the lab and the order will sit in the portal and have a status of collection pending, no results. If the order is cancelled due to a collection error, then the lab will call the facility and have the nurse re-enter the order in the lab portal and print the reacquisition to put in the lab book so the Phlebotomist can redraw the labs the next day. Once the Phlebotomist has drawn the labs, they take the reacquisition forms with them and when they drop off the lab specimen someone from the lab makes sure the reacquisition was put into the portal because that's the only way the lab can print labels for the specimen. Once the test has resulted, then the result is uploaded into the lab portal and if there is a critical result the lab calls the facility. 2. Review of admission Records showed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified injury of head and unspecified convulsions. Review of Resident #2's care plan showed a focus area of Seizure disorder. Interventions included: give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness and obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated and monitor labs and report sub therapeutic or toxic results to MD. Dated 10/4/17. Review of Resident #2's order showed the following: -Fasting comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), lipids, complete blood count (CBC), Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. One time a day every 4 months starting on the 1st for 1 day for hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), drug monitoring. Schedule routine weekday mornings. Dated 3/9/22. -Fasting CMP, Lipids, CBC, Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. Every night shift for 1 day. Dated 12/1/24. -Divalproex Sodium HCL capsule delayed release 250 mg (Depakote). Give 250 mg by mouth at bedtime for seizure disorder related to unspecified convulsions. Dated 4/13/22. -Valproic Acid level. Dated 3/31/25. -Ammonia level. Dated 4/1/25. Review of lab results for Resident #2 showed Valproic Acid level and Ammonia level, dated 8/1/24. The Valproic Acid level was low at 23 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml and the ammonia level was high at 69 ug/ml with a reference range of 11.0-35.0 ug/ml. There were no results found for the labs ordered to be drawn on 12/1/24. The 3/31/25 order for Valproic Acid level was not completed. The labs were reordered and drawn on 4/15/25 with a low result of <13 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. The Ammonia level drawn on 4/1/25 was high at 80 umoL/ml with a reference range of 18-72 umoL/ml. Review of Resident #2's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified of the abnormal Valproic Acid and Ammonia results on 8/1/24. Review of Resident #2's Lab Order History on the lab portal showed no orders were input in their system for labs to be drawn on 12/1/24. There was an order put in on 3/31/25 for a Valproic Acid level. Review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated 4/15/25, showed obtained orders to redraw Valproic Acid due to alb [albumin] stating uncollected lab and Lab tech out to get STAT Valproic Acid. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON. She confirmed Resident #2 had a Valproic Acid level ordered on 3/31/25 that was not completed. She said they did not realize it was not done until 4/15/25. At 1:56 p.m. the DON reviewed Resident #2's medical record and confirmed there was an active order for labs every 4 months. She said the lab order was one that had fallen through the cracks and labs were not transcribed to the lab portal and lab reconciliation sheets. She confirmed the resident had labs in August 2024 and not again until 3/31/25. A follow-up interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 5:15 p.m. with the DON. She said somehow Resident #2's lab was cancelled on 4/15/25 by the lab or the nurse. She said the unit manager (UM) had been given this to check on the homework sheet and they should have caught the fact the lab was not completed. 3. Review of admission Records showed Resident #8 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed the following: -Levetiracetam (Keppra) Oral Tablet 500 mg. Give 3 tablet by mouth two times a day related to epilepsy. Dated 11/25/24. -Ammonia Level. Every night shift every Wednesday for 4 weeks. Dated 2/5/25. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 3/4/25, showed an Ammonia Level results of 118 umol/L (micromole per liter) with a reference range of 18-72 umol/L. This was indicated as a critical result. The lab showed the result was reported on 3/4/25 at 11:38 a.m. Review of Resident #8's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified on 3/4/25 of the critically high ammonia level. There was a progress note, dated 3/5/25 at 9:02 a.m.,. showing labs were sent to the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Review of Resident #8's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the Ammonia level that was scheduled to be rechecked on 3/20/25 was documented as 9 indicating Other/See Nurse Notes. Review of progress notes revealed no nurses' note showing why the lab was not drawn. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 4/1/25, showed a Keppra level high at 49.5 ug/mL with a reference range of 6.0-46.0 ug/mL. An interview was conducted on 4/1/25 at 2:35 p.m. with the DON. She reviewed Resident #8's medical record and confirmed documentation showed the provider was not notified of the critical high ammonia level until the day after the results were received. She said her expectation would be the provider to be notified immediately of critical results. The DON confirmed there was no documentation as to why the ammonia level scheduled for 3/20/25 was not completed and said it should have been rescheduled but was not. 4. Review of admission Records showed Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including other seizures. Review of Resident #4's care plan showed a focus area of seizure disorder, dated 8/27/24. Interventions included obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated. Review of Resident #4's orders revealed the following active orders: -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule Delayed Release Sprinkle 125 mg (Divalproex Sodium). Give 2 capsule by mouth every 8 hours related to other seizures. Dated 2/6/25. - CBC, CMP, Depakote, TSH, Ammonia Level. One time a day every 90 day(s) for hypertension, schizophrenia, cholecystitis. Dated 4/29/21. Review of Resident #4's provider note, dated 2/12/25, noted Depakote, check levels and ammonia levels. R[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff were competent in caring for residents with se...

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 nursing staff were competent in caring for residents with seizure diagnoses to include laboratory monitoring process, following through with orders, processing consultations, and communications with physicians for eleven residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11) out of eleven residents sampled. Serious harm occurred when Resident #1's seizure medication levels were not monitored, and neurology consultation was not obtained per the provider's request. Resident #1 experienced a seizure on 7/10/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 2/27/25. Resident #1 had to be transferred to a higher level of care as a result of the seizure suffered on 2/27/25. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 4/16/2025. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 4/17/2025 and the scope and severity was reduced to an E after verification of removal of immediacy of harm. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with medical diagnoses of generalized idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus, gastrostomy status as of 3/6/25, traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, hydrocephalus, paraplegia, adult failure to thrive, protein-calorie malnutrition, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, and Bell's palsy. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed the following: -Depakote (Valproic Acid) Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg (milligrams), give one capsule by mouth two times a day for seizures, start date 5/23/24 and discontinued on 7/5/24. -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg, give one capsule by mouth three times a day for seizures, start date 7/6/24 and discontinued on 4/2/25. Review of Resident #1's July 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 125 mg of Depakote three times a day starting on 7/6/24. Review of Resident #1's laboratory (lab) results, dated 7/6/24, revealed her Valproic Acid levels were low at 10 microgram per milliliter (ug/ml). with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/7/24 at 8:13 p.m., revealed Hard copy labs called to ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) . No new orders. Review of Resident #1's ARNP note, dated 7/7/24, revealed: CHIEF COMPLAINTS 7/7/24 fu [follow up] Visit She [Resident #1] has had some seizures in the past and had the recent seizure staff members reporting. Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. .ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure D-[NAME] [disorder] 7/7/24 Neurology consult, check medication levels .increased dose, depakote leve[sic] . Review of Resident #1's Progress note, dated 7/10/24 at 8:19 a.m., revealed Resident had a tonic-clonic seizure [a type of seizure with muscle stiffing followed by rhythmic jerking with a loss of consciousness] for 2 minutes. Resident was contracted and shaking the full time of the seizure. Resident is currently lying in bed. Dr. notified and waiting for a call back. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician called back, or further attempts were made to contact the physician. Review of Resident #1's physician order revealed an order with a start date of 7/12/24, and an end date of 7/12/24 for Depakote Valproic Acid levels one time only for 1 day notify MD [Medical Doctor] of results. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 7/12/24, revealed Valproic Acid results were low (12 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid level on 7/12/24. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order, with a revision date of 7/15/24, a start date of 7/22/24, and an end date of 7/23/24, to recheck Valproic Acid level in one week. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m., revealed Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today Review of Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the physician order for Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today was signed off as completed on 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History from the lab portal did not reveal a physician's order was in the lab portal for Valproic Acid to be drawn on 7/22/24. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the Valproic Acid was drawn on 7/22/24 and reported to the physician. Review of Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note, dated 9/13/24, revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/13/24-fu [follow up] Visit .Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. . ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure 9/13/24 Neurology Consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's Physician note, dated 9/20/24 revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/20/24 fu Visit . Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's and assist with feeding in general. .Assessment and Plan .Seizure 9/20/24 Neurology consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence she received neurology services. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/28/24 at 5:36 PM, revealed Resident had a seizure while lying in bed at 1730 [5:30PM]. Resident was laying on her side while seizure was occurring. Made sure of resident safety. Seizure was under 5 minutes long and not reoccurring. Resident is now alert and able to speak and move. No discomfort or pain noted. No injuries. MD [Medical Doctor] notified. New order placed for labs. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed, an order with an order date of 9/28/24,for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level. There was no start date or end date on the physician order. Review of Resident #1's September 2024 MAR revealed the physician order for Depakote level, Ammonia level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level was not documented as completed. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal did not reveal a physician order was placed on 9/28/24 for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), or a Lacosamide level. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/29/24 at 7:30AM, revealed Seizure activity noted this am [morning] lasting approximately 3.5 minutes s/p [status post] snoring lasting about 2 minutes then aroused making eye contact with staff alert and orientated to self-97.2 [temperature]-76 [pulse]-20 [respiratory rate]-128/82 [blood pressure]-97% [oxygen saturations] R/A [room air]. Review of the medical record did not reveal the resident's physician was notified of the seizure. Review of Resident #1's lab report with a collection date of 9/30/24 at 5:09 p. m., revealed Valproic Acid was low (14 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid (Depakote) lab results collected on 9/30/24. Review of Resident #1's physicians' orders, revealed an order, with a start date of 2/4/25 and an end date of 2/5/25, for a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Depakote level, and Ammonia level, every night shift for one day. Review of Resident #1's lab results with a collection date of 2/5/25, revealed abnormal CBC, CMP and Depakote Level results for the following lab values: Glucose: Low (67 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)) with a reference range of 70-99 mg/dL BUN: High (24 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6-20 mg/dL BUN /Creatinine Ratio: High (38.6 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6.0-25.0 mg/dL Calcium: Low (3.4 mg/dL) with a reference range of 8.6-10.2 mg/dL RBC: Low (3.93 million per microliter (M/uL)) with a reference range of 4.1-10.9) M/uL HGB: Low (11. grams per deciliter (8g/dL)) with a reference range of 12.0-16.0 g/dL HCT: Low (35.9%) with a reference range of 37.0-47.0% Valproic Acid (Depakote): low (25 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal revealed the Ammonia order, dated 2/5/25, had a status of collection pending, no results and there was no sample collection date. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence the physician was notified of the abnormal lab results collected on 2/5/25. The medical record revealed no Ammonia levels were collected or physician communication related to the Ammonia level lab not being collected. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal, and she said Collection pending, No Results means the labs were not drawn. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:18 a.m., revealed At approx. [approximately] 7:30am resident was having seizure activity. foaming[sic] at mouth and release of urine and feces noted. resident[sic] moved to[sic] onto her side until seizure ceased. Resident cont [continued] to be slow to wake and is nonverbal at this time. Resident has history of seizure activity. Family and MD aware. Review of Resident #1's change in condition, dated 2/27/25, revealed The change in condition .: Altered mental status The seizure was: New onset seizure activity, OR persistent seizure in someone with known intermittent seizure activity. Provider Notification and Feedback: .send to ER [emergency room] Review of Resident #1's hospital record revealed a physician note, dated 2/28/25, as: Impressions and Plan Breakthrough seizures due to noncompliance. The patient is currently unresponsive. This could be due to a postictal state, non-convulsive seizure activity or encephalopathy. I spoke to her [Resident #1's] nurse . at the nursing home . the patient has been refusing her medications. Yesterday she had a 4-minute convulsive seizure. Low Keppra level Low Depakote level but her dose of this medication may not be therapeutic. .Plan Prescribe telemetry Neurochecks every 2-4 hours Seizure precautions Lorazepam 2mg IV [intravenous] for convulsive seizure activity lasting more than 100 seconds IV Keppra IV Depakote IV Vimpat. She is also on oxcarbazepine that is not available in IV form, but the other AED's [anti-epileptic drugs] should be adequate. There is not yet clear how her refusal to take p.o. [by mouth] AEDs will get resolved. She may need a PEG [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy]. Review of Resident #1's hospital Gastrointestinal Physician note, dated 3/3/25, revealed: The patient presents with 50 yo [year old] f [female] who presented to the ed [emergency department] from her facility after a witnessed seizure. pt [patient] was also in the ed 2 days ago for glf [ground level fall]. I was asked to see the pt for a peg tube. Pt denies abdominal pain, n/v [nausea/vomiting] and dysphagia. Apparently, she frequently refuses to eat and take her medications due to her neurologic and psychiatric issues. Pt did not have issues swallowing during her vss [video swallow study]. per nursing if she is fed she will eat. She does pocket her food and requires verbal reminders. She has no abdominal pain, d/c [discomfort]. She has no gi [gastrointestinal] complaints. .plan Npo[nothing by mouth] after mn [midnight] Egd [esophagogastroduodenoscopy]/peg tomorrow. Review Resident #1's December 2024 through February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 10 ml's of Keppra (100 mg/ml) by mouth twice a day every day for seizures except on 12/12/24 at 5:00 p.m. the documentation revealed 10. Review of the chart codes revealed 10=spit out meds. On 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 6 review of the chart codes revealed 6= hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 2. Review of the chart codes revealed 2=drug refused. The February MAR review revealed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles 125 mg three times a day for seizures every day for the month of February until she was discharged on 2/27/25, except on 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the documentation revealed Resident #1 was hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. the documentation revealed Resident #1 refused the drug. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/6/25 at 2:12 p.m., revealed Resident returned to facility at approx. [approximately] 1;[sic]55pm via stretcher/ EMS [emergency medical services]. resident[sic] had no s/s [signs and symptoms] of distress noted .Resident has PEG tube in place and can eat by mouth. Jevity 1.2 @ 60 FWF [free water flush] 200ml q6 [every 6]. Resident can eat by mouth soft / bite sized. 1400 total in 24 hours. Two boxes a meal. Review of Resident #1's nutrition note, dated 3/7/25 at 9:59 a.m. revealed, Res [Resident] readmitted to facility 3/6/25 s/p [status/post] 7d [day] hospitalization. New Gtube [gastrostomy tube] inserted however res eats 75-100% of meals by mouth and requests snacks frequently. Will d/c [discontinue] enteral feed as res is able to meet needs via po [by mouth] at this time. Flush tube w/ [with] 150cc H20 [water] q [every] shift to maintain patency. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/7/25 at 10:21 a.m., written by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), revealed, This writer received order from NP [Nurse Practitioner] stating resident able to take medication by mouth if resident refuses then we may use PEG-Tube for medications; resident is currently eating meals w/o [without] issues or concerns. An interview was conducted on 3/31/25 at 3:10 p.m. with the DON. The DON stated she did not assign a primary person to oversee the labs and review results. She said if labs were not critical staff would put the lab results in the providers' boxes for them to sign. If the labs were critical staff would call the provider to inform them about the critical lab results. The DON stated labs for seizure medications should be drawn every three months, but she does not know why some resident's labs were not being checked. She stated Resident #1's Depakote levels were being monitored by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The DON stated she was aware that this was a system failure on the facility when it came to their lab process. She stated she would have expected her nurses to fax labs results to the doctor, put follow-up labs in to check the Depakote levels, and monitor the process. The DON stated Resident #1's labs from 9/30/2024 and 2/5/2025 were not signed off by the provider to show they reviewed the resident's lab results. She stated she thought Resident #1 had a neurology consultation while in the hospital, but the facility did not follow up to schedule a neurology appointment for Resident #1. The DON stated Resident #1's and Resident #2's labs were not done because the nurses were not transcribing the information from the orders to the lab reconciliation sheet and putting them in the lab book, so the tech knows which labs to draw for which residents. The DON stated it was her responsibility to ensure the resident's neurology consultation was followed up on. She stated there was a system failure because management did not have anyone assigned to pull labs, review lab results, and ensure all ordered labs were completed. The DON said their process was broken for following up with labs and completing documentation. An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 3:50 p.m. with Resident #1's Psychiatry Physician Assistant (PA). The Psychiatry PA said he does not manage Resident #1's Depakote levels. If a resident is on Depakote for Seizures Psychiatry would not manage the medication; that would be managed by a resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP). An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The APRN said he does not monitor residents Depakote because it is managed by Psychiatry. He stated Depakote is not a medication he would prescribe a resident for seizures. He stated that he made a referral to have Resident #1 seen by a Neurologist in September 2024 and then again when Resident #1 came back from her most recent hospital stay (3/6/25), but he is not sure if the facility had followed up on his referral. He stated it is possible the low seizure medication labs could have been caught before the resident had her seizure if the facility had been managing her lab results and followed up with neurology. He stated residents who are on Keppra and Depakote medications for seizures should have labs drawn every three to six months to ensure the medication level are therapeutic for the resident's diagnosis. The APRN confirmed the facility should be doing the labs as ordered by the provider. For abnormal labs the facility should notify him the day the labs resulted and for critical labs the facility should get a hold of him. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 1:50 p.m. with Staff B, LPN, she said she has worked at the facility on and off for four years and is very familiar with Resident #1. She said, Some years ago Resident #1 had a PEG tube for not eating, drinking, or taking her medications but she kept pulling the PEG tube out, so her family decided to just leave it out. She was doing well without it, eating, drinking, and taking her medications without any concerns. Staff B, LPN said for less than one day Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications and when she came in the next morning she had a huge gran-mal seizure, foaming at the mouth, lost control of her bowel and bladder, and then became post ictal (the period immediately following a seizure when the brain recovers, and the body returns to its normal state. During this phase, individuals may experience a range of symptoms, including confusion, drowsiness, headache, and cognitive difficulties.) Staff B, LPN said Resident #1's normal seizures are focal seizures, and she just stares, and they do not last long but this was a big one. Staff B, LPN said she called the physician and had Resident #1 sent to the hospital. Staff B, LPN said when Resident #1 returned the family must have agreed to a PEG tube again because she came back with a PEG tube but all we do is flush it in the morning with water. She said Resident #1 eats by mouth and takes her medications by mouth without any problems. She said since Resident #1 has returned from the hospital after her seizure she is still herself but not quite the same, we definitely fried some brain cells with that seizure. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 4/15/25 at 3:11 p.m., she said she was Resident #1's primary physician and she was familiar with the resident. She said, typically Resident #1's seizures are controlled, and she was on multiple seizure medications but, she did go to the hospital for a seizure. The Medical Director said when Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for the seizure, her Keppra levels were low and her Depakote levels were not therapeutic, because she was not eating and was pocketing her medications [storing medications in her cheek]. She needed intravenous (IV) Keppra and IV Depakote because her levels were very low and it was an emergency. The Medical Director reviewed Resident #1's hospital notes and said Resident #1 had a PEG tube placed in the hospital because she was not eating or taking her medication, so it was life saving for her to have the PEG tube. The Medical Director said she did not remember the staff at the nursing home notifying her Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications. She said the nursing notes will reflect if they notified her or her APRN. The Medical Director said when labs are ordered her expectation is they are collected and once they have resulted the nurses should notify them immediately if any labs are critical. If they aren't critical then the nurses are supposed to put the results in the folder so she or her APRN can check them when they come in three to five times a week. The Medical Director said seizure medication levels should be drawn upon admission and every six months and if the seizure medication labs are abnormal the nursing staff should be notifying the Neurologist because she is not the Physician for the seizure medications, she is just supporting. The Medical Director said if there is an order for a neurology consultation then the facility should coordinate so the resident sees a Neurologist. The Medical Director said the residents had to go out to see a Neurologist because the facility did not have one coming to the facility. But there are transportation problems for bed ridden patients. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:37 a.m. with Staff C, LPN she said she would get floated to take care of Resident #1. She said she works two double shifts a week the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. She said before Resident #1 had her big seizure (2/27/25) she didn't have any problems giving her, her medications. She said the nurses knew you had to give her the medications in foods she liked, such as a milk shake. She said Resident #1 used to self-propel herself up and down the hallways yelling cheeseburger and asking for coffee. Staff C, LPN said now she is just not as spunky as she used to be before the seizure. Staff C, LPN said when she returned from the hospital she came back with a PEG tube. She said Resident #1 does not use the PEG tube, it's only there if she refuses to take her medications by mouth. Staff C, LPN said she does not have any issues with Resident #1 taking her medications or eating and drinking. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:56 AM with Staff A, LPN 200 hall Unit Manager (UM) and the DON. Staff A, LPN, UM, said she has been a UM since the end of September and did not take over the 200 hall until the end of November. She said she knew Resident #1 for the most part, at the beginning, when Staff A, LPN, UM first started, she had only spit out her medications a couple of times and she was always eating so it was easy to give her medications. Only a day or two before her February seizure she was refusing her medications, But it wasn't long that she was refusing her meds before her seizure. The DON said it's their understanding she had a PEG tube a few years ago for failure to thrive but she had pulled it out and it was left out because she was eating and taking her medications by mouth without issues. The DON said when she came back from the hospital with the PEG tube, she worked with speech therapy and they were able to upgrade her diet right away and she continued to eat, drink, and take her medications without any problems. The DON said, she uses it for nothing and it is there just in case she does not take her medications. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 11:02 a.m. with the DON. She said all the clinical nurses did not have access to the lab portal because they changed to the current lab in June 2024, We didn't push to get everyone access, there was just a push to get the system online. The DON said she had noticed for the past couple of months that lab orders had been cancelled. She said the facility just reordered the labs and didn't question why. The DON said the labs were just reordered and it was not really looked at as a system failure. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 1:00 p.m. with Resident #1's Heath Care Proxy and family. They said they were informed Resident #1 went to the hospital in February for a seizure and when she was at the hospital, the hospital had called them and told them Resident #1 was pocketing her food, not drinking and not taking her medications that's why she had the seizure. The family gave the approval to put the PEG tube in and then they had a care plan meeting with the facility, and they were told Resident #1 was eating well and taking her medications by mouth and they were not using the PEG tube. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 2:27 p.m. with the Regional Lab Supervisor. She said the Phlebotomist comes to the facility six days a week Monday through Saturday regardless if there are lab orders or not. She said they provide a Phlebotomist for STAT (immediately or without delay) labs as they need it. The Lab Supervisor said the expectation is the facility puts the lab order into the lab portal, print out the reacquisition form, and put the reacquisition form in the lab book. She said if the nurses do not have access to the lab portal, they can hand write the order on a blank reacquisition form, that the lab company provides, and put that in the lab book. The Phlebotomist will not know a lab needs to be drawn on a resident if there is not a reacquisition form in the lab book. The Lab Supervisor said if the nurse has put the order into the lab portal, but they did not print the requisition form and put it in the lab book then the Phlebotomist will not collect the lab and the order will sit in the portal and have a status of collection pending, no results. If the order is cancelled due to a collection error, then the lab will call the facility and have the nurse re-enter the order in the lab portal and print the reacquisition to put in the lab book so the Phlebotomist can redraw the labs the next day. Once the Phlebotomist has drawn the labs, they take the reacquisition forms with them and when they drop off the lab specimen someone from the lab makes sure the reacquisition was put into the portal because that is the only way the lab can print labels for the specimen. Once the test has resulted, then the result is uploaded into the lab portal and if there is a critical result the lab calls the facility. 2. Review of admission Records showed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified injury of head and unspecified convulsions. Review of Resident #2's care plan showed a focus area of Seizure disorder. Interventions included: give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness and obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated and monitor labs and report sub therapeutic or toxic results to MD. Dated 10/4/17. Review of Resident #2's order showed the following: -Fasting comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), lipids, complete blood count (CBC), Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. One time a day every 4 months starting on the 1st for 1 day for hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), drug monitoring. Schedule routine weekday mornings. Dated 3/9/22. -Fasting CMP, Lipids, CBC, Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. Every night shift for 1 day. Dated 12/1/24. -Divalproex Sodium HCL capsule delayed release 250 mg (Depakote). Give 250 mg by mouth at bedtime for seizure disorder related to unspecified convulsions. Dated 4/13/22. -Valproic Acid level. Dated 3/31/25. -Ammonia level. Dated 4/1/25. Review of lab results for Resident #2 showed Valproic Acid level and Ammonia level, dated 8/1/24. The Valproic Acid level was low at 23 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml and the ammonia level was high at 69 ug/ml with a reference range of 11.0-35.0 ug/ml. There were no results found for the labs ordered to be drawn on 12/1/24. The 3/31/25 order for Valproic Acid level was not completed. The labs were reordered and drawn on 4/15/25 with a low result of <13 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. The Ammonia level drawn on 4/1/25 was high at 80 umoL/ml with a reference range of 18-72 umoL/ml. Review of Resident #2's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified of the abnormal Valproic Acid and Ammonia results on 8/1/24. Review of Resident #2's Lab Order History on the lab portal showed no orders were input in their system for labs to be drawn on 12/1/24. There was an order put in on 3/31/25 for a Valproic Acid level. Review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated 4/15/25, showed obtained orders to redraw Valproic Acid due to alb [albumin] stating uncollected lab and Lab tech out to get STAT Valproic Acid. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON. She confirmed Resident #2 had a Valproic Acid level ordered on 3/31/25 that was not completed. She said they did not realize it was not done until 4/15/25. At 1:56 p.m. the DON reviewed Resident #2's medical record and confirmed there was an active order for labs every 4 months. She said the lab order was one that had fallen through the cracks and labs were not transcribed to the lab portal and lab reconciliation sheets. She confirmed the resident had labs in August 2024 and not again until 3/31/25. A follow-up interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 5:15 p.m. with the DON. She said somehow Resident #2's lab was cancelled on 4/15/25 by the lab or the nurse. She said the unit manager (UM) had been given this to check on the homework sheet and they should have caught the fact the lab was not completed. 3. Review of admission Records showed Resident #8 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed the following: -Levetiracetam (Keppra) Oral Tablet 500 mg. Give 3 tablet by mouth two times a day related to epilepsy. Dated 11/25/24. -Ammonia Level. Every night shift every Wednesday for 4 weeks. Dated 2/5/25. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 3/4/25, showed an Ammonia Level results of 118 umol/L (micromole per liter) with a reference range of 18-72 umol/L. This was indicated as a critical result. The lab showed the result was reported on 3/4/25 at 11:38 a.m. Review of Resident #8's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified on 3/4/25 of the critically high ammonia level. There was a progress note, dated 3/5/25 at 9:02 a.m.,. showing labs were sent to the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Review of Resident #8's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the Ammonia level that was scheduled to be rechecked on 3/20/25 was documented as 9 indicating Other/See Nurse Notes. Review of progress notes revealed no nurses' note showing why the lab was not drawn. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 4/1/25, showed a Keppra level high at 49.5 ug/mL with a reference range of 6.0-46.0 ug/mL. An interview was conducted on 4/1/25 at 2:35 p.m. with the DON. She reviewed Resident #8's medical record and confirmed documentation showed the provider was not notified of the critical high ammonia level until the day after the results were received. She said her expectation would be the provider to be notified immediately of critical results. The DON confirmed there was no documentation as to why the amm[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure laboratory orders were entered in the electronic medical r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure laboratory orders were entered in the electronic medical record and electronic laboratory (lab) portal, labs were completed as ordered, and abnormal results were reported to providers in a timely manner for eleven residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11) out of eleven residents sampled. Serious harm occurred when Resident #1's seizure medication levels were not monitored, and neurology consultation was not obtained per the provider's request. Resident #1 experienced a seizure on 7/10/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 2/27/25. Resident #1 had to be transferred to a higher level of care as a result of the seizure suffered on 2/27/25. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to residents and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 4/16/2025. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 4/17/2025 and the scope and severity was reduced to an E after verification of removal of immediacy of harm. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with medical diagnoses of generalized idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus, gastrostomy status as of 3/6/25, traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, hydrocephalus, paraplegia, adult failure to thrive, protein-calorie malnutrition, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, and Bell's palsy. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed the following: -Depakote (Valproic Acid) Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg (milligrams), give one capsule by mouth two times a day for seizures, start date 5/23/24 and discontinued on 7/5/24. -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg, give one capsule by mouth three times a day for seizures, start date 7/6/24 and discontinued on 4/2/25. Review of Resident #1's July 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 125 mg of Depakote three times a day starting on 7/6/24. Review of Resident #1's laboratory (lab) results, dated 7/6/24, revealed her Valproic Acid levels were low at 10 microgram per milliliter (ug/ml). with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/7/24 at 8:13 p.m., revealed Hard copy labs called to ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) . No new orders. Review of Resident #1's ARNP note, dated 7/7/24, revealed: CHIEF COMPLAINTS 7/7/24 fu [follow up] Visit She [Resident #1] has had some seizures in the past and had the recent seizure staff members reporting. Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. .ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure D-[NAME] [disorder] 7/7/24 Neurology consult, check medication levels .increased dose, depakote leve[sic] . Review of Resident #1's Progress note, dated 7/10/24 at 8:19 a.m., revealed Resident had a tonic-clonic seizure [a type of seizure with muscle stiffing followed by rhythmic jerking with a loss of consciousness] for 2 minutes. Resident was contracted and shaking the full time of the seizure. Resident is currently lying in bed. Dr. notified and waiting for a call back. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician called back, or further attempts were made to contact the physician. Review of Resident #1's physician order revealed an order with a start date of 7/12/24, and an end date of 7/12/24 for Depakote Valproic Acid levels one time only for 1 day notify MD [Medical Doctor] of results. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 7/12/24, revealed Valproic Acid results were low (12 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid level on 7/12/24. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order, with a revision date of 7/15/24, a start date of 7/22/24, and an end date of 7/23/24, to recheck Valproic Acid level in one week. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m., revealed Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today Review of Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the physician order for Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today was signed off as completed on 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History from the lab portal did not reveal a physician's order was in the lab portal for Valproic Acid to be drawn on 7/22/24. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the Valproic Acid was drawn on 7/22/24 and reported to the physician. Review of Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note, dated 9/13/24, revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/13/24-fu [follow up] Visit .Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. . ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure 9/13/24 Neurology Consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's Physician note, dated 9/20/24 revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/20/24 fu Visit . Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's and assist with feeding in general. .Assessment and Plan .Seizure 9/20/24 Neurology consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence she received neurology services. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/28/24 at 5:36 PM, revealed Resident had a seizure while lying in bed at 1730 [5:30PM]. Resident was laying on her side while seizure was occurring. Made sure of resident safety. Seizure was under 5 minutes long and not reoccurring. Resident is now alert and able to speak and move. No discomfort or pain noted. No injuries. MD [Medical Doctor] notified. New order placed for labs. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed, an order with an order date of 9/28/24,for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level. There was no start date or end date on the physician order. Review of Resident #1's September 2024 MAR revealed the physician order for Depakote level, Ammonia level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level was not documented as completed. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal did not reveal a physician order was placed on 9/28/24 for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), or a Lacosamide level. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/29/24 at 7:30AM, revealed Seizure activity noted this am [morning] lasting approximately 3.5 minutes s/p [status post] snoring lasting about 2 minutes then aroused making eye contact with staff alert and orientated to self-97.2 [temperature]-76 [pulse]-20 [respiratory rate]-128/82 [blood pressure]-97% [oxygen saturations] R/A [room air]. Review of the medical record did not reveal the resident's physician was notified of the seizure. Review of Resident #1's lab report with a collection date of 9/30/24 at 5:09 p. m., revealed Valproic Acid was low (14 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid (Depakote) lab results collected on 9/30/24. Review of Resident #1's physicians' orders, revealed an order, with a start date of 2/4/25 and an end date of 2/5/25, for a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Depakote level, and Ammonia level, every night shift for one day. Review of Resident #1's lab results with a collection date of 2/5/25, revealed abnormal CBC, CMP and Depakote Level results for the following lab values: Glucose: Low (67 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)) with a reference range of 70-99 mg/dL BUN: High (24 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6-20 mg/dL BUN /Creatinine Ratio: High (38.6 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6.0-25.0 mg/dL Calcium: Low (3.4 mg/dL) with a reference range of 8.6-10.2 mg/dL RBC: Low (3.93 million per microliter (M/uL)) with a reference range of 4.1-10.9) M/uL HGB: Low (11. grams per deciliter (8g/dL)) with a reference range of 12.0-16.0 g/dL HCT: Low (35.9%) with a reference range of 37.0-47.0% Valproic Acid (Depakote): low (25 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal revealed the Ammonia order, dated 2/5/25, had a status of collection pending, no results and there was no sample collection date. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence the physician was notified of the abnormal lab results collected on 2/5/25. The medical record revealed no Ammonia levels were collected or physician communication related to the Ammonia level lab not being collected. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal, and she said Collection pending, No Results means the labs were not drawn. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:18 a.m., revealed At approx. [approximately] 7:30am resident was having seizure activity. foaming[sic] at mouth and release of urine and feces noted. resident[sic] moved to[sic] onto her side until seizure ceased. Resident cont [continued] to be slow to wake and is nonverbal at this time. Resident has history of seizure activity. Family and MD aware. Review of Resident #1's change in condition, dated 2/27/25, revealed The change in condition .: Altered mental status The seizure was: New onset seizure activity, OR persistent seizure in someone with known intermittent seizure activity. Provider Notification and Feedback: .send to ER [emergency room] Review of Resident #1's hospital record revealed a physician note, dated 2/28/25, as: Impressions and Plan Breakthrough seizures due to noncompliance. The patient is currently unresponsive. This could be due to a postictal state, non-convulsive seizure activity or encephalopathy. I spoke to her [Resident #1's] nurse . at the nursing home . the patient has been refusing her medications. Yesterday she had a 4-minute convulsive seizure. Low Keppra level Low Depakote level but her dose of this medication may not be therapeutic. .Plan Prescribe telemetry Neurochecks every 2-4 hours Seizure precautions Lorazepam 2mg IV [intravenous] for convulsive seizure activity lasting more than 100 seconds IV Keppra IV Depakote IV Vimpat. She is also on oxcarbazepine that is not available in IV form, but the other AED's [anti-epileptic drugs] should be adequate. There is not yet clear how her refusal to take p.o. [by mouth] AEDs will get resolved. She may need a PEG [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy]. Review of Resident #1's hospital Gastrointestinal Physician note, dated 3/3/25, revealed: The patient presents with 50 yo [year old] f [female] who presented to the ed [emergency department] from her facility after a witnessed seizure. pt [patient] was also in the ed 2 days ago for glf [ground level fall]. I was asked to see the pt for a peg tube. Pt denies abdominal pain, n/v [nausea/vomiting] and dysphagia. Apparently, she frequently refuses to eat and take her medications due to her neurologic and psychiatric issues. Pt did not have issues swallowing during her vss [video swallow study]. per nursing if she is fed she will eat. She does pocket her food and requires verbal reminders. She has no abdominal pain, d/c [discomfort]. She has no gi [gastrointestinal] complaints. .plan Npo[nothing by mouth] after mn [midnight] Egd [esophagogastroduodenoscopy]/peg tomorrow. Review Resident #1's December 2024 through February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 10 ml's of Keppra (100 mg/ml) by mouth twice a day every day for seizures except on 12/12/24 at 5:00 p.m. the documentation revealed 10. Review of the chart codes revealed 10=spit out meds. On 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 6 review of the chart codes revealed 6= hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 2. Review of the chart codes revealed 2=drug refused. The February MAR review revealed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles 125 mg three times a day for seizures every day for the month of February until she was discharged on 2/27/25, except on 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the documentation revealed Resident #1 was hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. the documentation revealed Resident #1 refused the drug. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/6/25 at 2:12 p.m., revealed Resident returned to facility at approx. [approximately] 1;[sic]55pm via stretcher/ EMS [emergency medical services]. resident[sic] had no s/s [signs and symptoms] of distress noted .Resident has PEG tube in place and can eat by mouth. Jevity 1.2 @ 60 FWF [free water flush] 200ml q6 [every 6]. Resident can eat by mouth soft / bite sized. 1400 total in 24 hours. Two boxes a meal. An interview was conducted on 3/31/25 at 3:10 p.m. with the DON. The DON stated she did not assign a primary person to oversee the labs and review results. She said if labs were not critical staff would put the lab results in the providers' boxes for them to sign. If the labs were critical staff would call the provider to inform them about the critical lab results. The DON stated labs for seizure medications should be drawn every three months, but she does not know why some resident's labs were not being checked. She stated Resident #1's Depakote levels were being monitored by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The DON stated she was aware that this was a system failure on the facility when it came to their lab process. She stated she would have expected her nurses to fax labs results to the doctor, put follow-up labs in to check the Depakote levels, and monitor the process. The DON stated Resident #1's labs from 9/30/2024 and 2/5/2025 were not signed off by the provider to show they reviewed the resident's lab results. She stated she thought Resident #1 had a neurology consultation while in the hospital, but the facility did not follow up to schedule a neurology appointment for Resident #1. The DON stated Resident #1's and Resident #2's labs were not done because the nurses were not transcribing the information from the orders to the lab reconciliation sheet and putting them in the lab book, so the tech knows which labs to draw for which residents. The DON stated it was her responsibility to ensure the resident's neurology consultation was followed up on. She stated there was a system failure because management did not have anyone assigned to pull labs, review lab results, and ensure all ordered labs were completed. The DON said their process was broken for following up with labs and completing documentation. An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 3:50 p.m. with Resident #1's Psychiatry Physician Assistant (PA). The Psychiatry PA said he does not manage Resident #1's Depakote levels. If a resident is on Depakote for Seizures Psychiatry would not manage the medication; that would be managed by a resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP). An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The APRN said he does not monitor residents Depakote because it is managed by Psychiatry. He stated Depakote is not a medication he would prescribe a resident for seizures. He stated that he made a referral to have Resident #1 seen by a Neurologist in September 2024 and then again when Resident #1 came back from her most recent hospital stay (3/6/25), but he is not sure if the facility had followed up on his referral. He stated it is possible the low seizure medication labs could have been caught before the resident had her seizure if the facility had been managing her lab results and followed up with neurology. He stated residents who are on Keppra and Depakote medications for seizures should have labs drawn every three to six months to ensure the medication level are therapeutic for the resident's diagnosis. The APRN confirmed the facility should be doing the labs as ordered by the provider. For abnormal labs the facility should notify him the day the labs resulted and for critical labs the facility should get a hold of him. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 1:50 p.m. with Staff B, LPN, she said she has worked at the facility on and off for four years and is very familiar with Resident #1. She said, Some years ago Resident #1 had a PEG tube for not eating, drinking, or taking her medications but she kept pulling the PEG tube out, so her family decided to just leave it out. She was doing well without it, eating, drinking, and taking her medications without any concerns. Staff B, LPN said for less than one day Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications and when she came in the next morning she had a huge gran-mal seizure, foaming at the mouth, lost control of her bowel and bladder, and then became post ictal (the period immediately following a seizure when the brain recovers, and the body returns to its normal state. During this phase, individuals may experience a range of symptoms, including confusion, drowsiness, headache, and cognitive difficulties.) Staff B, LPN said Resident #1's normal seizures are focal seizures, and she just stares, and they do not last long but this was a big one. Staff B, LPN said she called the physician and had Resident #1 sent to the hospital. Staff B, LPN said when Resident #1 returned the family must have agreed to a PEG tube again because she came back with a PEG tube but all we do is flush it in the morning with water. She said Resident #1 eats by mouth and takes her medications by mouth without any problems. She said since Resident #1 has returned from the hospital after her seizure she is still herself but not quite the same, we definitely fried some brain cells with that seizure. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 4/15/25 at 3:11 p.m., she said she was Resident #1's primary physician and she was familiar with the resident. She said, typically Resident #1's seizures are controlled, and she was on multiple seizure medications but, she did go to the hospital for a seizure. The Medical Director said when Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for the seizure, her Keppra levels were low and her Depakote levels were not therapeutic, because she was not eating and was pocketing her medications [storing medications in her cheek]. She needed intravenous (IV) Keppra and IV Depakote because her levels were very low and it was an emergency. The Medical Director reviewed Resident #1's hospital notes and said Resident #1 had a PEG tube placed in the hospital because she was not eating or taking her medication, so it was life saving for her to have the PEG tube. The Medical Director said she did not remember the staff at the nursing home notifying her Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications. She said the nursing notes will reflect if they notified her or her APRN. The Medical Director said when labs are ordered her expectation is they are collected and once they have resulted the nurses should notify them immediately if any labs are critical. If they aren't critical then the nurses are supposed to put the results in the folder so she or her APRN can check them when they come in three to five times a week. The Medical Director said seizure medication levels should be drawn upon admission and every six months and if the seizure medication labs are abnormal the nursing staff should be notifying the Neurologist because she is not the Physician for the seizure medications, she is just supporting. The Medical Director said if there is an order for a neurology consultation then the facility should coordinate so the resident sees a Neurologist. The Medical Director said the residents had to go out to see a Neurologist because the facility did not have one coming to the facility. But there are transportation problems for bed ridden patients. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:37 a.m. with Staff C, LPN she said she would get floated to take care of Resident #1. She said she works two double shifts a week the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. She said before Resident #1 had her big seizure (2/27/25) she didn't have any problems giving her, her medications. She said the nurses knew you had to give her the medications in foods she liked, such as a milk shake. She said Resident #1 used to self-propel herself up and down the hallways yelling cheeseburger and asking for coffee. Staff C, LPN said now she is just not as spunky as she used to be before the seizure. Staff C, LPN said when she returned from the hospital she came back with a PEG tube. She said Resident #1 does not use the PEG tube, it's only there if she refuses to take her medications by mouth. Staff C, LPN said she does not have any issues with Resident #1 taking her medications or eating and drinking. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:56 AM with Staff A, LPN 200 hall Unit Manager (UM) and the DON. Staff A, LPN, UM, said she has been a UM since the end of September and did not take over the 200 hall until the end of November. She said she knew Resident #1 for the most part, at the beginning, when Staff A, LPN, UM first started, she had only spit out her medications a couple of times and she was always eating so it was easy to give her medications. Only a day or two before her February seizure she was refusing her medications, But it wasn't long that she was refusing her meds before her seizure. The DON said it's their understanding she had a PEG tube a few years ago for failure to thrive but she had pulled it out and it was left out because she was eating and taking her medications by mouth without issues. The DON said when she came back from the hospital with the PEG tube, she worked with speech therapy and they were able to upgrade her diet right away and she continued to eat, drink, and take her medications without any problems. The DON said, she uses it for nothing and it is there just in case she does not take her medications. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 11:02 a.m. with the DON. She said all the clinical nurses did not have access to the lab portal because they changed to the current lab in June 2024, We didn't push to get everyone access, there was just a push to get the system online. The DON said she had noticed for the past couple of months that lab orders had been cancelled. She said the facility just reordered the labs and didn't question why. The DON said the labs were just reordered and it was not really looked at as a system failure. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 1:00 p.m. with Resident #1's Heath Care Proxy and family. They said they were informed Resident #1 went to the hospital in February for a seizure and when she was at the hospital, the hospital had called them and told them Resident #1 was pocketing her food, not drinking and not taking her medications that's why she had the seizure. The family gave the approval to put the PEG tube in and then they had a care plan meeting with the facility, and they were told Resident #1 was eating well and taking her medications by mouth and they were not using the PEG tube. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/24 at 2:27 p.m. with the Regional Lab Supervisor. She said the Phlebotomist comes to the facility six days a week Monday through Saturday regardless if there are lab orders or not. She said they provide a Phlebotomist for STAT (immediately or without delay) labs as they need it. The Lab Supervisor said the expectation is the facility puts the lab order into the lab portal, print out the reacquisition form, and put the reacquisition form in the lab book. She said if the nurses do not have access to the lab portal, they can hand write the order on a blank reacquisition form, that the lab company provides, and put that in the lab book. The Phlebotomist will not know a lab needs to be drawn on a resident if there is not a reacquisition form in the lab book. The Lab Supervisor said if the nurse has put the order into the lab portal, but they did not print the requisition form and put it in the lab book then the Phlebotomist will not collect the lab and the order will sit in the portal and have a status of collection pending, no results. If the order is cancelled due to a collection error, then the lab will call the facility and have the nurse re-enter the order in the lab portal and print the reacquisition to put in the lab book so the Phlebotomist can redraw the labs the next day. Once the Phlebotomist has drawn the labs, they take the reacquisition forms with them and when they drop off the lab specimen someone from the lab makes sure the reacquisition was put into the portal because that is the only way the lab can print labels for the specimen. Once the test has resulted, then the result is uploaded into the lab portal and if there is a critical result the lab calls the facility. 2. Review of admission Records showed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified injury of head and unspecified convulsions. Review of Resident #2's care plan showed a focus area of Seizure disorder. Interventions included: give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness and obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated and monitor labs and report sub therapeutic or toxic results to MD. Dated 10/4/17. Review of Resident #2's order showed the following: -Fasting comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), lipids, complete blood count (CBC), Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. One time a day every 4 months starting on the 1st for 1 day for hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), drug monitoring. Schedule routine weekday mornings. Dated 3/9/22. -Fasting CMP, Lipids, CBC, Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. Every night shift for 1 day. Dated 12/1/24. -Divalproex Sodium HCL capsule delayed release 250 mg (Depakote). Give 250 mg by mouth at bedtime for seizure disorder related to unspecified convulsions. Dated 4/13/22. -Valproic Acid level. Dated 3/31/25. -Ammonia level. Dated 4/1/25. Review of lab results for Resident #2 showed Valproic Acid level and Ammonia level, dated 8/1/24. The Valproic Acid level was low at 23 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml and the ammonia level was high at 69 ug/ml with a reference range of 11.0-35.0 ug/ml. There were no results found for the labs ordered to be drawn on 12/1/24. The 3/31/25 order for Valproic Acid level was not completed. The labs were reordered and drawn on 4/15/25 with a low result of <13 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. The Ammonia level drawn on 4/1/25 was high at 80 umoL/ml with a reference range of 18-72 umoL/ml. Review of Resident #2's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified of the abnormal Valproic Acid and Ammonia results on 8/1/24. Review of Resident #2's Lab Order History on the lab portal showed no orders were input in their system for labs to be drawn on 12/1/24. There was an order put in on 3/31/25 for a Valproic Acid level. Review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated 4/15/25, showed obtained orders to redraw Valproic Acid due to alb [albumin] stating uncollected lab and Lab tech out to get STAT Valproic Acid. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON. She confirmed Resident #2 had a Valproic Acid level ordered on 3/31/25 that was not completed. She said they did not realize it was not done until 4/15/25. At 1:56 p.m. the DON reviewed Resident #2's medical record and confirmed there was an active order for labs every 4 months. She said the lab order was one that had fallen through the cracks and labs were not transcribed to the lab portal and lab reconciliation sheets. She confirmed the resident had labs in August 2024 and not again until 3/31/25. A follow-up interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 5:15 p.m. with the DON. She said somehow Resident #2's lab was cancelled on 4/15/25 by the lab or the nurse. She said the unit manager (UM) had been given this to check on the homework sheet and they should have caught the fact the lab was not completed. 3. Review of admission Records showed Resident #8 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed the following: -Levetiracetam (Keppra) Oral Tablet 500 mg. Give 3 tablet by mouth two times a day related to epilepsy. Dated 11/25/24. -Ammonia Level. Every night shift every Wednesday for 4 weeks. Dated 2/5/25. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 3/4/25, showed an Ammonia Level results of 118 umol/L (micromole per liter) with a reference range of 18-72 umol/L. This was indicated as a critical result. The lab showed the result was reported on 3/4/25 at 11:38 a.m. Review of Resident #8's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified on 3/4/25 of the critically high ammonia level. There was a progress note, dated 3/5/25 at 9:02 a.m.,. showing labs were sent to the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Review of Resident #8's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the Ammonia level that was scheduled to be rechecked on 3/20/25 was documented as 9 indicating Other/See Nurse Notes. Review of progress notes revealed no nurses' note showing why the lab was not drawn. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 4/1/25, showed a Keppra level high at 49.5 ug/mL with a reference range of 6.0-46.0 ug/mL. An interview was conducted on 4/1/25 at 2:35 p.m. with the DON. She reviewed Resident #8's medical record and confirmed documentation showed the provider was not notified of the critical high ammonia level until the day after the results were received. She said her expectation would be the provider to be notified immediately of critical results. The DON confirmed there was no documentation as to why the ammonia level scheduled for 3/20/25 was not completed and said it should have been rescheduled but was not. 4. Review of admission Records showed Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including other seizures. Review of Resident #4's care plan showed a focus area of seizure disorder, dated 8/27/24. Interventions included obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated. Review of Resident #4's orders revealed the following active orders: -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule Delayed Release Sprinkle 125 mg (Divalproex Sodium). Give 2 capsule by mouth every 8 hours related to other seizures. Dated 2/6/25. - CBC, CMP, Depakote, TSH, Ammonia Level. One time a day every 90 day(s) for hypertension, schizophrenia, cholecystitis. Dated 4/29/21. Review of Res[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure they effectively monitored adverse events to systematically ...

