BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER

8041 STATE RD 52, HUDSON, FL 34667 (727) 863-5488
Non profit - Corporation 120 Beds HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
31/100
#333 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: March 2024

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

Overview

Bear Creek Nursing Center in Hudson, Florida has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the facility's care quality. It ranks #333 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, placing it in the top half, but its poor grade suggests it still has serious issues to address. The facility's situation is worsening, with the number of reported issues increasing from 5 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is relatively strong, with a 4 out of 5 rating, although a high turnover rate of 56% is concerning compared to the state average of 42%. However, the facility has incurred $37,198 in fines, which is higher than 78% of Florida facilities, pointing to repeated compliance problems. Specific incidents of concern include a failure to protect a resident at risk of wandering, as they were able to exit the facility unsupervised on two different occasions due to inadequate supervision and locked exit gates. Although the nursing center has good RN coverage, which is beneficial for addressing health issues, the overall lack of proper safety measures raises significant worries about resident safety. While there are some strengths, such as RN coverage, the overall picture indicates that families should carefully consider these weaknesses before making a decision.

Trust Score
F
31/100
In Florida
#333/690
Top 48%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
56% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$37,198 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Florida. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 5 issues
2024: 6 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Florida average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 56%

Near Florida avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $37,198

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (56%)

8 points above Florida average of 48%

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Mar 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded for three residents (#11, #34, and #245) out of twenty-one sampled residents. Finding Include: 1) A review of the admission Record, dated 03/13/2024, showed Resident # 11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic kidney disease, stage 3 unspecified, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance, generalized anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild. A review of Resident #11's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed the following: -Section C-Cognitive Function: 0 was coded to indicate Resident #11 was not able to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) -Section I-Active Diagnoses: no documentation to show Resident # 11 had depression. A review of Resident #11's Order Summary, dated 03/13/2024, showed the following: -Buspirone HCI oral tablet 5 milligrams (MG) by mouth two times a day for anxiety, -Depakote Sprinkles oral capsule delayed release sprinkle 125 MG by mouth three times a day for dementia with mood disorder, -Donepezil HCI tablet 10 MG by mouth at bedtime for dementia, -Mirtazapine tablet 15 MG by mouth at bedtime for depression. 2) A review of the admission Record, dated 03/13/2024, showed Resident # 34 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include metabolic encephalopathy, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, and cognitive communication deficit. A review of Resident #34's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed the following: -Section C: Cognitive Functions-0 was coded indicating not able to complete a BIMS -Section I: Active Diagnoses-Psychiatric/ Mood Disorder revealed no documentation to show Resident #34 had depression. A review of Resident #34's Order Summary, dated 03/13/2024, showed the following: -Duloxetine HCI capsule Delayed release particles 30 MG by mouth one time a day for depression, A review of the care plan, dated 02/28/2024, showed the following: -Resident # 34 has impaired cognitive function/dementia related to dementia, uses antidepressants medication related to depression. -An intervention initiated on 02/28/2024, to administer medications as ordered, administer antidepressant medications as ordered by physician. 3) A review of the admission Record, dated 03/13/2024, showed Resident #245 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hydrocephalus, cognitive communication deficit, unspecified, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. A review of Resident #245's MDS, dated [DATE], showed the following: -Section C: Cognitive Function-BIMS score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. -Section I: Active Diagnoses-for psychiatric/ mood disorder showed no documentation to show Resident #245 had depression. A review of Resident #245's Order Summary, dated 03/13/2024, showed the following: -Fluoxetine HCI Oral tablet 20 MG by mouth one time a day for depression, -Rivastigmine Patch 24 Hour 9.5 MG/24 HR one time a day for dementia and remove per schedule. A review of Resident #245's care plan, dated 2/29/2024 and revised on 03/13/2024, showed the following: -Resident # 245 has bladder incontinence related to dementia and muscle weakness and uses antidepressant medication. -An intervention to administer antidepressant medication as ordered by physician. An interview was conducted on 03/14/2024 at 10:56 AM with Staff A, Registered Nurse, RN/ MDS Director. She said she was responsible for putting the residents' diagnoses on their face sheets in the medical record. She stated in Section I on the MDS answers are automatically populated when the residents' diagnoses are added to their face sheet. A review of the record for Resident #11, #34 and #245 by Staff A confirmed Section I did not show a diagnosis of depression for the residents. Staff A said she did not have an answer as to why she had not updated the MDS to add the depression diagnoses. She stated the expectation was all MDS assessments were completed accurately. A review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Resident Assessment Instrument, RAI 3.0, undated, revealed the following: -Chapter 3: MDS items [1] Section I: Active Diagnoses: Showed Intent: The items in this section are intended to code diseases that have a direct relationship to the resident's current functional status, cognitive status, mood or behavior status, medical treatments, nursing monitoring, or risk of death. One of the important functions of the MDS assessment is to generate an updated, accurate picture of the resident's current health status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 3/11/2024 at 9:15 AM Resident #49 was observed sitting in the hallway outside her room in front of an overbed table, the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 3/11/2024 at 9:15 AM Resident #49 was observed sitting in the hallway outside her room in front of an overbed table, the resident was observed with a discoloration to her right eye, and right side of her neck. She had what appeared to be stitches over her right eye. On 3/11/2024 at 12:30 PM Resident #49 was observed sitting in the dining room eating lunch with other residents. On 3/12/2024 at 11:00 AM Resident #49 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the common area attempting to get out of her wheelchair and using the large Lego's. On 3/14/2024 at 2:00 PM Resident #49 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the common area watching television. She stated she was fine and wanted to get up out of her chair. An interview was conducted on 3/11/2024 at 9:20 AM with Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) who stated Resident #49 had a fall last week. He also stated the resident has dementia. An interview was conducted on 3/14/24 at 11:11 AM with the NHA and DON. The DON stated Resident #49 had 2 falls on 3/4/2024. The DON stated that a meeting was held with Resident #49's family to discuss the residents falls. Review of the admission record revealed Resident #49 was admitted on [DATE] and the most recent admission was 3/8/2024. Resident #49 diagnoses included unsteadiness on feet (onset date 3/11/2024), unspecified lack of coordination (onset date 3/11/2024), repeated falls (6/13/2023), unspecified dementia with unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbance (onset date 6/13/2023), muscle weakness (onset date 3/11/2024), and age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fractures (onset date 6/13/2023. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly Resident #49 dated 12/21/2023 revealed: Section A Identification information dated 12/21/2023. Section C Cognition Patterns revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) 10 MDS Section I Active Diagnoses - Other - Repeated Falls Review of physician orders, dated 3/13/2024, for Resident #49 revealed: Observation: Sedative/hypnotic medication: Observe for drowsiness, fatigue, weakness, and impaired coordination. Right one-fourth siderail enablers to promote bed mobility and safety. Scoop mattress to bed Review of care plan focus areas for Resident #49 revealed: Focus - Resident #49 has impaired cognitive function revised 7/4/2023 Focus - Resident #49 has had a fall from wheelchair and has had no injury, poor balance, unsteady gait - revised 6/20/2023 Goal - Resident #49 will have no interventions in place and will have reduced risk of injury revision 3/7/2024 Interventions - Anti-rollback device to wheelchair revised 7/11/2023, low bed revised 7/11/2023, nonskid material applied to wheelchair and under wheelchair cushion revised on 7/11/2023. Review of Medical Certification for Medicaid Long Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form (AHCA 3008) dated 3/8/2024 for Resident #49 revealed: Impaired sight and vision, primary diagnosis urinary tract infection and recurrent falls, risk alerts - pressure ulcers and falls, skin assessment - right eyebrow laceration/sutured, edema of head and neck, ambulates with assistive device, rolling walker and assist of one, resident is incontinent. Review of hospital discharge information dated 3/7/2024 for Resident #49 revealed: diagnoses of fall on same level, unspecified, initial encounter. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to timely revise and effectively implement individualized care plans for three residents (#81, # 49 and #3) of thirty-three sampled residents. Findings included: On 3/11/24 at 09:30 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 in her bed next to a window with eyes closed, lights out and food tray at bedside. An observation was made on the 3/11/24 at 10:30 a.m., of Resident #81 remaining in hospital gown, eyes closed and breakfast tray removed. On 3/12/24 at 08:10 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 in her room sitting on the edge of the bed, leaning, rocking to her right side and then to her left. Record review revealed Resident #81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease without dyskinesia, unspecified dementia unspecified severity with anxiety, Sarcopenia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, essential hypertension, repeated falls, other specified disorders of bone density ad structure, major depressive disorder recurrent mild, bipolar II disorder, generalized anxiety and contusion of left eyelid and periocular area. On 3/13/24 at 08:35 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 lying in bed with her eyes closed with a breakfast tray on bedside table. During the observation, Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) came into the room to set up the resident's breakfast tray. Staff C, CNA stated the resident is new to the hallway and stated, We are getting to know her she is new to our floor about a week and a half ago. Staff C, CNA stated the resident can ambulate with assistance to bathroom and other times she will not. Staff C, CNA stated the resident may have her days and nights mixed up. During an observation on 3/13/24 at 9:30 a.m. Resident #81's bed remained in a raised position. At the time of the observation was made, unidentified nursing staff came into the room and lowered the bed down but not in its lowest position. On 3/13/24 at 11:53 a.m. Resident #81 remained in bed in the same position as observed in previous observation. On 3/13/24 at 1:30 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN). Staff F, RN stated she has been employed since January and was not familiar with Resident #81. Staff F, RN stated Resident #81 was previously in a different hall. She said the resident would exhibit signs of sadness but could easily be calmed down and she ambulated by means of a wheelchair. On 3/13/24 at 1:35 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Psychiatric Advance Nurse Practitioner, who stated a familiarity with the resident and cited impulsiveness as a contributing factor for her falls. On 3/13/24 at 2:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff D, CNA. Staff D, CNA stated Resident #81 could communicate her needs at times and could stand and pivot with queuing for toileting in the bathroom but other times she would require two persons assist for toileting or getting out of bed. Staff D, CNA stated Resident #81 was a high risk for falls and most of her falls were in the hallway or in common room A and later in the afternoon. On 3/13/24 at 2:12 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Rehab Director/Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA). The Rehab Director stated the resident initially was placed on the rehabilitative hallway and was participating in physical therapy but quickly plateaued by achieving her goal for ambulation. Falls were identified for this resident and multiple interdisciplinary team meetings were conducted with various unsuccessful interventions. The Rehab Director stated as part of the Interdisciplinary Team, the family was approached in placing the resident into a memory care unit facility but the family member declined. The Rehab Director stated the resident had no interest in activities and recently relocated to the long-term care hallway. A review of the facility's fall log from the month of September 01, 2023, to March 08, 2024, revealed Resident #81 with eighteen falls of which fourteen were unwitnessed. A review of the care plan for resident #81 showed: -A focus of actual falls with no injury related to poor balance, unsteady gait and crawling on floor at times. The Goal revealed resume usual activities without further incident through the review date. --Interventions included: appropriate footwear when out of bed as tolerated, bed in low position when in bed, continue interventions on the at-risk plan, evaluate for use of anti-rollback device to wheelchair (WC), as appropriate, for no apparent acute injury determine and address causative factors of the fall, frequent rest breaks as tolerated, frequent safety checks, encourage to attend/assist activities of choice as tolerated, medication review and psychiatric evaluation, monitor/document/report prn to Doctor (MD) for signs/symptoms : pain, bruises, change in mental status, new onset of confusion sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation, non-skid material to WC, offer and assist with ambulation with 2 assist as tolerated, Occupational Therapy (OT) to evaluate and treat for positioning, provide resident center activity as tolerated, Physical Therapy (PT) to evaluate and treat for ambulation and transfers as tolerated, put resident back to bed after lunch as tolerated, therapy to evaluate and treat as indicated for appropriate positioning devices such as cushions, chairs, etcetera , toilet before and after each meal, toilet up rising and at night as tolerated. On 3/14/24 at 9:00 a.m. an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON)/ Risk Manager. The DON said adverse events are discussed daily in the morning huddle. Continuing, she stated On a weekly basis we review all the incidents to discuss the progress of interventions. We had a discussion with Resident #81's family encouraging a memory care unit but the family member declined. On 3/14/24 at 10:30 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 in the resident common room no staff were present. Resident #81 was three-quarters of the way in a standing position. The Environmental Services Director (ESD) witnessed the resident from outside the common room and went to the resident to provide assistance. An observation on 3/14/24 at approximately 11:45 a.m. revealed Resident #81 was by herself in her wheelchair; no staff were present. Review of Resident #3's admission Record showed admission on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, disorder of bone density and structure, and other co-morbidities. During observations on 3/11/2024 at 10:27 AM, 3/12/2024 at 10:00 AM and at 4:32 PM, 3/13/2024 at 9:59 AM and at 12:15 PM, Resident #3 was observed without any type of splint, roll, carrot splint, etc. in bilateral hands. Review of Resident #3's Care Plan, date initiated 2/24/2020, revealed Contractures: Resident #3 has contractures of the right arm and left hand. Provide skin care to keep clean and prevent skin breakdown. Uses a carrot splint for left hand. During an interview on 3/12/2024 at 4:31 PM with Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated Resident #3 does not have anything special done with her hands, we just wash them During an interview on 3/13/2024 at 10:18 AM with Staff I, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), confirmed resident does not wear any splints or hand rolls. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 11:10 AM Staff E, Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA) stated Resident #3 has been seen by Occupational Therapy for positioning in the wheelchair and dining but not for the hands at this time. Staff E, COTA reviewed the care plan and found the care plan showed resident should be wearing carrot splints. Staff E, COTA confirmed Resident #3 does not have carrot splints. Review of the facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, the policy is not dated and showed: Policy: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. The interdisciplinary team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive person -centered care plan for each resident. 2. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan is developed within seven days of the completion of the required Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (Admission, Annual or Significant Change in Status), and no more than 21 days after admission. 3. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. 4. Each resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan is consistent with the resident's rights to participate in the development and implementation of his or her care plan, including the right to: a. participate in the planning process; b. identify individuals or roles to be included; c. request meetings; d. request revisions to the plan of care; e. participate in establishing the expected goals and outcomes of care; f. participate in determining the type, amount, frequency and duration of care; g. received the services and/or items included in the plan of care; and h. see the care plan and sign it after significant changes are made. 5. The resident is informed of his or her right to participate in his or her treatment and provided advanced notice of care planning conferences. 6. If the participation of the resident and his/her resident representative in developing the resident's care plan is determined to not be practicable, an explanation is documented in the resident's medical record. The explanation should include what steps were taken to include the resident or representative in the process. 7. The comprehensive person-centered care plan: a. includes measurable objectives and time frames; b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, including: 1) services that would otherwise be provided for the above, but are not provided due to the resident exercising his or her rights, including the right to refuse treatment; 2) any specialized services to be provided as a result of PASRR recommendations; and 3) which professional services are responsible for each element of care; c. includes the resident's stated goals upon admission and desired outcomes; d. build on resident's strengths; and e. reflects currently recognized standards of practice for problems areas and conditions. 8. Services provided for or arranged by the facility and outlined in the comprehensive care plan are: a. provided by qualified persons; b. culturally competent; and c. trauma informed. 9. Care plan interventions are chosen only after data gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes, and relevant clinical decision making. 10. When possible, interventions address the underlying source(s) of the problem area(s), not just symptoms or triggers. 11. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the resident's and the resident's condition change. 12. The IDT team reviews and updates the care plan: a. when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition; b. when the desired outcome is not met; c. when the resident has been readmitted to the facility from a hospital stay; and d. at least quarterly, in conjunction with the required quarterly MDS assessment. 13. The resident has the right to refuse to participate in the development of his/her care plan and medical and nursing treatments. Such refusals are documented in the resident's clinical record in accordance with established policies.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure skin assessment were accurate for two residen...