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 they effectively monitored adverse events to systematically identify, report, track, and analyze the data to prevent potential or serious harm to residents for ineffective management of health care services, and treatment for seizure medication management for eleven residents (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11) out of eleven residents sampled. Serious harm occurred when Resident #1's seizure medication levels were not monitored, and neurology consultation was not obtained per the provider's request. Resident #1 experienced a seizure on 7/10/24, 9/28/24, 9/29/24, and 2/27/25. Resident #1 had to be transferred to a higher level of care as a result of the seizure suffered on 2/27/25. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to residents and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 4/16/2025. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 4/17/2025 and the scope and severity was reduced to an E after verification of removal of immediacy of harm. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with medical diagnoses of generalized idiopathic epilepsy and epileptic syndromes, not intractable, without status epilepticus, gastrostomy status as of 3/6/25, traumatic subdural hemorrhage with loss of consciousness, hydrocephalus, paraplegia, adult failure to thrive, protein-calorie malnutrition, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit, and Bell's palsy. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed the following: -Depakote (Valproic Acid) Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg (milligrams), give one capsule by mouth two times a day for seizures, start date 5/23/24 and discontinued on 7/5/24. -Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule delayed release 125 mg, give one capsule by mouth three times a day for seizures, start date 7/6/24 and discontinued on 4/2/25. Review of Resident #1's July 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 125 mg of Depakote three times a day starting on 7/6/24. Review of Resident #1's laboratory (lab) results, dated 7/6/24, revealed her Valproic Acid levels were low at 10 microgram per milliliter (ug/ml). with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/7/24 at 8:13 p.m., revealed Hard copy labs called to ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) . No new orders. Review of Resident #1's ARNP note, dated 7/7/24, revealed: CHIEF COMPLAINTS 7/7/24 fu [follow up] Visit She [Resident #1] has had some seizures in the past and had the recent seizure staff members reporting. Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. .ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure D-[NAME] [disorder] 7/7/24 Neurology consult, check medication levels .increased dose, depakote leve[sic] . Review of Resident #1's Progress note, dated 7/10/24 at 8:19 a.m., revealed Resident had a tonic-clonic seizure [a type of seizure with muscle stiffing followed by rhythmic jerking with a loss of consciousness] for 2 minutes. Resident was contracted and shaking the full time of the seizure. Resident is currently lying in bed. Dr. notified and waiting for a call back. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician called back, or further attempts were made to contact the physician. Review of Resident #1's physician order revealed an order with a start date of 7/12/24, and an end date of 7/12/24 for Depakote Valproic Acid levels one time only for 1 day notify MD [Medical Doctor] of results. Review of Resident #1's lab results, dated 7/12/24, revealed Valproic Acid results were low (12 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid level on 7/12/24. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order, with a revision date of 7/15/24, a start date of 7/22/24, and an end date of 7/23/24, to recheck Valproic Acid level in one week. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m., revealed Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today Review of Resident #1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed the physician order for Resident to have Valproic Acid level rechecked today was signed off as completed on 7/22/24 at 3:06 a.m. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History from the lab portal did not reveal a physician's order was in the lab portal for Valproic Acid to be drawn on 7/22/24. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the Valproic Acid was drawn on 7/22/24 and reported to the physician. Review of Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) note, dated 9/13/24, revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/13/24-fu [follow up] Visit .Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's [activities of daily living] and assist with feeding in general. . ASSESSMENT AND PLAN .Seizure 9/13/24 Neurology Consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's Physician note, dated 9/20/24 revealed CHIEF COMPLAINTS 9/20/24 fu Visit . Recently she had the seizure and medications were adjusted. Overall, she is very weak and feels like she is de-conditioned. She relies on staff to complete ADL's and assist with feeding in general. .Assessment and Plan .Seizure 9/20/24 Neurology consult, check medications levels . Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence she received neurology services. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/28/24 at 5:36 PM, revealed Resident had a seizure while lying in bed at 1730 [5:30PM]. Resident was laying on her side while seizure was occurring. Made sure of resident safety. Seizure was under 5 minutes long and not reoccurring. Resident is now alert and able to speak and move. No discomfort or pain noted. No injuries. MD [Medical Doctor] notified. New order placed for labs. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed, an order with an order date of 9/28/24,for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level. There was no start date or end date on the physician order. Review of Resident #1's September 2024 MAR revealed the physician order for Depakote level, Ammonia level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), and Lacosamide level was not documented as completed. Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal did not reveal a physician order was placed on 9/28/24 for Depakote level, Ammonia Level, Levetiracetam (Keppra), or a Lacosamide level. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 9/29/24 at 7:30AM, revealed Seizure activity noted this am [morning] lasting approximately 3.5 minutes s/p [status post] snoring lasting about 2 minutes then aroused making eye contact with staff alert and orientated to self-97.2 [temperature]-76 [pulse]-20 [respiratory rate]-128/82 [blood pressure]-97% [oxygen saturations] R/A [room air]. Review of the medical record did not reveal the resident's physician was notified of the seizure. Review of Resident #1's lab report with a collection date of 9/30/24 at 5:09 p. m., revealed Valproic Acid was low (14 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. Review of Resident #1's medical record did not reveal evidence the physician was notified of the low Valproic Acid (Depakote) lab results collected on 9/30/24. Review of Resident #1's physicians' orders, revealed an order, with a start date of 2/4/25 and an end date of 2/5/25, for a Complete Blood Count (CBC), Comprehensive Metabolic Panel (CMP), Depakote level, and Ammonia level, every night shift for one day. Review of Resident #1's lab results with a collection date of 2/5/25, revealed abnormal CBC, CMP and Depakote Level results for the following lab values: Glucose: Low (67 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL)) with a reference range of 70-99 mg/dL BUN: High (24 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6-20 mg/dL BUN /Creatinine Ratio: High (38.6 mg/dL) with a reference range of 6.0-25.0 mg/dL Calcium: Low (3.4 mg/dL) with a reference range of 8.6-10.2 mg/dL RBC: Low (3.93 million per microliter (M/uL)) with a reference range of 4.1-10.9) M/uL HGB: Low (11. grams per deciliter (8g/dL)) with a reference range of 12.0-16.0 g/dL HCT: Low (35.9%) with a reference range of 37.0-47.0% Valproic Acid (Depakote): low (25 ug/mL) with a reference range of 50-100 ug/mL Review of Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal revealed the Ammonia order, dated 2/5/25, had a status of collection pending, no results and there was no sample collection date. Review of Resident #1's medical record revealed no evidence the physician was notified of the abnormal lab results collected on 2/5/25. The medical record revealed no Ammonia levels were collected or physician communication related to the Ammonia level lab not being collected. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed Resident #1's Lab Order History on the laboratory portal, and she said Collection pending, No Results means the labs were not drawn. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 2/27/25 at 9:18 a.m., revealed At approx. [approximately] 7:30am resident was having seizure activity. foaming[sic] at mouth and release of urine and feces noted. resident[sic] moved to[sic] onto her side until seizure ceased. Resident cont [continued] to be slow to wake and is nonverbal at this time. Resident has history of seizure activity. Family and MD aware. Review of Resident #1's change in condition, dated 2/27/25, revealed The change in condition .: Altered mental status The seizure was: New onset seizure activity, OR persistent seizure in someone with known intermittent seizure activity. Provider Notification and Feedback: .send to ER [emergency room] Review of Resident #1's hospital record revealed a physician note, dated 2/28/25, as: Impressions and Plan Breakthrough seizures due to noncompliance. The patient is currently unresponsive. This could be due to a postictal state, non-convulsive seizure activity or encephalopathy. I spoke to her [Resident #1's] nurse . at the nursing home . the patient has been refusing her medications. Yesterday she had a 4-minute convulsive seizure. Low Keppra level Low Depakote level but her dose of this medication may not be therapeutic. .Plan Prescribe telemetry Neurochecks every 2-4 hours Seizure precautions Lorazepam 2mg IV [intravenous] for convulsive seizure activity lasting more than 100 seconds IV Keppra IV Depakote IV Vimpat. She is also on oxcarbazepine that is not available in IV form, but the other AED's [anti-epileptic drugs] should be adequate. There is not yet clear how her refusal to take p.o. [by mouth] AEDs will get resolved. She may need a PEG [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy]. Review of Resident #1's hospital Gastrointestinal Physician note, dated 3/3/25, revealed: The patient presents with 50 yo [year old] f [female] who presented to the ed [emergency department] from her facility after a witnessed seizure. pt [patient] was also in the ed 2 days ago for glf [ground level fall]. I was asked to see the pt for a peg tube. Pt denies abdominal pain, n/v [nausea/vomiting] and dysphagia. Apparently, she frequently refuses to eat and take her medications due to her neurologic and psychiatric issues. Pt did not have issues swallowing during her vss [video swallow study]. per nursing if she is fed she will eat. She does pocket her food and requires verbal reminders. She has no abdominal pain, d/c [discomfort]. She has no gi [gastrointestinal] complaints. .plan Npo[nothing by mouth] after mn [midnight] Egd [esophagogastroduodenoscopy]/peg tomorrow. Review Resident #1's December 2024 through February 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed she received 10 ml's of Keppra (100 mg/ml) by mouth twice a day every day for seizures except on 12/12/24 at 5:00 p.m. the documentation revealed 10. Review of the chart codes revealed 10=spit out meds. On 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 6 review of the chart codes revealed 6= hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. the documentation revealed 2. Review of the chart codes revealed 2=drug refused. The February MAR review revealed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles 125 mg three times a day for seizures every day for the month of February until she was discharged on 2/27/25, except on 2/25/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., the documentation revealed Resident #1 was hospitalized . On 2/26/25 at 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. the documentation revealed Resident #1 refused the drug. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/6/25 at 2:12 p.m., revealed Resident returned to facility at approx. [approximately] 1;[sic]55pm via stretcher/ EMS [emergency medical services]. resident[sic] had no s/s [signs and symptoms] of distress noted .Resident has PEG tube in place and can eat by mouth. Jevity 1.2 @ 60 FWF [free water flush] 200ml q6 [every 6]. Resident can eat by mouth soft / bite sized. 1400 total in 24 hours. Two boxes a meal. Review of Resident #1's nutrition note, dated 3/7/25 at 9:59 a.m. revealed, Res [Resident] readmitted to facility 3/6/25 s/p [status/post] 7d [day] hospitalization. New Gtube [gastrostomy tube] inserted however res eats 75-100% of meals by mouth and requests snacks frequently. Will d/c [discontinue] enteral feed as res is able to meet needs via po [by mouth] at this time. Flush tube w/ [with] 150cc H20 [water] q [every] shift to maintain patency. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 3/7/25 at 10:21 a.m., written by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), revealed, This writer received order from NP [Nurse Practitioner] stating resident able to take medication by mouth if resident refuses then we may use PEG-Tube for medications; resident is currently eating meals w/o [without] issues or concerns. An interview was conducted on 3/31/25 at 3:10 p.m. with the DON. The DON stated she did not assign a primary person to oversee the labs and review results. She said if labs were not critical staff would put the lab results in the providers' boxes for them to sign. If the labs were critical staff would call the provider to inform them about the critical lab results. The DON stated labs for seizure medications should be drawn every three months, but she does not know why some resident's labs were not being checked. She stated Resident #1's Depakote levels were being monitored by the psychiatric nurse practitioner. The DON stated she was aware that this was a system failure on the facility when it came to their lab process. She stated she would have expected her nurses to fax labs results to the doctor, put follow-up labs in to check the Depakote levels, and monitor the process. The DON stated Resident #1's labs from 9/30/2024 and 2/5/2025 were not signed off by the provider to show they reviewed the resident's lab results. She stated she thought Resident #1 had a neurology consultation while in the hospital, but the facility did not follow up to schedule a neurology appointment for Resident #1. The DON stated Resident #1's and Resident #2's labs were not done because the nurses were not transcribing the information from the orders to the lab reconciliation sheet and putting them in the lab book, so the tech knows which labs to draw for which residents. The DON stated it was her responsibility to ensure the resident's neurology consultation was followed up on. She stated there was a system failure because management did not have anyone assigned to pull labs, review lab results, and ensure all ordered labs were completed. The DON said their process was broken for following up with labs and completing documentation. An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 3:50 p.m. with Resident #1's Psychiatry Physician Assistant (PA). The Psychiatry PA said he does not manage Resident #1's Depakote levels. If a resident is on Depakote for Seizures Psychiatry would not manage the medication; that would be managed by a resident's Primary Care Provider (PCP). An interview was conducted on 3/31/2025 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident #1's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). The APRN said he does not monitor residents Depakote because it is managed by Psychiatry. He stated Depakote is not a medication he would prescribe a resident for seizures. He stated that he made a referral to have Resident #1 seen by a Neurologist in September 2024 and then again when Resident #1 came back from her most recent hospital stay (3/6/25), but he is not sure if the facility had followed up on his referral. He stated it is possible the low seizure medication labs could have been caught before the resident had her seizure if the facility had been managing her lab results and followed up with neurology. He stated residents who are on Keppra and Depakote medications for seizures should have labs drawn every three to six months to ensure the medication level are therapeutic for the resident's diagnosis. The APRN confirmed the facility should be doing the labs as ordered by the provider. For abnormal labs the facility should notify him the day the labs resulted and for critical labs the facility should get a hold of him. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 1:50 p.m. with Staff B, LPN, she said she has worked at the facility on and off for four years and is very familiar with Resident #1. She said, Some years ago Resident #1 had a PEG tube for not eating, drinking, or taking her medications but she kept pulling the PEG tube out, so her family decided to just leave it out. She was doing well without it, eating, drinking, and taking her medications without any concerns. Staff B, LPN said for less than one day Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications and when she came in the next morning she had a huge gran-mal seizure, foaming at the mouth, lost control of her bowel and bladder, and then became post ictal (the period immediately following a seizure when the brain recovers, and the body returns to its normal state. During this phase, individuals may experience a range of symptoms, including confusion, drowsiness, headache, and cognitive difficulties.) Staff B, LPN said Resident #1's normal seizures are focal seizures, and she just stares, and they do not last long but this was a big one. Staff B, LPN said she called the physician and had Resident #1 sent to the hospital. Staff B, LPN said when Resident #1 returned the family must have agreed to a PEG tube again because she came back with a PEG tube but all we do is flush it in the morning with water. She said Resident #1 eats by mouth and takes her medications by mouth without any problems. She said since Resident #1 has returned from the hospital after her seizure she is still herself but not quite the same, we definitely fried some brain cells with that seizure. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 4/15/25 at 3:11 p.m., she said she was Resident #1's primary physician and she was familiar with the resident. She said, typically Resident #1's seizures are controlled, and she was on multiple seizure medications but, she did go to the hospital for a seizure. The Medical Director said when Resident #1 was admitted to the hospital for the seizure, her Keppra levels were low and her Depakote levels were not therapeutic, because she was not eating and was pocketing her medications [storing medications in her cheek]. She needed intravenous (IV) Keppra and IV Depakote because her levels were very low and it was an emergency. The Medical Director reviewed Resident #1's hospital notes and said Resident #1 had a PEG tube placed in the hospital because she was not eating or taking her medication, so it was life saving for her to have the PEG tube. The Medical Director said she did not remember the staff at the nursing home notifying her Resident #1 was not eating, drinking, or taking her medications. She said the nursing notes will reflect if they notified her or her APRN. The Medical Director said when labs are ordered her expectation is they are collected and once they have resulted the nurses should notify them immediately if any labs are critical. If they aren't critical then the nurses are supposed to put the results in the folder so she or her APRN can check them when they come in three to five times a week. The Medical Director said seizure medication levels should be drawn upon admission and every six months and if the seizure medication labs are abnormal the nursing staff should be notifying the Neurologist because she is not the Physician for the seizure medications, she is just supporting. The Medical Director said if there is an order for a neurology consultation then the facility should coordinate so the resident sees a Neurologist. The Medical Director said the residents had to go out to see a Neurologist because the facility did not have one coming to the facility. But there are transportation problems for bed ridden patients. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:37 a.m. with Staff C, LPN she said she would get floated to take care of Resident #1. She said she works two double shifts a week the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00p.m. and 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. She said before Resident #1 had her big seizure (2/27/25) she didn't have any problems giving her, her medications. She said the nurses knew you had to give her the medications in foods she liked, such as a milk shake. She said Resident #1 used to self-propel herself up and down the hallways yelling cheeseburger and asking for coffee. Staff C, LPN said now she is just not as spunky as she used to be before the seizure. Staff C, LPN said when she returned from the hospital she came back with a PEG tube. She said Resident #1 does not use the PEG tube, it's only there if she refuses to take her medications by mouth. Staff C, LPN said she does not have any issues with Resident #1 taking her medications or eating and drinking. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 10:56 AM with Staff A, LPN 200 hall Unit Manager (UM) and the DON. Staff A, LPN, UM, said she has been a UM since the end of September and did not take over the 200 hall until the end of November. She said she knew Resident #1 for the most part, at the beginning, when Staff A, LPN, UM first started, she had only spit out her medications a couple of times and she was always eating so it was easy to give her medications. Only a day or two before her February seizure she was refusing her medications, But it wasn't long that she was refusing her meds before her seizure. The DON said it's their understanding she had a PEG tube a few years ago for failure to thrive but she had pulled it out and it was left out because she was eating and taking her medications by mouth without issues. The DON said when she came back from the hospital with the PEG tube, she worked with speech therapy and they were able to upgrade her diet right away and she continued to eat, drink, and take her medications without any problems. The DON said, she uses it for nothing and it is there just in case she does not take her medications. An interview was conducted on 4/16/25 at 11:02 a.m. with the DON. She said all the clinical nurses did not have access to the lab portal because they changed to the current lab in June 2024, We didn't push to get everyone access, there was just a push to get the system online. The DON said she had noticed for the past couple of months that lab orders had been cancelled. She said the facility just reordered the labs and didn't question why. The DON said the labs were just reordered and it was not really looked at as a system failure. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 1:00 p.m. with Resident #1's Heath Care Proxy and family. They said they were informed Resident #1 went to the hospital in February for a seizure and when she was at the hospital, the hospital had called them and told them Resident #1 was pocketing her food, not drinking and not taking her medications that's why she had the seizure. The family gave the approval to put the PEG tube in and then they had a care plan meeting with the facility, and they were told Resident #1 was eating well and taking her medications by mouth and they were not using the PEG tube. A phone interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 2:27 p.m. with the Regional Lab Supervisor. She said the Phlebotomist comes to the facility six days a week Monday through Saturday regardless if there are lab orders or not. She said they provide a Phlebotomist for STAT (immediately or without delay) labs as they need it. The Lab Supervisor said the expectation is the facility puts the lab order into the lab portal, print out the reacquisition form, and put the reacquisition form in the lab book. She said if the nurses do not have access to the lab portal, they can hand write the order on a blank reacquisition form, that the lab company provides, and put that in the lab book. The Phlebotomist will not know a lab needs to be drawn on a resident if there is not a reacquisition form in the lab book. The Lab Supervisor said if the nurse has put the order into the lab portal, but they did not print the requisition form and put it in the lab book then the Phlebotomist will not collect the lab and the order will sit in the portal and have a status of collection pending, no results. If the order is cancelled due to a collection error, then the lab will call the facility and have the nurse re-enter the order in the lab portal and print the reacquisition to put in the lab book so the Phlebotomist can redraw the labs the next day. Once the Phlebotomist has drawn the labs, they take the reacquisition forms with them and when they drop off the lab specimen someone from the lab makes sure the reacquisition was put into the portal because that is the only way the lab can print labels for the specimen. Once the test has resulted, then the result is uploaded into the lab portal and if there is a critical result the lab calls the facility. 2. Review of admission Records showed Resident #2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified injury of head and unspecified convulsions. Review of Resident #2's care plan showed a focus area of Seizure disorder. Interventions included: give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness and obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated and monitor labs and report sub therapeutic or toxic results to MD. Dated 10/4/17. Review of Resident #2's order showed the following: -Fasting comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP), lipids, complete blood count (CBC), Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. One time a day every 4 months starting on the 1st for 1 day for hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), drug monitoring. Schedule routine weekday mornings. Dated 3/9/22. -Fasting CMP, Lipids, CBC, Valproic Acid level, Ammonia level. Every night shift for 1 day. Dated 12/1/24. -Divalproex Sodium HCL capsule delayed release 250 mg (Depakote). Give 250 mg by mouth at bedtime for seizure disorder related to unspecified convulsions. Dated 4/13/22. -Valproic Acid level. Dated 3/31/25. -Ammonia level. Dated 4/1/25. Review of lab results for Resident #2 showed Valproic Acid level and Ammonia level, dated 8/1/24. The Valproic Acid level was low at 23 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml and the ammonia level was high at 69 ug/ml with a reference range of 11.0-35.0 ug/ml. There were no results found for the labs ordered to be drawn on 12/1/24. The 3/31/25 order for Valproic Acid level was not completed. The labs were reordered and drawn on 4/15/25 with a low result of <13 ug/ml with a reference range of 50-100 ug/ml. The Ammonia level drawn on 4/1/25 was high at 80 umoL/ml with a reference range of 18-72 umoL/ml. Review of Resident #2's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified of the abnormal Valproic Acid and Ammonia results on 8/1/24. Review of Resident #2's Lab Order History on the lab portal showed no orders were input in their system for labs to be drawn on 12/1/24. There was an order put in on 3/31/25 for a Valproic Acid level. Review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated 4/15/25, showed obtained orders to redraw Valproic Acid due to alb [albumin] stating uncollected lab and Lab tech out to get STAT Valproic Acid. An interview was conducted on 4/15/25 at 12:40 p.m. with the DON. She confirmed Resident #2 had a Valproic Acid level ordered on 3/31/25 that was not completed. She said they did not realize it was not done until 4/15/25. At 1:56 p.m. the DON reviewed Resident #2's medical record and confirmed there was an active order for labs every 4 months. She said the lab order was one that had fallen through the cracks and labs were not transcribed to the lab portal and lab reconciliation sheets. She confirmed the resident had labs in August 2024 and not again until 3/31/25. A follow-up interview was conducted on 4/17/25 at 5:15 p.m. with the DON. She said somehow Resident #2's lab was cancelled on 4/15/25 by the lab or the nurse. She said the unit manager (UM) had been given this to check on the homework sheet and they should have caught the fact the lab was not completed. 3. Review of admission Records showed Resident #8 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy. Review of Resident #8's physician orders revealed the following: -Levetiracetam (Keppra) Oral Tablet 500 mg. Give 3 tablet by mouth two times a day related to epilepsy. Dated 11/25/24. -Ammonia Level. Every night shift every Wednesday for 4 weeks. Dated 2/5/25. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 3/4/25, showed an Ammonia Level results of 118 umol/L (micromole per liter) with a reference range of 18-72 umol/L. This was indicated as a critical result. The lab showed the result was reported on 3/4/25 at 11:38 a.m. Review of Resident #8's progress notes showed no documentation a provider was notified on 3/4/25 of the critically high ammonia level. There was a progress note, dated 3/5/25 at 9:02 a.m.,. showing labs were sent to the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Review of Resident #8's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the Ammonia level that was scheduled to be rechecked on 3/20/25 was documented as 9 indicating Other/See Nurse Notes. Review of progress notes revealed no nurses' note showing why the lab was not drawn. Review of Resident #8's lab results, dated 4/1/25, showed a Keppra level high at 49.5 ug/mL with a reference range of 6.0-46.0 ug/mL. An interview was conducted on 4/1/25 at 2:35 p.m. with the DON. She reviewed Resident #8's medical record and confirmed documentation showed the provider was not notified of the critical high ammonia level until the day after the results were received. She said her expectation would be the provider to be notified immediately of critical results. The DON confirmed [TRUNCATED]
Aug 2024 15 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's living environment promoted, m...

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 the resident's living environment promoted, maintained and enhanced dignity and respect for three (#56, #265, #264) of four residents sampled. Findings included: 1. Resident #56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia, and developmental disorders of scholastic skills. Review of an annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 05/31/24, section C showed Resident #56 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 which indicated severe impairment. On 08/26/24 10:54 a.m. and 12:32 p.m., Resident #56 was observed in his room laying on his bed. His roommate was performing sexual acts on himself exposed to Resident #56. The privacy curtain was partially drawn. Review of a care plan dated 06/09/21 showed a cognition focus. Resident has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to developmental disability. Interventions included to promote dignity, talk with resident and ensure privacy . Report to nurse any changes in cognitive function, specifically changes in: decision making ability, memory, recall, awareness of surroundings and others, difficulty expressing self and difficulty understanding others. A communication focus in the care plan showed the resident has a problem with communication. He is usually understood, usually expresses ideas or wants, he is able to verbalize his needs or wants, make decisions in regards to routine daily care and decline what he doesn't want. Review of the care plan did not show interventions related to Resident #56's exposure to his roommate's sexual activities. On 08/27/24 at 3:51 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff G, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant). She said, Resident #56's roommate [acts out sexually] all the time. We redirect him. As soon as you tell him to stop, he starts all over again. She stated Resident #56 did not say anything about the behavior. She said, I know, it's kind of unfair. We try and make sure the curtain is pulled. On 08/28/24 at 9:28 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #56's roommate displaying sexual behaviors as he laid on his bed. The privacy curtain was wide open exposing him to the public. Resident #56 could be seen from the hallway trying to pull the privacy curtain so he could not see what his roommate was doing. The resident was observed lifting his left hand to cover his eyes and pointing with his right hand to his roommate on the bed. The resident repeatedly said, I don't like it. I don't like this. He continued to attempt to pull the privacy curtain which was stuck. Staff I, Personal Care Attendant (PCA) was observed down the hallway. Staff I came to the door and walked into the room and observed this resident's roommate performing sexual acts on himself. She said, Oh no! and immediately walked out. She did not immediately assist Resident #56 who was trying to pull the curtain. She stated this resident's roommate did this all the time. After waiting for approximately 5 minutes, Staff I returned to the room and without asking Resident #56 escorted him out of the room. On 08/28/24 at 9:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff H, CNA. She stated when they observe Resident #56's roommate engaged in the sexual behavior, they tell him to cover up. She stated he did this 24/7. She said, Resident #56's roommate only comes out of the room during meals and then he is back at it. It's an ongoing thing. It has been like this for at least seven months . She stated they try to cover him and redirect Resident #56 out of the room when possible. She stated this resident did not like it. On 08/28/24 at 9:46 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She observed Resident #56's roommate in his bed acting out sexually. She stated Resident #56 spent most of his time outside the room. She said, I spoke to this resident regarding his roommate's behavior. He has mental retardation he does not always give a clear answer. The nurse was observed walking into the room in wheeling Resident#56 to the dining room without asking him. On 08/28/24 at 10:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, LPN/ Unit Manager. He stated he had never spoken to Resident #56 about his roommate's behavior. He said, I don't know why I have never thought about this resident and his thoughts about this issue. All residents deserve to be treated with dignity. He stated he didn't know if they could move him or not. On 08/28/24 at 10:12 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Social Services Director (SSD). The SSD stated behavioral care plans were completed by the facility's Minimum Data Set (MDS) nurse. She stated the staff should ensure dignity and privacy was provided for both residents. She said, The CNAs should close the curtain or door if they observe the behavior. She said regarding Resident #56, I would not like that. I don't know what to do it is over my head. I have never received a concern. It is not appropriate for him. We can definitely assess the roommate situation it is a dignity issue. On 08/28/24 at 10:31 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff F, LPN/MDS and the Regional Clinical Reimbursement Consultant. Staff F stated Resident #56 had never said anything about the roommate's behavior. She said, I mean they are cognitively impaired. When asked if other residents should be subjected to the sexual behavior against their will, both the MDS and RNC stated they could not answer that question. Staff F stated she could not speculate how Resident #56 felt. She stated it was the first time she heard about the concern. She said, should have his dignity. On 08/28/24 at 11:01 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). She stated the expectation was for staff to close the curtain and remove Resident #56 from the room. She stated both Resident #56 and his roommate had a right to privacy and dignity. On 08/29/24 at 10:59 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #56's Psychiatric Physician Assistant (PA). He stated he had not spoken with this resident regarding exposure to his roommate's sexual behaviors. He said, I have not been notified he was verbalizing concerns. I just know it would not be his favorite thing to watch the behavior. He stated if the resident was verbalizing concerns, he needed to be evaluated and see if the facility would do something about it or maybe they could move him. He stated they should protect other residents from this behavior. 2. On 8/26/2024 at 10:58 a.m., Resident #264's urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway, hanging on the frame of the bed closest to the door. No cover was seen. On 8/26/2024 at 11:20 a.m., Resident #266's urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway, hanging on the frame of the bed closest to the door. No cover was seen. On 8/26/2024 at 4:15 p.m., Resident #264's urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway, hanging on the frame of the bed closest to the door. No cover was seen. On 8/26/2024 at 4:20 p.m., Resident #266's urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway, hanging on the frame of the bed closest to the door. No cover was seen. On 8/27/2024 at 9:31 a.m., Resident #264's urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway, hanging on the frame of the bed closest to the door. No cover was seen. On 8/27/2024 at 9:40 a.m., Resident #266's urinary catheter bag was visible from the hallway, hanging on the frame of the bed closest to the door. No cover was seen. During an interview on 8/27/2024 at 4:55 p.m., Staff BB, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated, there was usually a cover on the urinary catheter bags. I'm not sure why there isn't one on these two catheters. During an interview on 8/28/2024 at 10:04 a.m.,, Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN) stated, the urinary catheter bags should have been covered, did not understand why they were not. Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Rights, effective February 2021, showed the facility strives to assure that each resident has a dignified existence . The facility will protect and promote the rights of each resident. The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility. Each resident/or representative will be presented with a copy of the Federal and/or State-specific [NAME] of Resident Rights. Review of the Resident [NAME] of Rights showed: Our facility will protect and promote each of the following rights: Exercise of Rights: 1. You have the right to exercise your rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen, or resident of the United states 2. You have the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal from the facility in exercising your rights. 6. The facility must provide equal access to quality of care regardless of diagnosis, severity, condition or payor source. 19. You have the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of your personal and clinical records. Personal privacy includes privacy in accommodations . 37. Dignity/self-determination and participation: You have the right to receive care from the facility in a manner and in an environment that promotes, maintains or enhances your dignity and respect in full recognition of your individuality.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 call lights were within reach in eight reside...

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 call lights were within reach in eight resident rooms (207A/B, 206B, 210A/B, 214B, 305, 307, 312 and 314) in two (200 and 300) of four halls. Findings included: During multiple facility tours of halls 200 and 300, call lights were observed on the floors as follows: On 08/26/24 at 10:52 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 08/26/24 at 10:57 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 08/26/24 at 11:06 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 08/28/24 at 12:08 p.m., and on 08/29/24 at 9:36 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 08/28/24 at 9:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff H, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). She stated she made sure the call lights are within reach during her rounds. She said, If I see them on the floor or under the bed, I pick them up. On 08/29/24 at 10:03 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She stated the residents should have access to their call lights. She said, Yes, even if they have cognition challenges, they should have it. We have a few residents who are alert and use their call lights. She stated they educated the CNAs to ensure they place them within reach. During multiple facility tours of the 200 hall, call lights were observed on the floors as follows: On 08/26/24 at 10:58 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] B. On 08/26/24 at 11:04 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] A and B. On 08/26/24 at 11:10 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] A and B. On 08/26/24 at 11:20 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] B. On 08/27/24 at 9:41 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] A and B. On 08/27/24 at 9:43 a.m., a call light was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER] B. On 08/27/24 at 9:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff CC, CNA. Staff CC, CNA stated call lights should be within reach for the residents. Staff CC, CNA said, I didn't notice them on the floor, I will put them within reach now. During an interview on 8/27/24 at 4:55 p.m., Staff BB, LPN stated the residents should have access to their call light, in case they need assistance. I didn't notice they were not within the residents reach. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 9:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure for call light placement, although the call light should be within the reach of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

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 resident had privacy in his room for one (...

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 resident had privacy in his room for one (#9) of two residents sampled. Findings included: Resident #9 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of dementia. Other diagnoses included Schizophrenia, major depressive disorder and age-related cognitive decline. Review of a quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 07/16/24, section C showed Resident #9 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 that indicated severe cognitive impairment. During facility tours of the secured unit on 08/26/24 at 10:54 a.m., and 12:32 p.m., Resident #9 was observed in his room, laying on his bed performing sexual acts on himself. The resident's privacy curtain was not enclosed. The resident was in Bed A, which was closer to the door, leaving him exposed to other residents, visitors, and employees. This resident was also fully exposed to his roommate. On 08/27/24 at 3:42 p.m., Resident #9 was observed wandering in halls. He was observed heading to his room and pulling his pants down. The resident's body was visible from the hallway. Review of a care plan initiated on 04/06/20 showed a behavioral focus, Resident #9 has, a behavior problem related to publicly disrobes, publicly masturbates and gropes, wandering, and insinuates he would like sexual favors from staff. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness, approach in a calm manner, caregivers to provide opportunity for positive interaction, attention. Stop and talk with him when passing by and to document behaviors and resident's response to interventions. An activities focus in the care plan initiated on 07/17/24 showed Resident #9 required staff's assistance with involvement of activities related to severe cognitive impairment, non-verbal, behavioral symptoms that may affect participation-has inappropriate sexual behavior of touching himself. The interventions section showed when behavior is exhibited, remove him from situation and take to alternate location as needed. The care plan did not address dignity and privacy concerns for Resident #9 and his roommate. On 08/27/24 at 3:51 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff G, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant). She said, Resident #9 [acts out sexually] all the time. We redirect him. As soon as you tell him to stop, he starts all over again. She stated the roommate did not say anything about the behavior. She said, I know, it's kind of unfair. We try and make sure the curtain is pulled. On 08/28/24 at 9:28 a.m., an observation was made of resident #9 displaying sexual behaviors as he laid on his bed. The privacy curtain was wide open, exposing him to the public. His roommate could be seen from the hallway trying to pull the privacy curtain so he could not see what his roommate was doing. On 08/28/24 9:38 a.m., a fellow resident in the secured unit was observed standing outside Resident #9's window with the blinds open. He was observed shaking his head to the left and right in a disagreeing movement. Resident #9 was in his bed uncovered performing sexual acts on himself. On 08/28/24 at 9:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff H, CNA. She stated when they observe Resident #9 engaging in the sexual behavior, they tell him to cover up. She stated he did this 24/7. She said, He only comes out of the room during meals and then he is back at it. It's an ongoing thing. It has been like this for at least seven months . She stated they tried to cover him and redirect the roommate out of the room when possible. She stated the roommate did not like it. On 08/28/24 at 9:46 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She observed Resident #9 in his bed acting out sexually as another Resident was watching through the blind that was open. She said, I agree this is not good. The blind should not be open. We should provide him privacy. She stated the resident should not be observed by others. He should have privacy in his room. On 08/28/24 at 10:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, LPN/ Unit Manager. He stated Resident #9 acts out sexually all the time. When they see him doing that, they pull the curtain to provide him privacy. He stated sometimes he walks by, and the curtain is not pulled. Sometimes it's open. On 08/28/24 at 10:12 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Social Services Director (SSD). The SSD stated behavioral care plans are completed by the facility's MDS nurse. She stated Resident #9 was care planned related to [performing sexual acts on himself]. She stated the resident saw psychiatry. She said, He has the right to do that, but he should not be seen from the hallway. She stated the staff should ensure dignity and privacy was provided for those residents. She stated the residents in the secured unit were confused and needed constant redirection. She said, The CNAs should close the curtain or door if they observe the behavior. On 08/28/24 at 10:31 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff F, LPN/MDS nurse. She stated the Resident #9 was cognitively impaired and he acted out sexually. She stated this resident should have privacy when engaged in the sexual acts. On 08/28/24 at 11:01 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA stated the expectation was for staff to close the curtain and remove the roommate from the room. She stated if the CNAs observed Resident #9 performing the behavior, they should immediately intervene and give him privacy. She stated both Resident #9 and his roommate had a right to privacy and dignity. On 08/29/24 at 11:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #9's guardian. She stated the resident was known for sexually inappropriate behaviors. She said, He should be provided privacy. It is his right. The other residents should be protected. I know he has not acted out on other people, but he propositions staff and other residents. She stated she expected the residents to be treated with dignity. On 08/29/24 at 10:59 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #9's Psychiatric Physician Assistant (PA). He stated he was aware of this resident's sexual behaviors, and he was receiving medications. He stated if this resident had displayed increased sexual activity, he should be evaluated. He stated the resident should be monitored to see if the medications were working or not. He stated staff should be ensuring he had privacy. He said, If he starts acting out sexually the curtain should be pulled for his privacy. Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Rights, effective February 2021, showed the facility strives to assure that each resident has a dignified existence . The facility will protect and promote the rights of each resident. The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility. Each resident/or representative will be presented with a copy of the Federal and/or State-specific [NAME] of Resident Rights. Review of the Resident [NAME] of Rights showed: Our facility will protect and promote each of the following rights: Exercise of Rights: 1. You have the right to exercise your rights as a resident of the facility and as a citizen, or resident of the United states 2. You have the right to be free of interference, coercion, discrimination or reprisal from the facility in exercising your rights. 6. The facility must provide equal access to quality of care regardless of diagnosis, severity, condition or payor source. 19. You have the right to personal privacy and confidentiality of your personal and clinical records. Personal privacy includes privacy in accommodations . 37. Dignity/self-determination and participation: You have the right to receive care from the facility in a manner and in an environment that promotes, maintains or enhances your dignity and respect in full recognition of your individuality.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accommodations were in place for two (#25 and ...

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 accommodations were in place for two (#25 and #61) of two sampled residents with limited English proficiency. Findings Included: On 8/26/24 at 4:09 p.m. during observation and interview, Resident #61 used their personal cell phone to translate from English to Vietnamese to communicate with staff. Review of the admission record showed Resident #61 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including paraplegia, depression, anxiety, and heart failure. Review of Resident #61's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], Section A, Identification Information showed the resident's preferred language is Vietnamese. Section C- Cognitive Pattern revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated intact cognition. Review of Resident #61's care plans showed a focus plan in place for communication related to a problem with communication: Primary Language other than English: Vietnamese. The care plan interventions included, [Resident #61] uses his cell phone with a translation app for communication. Review of the admission record showed Resident #25 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, dementia, and visual disturbance. Review of Resident #25's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], Section C- BIMS Score of 5, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #25's care plans showed a focus plan in place for communication related to Alzheimer's, Spanish speaking, . blind. Resident #25's care plan's interventions Utilize Spanish staff to assist in communication. During an interview on 8/29/24 at 8:27 a.m., Staff P, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said she writes on a paper and show it to them (residents) to assist with communicating. She taught herself Spanish to be able to communicate with Resident #25. During an interview on 8/29/24 at 8:42 a.m., Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), Unit Manager (UM) said Resident #61 used his personal phone to communicate with staff. He said the facility's therapy department had a communication board for residents who's preferred language was not English. Staff E, LPN, UM, said staff anticipates resident's needs and there are Spanish speaking staff who communicates with Resident #25. He said he did not know if Spanish speaking staff were always available in the facility. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 4:15 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility's staff have access to a language [translation] line. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 6:00 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) said Resident #61 used their own phone to communicate with staff. Currently staff did not have access to interpreting services for the residents. Review of a facility policy titled, Policy and Procedures for Communications with Persons with Limited English proficiency (LEP) Office for Civil Rights, effective August 2024. The policy showed [name of facility]will take reasonable steps to ensure that persons with limited English proficiency have meaningful access and an equal opportunity to participate in our services, activities, programs, and other benefits. The policy of the [name of facility] is to ensure meaningful communication with LEP residents and their authorized representatives regarding their medical care and treatment. The policy also provides for communication of information contained in vital documents, including but not limited to, waivers of rights, consent to treatment forms, financial and insurance benefit forms, etc. Interpreters, translators, and other aids needed to comply with this policy shall be provided without cause to the person being served, and residents and their representatives will be informed of the availability of such free assistance. Language assistance will be provided through the use of qualified translators technology and telephonic interpretation services. Staff will be provided with notice of policy and procedure, and staff that may have direct contact with LEP individuals will be trained in effective communication techniques, including the use of qualified interpreters. The [name of facility] will review and update the facility assessment annually to identify the language access needs of our resident population, as well as update and monitor the implementation of this policy and these procedures, as necessary. Procedure 1) process to identify individuals who need sign language interpreters or assistive services: the [name of facility] will promptly identify the language and communication needs of the LEP person. Language identification cards (or I speak cards and posters are available online In addition, when records are kept of past interactions with residents or resident representatives, the language used to communicate with the LEP person will be included as part of the record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to address a change in condition for one (#46) of two re...

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 address a change in condition for one (#46) of two residents reviewed. Findings included: Resident #46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified Dementia, Major depressive disorder and Anxiety among other diagnoses. Review of a care plan for Resident #46 showed a psychotropic medication focus, the resident uses psychotropic medications related to antidepressant to manage depression, anticonvulsant to manage behavior management, anti-anxiety to manage anxious behaviors, an anti-psychotic to manage bipolar. Interventions included psychotropic side effects monitoring such as: confusion, disturbed gait, drooling, and drowsiness. Administer medications as ordered, observe/document for side effects and effectiveness. Report to physician negative outcomes associated with use of drug. A quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed Resident #46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. On 08/26/24 at 9:32 a.m., Resident #46 was observed in his bed. His eyes were closed. The resident did not respond to greeting. Staff A, CNA was in the room providing 1:1 supervision. She stated the resident previously had multiple falls. She said, He is much sleepier today. On 08/26/24 at 1:04 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #46 being assisted with meal. He did not eat. Staff A, CNA stated he ate some during breakfast. She said, He will not open his eyes now. The nurse is going to check his vitals. On 08/26/24 at 1:08 p.m. the resident was observed unresponsive, not easily aroused. Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN) stated the CNA had notified her the resident was lethargic and difficult to arouse. She stated she obtained his vitals. His blood pressure was 107/65 She stated she had notified the physician and had received orders to transfer the resident to the Emergency Department (ED). Review of a document titled Name of Hospital, ED Nursing Documentation dated 08/26/24, showed reason for visit, Patient from [name of facility] for AMS (Altered Mental Status), he has a history of dementia, however he is acting more altered than normal. Review of a document titled Name of Hospital, ED Physician Notes dated 08/26/24, showed under HPI (History of Present illness) showed, the patient is a [AGE] year-old male presents for AMS per SNF (skilled nursing facility) staff at [name of facility]. Staff reports patient was at his baseline this morning however seemed altered today around lunchtime when he became completely unresponsive. CBG (Capillary Blood Glucose) at that time was reportedly around 90. Report dementia at baseline. Is somewhat ambulatory with staff, however, mainly sits in bed and requires frequent assistance. Staff states he's usually verbal, however cannot form words clearly at his baseline. Staff denies any recent falls trauma to the head, vomiting and fevers. On 08/27/24 at 9:36 a.m., Resident #46 was observed outside his room, sitting in his wheelchair with Staff B, CNA providing 1:1 supervision. The resident was observed nodding to sleep and unable to keep his head up. Staff B stated he was doing much better today. On 08/27/24 at 10:26 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She stated Resident #46 went to the hospital the previous day and returned around 6:40 p.m. without new orders. She stated the resident continued with some sleepiness. On 08/27/24 at 4:19 p.m., Resident #46 was observed in bed, sleeping. Staff B, CNA was observed sitting at his bedside. She stated the resident appeared to be drowsy. She stated he was not conversing. On 08/28/24 at 9:45 a.m. and 12:50 p.m., Resident #46 was observed in his room, in bed with Staff B CNA providing 1:1 supervision at his bedside. Staff B stated the resident was on 1:1 supervision for aggressive behaviors. She stated he had not been aggressive lately but had behaviors in the past. She confirmed he had been sleeping a lot, not getting out of bed. On 08/28/24 at 1:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, LPN she stated the resident was back at a new baseline. She said, He is in bed now mostly. That is a recent change. He is typically out and about. Very aggressive. He has slowed down. Review of August 2024 physician orders for Resident #46 showed newly added orders: Quetiapine Fumarate Oral Tablet 200 MG (Milligrams), Give 200 mg by mouth two times a day for bipolar, 8/23/24. Ativan Oral Tablet 0.5 MG (Lorazepam) *Controlled Drug* Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Anxiety, 8/22/24 Trazodone HCl Oral Tablet 100 MG (Trazodone HCl), Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression, 7/31/24. Melatonin Oral Tablet 3 MG (Melatonin), 7/4/24. On 08/28/24 at 5:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, LPN/ Unit Manager. He stated the resident was moved to the secured unit due to exit seeking behaviors. He stated his baseline was wandering, multiple falls, impulsive, always rocking, chewing all kinds of stuff, aggressive behaviors such as throwing coffee at others, hitting, kicking, He stated he had suffered falls due to trying to get up or pick up things off the floor. The unit manager stated the significant change started about a couple weeks prior. He said, He is in bed more. Yesterday he was up in his chair, his 1:1 assisted him with his dinner. He used to feed himself but was now requiring staff to feed him. Staff E stated he had observed the resident mellow, low key, almost sedated all the time. He said, The doctor changed his Seroquel to 200 mg twice a day, previously it was 50 mg twice daily His Ativan is now 0.5 mg three times a day, and he is also taking Trazodone 100 mg at bedtime. He weighs 145 lbs. Staff E stated he did not know if the resident was sedated. He said, He is definitely sleeping more. I don't know if he is sedated. The PA (Physician Assistant) comes monthly. I have not notified him of this change. The UM stated he had worked with the resident the day before. He said, Yes, he was sleepy a lot. I do think that is a heavy Seroquel dose. I thought it was more like 100 mg. I will call the doctor. Staff E, LPN stated the resident went to the ED on Monday for sedation, he was not easy to arouse and had returned without orders. Staff E stated if they did not find anything wrong with the resident at the ED on Monday, then he should have been seen by a doctor yesterday or today to figure out what was causing him to be sedated. He stated he would find out if he saw the ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Review of record revealed no documentation of the doctor's visit. On 08/28/24 at 5:27 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing. The DON stated the resident should be reviewed for appropriate medications dosage and response. The DON said, it sounds like he is lethargic. I think that is a significant dose increase. I will let the doctor know. During this interview, the DON reviewed the August 2024 Medical Administration Record (MAR) for this resident and stated the nurses were documenting a check mark under side effects monitoring. She stated the check mark denoted administered. The DON stated the monitoring should show if the behavior or side effect was present or not, and document a response with a Yes or No. She stated a Yes response should be followed by a note describing the behavior or side effect which was observed. On 08/29/24 at 9:55 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, LPN. She stated the resident was more alert today and was needing redirection unlike the past few days. She stated related to the increased dose of Seroquel, there was an order to hold the Ativan if the resident was sedated. She stated she did not know if any of doses were held. She stated the order had been changed to PRN (as needed). She stated the nurses monitored behaviors related to medications. The behaviors should be documented in the progress notes. She sated they were in constant communication with the Nurse Practitioner. She said, I understand nothing is documented. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) showed there were no Ativan doses held. Review of the EMR showed there were no notes related to concerns of sedation and drowsiness. Review of the EMR showed the PA was not notified of the side effects or behaviors in relation to the increased medication doses. On 08/29/24 at 11:10 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #46's PA. He stated staff should be monitoring the resident for sedation. He said, I put in an order for them to hold the Ativan if sedated. I expect them to let me know how he is doing. The PA stated the previous Friday he had increased the resident's medications. He stated he needed an aggressive response to the aggressive behaviors. He stated he was notified the previous day he was a little more sedated. He said, The nurses should let me know when there is a change. I am trying to reduce the agitation, but we also don't want to send him to the other extreme. He should be closely monitored for sleep, meal intake and other behaviors to confirm the efficacy of the medications and make changes as needed. I will try to back off the meds. The PA stated the medication response such as sedation should be monitored. He stated he did not typically put in orders to monitor behaviors. He said, It is a facility-by-facility basis on how they handle the monitoring of medications' side effects and behaviors. I expect a call if there is a change in mood or behavior. If I don't hear anything, I assume the resident okay, They should communicate with the physician and keep me informed of any changes. On 08/29/24 at 01:46 p.m., The Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) stated a change in condition (CIC) should be documented if the resident has had any kind of change that requires a response. She stated the facility had no CIC policy. She said, We follow the EINTERACT CIC evaluation form.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that services were provided to address resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that services were provided to address resident vision needs for one (#105) of 48 residents sampled. Findings included: Review of Resident #105's face sheet revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the resident's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. During an interview with Resident #105 on 08/26/24 at 12:08 p.m., the resident said he had been waiting since June for transportation to go the eye doctor. He said he had not seen an eye specialist since admission to the facility. A review of the progress note showed on 6/21/24 3:16 p.m., General-the resident brought to the writer's attention that he has a detached retina to his left eye, requested lubricating eye drops to help with the discomfort in the right eye. Per MD needs medical attention ASAP (As Soon As Possible). Ophthalmology consult is in place. Care plan remains ongoing for the resident at this time. Review of the resident's care plan initiated on 7/11/24 revealed the following: The resident has impaired visual function r/t detached retina, The interventions includes Vision consult as needed. Review of the progress notes revealed the following: -6/22/24 08:46 [8:46 a.m.] General-Order for ophthalmology/eye appt asap for L retinal detachment per MD. -6/22/24 13:08 [1:08 p.m.] General- A/O x 3 OOB ambulating around in room denies any type discomfort no s/s distress noted refused pneuovac (sic) despite education voiced understanding continues to c/o unable to see out of lt [left] eye -6/28/24 00:33 [12:33 a.m.] Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP every shift for 30 Days REFERRED TO S.S. TO SCHED: -6/29/24 00:38 [12:38 a.m.] emar [electronic medication administration record] note-Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days social services to schedule consultation -6/30/24 15:39 [3:39 p.m.] emar note: Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days weekend -7/1/24 18:27 [6:27 p.m.] Social Service Note: SSD spoke with resident regarding Ophthalmology consult needed. Unit manager aware and has been assisting resident with appointment. Resident stated that he was in no pain and did not want to go to the hospital. Resident is alert and oriented X 4 with a BIMS score of 15. He is able to make his needs and wants to be known. Resident was calm and eating dinner. SSD will update resident when appointment is set. The ophthalmologist is scheduled to see resident at the facility on July 3rd if needed. SSD will continue to assist. -7/2/24 12:49 [p.m.] General-Writer was informed by social services that resident was to be transferred out of facility to Hospital ER for further evaluation of Detached Retinal. Resident aware of transfer. Call placed out to ARNP and made aware of arrangements. ambulance non-emergency called, awaiting arrival. -7/2/24 14:32 2:32 [p.m.] General- ambulance non-emergency transport to ER for possible admission for surgery due to Retinal detachment. Awaiting arrival. -7/3/24 00:45 [12:45 a.m.] emar note-Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days ATTEMPTED TO SEND TO E.R. FOR TX. , E.R. SENT RESIDENT BACK TO FACILITY WITHOUT TREATING. -7/3/24 13:51 [1:51 p.m.] General-Scheduled exam with The Eye vendor on 7/16/24 at 10 am for f/u Left retinal detachment and possible cataract removal -7/4/24 02:01 [a.m.] emar note-Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days S.S. working on Appt. -7/14/24 07:22 [a.m.] emar note-Schedule exam with The Eye vendor ASAP for f/u Left retinal detachment and possible cataract removal every day shift for eye appt asap for OS retinal detachment Weekend -7/14/24 15:10 [3:10 p.m.] emar note- Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days Weekend -7/16/24 11:23 [a.m.] Social Service note-SSD called The Eye vendor and scheduled a new appointment for Monday July 22th at 2:10 PM. SSD called and arranged transportation for appointment with physician. Resident is scheduled to be picked up for appointment at 11:05 PM Reservation number 80265. If transportation has not arrived by 11:05 staff needs to call transportation vendor. -7/16/24 14:51 [2:51 p.m.] General-Transportation did not arrive for eye appointment. Appointment was missed. -7/21/24 08:55 [a.m.] Emar note-Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days weekend -7/21/24 17:28 [5:28 p.m.] emar note-Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. every shift for 30 Days weekend -7/23/24 11:44 [a.m.] Social Service note-SSD called The Eye vendor and scheduled a new appointment for Monday July 29th at 12:55 PM. SSD called vendor Ambulance and arranged transportation for resident to go to appointment. Transportation vendor will arrive at our facility on Monday 7/29/24 at 11:15 AM. Resident needs to be reminded the night before appointment 7/28/24 and the morning of the appointment. RETURN TRIP NEEDS TO BE ARRANGED. -8/13/24 12:47 [p.m.] Social Service Note-SSD called The Eye vendor and scheduled a new appointment for Friday August 30th at 12:00 PM. Round trip transportation needs to be arranged. -8/14/24 05:51 [a.m.] general scheduled appt The Eye vendor Friday August 30th at 12:00 PM Review of the physician order revealed the following: -6/20/24 14:41 [2:41 p.m.] phone order-Ophthalmic, Auditory, Psychological, Psychiatric, Dental, Physiatry, and Podiatry services as needed -6/21/24 23:52 [11:52 p.m.] verbal order-Schedule an Ophthalmology Consultation for detached retina ASAP. -6/22/24 08:39 [a.m.] written order-Schedule exam with The Eye vendor ASAP for f/u Left retinal detachment and possible cataract removal -7/3/24 13:49 [1:39 p.m.] phone order-Scheduled exam with The Eye vendor on 7/16/24 at 10 am for f/u Left retinal detachment and possible cataract removal -7/24/24 09:15 [a.m.] phone order-scheduled a new appointment for Monday July 29th at 12:55 PM with eye vendor. Transport Ambulance at pickup time 1115 am -8/14/24 05:38 [a.m.] phone order-scheduled appt The Eye vendor Friday August 30th at 12:00 PM During an interview on 08/29/24 at 9:13 a.m. with the SSD, she said now if transportation did not come for the resident's 8/30/24 appointment, the facility would pay for a ride share vendor.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

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 monitor for medication related side effects and behav...