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 skin assessment were accurate for two residents (#63 and #72) out of 21 residents sampled. Findings included: 1) Resident #63 was observed on 03/11/2024 at 1:23 p.m. sitting in her wheelchair in the common area with a discolored area on her right forefinger and hand. She was dressed and groomed for the day. Resident #63 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis including but not limited to, Hemiplegia post Cerebral Vascular Accident on the left non-dominant side, gastrostomy, nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, dysphasia, Sarcopenia, dysphagia, lack of coordination, diabetes, pressure ulcer, hypertension, carotid occlusion and stenosis, nutritional deficiency, adjustment disorder with depressed mood, acute kidney failure, weakness, history of falling, long term insulin. Review of the Physician Order Summary Report showed weekly skin assessments were to be done for Resident #63 Review of the care plan for Resident #63 showed the potential for pressure ulcer development. Interventions did not include to observe for weekly skin assessments. Review of the Weekly Skin Observation, dated 03/07/2024, showed other existing skin impairment: skin tear of left antecubital and bruising right elbow. Review of the progress notes revealed no documentation regarding bruised areas for Resident #63. During interview on 03/13/20244 at 1:47 p.m. the DON stated the weekly skin sheet on 03/07/2024 showed bruising on the left hand, it was not documented as being on the right hand. The expectation was to find the correct location of the bruise in the documentation. She verified by observation of Resident #63 on 03/13/2024 at 2:00 p.m. the bruise was on the right hand, at the forefinger area. 2) Resident #72 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], diagnoses including but not limited to fracture of right femur neck, diabetes with chronic kidney disease, moderate-protein calorie malnutrition, muscle weakness, urine retention, Review of the physician Order Summary Report showed weekly skin assessment were to be completed for Resident #72. Review of the care plan showed Resident #72 had potential impairment to skin integrity related to fragile skin as of 02/21/2024. Interventions did not include weekly assessments. Review of the Skin Observation, dated 03/02/2024, showed Skin Integrity: Existing bruise (no location), New Moisture-associated skin damage (MASD); No new skin issues, treatment continues. During an interview on 03/13/2024 at 1:36 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed the weekly skin sheet for Resident #63, dated 03/02/2024, and verified the documentation showed the resident had a bruise and lacked the location of the bruise. She reviewed the progress notes and verified there was no documentation related to a bruise. She stated she expected to find the location of the bruise documented, so they can know if it was new, old, healing or not healing. Requested policy and procedure for assessing skin integrity on 03/14/2024 from both the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Director of Nursing (DON), one was not provided. During an interview on 03/14/2024 at 9:50 a.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated to ask the Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinators about the skin assessments on the care plan. She stated, they are the gurus. During an interview on 03/14/2024 at 9:55 a.m. Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), MDS and Staff B, RN, MDS stated everyone gets a risk for wound / pressure ulcer care plan. They stated they will add care plans after they are informed of a skin problem like a bruise or a skin tear. They do not have a care plan for skin integrity with an intervention that includes assessing for skin issues weekly. The resident's have a physician order for weekly skin checks. They stated sometimes they put it (assessing) under the Activities for Daily Living care plan. Both verified Resident #72 and Resident #63 did not have skin assessments on their care plans. They stated again they do not put a care plan in place for skin unless they have a skin issue because they have skin assessments for skin observations. If an incident happens like a bruise or skin tear, they will meet with the risk manager and do a care plan and with the Interdisciplinary Team and decide on the interventions. Staff B, RN stated, The care plans are the plans of care. They put in at risk for pressure ulcer for everyone, and as it happens (skin issues) then they put in a care plan as incidents occur, then resolve the incident on the care plan as needed. Review of the facility's policy, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revise March 2022, showed: 7. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan: a. includes measurable objectives and timeframes; b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3) Review of the admission Facesheet revealed Resident #49's original admission date was 6/13/2023 and current admission date of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3) Review of the admission Facesheet revealed Resident #49's original admission date was 6/13/2023 and current admission date of 3/8/2024. Diagnoses: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, date of onset 6/13/2023 Review of Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for Resident #49, dated 3/1/2023, revealed: Level I Section 1 B Finding documented history no level II required, no attached documentation related to documentation history. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], for Resident #49 revealed: Section A Identification information dated 12/21/2023. Section C Cognition Patterns revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) 10 MDS 12/21/2023 Annual None PPS, Section I Active Diagnoses - All diagnoses in the past seven days - check all that apply - Neurological - Non-Alzheimer's Dementia is checked. Section N Medications - #1 is taking and #2 indication noted - medications for antianxiety, hypnotic and antidepressant are checked for both #1 and #2. Review of Physician Orders for Resident #49, dated 3/13/2024, revealed: Observation for antidepressant medication - change in behavior/mood/cognition, agitation, and nervousness. Review of the care plan for Resident #49, revealed Focus areas, dated 7/4/2023, as follows: -Resident #49 has impaired cognitive function and impaired thought processes related to dementia. -Resident #49 has behavior issues with impulsive behaviors related to cognitively impaired. -Resident #49 uses anti-anxiety medication related to anxiety disorder. -Resident # 49 uses antidepressant medication related to depression. Review of Resident #49's Psychiatric Note, dated 1/16/2024, revealed a follow up visit for a chief complaint of dementia and anxiety. Diagnoses: Major depressive disorder recurrent severe without psych features; generalized anxiety disorder Review of Resident #49's Psychiatric Note, dated 3/13/2024, revealed a follow up visit for a chief complaint dementia and anxiety. Diagnosis: Major depressive disorder, recurrent severe without psych features and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of medical record revealed no Level II PASRR was completed for Resident #49. 4) Review of admission Face Sheet, dated 3/13/2024, for Resident #67 revealed an original admission date of 12/29/2021 and a current admission date on 12/5/2023. Diagnoses included unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety. Onset date 2/7/2023 Review of the PASRR Level I for Resident #67, dated 12/27/2021, revealed Level I Section 1 B Finding documented history no level II required, no attached documentation related to documentation history. Review of the quarterly MDS, for Resident #67, dated 12/21/2023, revealed: Section C Cognition Patterns revealed a BIMS of 15 MDS, indicating intact cognition. Section I Active Diagnoses - All diagnoses in the past seven days - check all that apply - Neurological - Non-Alzheimer's Dementia is checked. Review of the physician orders, dated 3/14/2024, for Resident #67 revealed: Observe for behaviors every shift restlessness, agitation, hitting, kicking, physical aggression, spitting, biting, cussing, yelling, delusions, hallucinations, psychosis, refusing care, isolation, withdrawn, depression. Consult mental health worker. Review of the care plan for Resident #67,dated 3/4/2022, revealed a focus area as Resident #67 is at risk for impaired cognitive function and or impaired thought processes related to dementia. Review of a Situation, Background, Assessment, Response form (SBAR), dated 1/28/2024, for Resident #67 revealed: Primary diagnoses - unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety. Review of a Palliative Care Note, dated 2/15/2024, for Resident #67 revealed: Active medical diagnosis - Dementia Assessment and plan - Dementia - continue to monitor for cognitive decline and functional decline, continue to monitor for behavioral disturbances. Review of a depression screen (PHQ-2 to 9 (HSM)-V2), dated 3/7/2024, for Resident #67 revealed: The score is 5 which shows mild depression. Review of medical record revealed no Level II PASRR was completed for Resident #67. 8) Resident #81 was admitted to facility on 9/19/23 with a primary diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease without dyskinesia and the following secondary diagnoses: dementia with anxiety, Bipolar II Disorder, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. A review of the Pre-admission Screening and Annual Resident Review (PASRR) completed upon admission was noted to be incomplete with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, anxiety, Bipolar and depression not checked in Section: PASRR Screen Decision-Making. 9) Review of the admission Record showed Resident #24 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Bipolar type, Dementia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and other comorbidities. Review of Resident #24's PASRR Level I Assessment, dated 11/7/2022, revealed a qualifying mental health diagnosis marked in section I A. Question 7. Was marked No. No Level II PASRR was required. During an interview on 3/13/2024 at 2:47 PM, Staff B, RN stated I complete the PASRR of resident's admitted from home, not from the hospital. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 9:37 AM the admission Director stated review of the PASRR from the hospital is to ensure it is complete, not accurate. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 10:35 AM the Social Service Director (SSD) stated she is new to the PASRR process and understanding the requirements. The SSD confirmed the PASRR's of Residents #'s 67, 17, 56, 49, 245, 11, 34, 24, and 81, were not accurate and would need to be corrected and submitted for a Level II review. Review of the admission Criteria policy and procedure, given as the PASRR policy and procedure, undated, revealed the following: Policy: Our facility admits only residents whose medical and nursing care needs can be met. Policy interpretation and implementation: . 9. All new admissions and readmissions are screened for mental disorders (MD), intellectual disabilities (ID) or related disorders (RD) per the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) process: a. The facility conducts a Level I PASRR screen for all potential admissions, regardless of payer source, to determine if the individual meets the criteria for a MD, ID or RD. b. If the Level I screen indicates that the individual may meet the criteria for a MD, ID, or RD. he or she is referred to the state PASRR representative for the Level II (evaluation and determination) screening process. 1) the social worker is responsible for making referrals to the appropriate state designated authority. c. Upon completion of the Level II evaluation, the state PASRR representative determines if the individual has physical or mental conditions, what specialized rehabilitative services he or she needs, and whether placement in the facility is appropriate. d. The state PASRR representative provides a copy of the report to the facility. e. The interdisciplinary team determines whether the facility is capable of meeting the needs and services of the potential residents that are outlined in the evaluation. f. Once a decision is made, the state PASRR representative, the potential resident and his or her representatives are notified. . 13. The administrator, through the admissions department, ensures that the resident and the facility follow applicable admission policies. 5) Review of the admission Record, dated 03/13/2024, showed Resident #11 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include chronic kidney disease, stage 3 unspecified, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild. Review of Resident #11's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], showed: -Section C: Cognitive Abilities- 0 was coded to indicate Resident #11 was not able to complete a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). Review of Resident #11 s Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated 1/10/2022, revealed no qualifying mental health diagnosis and no PASRR Level II was required. Review of the Physician Orders for Resident #11, dated 03/13/2024, showed: -Buspirone HCI oral tablet 5 MG by mouth two times a day for anxiety, -Depakote Sprinkles oral capsule delayed release sprinkle 125 MG by mouth three times a day for dementia with mood disorder, -Donepezil HCI tablet 10 MG by mouth at bedtime for dementia, and Mirtazapine tablet 15 MG by mouth at bedtime for depression. 6) Review of the admission Record, dated 03/13/2024, showed Resident #34 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include metabolic encephalopathy, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety, cognitive communication deficit. Review of the MDS, dated [DATE], revealed 0 was coded in Section C0600 to indicate Resident #34 was not able to complete a BIMS. Review of Resident #34's PASRR, dated 2/14/2024, revealed no qualifying mental health diagnosis and no PASRR Level II was required. Review of the Physician Orders, dated 03/13/2024, showed an order for Duloxetine HCI capsule Delayed release particles 30 MG by mouth one time a day for depression for Resident #34. Review of the care plan, initiated on 02/28/2024, showed Resident #34 had impaired cognitive function/dementia related to dementia, uses antidepressants medication related to depression and an intervention initiated on 02/28/2024, to administer medications as ordered, administer antidepressant medications as ordered by physician. 7) Review of the admission Record, dated 03/13/2024, showed Resident #245 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include hydrocephalus, cognitive communication deficit, unspecified, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Review of the MDS, dated [DATE], showed a BIMS score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment for Resident #245. Review of Resident #245's PASARR Level I, dated 2/24/2024, revealed no qualifying mental health diagnosis and no PASARR Level II was required. Review of the Physician Orders, dated 03/13/2024, for Resident #245 showed: -Fluoxetine HCI Oral tablet 20 MG by mouth one time a day for depression, -Rivastigmine Patch 24 Hour 9.5 MG/24 HR one time a day for dementia and remove per schedule. Review of the care plan, revised on 03/13/2024, showed Resident # 245 had bladder incontinence related to dementia and muscle weakness and used antidepressant medication with an intervention created on 02/29/2024 to administer antidepressant medication as ordered by physician. Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to complete the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level II assessment upon a new qualifying mental health diagnosis and/or ensure the accuracy of the PASRR Level I assessment for 9 residents (#11, #17, #24, #34, #49, #56, #67, #81, #245) of 32 sampled residents Findings included: 1. Review of the admission Face Sheet revealed Resident #17 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], a diagnoses including diabetes and major depressive disorder as of 11/07/2022, single episode without psychotic features as of 09/27/2023, generalized anxiety disorder as of 11/07/2022, hypertension, and legally blind. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE] showed in Section C: Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 (cognitively intact). Section I, Active Diagnoses showed anxiety and depression. Section N, Medications showed antianxiety. Review of the physician order summary report showed Ativan 0.5 mg in the evening for anxiety as of 06/07/2023. Review of the psychiatric note, dated 12/08/2023, showed medical history of depression and anxiety. Reason for initial visits were for increased behaviors, hallucinating and combative at times. Review of Resident #17's care plans showed she had depression and anxiety as of 06/13/2023. Interventions included but were not limited to administering medications as ordered. Arrange for psych consult, follow up as indicated; observe and report as needed any s/s of depression. Resident #17 uses anti-anxiety medication related to anxiety as of 11/09/2022. Interventions included but were not limited to administer anti-anxiety medications as ordered by the physician; monitor/document/report prn any adverse reaction to anti-anxiety therapy; refer to psychologist/psychiatrist as needed; and review medication for effectiveness. Review of the PASRR Level I, dated 11/01/2022, showed in Section 1A. anxiety disorder only. Section II showed all no answers. Section III showed the resident was not a provisional admission. Section IV showed no diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required. 2. Review of the admission Face Sheet revealed Resident #56 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. A primary diagnosis of displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, other diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease with late onset as of 11/23/2023, dementia with an unspecified severity as of 11/23/2023, major depressive disorder recurrent severe without psychotic features as of 11/27/2023 and generalized anxiety disorder as of 11/27/2023. Review of the quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], showed in Section C: Cognitive Patterns-a BIMS score of 0 resident is rarely/never understood. Section I, Active Diagnoses showed Alzheimer's disease, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder and depression. Section N, Medications showed antidepressant. Review of the Physician Order Summary Report showed: -observe for antidepressant medications; observe for behaviors; Keppra 250 mg every 24 hours for dementia; Memantine HCL 10 mg twice a day for dementia; Mirtazapine 30 mg at bedtime for depression with poor appetite related to dementia. Review of the psychiatric note, dated 01/02/2024, showed medical history of dementia, psychiatric history of depression. Review of Resident #56's care plans showed she had depression as of 06/13/2023. Interventions included but not limited to administering medications as ordered, Monitor / document side effects and effectiveness, Arrange for psych consult, follow up as indicated, Observe / report prn any signs and symptoms of depression, pharmacy reviews monthly or per protocol. Review of the PASRR Level I, dated 04/12/2023, showed in Section 1A. depressive disorder only. Section II showed all no answers. Section III showed the resident was not a provisional admission. Section IV showed no diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 3/11/2024 at 9:15 AM Resident #49 was observed sitting in the hallway outside her room in front of an overbed table, the resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** On 3/11/2024 at 9:15 AM Resident #49 was observed sitting in the hallway outside her room in front of an overbed table, the resident was observed with a discoloration to her right eye, and right side of her neck. She had what appeared to be stitches over her right eye. On 3/11/2024 at 12:30 PM Resident #49 was observed sitting in the dining room eating lunch with other residents. On 3/12/2024 at 8:15 AM Resident #49 was observed lying in bed, scoop mattress in place, resident was awake and stated she wanted to get out of bed. On 3/12/2024 at 11:00 AM Resident #49 was observed sitting in a wheelchair in the common area attempting to get out of her wheelchair and using the large Lego's. On 3/14/2024 at 2:00 PM Resident #49 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the common area watching television. She stated she was fine and wanted to get up out of her chair. Review of the admission record revealed Resident #49 was admitted on [DATE], and a current admission date of 3/8/2024. Resident #49 diagnoses included unsteadiness on feet (onset date 3/11/2024), unspecified lack of coordination (onset date 3/11/2024), repeated falls (6/13/2023), unspecified dementia with unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbance (onset date 6/13/2023), muscle weakness (onset date 3/11/2024), and age-related osteoporosis without current pathological fractures (onset date 6/13/2023. Review of physician orders, dated 3/13/2024, for Resident #49 revealed: Observation: Sedative/hypnotic medication: Observe for drowsiness, fatigue, weakness, and impaired coordination. Right one-fourth siderail enabler to promote bed mobility and safety. Scoop mattress to bed Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly, dated 12/21/2023, revealed: Section A Identification information dated 12/21/2023. Section C Cognition Patterns revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) 10 MDS 12/21/2023 Section I Active Diagnoses - All diagnoses in the past seven days - check all that apply - Neurological - Non-Alzheimer's Dementia is checked. Other - Repeated Falls Section N Medications - #1 is taking and #2 indication noted - medications for antianxiety, hypnotic and antidepressant are checked for both #1 and #2. Review of the care plan, dated 3/13/2024, for Resident #49 revealed: Focus - Resident #49 has impaired cognitive function revised 7/4/2023 Focus - Resident #49 has had a fall from wheelchair and has had no injury, poor balance, unsteady gait - revised 6/20/2023 Goal - Resident #49 will have no interventions in place and will have reduced risk of injury revision 3/7/2024 Interventions - Anti-rollback device to wheelchair revised 7/11/2023, low bed revised 7/11/2023, nonskid material applied to wheelchair and under wheelchair cushion revised on 7/11/2023. An interview was conducted on 3/11/2024 at 9:20 AM with Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) who stated Resident #49 had a fall last week. He also stated the resident has dementia. An interview was conducted on 3/14/24 at 11:11 AM with the NHA and DON. The DON stated Resident #49 had two falls on 3/4/2024. The DON stated a meeting was held with Resident #49's family to discuss the residents falls. Review of the hospital discharge information, dated 3/7/2024, for Resident #49 revealed: diagnoses of fall on same level, unspecified, initial encounter. Review of facility policy and procedure Falls - Clinical Protocol revised 2018 revealed: Assessment and Recognition: 1. The physician will help identify individuals with a history of falls and risk factors for falling. 2. The staff and practitioner will review each resident's risk factors for falling and document in the medical record 3. The staff will evaluate, and document falls that occur while the individual is in the facility; for example, when and where they happen, any observations of the events. 4. Falls should be categorized as: rising from a sitting or lying to upright position, upright and attempting to ambulate or sliding out of a chair or rolling for a low bed to the floor. 5. Falls should also be identified as witnessed or unwitnessed events Cause Identification: 1. Factors contributing to the fall. 2. Evaluate cause - medications, medical diagnoses, change in condition, supervision. Treatment and Management: 1. Evaluation based on assessment, identify other interventions to implement. Monitoring and Follow-up: 1. Follow-up with assessment and care until resident is stable. 2. Monitor and document resident response to interventions. 3. Continue current approaches and if successful continue and if unsuccessful reevaluate interventions. Based on interviews, observations, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to 1.) prevent falls for three residents (#81, #49 and #35) out of thirty-three sampled residents; and 2.) ensure safety related to smoking for one resident (#88) out of five residents sampled. Findings include: On 3/11/24 at 09:30 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 in her bed next to a window with eyes closed, lights out and food tray at bedside. An observation was made on the 3/11/24 at 10:30 a.m., of Resident #81 remaining in hospital gown, eyes closed and breakfast tray removed. On 3/12/24 at 08:10 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 in her room sitting on the edge of the bed, leaning, rocking to her right side and then to her left. Record review revealed Resident #81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease without dyskinesia, unspecified dementia unspecified severity with anxiety, Sarcopenia, muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, essential hypertension, repeated falls, other specified disorders of bone density ad structure, major depressive disorder recurrent mild, bipolar II disorder, generalized anxiety and contusion of left eyelid and periocular area. On 3/13/24 at 08:35 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 lying in bed with her eyes closed with a breakfast tray on bedside table. During the observation, Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) came into the room to set up the resident's breakfast tray. Staff C, CNA stated the resident is new to the hallway and stated, We are getting to know her she is new to our floor about a week and a half ago. Staff C, CNA stated the resident can ambulate with assistance to bathroom and other times she will not. Staff C, CNA stated the resident may have her days and nights mixed up. During an observation on 3/13/24 at 9:30 a.m. Resident #81's bed remained in a raised position. At the time of the observation was made, unidentified nursing staff came into the room and lowered the bed down but not in its lowest position. On 3/13/24 at 11:53 a.m. Resident #81 remained in bed in the same position as observed in previous observation. On 3/13/24 at 1:30 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN). Staff F, RN stated she has been employed since January and was not familiar with Resident #81. Staff F, RN stated Resident #81 was previously in a different hall. She said the resident would exhibit signs of sadness but could easily be calmed down and she ambulated by means of a wheelchair. On 3/13/24 at 1:35 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Psychiatric Advance Nurse Practitioner, who stated a familiarity with the resident and cited impulsiveness as a contributing factor for her falls. On 3/13/24 at 2:00 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff D, CNA. Staff D, CNA stated Resident #81 could communicate her needs at times and could stand and pivot with queuing for toileting in the bathroom but other times she would require two persons assist for toileting or getting out of bed. Staff D, CNA stated Resident #81 was a high risk for falls and most of her falls were in the hallway or in common room A and later in the afternoon. On 3/13/24 at 2:12 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Rehab Director/Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant (COTA). The Rehab Director stated the resident initially was placed on the rehabilitative hallway and was participating in physical therapy but quickly plateaued by achieving her goal for ambulation. Falls were identified for this resident and multiple interdisciplinary team meetings were conducted with various unsuccessful interventions. The Rehab Director stated as part of the Interdisciplinary Team, the family was approached in placing the resident into a memory care unit facility but the family member declined. The Rehab Director stated the resident had no interest in activities and recently relocated to the long-term care hallway. A review of the facility's fall log from the month of September 01, 2023, to March 08, 2024, revealed Resident #81 with eighteen falls of which fourteen were unwitnessed. A review of the care plan for resident #81 showed: -A focus of actual falls with no injury related to poor balance, unsteady gait and crawling on floor at times. The Goal revealed resume usual activities without further incident through the review date. --Interventions included: appropriate footwear when out of bed as tolerated, bed in low position when in bed, continue interventions on the at-risk plan, evaluate for use of anti-rollback device to wheelchair (WC), as appropriate, for no apparent acute injury determine and address causative factors of the fall, frequent rest breaks as tolerated, frequent safety checks, encourage to attend/assist activities of choice as tolerated, medication review and psychiatric evaluation, monitor/document/report prn to Doctor (MD) for signs/symptoms : pain, bruises, change in mental status, new onset of confusion sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation, non-skid material to WC, offer and assist with ambulation with 2 assist as tolerated, Occupational Therapy (OT) to evaluate and treat for positioning, provide resident center activity as tolerated, Physical Therapy (PT) to evaluate and treat for ambulation and transfers as tolerated, put resident back to bed after lunch as tolerated, therapy to evaluate and treat as indicated for appropriate positioning devices such as cushions, chairs, etcetera , toilet before and after each meal, toilet up rising and at night as tolerated. On 3/14/24 at 9:00 a.m. an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON)/ Risk Manager. The DON said adverse events are discussed daily in the morning huddle. Continuing, she stated On a weekly basis we review all the incidents to discuss the progress of interventions. We had a discussion with Resident #81's family encouraging a memory care unit but the family member declined. On 3/14/24 at 10:30 a.m. an observation was made of Resident #81 in the resident common room no staff were present. Resident #81 was three-quarters of the way in a standing position. The Environmental Services Director (ESD) witnessed the resident from outside the common room and went to the resident to provide assistance. An observation on 3/14/24 at approximately 11:45 a.m. revealed Resident #81 was by herself in her wheelchair; no staff were present. On 3/11/24 at 9:10 a.m., an observation was made of Resident # 35 in his bed with eyes closed, breakfast tray on bedside table, fork in hand with pureed food on the end of the fork. Resident #35 would open his eyes to verbal stimuli but would close and remained nonverbal. On 3/11/24 at 10:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with a family member of Resident #35. During the interview, Resident #35's family member disclosed a diagnosis of Parkinson's disease and dementia for the resident. Resident #35 has resided in this facility for two years. This family member voiced concern over communication among the nursing staff regarding the resident's care needs especially with eating and positioning. The family member stated, Her favorite CNA is no longer here and I feel a little anxious now about his care. The family member stated the other day she came in and found Resident #35 in the recliner chair but he has fallen out of it in the past. When the family member talked to the agency CNA about her concern, the CNA told her that she was keeping an eye on him. The family member stated, I have to trust that she was doing the right thing for him. The family member stated, Ever since [Resident #35] has come back from the hospital a couple of weeks ago they have not gotten him out of bed. The family member stated they are waiting for a special wheelchair to prevent the [Resident #35] from slipping out of the chair. The family member stated, [Rehab Director] is trying to locate this special chair and stated, I told her I was willing to buy the chair so he can get up. The family member stated the resident needs assistance eating as well. The family member stated she tries to take a day off a week but since the CNA familiar with the resident is no longer employed, she feels the need to come every day. The family member stated, I would like him to get out of bed every day but until he gets this new wheelchair, I guess this is how it is supposed to be. On 3/11/24 at 12:45 p.m., an observation was made of the family member for Resident #35 feeding resident. The resident was positioned with head of bed at approximately ninety degrees. The resident was awake with eyes open and receptive to the family member's assistance. On 3/12/24 at 08:35 a.m., an observation was made of a staff member feeding Resident #35 the breakfast meal. An interview was conducted with this staff member at that time, who identified herself as the Rehab Director. According to the Rehab Director, Resident #35 is not waiting on a special wheelchair and the one he has now served the purpose of preventing him from sliding out of the wheelchair, stating, He just needs supervision. On 3/13/24 at 12:00 p.m. a follow-up interview was conducted with the family member of Resident #35. The resident was observed out of bed and the family member was happy he was up and stated, This is good seeing him up and awake and out of bed. The resident was seen trying to move his back away from the wheelchair and family member stated she feels he has pain which she feels contributed to his sliding out of the recliner chair and his wheelchair. On 3/13/24 at 2:12 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Rehab Director. The Rehab Director stated the resident may benefit from a wedge cushion under his legs while in his recliner. The Rehab Director stated Resident #35 has had falls in the past which were related to him sliding out of his wheelchair or recliner. Record review revealed Resident # 35 was admitted on [DATE], with a readmit date of 3/04/24 post hospitalization. Resident #35 had a primary diagnosis of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with secondary diagnoses of Parkinson's disease without dyskinesia, dysphagia oral phase, Sarcopenia, major depressive disorder, essential hypertension, repeated falls, orthostatic hypotension, and dementia Record review of the care plan for Resident #35, dated 02/14/24 showed: -Focus: long term care resident who is alert and occasional verbal with memory loss. He is up in wheelchair daily spending time with spouse. He enjoys watching TV in his room when spouse is not visiting. The goal for this specific care plan has the resident participating in activities of his choice daily such as spending time with spouse. The Interventions include offering hospitality visits for socialization and monthly calendar so he or spouse can plan his daily activities. -Focus area of limited physical mobility or is at risk for decline with mobility related to Parkinson's disease, cognition and impaired thought process, poor safety awareness. The goal is to participate with mobility within physical and/pr cognitive capability and will be out of bed as tolerated. Interventions include the following to reach goal: encourage resident to perform physical activity daily as tolerated, observe for signs and symptoms of pain/discomfort with mobility and intervene as necessary, provide cues, provide encouragement and reassurance as needed with mobility tasks, direction and assist as necessary to promote safety awareness with mobility, training, as indicated, on the safe use of equipment and assistive devices to aid in locomotion/ambulation. -Focused area of at risk for falls related to gait/balance problems was care planned with goal of resident using call light and/or seeking assist with transfer wand will have intervention in place to reduce the risk of fall/injury. A focus of potential for pain related to Parkinson's disorder with the goal of the resident will express decreased pain with treatment interventions and /or therapy and will have fewer episodes of reported pain. The following interventions were developed: educate and encourage resident to voice the onset of pain, rate pain, intervene and notify the physician with unrelieved pain, encourage and assist the resident with therapy treatment regimen as a pain relief measure or to provide comfort, monitor and observe any changes in usual routine, sleep patterns, decrease in functional status, decrease in range of motion, withdrawal or resistance to care, monitor/observe any anxiety, restlessness, refusal of treatment and or withdrawal especially with therapy regimen, intervene and notify physician, monitor and observe any nonverbal signs and symptoms of pain or discomfort such as facial grimacing, shortness of breath, moaning, etcetera intervene and notify the physician. Review of the admission Record, dated 02/08/2024, showed Resident #88 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to included but not limited to Traumatic Subdural Hemorrhage without loss of consciousness, subsequent encounter, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified, unspecified lack of coordination, nicotine dependence, cigarettes, uncomplicated. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Section I Health Conditions, showed Yes were answered to question number 1 to indicate Resident #88 is a current tobacco user. Review of the care plan created and initiated on 02/09/2024 and revised on 03/07/2024 showed Resident #88 is a smoker and is at risk for smoking related injury/incident. Interventions initiated on 2/9/2024 showed to review, update the resident smoking assessment upon admission and as needed. Review of the Medical Record showed a smoking assessment was not conducted until 3/5/2024, a month after the resident was admitted to the facility. During an interview on 03/11/2024 at 9: 30 AM., with Resident #88, the resident stated she has been a smoker at the facility since her admission. She said the nurses keep her cigarettes and lighter for her because she was told that she was not allowed to have them in her room. During an interview on 03/14/2024 at 10:00 AM., the Assistant Director of Nurses stated she completed Resident #88 's smoking assessment on 3/5/2024 because she saw the resident on that day with cigarettes and a lighter. During an interview on 03/14/2024 at 10:00 AM., with Staff B, Registered Nurse/ MDS coordinator, she stated she created Resident #88's smoking care plan on 2/9/2024 because she was identified as a smoker during their interdisciplinary meeting. She said MDS was not aware they needed to complete the resident smoking assessment. During an interview on 03/14/2024 at 10:00 AM., with Staff A, Registered Nurse/ MDS Director. She stated the nurses on the units usually complete the residents' smoking assessments because they would know if a resident were a smoker or not. MDS would have completed the smoking assessment at the time we updated Resident #88's care plan if we were told we needed to complete it. During an interview on 03/14/2024 at 10:20 AM., the Director of Nurses stated the facility process is to identify whether a resident is a smoker during the admission screening. Resident #88 s was care planned as a smoker on 2/9/2024 but her smoking assessment wasn't done until 3/5/2024. The DON said her expectation are when the resident was identified on 2/92024 to be a smoker, and her care plan was created MDS should have completed a smoker evaluation. Review of the facility Smoking Policy & Procedure, revised dated 1/2020 showed: Purpose: To provide residents the privilege of smoking while maintaining their safety and safety of others. Policies: 2. All smokers will be assessed upon admission and as their cognitive and /or physical status mandates. Procedure: 1. A License nurse will assess all smokers upon admission and as cognitive or physical status changes warrant.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow-up on pharmacy recommendations for five resi...