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 monitor for medication related side effects and behaviors for two (#10 and #73) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #10's admission record showed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including epilepsy, mood disturbance, dementia, cognitive communication deficit, schizoaffective disorder, seizures, and anxiety. Review of Resident #10's orders showed, Levetiracetam tablet 500 milligrams (mg) every 12 hours for seizures, Escitalopram Oxalate tablet 20 mg daily for depression, and Olanzapine tablet 20 mg at bedtime for schizoaffective disorder. Review of care plans showed Resident #10 has a behavior problem related to yelling out in the hallway, refuses to go to bed, places self on the floor, .combative with staff. The care plan interventions include document behaviors and resident response to interventions. Review of Resident #10's medication administration and treatment administration records, dated 8/1/24 to 8/31/24 does not show documentation of Resident #10's behaviors. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 8:23 a.m., Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said resident's behaviors were documented by exception in the progress notes. 2. Resident #73 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance and anxiety disorder among other diagnoses. Review of August 2024 Physician Orders for Resident #73 showed Donepezil HCl Oral Tablet 10 MG (Milligram), Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for dementia. Trazodone HCl Oral Tablet 50 MG, Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for sedative. Review of the MAR (Medication Administration Record) dated August 2024 showed, Resident #73 was admitted with Risperdal 0.5 MG, Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for antipsychotic discontinued on 08/02/24. Review of the MAR showed there were no orders for behavior monitoring. Review of psychotropic progress notes dated 07/26/24, 08/02/24, 08/09/24 and 08/23/24 showed under care plan recommendations to continue to monitor for mood sedation, sedation, medication side effects and behaviors. Staff was educated on communication, redirection and non-pharmacological techniques to redirect patient as needed. Review of the August 2024 MAR showed there was no behavior monitoring documented. The MAR showed side effects monitoring without indication of the presence of side effects or response thereof. On 08/28/24 at 5:27 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing. The DON stated the resident should be reviewed for appropriate medications dosage and response. The DON said, it sounds like he is lethargic. I think that is a significant dose increase. I will let the doctor know. During this interview, the DON reviewed the August 2024 Medical Administration Record (MAR) for this resident and stated the nurses were documenting a check mark under side effects monitoring. She stated the check mark denoted administered. The DON stated the monitoring should show if the behavior or side effect was present or not, and document a response with a Yes or No. She stated a Yes response should be followed by a note describing the behavior or side effect which was observed. Review of a facility policy titled, Behavior Monitoring Record, dated October 2021, showed: To quantitatively document the frequency of identified behavioral symptoms. To document the type of interventions used to reduce or eliminate the behavior and the effectiveness of the intervention. To document side effects of psychoactive medications in the EMR. The behavior monitoring record will be initiated on residents taking psychoactive medications that require behavior monitoring. It will also be used to track behavior symptoms that interfere with the ability to function or receive care. Procedure: 1. Enter the following information into electronic medical record. 2. Describe the specific behavior to be monitored. 3. Called the interventions determined to address the specific behavior. 4. Enter the frequency of the behavior on each shift. 5. Enter the letter code (or #code) of the intervention(s) chosen to address the behavior. 6. Enter the outcome code of the intervention(s).
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to appropriately store and secure medications related to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to appropriately store and secure medications related to medication at the bedside on one (100 hall) of four resident hallways for Resident #20 and in two (200 hall and Birch hall) of four medication rooms. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #20's profile revealed that this resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included mood disorder and neutropenia. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:54 a.m., Resident #20 was noted sitting on his bed and his nightstand drawer was open. Closer observations revealed that there were two bottles of eye drops in the drawer of the resident's nightstand. During an interview with the resident at this time he said, That's mine. (Photographic Evidence obtained). On [DATE] at 11:35 a.m., an observation of Resident #20's nightstand drawer revealed the two bottles of eye drops were still in the drawer. During an interview with the resident at this time, he reported that he received the eye drops from a local hospital. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:37 a.m. with Staff D, Registered Nurse, (RN), she reported that if a resident was not assessed to be able to administer their medication independently they should not have medications accessible to them. During the interview Staff D observed the two bottles of eye drops in the resident's nightstand drawer. Staff D reported that she was not aware of the resident having medication in his nightstand and the medications should not be there and should be appropriately stored. On [DATE] at 12:03 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Traveling Director of Nursing (DON), RN. The Traveling DON said medications should be stored in the medication cart or the medication room. She said the medications should not be in the resident's nightstand drawer. 2. On [DATE] at 9:16 a.m., during an observation of the Birch Unit medication room and an interview with Staff T, Registered Nurse (RN), Unit Manger (UM), Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), UM, and Staff X, LPN, a grey plastic shopping bag with medication bottles was observed stored in the above the counter cabinet. Staff T, RN, UM and Staff R, LPN UM both said they did not know what medications were in the bag and why it was stored in the medication room. A second observation was a container with a medication box with a broken seal that contained a bottle of Brimonidine Tartrate and two unopen boxes containing Latanoprost and Brimonidine Tartrate each box with patient specific labels. Stored in the same container were six boxes of unopened over the counter (OTC) eye medications. Staff X, LPN said the boxes with resident specific medications should have been disposed of and immediately removed from the container. On [DATE] at 10:41 a.m. an observation and interview of the 200-hall medication room was conducted with Staff T, RN, UM and Staff E, LPN UM. In the above the counter cabinet was a see-through plastic bag containing four medication bottles with the label of two separate residents alongside four small white pills not in a medication bottle. Staff E, LPN, UM said medication bottles belonged to an expired resident and a discharged resident. Staff E, LPN UM said when a resident expired their medications were disposed of in the pharmaceutical waste container. When residents were discharged home the resident was notified to pick up the medications. If the resident did not pick up the medication, the medication was disposed of in the pharmaceutical waste container. Staff T, RN, UM and Staff E, LPN UM both said they did not know why the white pills were in the bag. Staff E, LPN UM immediately removed the medications from the cabinet. Two corrugated cardboard boxes of disposable isolation gowns were on top of the counter in the Birch Hall Medication Room. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 12:03 p.m. The DON said medications belonging to expired and discharged resident should not be stored in the medication room. Once a resident expired their medications should be destroyed or sent to the pharmacy. The medication for discharged residents should be sent to pharmacy. The DON said isolation gown boxes should not be stored in the medication room. A review of the facilities policy titled, Medication Storage, Storage of Medications, Section 4.1, dated 9/18. Policy Statement: medication and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations, to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective Drug Administration. The medication supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medication. Procedures: 1) The provider pharmacy dispenses medications and containers that meet state and federal labeling requirements, including requirements of good manufacturing practices established by the United States pharmacopeia (USP). Medications are to remain in these containers and stored in a controlled environment. This may include such containers as medication carts, medication rooms, medication cabinets, or other suitable containers. 3) In order to limit access to prescription medications, only licensed nurses, pharmacy staff, and those lawfully authorized to administer medications (such as medication aids) are allowed access to medication carts. Medication rooms, cabinets and medication supplies should remain locked when not in use or attended by persons with authorized access. 4) Internally administered medications are stored separately from medication used externally such as lotions, creams, ointments, and suppositories. 6) Eye medications are stored separately from ear medications and inhalers, ETC. 14) Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal . 15) Medication storage should be kept clean, well lit, organized and free of clutter. 16) Medication storage conditions are monitored on a regular basis as a random quality assurance (QA) check as problems are identified, recommendations are made for corrective action to be taken.
CONCERN (D)

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate dental care and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate dental care and services for two (#78, #84) of 48 sampled residents. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #78's face sheet revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Major Depressive Disorder and Kyphosis. Review of the resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 which indicated intact cognition. During observations of Resident #78 on 08/26/24 at 11:14 a.m., the resident was noted to have broken and missing teeth. Closer observations of the resident's mouth revealed the teeth that were present in his mouth were brown in color. During an interview with the resident at this time, he reported he did get some teeth removed, but was supposed to get dentures and nothing had been done about getting the dentures. Review of the resident care plan related to dental revealed, The resident has a potential or actual oral/dental problem r/t resident has natural teeth with broken teeth tooth extractions on going working towards getting dentures. with an initiated date of 01/16/2022, and a most recent revision date of 04/10/2024. Continued review of the care plan revealed interventions that included Dental Consult as needed with an initiated date of 01/16/2022. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the following: -Obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth -yes -Mouth or facial pain, discomfort or difficulty with chewing-Yes Review of the residents physician Orders dated 11/10/21 revealed that he had a current order for Ophthalmic, Auditory, Psychological, Psychiatric, Dental, Physiatry, and Podiatry services as needed. Review of the dental consults revealed the following -2/19/24-Patient presents for consult. Patient is having more extractions done offsite. Once extractions are completed, partials will be fabricated. -3/12/24-Patient presents for consult. Patient is interested in extraction of tooth #26. SDS office will follow up for approval. -4/15/24- Complete extraction for tooth #26. Office has medical clearance. Patient presents for extraction. Patient anesthetized with 2 [NAME] of Lidocaine. Broken tooth #25 and 26 extracted. Gauze placed. POQ given. Next Visit: post Op. -5/21/24-Follow up on extractions sites #25, 26. Patient presents for post op. Patient healing with out pain. No follow up needed. Continued review of the resident's entire record revealed that there was no documentation related to dentures or partials. An interview on 08/28/24 at 9:24 a.m. with the Social Service Director (SSD) revealed she knew the resident had been seen by the dental vendor. She reported that she was aware the resident wanted dentures, but the in-house dental vendor would not take his insurance. She reported that to her knowledge the resident had not been fitted for dentures. During an interview on 08/28/24 at 1:04 p.m. with the SSD, she reported she spoke to the resident and called the oral surgeon who reported the resident was a no-show 3 times and they would no longer see him. She reported the following 3 instances: -1st appointment-The dental vendor called the resident's phone to confirm his appointment but did not get him and the vendor canceled the appointment. The SSD reported she was not sure of the date of this occurrence. -2nd appointment-Transportation for the appointment never arrived. The SSD reported she was unsure as to why they did not do the pick up. -3rd appointment-The Oral surgeon never received the medical clearance. The SSD reported the resident reported to her that the completed clearance form was given to a nurse, but the nurse never forwarded the form to the oral surgeon. Continued interview with the SSD at this time revealed she did not feel it was appropriate that the resident did not receive his dental care. 2. Review of Resident #84' face sheet revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety. Review of the the resident's MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. An interview with Resident #84 on 08/27/24 at 9:50 a.m. revealed he had some missing and broken teeth and he had never had his teeth cleaned. Observations of the resident's mouth revealed some broken and discolored teeth. Review of the resident's care plan revealed there was not a care plan in place to address the resident's dental needs. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed the resident had Obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth Review of the physician orders dated 8/11/22 revealed a current order for Ophthalmic, Auditory, Psychological, Psychiatric, Dental, Physiatry, and Podiatry services as needed. Review of the dental cleaning schedule from 4/18/24-8/23/24 revealed no entries for Resident #84. During an interview on 08/28/24 at 8:57 a.m. with the SSD, she reviewed items on her computer and reported the resident was an individual who would refuse services and then complain that he did not receive the services. She reported he was seen by the in-house vendor hygienist for cleaning and by the dentist. She reported he saw the hygienist every 6 months and had treatment as needed. She reported she was unsure why there was no documentation that would indicate the resident had been seen by the hygienist.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

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 collaborate and coordinate care with hospice related to code status...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to collaborate and coordinate care with hospice related to code status for one (#69) of two residents reviewed for hospice services. Findings included: Review of Resident #69's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had diagnoses that included Cerebral Infarction, Emphysema, Unspecified Dementia and Major Depressive Disorder. Review of the resident's current physician orders revealed .hospice care for terminal diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease .[burgundy] team . with an order date of 06/17/24. Continued review of the resident's orders revealed Full Resuscitation with an order date of 08/20/24. A review of the hospice plan of care located in the hard chart revealed an Advanced Directive of Full Code Start Effective Date: 06/12/24. A review of the order listing report provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the resident order of DNR [Do Not Resuscitate] with an order date of 06/13/24 and was discontinued on 08/20/24 On 8/28/24 at 5:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) and the Social Services Director (SSD). Staff E, LPN/UM stated they did not have any hospice documentation at the facility except for the initial visit which was located in the hard chart. He stated hospice was supposed to send it to them each time they came to visit the resident. The SSD stated she had been in contact with someone from hospice via email regarding code status but did not know where the hospice notes were located. Staff E, LPN/UM, SSD, and DON were unable to locate a current hospice care plan, or hospice communication sheets for Resident #69. On 08/29/24 hospice notes were provided by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). A review of the hospice plans of care revealed an Advanced Directive of Full Code was in place for the following hospice visit dates: 06/19/24, 07/03/24, 07/17/24, 07/31/24, 08/14/24, and 08/28/24. A review of policy titled Advance Medical Directives with an effective date of February 2021 and no revision date, revealed any current advanced directives should be place in the medical record and to update the care plan.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident rooms were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner in three (300, 200, 100) of three halls observed, during 4 of 4 days of survey. Findings included: On 08/26/24 at 10:25 a.m., upon entering the secured unit in hall 300, a strong urine odor was noted. On 08/26/24 at 10:26 a.m., an immediate interview was conducted with Staff AA, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). She confirmed the smell. She stated this was not the first time. She stated she did not know why the unit had a foul odor. On 08/26/24 at 11:02 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff L, Regional Housekeeping Manager. He said, Yes, it smells in here. It could be because of soiled depends or a foul wound. He stated some of the residents urinated on the floors which could be the source of the foul smell. On 08/26/24 at 10:49 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with stains and scratches on the walls, stained floors, and dirt and grime along the base boards. On 08/26/24 at 10:57 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with stained privacy curtains, stains and scratches on the walls, grime on the baseboards, and broken dresser and nightstand drawers. On 08/26/24 at 11:06 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with stained walls and raised plastering on the door surface. On 08/26/24 at 11:15 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with wet ,stained floors, bed linens on the floor, stained walls, grime on the baseboards, and a trash can without a bag and a soiled brief in the can. On 08/26/24 at 11:18 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff AA. She stated resident's linens should not be on the floor. She said, We will pick them up. They should not be on floor. On 08/26/24 at 11:28 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with dirt on the floor corners and chipped missing tiles on the bathroom floor corner by the door. The room's door frame was observed with rusty debris on the bottom corners, stains behind the door and floors, stained walls, and base boards with dirt and grime. A pair of black pants and a book were observed on the floor under bed B. This observation was made during two of four days of survey. The main door was observed without a door knob during 3 of 4 days of survey. On 08/26/24 at 11:23 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff K, Housekeeping Manager from a sister facility. She stated she was at this facility helping the housekeeper just that day only. She stated she had never been at this facility before but had been asked to come and help out. She observed the unkempt rooms and confirmed the foul odor. She said, No, residents should not live in an unclean environment. It is not acceptable. On 08/26/24 at 11:24 a.m., an observation was made of Staff M, Housekeeping Manager from a sister facility setting up a cleaning cart outside a resident's room. He stated he did not work at this facility but had been asked to come and help. Staff M said, It is not clean and sanitary in here. Yes, it smells. This unit definitely needs cleaning. That is why I came to help. He stated he did not normally come to assist with housekeeping. He stated he was at this location only this day because of the survey. On 08/26/24 at 11:28 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff L, Regional Housekeeping Manager. He said, We are lacking in accountability. We will clean the unit today. It is not to our standards right now. The residents should be in a sanitary environment. It should be clean. On 08/26/24 at 11:33 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff J, Housekeeping Manager. He stated the unit smelled like urine. He said, It is not clean in here. Some residents urinate on the floor. The plan is to clean the rooms three times daily. He stated the CNAs should help in the mornings because it smelled like that all the time. On 8/26/24 at 11:36 a.m., Staff N, Housekeeping Aide was observed cleaning a resident's room. She stated she worked at this facility. She stated this was not her regular assignment. She stated the aide who normally cleaned this unit had been out sick. She stated she did not know if anyone had been assigned to clean the secured unit the previous weekend. On 08/27/24 at 2:49 p.m., an observation was made of linens on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 8/27/24 at 3:42 p.m., an observation was made of broken nightstands for bed A and B and a broken dresser drawer in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 8/28/24 at 9:23 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a bedside table with stains and dried up syrup on the table surface. Observations were made of stains on walls, blinds, floors, and dirt on the baseboards. On 8/28/24 at 9:24 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff N, Housekeeping Aide. She stated she was assigned to clean both her assignment and the other aide's assignment in halls 200 and 300. She said, The staff who works here is still out sick. I am doing my best working both assignments. On 08/28/24 at 9:30 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with stains on the floor. On 08/28/24 at 9:31 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER], was observed with stained walls and the handwashing sink without a trim, exposing wood and a white bubbled rough surface. On 08/28/24 at 9:32 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed without a door handle. This observation was made three of three days of survey. An immediate interview was conducted with Staff H, CNA. She stated this door had not had a door handle for approximately 3 weeks. She stated it was hard for both staff and residents to push the door open. In a follow -up interview on 08/28/24 at 12:52 p.m., Staff L, Regional Housekeeping Manager stated he had just noticed the door knob missing in room [ROOM NUMBER]. He stated he would get it fixed. He stated the facility's manager should be conducting more rounds. On 08/28/24 9:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff H, CNA. She stated the secured unit had a moldy musty smell. She confirmed it had been an ongoing problem. On 08/28/24 from 9:56 a.m. to 10:08 a.m., a tour of the secured unit's residents smoking area was conducted with the facility's Floor Technician. A portion of the fence was observed fallen, leaving a wide-open space leading outside the facility. The path leading to the resident's smoking area was observed with multiple bees, wasps, and cobwebs on the walls along the pavement. The floor technician stated he would notify maintenance of the observed concerns. On 08/28/24 at 10:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff J, Housekeeping Manager. He stated the aide who cleaned the secured unit was out sick and he had not found a replacement. On 08/29/24 at 2:23 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Maintenance (DOM). He stated he was not sure why there was a musty smell in the secured unit. He stated he had a problem with ventilation in that unit, but he did not know if that was the issue. He said, I know the rooms need painting. They are old. Some rooms need furniture. Especially in the secured unit. He stated he conducted rounds and made a list. He stated he handled emergency concerns first. He stated he did not know room [ROOM NUMBER] did not have a door knob. He stated he was not aware. He said, The residents should have a door knob. I do not know who removed it or how long it had been. He stated he did not know about the bees, wasps problem until the previous day. He stated he was working on the identified concerns. On 08/29/24 at 02:27 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). She stated they had one maintenance man on staff (The DOM). She said, Our process is to identify areas of concern and address one issue at a time. Immediate concerns are handled first, and then we go down the list. The NHA confirmed the floors needed to be redone. She stated it was hard to find similar tiles. She said, We scrub and do the best we can. I know some of them need to be replaced. On 8/26/24 at 10:51 a.m., during a tour of room [ROOM NUMBER], the sealant in the front of the bathroom sink appeared rough, missing on the outer edges, and had pale green and rust colored buildup. Rust colored drainage was noted on the sink. There were holes in the shower tile with tan and grey colored buildup between the tiles. The sealant on the base of the shower wall was rough with rust colored buildup. The floor between the bedroom and the bathroom had buildup of dirt and grime. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 8/26/24 at 10:54 a.m., during a tour of room [ROOM NUMBER] there was unpainted patch areas in three areas of the wall around the air conditioner unit. There were dry brown colored areas on the floor with buildup of dirt and grime in the crevices. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 8/26/24 at 11:11 a.m., during a tour of 200 hall the paint on the hallway wall outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] was peeling. There were depressions in the wall and buildup of dirt and grime in the door jam and base trim crevices. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 8/26/24 at 11:44 a.m., during a tour of room [ROOM NUMBER]-2 the wall behind the top of the bed had deep gouges, portions of the paint and the outer dry wall was peeled and white chalk like material was exposed. In the bathroom, the drain was 1/3 covered with debris, and there was a large amount of brown with black speckled biofilm on the gout. The calking between the wall and the toilet stool appeared rough and there was a separation between the toilet and the wall on the side and top. The caulking around the sink was rough with spots of separation from the sink. The faucet's handle, base and spout contain dry, hard, chalky, rust, grey, and tan deposits. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 8/26/24 at 12:15 p.m., during a tour of 300 hall, the wall behind the bed headboard in room [ROOM NUMBER]-2 was in disrepair. Deep gouges, portions of the paint and the outer dry wall was peeled and white chalk like material was exposed. There were white particles laying on the floor below. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). An interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 8/29/24 at 2:04 p.m. The Maintenance Director said the facility's management team completes rounds each morning. When maintenance related issues were identified staff members were expected to log the issue in the facility's building management platform. He checked the web-based system daily and address the most immediate first. The Maintenance Director said the facility's current priority was addressing leaks in the facility. He said the building was old and had many ongoing maintenance issues. The facility had one staff member assigned to maintenance duties. An interview was conducted with the Housekeeping Manager and the Housekeeping District Manager on 8/29/24 at 2:36 p.m. The Housekeeping Manager said all resident rooms were cleaned daily. The daily cleaning included emptying the trash, high dusting, clean surfaces of the room, sweep floors, and mop. There were three house keepers assigned to work on weekdays and two on the weekends. The Housekeeping District Manager said the gout between the tiles could be cleaned, and he planned to retrain staff. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled physical environment, effective August 2024. The policy statement is a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment is provided for each resident, allowing the use of personal belongings to the greatest extent possible. Sufficient space and equipment in dining, health services, recreation, and program areas are provided to enable staff to provide residents with needed services. All essential mechanical, electrical, and resident care equipment is maintained in safe operating condition through the facilities preventative maintenance program. The procedure showed 1) Encourage residents to bring their individual possessions within the limits of the safety of the resident and others. 2) Maintain sufficient space and equipment in dining, health services, recreation, and program areas. Remove unnecessary clutter. 3) Assure flame proof cubicle curtains are available and in place at all times to assure resident privacy. 4) Assure an applicable working system is in place and within reach for residents to summon assistance, including, but not limited to typical call light with cord, manual call bell, specialty call bell as needed A review of the facility's policy, titled housekeeping procedures, revised 9/5/ 2017. The section titled bathroom cleaning showed material needed includes a cart, dust mop, damp mop, dustpan, dust brush, high duster, bucket and ringer, quat disinfectant, three spray bottles, 3 pals, rags, sponges, scraper, johnny mop, wet floor sign, paper towels, toilet tissue, plastic trash bags. Use a seven-step method. Dry steps 3) Pick up trash, use dust mop. Wet steps: 4) sanitize sinks, light, mirror, sink, fixtures and pipes. 5) sanitize commode, tank, bowl and base. Use brush for inside of bowl. 6) Spot clean-walls, partitions, light switches. 7) Damp mop. Start in far corner get behind commode, move trash can, mop out the door. The section titled daily patient room cleaning B) Do a quick straighten up. C) Follow five step room cleaning method: 1) empty trash. 2) Horizontal Dusting. 3) Spot clean. 4) Dust mopped floor; pick up with dustpan. 5) damp mop floor . the section titled Complete Room Cleaning showed A) set up calendar outlining what rooms are to be cleaned on certain days. B) Coordinate with charge nurse at the start of shift to have the room ready. F) Follow 5-Step room cleaning method: 1) Empty Trash, 2) Horizontal dusting, 3) Spot Nurse, 4) Dust mop floor, 5) Damp mop floor.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. 32 medication administration opportunities were observed, and six error...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. 32 medication administration opportunities were observed, and six errors were identified for two residents (#110 and #107) of six residents observed. These errors constituted a 18.75% medication error rate. Findings Included: On 8/28/24 at 10:08 a.m., a medication administration observation was conducted with Staff U, Registered Nurse (RN) for Resident #110. Staff U, RN administered insulin subcutaneously and Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B 12) intramuscularly. Resident #110's electronic medication administration record (eMAR) was highlighted in red. Staff U, RN, confirmed the medications were late. Review of Resident #110's August 2024 MAR showed insulin administration was due at 0800 with meal and Cyanocobalamin was scheduled to be given at 9:00 a.m. On 8/28/24 at 10:13 a.m., a medication administration observation was conducted with Staff U, RN for Resident #107. Staff U, RN prepared and administered Amlodipine 10 milligrams (mg) for high blood pressure, Naloxegol Oxalate 625mg for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Mirabegron ER 50 mg for bladder, Fluticasone-Salmeterol inhalation 250/50 for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Guaifenesin 10 milliliters (ml) for sore throat, and Percocet 10/325 mg for pain. Resident #107's (eMAR) was highlighted in red. Staff U, RN, confirmed Amlodipine, Naloxegol Oxalate, Mirabegron ER and Fluticasone/Salmeterol were due at 9:00 a.m. and were administered late. Review of Resident #107's August 2024 MAR showed Amlodipine, Naloxegol Oxalate, Mirabegron ER and fluticasone/salmeterol were due at 9:00 a.m. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 10:39 a.m., Staff U, RN said, I always have medications to administer after 10:00 a.m. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 1:40 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said medications should be administered one hour before and one hour after the time the medication was scheduled to be administered. During an interview on 8/29/24 at 8:19 a.m., the DON said she was told by the facility's corporate nurse. Late medication administration orders were obtained from Resident #110's and #107's physician on 8/28/24. Review of Resident #107's progress note, dated 8/28/24 at 3:07 p.m. showed, Md was notified of meds being late. MD stated it was okay to give late. Review Resident #107's orders on 8/29/24 did not show an order to administer Amlodipine, Naloxegol Oxalate, Mirabegron ER and Fluticasone/Salmeterol late. Review of Resident #110's progress note, dated 8/28/24 at 3:05 p.m. showed, Md was notified of meds being late. MD stated it was okay to give late. Review of Resident #107's orders on 8/29/24 did not show an order to administer insulin and Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B 12) late. Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration, General Guidelines, dated 05/16. Policy: Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, good nursing principles and practices only by persons legally authorized to do so. Personnel authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication. Procedures: Medication Administration: 1) medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber 3) Medication administration time in parameters include the following: b) Medications to be given with meals are to be scheduled for administration at the resident's meal times. 13) medications are administered within 60 minutes of scheduled time, except before or after mail orders, which are administered based on mealtimes. Unless otherwise specified by the prescriber, routine medications are administered according to the established medication administration schedule for the nursing care center. Documentation: 2) if a dose of regularly scheduled medication is withheld, refused, or given at other than the scheduled time . The space provided on the front of the MAR for that dosage administration is initialed and circled. And explanatory node is entered on the reverse side of the record provided for PRN documentation 4) The resident's MAR/TAR is initialed by the person administering the medication, in the space provided under the date, and on the line for that specific medication dose administration end time. Initials on each MAR/TAR are verified with a full signature in the space provided or on the nursing care centers master employee signature log .
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program by f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program by failing to ensure staff members donned appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) before entering the rooms of residents with transmission based precaution signage on the door for four (#2, #86, #104, #38) of four residents and two (#102 and #217) of four rooms sampled in the secure unit. Findings included: 1. On 08/26/24 at 10:15 a.m., a tour of the secure unit was conducted which revealed three residents (#86, #104, #38) had contact isolation signage posted on the door to their rooms. The signs showed everyone must: Put on gloves and gown before room entry, discard gloves and gown before room exit. An interview was conducted with Staff Z, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 08/26/24 at 10:35 a.m. She stated there was no one on isolation in the unit. An interview was conducted with Staff AA, CNA on 08/26/24 at 10:37 a.m. She stated there was no one on isolation in the unit and was unsure why Resident #86 was on contact isolation. An interview was conducted with Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN) on 08/26/24 at 10:40 a.m. She stated Residents #86, and #38 were on isolation for Covid precautions. She was unsure why the contact isolation signage was posted on the door. An observation was conducted on 08/26/24 at 11:21 a.m. outside Resident #86's room. A contact isolation sign was present on the door with instructions to put on gloves and gown before room entry, discard gloves and gown before room exit. A caddy containing isolation gowns, gloves, and one N95 mask was observed inside the room to the left of the doorway. Staff M, Housekeeping Manager from a sister facility, entered Resident #86's room wearing a Kn95 mask. Resident #86 was observed in bed dressed in day clothes with no mask on. The Housekeeping Manger emptied the trash inside the room and exited the room to put the trash on his cart located outside of the room. He entered and exited the room multiple times without donning or doffing PPE. On 08/26/24 at 11:23 a.m., Staff J, Housekeeping Manager was observed entering Resident #86's room without donning or doffing PPE and began cleaning the bed by the window. Resident # 86 was observed in bed dressed in day clothes with no mask on. On 08/26/24 at 11:25 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff J. He stated for him to know which resident was on transmission-based precautions he would look at the sign on the resident's door. Upon looking at the contact isolation sign located on the door of Resident #86's room, he stated I am not sure what I need to put on. On 08/26/24 at 1:15 p.m., a review of Resident #86's physician's orders revealed an order for Isolation precaution for COVID . with an order date of 08/19/24 and completed date of 08/24/24. On 08/26/24 at 10:45 a.m., Staff D, RN was observed assisting Resident #104 without using PPE. On 08/26/24 at 10:46 a.m., Staff Z, CNA was observed assisting resident #104 without using PPE. On 08/26/24 at 2:00 p.m., a review of Resident #104's physician's orders revealed an order for Isolation precaution for COVID . with an order date of 08/19/24 and completed date of 08/25/24 On 08/26/24 at 12:53 p.m., Resident #38 was observed in the dining room eating lunch at a table with two other residents with no PPE On 08/26/24 at 2:00 p.m., a review of Resident #38's physician's orders revealed an order for Isolation precaution for COVID . with an order date of 08/19/24 and completed date of 08/24/24. On 08/26/24 at 1:40 p.m., a Transmission Based Precaution List was provided by the Nursing Home Administrator which revealed Residents #104, and #38 were Covid positive. On 08/27/24 at 9:43 a.m., no isolation signs were present on any rooms in the secure unit. On 08/27/24 at 9:45 a.m., Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated there was no isolation on the secure unit. On 08/27/24 at 3:35 p.m., an isolation sign Special Contact/Droplet isolation was present on Residents #104's, and #38's door to their rooms in the secure unit. The sign indicated the use of gown, gloves, N95 respirator and eye protection before entering and exiting the room. On 08/27/24 at 3:40 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM). He stated he thinks Resident #104 is off isolation for Covid and the only resident on isolation is Resident #104. On 8/26/24 at 12:33 p.m., Staff DD, CNA was observed wearing a KN95 mask, removed a tray from the meal cart and entered room [ROOM NUMBER], which had a droplet isolation sign on the door. Staff DD, CNA did not don any PPE. Staff DD, CNA was observed touching the over the bed table and setting up the resident's meal tray. Staff DD, CNA exited the room at 12:35 p.m., no hand hygiene was performed nor was any doffing of PPE. An interview was conducted with Staff DD, CNA on 08/26/24 at 12:36 a.m. Staff DD, CNA confirmed entering room [ROOM NUMBER] and acknowledged the droplet isolation sign on the door. Staff DD stated, I don't need to wear a gown or any other PPE to drop off the meal tray and I have my mask on. Staff DD, CNA continued to state not having to change the mask upon exiting the room. An interview was conducted with Staff V, LPN on 08/26/24 at 12:40 p.m. Staff V, LPN stated the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was on droplet isolation. Staff should be following the signage, which stated to wear a gown, gloves, N95 mask, and eye protection to enter the room, even if just dropping off the tray. During an interview on 8/27/24 at 4:06 p.m., the DON said staff were expected to wear a mask, shield, gown, and gloves when entering the room with a resident on COVID/ droplet precautions. The appropriate mask could be found in the caddy outside of the resident's room. Staff were expected to replace masks with a new one prior to caring for the resident. Staff were expected to remove PPE including the mask upon existing the resident's room. The approved mask for Covid is a N95, not a KN95. On 8/26/24 at 10:35 a.m. an Enhanced Barrier sign was present on Residents #2's door. Review of Resident #2's progress notes, dated 8/25/24 showed urine culture results received and Resident #2 has Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL). Review of Resident #2's physician orders did not reveal any active order for contact precautions. During an interview on 8/29/24 at 10:57 a.m. the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) stated if a resident has ESBL in the urine the protocol is to place the resident on Contact Precautions. The ICP confirmed that Resident #2 should be on contact precautions, no enhanced barrier. Prior to this week no one oversaw the PPE supply nor the signage. Review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Infection Prevention and Control Program dated Effective October 2021 revealed: Policy: The infection prevention and control program is comprehensive program that addresses detection, prevention and control of infections and communicable diseases among residents, visitors, volunteers, and those individuals providing services under contractual agreements and personnel. The infection prevention and control program, in addition, will facilitate activities to improve antibiotic use to reduce adverse events, prevent emergence of antibiotic resistance, and promote better outcomes for residents. Goals: The goals of the infection prevention and control program are to: a. Provision of a safe sanitary, and comfortable environment b. Decrease the risk of infection and communicable disease development and transmission to residents, volunteers, visitors, individuals providing services under a contractual agreement and personnel. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Barrier Precautions revealed: Policy: . Contact Precautions are used when the employee expects to be in direct or indirect contact with a patient and/or his or her environment including a person's room or objects in contact with the person, that has an infection with an organism transmitted fecal-orally, such as colostrum difficile, or wound and skin infections, or multidrug resistant bacteria such as methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). PPE required before entering a contact precaution designated room is always gloves and a gown. Mask and eye protection are additionally required if contact with bodily secretions is possible. Enhanced Barrier precautions (EBP) refers to an infection control intervention designed to reduce transmission of multidrug resistant organisms that employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident activities. EBP are used in conjunction with standard precautions and expand the use of PPE to donning of gown and gloves during high contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for transfer of MDROs to staff hands and clothing. EBP is indicated for residents with any of the following: . Droplet precautions are necessary when an employee is within three to six feet of a resident infected with a pathogen, such as influenza. Infections are transmissible through air droplets by coughing, sneezing, talking, and close contact with an infected patients breathing period patient should be placed in an individualized room, if possible. Observations of the 100 hall on 08/27/24 at 9:51 a.m., revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] had a isolation sign posted on the door indicating droplet precautions. Staff X was noted to enter room [ROOM NUMBER] with a mask, gown and gloves. Continued observations revealed Staff X exited room [ROOM NUMBER] discarding her gloves and gown, but kept her mask on and proceeded to walk to other resident rooms. Observations on 08/27/24 at 10:03 a.m. of room [ROOM NUMBER], revealed a droplet isolation sign and caddy were mounted on the room door. The caddy was noted to only have gloves and gowns in it. It was noted there were no masks or eye protection in the caddy. Continued observation at this time revealed Staff Y walked into room [ROOM NUMBER] and did not don gloves, mask, gown, or eye protection. Photographic evidence obtained. An interview on 08/27/24 at 10:13 a.m. with Staff X, Certified Nursing Assistant, CNA, revealed the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] was on droplet precautions due to being COVID positive. She said to enter this room she must don a gown, gloves, and wash her hands. She said she did not need the use of eye protection and she kept the same mask on when exiting the room. She said she was trained to keep the mask on. An interview with Staff Y, CNA on 08/27/24 at 10:17 a.m., revealed she was aware of entering an isolation room and knew she should have put on a gown and gloves because there was a caddy on the door. She reported she was not sure if there was a sign on the door so she was not sure what type of isolation was in place for room [ROOM NUMBER]. Observations on 08/27/24 at 10:24 a.m., revealed Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN) entered room [ROOM NUMBER] and donned a mask, gown, and gloves. Continued observations revealed when Staff D exited the isolation room she kept the same surgical mask on her face. Interview with Staff D at this time revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] was on droplet precautions due to a COVID positive resident. She reported she should have donned a gown, eye protection, done hand hygiene, and wore gloves and a mask. She confirmed that she did not wear eye protection and used the same mask after exiting the room. She reported that she should have had goggles on and she should have changed the mask.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program for two out of three months reviewed. Findings included: Review of the facility's infe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an ongoing antibiotic stewardship program for two out of three months reviewed. Findings included: Review of the facility's infection prevention documentation did not reveal any documentation related to an ongoing surveillance of resident infections and antibiotic orders for the months of July and August of 2024. During an interview on 8/26/2024 at 3:30 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) stated the Infection Control Preventionist (IPC) was the Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager (UM). During an interview on 8/27/2024 at 10:30 a.m., Staff R, RN stated she was not responsible for Infection Control. Staff R, RN stated she was hired as the UM. During an interview on 8/27/2024 at 1:40 p.m., the NHA confirmed there was confusion as to who was the ICP but Staff R, RN UM was the designated IPC. During an interview on 8/29/2024 at 10:57 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) and the IPC who was also the Unit Manager stated they were both new to the building and not currently working on any surveillance or audits in relations to Infection Control Practices. Neither were able to discuss any information for past practice or provide any information from prior months. During the interview, the ICP and DON were unable to produce their monthly antibiotic stewardship program reports for the month of July and August to date for this year. The ICP stated the goal was to run weekly reports with the attempt to concurrently review the use of current residents' antibiotic orders and based on the McGreer's criteria to meet the criteria for an infection and the appropriate antibiotic was ordered with an end date. Neither the DON or the ICP knew who the contact was for the Department of Health in case of an outbreak. They said they would have to get with the NHA. A review of the facilities policy and procedure titled: Infection Prevention and Control Program effective October 2021 showed: Procedure: The Major Activities of the Program are: a. Surveillance of infections and communicable disease There is on-going monitoring for infections and communicable diseases among residents, visitors, volunteers, and those individuals providing services under a contractual arrangement and personnel and subsequent documentation of infections that occur b. Antibiotic Stewardship Ongoing tracking of antibiotic prescribing, antibiotic use, and developing antibiotic resistance patterns with documentation and education. Tracking of antibiotic will include: antifungals, antivirals, and all formulations of the antibiotics used. c. Implementation of infection control and prevention measures Prevention of spread of infections is accomplished by use of Standard Precaution, organism specific precautions, and other barriers, appropriate treatment and follow-up, and employee work restrictions for illness. d. Prevention of Infection and Communicable Diseases Staff, volunteers, visitor, those individuals providing services under contractual bases and resident education is done to focus on risk of infection and practices to decrease risk. Policies, procedures and aseptic practices are followed by personnel in performing procedures and in disinfection of equipment, if indicated. Immunizations are offered as appropriate to residents and personnel to decrease the incidence of vaccine preventable infections diseases. * Exposure Control
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PAS...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Reviews (PASRRs) for residents with a mental disorder and individuals with intellectual disability with qualifying mental health diagnosis, were updated for five (#9, #22, #7, #39 and #23) of six residents sampled. Findings included: Resident #9 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of dementia onset date 10/01/22. Other diagnoses included Schizophrenia, Major depressive disorder with an onset date of 10/10/19. Review of a level I PASRR for Resident #9 dated 10/09/19 revealed page 2 of the PASRR was missing and the qualifying diagnoses were not checked. The level I PASRR showed the primary diagnosis of Dementia was not checked. This diagnosis was initiated after the PASRR was completed. Review of a PASRR level II determination summary report dated 09/13/19 showed this determination was submitted prior to the diagnosis of Dementia becoming primary. The report further showed the diagnosis of Schizophrenia was not considered. On 08/28/24 at 4:43 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN)/MDS (Minimum Data Set). She stated if the resident acquired a new diagnosis, the PASRR should be updated. She stated a level II PASRR should be updated with diagnosis like Schizophrenia and Dementia. A review of Resident #7's admission record showed an admission date of 6/11/24 with diagnoses to include Major Depressive Disorder, Unspecified Dementia, and Unspecified Psychosis. A review of level I PASRR for Resident #7 dated 5/24/23 showed the qualifying diagnoses were not checked and the need for a level II PASRR was not identified or acted upon. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 3:11 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON said if PASRR revisions were needed, the Social Services Director (SSD) would contact the PASRR people. The DON said she was responsible for completing the PASRRs and she did not have access to the PASRR's web-based submission program. The DON said after admission the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed each PASRR for accuracy. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 3:39 p.m. with the SSD and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), the SSD said she was unable to access the PASRR web-based submission program and referred revisions to the DON. During an interview on 8/28/24 at 4:40 p.m., the NHA said the facility staff who could complete the level 1 screening, did not have access to the PASRR web-based program. A review of Resident of Resident #22's admission record showed an admission date of 3/14/22 with diagnoses to include Anxiety, Major Depressive Disorder, and Unspecified Dementia with mood disturbance. A review of level I PASRR for Resident #22 dated 6/6/22, showed the qualifying diagnose of Dementia was not checked and the need for a level II PASRR was not identified or acted upon. A review of Resident #39's admission record showed an admission date of 7/10/19 with diagnoses to include Anxiety, Vascular Dementia with other behavioral disturbance, and Major Depressive Disorder. A review of level I PASRR for Resident #39 dated 7/10/19, showed the qualifying diagnoses of Dementia was not checked and the need for a level II PASRR was not identified or acted upon. A review of Resident #23's admission record showed an admission date of 7/25/24 with diagnoses to include Major Depressive Disorder, Parkinsonism, Epilepsy, Traumatic Brain Injury, and cognitive social or emotional deficit following other nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage. A review of Resident #23's medical record did not reveal a level I PASRR. The facility was not able to locate a PASRR for the resident. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled PASRR Requirements Level I & Level II, dated effective February 2021 showed: Topic: Pre-admission Screening & Resident Review (PASRR) pre admission screening will be conducted prior to admission as the PASRR process is federally mandated pre admission screening program (see 42 CFR §483.100) required to be performed on all individuals prior to admission to a nursing home. The screening is reviewed by admissions for suspicion of serious mental illness and intellectual disability to ensure appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment and to identify the need to provide applicants with needed specialized services. PASRR screening applies to all new admissions into a Medicaid certified nursing facility and includes private pay, Medicare, and Medicaid admissions regardless of payer source. * The screening is typically done by discharge planners and hospital staff as a step in the discharge process. It is separate from a medical needs assessment, which most often occurs after a person applies for Medicaid and is required step to qualify for Medicaid long term care assistance. Procedure: 1. During the admission process, business development will communicate with the facility regarding prospective admissions. A level 1 PASRR will be provided prior to admission to the skilled nursing facility. Facility administration will confirm that a level 1 review has been completed prior to transfer to the SNF setting. 2. Determine if a serious mental and/or intellectual disability or related condition exists while reviewing the PASRR form completed by the acute care facility. (Trigger for level 2 completion) 3. If serious mental illness or ID is indicated, determine if the resident/patient will be admitted from a hospital for an acute care stay and the attending physician has certified that the individual is likely to require less than 30 days of nursing facility services. Assure that the certification is signed and dated. 4. If the physician indicates the stay will likely be less than 30 days SNF services, the patient/resident can be admitted to an SNF. If anticipated stay becomes longer than the 30 days a level 2 must be completed prior to day 40. Florida facilities (form 004 part A effective November 2014) assure that sections one through 5 are completed prior to admission. If section IV (provisional admission) this applicable, the form is only valid if the MD has signed and dated the form. If the admission is a provisional admission, the social service director must start a tickler file and assure the level 2 is completed within the state specified time frame. * Delirium - within seven days of admission * caregiver respite within 14 days of admission * emergency placement within seven days of admission * 30 day hospital exemption within 30 to 40 days of admission if the pre admission screening requires a level 2 evaluation submit all required documents to the required agency timely, so that a level 2 can be completed within the required time frames.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 one (Resident #5) of five sample residents had...

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 one (Resident #5) of five sample residents had access to his wheelchair during one of one days of survey. Findings included: On 04/25/24 at 10.21 a.m., Resident #5 was heard yelling from the hallway saying, I need my wheelchair, somebody please give me my wheelchair, I would like to go and have a cigarette, somebody please . During an observation and interview on 04/25/24 at 10:25 a.m., Resident #5 was observed sitting in the middle of his bed. An interview with the resident revealed he was dependent on his wheelchair to ambulate. He stated he had not had access to his chair all night. He said, I am upset. I need my wheelchair. I want to go out and smoke. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include acquired absence of left leg below the knee, muscle wasting and atrophy, generalized muscle weakness, other abnormalities of gait, and presence of left artificial hip joint. Review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed Resident #5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated intact cognition. Section GG showed Resident #5 had upper and lower extremities impairment and was dependent on a wheelchair for mobility. Under GG0170, the resident was assessed a 6 which indicated he was independent to ambulate 50 -150 feet once seated in a wheelchair and make two turns. On 04/25/24 at 10:27 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). She stated the resident had been yelling about his wheelchair all morning. She confirmed the resident was dependent on his wheelchair for mobility. She stated Housekeeping sometimes removed chairs for cleaning. She stated she did not know if that was the case with the resident's chair. An interview was conducted with Staff B Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/ Unit Manager on 04/25/24 at 10:28 a.m. He stated the resident did not have his wheelchair because it was removed for cleaning. He stated they were probably waiting for it to dry, and he did not know how long the resident had been without his chair. He stated he did not know if the resident needed his chair. He said, no one told me. I was there earlier and administered his medications. Staff B stated he did not hear the resident yelling out for his wheelchair. He said, It can be noisy around here. I did not hear him. He confirmed Resident #5 depended on his wheelchair to ambulate. He stated the housekeeping staff should return chairs to the residents promptly. He stated he would find the resident's wheelchair. On 04/25/24 at 10:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Traveling Director of Nursing (DON). She stated regardless of the reason for removing a chair from the resident, they should always have an alternate wheelchair. She said, I can see how removing the wheelchair could limit his ability to move. We will assist him. An interview was conducted on 04/25/24 at 10:38 a.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR). She said, If a resident's wheelchair is removed for cleaning, they should give him an alternate. They are supposed to let therapy know so that a safe wheelchair is provided. I did not know they removed the chair and did not provide him with a way to move around. I understand how that is restricting his movement. We will get him another chair. The DOR confirmed this resident was dependent on his wheelchair to ambulate. She stated when he was in his wheelchair, he ambulated independently. She stated she would discuss the concern with the housekeeping supervisor so they could collaborate on providing an alternate chair. She stated therapy had extra wheelchairs that could be used as an alternate. She said, They just needed to let me know. On 04/25/24 at 3:25 p.m., Staff B, LPN stated he had followed up and confirmed a housekeeping aide had removed the wheelchair from Resident #5 the previous night around 9:00 p.m. He stated he was supposed to return it. He stated the housekeeping aides were responsible for ensuring the wheelchairs were returned to the residents. He stated they were educating them to only pull the chair if they had a replacement. During an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 04/25/24 at 4:32 p.m., she stated wheelchair cleaning was conducted between 7:00 p.m.- 9:00 p.m. by floor techs. She stated they had a schedule for cleaning wheelchairs when the residents were in bed. She confirmed each resident who was dependent on a wheelchair should have access to a safe chair while theirs was being cleaned. She said, No, they should not have removed it a whole night. Somebody should have gotten it first thing in the morning. Staff should not take away the resident's ability to self-ambulate. The NHA stated they had initiated education. Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Rights', dated February 2021 showed the facility strives to assure that each resident has a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. The facility will protect and promote the rights of each resident. The facility must ensure that the resident can exercise his or her rights without interference, coercion, discrimination, or reprisal from the facility. #
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in four (Unit 100, Unit 200, Birch Unit, and the Reflections Unit) of four units, as evidenced by lack of daily visual inspection and cleaning of surfaces, ensuring surfaces were cleanable without pits, cracks, corrosion, and organic matter was removed from surfaces prior to sanitizing. Additionally, the facility failed to ensure air quality was maintained at the highest possible standards and failed to ensure one of one sampled Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (PTAC) units was maintained in a workable and safe condition. Findings Included: On 12/27/2023 at 9:24 a.m. during a tour of Unit 100, the following observations were made in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bedroom and bathroom: -The wall above the doorframe inside the resident's room had a rough texture and discoloration from dust on the texture ridges. Black spots, cracked coating and dust were noted on the air vents above the doorframe. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). -In room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom the drain holes on the shower chair contained black colored organic material. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). The grab bar in the bathing area was corroded with flaky decomposing silver paint. The gout between the tiles, around the tub and toilet contained dark greenish-black raised patches. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). A dark gray dry film was present on the bottom and lower aspect of the bathtub. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). The door post between the bathroom and bedroom, next to the floor had cracks with brittle reddish particles hanging and laying on floor (Photographic Evidence Obtained). The bathroom walls were damaged with peeling, bubbling and discolored paint. (Photographic Evidence Obtained). A blue uncovered sponge was laying on the inner ledge of the shared bathroom (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 12/27/23 at 10:18 a.m. the following observations were made in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bedroom and bathroom: -The floorboard to the right of the doorway was peeled away from the wall and laying on the floor (Photographic Evidence Obtained). -The wall above the doorframe inside the resident's room had a rough texture and discoloration from dust on the texture ridges. Black spots cracked coating and dust are on the air vents above the doorframe (Photographic Evidence Obtained). -In the bathroom, shower rust colored gout was noted between the tiles, and there were missing tiles with exposed rough (porous) rust colored material (Photographic Evidence Obtained). During the observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom, Staff B floor and housekeeping staff member said the room had recently been cleaned and the floor was wet. The following items were observed on the wet floor: -Liquid bath soap, haircare (shampoo and conditioner) products and a crumpled wet washcloth (Photographic Evidence Obtained). There were strings of dusting hanging from the bathroom ceiling vent (Photographic Evidence Obtained). Two bedpans were observed stored on the bathroom floor, partially under the toilet stool. The door post between the bedroom and bathroom next to the floor has cracks (porous surfaces) with brittle reddish particles hanging and laying on floor (Photographic Evidence Obtained) According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website accessed on 01/03/2024 at cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/environmental/background/services.html, the physical action of scrubbing and rinsing with water removes large numbers of microorganisms from surfaces. If the surface is not cleaned before the terminal reprocessing procedures are started, the process is compromised. Additionally, according to the CDC website accessed on 01/03/2024 at https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/projectfirstline/Healthcare-Germs-Environment-DirtAndDust-508.pdf, germs that live in dirt and soil can cause serious illness in residents without a strong immune system or whose lungs are damaged. During an initial tour of the Birch Hall (200s) on 12/27/23 at 9:25 a.m., an overwhelming pungent foul odor was present in the hallway toward the nurses' station. An observation of the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] at 9: 38 a.m. revealed the toilet raised chair had with red and brown areas of dried spillage (photographic evidence obtained). During an interview on 12/27/23 at 10:20 a.m. with Resident #13, the resident stated her air conditioning (AC) unit leaks when it is running so she must shut it off and wait until it becomes too hot in her room and then she will turn the AC back on but it will start leaking again. An observation of the AC unit revealed a pool of water was observed on the floor with various blankets, towels and mop heads on the ground. Additionally, water was visualized under the resident's bed and up to the nightstand as well as the opposite side of the room, towards the resident's closet. The air filters were observed to be heavily covered in dust and debris. Resident #13 said there is no need to to hit her call light for assistance, stating the staff know this has been going on for days. (photographic evidence obtained) An observation was made at 10:35 a.m. on 12/27/23 of two resident lifts, one on the 200 hallways and the other on Birch Hall. Both lifts had brown to black smudges on the handles with no signage to identify if the lift was clean for future use (photographic evidence obtained). Continued observations starting at 10:40 a.m. on 12/27/23 revealed: -wet clothes hanging from a resident's bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] (photographic evidence obtained). -baseboard trim molding loose from baseboard and lying on the ground behind room [ROOM NUMBER] door (photographic evidence obtained). -a bedside table with rust noted in the common shower area for Birch Hall and 200s hall (photographic evidence obtained). Upon entering the facility's closed memory care unit, a foul musty moldy odor was noted. An observation at 11:05 a.m. on 12/27/23 in the Reflections' (memory care) Activities/Common area revealed peeled wall paint (photographic evidence obtained). An observation at 11:08 a.m. of the toilet for adjoining rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] revealed dried brown substance located on the inner underside of the seat (photographic evidence obtained) . An interview was conducted at 11:20 a.m. with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) regarding the musty moldy smell in the hallway. Staff C, LPN stated yes when asked if this is a normal smell in the hallways and stated it has been present for as long as she has been employed in this facility. An interview was conducted at 11:40 a.m. on 12/27/23 with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) regarding the leaking AC unit. The NHA stated the AC unit filters are most likely the culprit and will have the issue addressed immediately. The NHA stated the facility has hired a new maintenance man and he is chipping away at the jobs needed to be addressed. The NHA stated the housekeeping services are contracted and he meets weekly with the company's manager to discuss concerns but the manager is present along with a staff of 3 housekeepers on a day-to-day basis. The company will also have their regional director attend the monthly quality meetings at their facility. The NHA stated if the housekeeping staff is short, they have been known to pull from the laundry staff. The NHA stated, I think it is a staffing issue. A review of the policy entitled, Physical Environment, effective January 1, 2020, states the following: a safe, clean, comfortable, and home life environment is provided for each resident allowing the use of personal belongings to the greatest extent possible. Sufficient space and equipment in dining, health services, recreation and program areas are provided to enable staff to provide residents with needed services. All essential mechanical, electrical, and resident care equipment is maintained in safe operating condition through the facility's Preventative Maintenance Program. The facility did not have a policy on environmental services but provided a section titled, Housekeeping Procedures from their Environmental Services Operations manual revised 9/05/2017 of their contracted company for environmental and laundry services. In section titled Bathroom Cleaning, there are three columns: Materials Needed, Timing & Method and Additional Information. In the column for Timing & Method, WET steps: 4. Sanitize sinks, light, mirror, sink, fixtures and pipes. 5. Sanitize commode, tank, bowl and base. Use brush for inside of bowl. When disinfecting, please be sure to use an EPA -approved solution and to allow for the recommended solution dwell time. In section titled Daily Patient Room Cleaning, column Timing & Method Follow 5-step room leaning method: 1. Empty trash. Get the trash out of all rooms first thing. Wipe basket- if necessary replace liner 2. Horizontal dusting with a cloth and disinfectant wipe all horizontal flat surfaces. 3. Spot clean. With a cloth and disinfectant spot cleaned all vertical surfaces. 4. Dust mop floor. Use dust mop to gather all trash and debris on floor. Sweep to the door; Pick up with dust pan. 5. Damp mop floor with germicide solution damp mop floor working from back corner to door use Wet Floor sign when finished On 12/27/23 at 9:55 a.m., an observation was made under the head of bed of the window bed in room [ROOM NUMBER] was a bed bolster with remnants of unknown substances on it, under the bed the floor and along the vinyl baseboard was lumps of unknown substances, and dirty dust was observed on tiled window sill behind the lowered window blind (Photographic evidence was obtained). On 12/27/23 at 10:04 a.m., an observation was made in room [ROOM NUMBER] of one gray water basin directly under the sink lying on the plumbing and another gray water basin with unknown dirt and water stain turned upside down on the floor under the sink vanity. Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated she did not know why the basins were under the sink. She removed the overturned basin on the floor and a dead cockroach was observed (Photographic evidence was obtained). On 12/27/23 at 11:19 a.m., an observation was made of an over-bed table in room [ROOM NUMBER] which was pitted with rust and uncleanable (Photographic evidence was obtained). On 12/27/23 at 11:21 a.m., an observation was made of an over-bed table in room [ROOM NUMBER] which was pitted with rust and uncleanable (Photographic evidence was obtained). On 12/27/23 at 11:22 a.m., an observation was made of a piece of wallboard buckled away from plaster of the wall behind the entry door and beside the bathroom door in room [ROOM NUMBER] (Photographic evidence was obtained). On 12/27/23 at 11:24 a.m. an observation was made of uneven, uncleanable attempted repair of the wall behind the entry door of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The observation revealed broken tile used for the window sill, in the shared bathroom was an area of broken wall board exposing the uncleanable pitted cement underneath, and a wet-looking washcloth on a wall shelf in the shared bathroom (Photographic evidence was obtained).
Nov 2023 2 deficiencies
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an intravenous (IV) ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an intravenous (IV) access was properly maintained for one (Resident #5) of one resident sampled for IV access. The findings include: On 11/6/23 at 4:28 p.m., an observation was made of an IV access site in the right upper extremity area of Resident #5. There was no date on the dressing. The dressing was dirty and had redness around the incision site. Resident # 5 stated the dressing had not been changed since he arrived to the facility. Photographic evidence obtained. On 11/6/23, a review of Resident #5's medical record was conducted. Record revealed Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included heart failure and cutaneous abscess of chest wall. A review of the physician's orders revealed an order to change IV dressing every 7 days as well as PRN (as needed). The Medication Administration Record (MAR and the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed the resident had a dressing change on 11/4/23. On 11/ 8/23 at 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON reviewed the photographic evidence obtained on 11/6/23 and stated the IV dressing should have been changed. The DON reviewed the resident's nursing progress notes and confirmed there was no documentation of any dressing changes other than on the MAR/TAR dated 11/4/23. A review of facility policy titled Dressing Change for Vascular Access Devices dated 8/16 showed, a dressing is changed immediately if the dressing is non-occlusive or soiled.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interviews, policy review, and the Plan of Correction review, the facility failed to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interviews, policy review, and the Plan of Correction review, the facility failed to ensure that it had a functioning Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program (QAPI). The facility was actively involved in the creation, implementation and monitoring of the plan of correction for deficient practice identified during a complaint survey conducted 11/8/23 and was cited F684. On 12/27/23 a revisit survey was conducted, and the facility was recited F684. The facility had developed a Plan of Correction with a completion date of 12/8/23. Findings included: The facility developed a plan of correction that included the Director of Nursing (DON)/Designee re-educating licensed nurses on 11/8/23 of the facility's policy titled Dressing Change Vascular Access with a focus on changing the dressing to the site weekly and as needed (PRN) if non-occlusive or soiled. The facility developed a plan of correction that included: the DON/designee conducted audits of all residents with vascular accesses to ensure that the dressings to (the) site were intact, clean, and dated. The plan identified: - The DON/Designee would provide education to remaining licensed nurses on the facility's policy titled Dressing Change to Vascular access, to include the importance of adhering to physician orders. - Observation of residents vascular access sites to be included on Checklist used during shift-to-shift rounds, also to be included on Checklist used by Unit managers during daily rounds. - The DON/Designee will conduct audits of residents with IVs to ensure dressings are clean, dry, intact, and dated one time a week x [for] 4 weeks, then monthly x [for] 2 months. - Results of audits will be brought to QAPI monthly x [for]3 months or until substantial compliance is achieved. During the revisit survey conducted 12/27/23, the facility failed to ensure the skin conditions of two (#7 and #8) of two sampled residents were documented, the physician was notified of the areas of concern, orders were received from the physician to apply dressings, dressings were dated when applied, and changed when soiled. On 12/27/23 at 8:42 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #7 sitting in wheelchair on the sidewalk in front of the facility with two other unknown residents. The observation revealed a large tan-colored foam dressing on the resident's right forearm. As the resident entered the facility, a white dressing dated 12/26/23 was observed to the resident's left below knee amputation. On 12/27/23 at 2:26 p.m., an observation was made of Resident #7 lying in bed. The resident reported falling in the gym last week while attempting to transfer. The resident said staff change the dressing every day. The observation revealed an undated large 6x6 foam dressing, with an area of discoloration, attached to the resident's right forearm below an abrasion to the right elbow. The dressing to the left below knee amputation was dated 12/27/23. Photographic evidence was obtained. A review of Resident #7's Medication and Treatment Administration Records revealed no order had been received for the care of the wound to the resident's right forearm. The records did show the dressing to the resident's left lower extremity surgical incision had been changed on 12/27/23. A review of Resident #7's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and included diagnoses not limited to Type 2 Diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, encounter for orthopedic aftercare following surgical amputation, unspecified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and history of falling. The facility failed to provide a copy of the resident's 10/20/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) Brief Interview of Mental Status score as requested. The psychiatry note, dated 11/7/23, revealed a BIMS score of 12 indicative of mild cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #7's progress notes revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The note on 12/4/23 revealed Skin noted intact with exception of surgical site to left below knee amputation (LBKA). Review of a progress note, dated 12/21/23 at 6:23 p.m., revealed Resident #7 allowed nursing to complete head to toe observation and continued to have resolving surgical site status post (s/p) amputation site. The note did not show the resident had any other skin condition requiring a dressing. Review of a progress note dated 12/22/23 at 5:37 p.m., revealed nursing was alerted by therapy of resident being assisted to the floor during a stand/pivot transfer. Resident complained of the left hand was slightly sore post therapy and an order was received for a mobile x-ray. The note did not show the resident had suffered any other consequence from the incident. A review of Resident #7's progress notes did not reveal any further notes written by nursing from 12/22/23 at 5:37 p.m., to 12/27/23. The notes did not show the resident's right forearm had been assessed, documented, or physician orders had been received regarding the application of a dressing to the resident's right forearm. Review of the documentation did not reveal if, when, or how often the resident's right forearm dressing had been changed. Review of Resident #7's care plan revealed the resident has Diabetes Mellitus as evidence by: Type 2 Diabetes. The interventions included Observe/document/report to MD (medical doctor) as needed (PRN) for signs and symptoms (s/sx) of infection to any open areas: redness, pain, heat, swelling, or pus formation. An observation and interview was made on 12/27/23 at 2:48 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) of Resident #7's right forearm. The resident informed the DON of staff changing the dressing yesterday. The DON confirmed the dressing was not dated. She reviewed the facility's Risk forms, stating there was no information (regarding the injury to the resident's forearm), and after reviewing the resident's physician orders, the DON confirmed there was no order for the dressing application to the resident's forearm. On 12/27/23 at 11:07 a.m., Resident #8 was observed sitting in wheelchair, propelling self in hallway of the Reflections (memory care) unit. An undated small, approximate 2 x 2 centimeter (cm) white bordered dressing was observed on the resident's left lower leg. The dressing was discolored with a yellowish-color, the fabric was pilled, and a corner of it was not adhered. An interview and observation was made with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), reviewed the clinical record of Resident #8 and confirmed there was no physician order for the dressing. The staff member stated the injury probably done yesterday. She observed the dressing and confirmed it was not applied yesterday and was undated. Staff C removed the dressing which was covering a red moist-looking abraded area approximately 2 x 0.5 cm. Photographic evidence was obtained. Review of Resident #8's Weekly and as needed (PRN) Skin Check, dated 12/27/23 at 11:49 a.m. (approximately 40 minutes after the observation), revealed the resident had an open area measuring 0.5 x 0.1 with no depth. A review of Resident #8's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed an order had been obtained on 12/27/23 at 11:45 a.m. (approximately 38 minutes after the observation) for staff to cleanse left shin with normal saline (N/S), apply Triple Antibiotic Ointment (TAO) and 4x4 dressing daily until healed one time a day for open area. The TAR showed the order was to scheduled to start at 9:00 a.m. on 12/28/23 (the day after the observation). Review of a nursing note, dated 12/27/23 at 3:23 a.m., revealed Resident #8 had a fall event and a skin check was completed and no redness, swelling, bruising, or other concern is noted. Review of a Post Event note, dated 12/25/23 at 2:48 p.m., revealed Resident #8 had an unwitnessed fall and the findings of the Skin Check was no new skin alterations. The review of the Weekly and PRN Skin Check forms for Resident #8 dated 12/14 and 12/21/23 revealed No New Areas of Skin Impairment. A review of further progress notes showed the following documentation related to Resident #8's skin conditions: - 12/27/23 at 3:23 a.m., Post Event Note - A Skin Check was completed and no redness, swelling, bruising, or other concern is noted. - 12/25/23 at 2:48 p.m., Post Event Note - The findings of the Skin Check that was completed included the following: no new skin alterations. - 12/23/23 at 8:01 p.m., Medication Administration Note (eMAR) - right cheek wound/abscess resolved. - 12/22/23 at 10:11 p.m., eMAR note - right cheek wound/abscess resolved. - 12/22/23 at 4:01 p.m., eMAR note - left elbow area resolved. - 12/19/23 at 1:46 p.m., Skin/Wound Note - schedule shower given this shift, old purple discoloration noted to right topical hand, old healing wound right hip, (and) old skin tear right elbow closed. - 12/12/23 at 3:18 p.m., Post Event Note - skin check was completed with no redness, swelling, bruising, or other concern is noted. - 12/10/23 at 11:30 p.m., Post Event Note - a fall event occurred with left eye orifice facial discoloration noted. - 12/10/23 at 11:28 p.m., progress note - left eye facial discoloration surrounding orifice remains apparent. - 12/9/23 at 10:32 a.m., Post Event Note - a skin check was completed with red discoloration noted to left eye. - 12/8/23 at 10:57 a.m., Initial Event note - skin check completed and included bruise to right eye. - 12/8/23 at 9:03 a.m., Care Plan/Interdisciplinary Team note - skin is intact with exception of skin tear to left elbow and small discoloration to left side of temple. The review of Resident #8's progress notes did not reveal the injury to the resident's left lower leg had been assessed and the review of Medication and Treatment Administration Records did not show an order had been obtained for the treatment to the area prior to the observation on 12/27/23. A review of Resident #8's care plan revealed the resident was at risk for developing a wound related to (r/t) cognitive deficit, decreased mobility, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) functioning, Adult Failure to Thrive (AFTT), incontinence, and hard cast to right arm. The associated interventions included: The interventions included observed for any new areas of skin breakdown: redness, blisters, bruises, discoloration noted during bath or daily care; Report to nurse if noted, nurse will report to MD if noted. The care plan also showed the resident had a skin tear/potential for skin tear related to (r/t) the decreased mobility and ADL functioning. The interventions included to use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against any sharp or hard surface. An interview was conducted 12/27/23 at 3:00 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON reviewed the physician orders for Resident #8 and confirmed the physician order was obtained by Staff C on 12/27/23. The policy and procedure - Wound Prevention and Treatment Overview, effective October 2021, revealed The facilities strives to ensure that a Resident/Patient entering the facility without ulcers does not develop them unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates they were unavoidable. The facility implements the following interventions to prevent the development of pressure ulcers: - Identify Residents/Patients at risk and the specific factors placing them at risk then implement an individualized plan of care based on the identified factors. - -Reduce occurrences of pressure over bony prominences to minimize injury. - Protect against the adverse effects of external mechanical forces (pressure, friction, shear). - - Increasing awareness of ulcer prevention through educational programs. The policy showed a resident with ulcers will receive continued preventive interventions and necessary treatments and services to promote healing and prevent infection. Wound characteristics will be documented by measuring length, width and depth in centimeters and additional documentation shall also include color of drainage, wound bed, color, order, amount of drainage, wound bad tissue type, and tunneling/undermining with depth if applicable. The policy instructed to review skin integrity on a weekly basis as a proactive approach enabling the facility staff to identify possible changes in skin integrity/condition. The policy and procedure - Treatment Protocols for Skin Tears, effective October 2021, revealed A skin tear is a traumatic wound occurring principally with older adults. Often a result of friction alone or shearing and friction forces that separate the epidermis from the dermis (partial thickness). Nursing staff will observe and evaluate treatments according to the following procedure. 1. Assess and evaluate the wound and the periwound area. 2. Initiate and or revise the Skin Grid for all Other Skin Problems. 3. Review nutrition and hydration status. 4. Include the Resident/Patient and or responsible party in the development of the Plan of Care. 5. Review risk reduction measures. 6. Notify physician and obtain orders. 7. Notify the responsible party if applicable. 8. Implement physician orders. 9. Evaluate the wound with dressing changes for the following including but not limited to: - a. Periwound redness, swelling, warmth or coolness, a firm or boggy feel, and assess for changes in sensation. - b. Pain. - c. Foul odor - d. Increased drainage. 10. update the Skin Grid for all Other Skin Problems weekly and PRN with changes in the wound characteristics. 11. Review and revise the plan of care 12. Educate Resident/Patient and responsible party on risk factors and their role in risk reduction. The treatment portion of the policy showed staff was to initiate the treatment protocol. During an interview on 12/27/23 at 4:20 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported the previous survey was conducted on 11/8/23 and she started in the facility on 11/15/23 at which time she was notified of the survey and citation. The DON reported the Regional Nurse Consultant had started staff education, the facility had an Ad Hoc QA meeting on 12/8 and a monthly meeting on 12/14/23. She said the facility checked all residents who had intravenous (IV) access, educated all nursing staff, were auditing IV sites, she visualized residents with IV sites daily, she audits weekly, and the Unit managers audit (the IV accesses) on a daily basis, when the RNC would come in she also would audit the sites, stating Because that's been a high focus. The DON stated the facility placed an order on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) instructing nursing staff to check the IV site every shift and reported she checks the MAR daily. The DON stated she had focused on just IV dressings. An interview was conducted on 12/27/23 at 5:22 p.m., with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA stated an Ad Hoc meeting was held with department heads regarding citations and on 12/8/23 with the facility Medical Director. He stated the DON implemented the Plan of Correction (POC) and would have to speak with her regarding it. Review of the facility policy - Quality Assessment and Assurance (QA&A) Compliance, changed November 2022, revealed: The facility will form a QA&A compliance committee, designed to meet monthly. The committee must include, at minimum, the medical director, administrator, director of nursing, infection control specialist, maintenance, housekeeping, pharmacist, business office manager (BOM), medical records, therapy representative, staff development coordinator, and social service director. Ad hoc members are approved by the committee. The purpose of the committee is to review and analyze facility related data, evaluate the effectiveness of improvement plans, and direct appropriate actions for the facility response. It is the responsibility of the QA&A compliance committee to consider all data presented by the improvement team(s) and to direct the team(s) to continue, change, or conclude the assignment. Department heads/disciplines are required to develop department specific audit plans and report activities, and audit findings to the committee at intervals determined by department specific risk analysis, and at the direction of the nursing home administrator. Audit findings that identify opportunities for improvement are addressed through education, development of a quality assurance and performance improvement plan or performance improvement plan or other means as indicated. System failures and slash or in depth and now sis of processes are addressed through development of a QAPI. QAPI requires a systematic review of data, identification of the root cause(s) of the system failure, and implementation of corrective action through the use of a Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA). Team should be introduction, should include members from any department impacted by the concern and may include other members such as residents, family members, or local persons with information pertinent to the issue under analysis.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, record review and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect by not preventing staff to resident abuse for one resident (#1) out of 3 residents reviewed for allegations of abuse. Resident #1 was harmed by a facility staff member during activities of daily living (ADL) care when Resident #1,who had known behaviors, became combative towards a staff member, the staff member continued to perform ADL care and when Resident #1 continued having behaviors, the staff member made contact with Resident #1's face which resulted in Resident #1 sustaining a swollen nose, two bruised eyes, and a swollen lip with a laceration to the top lip. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's admission record revealed he was an [AGE] year-old male resident readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had medical diagnoses which included but are not limited to dementia with mood disturbances, chronic pain, difficulty in walking, unsteadiness on feet, muscle wasting and atrophy, dysphagia, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #1's progress note revealed a late entry Post Event Note dated 5/31/2023 at 1:37 p.m. revealed This is an Initial Event Note for: [Resident #1] The following event had occurred: resident noted with facial swelling. The noted date and time of the event are as follows: 5/31/23 9:00 p.m. The event took place in the following location: [resident room] Mental status was evaluated and the resident is noted to be oriented to the following: Oriented to person .The resident displayed active ROM [range of motion]. The body parts ROM was completed to include the following: upper and lower extremities. On a scale of 0-10, the residents pain level is reported to be a 6 The resident is cognitively impaired and evaluation of facial expression indicates there is substantial pain. The resident's response to pain is described as: Appropriate. The findings of the Skin Check that was completed include the following: facial swelling Treatment [sic] as follows was provided to the area or areas of concern: facial x-ray The description of the event as provided by licensed staff is as follows: observed facial swelling The resident has provided the following description of the event: unable to describe Anger, agitation, distress causing increased or new onset of aggression Fear/anxiety 9e.g., trembling, cowering, flinching) diminished ability to think or concentrate [sic] The following type of event is noted: skin alteration Details of the event are as follows: observed facial swelling Preventative interventions related to this event include: pain mediation[sic] changed, x-ray The name of the practitioner notified is: [Resident #1's primary Physician] The date and time of practitioner notification: 5/31/23 10:00p.m. Please note the following new orders: facial x-ray The name of the Resident Representative notified: family The date and time of the Resident's Representative was notified: 5/31/2023 11:00 PM. Review of Resident #1's progress notes revealed a progress note dated 6/1/23 at 6:07 a.m. revealed Received order for Nasal Xray (3view) STAT d/t facial discoloration and c/o [complaints of] pain. Bedside xray needed d/t [due to] res [resident] dementia diagnosis. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order dated 6/1/23 Nasal X-Ray STAT. Review of the Nasal X-ray dated 6/1/23 revealed Results: No acute fracture or dislocation. Nasal septum intact and midline. Soft tissue normal. Sinuses clear. Conclusion: Normal nasal bone series. Review of Resident #1's Lab/Diagnostics Note dated 6/1/23 at 9:21 a.m. revealed Nasal x-ray completed and reviewed with ARNP. NNO [no new orders] at this time. No acute FX [fracture] or dislocation. Nasal septum intact and midline. Soft tissues normal. Sinuses clear. Normal nasal bone series. RP made aware. Review of Resident #1's Progress Note (general) dated 6/2/23 at 12:03 p.m. revealed Resident oob [out of bed] with normal routine, no complaints of facial pain noted at this time. Skin lacerations to facial area remains bluish purple bilateral eyes with swelling to nose area. No apparent drainage noted. Condition stable. Further review of Resident #1's Post event note dated 6/2/23 at 4:36 p.m. revealed the following event has occurred: facial bruising The noted date and tome of the event are as follows: 5/31/23 9:30 AM the event took place in the following location: [resident's room] .On a scale of 0-10, the resident's pain level is reported to be a 8 The resident is cognitively impaired and evaluation of facial expression indicates there is substantial pain. The resident's response to pain is described as: Appropriate. The findings of the Skin Check that was completed include the following: redness to nose, lip eyes Treatment as follows was provided to the area or areas of concern: Assessment done, facial x-rays neg [negative]. Resident #1 was observed on 6/19/23 at 12:18 p.m. The resident was observed to be in the facility's secured unit, dressed in day clothes self-propelling in his wheelchair out of his room asking when he was going home. The staff were observed to interact with the resident by saying [Resident #1] this is your home. The resident stated I am going home call [family member]. The staff said okay we will call [family member] for you. The resident's face was observed to be free of bruising or swelling or open areas. Resident #1 was observed to be comfortable. In Spanish, the resident stated I'm good when asked how he was doing. In English he stated, can you call [family member] for me, I have to go home. An interview was conducted on 6/19/23 at 10:46 a.m. with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) she stated I was here for 15 years then I left for a year then came back and I have been back now for two years. I normally work on the secured unit, and I am familiar with [Resident #1]. I was the one who reported. The CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant], Staff B, CNA, he came out of [Resident #1's] room and shut the door behind him. He [Staff B, CNA] was sweating and I heard a muffled sound that alarmed me. When I got up we both met each other outside of [Resident #1's] room and I asked him what is going on and he said [Resident #1] spat in his face and I said okay so I opened the door [Resident #1] was alert, he was sitting up in his wheelchair, he wasn't wearing a shirt and I saw specks of blood on his chest, his face, the floor, and the clothing that [Staff B, CNA] had taken off of him. I'm guessing he was trying to put the gown on him because the gown was on the floor and the shirt was on the floor and that had blood on it. I guess he tried to put the gown on but I'm not going to speculate but, I did see there was blood on the gown as well. I did not see the event I just saw the after math. I helped clean [Resident #1] up and I cleaned up his face and put the gown on him and I helped him into bed. [Staff B, CNA] got all the stuff off of the floor and bagged it up. Then I told [Staff B, CNA] to just leave the room and go get off of the floor. I made sure [Resident #1] was comfortable and safe because he seemed frightened. I reported it to the RN [Registered Nurse] supervisor and the DON [Director of Nursing] and [Nursing Home Administrator [NHA]] . [Resident #1]'s face, and his nose was swollen. His eyes were puffy and the swelling was starting. There were scratches on the bridge of his nose, not lacerations, more like scratches. I have no idea where he was bleeding from. I asked [Staff B, CNA] where all the blood came from and he said it was from his nose. I did not see any indications of open areas, cuts, lacerations. After everyone was called, we got orders to get an x-ray. This happened about around 9 in the evening. [Resident #1] did not say he was in any pain. [DON] called [Staff B, CNA] to get his side of the story and [NHA] told him to leave the premises. After that event I have not seen [Staff B, CNA] back working with other residents .He [Resident #1] had an x-ray done and that was negative. He has chronic pain, but his pain was the same pain that he normally voices but we did give him a stronger pain medication. He never mentioned anything with his face or his head hurting it is always his back, but we did get pain management involved and they gave him a stronger pill for his pain. He is acting the same as he always acts, he does not seem fearful. He developed bruising from the bridge of his nose, and around the orifice of both his eyes, there was swelling to the nose. The mid part of the top lip was kind of puffed out a bit, it was mainly the eyes and the nose. I was surprised the bruising on his face only lasted for about a week .I always tell all the CNA' s let two or three CNA's help out with [Resident #1] especially with the residents who fight. But [Staff B, CNA] would get agitated really easily being back on the secured unit just dealing with that patient population . [Resident #1] has the violent type of dementia, all he thinks about is going home . He can be violent with ADL care. He likes to spit, pinch, kick, scratch and sometimes he picks up objects to try and throw them at you. Further interview was conducted with Staff A, LPN on 6/19/23 at 12:28p.m. she stated when [Staff B, CNA] came out of the residents room I asked him what happened and he said the resident spit on him and [Staff B,CNA] hit him. When I walked into the room and saw all the blood I was overwhelmed, and I asked him how hard did you hit him? [Staff B, CNA] did not answer me and he did not indicate if he hit him with a closed or open hand. He [Staff B, CNA] started to help me clean up, but the resident said he tried to kill me, and I just told [Staff B, CNA] you need to go, leave. And he left. I made sure the resident was safe and then I immediately went and reported it. A phone interview was conducted with Staff B, CNA on 2/19/23 at 3:34 p.m. he said I was in the middle of getting his [Resident #1] dirty clothes off and into his night clothes, he became agitated and he didn't want to go to bed. He started to hit me and then when he started to spit I turned and trying to block his spit and I don't know if he tried to lean in right when I did but my hand made contact with his face and it isn't intentional. After that I went and got the nurse, and I didn't notice any blood coming from his nose until after the fact and I went and got the nurse and she helped clean it up and she contacted the supervisor and the supervisor contacted the DON. Usually, I don't have a problem getting him [Resident #1] undressed and usually I get him a snack and that usually works but that day I guess he was overally agitated. I don't normally have that problem with [Resident #1]. The nurse was wiping his nose because there was some blood coming down, there wasn't a lot. I was helping while she was cleaning his nose and I guess the DON wanted to talk to me and they told me to wait in the break room after that .I would never do anything intentional to a resident. When that happened, I was in shock. The police came and talked to me that night and I told them the same exact story and they walked me out. I did not get arrested. I have never really experienced anything like this. Yeah, he'll try and hit here and there but I have never seen him that agitated I tried to reassure him that he wasn't going to bed but there is a big language barrier .I am a newer CNA and he is usually on my assignment. I'm still learning, I just usually approach in a calming way. The resident was sitting in the chair and I was standing beside him and I was bent down trying to put his arm in the gown. Then he tried to hit me but him trying to hit me that don't phase me but then he tried to spit on me and that's when I tried to block the spit and that's when I made contact with his face. My hand was open and I had a glove on when I tried to block his spit. An interview was conducted with Staff C, CNA on 6/19/23 at 12:20 p.m. he indicated he has worked at the facility for ten plus years and his normal assignment includes Resident #1. Staff C, CNA stated [Resident #1] keeps to himself, he usually stays in his room or he is out asking to go home, or asked for food. During care he will spit, hit, scratch, kick at you. When that happens, I remove myself, I reapproach and after the second attempt he's still combative I will remove myself and reapproach with another staff member and if he still doesn't want to do it I can't force him. He stated his approach is to walk away and retry. An interview was conducted with Staff D, CNA on 6/19/23 at 12:22 p.m. She indicated she has worked on the secured unit for 4 years. She said [Resident #1] is not on her typical assignment but she will help out with care if the assigned CNA needs it. [Resident #1] can be combative but we walk away and reapproach him later. We cannot force him to receive care. We just give him space and reapproach later. Review of Resident #1's behavioral care plan revised on 6/6/23 revealed The resident is noted with the following behaviors: places self on floor, may become combative at times 5.31.23 spitting at caregivers. Goals: Will be informed of the risk/outcomes associated with preference of choice. Will not harm themselves. Will not harm staff. Interventions included, speak softly and clearly when communicating. Allow time to communicate effectively. Discuss procedures and mediations [sic] prior to administration. Give clear explanation of all care activities prior to an as they occur during each contact. Provide resident with opportunities for choice during care provision. Do Not Corner if agitated. Provide space, remove other Residents, remain calm and Call [sic] for assistance. Psych Services as needed. Review of Resident #1's ADL (activities of daily living) care plan revised on 5/15/23 revealed The resident has an ADL Self Care Performance Deficit. Goals included, will prevent decline in ADL self-performance through next review . Will Improve level of self performance by next review. Interventions include but are not limited to AM/PM [morning/evening] Routine Care: Resident will be able to independently or sometimes independently perform ADL functions including but not limited to Bed Mobility, Personal Hygiene, Oral Care, Bathing, Dressing, Transferring, Feeding, Toileting, Encourage to perform at highest functional level. Res [Resident] can help with some ADLs, but need Physical Help from Staff to help complete task. Encourage resident to participate at highest level. Provide assistance required to complete task and document. Anticipate needs. Locomotion: Wheel Chair [sic] propels self. Personal Hygiene: assistance X [times] 1 as needed. Dressing: Assist of 1 An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the DON on 6/19/23 at 1:33 p.m. The NHA said on 5/31/23 at approximately 9:30 p.m. [Staff A, LPN], the nurse on the unit, she called [DON] and [DON] called me. And she [Staff A, LPN], said she heard yelling coming from [Resident #1's room] and she said [Staff B, CNA] was coming out of the room. She [Staff A, LPN], opened the door the resident was sitting in his wheelchair with his shirt off and he had some blood on his face[Staff A, LPN], said she asked the CNA what happened and the CNA had said he was spitting on him and he [Staff B, CNA] reacted , trying to keep him [Resident #1] from spitting on him. So, [DON] called and told me I told [DON] I would call [Staff B, CNA] and we told him to go in the break room and not leave and I told him that I had to call the police and report it and the police would have to come to the facility and talk to him. So, I called the police and reported it and I reported it to DCF [Department of Children and Families] right then too. And I asked him what happened and he told me the resident was spitting in his face and he was trying to get him to stop and he wouldn't and he said he smooshed him. I asked him what smooshing meant and he said 'you know, I smooshed him to try and keep him from spitting in my face.' And after I talked to the police and I asked them to tell me what he said to them and the police called me and they said that he told them the same thing he told me. The police officer told me that he smooshed him too .I told [Staff B, CNA] he had to come in and do a reenactment with me too so I can see exactly what happened. He came into my office to show me and I had someone else witness it to. The NHA reenacted what she was shown by [Staff B, CNA]. The NHA acted as the resident sitting in the wheelchair, and said, [Staff B, CNA] took off the residents shirt off, [Staff B, CNA] was standing off to the side of the resident and when the resident was spitting he [Staff B, CNA], turned and put his hand out and he must've accidently made contact with the residents face. [Staff B, CNA] is about 7 foot tall. We train the staff when a resident gets combative to walk away and come back. The residents' eyes were discolored, both eyes under his eyes and up and around them. The NHA said we [NHA and DON] did not come in that night but we did not see any blood the next day when we looked at [Resident #1]. [Staff A, LPN] said she did see some blood. I did have [Staff D, Registered nurse [RN]] go and look at the resident. I started the investigation that night over the phone. The DON said based on the statements, there was a small amount of blood around the resident's nose that she had cleaned up. [Staff D, RN] said she did not see any blood and there were no open areas. We did the nasal 3 views of the whole face and that showed no fractures . The DON said [Staff B, CNA] started on 10/4/22 as a PCA [Patient Care Technician]. He worked until 2/2/23. He was termed [terminated] because his 180 days to get his CNA license was up so we had to term him and told him to let us know when he gets his license. So, he returned back to us on 2/16/23 after he got his CNA license. When he worked here as a PCA he worked on the secured unit. When he was hired back as a CNA his designated area was the secured unit. The NHA said .This was not substantiated because no one had seen it and he said he just put his hand . The NHA stopped talking then said, and that's what the police told me to. The NHA said . After [Staff A, LPN] wrote her statement that night, I had [Staff A, LPN] come to me and I talked to her on 6/7/23. She said he [Resident #1] has behaviors and we usually use 2 people when he punches, scratches, hits. It calms him down if you say you'll call the [family member]. She said she asked him [Staff B, CNA] what happened and he said he [Resident #1] spit in his face and I asked [Staff A, LPN] what exact words did he [Staff B, CNA] use? he spat in my face and his reaction, he smooshed . The NHA corrected herself and said it [statement documentation] says 'and hit him [Resident #1]. I went into the room and saw a little blood on his chest and clothes and saw a little bit on the floor. And I said did you ever see him [Staff B, CNA] get aggressive like this before? She said she saw him get anxious but not aggressive . it also says in the statement that [Staff B, CNA] said to her 'can you just write it up and say he fell and she said no I can't do that.' The DON said we did change his [Resident #1's] pain medication around with the facial bruising because he had been grimacing during therapy and he has chronic pain and was on tramadol so we called pain management and got him on hydrocodone. The NHA confirmed Staff B, CNA has not worked in the facility since the incident occurred, and is currently in the termination process. Review of the facility's Abuse Prevention Program with a effective date of 2012 and a change date of August 2022. Revealed Policy The facility has designated and implemented processes, which strive to reduce the risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment and misappropriation of resident's property. These policies guide the identification, management and reporting of suspected, or alleged, abuse, neglect, mistreatment and exploitation. It is expected that these policies will assist the facility with reducing the risk of abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident's property through education of staff and residents, as well as early identification of staff burnout, or resident behavior which may increase the likelihood of such events. Definitions: Abuse-Includes Verbal, Physical, Sexual, and Mental/Emotional Abuse Abuse Willful infliction of injury upon a resident by a staff member, another resident, a vendor, a visitor, or other individual. . Note: Willful is defined as meaning the individual must have acted deliberately, not that the individual must have intended to inflict injury or harm. .Physical Abuse Includes hitting, slapping, pinching, scratching, spitting, holding roughly, etc . . Serious Bodily Injury An injury involving extreme physical pain; involving substantial risk of death; involving protracted loss of impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; requiring medical intervention such as surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation; or an injury resulting from criminal sexual abuse. .Procedure the facility has implemented the following processes in an effort to provide residents, visitors and staff with a safe and comfortable environment. The Administrator is responsible for designating an Abuse Coordinator The designated shift supervisor is identified as responsible for immediate initiation of the reporting process. The Administrator, DON and/or designated individual are responsible for the investigation and reporting of suspected, or alleged, abuse, neglect, and exploitation and misappropriation. The Administrator, DON and/or designated individual are also ultimately responsible for the following: Implementation Ongoing Monitoring Investigation Reporting Tracking and Trending . Training Facility orientation program and ongoing training programs will include, but may not be limited to: 483.95(c): Freedom from abuse, neglect, & exploitation requirements in 483.13. .483.95(c): Dementia management & resident abuse prevention . Utilization of appropriate interventions to manage resident behaviors that might result in harm to the resident or staff, aggressive &/or catastrophic reactions of residents. . How to provide protection for residents. . Methods to reduce the risk of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, misappropriation, and exploitation that may include, but may not be limited to, recognizing signs of burnout, frustration and stress, stress management and relaxation techniques