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 follow-up on pharmacy recommendations for five residents (#3, #10, #30, #49 and #56) of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications. 1) Review of the admission record for Resident #49 revealed an admission date of 6/13/2023 and a current admission date of 3/8/2024. Review of the Consultant Pharmacist's medication regime review, dated 1/1/2024 and 1/15/2024 for Resident #49 revealed the following: 1. Clonazepam tablet dispersible 0.125 Milligram (MG) give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for anxiety. Request attempt for dose reduction to verify that resident is on lowest possible dose. 2. Mirtazapine tablet 7.5 mg give one tablet by mouth at bedtime for depression, evaluate for trial dose reduction? 3. Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule Delayed Release Sprinkle 125 MG related to dementia attempt dose reduction 4. Ambien Oral Tablet 10 MG attempt dose reduction Review of Consultant Pharmacist's medication regime review, dated 2/1/2024 & 2/22/2024 for Resident #49 revealed the following: 1. Alendronate Sodium Oral Tablet 70 MG at bedtime recommendation for medication to be given in the am Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #49 for the month of March 2024 revealed: 1. Alendronate Sodium Oral Tablet 70 MG is still given at bedtime 2. Ambien Oral Tablet 10 MG dose remains unchanged 3. Mirtazapine Tablet 7.5 MG one tablet at bedtime dose remains unchanged 4. Clonazepam Tablet dispersible 0.125 MG one tablet by mouth two times a day remains unchanged. 5. Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule Delayed Release Sprinkle two times a day remains unchanged. Review of the physician orders for Resident #49 revealed the following: 1. Alendronate Sodium Oral Tablet 70 MG one tablet at bedtime start date 6/20/23 2. Ambien Oral Tablet 10 MG by mouth at bedtime start date 7/12/2023 3. Clonazepam Tablet Dispersible 0.125 MG one tablet by mouth two times a day start date 6/28/2023. 4. Depakote Sprinkles Oral Capsule Delayed Release Sprinkle 125 MG one capsule by mouth two times a day start date 7/3/2023 5. Mirtazapine Tablet 7.5 MG one tablet by mouth at bedtime start date 6/28/2023 2) A review of the clinical record revealed Resident #10 was admitted [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with a primary diagnosis of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, dementia unspecified as of 3/26/2023, depression unspecified as of 3/26/2023, and anxiety disorder unspecified as of 12/21/2022. A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], showed in Section C, Cognition Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 15 indicating resident was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #10's care plan revealed the following: -Use of antidepressant medication related to depression revealed interventions included administrating medication as ordered, monitor / document side effects and effectiveness, refer to psychologist / psychiatrist as needed, and review with resident, Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), and family use of medication for positive effect, encourage participation in drug regimen therapy and review as needed (prn) for use and effectiveness. -Sedative/hypnotic therapy related to insomnia. Interventions included administer sedative/hypnotic medications as ordered by physician, monitor /document side effects and effectiveness, and monitor/document/report prn for adverse side effects. -Anti-anxiety medication(s) related to anxiety disorder. Interventions included administer anti-anxiety medications as ordered by physician, monitor for side effects and effectiveness, refer to psychologist / psychiatrist as needed, and review with resident, Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), and family use of medication for positive effect, encourage participation in drug regimen therapy and review as needed (prn) for use and effectiveness. A review of the pharmacy recommendations showed the following: -September 2023: Ambien oral tablet 5 milligram (mg) to give one tablet by mouth every twenty-four hours as needed for at night for sleeping. Per pharmacy request to extend per Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) a prn psychotropic medication(s) are limited to 14 days of usage to limit their effect on the brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior- to extent the PRN order past the 14 days the prescriber must provide a rationale for continuing the order. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. October 2023 and November 2023: Xanax 0.25 mg to give one tablet by mouth as needed for anxiety twice a day (BID). A check was made in response to discontinue the order but the physician / prescriber was not signed or dated. A review of the clinical record revealed Resident #30 was admitted on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of hypertensive heart disease with heart failure, dementia unspecified without behavioral disturbance as of 10/01/2022, major depressive disorder severe without psychotic features as of 12/28/2022, and anxiety disorder unspecified as of 02/11/2017. A review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], showed in Section C, Cognition Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status score (BIMS) of 15 indicating resident was cognitively intact. A review of Resident #30's care plan for the use of antidepressant medication related to depression showed interventions included administer antidepressant medications as ordered by physician, monitor and document side effects and effectiveness, medication reviewed with psychiatrist, refer to psychologist and / or psychiatrist as needed, review medication for effectiveness, titrate and / or discontinue once stabilization has been achieved. A review of the pharmacy recommendations showed the following: October 2023: Depakote 125 mg tablet by mouth two times a day related to unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbance with the following requests made by the pharmacist to reduce the dose at this time to verify this resident is on the lowest possible dose. The response was checked to reduce the dose daily but the form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. January 2023: Pristiq 50 mg extended-release tablet give by mouth in the morning for depression with the following requests made by the pharmacist: If this therapy is required to prevent future depressive episodes, please document to the effect in your progress notes. The response section was checked to continue antidepressant therapy, dose reduction contraindicated but the form was not signed by the physician/ prescriber or dated. Review of the admission Record revealed Resident #3 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], a primary diagnosis of Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction affecting left non-dominant side, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (DM2), Chronic Diastolic (congestive) Heart Failure (CHF), and other co-morbidities. Review of the quarterly, MDS dated [DATE] showed in Section C, Cognitive Patterns a BIMS score of 12/15 (moderately impaired), Section N, Medications showed insulin, antianxiety, anticoagulant, diuretic, hypoglycemic, and antidepressant. Record review of the pharmacy recommendations showed the following: -January 2024: Valproic Acid Solution 250 MG/5ML (Valproate Sodium) Give 5 ml via PEG-Tube two times a day for bipoloar disorder related to Bipolar II Disorder. Suggest: Could we attempt a dose reduction at this time to verify this resident is on the lowest possible dose? If not, please indicate response below: Under the Physician / Prescriber Response - Use is in accordance with relevant current standards of practice - was checked. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. During an interview on 03/13/2024 at 4:00 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed the pharmacy recommendations for Resident #3. She verified the pharmacy recommendation had not been addressed. She confirmed under the Physician / Prescriber Response was checked with no explanation, no physical signature or date. During an interview on 3/14/2024 at 8:56 AM the Consultant Pharmacist for the facility stated each resident is reviewed upon admission and monthly according to regulation, standards, clinical indications, diagnosis, and dosing standards. If any recommendations are needed a report of my findings is submitted to the facility DON via email, and regular mail. The facility should follow up on the recommendations in at least 30 days. The following month a record review is completed to see if the recommendations were/were not addressed. Sometimes I will give 60 days for follow up, especially if the recommendation is made near the end of one month. If the recommendation is not followed up on, I will make the recommendation again. I need to ensure the physician is aware of the recommendations. The physician does not have to agree, just acknowledge and explain rationale. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Consultant Pharmacist Reports, Medication Regimen Review, undated showed the following: Policy: The consultant pharmacist performs a comprehensive review of each resident's medication regimen at least monthly. The medication regimen review (MRR) includes evaluating the resident's response to medication therapy to determine that the resident maintains the highest practicable level of functioning and preventing or minimizing adverse consequences related to medication therapy. Findings and recommendations are reported to the director of nursing and the attending physician, and if appropriate, the medical director and/or the administrator. Procedures: A. The facility assures the consultant pharmacist has access to the resident's and their medical records; the resident medication profiles; the facility's records of medication receipt and disposition; medication storage areas; and controlled substance records and supplies. B. The consultant pharmacist reviews the medication regimen of each resident at least monthly. 1) A more frequent review may be deemed necessary, e.g., if the medication regimen is thought to contribute to an acute change in status or adverse consequence, or the resident is not expected to stay 30 days. C. While MRR's are generally conducted in the facility, off-site MRR's are acceptable when a review is requested and the following conditions are met: 1) the consultant pharmacist is not present in the facility, and 2) it is not possible for the consultant pharmacist to visit the facility within a reasonable time frame. If a consultation is needed when the pharmacist is off-site: 1) the director of nursing or charge nurse notifies the consultant pharmacist. 2) The consultant pharmacists or designee, e.g., clinical pharmacist at the provider pharmacy, works with facility personnel and electronic records to gather pertinent information related to the resident's status and/or request for consultation. 3) The findings are phoned, faxed, or emailed within (24 hours) to the director of nursing or designee and are documented and stored with the other consultant pharmacist recommendations. 4) The prescriber and/or medical director is notified if needed. 5) Any electronic communication of patient specific data (i.e., clear that emailing records or findings) must be encrypted and facilitated in a HIPAA compliant manner. D. In performing medication regimen reviews, the consultant pharmacist incorporates federally mandated standards of care, in addition to other applicable professional standards, such as the American Society of Consultant Pharmacists Practice Standards, and clinical standards such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Clinical Practice Guidelines and American Medical Directors Association Clinical Practice Guidelines. 3) Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #56 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], a primary diagnosis of displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the right femur, Alzheimer's disease with late onset as of 11/23/2023, dementia with an unspecified severity as of 11/23/2023, major depressive disorder recurrent severe without psychotic features as of 11/27/2023 and generalized anxiety disorder as of 11/27/2023. Review of the quarterly, MDS, dated [DATE], showed in Section C, Cognitive Patterns a BIMS score of resident is rarely/never understood. Section I, Active Diagnoses showed Alzheimer's disease, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder and depression. Section N, Medications showed antidepressant. Review of Resident #56's care plans showed she has depression as of 06/13/2023. Interventions included but not limited to administering medications as ordered. Monitor / document side effects and effectiveness. Arrange for psych consult, follow up as indicated. Observe / report prn any signs and symptoms of depression, pharmacy reviews monthly or per protocol. Record review of the pharmacy recommendations showed the following: -September 2023: Alendronate Sodium 70 mg daily every Monday for Osteoporosis, take on empty stomach before eating. Medication should be taken in the morning with 6 to 8 ounces of water at least 30 minutes before any other beverage or food. Do not lie down for 30 minutes after taking meds to prevent irritation to the esophagus. Under the Physician / Prescriber Response agree was checked. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. -October 2023: Ascorbic Acid 500 mg daily for a supplement. Suggest reviewing profile carefully and make adjustments as you deem appropriate. The response checked was, no changes at this time-medication profile reviewed and content noted. Under the Physician / Prescriber Response agree was checked. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. Clarify the diagnosis for the Remeron order: Mirtazapine 30 mg at bedtime for depression with poor appetite related to dementia. Current diagnoses is not an FDA approved indication and may not be acceptable on survey. Suggest considering one of the following FDA approved indications: depression, off-label recommended diagnoses: benign familial tremor, pruritis, tremor. A check mark was noted on the form. Under the Physician / Prescriber Response the form had no response and it was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. The resident has been receiving the following medication: Magnesium Oxide 400 mg daily for supplement since 5-4-2023. Most recent chemistry results dated 5/13/23 showed Within normal limits of 2.4 mg/dl. Should this therapy be evaluated or discontinued at this time? Under the Physician / Prescriber Response disagree was checked. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. -December 2023: Practice guidelines for major depression in primary care recommend continuing the same dose for 4-9 months following the acute phase. Whether a patient is to continue therapy in this maintenance phase depends on the established history of previous depressive episodes and the physician assessment. A trial dose reduction may be reasonable at this time. This resident as been using the following medication: Mirtazapine 30 mg at bedtime for depression with poor appetite related to dementia. If the therapy is required to prevent future depressive episodes, please document to that effect in your progress notes: The response checked was, continue antidepressant therapy; dose reduction contraindicated. See progress note below or in chart. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. -January 2024: Aspirin 81 mg daily for clot prevention. Note clot prevention alone is note a diagnoses; please clarify this diagnoses. A list of suggestions was provided. Stroke prophylaxis was checked. Under the Physician / Prescriber Response agree was checked. The form was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. -February 2024: Alendronate Sodium 70 mg daily every Sunday for Osteoporosis. Take on empty stomach before eating. Medication should be taken in the morning with 6 to 8 oz of water at least 30 minutes before any other beverage or food. Do not lie down for 30 minutes after taking meds to prevent irritation to the esophagus. Under the Physician / Prescriber Response the form had no response and it was not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. During an interview on 03/13/2024 at 1:11 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed the pharmacy recommendations for Resident #56. She stated they receive recommendations from the pharmacy consultant. They are to review the recommendations to see if there are any recommendations. They are then to call the physician to review and check for any updates. They follow up with the physician to see if they agree or disagree with the recommendations. The DON stated she will give the recommendations to the Unit Manager also to follow up with the physician regarding possible updates or changes. She verified on the bottom of the pharmacy recommendations under the Physician / Prescriber Response the forms had no responses, and they were not signed by the physician / prescriber or dated. She stated the expectation was for the staff to document who they discussed the recommendation with including date and / or the physician would document.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 ensure there were no discrepancies between the narcotic records and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure there were no discrepancies between the narcotic records and the residents' medical records for three (Residents #3, #4, #5) of three residents who had physician's orders for and received narcotics to relieve their pain. Findings included: 1. Resident #3 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction and Pressure Ulcers to her sacral region. A review of Physician Orders revealed an order for tramadol HCl 50 mg, one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain, with a start date of 11/30/2023. On 12/18/2023 a short interview was conducted with the resident beginning at 10:15 a.m. The resident was observed sitting in her wheelchair with both legs bent at the knees and drawn up to her chest. She was leaning toward her left side. She was agreeable to an interview and while answering questions, it was noted that she was moaning and fidgeting in her chair. When asked if she was in pain, she agreed and said she wanted to ask her nurse for her pain pill. At that same time, the resident's aide walked into the room and she confirmed she had told the nurse the resident was ready for a pain pill. The surveyor left the room and spoke with the resident's nurse who confirmed she was aware the resident was asking for her pain pill. She reported the resident preferred to ask for the pain pill, and usually was very specific about the time that she wanted it. A review was conducted of the Medication Administration Sheets (the MAR) , the Nurse's notes, and the Controlled Drug Declining Inventory Sheet (the Narc Count Sheet) to ensure all entries matched and the administration of the tramadol was accounted for and documented. Several discrepancies were noted. On 12/07/2023 at 9:00 a.m. the Narc Count Sheet listed one tramadol was administered, but the administration was not documented on the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/08/2023 at 12:00 p.m. the Narc Count Sheet listed one tramadol was administered, but it was not documented on the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/18/2023 the Narc Count Sheet did not list a second dose as administered but the MAR and the Nurse's notes documented a dose was administered at 12:07 p.m 2. Resident # 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after having sustained a fractured lower end of the right radius and a displaced fracture of the right ulna after a fall. A review of Physician Orders revealed an order at admission for Percocet Oral Tablet 5-325 mg, give one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for acute pain. This order was in place until 12/11/2023 when the order changed to oxycodone - acetaminophen oral tablet 7.5-325 mg , give one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. On 12/18/2023 at 10:10 a.m. the resident was observed sleeping in bed, in a sitting position with her back against the elevated head of the bed. On 12/18/2023 at 10:25 a.m. the resident was observed in her bed, but awake. She welcomed the surveyor into her room and reported she was fine. She confirmed she enjoyed falling back to sleep after eating breakfast. She reported she had pain at times, but she did not have a prescription for narcotics. Her right arm was observed in a cast which was resting on the bed. A review was conducted of the MAR with comparison to the Nurse's notes and the Narc Count Sheet and showed the following: On 12/07/2023, the Narc Count Sheet listed one pill was administered at 2:30 a.m. which was not documented in the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/10/2023, the Narc Count Sheet listed one pill was administered at 11:50 a.m. but it was not documented in the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/11/2023, the Narc Count Sheet listed one pill was administered at 2:20 p.m. but it was not documented in the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/15/2023, the Narc Count Sheet listed one pill was administered at 5:30 a.m. and a second pill was administered at 12:15 p.m., but neither were documented in the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/18/2023, the Narc Count Sheet did not list any pills as administered, but the MAR and the Nurse's notes contained documentation at 10:54 a.m. for the administration of one pill. 3. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hypertensive Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and Spinal Stenosis. A review of the Physician's orders revealed an order for Hydrocodone -Acetaminophen 5-325 mg, give one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain. A review was conducted of the MAR with comparison to the Nurse's notes and the Narc Count Sheet showed the following: On 12/06/2023 the Narc Count Sheet listed one pill as given at 10:00 a.m., but it was not documented in the MAR or in the Nurse's notes. On 12/07/23 the Narc Count Sheet listed one pill as given at 1620 (4:20 p.m.). The MAR and the Nurse's notes documented the pill was given at 2019 (8:19 p.m). On 12/18/2023 beginning at 12:20 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Director of Nurses (DON). When asked about concerns with missing medication or diversion of narcotics, she reported that she had investigated one occurrence a few months prior, but had not been made aware of a continuing problem. She reported all nurses had received education on medication administration and how to document that administration. She denied having been told of a continued problem, especially with agency nurses. The concerns identified with Resident #3 , #4, and #5 were discussed with the discrepancies observed in the documentation reviewed. The DON confirmed the discrepancies were a problem and there would have to be more education with the nurses. On 12/18/2023 beginning at 2:40 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Risk Manager/Unit Manager (RM/UM). The RM/UM confirmed there had been education conducted with the nurses on receiving narcotics from the pharmacy and documentation that had to be made when administering narcotics. She reported she had not been told by nurses the narcotic counts were incorrect. She confirmed she had not been made aware of agency nurses who were not documenting administering narcotics to residents. A review was conducted of the facility's policy entitled Administering Medications. The Policy heading read: Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner and as prescribed. Point #4 under Policy Interpretation and Implementation read: Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame. Point # 6 read: Medication errors are documented, reported, and reviewed by the QAPI committee to inform process changes and or the need for additional staff training. Point #22 read: The individual administering the medication initials the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones.
Oct 2023 4 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglec...