Apr 2023 2 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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed staff calibrated an enteral f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and medical record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed staff calibrated an enteral feeding pump accurately to provide a therapeutic diet as ordered resulting in one (#1) out of three vulnerable residents not receiving the calculated amount of enteral feeding. Findings included: On 04/25/2023 at 3:30 p.m., a phone interview was conducted with the Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) at a local hospital. She stated it was her responsibility to call in a complaint if there was any sign of abuse or neglect. She stated, it was the doctor that was the one that had the concern. The LCSW said Resident #1 was a tube feed and had an abnormally high sodium level, that would indicate he was not being fed. On 04/27/2023 at 9:30 Resident #1 was observed sleeping in bed and presented thin and frail. The head of the bed was at 30 degrees and it had appeared the resident had slid down in the bed; his head rested at a 10 degree elevation. The a tube feeding pump/machine was connected to a pole that hung a bottle of Jevity 1.2 cal enteral feeding solution. The machine was running at a calibrated rate at 55 milliliter (ml) per hour (hr). The machine display panel reflected at the time it had provided a total of 831 ml enteral feeding solution. Evidence-based strategies to prevent enteral nutrition complications. Mitigate risks for pulmonary aspiration. Pulmonary aspiration can occur during an enteral feeding when the formula in the stomach backs up into the lungs. This complication can cause pneumonia, sepsis, and even death. Proper patient positioning is critical to mitigating this risk. Enteral nutrition (EN), commonly called tube feeding, is defined by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN). ASPEN recommends elevating the adult patient's head of the bed at least 30 degrees while they're receiving EN, unless an elevated position is medically contraindicated. In that case, consider the reverse Trendelenburg position. Accessed on 04/27/2023 at https://www.myamericannurse.com/evidence-based-strategies-to-prevent-enteral-nutrition-complications. Medical Record review of Resident #1 admission Record form indicated he was geriatric in age and resided at the facility for three months. The diagnosis description listed dysphagia (swallowing difficulties) following cerebral infarction (CVA), dementia, gastrostomy status and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (an absence of enough oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily functions). Review of Physician orders showed Nothing by mouth (NPO) diet NPO texture, NPO consistency dated 04/20/2023, Enteral Feed Order every shift for Nutrition Enteral Feed: Jevity 1.5 Continuous per (via) tube to infuse at a rate of 80ml/hr. Total volume of 1600 ml infused in 24H. May turn off for care/services. Start at 2pm. Verify Infusing every (Q) shift. Clear pump when total volume has infused dated 04/20/2023, Elevate head of bed while feeding and medication is being administered every shift for prevention dated 04/20/2023. Review of the Emergency Department Documents History of Present Illness (HPI) Date/Time Seen: 04/04/2023 1:46 p.m. HPI: The patient is a [AGE] years old Male with past medical history (PMH) significant for CVA, anemia, hypertension (HTN), sepsis, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement due to numerous cases of dysphagia and subsequent aspiration pneumonia presenting from [NAME] Pines for evaluation of several abnormal labs. The family states that he is at his normal neurological status which is mostly nonverbal but reactive to pain and responsive to simple questions. They endorse a several month history of increasing weight loss and failure to thrive. Review of hospital History and Physical dated 04/04/2023 Chief Complaint Severe Sepsis, Failure to thrive, Severe dehydration, Pneumonia. History of Present Illness Patient is extremely unfortunate with end-stagevascular dementia and history of CVA that was found on routine labs to have critical hyponatremia as well as renal insufficiency. Review of Subjective, Objective, Assessment and Plan (SOAP) Note from Resident #1 Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) Subjective: 4/14/2023: On 4/4/23 the patient present to hospital [name] with sever dehydration, AKI [acute kidney failure], sepsis, severe failure to thrive and right middle and lower lobe pneumonia. Previous weight is noted to be 126.28 in January 2023 with current weight being 104.2 pounds. Review of Weight Summary reflected on 04/21/2023 Resident #1 current weight 98.8 pounds. At 10:20 a.m on 04/27/2023 observation of Resident #1 tube feeding machine revealed it was shut off, and the bottle of the feeding solution was no longer connected to the pole. At 10:30 a.m. on 04/27/2023 an interview was conducted with Staff Member A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She confirmed she had disconnected and shut off Resident #1 feeding machine she stated the tube feed goes down at 10:00 a.m. and up at 2:00 p.m. She was informed an hour prior that the machine indicated a total 831 ml was administered. She said she did not know how much the resident was ordered to receive, she said she would have to look it up. Staff A went on to say the shift before her put up a new bottle of the feeding solution and they had cleared the (machine) meter and the amount provided on the meter was not the accurate amount he was given. Staff A was asked where the bottle of the enteral feeding solution was located and stated I threw it out. When asked where, she stated I don't remember where. Staff A confirmed she had thrown out the bottle less than 30 minutes earlier but reiterated she did not know where. When asked if she could come to Resident #1's bedroom, she stated no am proving patient care. At 10:35 a.m. on 04/27/2023 Resident #1's bedroom was observed with Staff Member B, Licensed Practical Nurse, Unit Manager present. Staff B turned the feeding machine on reflected it had been calibrated to run at 55 ml per hour. Staff B confirmed the run rate at 55 ml per hour. The empty bottle of the enteral feeding solution was located in the garbage can. Staff B removed the bottle and confirmed the label on the bottle was omitted of a date. The label contained a Start: (time) that reflected a handwritten notation of 7-3. Staff B confirmed the start time on the bottle should reflect the actual time the enteral feeding started not the shift. Further review of the label contained the Rate: 55 ML/HR to total 1100. Staff B reviewed Resident #1's orders and confirmed the orders were for 80 ml per hour and a total of 1600 ml in a 24-hour period. Staff B confirmed the bottle of Jevity had to have started yesterday on the 7-3 shift as it was just 10:35 a.m. in the morning and the bottle was empty, which reflected Resident #1 had received one bottle of the enteral feeding in a 24-hour period. The bottle contained approximately 1000 ml (photographic evidence obtained). On 04/27/2023 at 4:00 p.m. a phone interview was conducted with Resident #1's ARNP who she said she knew Resident #1 and stated he had a recent decline in condition that included hospitalization. She confirmed Resident #1, and all residents with a gastrostomy tube (g-tube), are dependent on enteral feeding and are vulnerable for weight loss. When informed of the observation of 1000 ml bottle of enteral solution that indicated it was started on the 7-3 shift and still infusing at 10:00 a.m., It had reflected Resident #1 was administered 1000 ml and not the 1600 ml that was ordered. She stated, I'm kind of shocked that is going on. She confirmed it was her expectation that a bottle of enteral feeding solution would be dated and given as ordered. Review of Care Plan Focus; TUBE FEEDING: The resident is receiving enteral nutrition because of dysphagia, with the diagnosis of CVA dated 02/06/2023. Goal: Will obtain adequate nutrition & hydration, Will have no untreated side effects or complications related to enteral nutrition. Interventions: Administration of enteral nutrition as ordered (Refer to MD orders for current orders) Elevate head of bed (HOB) during administration of feedings. Review of the Policy and Procedure dated 09/18 ENTERAL TUBES POLICY The nursing care center assures the [NAME] and effective administration of enteral formulas and medications. GUIDELINES 3. Enteral formulas, equipment, route of administration, and the rate of flow are selected based on an assessment of the resident's condition and need. 5. In-service training on safety, administration, and monitoring of enteral solutions and mediations via the enteral tube is provided by the nursing care center to nursing personnel.
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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record review, interviews, and photographic evidence, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment for six (Resident #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 )...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, interviews, and photographic evidence, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment for six (Resident #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, and #10 ) of ten sampled residents in regard to strong urine odor presence; safe functional bathroom door; towels on the floor to capture leaking water; and incomplete wall work with peeling paint and plaster. Findings include: On 04/27/2023 at approximately 2:20 p.m. the following observations were conducted with the Maintenance Director. -Resident #5's bedroom was observed to have access to a bathroom. The bathroom door on the inside of the room was observed. A crack was observed in the wall next to the door frame where the door was hinged to. When the door was opened, the door was observed to hang off the top hinge. The bottom hinge was observed not to be attached. The Maintenance Director stated that he had just found out about the door today. It was not in the (electronic maintenance system) yet, but he would put it there. He said, he would have to replace the frame; drill a hole to attach the hinge. The bathroom was observed to have a strong urine odor in it, which was confirmed by the Maintenance Director. -An observation of the built in cabinet and drawers in Resident #5's bedroom revealed the linoleum surface was warped, cracked and peeling. The Maintenance Director stated he was not aware of the condition of the cabinet and drawers; and usually, when he finds out about a condition like this, he will peel the surface off and paint. -Resident #6 and #7's bedroom was observed with the Maintenance Director. He stated, he had been working on the wall. The wall behind the resident bedroom door was observed to have mottled plaster with no paint; the area covered the wall, from the flooring up to approximately shoulder height. The bathroom door was opened, and a strong old urine smell was observed. Peeling paint and uncovered wall board on the wall under one of the grab bars and the toilet paper dispenser was observed. The Maintenance Director indicated the observed physical plant issues were not in the (electronic maintenance system). He said he was going to put them in. He stated, he was the only person completing the work. On 04/27/2023 at 2:30 p.m., an observation was conducted of Resident #5. She was observed to be in her wheelchair, and she had self -propelled into the bedroom. She reported her name and that she resided in the bedroom she was observed in. When asked if she would use the bathroom in her room, she confirmed that she could and would. She would open the door herself. On 04/27/2023 at 2:35 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Staff C, CNA, confirmed residency of Resident #5 in the bedroom with the broken bathroom door. Staff C, CNA, reported the door had been in the current condition for about two weeks. At this time Staff D, CNA, entered Resident #5's bedroom and he was interviewed. He confirmed the condition of the bathroom door, and It had been like that for about two weeks. And then he demonstrated that the door was difficult to close because it was not attached to the frame, and he pushed it with force to close it. During the interview, Staff C, CNA, was asked if she was able to input maintenance concerns into the (electronic maintenance system), she indicated she did not know how to access the system, but she would report the concern to the nurse. She stated she was sure she had reported the concern a couple of weeks ago. Both Staff C, and Staff D confirmed the strong urine odor in the bathroom. They indicated housekeeping will come and clean, but there was still a strong odor that would continue. On 04/27/2023 at 2:38 p.m., Resident # 8 and Resident #9's bedroom was observed. The residents' room door to the hallway was observed open and towels were observed on the floor under the door along the wall. An interview with Staff C, CNA was conducted at this time she stated there had been a leak somewhere there, it had been going on for about a week or 10 days. Behind the door was reviewed, and the wall was observed to have mottled plaster present, the area covered from the floor up the wall approximately 3.5 - 4 feet, throughout the area behind the door. The floorboard was not present along the floor area behind the door; a gap and dark colored area was observed between the floor and the wall. The door handle turn knob to the bathroom door was observed to not be aligned and loose in its placement. When the door to the bathroom was opened, a strong urine smell was observed in the bathroom. Unpainted plaster repair was in the corner near the commode and under the toilet paper holder, which was an approximate coverage of 2 feet wide by 3 feet. The strong urine odor was confirmed by Staff C and Staff D. Staff C, CNA indicated that the floor had been wet and she had slipped earlier on the wetness on the floor. At this time, Resident #8 and Resident #9 were observed lying in the beds in the room. Staff C, CNA confirmed that both residents were ambulatory. 04/27/2023 at 2:39 p.m., Resident #6 and Resident #7's bedroom was observed. When the bathroom door was opened, a strong old urine smell was observed. The odor was confirmed by Staff C and Staff D. On 04/27/2023 at approximately 2:41 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #10. She was observed sitting in her wheelchair in her room, dressed and groomed, and she agreed to an interview. During the interview, she commented, the facility smells like pee. Does not do any good to say anything about it.
Feb 2023 2 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Review of an admission record for Resident #5 showed she was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Review of an admission record for Resident #5 showed she was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of displaced comminuted fracture of shaft of radius, left arm, subsequent for closed fracture with routine healing. An annual minimum data set (MDS) for Resident #5, dated 1/7/23, showed in section C the resident has a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 02, indicating severe cognition impairment. Section G, functional status assessment showed the resident requires limited assistance for bed mobility, transfers, one-person physical assistance. Resident #5 requires extensive assistance for toilet use and personal hygiene. Under section G0400, the resident uses a wheelchair for mobility. Section G part E, locomotion on/off unit, the resident is assessed as independent. Section G0300 assessment for balance during transitions and walking, the resident is not steady, only stable with staff assistance. On 2/13/23 at 2:39 a.m., Resident #5 was observed in the facility's secured unit in the hallway. The resident was observed sitting in her wheelchair. She was noted with cast in her left arm . Resident #5 was noted with bruising on her left eye. The eye was observed with redness around the circle of her left eye, on the inside and outside. The resident was observed with dark blue/purple skin discoloration above the left eye and below her left cheek. A skin tear was noted above her left eye. Resident #5 could not describe what caused the injury to her face but stated she remembers falling and breaking her arm. The resident stated she was in pain and wanted to see the nurse. The resident was observed crying and calling the nurse for help. On 2/14/23 at 2:12 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff A, Certified Nurses' Assistant (CNA) assigned to resident #5 on the day she fell on 1/30/23. Staff A stated she was walking to the closet to get towels so she could give the resident a shower. She stated as she walked the hallway past the resident's room, she heard the resident crying, which was not unusual. She continued to the closet, grabbed the towels, and walked into the room to find the resident on the floor. Staff A stated the wheelchair was positioned in front of her bed. She was kind of in the middle of the bed, but on the floor, sited facing the chair. Staff A said, she told me she hit her head. I immediately noticed a bump on her head, and a small cut above her eye and her elbow. I went and got the nurse. I did not move her. She was crying. Staff A stated the nurse initiated her assessment and when she had determined it was okay, they both assisted the resident to her chair. Staff A stated the resident continued with crying, probably due to some discomfort, but she could not express her pain very well. Stated A stated she did not know why the resident was not sent out. On 1/24/23 at 1.28 p.m., a telephone interview was conducted with the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN). He stated he received a call from the facility when Resident #5 fell. He stated he was notified the resident had fallen and hit her head with some injury. He said, She was supposed to have been sent out for evaluation. The APRN said, I thought they sent her out. I spoke to the DON. She should have gone to the hospital. The APRN reviewed his phone records and confirmed he had recommended to send the resident to the hospital on 1/30/23. He stated the expectation is to send any resident who falls with a head injury to the hospital. He stated if the resident did not have any physical injury, they would still order x-rays to rule out internal injuries if the fall was unwitnessed and the resident claimed head pain. He stated he spoke to the DON and gave a verbal order to send her out. The APRN stated it would not be written because he is not always at the office when the call comes in. The APRN said, a verbal order is sufficient. It should be documented on their end. On 2/14/23 at 2:13 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff B, LPN who was assigned to Resident #5 the day she fell. She stated the CNA came and got her and stated the resident was on the floor and her head was hurting. She stated the resident was transferring herself when she fell. Staff B stated this resident does not follow direction very well, and her memory was impaired. She stated when she walked into the room, the resident was sitting by the bed, in front of the chair. She stated she checked her for alertness. She stated the resident said to her, I fell. I bumped my head. She stated she started neuro checks. There were no lacerations, just a raised bump on left eye, and some skin tears. She stated she notified Staff D, LPN Unit Manager who then notified the DON. Staff B stated the DON was in the building because the resident fell during daytime hours. She stated she then called the APRN but could not remember if there were any orders. Staff B said, at the time of fall, the resident did not show all the bruising. They came up a later. The bruising was present though. The LPN stated if a resident fell the expectation was to notify the administration and to contact the physician. She stated they report what they are seeing and then the doctor gives orders. Staff B stated if the doctor gave orders to send the resident to the hospital, she would have to send them in. Review of a document titled, Event Note, dated 1/30/23, showed Resident #5 suffered an unwitnessed fall, resulting in bruising on forehead. Observed sitting on floor. Small, raised area left forehead lateral eyebrow noted. small skin tear left elbow. Area cleansed and small Band-Aid applied. Resident observed sitting on floor near bed in room. resident stated I lost my balance. Review of a document titled, Event Note, dated 2/3/23, showed a skin check for Resident #5 was completed; section B, Q3a: Any redness, swelling, bruising or other concern during skin check? Marked Yes, discoloration to lateral eyebrow. A care plan for Resident #5 with an admission date of 1/20/23, showed a fall focus indicating the resident was at risk for falls or fall related injury because of decreased mobility and ADL (activities of daily living) functioning, incontinence, cognitive deficit, and psychotropic drug use. The goal indicated, will minimize the risk of fall. Interventions included; 1/30/23 Neuro checks initiated, encourage out of bed and to common areas during awake, 1/11/23 Nurse eval MD (medical doctor) notified and resident sent to ER (Emergency room), encouraged to wear nonskid socks/shoes when out of bed, lock brakes on bed/chair etc. before transferring, remind resident and reinforce safety awareness, educate remind residents to request for assistance prior to ambulation, encourage resident when rising from a lying position, sit on side of bed for a few minutes before transferring or standing, and to observe for side effects of drugs including but not limited to gait disturbance, orthostatic hypotension, weakness, sedation, Lightheadedness, dizziness and change of mental status. A progress note for Resident #5 dated 1/6/23 showed the resident was crying off and on throughout shift, usual behavior for resident. Stands up out of wheelchair (w/c) and bangs on the doors to be let out. Multiple redirections failed. Resident states, I don't know what to do. can't understand why the doors are locked once to go home and get in her car outside. asks to go to the bathroom, cannot find her room, cannot find the bathroom in her room. staff assist to help her find the bathroom . nervous and unhappy with her situation. Resident has tremors shaking and pelvic gyrations . Memory very poor, will get out of wheelchair, park it at the nurse's station, then proceed to walk in the hallway with unsteady gait. staff follows with her chair and then she sits down after 10-15 feet, states I'm tired . poor safety awareness, reminded to lock her wheelchair before she stands up. A progress note dated 1/29/23, showed, Resident #5 continues with insomnia. Wants to be up in wheelchair, pacing the hallways kicking the doors to get out picking and fiddling with left arm cast. redirection provided, short term memory pool cannot remember the directions given. On 2/14/23 at 2:06 p.m., Resident #5 was observed in the hallway inside the secured unit. The resident was ambulating the halls in her wheelchair. The resident was noted with swelling on left eyelid, black bruising around the eye, raised bump below the left eye. Redness around the upper left cheek, closer to the eye. Resident stated she did not have any pain in her eye or face, but her arm was in pain. The resident started to get teary and stated, it was not my fault. Resident #5 stated she did not mean to fall. On 2/13/23 at 3:53 p.m. An interview was conducted with the Director of Rehab (DOR). The DOR stated she has directly worked with the resident on and off for the past year. She stated the resident has significant dementia and was added to case load most recently on January 21st for safety training. The DOR said, for the fall on 1/30/23, the resident was attempting to ambulate, it is an on-going issue. She gets anxious, always rocking and fidgeting. She stated staff are to assist and redirect with snacks when she is fidgeting. She stated the resident cannot use walker even though she wants to. She stated her ambulation is not functional without staff assistance. The DOR stated staff should try and anticipate her needs to keep her safe. On 2/13/23 at 4:02 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated the resident fell on 1/11/23, which resulted in an unplanned hospitalization. The resident fell and held her fall with her hand, resulting in the left-hand fracture. On 1/30/23, Resident #5 fell again. The nurse was called to the room and found the resident sitting on her buttocks next to her bed, in front of her wheelchair. The resident suffered a small laceration, raised area on top of her left eye and a skin tear. The DON stated the resident had reported having lost her balance and fell. The DON stated neuro checks were initiated with interventions to encourage the resident out of bed, in common areas, and therapy referral. On 2/13/23 at 2:43 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing ( ADON). She stated Resident #5 has had two falls. She broke her arm earlier last month. That was why she was in a cast. She stated the resident cries a lot, she is confused, impulsive, has dementia and forgets she should stay in her chair. She stated the recent fall on 1/30/23, she was found on the floor in her room. The ADON stated for unwitnessed falls, they assess the resident for injury, if any head injury has occurred, they call the doctor and start neuro checks. The ADON stated they send the resident out if the doctor orders it. On 2/14/23 at 2:25 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff D, LPN /Unit Manager (UM). He stated he could not remember the details of the fall, but he remembers seeing the bruising on the resident's eye. He could not remember if the nurse spoke to him or not. He stated the expectation for unwitnessed falls is to assess the resident, administer first aid as necessary, notify the doctor and assess if higher level of care is needed. He stated they initiate neuro checks and then follow doctor's orders. Staff D stated if a doctor gave a verbal order, they would follow it and send the resident to the hospital. On 2/13/23 at 5:06 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON said, if a resident falls the physician is notified, as well as the DON, they start with an assessment, if there is a major injury, call 911, if there is no major injury, pick up the resident, and start neuro checks. The next morning, the IDT (interdisciplinary team) reviews falls. They implement interventions for fall, update care plan and therapy recommendations are put in place. The DON stated they conduct a root cause analysis, direct staff to follow the plan of care and an IDT note is documented. The DON stated, if a fall is not witnessed, they should do vitals and neuro checks. The physician determines if someone is sent out. The DON said, for Resident #5, we did not complete any X-rays. They were not ordered. There were no concerns with her Neuro checks. I know she has bruising on her left eye. On 2/14/23 at 3:02 p.m., an interview was conducted with the DON. She stated on 1/30/23, she was notified Resident #5 had fallen. She stated she was with a family member doing a plan of care. The DON stated Staff D, LPN/UM came and got her from the meeting and stated the resident had a small laceration on her head. The DON said, I told them to follow the process of unwitnessed falls. We have a policy. The DON stated she does not recall having any conversation with the doctor about orders to send Resident #5 out for evaluation. The DON said, it may have been a text message. I will double check. If there are orders to send a resident out, we follow doctor's orders. On 2/13/23 at 5:02 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). She stated if a resident falls the staff notify the DON and she notifies her. The following morning, they go over every fall and conduct the root cause analysis, see what can be done differently. If the fall was unwitnessed, their policy expectation is to assess the resident, call the doctor and if they need to be assisted up, normally two - person assist. The NHA stated they notify family. If there is a head injury, start neuro checks right away and follow doctor's direction. Review of the facility's Fall and Injury Reduction Policy effective October 2021 revealed: Status Post witnessed/unwitnessed Fall or Found on Floor event. 1. Asses the resident for signs/symptoms of injury prior to moving. Ask the resident and/or witnesses what happened. If no signs/symptoms of injury assist resident from floor using a Hoyer lift unless resident is can actively assist in getting off the floor. If there are signs/symptoms of serious injury, such as a fracture, head injury, blood loss greater than that of a skin tear or minor injury, etc. do not move the resident from the floor, support comfort and call 911. Obtain vital signs and document in the medical record. Start neurological checks . Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse Prevention Program, dated August 2022, showed, Neglect: Failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide good and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Injury of unknown source: an injury that is suspicious for abuse or neglect due the severity of the injury, site of the injury, the number of injuries at one time, the number of injuries over time. An injury should be classified as an injury of unknown source when all of the following criteria are met: The source of the injury was not observed by any person; and The source of the injury could not be explained by the resident; and The injury is suspicious because of the extent of the injury or the location of the injury (e.g., the injury is located in an area not generally vulnerable trauma) or the number of injuries observed at one particular time point in time or the incidence of injuries overtime. Prevention: Facility leadership will identify situations in which abuse, neglect, mistreatment, exploitation, misappropriation may be more likely to occur, such as: Residents with needs or behaviors which might lead to conflict or abuse or neglect. Analyze the occurrences to determine what changes are needed, if any, to policies and procedures and education to prevent further occurrences. Based on observations. interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to prevent neglect related to timely care and services after a fall with head injury for two (Residents #1 and #5) out of three residents reviewed for falls. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1's admission Record revealed she was a [AGE] year old resident initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She had diagnoses that included but were not limited to Cerebral infarction, anxiety, vascular dementia with other behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder, abnormalities of gait and mobility, lack of coordination and a history of falling. Resident #1 was observed on 2/13/23 at 10:11 a.m., the resident was observed to be in the hallway, sitting in her wheelchair, next to the nurse who was at her medication cart. The resident was observed to have a large purple bump protruding from her forehead with yellow edges around the bump, the bump was larger than a silver dollar in diameter. The resident was observed also to have a small purple bruise under her right eye with yellow bruising starting from the protruding bump going across her forehead and down the left and right side of her face and around both eyes. The Resident was asked if her face or head hurt, she stated no but began to ramble words that were incomprehensible. The resident was pleasantly confused playing with her jean pants. Staff F, LPN (Resident #1's nurse) stated at this time that the resident just received pain medications. The nurse also stated Resident #1 fell, she did go to the hospital but I'm not sure when she came back or when she went out, and I don't know what they said, I would have to look it up. Throughout the interview with Staff F, LPN Resident #1 kept scooting forward in her wheelchair or trying to self-propel. The nurse redirected the resident several times during the interview until another staff member pushed the resident in her wheelchair and told the nurse she was going to take the resident to therapy. Review of Resident #1's SBAR Communication Form dated 1/30/23 at 8:30 p.m. indicated the resident had a fall on 1/30/23. Summarize observations: resident fell from wheelchair in dining room neuro checks initiated. Contusion noted on forehead. Date and time of clinician notification: 1/30/23 8:35 p.m. Recommendations of primary clinician: initiate neurochecks Name of family notified: message left for [family] to call facility. Review of Resident #1's Care plan/IDT note dated 2/1/23 at 08:45 a.m. IDT review for observed floor on 1/30/23 at approximately 8:30 p.m. resident fell from dining room was in wheelchair prior to incident. Resident is noted to be impulsive and has to be redirected multiple times throughout the shift Nurse was at computer charting at nurses' station and heard a noise from dining area. Nurse went to assess patient and resident was noted to be on the floor and noted with a bump on middle of forehead and red area to right knee. Resident was able to move all extremities at time of incident. MD [physician] aware and neuro checks initiated. Resident is impulsive and would not allow staff to use Hoyer she stood up and was placed in wheelchair and then placed in bed after incident. Ice was applied to forehead. No new orders just to continue with neuro checks. Labs placed due to resident becoming increasingly agitated. Resident to have therapy referral placed for proper wheelchair positioning. Due to resident leaning forward in wheelchair. RP [representative] aware. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed no order to send resident out to the hospital. An interview was conducted on 2/13/23 at 5:14 p.m. with Staff C, LPN (Resident #1's nurse on the evening of her fall) Staff C, LPN stated the resident was sitting in the dining room, and I don't know what happened but I heard a noise and [Resident #1] had fell out of her wheelchair. She had the nonskid socks on, and she was lying on her side. I want to say right side but I'm trying to picture her, yeah, I want to say she was lying on right side. She did not have tennis shoes on, she had no skid socks on, we assessed her, called the doctor. She had a bump on her head that was starting to get a little bump there and that was the only injury I seen, it was just her head. She was trying to get herself up on her own. Her extremities moved okay. The doctor said to do neuro checks. I believe it was [Resident #1's primary care Physician]. [Resident #1] was acting like her normal self. Her vitals remained stable. Her neuro checks were good because the bulk of the neuro checks are at the beginning and there were a lot of neuro checks and then I left, and the next shift took over. If someone falls and hits their head, it just depends what the doctor wants. I have seen [Resident #1] recently, I am working that hall tonight, I would describe her forehead bump as a goose egg. A couple days later her eyes got a little black and I think that has cleared up, which happens a lot when they hit their head then it goes down into their eyes. [Resident #1] can be impulsive at times when she gets really antsy. What I'll do is put her right next to me. Make sure she doesn't need to be changed and try and see what he is getting anxious about. A phone interview was conducted on 2/13/23 at 4:38 p.m. with Resident #1's physician. She stated, I am familiar with [Resident #1]. I know she had a fall I have not seen her since her fall but my nurse practitioner did. I believe he saw her on January 31st and maybe a couple days ago too. So, talk to him . Let me tell him you are calling him. I was there yesterday, and I plan on coming there tomorrow but I did not see the patient yesterday but let me tell him you are calling him okay, thank you bye. A phone interview was conducted on 2/13/23 at 4:46 p.m. with Resident #1's Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) he said I am familiar with [Resident #1]. I know she had a fall on 1/30/23 I think there was some kind of miscommunication somewhere because they documented [Resident #1's Physician] was notified of the fall and she was not notified. And I ordered for this resident to go to the ER [emergency room]. With any kind of head injury especially one as extensive as hers she needs to be sent out immediately and she needs a CT [computerized Tomography]. If they have not sent her out to the hospital, she needs to be sent out now for a head CT. I saw her and I am aware of her large bump on her and the facial bruising that's why she needed to go out. I'm not sure when I ordered her to go out whether it was the 31st or when but that's protocol anyone with any kind of head trauma gets sent to the ER immediately. I definitely wrote a note on the 31st the office can get that sent over and I saw her after that visit too. But yeah, she needs to be sent out if she hasn't been sent to the ER. Review of physician visit note dated 1/31/23 revealed she has had the fall with facial bruising, facial swelling after the recent fall. Orders were given to staff to send to the ER at the time of the fall . An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/13/23 at 5:30 p.m. she confirmed Resident #1 has not been to the hospital since her fall. When we told the physician about the fall, they said continue neuros [neuro checks]. Then the physician saw her the day after because they normally round on Tuesday. [Resident #1's Physician] just called me maybe 10-15 minutes ago and said we need to send the patient for a CT scan. And I told her when the fall was, and she said that's fine just send her for a CT scan. We are working on getting the forms together to get her transferred out. I have seen her since her fall. She has yellowish discoloration to the side of her forehead and the hematoma to the middle/right of her forehead. The last time I saw her was on Wednesday (2/8/23) when she was going by my office to go to the therapy gym. The DON was asked if she had any concerns with the injury or the appearance of the injury and the DON stated, I mean the doctor told us to do neuro checks. The DON continued to say The ARNP comes in twice a week unless something's going on. He usually comes by and asks if anyone needs to be seen and then after he's done, he will say I gave orders to the nurse, if someone needs to be sent out he will tell me that. The day he came by after the fall, I think it was the day after, I told him to see [Resident #1] because she had a fall. He never told me anything about sending her out. Review of Resident #1's physician orders revealed an order send to [Hospital] for CT scan of face one time only for 1 day. with a start date of 2/13/23 Review of Resident #1's hospital record dated 2/13/23 revealed Radiology Results Head/Facial Bones WO/Cont [without contrast] 2/13/23 7:46 p.m. .CT head facial bones without contrast. Clinical indication: Pain Comparison: There are no relevant prior studies available for comparison at this time. Findings: Limited exam due to patient motion artifact . Additional pertinent findings: There is an anterior frontal scalp hematoma measuring 1.0 X 3.5 centimeters there is significant degenerative thickening posterior to the dens. Reference image 44 series 12 and image 3 Series 3. .Impression: No CT evidence of acute intracranial abnormality or acute fracture. Significant degenerative changes of C1-C2 with significant ligamentous thickening causing mild to moderate central canal stenosis. Right frontal scalp hematoma . Review of Resident #1's progress notes revealed on 2/13/23 at 11:44 p.m. Resident arrived to facility via ambulance transport accompanied by 2 medics on stretcher. Resident awake alert with confusion. BP 150/84, 02 98% R/A Resident assisted in bed ADL Care Provided, call light in reach. Further observation and interview was conducted on 2/14/23 at 11:20 a.m. Resident #1 was observed in the common area with staff and other residents. Resident #1 was observed with the same large protruding bump to the middle of her forehead with the same yellow bruising from the bump going down both side of her face and around both eyes. The small purple bruising under her right eye was observed to be unchanged. The resident stated she was not having any pain to her face or forehead she said, It's just ugly and the resident started touching the bump on her forehead. Another phone interview was conducted with Resident #1's Physician on 2/14/23 at 1:08 p.m. She stated I was not notified at the time of the fall. I even went through my answering services and looked everywhere, and I was never notified. My ARNP went to the facility the day after and as you can see in his notes, he followed the policy and immediately wanted her sent out. I have good communication with everyone, and I am always available along with my ARNP and I did not see anywhere where I was notified of this fall at the time it happened. I fully investigated this yesterday when it came up and my ARNP followed our policy and told them to send patient out to the ER on [DATE].
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to document controlled narcotics in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for four (Residents #8, #9, #10, #...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to document controlled narcotics in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation for four (Residents #8, #9, #10, #11) out of 11 residents reviewed on three out of four total medication carts. Findings included: 1. A narcotic reconciliation observation was made on 2/13/23 at 10:02 a.m., with Staff C, LPN of Resident #8's medication blister pack of oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. Review of Resident#8's electronic medication administration record (MAR) revealed the last dose of oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 mg was administered on 2/10/2023 at 6:34 p.m. Review of Resident #8's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet for oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain was documented as last administered on 2/12/23 at 9:30 p.m. An interview was conducted with Staff C, LPN at the time of the observation and she confirmed Resident #8's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet and electronic MAR did not match, and they should. She further indicated when a narcotic is given you are supposed to remove the narcotic from the medication cart, sign it out on the narcotic sheet (Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet) and then document it in the electronic MAR when the medication is administered, and they should match. But that is why I always look at what the MAR says and also look at what the sheet says because they don't always match. Further review of the Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet for Resident #8's oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain did not reflect an administration for 2/10/23 at 6:34 p.m. (photographic evidence obtained). Further review of the inventory sheet revealed the medication was removed and administered by a nurse 20 times from 2/9/23 through 2/12/23. Review of Resident #9's MAR for the month of February revealed from 2/9/23 through 2/12/23 Resident #9 received his oxycodone-acetaminophen oral tablet 5-325 mg 10 times. 2. A narcotic reconciliation observation was made on 2/13/23 at 10:12 a.m. with Staff F, LPN of Resident #9's medication blister pack of oxycodone 15 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for non-acute pain. Review of Resident #9's electronic MAR revealed the last dose of oxycodone 15 mg was administered on 2/4/2023 at 12:18 a.m. Review of Resident #9's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet for oxycodone 15 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for non-acute pain was documented as last administered on 2/12/23 at 1:00 a.m. (photographic evidence obtained). An interview was conducted with Staff F, LPN at the time of the observation and she confirmed Resident #9's electronic MAR and Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet did not match, and they should. Further review of Resident #9's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet for oxycodone 15 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for non-acute pain revealed the medication was signed off and administered by a nurse on 2/3/23 at 12:30 a.m., 2/4/23 at 6:00 a.m., 2/5/23 at 1:00 a.m., 2/5/23 at 12:00 p.m., an unreadable date at 3:00 p.m., 2/11/23 at 1:00 a.m., and 2/12/23 at 1:00 a.m. Review of Resident #9's February MAR for the oxycodone 15 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain revealed the resident only received the medication one time in the month February on 2/4/23 at 12:18 a.m. 3. A narcotic reconciliation observation was conducted with Staff G, LPN on 2/13/23 at 11:03 a.m. for Resident #11's medication blister pack of hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times daily as needed. Upon review of Resident #11's blister pack, Staff G, LPN was observed to be documenting the medication administration in the electronic MAR. She said, I'm just putting this in because my computer was about to die but I gave it at 8:35 so I'm just going to back date it. Review of Resident #11's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times daily as needed was documented as last administered on 2/13/23 at 8:35 a.m. (picture evidence obtained). Further review of Resident #11's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg give 1 tablet by mouth three times daily as needed revealed the 2nd to last documented administration was on 2/12/23 at 9:30 p.m. (picture evidence obtained). Review of Resident #11's Administration History in the electronic MAR was conducted with Staff G, LPN for the hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg which revealed the second to last administered dose was on 2/11/2023 at 6:26 a.m. and there was no medication administration documentation for 2/12/23 at 9:30 p.m. (picture evidence obtained). Staff G, LPN stated confirmed the inventory sheet and the electronic MAR did not match and they should. The facility provided a printed copy of Resident #11's MAR after the medication reconciliation observation was conducted. Review of the MAR revealed on 2/12/23 at 9:30 p.m. Staff G, LPN documented hydrocodone-acetaminophen 5-325 mg was administered on 2/12/23 at 9:30 p.m. which indicated she back dated another narcotic medication administration. 4. Further narcotic reconciliation observation was made on 2/13/23 at 11:09 a.m. with Staff G, LPN of Resident #10's medication blister pack of oxycodone HCL 5 mg 1 capsule by mouth every 4 hours as needed. Upon review of the blister pack Staff G, LPN, again, was observed to document the administration of the medication in the electronic MAR. She indicated her documentation must not have saved when she administered the medication because they have been having issues with the computer not saving the documentation, so she is going to back date the time the medication was given. Review of Resident#10's Administration History in the electronic MAR was conducted with Staff G, LPN and revealed the last dose of oxycodone HCL 5 mg every 4 hours as needed had an effective date of 2/13/2023 at 9:10 a.m. administered by Staff G, LPN and the documented date and time revealed 2/13/23 at 11:09 a.m. (photographic evidence obtained). Review of Resident #10's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet for oxycodone HCL 5 mg 1 capsule by mouth every 4 hours as needed was documented as last administered on 2/13/23 at 9:10 a.m. Further review of Resident #10's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet for oxycodone HCL 5 mg revealed the medication was signed out and administered by a nurse on 2/12/23 at 2:00 p.m. (picture evidence obtained). Review of Resident#10's February MAR revealed oxycodone HCL oral tablet 5 mg was not documented as administered on 2/12/23 at 2:00 p.m. On 2/12/23 the medication was signed off as administered at 6:00 a.m. and 12:12 p.m. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/13/23 at 3:20 p.m. she stated .The nurse is supposed to go to the EMAR [electronic MAR] to see if the meds are able to be given. Then the meds are reconciled with the narc sheets [Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet]. If they take the medication out of the narcotic box they are supposed to sign it out on the narc sheet. If the resident refuses the medication, then the nurse has to waste it and that is also marked on the narc sheet. But if the medication is administered then that should be documented on the narc sheet that the medication was removed and then documented on the electronic MAR that the medication was administered, and the documentation date and times should match up. They should look at both the narc sheet and the EMAR when they administer narcotics. I was not aware there was an issue with signing out narcotic medications. I would have to look at that. I know we had a problem with the system saving the documentation. Review of Resident #8, #9, #10, and #11's Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheets all revealed For every dose of a drug listed under the Controlled Substances Act, the information required below must be given in full. The information must be filled in at the time the drug is administered and not at some future date. Failure to do so is punishable under the law by fine or imprisonment or both. Ink or in delegable pencil must be used. Review of the facility's Medications Administration General Guidelines policy dated 09/18 revealed 7.1 General Guidelines Policy Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with manufacturers' specifications, good nursing principles and practices and only by persons legally authorized to do so. Personnel authorized to administer medications do so only after they have familiarized themselves with the medication. . Documentation: 1. The individual who administers the medication dose, records the administration on the resident's MAR immediately following the medication being given. In no case should the individual who administered the medications report off duty without first recording the administration of any medications. .5. When PRN medications are administered, the following documentation is provided: a. Date and time of administration, dose, route of administration (if other than oral), and, if applicable, the injection site. b. Complaints or symptoms for which the medication was given. c. Results achieved from giving the dose and the time results were noted. d. Signatures or initials of person recording administration and signature or initials of person recording effects
Jul 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. During an observation on 07/18/22 at 9:53 a.m., Resident #100 took a liquid medication that had been sitting on his over bed table. He said the medication had been there since this morning. Photogr...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. During an observation on 07/18/22 at 9:53 a.m., Resident #100 took a liquid medication that had been sitting on his over bed table. He said the medication had been there since this morning. Photographic evidence was obtained. An observation was made on 07/20/22 8:55 a.m. of a cup of liquid medication on Resident #100 bedside table. Resident #100 stated the medication was there since 8:30 a.m. Observed Resident #100 take the medication left on the table. During an interview with Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), on 07/20/22 at 9:57 a.m. she stated she was not sure what was given to him this morning. An observation was made on 07/20/22 at 10:11 a.m. of Staff E, LPN/Unit Manager, looking at the empty medication cup found on Resident #100 bedside table. Observed Staff E swirl the remainder of the dark yellow liquid in the cup and sniff the cup. He stated he was not sure what was given to Resident #100. He noted he will find out what it was. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Regional Nurse on 07/20/22 at 11:10 a.m. stating they are not sure what the medication was and when it was given to him. Stating it could have been given to Resident #100 last night or that morning but cannot confirm. They stated they will be investigating and conducting interviews with the nurses. An interview was conducted with the DON on 07/20/22 at 11:28 a.m. stating the liquid in the cup was Nystatin. She confirmed there is not an order for Resident #100 to self-administer the medication. Observation revealed the DON holding a medication cup with the same dark yellow liquid found in Resident #100 room. She noted it was magic wash, which was a mixture that contained Nystatin. An interview was conducted with the DON on 07/20/22 at 2:02 p.m. She said she went into Resident #100 room and spoke with him and asked him if he took the medication this morning. He confirmed he took his medication from the nurse at 6:30 a.m. He stated the medication left on the bedside table was from yesterday and stated he swished some of the medication and left some to take later. The DON stated the nurse on the shift stated she saw Resident #100 swish the medication and left. The DON stated she told the nurse she did not complete the medication administration. Review of Resident #100 orders revealed an order dated 07/19/22 for Magic Mouthwash 1:1 20 cc (cubic centimeters) PO (by mouth) swish and swallow for every 8 hours for mouth pain for 10 days. There was no order allowing the resident to self administer the medication. Review of the Care Plan revealed a focus area dated 07/18/22 of Resident #100 having a potential for actual oral/dental problem related to thrush. The goal stated the resident would comply with mouth care at least daily (07/18/22) .The interventions included assist/complete oral care with routine morning personal hygiene and as needed (07/18/22) .and medicate for oral condition as ordered (07/18/22) . Review of the admission Data Collection for dates of 03/25/20 and 03/23/22 revealed in Section R. Medication: Resident #100 did not wish to self-administer medications. Review of the Medication Administration General Guidelines revealed under Medication Administration: 1. Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber .15. Residents are allowed to self-administer medications when specifically authorized by the prescriber, the nursing care center's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), and in accordance with procedures for self-administration of medications and state regulations .20. The resident is always observed after administration to ensure that the dose was completely ingested . Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to store medications in accordance with State and Federal laws in three of four medication carts (100, 200 and 300 Halls), and for one (Resident #100) of one resident. Findings included: 1. A facility provided policy titled 4.1 Storage of Medications, dated 09/18, Page 01 of 02 under Policy revealed Medications and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective drug administration. The medications supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medication. PROCEDURES: Medications are to remain in these containers and stored in a controlled environment. On 07/20/2022 at 4:00 p.m., an observation of the 100 Hall medication cart included six loose pills. Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) confirmed the presence of an unsecured pink tablet in the third drawer, one large orange capsule in the fourth draw, and in the fifth draw two white oval tablets, one small round orange table and a yellow oval tablet. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) On 07/20/2022 at 4:25 p.m., an observation of the medication cart on 200 Hall included two loose tablets in the fourth drawer from the top of the medication cart. Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN), confirmed the presence of the unsecured tablets. On 07/20/2022 at 5:25 p.m., an observation of the medication cart located on the 300 Hall included one loose pink tablet in the third draw from the top of the medication cart. Staff C, (LPN) confirmed the presence of the unsecured tablet. On 07/20/2022 at 5:45 p.m., an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. She was informed of all the observations made and indicated staff informed her of unsecured tablets in the medication carts. She stated, I expect each nurse to check their medication carts every shift, so no loose medications are in them. The DON further indicated that the facility would do audits daily to check that no unsecured pills were in the medication carts.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation of the dietary staff washing dishes, interview with dietary staff, and review of facility documents, the facility failed to ensure that the dish machine was maintaining wash and r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of the dietary staff washing dishes, interview with dietary staff, and review of facility documents, the facility failed to ensure that the dish machine was maintaining wash and rinse water temperatures according to the manufacturer's guidelines, and failed to document temperatures during each meal period, which could potentially cause the use of unclean dishes in the meal service. Findings included: On 07/18/2022 at 10:20 a.m., two dietary staff were observed washing breakfast dishes by running racks of dirty dishes through the dish machine. Staff I, Dietary Aide, reported when asked, that the wash temperature of the dish machine must be 140 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and the rinse water temperature must be 180 degrees F when washing dishes. The thermometers were registering 140 degrees F for the wash water and 180 degrees F for the rinse temperature during the interview. The face of the thermometer dials had the required temperatures on a sticker attached to the glass of the dial. The thermometer for the wash temperature indicated the wash water must reach 160 degrees F to be in compliance with the manufacturer's guidelines. The face plate attached to the dish machine indicated the wash temperature must be at a minimum of 160 degrees F and the rinse water must be a minimum of 180 degrees F. The dietary aide ran several empty racks through the dish machine in an attempt to get the wash water up to 160 degrees F but it did not increase to the minimum required to wash the dishes. Staff J reported they would stop washing the dishes and have the Manager call the company. A review of the Dish Machine Log where staff documented wash and rinse temperatures revealed the temperatures were not documented according to the guidelines on the log: record temperatures once during each meal period. Most entries on the log were for one meal on each day from 07/03 to 07/17/2022. The log included 20 entries for July (07/01 to 07/17/22) when there should have been fifty-one entries (three entries for each day). The log revealed five entries which documented the wash water was under 160 degrees F: (07/02, 07/13, 07/17 at breakfast; 07/15 and 07/16 at lunch). There were twelve entries documenting the rinse water was under 180 degrees F: (7/2 and 7/13 for breakfast and lunch; 7/1 for breakfast and dinner; 7/5, 7/7, 7/10, 7/15 for lunch; 7/6 and 7/17 for breakfast). An interview conducted with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) on 07/18/2022 beginning at 2:00 p.m., revealed a repair man had arrived to check the dish machine and he confirmed that the wash water was not reaching the required 160 degrees F because the machine was still in de-lime mode. The CDM reported that the dietary staff had de-limed the machine over the weekend and forgot to switch it back to regular mode which made the machine run at a lower temperature. The repair man's Regular Service Call report was reviewed and noted to have documented the concern with the water not heating to the required temperature based on remaining in the delime mode. The CDM in an interview conducted on 07/21/2022 beginning at 11:30 a.m. could not explain why dietary staff had not alerted him to the temperatures that were not meeting the required temperatures. He reported that he would have to train all staff and monitor the logs closer.
Mar 2021 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions, including adequate supervisi...

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 implement interventions, including adequate supervision, consistent with the resident's needs, goals, and care plan in order to eliminate or reduce the risk of accidents and injuries for one (Resident #44) of five residents sampled for accidents. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility in September of 2020 with a diagnosis of repeated falls. Resident #44 sustained five falls since admission between 10/8/20 and 2/27/21 with no documented evidence of analysis of hazards and risks to prevent further accidents. Resident #44 was placed on 15 minute checks on 1/20/21 with no documentation of safety checks maintained. On 3/10/2021 scans revealed Resident #44 had bilateral fractures in the hip area thought to be associated with the fall on 2/27/21. Observations and interviews with staff during the survey revealed staff continued to be unaware of Resident #44's hip fractures and interventions to prevent further injuries from occurring. Findings included: During a tour of the facility conducted on 3/15/2021 at approximately 10:00 a.m., Resident #44 was observed in her room, in bed, awake, and responsive. The resident's bed was in the high position and a floor mat was on the left side of the resident's bed. On 3/16/2021 at 3:24 p.m., Resident #44 was observed in the dining room sitting up in a geri-chair wearing rubber soled shoes. A review of the Facility's Incident Log from 10/1/2020 through 3/16/2021 indicated Resident #44 fell on [DATE], 12/17/2020, 1/2/2021, 1/16/2021, and 2/27/2021. A review of Resident #44's record was conducted. Resident # 44 was admitted in the facility on 9/2/2020 with diagnoses that included repeated falls. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated 9/8/2020 indicated a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status), an evaluation of cognition, score of 7 (0-7 severe cognitive impairment). The assessment also indicated the following: - supervision for eating -one person limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers and dressing -one person extensive assistance with toilet use and personal hygiene -dependent on one staff for bathing -no functional limitation or impairment in both upper and lower extremity range of motion Review of Resident #44's progress notes indicated: 3/10/2021, Resident returned from (name of hospital) via stretcher resident had CT (Computerized Tomography) scans showing bilateral fractures of symphysis pubis (joint between the left and right pubis of the hip bones, located in front of and below the urinary bladder) on the left extending to the anterior aspect of the acetabulum on the right and fracture of the left inferior pubic ramus (bones). Resident is no weight bearing on the LLE (left lower extremity) and may toe touch weight bear as tolerated on the RLE (right lower extremity) . There was no other documentation in the resident's record addressing the change in Resident #44's weight bearing status. There was no documentary evidence in the physician's orders or Resident #44's care plans addressing the resident's hip fractures and new weight bearing status. 3/2/2021, Resident is wincing in pain and moaning when rolling from side to side, when asked where her pain was she motioned towards her left leg .new orders for pelvis, left hip and left femur x-rays. 2/27/2021, Writer came out into hallway from another room and Resident was in hallway lying on right side directly in front of wheelchair. head to toe assessment completed. No injuries observed. Right side forehead with pink/red, dime sized non raised area. AROM (active range of motion) WNL's (within normal level) to BUE/BLE's (bilateral upper extremity/bilateral lower extremity). resident with no expressions of pain or discomfort. Denies pain .Shoes only half on with heels hanging out backside of shoes . 1/16/2021, .CNA (certified nurse assistant) pushing resident in wheelchair. While in motion resident attempted to stand up by placing feet to floor .she fell forward on face front height of chair to floor .large hematoma covering left side of forehead and eyebrow .EMS called . Review of Resident #44's fall care plan indicated: 9/2/2020, The resident is at risk for falls or fall related injury because of history of falls, Goal: Will minimize the risk for fall. -initiated 2/27/2021, Resident to wear non-skid socks at all times. -initiated 1/20/2021, q (every) 15 min safety checks -initiated 9/9/2020. Ensure Non-Skid socks/shoes in place at all times Review of other care plans initiated for of Resident #44 indicated: -2/8/2021, CANCELED:TRANSFER -- decline in ability -2/8/2021, CANCELED:DRESSING & GROOMING -- decline in ability On 3/16/2021 at 3:30 p.m., the Unit Manager (UM) was interviewed regarding Resident #44's fall incidents. The UM stated, All the other Unit Managers are all gone .were suppose to have three, now it's only me, the education person is also gone the DON has been working on the floor too . The UM stated, We have had to work the floor because we have insufficient staff. The UM stated As unit manager my responsibility is auditing orders for medication, new treatments, follow up on labs, x-ray .there's no oversight because we have been working the floor. On 3/16/2021 at 4:37 p.m., the MDS Nurse was interviewed. The MDS nurse stated she complete a significant change in status MDS on 2/2/2021 for Resident #44 because She had so many falls .with all of her falls her functional status has really declined including her cognition. On 3/16/21 at 5:12 p.m. Resident #44's record was reviewed with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated fall risk was assessed on admission and reassessed by the Interdisciplinary Team after fall incidents and then the care plan was updated. The DON reviewed Resident #44's fall incidents: -10/8/2020 - witnessed, slipped from her wheelchair and fell backwards, hit her head -12/17/2020 - unwitnessed fall, complained of left wrist pain -1/2/2021 - unwitnessed, found sitting on the floor in the dining room, bump on left side of the head -1/16/2021 - witnessed, attempted to stand up while being wheeled by CNA, subdural hematoma -2/27/2021 - found in the hallway lying on her right side Review of the IDT notes provided by the DON indicated the following: -10/9/2020, IDT review of fall 10/8. Resident fell in her room. Psych services to assess resident and medication review sent to pharmacy. -12/22/2020, IDT review of fall on 12/17. resident reported fall in the night, unwitnessed. Reports pain in her thumb .Medication review sent over to pharmacy. -1/6/2021, IDT review of fall on 1/2. Labs UA (urinalysis) to r/o (rule out) medical concerns for fall. -3/1/2021, IDT review of fall on 2/27. Resident not wearing shoes correctly. the back of her heels were hanging out of her shoes. resident states she doesn't know what happened. She states she was tired .Labs and UA obtained .UA still pending -There was no documentary evidence in Resident #44's record of the IDT evaluation and analysis of hazards and risks to prevent further accidents. - There was no documentary evidence in Resident #44's record of implementation, monitoring for effectiveness and modification of interventions from the IDT. During the 3/16/21 5:12 p.m. record review and interview with the DON, she indicated that there was no documented evidence in the resident's record addressing the cause of Resident #44's recent fractures and, there was no documented evidence the resident's treatment and care plans were updated to reflect the recent fractures and new weight bearing status. The DON stated they surmised the fractures were related to the resident's fall incident on 2/27/2021. The DON also confirmed there was no documentary evidence to indicate that the every 15 minutes safety checks were conducted for Resident #44. On 3/16/2021 at 6:06 p.m., Staff F was interviewed. Staff F was the CNA assigned to the resident. Staff F stated she was an agency nurse and this was first time she was assigned to Resident #44. Staff F stated she did not know about the resident's fracture and weight bearing status. Staff F stated, Usually around this time there are only agency nurses .I just try to figure it out .I only look at the shower book . On 3/16/2021 at 6:17 p.m. Staff G was interviewed. Staff G was the nurse assigned to the resident. Staff G stated the CNA would not know about the resident's fracture and weight bearing status because It's not there (in the [NAME]) there is no instructions for transfers. On 3/17/2021 at 4:04 p.m., the significant change in status MDS dated [DATE] was reviewed with the MDS nurse. The MDS nurse stated Resident #44's functional status has declined as evidenced by the following assessed changes: -Cognition BIMS from 7 to 2 -Eating from supervision with one person assist to limited assistance with two persons assisting -One person limited assistance with bed mobility, transfers and dressing to extensive assistance with two person assist -One person extensive assistance with toilet use and personal hygiene to extensive assistance with two person assist -Bathing from total dependence one person assist to dependence with two persons assist -Balance During Transition and Walking from not steady able to stabilize with staff assistance to activity did not occur, stated the resident was not able to perform the task anymore -Functional limitation in Upper Extremity Range of Motion from no limitation to impairment on one side Review of the hospital Emergency Department Documents for Resident #44 dated 3/10/2021 indicated: -History of Present Illness: Hip Injury-Pain. The patient presents with bilateral hip pain. The onset was one week ago . -Diagnosis: Mechanical Fall, Acute closed bilateral pubic rami fractures with extension into the left acetabulum. -Plan: .non weight bearing on the left lower extremity. May toe touch weight bear as tolerated on the right lower extremity . On 3/30/2021 at 3:56 p.m., a telephone interview was conducted with Advance Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) who was following Resident #44. The APRN stated he was not informed of the resident's status upon returning from the hospital to the facility on 3/10/2021. The APRN stated the multiple falls the resident has had in the facility contributed to her significant functional and cognitive decline. Review of the facility policy and procedure, Fall and Injury Reduction Policy, effective February 2021 indicated The facility strives to reduce the risk for falls and injuries by promoting the implementation of the Falls and Injury Reduction Policy. Resident data is collected to identify fall risk factors. The interdisciplinary team works with the resident and family to identify and implement appropriate interventions to reduce the risk for falls or injuries while maximizing dignity and independence .4. Implement plan of care based on individual needs. 5. Communicate interventions during shift report, daily clinical rounds and/or entry on electronic care communication tool to the care giving team. 6. Provide training to staff as needed. 7. Review and revise the plan of care as needed to reflect the resident's current needs .
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility documents and the resident's medical and hospital records, interview with the facility staff, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on a review of facility documents and the resident's medical and hospital records, interview with the facility staff, and observation of the resident's room, it was determined that the facility failed to ensure all injuries of unknown origin were investigated timely, for one resident (#144) of a total sample of 43 residents. Findings included: Resident #144 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease and unspecified Dementia with behavioral disturbance. The resident lived on the secured unit at the facility which was addressed in his care plan initiated at admission, 03/06/2020. The care plan's focus was resident is at risk for elopement related to dementia, poor safety awareness and is independently ambulatory. A review of the progress notes located in the resident's medical record revealed on 02/19/2021 at 6:35 a.m., the nursing aide was doing last rounds she noticed a scratch on resident's left eye, writer had given him his meds at 5 am and resident was seen pushing over the bed table around his room. writer took it away and assisted resident back to bed. there was no scratch seen at that time, unit manager was notified, care giver and PCP (primary care practitioner). The next progress note, a Change in Condition report, was written by the Unit Manager on 02/19/2021 at 11:37 a.m. The Situation was: change in skin color or condition. Vital signs were included in the note: Blood Pressure on 1/22/2021 (sic) at 15:12 (3:12 p.m.) was 118/66. The pulse and resting rate were dated 02/10/2021 at 11:20 a.m.; the temperature and pulse oximetry were from 2/18/2021 at 7:04 a.m. Under the section Outcomes of Physical Assessment, the resident was documented as having pain. Nursing Observations were documented as patient has bruising to L (left) eye with slight swelling, patient grimace with change in position from lying to sitting, bed side table noted over patient in position of eye, new task to remove bedside table from resident's bedside while asleep, neuro checks in place, and new order to monitor site for s/s (signs and symptoms) of any changes. The new Intervention orders were for remove bedside table while resident is in bed sleeping. The next note, written on 02/21/2021 at 12:00 p.m. was a Hospital Transfer Evaluation Summary. Vital signs had been obtained and were documented on 2/21/2021 between 11:20 a.m. and 12:52 p.m. The resident's Most Recent Pain Level was documented from 8/17/2020 at 5:12 a.m. (sic). There was no reason given for the hospital transfer. The next progress note was dated 2/21/2021 and written at 13:11 (1:11 p.m.). The note documented, Clarification of failure to thrive. resident was alert with eye opening, verbal. was able to respond appropriately, stated his name. Patient was drowsy but able to take medication and took fluids without difficulty. Usually patient up and about in room and hallway. Enjoys eating and attention from staff. Resident not able to get up of bed (sic) and declined breakfast, poor appetite. The resident was transported to the hospital by emergency services on 02/21/21 at 13:11 with the reason documented as patient has failure to thrive x 2 days. A second Change in Condition report was documented on 2/21/2021 at 13:30 (1:30 p.m.) for altered mental status, food and/or fluid intake (decreased or unable to eat and/or drink adequate amounts.) Vital signs were current for the documentation. The Outcomes of the Physical Assessment were documented as altered level of consciousness (hyperalert, drowsy but easily aroused, difficult to arouse), increased confusion. General weakness, decreased mobility, decreased appetite/fluid intake. Nursing observations, evaluation and recommendations were: Observed abnormal behavior with patient remaining in bed and refusing to eat. Unable to verbalize how he feels. A progress note dated 2/22/2021 at 12:16 a.m. read, called out to (hospital) for admission diagnosis, subdural hemorrhage facial fx (fracture) and UTI (urinary tract infection). The hospital History and Physical dated 02/25/2021 was reviewed. Under History of Physical Illness, the resident was described as a very pleasant [AGE] year old who was sent to the emergency room (ER) after having worsening lethargy and weakness. According to the rehab, the patient hit the bedside table on Friday and developed left peri-orbital bruising. Otherwise there is no history of trauma or falls. patient was found to have chronic appearing subdural hematomas and he was admitted with chronic subdural hematomas. The patient was still lethargic and hypernatremia, the nasal - gastric tube was placed for hydration and nutrition. the family was consulted, and the decision is to transfer the patient with CMO (comfort measures only) to Hospice care. A CT (Computerized Tomography) scan of the head without contrast was performed on 02/21/2021 at 14:46 (2:46 p.m.) which showed mildly displaced fracture anterior wall left maxillary sinus as well as posterior wall left maxillary sinus extending to the orbital floor nondisplaced fracture of the left zygomatic arch as well. The resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hospice admission, senile dementia. The resident's level of consciousness was noted as lethargic with orientation to None of the above. The reason for the admission was, end of life care. On 03/09/2021 at 11:12 a.m., a weekly wound note documented, resident's area of discoloration to left peri-orbital area continues with improvement; area is diffuse, fading, intact, green/yellow/purple in color, sclera clear, pupils equal and reactive, no drainage observed. Resident's area to sacrum clarified as sacrococcygeal / bilateral inner buttocks, area is intact, deep purple, non-blanchable, no drainage, no odor, no s/s of infection; surround tissue to area is pink/red, intact and blanchable. Hospital notified for specialty mattress to be delivered. Resident with no expressions of pain or discomfort. Continue with current treatment. On 03/12/2021 at 5:35 a.m. the Progress Note read, at approximately 0510 resident expired. An interview was conducted on 03/18/2021 beginning at 10:28 a.m. with the Corporate Traveler Risk Manager (RM) and the Director of Nurses (DON) about the incident on Friday, 02/19/21 concerning Resident #144. The RM discussed what he remembered from the investigation - the aide had entered the resident's room about 6:00 a.m. and noted a scratch on the inner aspect of his nose and left eye. The aide reported she saw some blood on the pillowcase. She told the nurse who came in and provided first aid to the resident. He said the nurse called the doctor and received no new orders except to monitor. She completed an event report which he reported would not be kept in the resident's medical record. He reported that as the weekend progressed, the area began to discolor and by Sunday the resident was eating poorly, and he was lethargic. The physician was notified, and he ordered the transfer to the ER on [DATE]. He reported at that point they began their investigation into an injury of unknown origin. (Review of the Immediate Report submitted to the state agency revealed a date and time of the incident as 02/21/2021 at 6:00 p.m. with additional comments on the report dated 02/22/2021.) He confirmed that the ER notified the facility of the facial fracture of the left orbit and two small chronic subdural hematomas which was documented by the nurse on 02/22/2021 at 12:16 a.m. In a second interview with the Traveler Risk Manager, on 03/18/2021 beginning at 3:51 p.m., it was confirmed that there had not been an earlier immediate report as the facility didn't feel the incident met the criteria for an injury of unknown origin. The RM reported that the injury had been viewed as possibly the resident's nails were too long and he needed nail care. The DON reported during that interview that on Monday, 02/22/21 interviews with the staff and a review of the resident's environment occurred. Also training on preventing neglect and event reporting began on 02/22/2021. An interview was conducted with Staff U, Registered Nurse (RN), Unit Manager (UM), on 03/15/2021 beginning at 12:30 p.m. She reported that the resident was observed in the morning with a scratch above his left eyebrow which got worse and the X-ray showed bilateral hematomas. She reported that Resident #144 wasn't at risk for falls as he ambulated independently. During an observation of the resident's room with the Unit Manager, she commented that the beds were further apart from each other, which meant Resident #144's bed was closer to the window. Across the bottom of the window was a tiled windowsill approximately two feet from the floor. She confirmed that she never heard what the final decision was, as to how the injury had occurred, but when she saw the resident on the Monday (02/22/2021) the whole eye was black and blue. An interview was conducted with Staff T, Registered Nurse (RN) on 03/18/2021 beginning at 1:40 p.m. She reported that she worked that Saturday, 02/20/2021 although she didn't usually work weekends. She reported that the resident's eye and area around it was black and blue. She reported that the resident was not his usual self, but no one had reported what had happened. She said she watched him all shift, and then when she worked on Sunday, he wasn't much better. She said she decided to call the doctor then and have him sent out. She commented that any time there was a mark on a resident, and no one saw it happen, it was an injury of unknown origin and a report and investigation must be conducted immediately. She commented that there had been a change in condition completed at 11:30 a.m. which was four hours after the incident. An interview was conducted with Staff Q, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 03/17/2021 at 8:23 a.m. He reported that his usual assignment was on the secured unit and the day shift. He confirmed he knew Resident #144 well. He reported that he came in one morning to work and saw that the resident had a cut across his forehead. He reported that the night shift had not said anything about the cut or what had happened. He said he commented to the other aide that was working and she confirmed that she had heard nothing about the incident. He reported that the resident was ambulatory and could be seen walking around the unit exercising his arms by rolling them in front of his chest and reaching up to the ceiling. He described the resident as being a good sleeper and a good eater. An interview was conducted with Staff R, CNA on 03/18/21 beginning at 1:55 p.m. She reported that she remembered coming into work and meeting up with the usual aides on the unit. She reported that one of the aides called to her to come look at Resident #144's eye. She hadn't heard anything from the prior shift about the resident's eye. She said she wasn't sure what had happened, but the area around the eye was black and blue. She confirmed that the staff that worked on the prior Friday, Saturday and Sunday were not the usual staff who knew the residents. She reported that no staff were 'owning up' to anything. When asked if she had been told what new intervention was added, to prevent a similar incident from occurring again, she said no, she had heard of nothing new. An interview was conducted with Staff S, CNA on 03/18/2021 beginning at 3:50 p.m. He confirmed he worked the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift consistently and knew the residents on the secured unit well. He confirmed he had worked until 11:00 p.m. the night before (referring to 02/18/2021) and there was nothing wrong with Resident #144's eye. Then when he came in the next afternoon, the resident had a big black eye. He confirmed he had not been told anything about the injury and had not been told of any new intervention to prevent the injury from occurring again. A review was conducted of the facility's policy on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment of Resident/Patient, or Misappropriation of Resident/Patient Property, effective date 2012, which revealed no reference to investigating injuries of unknown origin. A second policy was provided which reviewed event reporting for any occurrence outside the routine operational expectation of the facility. This policy included investigating an injury of unknown origin, including bruising. A definition of an injury of unknown source/origin was provided: source (cause) of injury cannot be explained by resident and was not witnessed/ observed when it occurred. AND the location of the injury is suspicious because of the extent of the injury or the number of injuries observed at one time, or the incident of injuries over time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess to accurately reflect the resident's status and document discoloration of skin for two (Residents #76 and #245) of thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to assess to accurately reflect the resident's status and document discoloration of skin for two (Residents #76 and #245) of three residents observed. Findings Included: 1. Observation of Resident #76 on 3/15/21 at 9:57 a.m. revealed the resident lying in bed with a purple colored rectangular area to the left center of forearm and right hand. Resident #76 stated she had no idea where she got the marks and called them bruises. She stated her memory was not great but was happy they did not hurt. Observation on 3/16/21 at 12:59 p.m. revealed a rectangular left forearm discoloration and a right hand purple discoloration. Resident #76 was unsure how she obtained the marks. During a interview with Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on 3/16/21 at 4:21 p.m., she stated the residents' skin evaluations were completed on admission and weekly. She stated she had not noticed any bruising or discoloration on the resident and would check during medication administration. Staff O confirmed the discolored areas and said she would notify the manager, doctor and Power of Attorney (POA) of the bruising. An interview on 3/17/21 at 3:02 p.m. with Staff O revealed that the resident had a lab draw on 3/11/21. Staff O said, since the resident could not remember how she got the bruises, she [Staff O] completed her part and turned in the documents for management to investigate. She said the resident toilets herself and could have hit the door. Review of nursing progress notes revealed on 3/16/21 at 10:34 p.m., the patient was noted with a bruise to the left forearm and the right hand. Patient also noted with red bump like area on the right upper buttock, and a dark scab crust like area between the 4th and 5th digit. No new orders were given and staff would continue to monitor. Review of the skin check weekly dated 2/23/21 revealed no new areas of skin impairment. Review of the skin check weekly dated 3/2/21 revealed no new areas of skin impairment. Review of the skin check weekly dated 3/9/21 revealed no new areas of skin impairment. Review of the skin check weekly dated 3/16/21 revealed new areas of skin impairment found on the right hand, back of hand, bruising and Left forearm bruising. Review of the care plan revealed the resident with skin integrity: bruising to left forearm and right back of hand dated 3/18/21. Interventions to observe bruising to ensure areas do not open initiated on 3/18/21. Review of the skin grid for all other skin problems dated 3/17/21 revealed right hand yellow wound bed measuring 4 cm x 4.5 cm x 0 intact. Review of the skin grid for all other skin problems dated 3/17/21 revealed left forearm yellow wound bed measuring 5 cm x 4 cm x 0 intact. An interview on 3/18/21 at 12:56 p.m. with Staff P, RN revealed the nurse should have measured and documented the bruises and marks on the resident. Staff P confirmed the resident was able to tell him that she had no idea how she got the bruises but stated she was happy with staff. Staff P confirmed the resident had a Brief interview of Mental Status (BIMS) of 8 to indicate moderate cognitive impairment. Staff P confirmed he was happy with her response although she could not remember, since the bruises were not in any of the abuse hot spots, he confirmed he did not further investigate the marks. 2. Observation and interview on 3/15/21 at 4:32 p.m. revealed Resident #245 lying in bed without a shirt. The resident was observed with a large yellow to purple area on his abdomen about the size of a dessert plate. The resident stated he did not know how he got it but most likely happened when he fell out of bed and stated it did not hurt. On 3/16/21 at 8:46 a.m., an observation of the resident lying in bed without a shirt revealed a large yellowish purple discoloration around the size of a dessert plate. During an interview on 3/17/21 at 3:00 p.m. with Staff O, LPN, she confirmed she completed a skin assessment on the resident and stated he did have a bruise in varying stages from yellow-green to purple in color and asked the resident why he did not say anything. She said the resident told her it was from his fall and did not see it. Staff O confirmed it had been there for a while and should have been documented. Review of the progress notes dated 3/7/21 at 11:50 p.m. revealed the resident was found on his knees trying to get back in bed. Bed was in low position. Resident stated he was sleeping and rolled out of bed. No complaint of pain. Review of the progress notes dated 3/10/21 at midnight revealed a skin check was completed and no redness, swelling, bruising or other concern noted. Review of the progress notes dated 3/16/21 at 10:22 p.m. revealed a skin check was completed and a bruise to the left abdomen was observed. The resident stated it was from a previous fall. Review of the 3/11/21 weekly skin check revealed no new areas of skin impairment. Review of the 3/16/21 weekly skin check revealed new areas of skin impairment on left iliac crest (front) bruising. Review of the skin grid for all other skin problems dated 3/17/21 revealed abdomen (left) green in color measuring 18 cm x 25 cm x 0. Review of the resident's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score dated 3/6/21 revealed a score of 15 to indicate his cognition was intact. Review of the care plan, initiated on 3/18/21, revealed a focus area of skin integrity risk as the resident has actual impairment to skin integrity related to bruises to left lateral abdomen. Interventions to observe for signs and symptoms swelling, discoloration or pain initiated on 3/18/21. During an interview on 3/17/21 at 4:56 p.m. with the Nursing Home Administrator, she stated her expectation was for staff to document any bruising on a resident and if the resident could not remember how they got the bruise an investigation would be started. An interview on 3/18/21 at 12:58 p.m. with Staff P, RN revealed the nurse should have measured the bruises. Staff P confirmed the resident was able to tell him that he had a fall and that must have been where the bruise came from. Staff P confirmed the resident was alert and oriented so he did not investigate further. Review of the policy and procedure effective 2/21, two pages, revealed: The weekly and as needed skin check is used to document skin condition throughout the resident stay in the facility. If a new area of impairment is identified during or between scheduled checks, it should be documented on the weekly and as needed skin check and the appropriate skin grid initiated depending on the cause.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in a...