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 protect the resident's right to be free from neglect by not ensuring one (#1) out of seven residents with a known history of exit seeking behaviors, and an expressed desire to leave the facility, was provided supervision and services to prevent elopement. The facility failed to properly secure an exit gate, or implement proper methods to prevent elopement, on 10/9/2023 and 10/15/2023. The facility nursing staff neglected to ensure the safety of Resident # 1. Resident # 1 was able to exit the facility unsupervised on 10/9/2023 and 10/15/2023. On 10/9/2023, Resident # 1 self-propelled out a fire exit door leading to a smoking patio and exited the facility unwitnessed through a gate leading into a parking lot next to a busy highway. On 10/15/2023 Resident # 1 exited the facility unwitnessed through the same fire door leading on to a smoking patio, where he gained access to an unattended key attached to the fence, unlocked the gate, and exited from the facility. Staff found him outside the facility heading down the street, next to the busy highway with a high volume of traffic. Resident #1 had been assessed as at risk for elopement, was care-planned to have a wander device on, and had an active order for 1:1 supervision. This neglect created a situation that resulted in the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to Resident # 1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 10/9/2023. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 10/27/2023 and the severity and scope was reduced to a D after verification of removal of Immediate Jeopardy Finding Included: Review of Resident Information Record dated 10/26/2023 showed Resident # 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that include Muscle Weakness (Generalized), Unsteadiness on Feet, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery Without Angina Pectoris. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated moderate impairment. Review of the current physician orders dated 10/07/2023, showed Resident #1 had an active order dated 10/09/2023 for an Electronic Monitoring Device on his right ankle to be monitored every shift (Q Shift); Check the functionality on the Electronic Monitoring Device per manufacturer instructions alarm notification every shift (q night shift), or blinking light every shift, to alert exit seeking attempts. Further review showed Resident # 1 had an active order dated 10/12/2023 for one-on-one care for safety, uncontrolled exit seeking until Friday (no date specified). Review of an Elopement Risk Form dated 10/08/2023 showed Resident # 1 scored a 13 revealing he was at risk for elopement. Further review showed the resident wandered, but never eloped, and expressed desires to leave. Additional review of the Elopement Risk assessment dated of 10/09/2023, showed the resident scored a 12 revealing he was at risk for elopement, was alert and oriented, knows who he is and where he is, but not what time it is or what is happening to him, wanders, but had never eloped, independent with wheelchair, and was actively exit - seeking. The summary and decision guide revealed an Electronic Monitoring Device was applied on the resident right ankle. Review of a progress note marked late entry dated 10/09/2023 by Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) showed at 8:14am Resident was very angry during rounds and potential to violent due to his threatening behaviors. At 9:33am Noted not in the unit. Ground search identified not in the facility. Code Elopement announced. Exited in the back door inside the location and wheeled back. Elopement risk -assessed. Medical Director was notified. Wife unreachable message left. Electronic monitoring device ordered in the [electronic medical record] -placed in the right ankle #7277 exp. 082024. Review of a progress note dated 10/10/2023 by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) showed This writer/Director of Nurses (DON) met with resident. He appears more calm this am, however, is still about his wife. He wants to go see her at the hospital. This writer agreed to follow up on possibility of a hospital visit, otherwise will arrange a Video Call. Resident more coherent today and able to verbalize family support with two children, however, perseverates on wife's status/location and desires to be with her. Review of a progress note dated 10/14/2023 by Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager showed, This writer was approached by the resident voicing concerns stated that he felt like a prisoner and wanted device removed from his ankle, this writer tried to educate on safety. Electronic monitoring device was removed from the resident ankle and placed on his wheelchair. Resident no longer agitated and yelling out. Further review of the electronic medical record showed no documentation related to Resident # 1 exiting the facility on 10/15/2023. Review of the resident's care plan dated 10/08/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023 showed resident was an elopement risk, wanders related to confusion and seeking his wife with interventions that included provide redirection as appropriate, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023; Provide frequent checks of whereabouts as necessary, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023. Further review showed a behavior care plan dated 10/10/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023, related to hitting and being verbally abusive related to wanting to leave the facility and seeking his wife with interventions that included Increased monitoring and supervision of resident and or visitors of resident, initiated 10/10/2023. Review of Psychiatric Note dated 10/10/2023, showed Resident # 1 was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with mood disturbance. Resident denied any pain but was very concerned about his wife, who had apparently fallen and broke her hip and was having surgery at the hospital. Resident appeared agitated and angry during interview and reported that if he does not find his wife he will start killing people. Further review of the psychiatric visit summary showed, The [skilled nursing facility] has patient on 1:1 for now to help with his aggression and behaviors. An interview was conducted with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) on 10/25/23 at 3:10 p.m. She remembered that Resident # 1 was very angry, and he wanted to be with his wife. Staff A stated, I am not sure what the situation was. I think there was a plan for her to be here, but I don't know what happened. Resident # 1 knew where his wife was, but he didn't want to be here. He compared his stay here to being in jail and he made attempts to leave. He was put on 1-1 supervision. He would sit by the exit and try to get out when staff or people would go out the doors. On 10/9/23 I don't remember an elopement being called that day, but Resident # 1 was on 1-1 supervision the whole time he was here up until he was discharged from the facility. I believe Resident # 1 got out before my shift started on 11-7, but I wasn't here. When I got to work on that day there was no education, or anything being talked about regarding Resident # 1 eloping. I wasn't his nurse that day. An interview was conducted with Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) on 10/25/23 at 3:23 p.m. She stated I remember Resident # 1 briefly; his room was in the red hall. He was on 1-1 supervision and always had someone with him. He was exiting seeking, and I'm not sure of his cognition. I think he voiced a wanting to leave the facility. I worked on 10/9/2023 and I don't remember there being an elopement called on 10/9/23. An interview was conducted with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/25/23 at 3:40 p.m. She said Resident # 1 was not one on one supervision when he was admitted ; he was placed on one on one after the situation happened on 10/9/2023. At the time. I think we already put him on a wanderguard on him because he kept saying he was going to go out and go to his wife. She said she came to work between the hours of 7 or 8 a.m., and the situation with Resident # 1 happened between 9 and 10. Staff C stated, I did not think the situation was an elopement because to my understanding Resident # 1 was seen by somebody inside our facility, that is not an elopement. I did not write he was not in the facility; I mean not in the building. I didn't know the resident was under supervision on that day. We just knew he wasn't in his room. We announced an elopement, but I don't remember the time and I cannot remember any more. I don't know who said Resident # 1 wasn't in his room and I don't know who found the resident. When they found him, he had no injuries and no signs of bleeding. No skin assessment was completed. Resident # 1 said he was just trying to look for somebody to help him when he left the facility. He went out the door without us knowing he had left. His wife fell and was hospitalized . He was an elopement risk on elopement precautions, wander device placed in the right ankle. Staff C said the elopement risk on 10/10/2023 was not complete. She said she started the assessment because the resident had got out the day before. Staff C stated, One of the supervisors did the assessment and I was just checking it to go over it. She said When I reviewed the resident's orders, I had not discontinued the one-to-one order. I was not notified it was ever discontinued. It was still active when he left. An interview was conducted with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) ADON at 10/25/23 4:39. She said on 10/9/23 a therapy staff member saw the resident in the backyard. Staff C stated We were having a meeting on 10/9/23 when one of the therapists came to the door and told everyone in the meeting that a patient was not found in the unit. Everyone left the meeting and started looking for the resident. I went to the front door to see if the resident was located there but he was not there, then me and the DON [director of nursing] did an elopement drill. The DON told me they found the patient in the back yard next to the gazebo. I did not go out to the parking lot but there were people cutting the grass at the time, and I presumed the gate was open because they were cutting the grass. An interview was conducted with Staff D, Dietary [NAME] on 10/25/23 at 4:30 p.m. He said Resident # 1 was in a wheelchair when he saw him at first, he did not know who the resident was, but he knew that he had to be a resident at the facility when he saw a bandage on his face. He said he saw the resident outside of the gate in parking lot on left side of building when he got to work. He stated I didn't have my cell phone. So, I went into the building to get someone. Two CNAs came to help the resident, everyone that worked that day had to do an in-service and sign a paper. I talked to the DON and gave a verbal statement. I did not get asked for a written statement. An interview was conducted with Staff E, a Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) on 10/26/23 at 10:14 a.m. Staff E said on 10/9/2023 Monday morning between 9-9:30 a.m. I pulled off highway 52 into the parking lot and parked in the 6th parking spot from the road. I saw a gentleman in a wheelchair in the middle of the parking lot. No one was with him at that time. He was moving in his wheelchair, dressed in regular clothes. I pulled into the first spot and went to talk to him. He kept moving and was behind my car. He was very agitated. I noticed his incision and thought he must be a resident. I grabbed my phone to call someone inside the facility to come out to assist me with the resident. Resident # 1 was going backwards at this point towards the road. I called my boss right away and told her [Staff G] I had a resident outside that was agitated and I needed help. Everyone came running out to help assist with getting the resident back inside the facility. He was strong and by that time we were probably a few parking spaces closer to the road. They were able to get him back in the building. I left at that point because the Nursing Home Administrator said she didn't need me. An interview was conducted with Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), on 10/26/2023 at 9:43 a.m. She said, I worked with Resident # 1 several times. I was one to one with the resident on 10/14/2023 until 11:30 p.m. On 10/15/2023 I was assigned to the resident as his aide but not as one on one supervision. I told the nurse I was taking a 15 min break, and I went out to my car. I saw a CNA running and the guy said someone just left. The resident was up by the highway on the sidewalk rolling in his wheelchair. I, the CNA, and the manager on duty went after the resident to bring him back to the facility. The manager on duty went to get more staff to assist us because we couldn't control the resident. He was so combative with us he tried to get up and fell out of his wheelchair. We had to pick him up and help him back into his wheelchair. There were no alarms going off when we got back to the facility because the door the resident got out, leading to the smoking courtyard, had no alarm system on it. It took us about 45 minutes or up to an hour to get the resident back inside the facility because the resident was resisting. He got out from the same smoking area he exited before. They put him under 1-1 supervision when he got here and then they took him off. I think it was on his ankle, but he kept messing with it, so they put it on the electronic monitoring device on his chair. After the second time he got out, he was put back on one to one. He was very confused and just wanted to go see his wife. An interview was conducted with Staff G, Registered Nurse/Resident Care Coordinator, MDS, (RN) on 10/26/23 at 10:39 a.m. Staff G confirmed she was the manager on duty on 10/15/2023 and said, On 10/15/23 I was going out to courtyard because a resident was out there, and he waved me out because he wanted a soda. I was manager on duty that day. When I went out there a resident said a gentleman had just gone out of the gate. I went out the gate and closed it behind me. I didn't see him towards the back of the building. I turned left and saw him in the direction toward the road. A dietary person was out there, and a CNA came out to help. When I got to him, he was on the sidewalk next to highway 52. We were telling him to come back, and he was trying to get away. He grabbed hold of a silver rail along the sidewalk so we couldn't move him. We were running, but he was quicker. We told him he needed to come back, and it wasn't safe for him to be outside. He kicked me in the shin and tried to hit the CNA. He grabbed the rail when we were trying to move him, pulled himself up and he fell out of the chair. He reopened a skin tear on his arm. Once there were a few more people out there, I ran back to get his nurse and she came out to assess him. He really liked his nurse, and she was able to get him back inside the building. He let us help him get back in wheelchair. There was a key hanging off to the side of the gate lock. He unlocked the lock and got out of the gate. The DON came in that day and double checked to make sure residents and staff were ok. The DON came to me this morning to do elopement training. She asked me what to do when a resident tries to elopement, how to call one. An interview was conducted with Staff H, the Director of Rehabilitation on 10/26/23 at 12:01 p.m. She said On Monday morning, I got a phone call from [Staff E] when I was in the morning meeting. Between 9:30 and 10:00. Staff E told me when she pulled into the parking lot, she saw a patient outside. She called me to tell me she was with the resident and needed assistance. I just told everyone in the meeting. We immediately began searching. He was outside by the old therapy gym on the left side of the building. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/26/23 at 11:04 p.m. The DON stated, On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting. [Staff H] got a phone call from [Staff E], telling her a resident was outside of the facility gate. We looked out the window and saw the lawn people were outside too and the gate was open. We all got up and went outside. [Staff E] was with him the whole time outside in the parking lot. From my understanding the gate was opened by lawn maintenance people. Our gate has a key for emergencies. The lawn people had the gate open, and the resident got out of the gate. [Staff E] said she was coming into work and saw the resident in the parking lot. When I went out and saw him, he just kept saying 'I want my wife, I want my wife.' Education didn't start specifically that day; we started education the following week during our town hall meeting. We have an Advance Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) for psychiatry and Psychologist. Both saw him on 10/11/23. I think we increased activities, and increased entertainment. The resident was redirectable. I did not consider either event on 10/9/2023 and 10/15/2023 to be an elopement because the staff was with the resident. Prior to him getting out he was not 1-1. We increased activity around that hallway. We were putting extra staff down there to encourage extra eyes. I think they put 1-1 on the staffing sheet to monitor him more closely. An interview was conducted with Staff I, Registered Nurse, (RN). Resident Care Coordinator on 10/26/23 at 10:30 a.m. I worked on 10/9/23 but not 10/15/23. I was here and tried to help get Resident # 1 in the facility. I was in a morning meeting, and someone said there was a resident in the parking lot with a therapist. I went out of the meeting to help assist with bringing him back inside the facility, but he was difficult and agitated. He wanted to see his wife. It took three of us to get him back inside the facility. We tried to redirect him and calm him down and turned his wheelchair to back him in. We got him back in. A wander guard was placed on 10/9/23 and the Wanderguard was added to his care plan. I didn't update the resident care plan after he got out on 10/15/23. An interview was conducted with Staff J, the Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager (RM) on 10/26/23 at 2:20 p.m. The Director of Rehab came in the building and said Resident # 1 was outside with her therapist. We went outside and brought him back in. At that point, he got out of the side gate from the smoking patio. It was a day the landscapers were here. The gate was still open. We put him on one on one and he had a wanderguard. There is no wanderguard system alarm on the door he went out and the door to go to the smoking patio from the building is open all the time. Somehow the resident wasn't one to one if he got out. I told the CNA she could help on the floor in that area. There were aides on the floor, so I felt like someone was always going to be there. On Sunday morning I didn't tell staff to take the resident off one to one. There was an aide just sitting there not doing anything so I said she could help. I have no idea why the resident wasn't one to one that Sunday. The RM confirmed if a 1:1 was assigned it would be on the daily staffing sheet but confirmed a 1:1 was not listed. The RM stated I was not part of the investigation they conducted regarding the resident getting out; the NHA conducted the investigation. We did not consider the resident eloped because he was seen going outside the gate. As a risk manager I would usually deal with elopements, but I am still in training or whatever. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 10/26/23 at 2:45 p.m. On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting, and the rehab director received a telephone call that one of her staff members was outside with Resident # 1. We left the morning meeting and went to assist in getting the resident back inside the building. I think DON and I discussed what happened, and we had identified the landscapers were here and he had gone through the courtyard gate the first time. Staff E was the one that observed him at the gate. Continuing, the NHA said, I would have to look at her statement and see what she told us. I thought we had a statement from her, but I don't see it here. I think we did get a statement. The NHA said We were able to redirect him and bring him back to the building. He was reassessed and the interdisciplinary team made recommendations for interventions. I don't know what the interventions were. The NHA continued On 10/15/23 it was reported to me Resident # 1 had exited out the courtyard gate. He opened the lock with the key that was attached to the gate. A dietary staff member was in his car and observed him unlock the lock and exit out the gate. He saw a CNA and asked her to help assist the resident. Staff G went out and a CNA was with the resident. I was told there were multiple staff involved because the resident became combative. It was not reported to me he was off the property, and I do not know of a timeline when the resident would have got out the gate. I was told he sustained a fall and had an abrasion on his arm. Afterward the DON and I communicated. She was here and we talked about completing house wide elopement assessments. We talked about staff education. The next day we had an Adhoc QAPI meeting with the team to discuss how this happened and what we can do to prevent it. I know we increased the level of supervision on the red hall where the resident had resided. I don't know if we maintained one to one supervision 24-7. We did not consider it an elopement because he did not exit the courtyard; He did not leave the premises. The NHA continued, I don't know if there was a timeline done to see the last time staff would have seen Resident # 1. We conducted our investigation together as a team. I don't remember a timeline being done. The NHA confirmed the definition of elopement would be 'A patient who left the premises of the facility without permission or off the property' but stated I think it depends on the circumstances with the patient, and the patient's condition. No, this it is not an elopement to me. The NHA confirmed documentation related to both incidents was incomplete in the clinical record. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 10/26/23 at 10:58 a.m., I was made aware the resident left the facility. I would have to look at text messages. I was made aware twice. We reviewed his medicines, and I don't think we gave him any more sedatives. He just wanted to speak to his wife. She was in the hospital as well. I don't think it was an elopement. I don't know what the definition of elopement was. I was told he was seen by the staff leaving his room. I was told he was in the courtyard I believe. Elopement is to my knowledge is when staff are not aware of his where abouts. I was made aware of him trying to leave and the nurses and another person were with him. On 10/9/2023 the temperature was 78 degrees Fahrenheit and on 10/15/2023 the temperature was 78 degrees Fahrenheit according to www.weather.com. State Highway 52 is a 6-lane state road with speed limits ranging from 35 miles per hour to 55 miles per hour, according to www.fdot.gov. Observations revealed a sidewalk on one side of the road (the side which the facility was located) and a mild gradient, with 3 lanes of traffic traveling in both directions (six lanes total). Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation [ANEM] of Property Prevention, Protection and Response Policy and Procedures Revised draft date 03/2022, revealed, Policy. Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation of Property, collectively known and referred to as ANEM and as hereafter defined, will not be tolerated by anyone, including staff, patients, volunteers, family members as legal guardians, friends, or any other individuals. Definitions: Neglect: The failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a patient that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or mental illness. Neglect occurs when facility staff fails to monitor and/or supervise the delivery or patient care and services to assure that care is provided as needed by the patient. Policy: Patients with needs and behaviors that might lead to conflict with staff or other patients will be identified by the interdisciplinary Care Planning Team, with interventions and follow through designed to minimize the risk of conflict. III. Prevention Issues: Procedures: Any patient identified as having behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect, such a. Patient with history of aggressive behaviors The interventions designed to meet the needs of such patients will include but will not be limited to: b. Assessment of appropriate intervention strategies to prevent occurrences, c. Monitoring the patient for any changes that would trigger abusive behaviors. d. Reassessment of the protective strategies on a regular basis. Identification Issues: Policy: Any patient event that is reported to any staff by patient, family, other staff, or any other person will be considered as possible ANEM if it meets any of the following criteria: g. Any instances of hitting, slapping, pinching, or kicking or other potentially harmful action. Review of the facility policy titled Wandering and Elopements Revised date March 2019, revealed, Policy Heading The facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. 2. If an employee observes a resident leaving the premises, he/she should: a. Attempt to prevent the resident from leaving in a courteous manner. b. Get help from other staff members in the immediate vicinity, if necessary; and c. Instruct another staff member to inform the charge nurse or director of nursing services that a resident is attempting to leave or has left the premises. 3. If a resident is missing, initiate the elopement/ missing resident emergency procedure: a. Determine if the resident is out on an authorized leave or pass. b. If the resident was not authorized to leave, initiate a search of the building(s) and premises; and If the resident is not located, notify the administrator and the director of nursing services, the resident's legal representative, the attending physician, law enforcement officials, and (as necessary) volunteer agencies (i.e., emergency management, rescue squads, etc.). 4. When the resident returns to the facility, the director of nursing services or charge nurse shall: a. Examine the resident for injuries. b. Contact the attending physician and report the findings and conditions of the resident. c. notify search teams that the resident has been located. d. document relevant information in the resident's medical record. On 10/27/2023 at 3:36 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator provided a removal plan showing the following facility steps to remove the Immediate Jeopardy: 1. Resident # 1 was discharged on 10/20/2023. On 10/27/2023, immediately upon alleged abuse/ neglect, designee called resident # 1 current location to ensure resident safety. 2. On 10/27/2023 the allegations of neglect were reported to Abuse Registry via online reporting and the AHCA immediate report was completed 3. On 10/16/2023 a root cause analysis was completed with the development of a performance improvement plan 4. On 10/15/2023 elopement risk assessment was completed on 100% of the resident population 5. On 10/27/2023 at 1:45 pm, Risk Manager and 2 MDS RNs began reassessing 100% of current resident population for elopement risk. The care plans for those residents assessed as moderate/high risk were reviewed to ensure appropriate interventions. Education 1. On 16/2023, staff were provided with education regarding Wandering, elopement, and prevention tips: 2. On 10/19/2023, staff education was provided regarding Wandering, elopement, and prevention tips as well as emergency code and expectation related to staff response. 3. On 10/27/2023, Licensed nurses have been educated on transcription of physician orders to include specific start/stop dates of interventions. 4. On 10/27/2023, staff have been educated in routine resident checks. 5. On 10/26/2023, staff were educated on resident/ staff safety and facility security as it relates to the location of the key for the locks on the courtyard. 6. On 10/26/2023, Carefree education was delivered via text and / or email to all staff regarding resident/ staff safety and facility security as it relates to the location of the key for the locks on the courtyards. 7. On 10/26/2023, an auditing tool was implemented for auditing the location of courtyard keys and verification of secured locks on the gate. 8. AN Ad hoc QAPI meeting on 10/27/2023 to discuss all interventions included in the plan of abatement. Facility administrative staff were educated on 10/27/2023 of the Federal definition of elopement and a notification to the Medical Director and the Ombudsman. On 10/27/2023 at 4:00 p.m., An observation showed the keys to both gates have been relocated away from the gate. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 10/27/2023 at 6:00 p.m. the definition of elopement from the Florida Healthcare Association and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was reviewed and discussed with all facility staff by the Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nurses, and the Corporate Regional Nurse. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Regional Nurse (CRN) on 10/27/23 at 6:01 p.m. The NHA said elopement, the new key location and gate lock education was provided to all staff including the Medical Director. The courtyard gate keys were immediately removed and relocated to another location. The NHA stated We have a performance improvement plan that was put in place related to elopements, resident safety, and assessments/ care plans. The root cause of the elopement was a resident was able to have access to a key that was hanging from the gate located in the smoking courtyard and was able to unlock the gate and get out. We remediated the situation by relocating the key from the gate and we [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide supervision and services to prevent unwitne...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide supervision and services to prevent unwitnessed exits from the facility, on two occasions, for one (Resident # 1) of seven residents at high-risk of elopement. This failure created a situation which resulted in the likelihood for serious injury, harm and/or death to Resident # 1, and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 10/09/2023. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 10/27/2023, and the scope and severity was reduced to a D after verification of removal of Immediate Jeopardy. Resident # 1 is a [AGE] year-old male who was moderately cognitively impaired, at risk for falls related to unsteadiness on his feet, was known to staff to have a history of wandering and expressed a desire to leave the facility. On 10/09/2023 Resident # 1 self-propelled out a fire exit door leading to a smoking patio and exited the facility unwitnessed through a gate leading into a parking lot next to a busy highway. On 10/15/2023 Resident # 1 exited the facility unwitnessed through the same fire door leading on to a smoking patio, where he gained access to an unattended key attached to the fence, unlocked the gate, and exited from the facility. Staff found him outside the facility heading down the street, next to the busy highway with a high volume of traffic. Resident #1 had been assessed as at risk for elopement and was care-planned to have a wander device on. Resident # 1 was at risk of straying onto a 6-lane main highway, putting him at risk of being stuck by a vehicle and suffering serious injuries. Findings included: Review of Resident Information Record dated 10/26/2023 showed Resident # 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that include Muscle Weakness (Generalized), Unsteadiness on Feet, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery Without Angina Pectoris. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated moderate impairment. Review of the current physician orders dated 10/07/2023, showed Resident #1 had an active order dated 10/09/2023 for an Electronic Monitoring Device on his right ankle to be monitored every shift (Q Shift); Check the functionality on the Electronic Monitoring Device per manufacturer instructions alarm notification every shift (q night shift), or blinking light every shift, to alert exit seeking attempts. Further review showed Resident # 1 had an active order dated 10/12/2023 for one-on-one care for safety, uncontrolled exit seeking until Friday (no specified date). Review of an Elopement Risk Form dated 10/08/2023 showed Resident # 1 scored a 13 revealing he was at risk for elopement. Further review showed the resident wandered, but never eloped, and expressed desires to leave. Additional review of the Elopement Risk assessment dated of 10/09/2023, showed the resident scored a 12 revealing he was at risk for elopement, was alert and oriented, knows who he is and where he is, but not what time it is or what is happening to him, wanders, but had never eloped, independent with wheelchair, and was actively exit - seeking. The summary and decision guide revealed an Electronic Monitoring Device was applied on the resident right ankle. Review of a progress note marked late entry dated 10/09/2023 by Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) showed at 08:14 Resident was very angry during rounds and potential to violent due to his threatening behaviors. At 09:33 Noted not in the unit. Ground search identified not in the facility. Code Elopement announced. Exited in the back door inside the location and wheeled back. Elopement risk -assessed. Medical Director was notified. Wife unreachable message left. Electronic monitoring device ordered in the [electronic medical record] -placed in the right ankle #7277 exp. 082024. Review of a progress note dated 10/10/2023 by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) showed This writer/Director of Nurses (DON) met with resident. He appears more calm this am, however, is still about his wife. He wants to go see her at the hospital. This writer agreed to follow up on possibility of a hospital visit, otherwise will arrange a Video Call. Resident more coherent today and able to verbalize family support with two children, however, perseverates on wife's status/location and desires to be with her. Review of a progress note dated 10/14/2023 by Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager showed, This writer was approached by the resident voicing concerns stated that he felt like a prisoner and wanted device removed from his ankle, this writer tried to educate on safety. Electronic monitoring device was removed from the resident ankle and placed on his wheelchair. Resident no longer agitated and yelling out. Further review of the electronic medical record showed no documentation related to Resident # 1 exiting the facility on 10/15/2023. Review of the resident's care plan dated 10/08/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023 showed resident was an elopement risk, wanders related to confusion and seeking his wife with interventions that included provide redirection as appropriate, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023; Provide frequent checks of whereabouts as necessary, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023. Further review showed a behavior care plan dated 10/10/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023, related to hitting and being verbally abusive related to wanting to leave the facility and seeking his wife with interventions that included Increased monitoring and supervision of resident and or visitors of resident, initiated 10/10/2023. Review of Psychiatric Note dated 10/10/2023, showed Resident # 1 was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with mood disturbance. Resident denied any pain but was very concerned about his wife, who had apparently fallen and was at the hospital. Resident appeared agitated and angry during interview and reported that if he does not find his wife he will start killing people. Further review of the psychiatric visit summary showed, The [skilled nursing facility] has patient on 1:1 for now to help with his aggression and behaviors. An interview was conducted with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) on 10/25/23 at 3:10 p.m. She remembered that Resident # 1 was very angry, and he wanted to be with his wife. Staff A stated, I am not sure what the situation was. I think there was a plan for her to be here, but I don't know what happened. Resident # 1 knew where his wife was, but he didn't want to be here. He compared his stay here to being in jail and he made attempts to leave. He was put on 1-1 supervision. He would sit by the exit and try to get out when staff or people would go out the doors. On 10/9/23 I don't remember an elopement being called that day, but Resident # 1 was on 1-1 supervision the whole time he was here up until he was discharged from the facility. I believe Resident # 1 got out before my shift started on 11-7, but I wasn't here. When I got to work on that day there was no education, or anything being talked about regarding Resident # 1 eloping. I wasn't his nurse that day. An interview was conducted with Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) on 10/25/23 at 3:23 p.m. She stated I remember Resident # 1 briefly; his room was in the red hall. He was on 1-1 supervision and always had someone with him. He was exiting seeking, and I'm not sure of his cognition. I think he voiced a wanting to leave the facility. I worked on 10/9/2023 and I don't remember there being an elopement called on 10/9/23. An interview was conducted with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/25/23 at 3:40 p.m. She said Resident # 1 was not one on one supervision when he was admitted ; he was placed on one on one after the situation happened on 10/9/2023. At the time. I think we already put him on a wanderguard on him because he kept saying he was going to go out and go to his wife. She said she came to work between the hours of 7 or 8 a.m., and the situation with Resident # 1 happened between 9 and 10. Staff C stated, I did not think the situation was an elopement because to my understanding Resident # 1 was seen by somebody inside our facility, that is not an elopement. I did not write he was not in the facility; I mean not in the building. I didn't know the resident was under supervision on that day. We just knew he wasn't in his room. We announced an elopement, but I don't remember the time and I cannot remember any more. I don't know who said Resident # 1 wasn't in his room and I don't know who found the resident. When they found him, he had no injuries and no signs of bleeding. No skin assessment was completed. Resident # 1 said he was just trying to look for somebody to help him when he left the facility. He went out the door without us knowing he had left. His wife fell and was hospitalized . He was an elopement risk on elopement precautions, wander device placed in the right ankle. Staff C said the elopement risk on 10/10/2023 was not complete. She said she started the assessment because the resident had got out the day before. Staff C stated, One of the supervisors did the assessment and I was just checking it to go over it. She said When I reviewed the resident's orders, I had not discontinued the one-to-one order. I was not notified it was ever discontinued. It was still active when he left. An interview was conducted with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) ADON at 10/25/23 4:39. She said on 10/9/23 a therapy staff member saw the resident in the backyard. Staff C stated We were having a meeting on 10/9/23 when one of the therapists came to the door and told everyone in the meeting that a patient was not found in the unit. Everyone left the meeting and started looking for the resident. I went to the front door to see if the resident was located there but he was not there, then me and the DON [director of nursing] did an elopement drill. The DON told me they found the patient in the back yard next to the gazebo. I did not go out to the parking lot but there were people cutting the grass at the time, and I presumed the gate was open because they were cutting the grass. An interview was conducted with Staff D, Dietary [NAME] on 10/25/23 at 4:30 p.m. He said Resident # 1 was in a wheelchair when he saw him at first, he did not know who the resident was, but he knew that he had to be a resident at the facility when he saw a bandage on his face. He said he saw the resident outside of the gate in parking lot on left side of building when he got to work. He stated I didn't have my cell phone. So, I went into the building to get someone. Two CNAs came to help the resident, everyone that worked that day had to do an in-service and sign a paper. I talked to the DON and gave a verbal statement. I did not get asked for a written statement. An interview was conducted with Staff E, a Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA) on 10/26/23 at 10:14 a.m. Staff E said on 10/9/2023 Monday morning between 9-9:30 a.m. I pulled off highway 52 into the parking lot and parked in the 6th parking spot from the road. I saw a gentleman in a wheelchair in the middle of the parking lot. No one was with him at that time. He was moving in his wheelchair, dressed in regular clothes. I pulled into the first spot and went to talk to him. He kept moving and was behind my car. He was very agitated. I noticed his incision and thought he must be a resident. I grabbed my phone to call someone inside the facility to come out to assist me with the resident. Resident # 1 was going backwards at this point towards the road. I called my boss right away and told her [Staff G] I had a resident outside that was agitated and I needed help. Everyone came running out to help assist with getting the resident back inside the facility. He was strong and by that time we were probably a few parking spaces closer to the road. They were able to get him back in the building. I left at that point because the Nursing Home Administrator said she didn't need me. An interview was conducted with Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), on 10/26/2023 at 9:43 a.m. She said, I worked with Resident # 1 several times. I was one to one with the resident on 10/14/2023 until 11:30 p.m. On 10/15/2023 I was assigned to the resident as his aide but not as one on one supervision. I told the nurse I was taking a 15 min break, and I went out to my car. I saw a CNA running and the guy said someone just left. The resident was up by the highway on the sidewalk rolling in his wheelchair. I, the CNA, and the manager on duty went after the resident to bring him back to the facility. The manager on duty went to get more staff to assist us because we couldn't control the resident. He was so combative with us he tried to get up and fell out of his wheelchair. We had to pick him up and help him back into his wheelchair. There were no alarms going off when we got back to the facility because the door the resident got out, leading to the smoking courtyard, had no alarm system on it. It took us about 45 minutes or up to an hour to get the resident back inside the facility because the resident was resisting. He got out from the same smoking area he exited before. They put him under 1-1 supervision when he got here and then they took him off. I think it was on his ankle, but he kept messing with it, so they put it on the electronic monitoring device on his chair. After the second time he got out, he was put back on one to one. He was very confused and just wanted to go see his wife. An interview was conducted with Staff G, Registered Nurse/Resident Care Coordinator, MDS, (RN) on 10/26/23 at 10:39 a.m. Staff G confirmed she was the manager on duty on 10/15/2023 and said, On 10/15/23 I was going out to courtyard because a resident was out there, and he waved me out because he wanted a soda. I was manager on duty that day. When I went out there a resident said a gentleman had just gone out of the gate. I went out the gate and closed it behind me. I didn't see him towards the back of the building. I turned left and saw him in the direction toward the road. A dietary person was out there, and a CNA came out to help. When I got to him, he was on the sidewalk next to highway 52. We were telling him to come back, and he was trying to get away. He grabbed hold of a silver rail along the sidewalk so we couldn't move him. We were running, but he was quicker. We told him he needed to come back, and it wasn't safe for him to be outside. He kicked me in the shin and tried to hit the CNA. He grabbed the rail when we were trying to move him, pulled himself up and he fell out of the chair. He reopened a skin tear on his arm. Once there were a few more people out there, I ran back to get his nurse and she came out to assess him. He really liked his nurse, and she was able to get him back inside the building. He let us help him get back in wheelchair. There was a key hanging off to the side of the gate lock. He unlocked the lock and got out of the gate. The DON came in that day and double checked to make sure resident and staff were ok. The DON came to me this morning to do elopement training. She asked me what to do when a resident tries to elopement, how to call one. An interview was conducted with Staff H, the Director of Rehabilitation on 10/26/23 at 12:01 p.m. She said On Monday morning, I got a phone call from [Staff E] when I was in the morning meeting. Between 9:30 and 10:00. Staff E told me when she pulled into the parking lot, she saw a patient outside. She called me to tell me she was with the resident and needed assistance. I just told everyone in meeting. We immediately began searching. He was outside by the old therapy gym on the left side of the building. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/26/23 at 11:04 p.m. The DON stated, On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting. [Staff H] got a phone call from [Staff E], telling her a resident was outside of the facility gate. We looked out the window and saw the lawn people were outside too and the gate was open. We all got up and went outside. [Staff E] was with him the whole time outside in the parking lot. From my understanding the gate was opened by lawn maintenance people. Our gate has a key for emergencies. The lawn people had the gate open, and the resident got out of the gate. [Staff E] said she was coming into work and saw the resident in the parking lot. When I went out and saw him, he just kept saying 'I want my wife, I want my wife.' Education didn't start specifically that day; we started education the following week during our town hall meeting. We have an Advance Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) for psychiatry and Psychologist. Both saw him on 10/11/23. I think we increased activities, and increased entertainment. The resident was redirectable. I did not consider either event on 10/9/2023 and 10/15/2023 to be an elopement because the staff was with the resident. Prior to him getting out he was not 1-1. We increased activity around that hallway. We were putting extra staff down there to encourage extra eyes. I think they put 1-1 on the staffing sheet to monitor him more closely. An interview was conducted with Staff I, Registered Nurse, (RN). Resident Care Coordinator on 10/26/23 at 10:30 a.m. I worked on 10/9/23 but not 10/15/23. I was here and tried to help get Resident # 1 in the facility. I was in a morning meeting, and someone said there was a resident in the parking lot with a therapist. I went out of the meeting to help assist with bringing him back inside the facility, but he was difficult and agitated. He wanted to see his wife. It took three of us to get him back inside the facility. We tried to redirect him and calm him down and turned his wheelchair to back him in. We got him back in. A wander guard was placed on 10/9/23 and the Wanderguard was added to his care plan. I didn't update the resident care plan after he got out on 10/15/23. An interview was conducted with Staff J, the Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager (RM) on 10/26/23 at 2:20 p.m. The Director of Rehab came in the building and said Resident # 1 was outside with her therapist. We went outside and brought him back in. At that point, he got out of the side gate from the smoking patio. It was a day the landscapers were here. The gate was still open. We put him on one on one and he had a wanderguard. There is no wanderguard system alarm on the door he went out and the door to go to the smoking patio from the building is open all the time. Somehow the resident wasn't one to one if he got out. I told the CNA she could help on the floor in that area. There were aides on the floor, so I felt like someone was always going to be there. On Sunday morning I didn't tell staff to take the resident off one to one. There was an aide just sitting there not doing anything so I said she could help. I have no idea why the resident wasn't one to one that Sunday. The RM confirmed if a 1:1 was assigned it would be on the daily staffing sheet but confirmed a 1:1 was not listed. The RM stated I was not part of the investigation they conducted regarding the resident getting out; the NHA conducted the investigation. We did not consider the resident eloped because he was seen going outside the gate. As a risk manager I would usually deal with elopements, but I am still in training or whatever. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 10/26/23 at 2:45 p.m. On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting, and the rehab director received a telephone call that one of her staff members was outside with Resident # 1. We left the morning meeting and went to assist in getting the resident back inside the building. I think DON and I discussed what happened, and we had identified the landscapers were here and he had gone through the courtyard gate the first time. Staff E was the one that observed him at the gate. Continuing, the NHA said, I would have to look at her statement and see what she told us. I thought we had a statement from her, but I don't see it here. I think we did get a statement. The NHA said We were able to redirect him and bring him back to the building. He was reassessed and the interdisciplinary team made recommendations for interventions. I don't know what the interventions were. The NHA continued On 10/15/23 it was reported to me Resident # 1 had exited out the courtyard gate. He opened the lock with the key that was attached to the gate. A dietary staff member was in his car and observed him unlock the lock and exit out the gate. He saw a CNA and asked her to help assist the resident. Staff G went out and a CNA was with the resident. I was told there were multiple staff involved because the resident became combative. It was not reported to me he was off the property, and I do not know of a timeline when the resident would have got out the gate. I was told he sustained a fall and had an abrasion on his arm. Afterward the DON and I communicated. She was here and we talked about completing house wide elopement assessments. We talked about staff education. The next day we had an AdHoc QAPI meeting with the team to discuss how this happened and what we can do to prevent it. I know we increased the level of supervision on the red hall where the resident had resided. I don't know if we maintained one to one supervision 24-7. We did not consider it an elopement because he did not exit the courtyard; He did not leave the premises. The NHA continued, I don't know if there was a timeline done to see the last time staff would have seen Resident # 1. We conducted our investigation together as a team. I don't remember a timeline being done. The NHA confirmed the definition of elopement would be 'A patient who left the premises of the facility without permission or off the property' but stated I think it depends on the circumstances with the patient, and the patient's condition. No, this it is not an elopement to me. The NHA confirmed documentation related to both incidents was incomplete in the clinical record. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 10/26/23 at 10:58 a.m., I was made aware the resident left the facility. I would have to look at text messages. I was made aware twice. We reviewed his medicines, and I don't think we gave him any more sedatives. He just wanted to speak to his wife. She was in the hospital as well. I don't think it was an elopement. I don't know what the definition of elopement was. I was told he was seen by the staff leaving his room. I was told he was in the courtyard I believe. Elopement is to my knowledge is when staff are not aware of his where abouts. I was made aware of him trying to leave and the nurses and another person were with him. On 10/9/2023 the temperature was 78 degrees Fahrenheit and on 10/15/2023 the temperature was 78 degrees Fahrenheit according to www.weather.com. State Highway 52 is a 6-lane state road with speed limits ranging from 35 miles per hour to 55 miles per hour, according to www.fdot.gov. Observations revealed a sidewalk on one side of the road (the side which the facility was located) and a mild gradient, with 3 lanes of traffic traveling in both directions (six lanes total). Review of the facility policy titled Wandering and Elopements Revised date March 2019, revealed, Policy Heading The facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. 2. If an employee observes a resident leaving the premises, he/she should: a. Attempt to prevent the resident from leaving in a courteous manner. b. Get help from other staff members in the immediate vicinity, if necessary; and c. Instruct another staff member to inform the charge nurse or director of nursing services that a resident is attempting to leave or has left the premises. 3. If a resident is missing, initiate the elopement/ missing resident emergency procedure: a. Determine if the resident is out on an authorized leave or pass. b. If the resident was not authorized to leave, initiate a search of the building(s) and premises; and If the resident is not located, notify the administrator and the director of nursing services, the resident's legal representative, the attending physician, law enforcement officials, and (as necessary) volunteer agencies (i.e., emergency management, rescue squads, etc.). 4. When the resident returns to the facility, the director of nursing services or charge nurse shall: a. Examine the resident for injuries. b. Contact the attending physician and report the findings and conditions of the resident. c. notify search teams that the resident has been located. d. document relevant information in the resident's medical record. On 10/27/2023 at 3:36 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator provided a removal plan showing the following facility steps to remove the Immediate Jeopardy: 1. Resident # 1 was discharged on 10/20/2023. On 10/27/2023, immediately upon alleged abuse/ neglect, designee called resident # 1 current location to ensure resident safety. 2. On 10/27/2023 the allegations of neglect were reported to Abuse Registry via online reporting and the AHCA immediate report was completed 3. On 10/16/2023 a root cause analysis was completed with the development of a performance improvement plan 4. On 10/15/2023 elopement risk assessment was completed on 100% of the resident population 5. On 10/27/2023 at 1:45 pm, Risk Manager and 2 MDS RNs began reassessing 100% of current resident population for elopement risk. The care plans for those residents assessed as moderate/high risk were reviewed to ensure appropriate interventions. Education 1. On 16/2023, staff were provided with education regarding Wandering, elopement, and prevention tips: 2. On 10/19/2023, staff education was provided regarding Wandering, elopement, and prevention tips as well as emergency code and expectation related to staff response. 3. On 10/27/2023, Licensed nurses have been educated on transcription of physician orders to include specific start/stop dates of interventions. 4. On 10/27/2023, staff have been educated in routine resident checks. 5. On 10/26/2023, staff were educated on resident/ staff safety and facility security as it relates to the location of the key for the locks on the courtyard. 6. On 10/26/2023, Carefree education was delivered via text and / or email to all staff regarding resident/ staff safety and facility security as it relates to the location of the key for the locks on the courtyards. 7. On 10/26/2023, an auditing tool was implemented for auditing the location of courtyard keys and verification of secured locks on the gate. 8. AN Ad hoc QAPI meeting on 10/27/2023 to discuss all interventions included in the plan of abatement. Facility administrative staff were educated on 10/27/2023 of the Federal definition of elopement and a notification to the Medical Director and the Ombudsman. On 10/27/2023 at 4:00 p.m., An observation showed the keys to both gates have been relocated away from the gate. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 10/27/2023 at 6:00 p.m. the definition of elopement from the Florida Healthcare Association and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), was reviewed and discussed with all facility staff by the Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nurses, and the Corporate Regional Nurse. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), Director of Nursing (DON) and the Corporate Regional Nurse (CRN) on 10/27/23 at 6:01 p.m. The NHA said elopement, the new key location and gate lock education was provided to all staff including the Medical Director. The courtyard gate keys were immediately removed and relocated to another location. The NHA stated We have a performance improvement plan that was put in place related to elopements, resident safety, and assessments/ care plans. The root cause of the elopement was a resident was able to have access to a key that was hanging from the gate located in the smoking courtyard and was able to unlock the gate and get out. We remediated the situation by relocating the key from the gate and we ordered breakaway key boxes on 10/26/23. The boxes were shipped on 10/26/2023 and will be delivered on Tuesday of next week. We had an AdHoc QAPI meeting and started our Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), focusing on location of the keys and the security of the gate. The Elopement assessments for residents were reviewed at 100% today with no discrepancies found. I filed an immediate report, report #190839. We sent out an automated in-service system to make sure that all staff were provided with education regarding elopement and the new changes with the keys and resident safety. We crossed referenced to ensure everyone was reached the system sends via text and email. We will also in-service staff as they come in starting yesterday. All staff are being educated before returning to work in person. Elopement education was completed at the town hall, held on 10/19/2023 were we discussed elopement codes and what to do if an elopement happens. The DON said the facility conduct townhall meetings with clinical staff monthly. On 10/27/2023 starting at 5:00p.m., interviews were conducted with 34 staff members, which included 8 licensed nurses, 12 CNAs and 14 non licensed staff. Attempts were made to contact 15 additional staff who were off duty. All staff members were able to state that they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the new policies. Based on verification of the facility's Immediate Jeopardy removal plan the immediate jeopardy was determined to be removed on 10/27/2023 and the non-compliance was reduced to a scope and severity of D.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to submit an immediate and a 5-day report for one (#1) ...