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 that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice as evidence by 1. Failure to ensure a wound vac (vacuum assisted closure) was on and in working order for one (Resident #66) of three residents with wound vacs and 2. Failure to follow up on the Registered Dietitian's (RD) recommendations for one (Resident #145) of one resident reviewed. 1 -An observation of Resident #66 was conducted on 3/15/21 at 11:11 a.m. She was lying in bed, dressed, and a wound vac was observed on the left side of resident's bed. Resident #66 stated, My wound vac has not been working all morning, and I have been calling for assistance and no one has responded to assist in reconnecting or fixing the wound vac. Observation of the resident at that time, revealed a clear transparent dressing to Resident #66's right knee with tubing attached. The tubing attached to the knee dressing was not connected to the wound vac. An interview was conducted with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Staff C, on 03/15/21 at 11:15 a.m. Staff C stated that she had told the charge nurse that Resident #66's wound vac was not working, or needed to be connected, but the nurse has not yet respond. An interview was conducted with the Charge Nurse, License Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff A, on 3/15/21 at 11:20 a.m. Staff A confirmed that the wound vac was disconnected and stated that it was disconnected by another staff when Resident #66 was assisted to the bath room. Staff A stated, I will connect the wound vac when I do treatment later today. She then exited the room. Record review of Resident #66 medical records revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Aftercare following joint replacement surgery, presence of right artificial knee joint, spinal stenosis, lumbar region without neurogenic claudication, arthrodesis status, and multiple fracture of pelvis without disruption of pelvic ring. Review of her Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], section C revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 15, which indicated she had no cognitive impairment. Review of physician's orders dated 2/11/21 revealed an order for wound vac dressing changed three times per week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday to right lower extremity (RLE), .attach wound vac at wound site, cover with transparent dressing. Check placement, seal, and vac setting every shift. Review of Resident #66 care plan dated 2/11/21, revealed she had actual skin impairment related to a surgical wound to top of right knee. Intervention included: Notify physician of new/increase discoloration, pain, regime/intervention not effective. Follow facility protocol for treatment. During a follow observation on 3/18/21 at 12:00 p.m., the wound vac was observed on bedside table. In an interview with Resident #66, she stated that the wound vac was beeping, and no one came in to tend to it. On 3/18/21 at 12:05 p.m., during an interview with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse, (LPN), she went into Resident #66's room and asked permission to check her wound vac and tubing. Staff B confirmed that the wound vac was not working or functioning. She stated that the secretions or drainage should have been observed in a moving motion in the tubing. Staff B stated that she was not too familiar with fixing the wound vac, but she would get someone who was able to. An interview was conducted with the DON (Director of Nurses) on 3/18/21 at 1:42 p.m. During the interview the DON went to Resident #66's room and examined the wound vac. She confirmed that the wound vac was not functioning and stated that she would get a nurse to fix it. In a follow up interview with the DON, on 03/18/21 at 4:00 p.m, a policy and procedure (P&P) related to use of the wound vac and treatment were requested. Later that day at approximately 5:00 p.m., the DON returned to say that there was not a P&P on the use of a wound vac. 2 - On 3/17/2021 Resident #145's record was reviewed. Resident #145 was admitted in the facility on 5/11/2016. Resident # 145 was transferred to the acute hospital on 2/23/2021 for a critical high BUN (Blood Urea Nitrogen - laboratory test for kidney function) of 109 mg/dL (normal level is 7 to 25 mg/dL) and dehydration. Further review of Resident #145's record indicated a comprehensive nutritional evaluation conducted by the facility Registered Dietitian (RD) dated 1/13/2021. The evaluation indicated .17.5% weight loss in 90 days, 16.1 loss in 180 days .67 Y/O female. Has had weight loss .Also recommending BMP labs (basic metabolic panel group of eight tests including BUN that provides information on blood sugar level, the balance of electrolytes and fluids, and the health of the kidneys). There was no documented evidence in the resident's record that the recommended BMP laboratory tests were obtained. On 3/17/2021 at 2:21 p.m., Resident #145's record was reviewed with the RD. The RD stated she completed the nutritional evaluation for the resident on 1/13/2021 because the resident was losing weight. The RD stated she recommended BMP labs but could not find evidence in the resident's record that the recommendation was carried out. The RD stated she followed up on the resident on 2/3/2021 and found that the resident .lost more weight since I last saw her . On 3/18/2021 at 9:53 a.m. the DON (Director of Nurses) was interviewed. The DON stated she and the RD had a meeting to follow up on Resident #145's status on 1/27/2021 and 2/3/2021. The DON stated at both times they missed following up on the BMP recommendations made by the RD. The DON stated the results would have helped in assessing Resident #145's condition.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation of the resident, interview with the resident's nurse and Director of Nurses (DON), and review of the resident's medical record and facility documents, the facility failed to ensur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation of the resident, interview with the resident's nurse and Director of Nurses (DON), and review of the resident's medical record and facility documents, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #54) of eight residents with indwelling urinary catheters, was provided care to aid in the prevention of an infection related to his urinary catheter bag observed out of the privacy bag, laying on the floor, under the front left wheel of his wheelchair. Findings included: Resident #54 was a long term resident of the facility with diagnoses that included Chronic Kidney Disease, Retention of Urine, Urinary Tract Infection, and Obstructive and Reflux Uropathy for which he had an indwelling urinary catheter. A consult with the Urologist was noted for the concern of hematuria on 02/22/2021. Review of the resident's care plans revealed a care plan initiated on 11/27/2020 for the Indwelling Catheter with the Focus as Resident uses a Urinary Catheter with risk for infection and/or complications related to Obstructive Uropathy. Interventions included: change drainage bag routinely and as needed; provide catheter care daily and as needed; change catheter prn (as needed). On 03/16/2021 at 12:25 p.m., the resident was observed sitting in his wheelchair at a dining table in the common room eating his lunch. The front left wheel of his wheelchair was noted to be resting on the drainage bag of his indwelling catheter, which had come out of the privacy bag and was lying flat on the ground. There was yellow liquid on the floor around the catheter drainage bag. Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was notified of the drainage bag under the wheelchair wheel and she spent several minutes trying to get the wheel off of the drainage bag and then the drainage bag back into the privacy bag which was attached to the back of the resident's wheelchair. On 03/18/2021 at 11:10 a.m., the Director of Nurses was made aware of the observation of the resident's wheelchair wheel resting on the resident's catheter drainage bag on the floor. She confirmed that the nurse should have written a note about the incident and should have changed the bag as it had been on the common room/dining room floor and under the wheel of the wheelchair. A review of the nurse's notes, after speaking with the Director of Nurses, revealed there was no note detailing the incident including nothing about changing the bag and tubing as it had been on the floor under the wheel. A review of the Treatment Administration Record also did not include documentation that the bag and tubing had been changed. A policy for the care of an Indwelling Urinary Catheter was requested on 03/18/2021 at approximately 4:30 p.m. The Consultant Nurse reported at approximately 5:30 p.m. on 03/18/2021 that there was not a policy for the care of the Indwelling Catheter and the nursing staff would follow the general Infection Control Policy for care of an Indwelling Catheter as well as the facility Infection Control Process Surveillance Checklist. A review was conducted of the facility policy, Infection Prevention and Control Program. The Goals for the Infection Prevention and Control Program are to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment, decrease the risk of infection and communicable disease development and transmission, identify and correct problems relating to infection control and prevention practices, and focus on activities to optimize the treatment of infections, while reducing the potential for the occurrence of adverse events associated with antibiotic use. The Infection Control Process Surveillance Checklist included under the Surveillance Area of [urinary] Catheters, Bag is below the bladder and off of the floor.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure enteral feeding pumps and the pump settings were accurately calibrated to provide the rate and volume consistent with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure enteral feeding pumps and the pump settings were accurately calibrated to provide the rate and volume consistent with the care plan for two (Resident #68 and Resident #41) out of two sampled residents. Findings included: 1. On 3/15/2021 at 9:30 a.m., a tour of the facility was conducted. Resident #68 was observed in bed. Resident #68 was observed to be connected to an enteral feeding pump with the formula running at 67 milliliters/hour (ml/hr), dose limit (total volume to be infused) 1770. On 3/15/2021 at 9:32 a.m., Resident #68's record was reviewed. Resident #68 was admitted in the facility on 2/6/2021 with diagnoses that included tracheostomy (an opening surgically created through the neck into the windpipe to allow direct access to the breathing tube) and gastrostomy (external opening into the stomach for nutritional support). The resident's physician's orders dated 2/17/2021 indicated, Glucerna 1.2 Cal (tube feeding formula) Liter Continuous via G-tube to infuse at a rate of 67 mL/hr per 24 hours. Total volume to infuse is 1.608 ml/24 hr . On 03/16/21 9:43 a.m., Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was interviewed. Staff D who was the nurse for Resident #68 stated she was a registry nurse and it was her first day in the facility. Staff D stated when she arrived in the facility, The 11-7 nurse reported to me the resident's GT was turned off at six. Staff D stated she had not restarted the resident's tube feeding. Staff D stated she did not understand 1.608 ml/24 hrs and .the order did not state a specific start or stop time just 24 hours continuously. On 03/16/21 9:48 a.m., Resident #68's enteral feeding pump was observed with Staff E, LPN, who was the resident's nurse the previous day. Staff E stated the pump indicated a dose limit of 1770. On 03/16/21 9:50 a.m., Resident # 68's physician orders were reviewed with the Unit Manager (UM). She stated, 1.608 ml/24 hrs should be 1608 ml/24 hrs and the enteral feeding pump dose limit should indicate 1608. Review of Resident #68's care plan initiated 2/6/2021 indicated, .dependent on enteral feeding and flushes for nutrition and hydration needs .Administration of enteral nutrition as ordered (Refer to MD orders) . On 3/17/2021 at 2:36 p.m., the facility's Registered Dietitian (RD) was interviewed. The RD reviewed Resident #68's physician's orders and stated the dose limit should have been clarified to indicate the correct dose limit of 1608 mls/day. The RD stated the enteral feeding orders were calculated based on the specific resident needs and therefore, If tube feeding orders are not administered as ordered the result may not meet the resident's nutritional needs. The RD stated the tube feeding orders should be calibrated to match the orders. 2. On 3/16/2021 at 10:55 a.m., Resident # 41's record was reviewed. Resident #41 was admitted in the facility on 1/27/2021 with diagnoses that included tracheostomy and gastrostomy. The physician's order dated 3/4/2021 indicated, Glucerna 1.2 Cal Liter Continuous via peg tube to infuse at a rate of 67 mL/hr per 21 hours. Total volume to infuse is 1407 ml/24 hr 6 am, down at 3 am On 03/16/21 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #41 was observed with Staff E, LPN. Resident # 41's tube feeding pump was connected to the resident but was turned off. Staff E stated she did not know why the resident's tube feeding pump was off. Staff E turned on the tube feeding pump and the pump indicated a of rate 69 and a dose limit of 1450. On 03/16/21 at 11:05 a.m., Staff D, who was the assigned nurse for the resident, was interviewed. Staff D stated she was not the one who turned off resident #41's tube feeding pump. Staff D stated she did not know how long it had been off. On 03/16/21 at 11:10 a.m., Resident #41's tube feeding pump was observed with the UM. The UM stated the rate should be at 67 ml/hr and the dose limit should be 1407 and not 1450. The UM while attempting to correct the dose limit on the pump stated, The nurses do not usually use the dose limit .the pump cannot be even set to 1407. The UM further stated, The pump should not have been turned off, it should be running. Review of Resident #41's care plan initiated 1/27/2021 indicated, .dependent on enteral feeding and flushes for nutritional and hydration needs .Enteral formula and flushes as ordered . Review of the facility policy and procedure, Medication Administration Enteral Tubes dated 2007 indicated The nursing care center assures the safe and effective administration of enteral formulas and medications .Enteral formulas, equipment, route of administration, and rate of flow are selected based on an assessment of the resident's condition and needs .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient qualified nursing staff at all ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide sufficient qualified nursing staff at all times to provide nursing and related services to meet the residents' needs safely and in a manner that promotes each resident's rights, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for one (Resident #44) of five sampled residents related to falls and one (Resident #66) of four residents related to a wound vac (vacuum assisted closure). Findings: 1. During a tour of the facility conducted on 3/15/2021 at approximately 10:00 a.m., Resident #44 was observed in her room in bed, awake, and responsive. The resident's bed was in the high position and a floor mat was on the left side of the resident's bed. On 3/16/2021 at 3:24 p.m., Resident #44 was observed in the dining room sitting up in a geri-chair chair. A review of the Facility's Incident Log from 10/1/2020 through 3/16/2021 revealed Resident #44 fell on [DATE], 12/17/2020, 1/2/2021, 1/16/2021, and 2/27/2021. A review of Resident #44's record was conducted. Resident # 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included repeated falls. Review of Resident #44's progress notes indicated: 3/10/2021, Resident returned from (name of hospital) via stretcher resident had CT (Computerized Tomography) scans showing bilateral fractures of symphysis pubis (joint between the left and right pubis of the hip bones, located in front of and below the urinary bladder) on the left extending to the anterior aspect of the acetabulum on the right and fracture of the left inferior pubic ramus (bones). Resident is no weight bearing on the LLE (left lower extremity) and may toe touch weight bear as tolerated on the RLE (right lower extremity) . There was no other documentation in the resident's record addressing the change in Resident #44's weight bearing status. There was no documentary evidence in the physician's orders or Resident #44's care plans addressing the resident's hip fractures and new weight bearing status. On 3/16/2021 at 3:30 p.m., the Unit Manager (UM) was interviewed regarding Resident #44's recent fracture and fall incidents. The UM stated, All the other Unit Managers are all gone .we're suppose to have three, now it's only me, the education person is also gone .the DON has been working on the floor too . The UM stated, We have had to work the floor because we have insufficient staff. The UM stated, As unit manager my responsibility is auditing orders for medication, new treatments, follow up .there's no oversight because we have been working the floor. On 3/16/2021 at 6:06 p.m., the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Staff F was interviewed. Staff F was the CNA assigned to the resident. Staff F stated she was an agency CNA and this is the first time she was assigned to Resident #44. Staff F stated she did not know about the resident's fracture and weight bearing status. Staff F stated Usually around this time there's no one who knows .I just try to figure it out .I only look at the shower book . On 3/16/2021 at 6:17 p.m., Staff G was interviewed. Staff G was the LPN assigned to the resident. Staff G stated she worked full time in the facility. She stated that the CNA would not know about the resident's fracture and weight bearing status because It's not there (in the [NAME]) there is no instructions for transfers. 2. An observation of Resident #66 was conducted on 3/15/21 at 11:11 a.m. She was lying in bed, dressed, with a wound vac (negative pressure wound therapy), a therapeutic technique using a suction pump, tubing and a dressing to remove excess exudate (fluid), was observed on the left side of resident's bed. Resident #66 stated, My wound vac has not been working all morning, and I have been calling for assistance and no one has responded to assist in reconnecting or fixing the wound vac. Observation of the resident at that time, revealed a clear transparent dressing to Resident #66's right knee with tubing attached. The tubing attached to the knee dressing was not connected to the wound vac. An interview was conducted with the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Staff C, on 03/15/21 at 11:15 a.m. Staff C stated that she had told the charge nurse that Resident #66's wound vac was not working, or needed to be connected, but the nurse had not responded. An interview was conducted with the Charge Nurse, License Practical Nurse (LPN), Staff A, on 3/15/21 at 11:20 a.m. Staff A confirmed that the wound vac was disconnected and stated that it was disconnected by another staff when Resident #66 was assisted to the bath room. Staff A stated, I will connect the wound vac when I do treatment later today. She then exited the room. On 3/16/21 9:30 a.m., a follow up interview was conducted with Resident #66. The resident stated that she fell two times last evening, because no one would assist her to the bathroom. She was told by the staff that she could go to the bathroom by herself. On 3/18/21 at 12:00 p.m., Resident # 66 was observed with the wound vac on bedside table. In an interview with Resident #66 she stated that the wound vac was beeping, and no one came in to fix it. Record review of Resident #66's medical records revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included: Aftercare following joint replacement surgery and multiple fractures of pelvis. Review of her Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], section C revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 15, which indicated she had no cognitive impairment. 3 Review of the Resident Census and Conditions of Residents (CMS-672) and the Matrix For Providers (CMS-802) submitted by the facility during the survey indicated the facility had 96 total number of residents. The document further indicated the following number of residents requiring special care: - 4 residents requiring Intravenous therapy (IV) including IV nutrition (TPN - total parenteral nutrition, method of feeding that bypasses the gastrointestinal tract, fluids are given into a vein to provide the nutrients the body needs); - 4 residents requiring Tracheostomy (an opening surgically created through the neck into the (windpipe) to provide an airway and to remove secretions from the lungs) care and suctioning; - 4 residents on Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (wound vac - a therapeutic technique using a suction pump, tubing and a dressing to remove excess exudate and promote wound healing, and; - 7 residents requiring Tube feedings (tube inserted into the stomach through the abdomen used to provide nutrition). On 3/18/21 at 11:13 a.m., Staff I was interviewed. Staff I stated she was a CNA and she was the central supply and staffing coordinator for the facility. Staff I stated she had been doing the monthly schedules, staffing calculations and during the week, If there's a call off I have to find the replacement. Staff I stated she determined the number of licensed nurses and nurse aids to be scheduled depending on the census and number of admissions. Staff I stated she did not factor in resident needs such traches, wound vacs or IVs. Staff I stated she did not know which nurses were trained with wound vacs, and for IVs. She stated, I do not know which Licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) have certification. The staffing assignments from 3/14/2021 - 3/16/2021 was reviewed with Staff I. The review indicated there was no Registered Nurse (RN) during the 3/15/201 11:00 p.m. to 3/16/2021 7:00 a.m. shift. Staff I stated only three LPNs worked the shift. Staff I stated she did not know if the LPNs on the shift were IV certified or if they have had wound vac training.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure effective infection prevention measures were in place to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and prevent the development of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure effective infection prevention measures were in place to reduce the spread of COVID-19 and prevent the development of infections by failing to ensure staff donned Personal Protective Equipment during a COVID-19 nasal test for one (Resident #67) of one observed while the nurse performed a nasal swab, for failing to don Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while obtaining vital signs in one of one rooms on contact precautions for clostridium difficile (C-diff), for failing to don gloves while holding and cleaning a recently used glucometer, and for failing to disinfect a face shield prior to replacing in a clear plastic bag for reuse. Findings Included: During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/17/21 at 10:00 a.m. she stated the facility performed COVID-19 testing with the oral swab in the cheek and the person was able to swab themselves without donning all of the PPE to perform the test. An observation was made of Resident #67 during a COVID-19 testing on 3/17/21 at 10:20 a.m. by Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff L spoke to the resident and asked her to go back in her room and explained she needed to complete the COVID - 19 test. Resident #67 said she needed the test for a procedure at the end of the week. Staff L wearing prescription glasses, a KN95 mask, and gloves opened the swab and placed it in Resident #67's left nostril then in the vial. Staff L stated she forgot to bring a biohazard bag to place the sample in and used a glove to drop the vial into then placed the nasal swab sample into her left front shirt pocket. Staff L went into the bathroom, washed her hands, and exited the resident's room without anything in her hands. When asked where she placed the sample. Staff L stated she left the sample in the bathroom and walked back into the bathroom while pulling the sample out of her left pocket. She stated, Oh I put it in my pocket and should not have done that. Staff L then walked to the nurse's station to look for a biohazard bag with the COVID-19 vial in the glove. Staff L obtained the medication room keys from another nurse and placed the glove on the counter containing the COVID-19 sample while looking for a biohazard bag. After locating the biohazard bag Staff L emptied the vial into the biohazard bag and disposed of the glove. During an interview with the DON on 3/17/21 at 12:09 p.m., she said, the nurse should have donned personal protective equipment to include a face shield, mask, gown, and gloves to test the resident. On 3/16/21 at 4:57 p.m., Staff M, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed in a resident's room without PPE using a rolling blood pressure machine, with thermometer and pulse oximeter. Staff M was observed leaning against the resident's bed nearest the door. The sign on the door was a large red stop sign that stated to see the nurse. The Infection Control Consultant was asked what the resident was on precautions for and they confirmed the resident to have Clostridium Difficile. The Consultant asked Staff M to leave the room and don PPE when they see the stop sign on the door and then instructed staff M to clean the rolling blood pressure machine. On 3/18/21 at 5:00 p.m., Staff N, LPN was observed walking up to her medication cart holding a glucometer in her bare hand. She said she just used it. She pulled out an individual bleach wipe, opened it with her bare hands, cleaned the glucometer, and left it wrapped in the bleach wipe. Staff N confirmed she probably should be wearing gloves while cleaning the glucometer. On 3/16/21 at 3:34 p.m., Staff N was observed completing a blood sugar check then using bare hands to carry the glucometer to the medication cart. Staff N confirmed she should have been using gloves to hold the glucometer after use. She reached in her right hand shirt pocket to remove an individually packaged bleach wipe, cleaned the glucometer without gloves, and performed hand hygiene. On 3/16/21 at 4:45 p.m., Staff O, LPN was observed leaving a resident room with a sign on the door that stated droplet precautions. Staff O removed her gown and gloves, washed her hands, went to the door, removed her face shield, placed it in the original plastic packaging without disinfecting it, and placed it in the isolation precaution bin outside the room in the top drawer. Staff O stated that she had a face shield earlier and it disappeared so she would keep this face shield. Staff O stated she would need to put her name on the face shield that she put in the drawer so others would know it was used and hers. Staff O opened the plastic in the drawer and pulled the face shield out enough to write her name then closed the plastic and shut the drawer. 03/17/21 4:31 p.m. during an interview with the DON, she confirmed her expectation would be to wear PPE when completing a nasal swab for COVID - 19 to include, face shield, gown, and gloves, as they already wear KN95's, and a contact precaution room should wear a gown, gloves and mask. The DON confirmed one room was on isolation precautions for Clostridium Difficile (C-Diff) and six rooms were residents readmitted from the hospital and on droplet precautions. During a phone interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 3/17/21 at 12:39 p.m., she stated she was the Infection Preventionist for the facility. The ADON stated her expectation would be to clean the rolling blood pressure cart at the point of use and to wear a gown, gloves, and mask in a contact isolation room. The ADON confirmed all staff are wearing KN95's in the building. Review of the facility policy related to Covid-19 testing effective October 2020, 4 pages, reflected: During specimen collection, facilities must maintain proper infection control and use recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), which includes an N95 or higher level respirator (or facemask if a respirator is not available), eye protection, gloves and a gown, when collecting specimens. Review of the facility policy for hand hygiene effective February 21, 2 pages reflected: 5. employees must wash their hands for 20 seconds using antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial soap and water under the following conditions: Before and after any invasive procedure (finger stick blood sampling). Upon and after coming in contact with a resident's intact skin (when taking a pulse or blood pressure) After contact with a resident with infectious diarrhea including, but not limited to infections caused by C. difficile (hand washing with soap and water). Review of the facility policy for glucometer cleaning and disinfecting policy effective October 2020 one page, revealed: 1. The facility will ensure blood glucometers will be cleaned and disinfected after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions for multi-resident use. 2. The glucometers should be disinfected with a wipe pre-saturated with an EPA registered healthcare disinfectant that is effective against HIV, Hepatitis C, Hepatitis B virus, and C-Diff. 3. Glucometers should be cleaned and disinfected before and after each use and according to manufacturer's instructions regardless of whether they are intended for single use or multiple resident use. 4. Two (2) glucometers will be maintained on the cart to allow drying time between residents 5. Procedure: h. reapply gloves, retrieve (2) disinfectant wipes from container i. Using first wipe, clean first to remove heavy soil, blood and/or other contaminants left on the surface of the glucometer. j. After cleaning, use second wipe to disinfect the glucometer thoroughly with the disinfectant wipe, following manufacturer's instructions. k. Discard disinfectant wipe in waste receptacle. l. Take off gloves and wash hands. Review of the facility policy for Isolation precautions - Categories of transmission-based infections, effective 2021, 4 pages: Transmission-based precautions shall be used when caring for residents who are documented or suspected to have communicable diseases or infections that can be transmitted to others. In addition to standard precautions, implement contact precautions for residents known or suspected to be infected that can be transmitted by direct contact with the resident or indirect contact with environmental surfaces or resident-care items in the resident's environment. 2) diarrhea associated with Clostridium difficile. c. Gloves and handwashing D. Gown - 1. In addition to wearing a gown as outlined under standard precautions, wear a gown for interactions that may involve contact with the resident or potentially contaminated items in the resident's environment. 2. After removing the gown, do not allow clothing to contact potentially contaminated surfaces. F. When possible, based on the individual's ability to contain infected fluids, resident's personal hygiene habits and the risk of transmission. 2. If use of common items is unavoidable, then adequately clean and disinfect them before use for another resident. G. A sign will be used to alert staff and visitors of the implementation of transmission based precautions, while respecting the resident's privacy. The sign will be placed on the resident's door and should state: Report to nurse before entering room.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 45% turnover. Below Florida's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 5 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 2 harm violation(s), $268,860 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 39 deficiencies on record, including 5 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $268,860 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below 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. RN turnover specifically is 71%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center during 2021 to 2025. These included: 5 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, and 32 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center?

Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 115 certified beds and approximately 108 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in CLEARWATER, Florida.

How Does Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (45%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center 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 Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center has been fined $268,860 across 3 penalty actions. This is 7.5x the Florida average of $35,767. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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