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 submit an immediate and a 5-day report for one (#1) out of seven residents sampled who eloped on two occasions (10/09/2023 and 10/15/2023). Findings Included: Review of Resident Information Record dated 10/26/2023 showed Resident # 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that include Muscle Weakness (Generalized), Unsteadiness on Feet, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery Without Angina Pectoris. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated moderate impairment. Review of the current physician orders dated 10/07/2023, showed Resident #1 had an active order dated 10/09/2023 for an Electronic Monitoring Device on his right ankle to be monitored every shift (Q Shift); Check the functionality on the Electronic Monitoring Device per manufacturer instructions alarm notification every shift (q night shift), or blinking light every shift, to alert exit seeking attempts. Further review showed Resident # 1 had an active order dated 10/12/2023 for one-on-one care for safety, uncontrolled exit seeking until Friday (no specified date). Review of an Elopement Risk Form dated 10/08/2023 showed Resident # 1 scored a 13 revealing he was at risk for elopement. Further review showed the resident wandered, but never eloped, and expressed desires to leave. Additional review of the Elopement Risk assessment dated of 10/09/2023, showed the resident scored a 12 revealing he was at risk for elopement, was alert and oriented, knows who he is and where he is, but not what time it is or what is happening to him, wanders, but had never eloped, independent with wheelchair, and was actively exit - seeking. The summary and decision guide revealed an Electronic Monitoring Device was applied on the resident right ankle. Review of a progress note marked late entry dated 10/09/2023 by Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) showed at 8:14am Resident was very angry during rounds and potential to violent due to his threatening behaviors. At 9:33am Noted not in the unit. Ground search identified not in the facility. Code Elopement announced. Exited in the back door inside the location and wheeled back. Elopement risk -assessed. Medical Director was notified. Wife unreachable message left. Electronic monitoring device ordered in the [electronic medical record] -placed in the right ankle #7277 exp. 082024. Review of a progress note dated 10/10/2023 by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) showed This writer/Director of Nurses (DON) met with resident. He appears more calm this am, however, is still about his wife. He wants to go see her at the hospital. This writer agreed to follow up on possibility of a hospital visit, otherwise will arrange a Video Call. Resident more coherent today and able to verbalize family support with two children, however, perseverates on wife's status/location and desires to be with her. Review of a progress note dated 10/14/2023 by Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager showed, This writer was approached by the resident voicing concerns stated that he felt like a prisoner and wanted device removed from his ankle, this writer tried to educate on safety. Electronic monitoring device was removed from the resident ankle and placed on his wheelchair. Resident no longer agitated and yelling out. Further review of the electronic medical record showed no documentation related to Resident # 1 exiting the facility on 10/15/2023. Review of the resident's care plan dated 10/08/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023 showed resident was an elopement risk, wanders related to confusion and seeking his wife with interventions that included provide redirection as appropriate, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023; Provide frequent checks of whereabouts as necessary, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023. Further review showed a behavior care plan dated 10/10/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023, related to hitting and being verbally abusive related to wanting to leave the facility and seeking his wife with interventions that included Increased monitoring and supervision of resident and or visitors of resident, initiated 10/10/2023. An interview was conducted with Staff J, the Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager (RM) on 10/26/23 at 2:20 p.m. The Director of Rehab came in the building and said Resident # 1 was outside with her therapist. We went outside and brought him back in. At that point, he got out of the side gate from the smoking patio. It was a day the landscapers were here. The gate was still open. We put him on one on one and he had a wanderguard. There is no wanderguard system alarm on the door he went out and the door to go to the smoking patio from the building is open all the time. Somehow the resident wasn't one to one if he got out. I told the CNA she could help on the floor in that area. There were aides on the floor, so I felt like someone was always going to be there. On Sunday morning I didn't tell staff to take the resident off one to one. There was an aide just sitting there not doing anything so I said she could help. I have no idea why the resident wasn't one to one that Sunday. The RM confirmed if a 1:1 was assigned it would be on the daily staffing sheet but confirmed a 1:1 was not listed. The RM stated I was not part of the investigation they conducted regarding the resident getting out; the NHA conducted the investigation. We did not consider the resident eloped because he was seen going outside the gate. As a risk manager I would usually deal with elopements, but I am still in training or whatever. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 10/26/23 at 10:58 a.m., I was made aware the resident left the facility. I would have to look at text messages. I was made aware twice. We reviewed his medicines, and I don't think we gave him any more sedatives. He just wanted to speak to his wife. She was in the hospital as well. I don't think it was an elopement. I don't know what the definition of elopement was. I was told he was seen by the staff leaving his room. I was told he was in the courtyard I believe. Elopement is to my knowledge is when staff are not aware of his where abouts. I was made aware of him trying to leave and the nurses and another person were with him. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 10/26/23 at 2:45 p.m. On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting, and the rehab director received a telephone call that one of her staff members was outside with Resident # 1. We left the morning meeting and went to assist in getting the resident back inside the building. I think DON and I discussed what happened, and we had identified the landscapers were here and he had gone through the courtyard gate the first time. Staff E was the one that observed him at the gate. Continuing, the NHA said, I would have to look at her statement and see what she told us. I thought we had a statement from her, but I don't see it here. I think we did get a statement. The NHA said We were able to redirect him and bring him back to the building. He was reassessed and the interdisciplinary team made recommendations for interventions. I don't know what the interventions were. The NHA continued On 10/15/23 it was reported to me Resident # 1 had exited out the courtyard gate. He opened the lock with the key that was attached to the gate. A dietary staff member was in his car and observed him unlock the lock and exit out the gate. He saw a CNA and asked her to help assist the resident. Staff G went out and a CNA was with the resident. I was told there were multiple staff involved because the resident became combative. It was not reported to me he was off the property, and I do not know of a timeline when the resident would have got out the gate. I was told he sustained a fall and had an abrasion on his arm. Afterward the DON and I communicated. She was here and we talked about completing house wide elopement assessments. We talked about staff education. The next day we had an Adhoc QAPI meeting with the team to discuss how this happened and what we can do to prevent it. I know we increased the level of supervision on the red hall where the resident had resided. I don't know if we maintained one to one supervision 24-7. We did not consider it an elopement because he did not exit the courtyard; He did not leave the premises. The NHA continued, I don't know if there was a timeline done to see the last time staff would have seen Resident # 1. We conducted our investigation together as a team. I don't remember a timeline being done. The NHA confirmed the definition of elopement would be 'A patient who left the premises of the facility without permission or off the property' but stated I think it depends on the circumstances with the patient, and the patient's condition. No, this it is not an elopement to me. The NHA confirmed documentation related to both incidents was incomplete in the clinical record. Review of the facility policy titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Property Prevention, Protection and Response Policy and Procedures Revised draft date 03/2022, revealed, VII. Reporting And Response Issues: Policy All allegations of possible ANEM will be immediately reported to the Abuse Hotline by the Administrator or Designee and will be evaluated to determine the direction of the investigation. Procedure Any and all staff observing or hearing about such events must report the event immediately to the Administrator, Immediate Supervisor AND one of the following: Director of Nursing, ANEM Prevention Coordinator, or Risk Manager, so that appropriate reporting and investigation procedure take place immediately. A. The Immediate Report In accordance with CFR 483.12(c)(1), with response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility must: (1) Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation if made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials ( including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures. The ANEM Prevention Coordinator will also submit to the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Federal Immediate/5 Day Report. B. The Report of Investigation (Five Day Report) The facility ANEM Prevention Coordinator will send the result of facility investigations to the State Survey Agency within five working days if the incident. This will be completed using the same AHCA Federal/ Five Day Report and sending it to the Complaint Investigation Unit.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to complete a thorough investigation and take correct...

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 complete a thorough investigation and take corrective actions to prevent one (#1) out of seven residents reviewed from eloping on two occasions (10/09/2023 and 10/15/2023). Findings Included: Review of Resident Information Record dated 10/26/2023 showed Resident # 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that include Muscle Weakness (Generalized), Unsteadiness on Feet, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease of Native Coronary Artery Without Angina Pectoris. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated moderate impairment. Review of the current physician orders dated 10/07/2023, showed Resident #1 had an active order dated 10/09/2023 for an Electronic Monitoring Device on his right ankle to be monitored every shift (Q Shift); Check the functionality on the Electronic Monitoring Device per manufacturer instructions alarm notification every shift (q night shift), or blinking light every shift, to alert exit seeking attempts. Further review showed Resident # 1 had an active order dated 10/12/2023 for one-on-one care for safety, uncontrolled exit seeking until, Friday (no specific date). Review of an Elopement Risk Form dated 10/08/2023 showed Resident # 1 scored a 13 revealing he was at risk for elopement. Further review showed the resident wandered, but never eloped, and expressed desires to leave. Additional review of the Elopement Risk assessment dated of 10/09/2023, showed the resident scored a 12 revealing he was at risk for elopement, was alert and oriented, knows who he is and where he is, but not what time it is or what is happening to him, wanders, but had never eloped, independent with wheelchair, and was actively exit - seeking. The summary and decision guide revealed an Electronic Monitoring Device was applied on the resident right ankle. Review of a progress note marked late entry dated 10/09/2023 by Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) showed at 08:14 Resident was very angry during rounds and potential to violent due to his threatening behaviors. At 09:33 Noted not in the unit. Ground search identified not in the facility. Code Elopement announced. Exited in the back door inside the location and wheeled back. Elopement risk -assessed. Medical Director was notified. Wife unreachable message left. Electronic monitoring device ordered in the [electronic medical record] -placed in the right ankle #7277 exp. 082024. Review of a progress note dated 10/10/2023 by the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) showed This writer/Director of Nurses (DON) met with resident. He appears more calm this am, however, is still about his wife. He wants to go see her at the hospital. This writer agreed to follow up on possibility of a hospital visit, otherwise will arrange a Video Call. Resident more coherent today and able to verbalize family support with two children, however, perseverates on wife's status/location and desires to be with her. Review of a progress note dated 10/14/2023 by Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN) Risk Manager showed, This writer was approached by the resident voicing concerns stated that he felt like a prisoner and wanted device removed from his ankle, this writer tried to educate on safety. Electronic monitoring device was removed from the resident ankle and placed on his wheelchair. Resident no longer agitated and yelling out. Further review of the electronic medical record showed no documentation related to Resident # 1 exiting the facility on 10/15/2023. Review of the resident's care plan dated 10/08/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023 showed resident was an elopement risk, wanders related to confusion and seeking his wife with interventions that included provide redirection as appropriate, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023; Provide frequent checks of whereabouts as necessary, initiated 10/8/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023. Further review showed a behavior care plan dated 10/10/2023 with a revision date of 10/25/2023, related to hitting and being verbally abusive related to wanting to leave the facility and seeking his wife with interventions that included Increased monitoring and supervision of resident and or visitors of resident, initiated 10/10/2023. An interview was conducted with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 10/25/23 at 3:40 p.m. She said Resident # 1 was not one on one supervision when he was admitted ; he was placed on one on one after the situation happened on 10/9/2023. At the time. I think we already put him on a wanderguard on him because he kept saying he was going to go out and go to his wife. She said she came to work between the hours of 7 or 8 a.m., and the situation with Resident # 1 happened between 9 and 10. Staff C stated, I did not think the situation was an elopement because to my understanding Resident # 1 was seen by somebody inside our facility, that is not an elopement. I did not write he was not in the facility; I mean not in the building. I didn't know the resident was under supervision on that day. We just knew he wasn't in his room. We announced an elopement, but I don't remember the time and I cannot remember any more. I don't know who said Resident # 1 wasn't in his room and I don't know who found the resident. When they found him, he had no injuries and no signs of bleeding. No skin assessment was completed. Resident # 1 said he was just trying to look for somebody to help him when he left the facility. He went out the door without us knowing he had left. His wife fell and was hospitalized . He was an elopement risk on elopement precautions, wander device placed in the right ankle. Staff C said the elopement risk on 10/10/2023 was not complete. She said she started the assessment because the resident had got out the day before. Staff C stated, One of the supervisors did the assessment and I was just checking it to go over it. She said When I reviewed the resident's orders, I had not discontinued the one-to-one order. I was not notified it was ever discontinued. It was still active when he left. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/26/23 at 11:04 p.m. The DON stated, On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting. [Staff H] got a phone call from [Staff E], telling her a resident was outside of the facility gate. We looked out the window and saw the lawn people were outside too and the gate was open. We all got up and went outside. [Staff E] was with him the whole time outside in the parking lot. From my understanding the gate was opened by lawn maintenance people. Our gate has a key for emergencies. The lawn people had the gate open, and the resident got out of the gate. [Staff E] said she was coming into work and saw the resident in the parking lot. When I went out and saw him, he just kept saying 'I want my wife, I want my wife.' Education didn't start specifically that day; we started education the following week during our town hall meeting. We have an Advance Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) for psychiatry and Psychologist. Both saw him on 10/11/23. I think we increased activities, and increased entertainment. The resident was redirectable. I did not consider either event on 10/9/2023 and 10/15/2023 to be an elopement because the staff was with the resident. Prior to him getting out he was not 1-1. We increased activity around that hallway. We were putting extra staff down there to encourage extra eyes. I think they put 1-1 on the staffing sheet to monitor him more closely. An interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 10/26/23 at 2:45 p.m. On 10/9/23 we were having a morning meeting, and the rehab director received a telephone call that one of her staff members was outside with Resident # 1. We left the morning meeting and went to assist in getting the resident back inside the building. I think DON and I discussed what happened, and we had identified the landscapers were here and he had gone through the courtyard gate the first time. Staff E was the one that observed him at the gate. Continuing, the NHA said, I would have to look at her statement and see what she told us. I thought we had a statement from her, but I don't see it here. I think we did get a statement. The NHA said We were able to redirect him and bring him back to the building. He was reassessed and the interdisciplinary team made recommendations for interventions. I don't know what the interventions were. The NHA continued On 10/15/23 it was reported to me Resident # 1 had exited out the courtyard gate. He opened the lock with the key that was attached to the gate. A dietary staff member was in his car and observed him unlock the lock and exit out the gate. He saw a CNA and asked her to help assist the resident. Staff G went out and a CNA was with the resident. I was told there were multiple staff involved because the resident became combative. It was not reported to me he was off the property, and I do not know of a timeline when the resident would have got out the gate. I was told he sustained a fall and had an abrasion on his arm. Afterward the DON and I communicated. She was here and we talked about completing house wide elopement assessments. We talked about staff education. I know we increased the level of supervision on the red hall where the resident had resided. I don't know if we maintained one to one supervision 24-7. We did not consider it an elopement because he did not exit the courtyard; He did not leave the premises. The NHA continued, I don't know if there was a timeline done to see the last time staff would have seen Resident # 1. We conducted our investigation together as a team. I don't remember a timeline being done. The NHA confirmed the definition of elopement would be 'A patient who left the premises of the facility without permission or off the property' but stated I think it depends on the circumstances with the patient, and the patient's condition. No, this it is not an elopement to me. The NHA confirmed documentation related to both incidents were incomplete in the clinical record. Review of the facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation [ANEM] of Property Prevention, Protection and Response Policy and Procedures Revised draft date 03/2022, revealed, Policy. V. Investigating Issue: Any employee having either direct or indirect knowledge of any event that might constitute ANEM must report the event promptly. Procedures: Any and all staff observing or hearing about such events must report the event immediately to the Administrator, immediate Supervisor, and one of the following: Director of Nursing, ANEM Prevention Coordinator, Risk Manager, so that appropriate reporting and investigation procedures take place Immediately. Any and all employees are empowered to initiate immediate action as appropriate by contacting the Abuse cause to suspect such an event has indeed occurred. However, contacting the Abuse Hotline does not alleviate the responsibility to immediately notify the Administrator, Immediate Supervisor AND one of the following: Director of Nursing, ANEM Prevention Coordinator, or Risk Manager. Once notified, the Center Administrator, the Director of Nurses and/or the ANEM PREVENTION Coordinator will take action as soon as possible. Policy: All events reported as possible ANEM will be investigated to determine whether ANEM occurred. Procedure: The ANEM prevention coordinator will initiate investigative action. Any report to Adult Protective Services will trigger an internal investigation following the protocol of the incident Investigation Policies and Procedures.
Dec 2021 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed provide treatment and care in accordance with profess...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice by 1) not assessing one resident (#32) for new skin conditions after a shower, and 2) having one resident's (#135) skin tear treated by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) for a nurse for a sample of two residents observed with skin conditions. Findings included: 1. An observation and interview with Resident #32 on 12/14/21 at 9:00 a.m. revealed the resident sitting up in her wheelchair after a shower with her hair still wet. The resident's right foot was touching the wheelchair footrest. Skin transfer was observed from the bottom of the right foot to the footrest. The top of the second toe was observed shiny and pink. The resident stated her toe hurt and no one applied lotion to her skin after the shower. An interview with Staff A, CNA on 12/14/21 at 9:12 a.m. confirmed the resident had a shower. Staff A stated she (Resident #32) did not have any open wounds on her right leg and stated she applied lotion, which she obtained from the supply closet to the resident. An interview with Resident #32 on 12/14/21 at 3:55 p.m. revealed the resident lying in bed and she pulled her covers up to expose her right lower leg. Her second toe was uncovered and revealed a pinky shiny area at the base of the nail. Her bed sheets revealed drainage that was reddish brown in appearance. The resident's foot and leg were observed dry and flaky. She stated no one came to look at her toe that hurt or to apply lotion. During an interview and observation with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/14/21 at 3:59 p.m. the DON looked at Resident #32's wheelchair and observed the skin on the foot pedal. She stated this was not acceptable and needed to be cleaned and took the foot pedal to the bathroom sink to clean it. The DON gave the foot pedal to a staff member to finish cleaning and donned gloves to look at the resident's leg. She confirmed the resident had a wound on her second toe and the outside of the right leg. The DON confirmed peeling of the skin on the right foot and leg and stated it needed lotion, and wound care to address the two areas of the right leg. During an interview with the Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on 12/14/21 at 4:07 p.m. she confirmed Staff A, CNA gave the resident a shower and did not address any skin issues on the resident. Staff B, LPN stated the resident did not have any skin issues on her right leg. During an interview with Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN)/wound nurse on 12/14/21 at 4:04 p.m. she confirmed the resident did have a wound on the right outer leg and second toe. Staff C, RN stated she would call the doctor and get orders for care. Review of the wound care notes dated 12/14/21 revealed the resident had dry skin without scale, wound #10 is an open abrasion located on the right second toe. The wound measured 0.6 cm (centimeters) x 0.5 cm on initial assessment. Wound#9 is open partial thickness abrasion located on the lower right posterior leg, measuring 2 cm x 3 cm x 0.1 cm, small amount of serous drainage noted and large amount of red granulation within the wound bed. The DON confirmed at 4:05 p.m. on 12/14/21 the resident's wounds should have been addressed after her shower and stated the skin transfer on the footrest should have never happened. The DON confirmed education will be started on assessment of the skin, notifying the nurse and completing the skin assessments. An interview with the DON on 12/14/21 at 5:00 p.m. revealed the shower sheet stated no wounds on the right leg. Review of policy for Shower/Tub Bath, revised October 2010, 3 pages, revealed: The purposes of this procedure are to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin. Documentation: The following information should be recorded on the resident's ADL [activities of daily living] record and/or in the resident's medical record. 3. All assessment data (any reddened areas, sores, etc. on the resident's skin) obtained during the shower/tub bath. Reporting. 2. Notify the physician of any skin areas that may need to be treated. 2. The admission Record revealed Resident #135 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re-admission date of 11/23/2021 and multiple diagnoses to include hypertension heart disease with heart failure, asymptomatic varicose veins of bilateral lower extremities and personal history of other venous thrombosis and embolism. On 12/13/21 at 12:04 p.m. Resident #135 was observed to be self-propelling his wheelchair to his room. An observation was made of Resident #135's right hand which had an adhesive bandage undated on the upper hand, with visible dry blood underneath. The resident was asked what had happened to his right hand and he stated he injured his hand against the handrail. Resident# 135 was observed with three steri strips on his lower left leg. Resident #135 reported that he scratched his leg on the wheelchair. On 12/15/21 at 8:54 a.m. an observation was made of the resident sitting in his wheelchair at the doorway of his room. Staff D, CNA was observed wrapping rolled gauze around the left leg where he had skin tears. His right hand still had the undated adhesive bandage. An interview was held with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/15/21 at 10:02 a.m. in regard to having a certified nursing assistant (Staff D) apply a gauze wrapping around a skin tear. The DON said absolutely not, this is out of her scope of practice. The DON was also informed that Resident #135 still had an undated adhesive bandage on his right hand since Monday 12/13/2021, with a visible brown like substance underneath the adhesive bandage. A review of the Certified Nursing Assistant's job description revealed under #26: Observes resident skin surfaces and notifies the charge nurse of any changes promptly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the medication error rate was below 5.00%. A total of thirty-two medications were observed, and two medications were ver...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility did not ensure the medication error rate was below 5.00%. A total of thirty-two medications were observed, and two medications were verified for one resident (#5) of five residents observed. The medication errors constituted a medication error rate of 6.25 percent. Findings included: On 12/15/2021 at 8:26 a.m., an observation was conducted of Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) administering medications to Resident #5. Staff B, (LPN) was observed administering the following medications: Aspirin 81 mg (milligrams) chewable one tablet Clopidogrel 75 mg one Lisinopril tablet 40 mg one Metformin 500 mg one Methenamine Hippurate 1 gram one Metoprolol Succinate extended release 24 hour 50 mg one Vitamin D3 capsule 400 unit one multivitamin one folic acid 400 mcg one Cyanocobalamin tablet 500 mcg one Sugar Free medpass 60 ml (milliliters) During the observation of medication administration, Staff B, LPN crushed the Metoprolol Succinate extended release 24 hour medication with all medications and gave an 81 mg chewable aspirin instead of a 325 mg aspirin enteric coated. Review of the active physician orders as of 12/15/21 revealed Staff B, LPN should have given Aspirin 325 mg enteric coated delayed release and Metoprolol Succinate ER tablet extended release 50 mg. Review of the active physician orders revealed: May change between oral, solids and liquids, crush meds or open capsules unless contraindicated or give via enteral tube if tube is in place. During an interview with Staff B, LPN on 12/15/21 at 8:40 a.m. she stated the resident gets her medications crushed and did not realize she gave the wrong aspirin. During an interview on 12/15/21 at 10:00 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the extended release should not have been crushed and confirmed the aspirin should have been enteric coated and 325 mg. A phone interview was attempted with the pharmacist three times from 12/15/21 at 4:00 p.m. to 12/16/21. The pharmacist did come in and complete an interim medication regimen review on 12/15/21 at 10:59 a.m. and documented: it is not recommended to crush, open or chew the below listed medications: suggest swallowing whole or changing to a liquid dosage for Metoprolol Succinate ER Tablet extended release 24 hour 50 mg. Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension until 12/19/20 and hold for systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 100 to heart rate less than or equal to 55 and Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension. During an interview on 12/16/21 at 1:00 p.m. she confirmed the Metoprolol extended release was changed to regular metoprolol since the nurses were crushing the medication. Review of facility policy for Medication Administration - General Guidelines, revised August 2014, revealed: 7) a. Long-acting or enteric-coated dosage forms should not be crushed; an alternative should be sought. Some long-acting capsules can be opened and administered without crushing contents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

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 #32's bed frame was inspected to e...

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 #32's bed frame was inspected to ensure safety and use of a correctly fitted mattress for the bed frame of a total of 94 residents audited in the facility. Findings included: During observation and interview on 12/13/21 at 10:10 a.m. Resident #32 was observed lying on an air mattress with the top of the air mattress approximately 8 inches from the headboard and the headboard was broken on the left side of the frame at the screws. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 12/13/21 at 10:13 a.m. and she stated she was new to the facility and would have the bed fixed immediately and would complete a facility wide bed audit for safety. During an observation of Resident #32's bed on 12/14/21 at 9:00 a.m. the frame fit the mattress and the headboard was fixed without large gaps. During an interview and observation with Resident #32 on 12/14/21 at 3:55 p.m. she was observed lying in bed with the mattress now about 7 inches away from the footboard and touching the headboard. The resident was unable to adjust her bed or move around in the bed; up and down. Review of the admission Record revealed Resident #32's diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left non-dominant side, Charcot's joint right ankle and foot, osteoarthritis right shoulder, elbow and right knee and acquired absence of left leg below knee. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed in Section G Functional Status the resident's bed mobility was extensive assistance with two plus person assist. The Director of Nursing (DON) was asked to come in the room to look at the position of Resident 32's mattress on 12/14/21 at 4:00 p.m. and confirmed the mattress was still readjusting too much on the frame, which was a specialty bariatric bed. The DON called the Administrator to the room where the Administrator stated she did fix the bed and was unsure why it was so far apart again. She placed a six inch bolster at the bottom of the mattress and the mattress stayed in place during bed movement. During an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor on 12/15/21 at 4:30 p.m. he stated the facility did not do routine checks on beds for maintenance issues and safety until the one completed on 12/13/21. During an interview on 12/16/21 at 1:05 p.m. the Administrator stated the facility should be completing bed audits to ensure safety as per policy. Review of the facility policy, Bed Safety, revised December 2007, one page revealed: 2. a. Inspection by maintenance staff of all beds and related equipment as part of our regular bed safety program to identify risks and problems including potential entrapment risks. b. Review that gaps within the bed system are within the dimensions established by the FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] (Note: the review shall consider situations that could be caused by the resident's weight, movement or bed position); c. Ensure that when bed system components are worn and need to be replaced, components meet manufacturer specifications. 3. The maintenance department shall provide a copy of inspections to the Administrator and report results to the QA [Quality Assessment and Assurance] committee for appropriate action. Copies of the inspection results and QA committee recommendations shall be maintained by the administrator and or safety committee.
CONCERN (E)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to electronically transmit the periodic Minimum Data Set (MDS) assess...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and interviews the facility failed to electronically transmit the periodic Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days after the facility completed the MDS assessment for three residents (#2, #4, and #5) out of four sampled residents. Findings included: The admission Record indicated Resident #2 was originally admitted on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE]. A review of the MDS summary for the resident indicated an assessment with a target date of 10/28/21 was accepted on 12/14/21. The admission Record indicated Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE]. The clinical record indicated the resident passed away in the facility on 12/3/21. A review of the Quarterly MDS summary for the resident indicated a target date of 10/30/21 and was completed and accepted on 12/14/21. The admission Record indicated Resident #5 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The review of the resident's MDS record indicated a Quarterly MDS with a target date of 10/28/21 which was completed on 12/6/21 and accepted on 12/14/21. On 12/15/21 at 12:11 p.m., the MDS Coordinator confirmed the MDS for Resident #5 was due on 11/11/21. On 12/16/21 at 12:18 p.m., the MDS Coordinator confirmed that Resident #2, #4, and #5's MDS assessments were transmitted late. The policy titled, MDS Completion and Submission Timeframes, revised September 2010, indicated, Our facility will conduct and submit resident assessments in accordance with current federal and state submission timeframes. The Assessment Coordinator or designee shall be responsible for ensuring that resident assessments are submitted to CMS QIES (Quality Improvement Evaluation System) Assessment, Submission, and Processing (ASAP) system in accordance with current federal and state guidelines. The policy identified that a Quarterly assessment was to be transmitted by the MDS completion date + 14 calendar days. The annual assessment was to be transmitted by the Care Plan completion date + 14 calendar days.
Oct 2020 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Quarterly Minimum Data ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on medical record review, observation and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure that the Quarterly Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) accurately reflected the resident's status for suctioning for one resident (#28) of one resident with a tracheotomy in the facility. Findings included: On 9/30/2020 a medical record review was conducted for Resident #28 for respiratory treatments and procedures. The admission Record revealed that Resident #28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a re-admission date of 7/4/2019 and had multiple diagnoses but not limited to COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), solitary pulmonary nodule, malignancy neoplasm of the larynx, and acute chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. The medical record was reviewed for physician orders and administration of the orders. A review of the July 2020, Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed an order effective 5/3/2020 for oral suctioning using flexible suction tubing, and indicated as needed for increased secretions with a start date of 5/3/2020 and, Trach suction - may suction using flexible suction tubing, via trach every 8 hours and as indicated as needed for congestion/increased secretions, with a start date of 5/3/2020. A review on 10/1/2020 at 12:22 p.m. of the MDS Quarterly Assessment, dated 7/29/2020, Section (O) Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs was conducted for Resident #28. In this section, Question (D) for Suctioning was checked as No it was not performed while a resident of this facility and within the last 14 days. A review of the MAR for the month of July 2020 indicated oral suctioning did occur on 7/28/2020 and Trach suctioning was done on 7/19/2020 and 7/21/2020. These dates fall within the look back period for coding for the MDS dated [DATE]. On 10/01/2020 at 1:33 p.m. an interview with the MDS Coordinator along with the Director of Nursing was conducted regarding the coding for the MDS Quarterly assessment dated [DATE] for suctioning. The MDS Coordinator reported that she looked back five days and the lookback period is 14 days. She confirmed that the coding was not accurate for suctioning and that it should be coded as a Yes. The facility policy titled, Certifying Accuracy of the Resident Assessment, with a revision date of December 2014, indicated: All personnel who complete any portion of the Resident Assessment (MDS) must sign and certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to implement the care plan related to checking the pl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to implement the care plan related to checking the placement of a wander/elopement alarm for one resident (Resident #27) out of the sampled thirty-five residents. Findings included: On 10/02/20 at 10:13 a.m., Resident #27 was observed in bed sleeping. A wander/elopement alarm was observed on the resident's left ankle. On 10/02/20 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #27 was observed sitting in the wheelchair next to his bed. The wander/elopement alarm was observed on his left ankle. A review of the admission Record revealed that Resident #27 was initially admitted into the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition. Section C for Cognitive Patterns of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #27 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03 out of 15 indicating severe impairment. Section P for Restraints and Alarms revealed that the resident used a wander/elopement alarm daily. The care plan initiated on 01/05/20, revised on 06/17/20, and with a target date of 12/24/20 revealed that Resident #27 was at risk for elopement and wandering related to history of attempts to leave the facility unattended. The interventions included but were not limited to: WANDER ALERT: Device number of device. Restorative to check weekly, initiated on 1/5/2020 and revised on 6/17/2020. A review of the Order Summary Report with active physician orders for 08/01/20 and 09/01/20 did not reflect an order for the wander/elopement alarm. A review of the Order Summary Report with active physician orders as of 10/01/20 reflected an order for the wander/elopement alarm with a start date of 10/02/20. The order indicated to apply and check code alert/wander/elopement alarm placement every shift for wandering/exit seeking. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for August, September, and October 2020 did not reflect documentation related to staff checking the functioning of the wander/elopement alarm. The Treatment Administrator Record (TAR) for August, September, and October 2020 did not reflect documentation related to staff checking the functioning of the wander/elopement alarm. A review of the POC Response History report for the code alert bracelet restorative check was reviewed for the last 30 days. The only day that the wander/elopement alarm was checked for Resident #27 by restorative was on 09/20/20 at 12:49. On 10/02/20 at 11:14 a.m., Staff M, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), verified that the resident had a wander/elopement alarm on his left ankle. Staff M, CNA, confirmed that she was the assigned CNA for Resident #27. She reported that she doesn't check the wander/elopement alarm. On 10/02/20 at 11:17 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that wander/elopement alarms are checked every shift by the nurse and weekly by the restorative aide and Risk Manager. The DON confirmed the wander/elopement alarm was not being checked weekly by restorative and the Risk Manager, and it was not being checked every shift by the nurse for Resident #27. On 10/02/20 at 11:30 a.m., Staff N, Registered Nurse (RN), confirmed that the physician order for the wander/elopement alarm was just added. Staff N, RN, reported that restorative was designated to check wander/elopement alarms She reported that she only makes sure the wander/elopement alarm was on the resident's ankle. Staff N, RN, reported that restorative takes care of checking the function of the wander/elopement alarm. On 10/02/20 at 11:36 a.m., the DON confirmed that there was no order for the wander/elopement alarm for Resident #27 prior to today. The facility policy titled, [Wander/elopement alarm], revised on 01/19/19 revealed the following: Policy Statement Wander/elopement alarm system use on patients to assist in prevention of Elopement. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 4. The patients care plan will indicate the patient is a high risk for elopement or other safety issues. Interventions to try to maintain safety, such as wander/elopement alarm placement, redirection, frequent checks will be instituted. 5. When initiating a wander/elopement alarm, the MD (medical doctor) and family must be notified (if applicable) and an order obtained from the MD must be obtained. 7. Wander/elopement alarms are checked daily for placement by the Nurse assigned to the patient for placement every shift and the function checked weekly by Restorative/Risk Manager.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure that one dependent resident (#20) out of 35 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and review of the medical record, the facility failed to ensure that one dependent resident (#20) out of 35 residents sampled, received the necessary services for meal set up and assistance as needed. Resident #20 was unable to carry out meal activities by herself. Findings included: A policy was requested pertaining to assistance with meals or activities of daily living. The Director of Nursing said, We do not have a specific policy on that. An observation was conducted on 10/01/2020 at 1:10 p.m., Resident #20 was in her room in her bed that was positioned in a low position. The resident's mattress was positioned with the head lower than her feet and she was lying on her back with her eyes closed. On the bedside table next to her bed was a meal tray with 4 containers that were covered with three with plastic wrap and one container was covered with a plastic lid (pureed diet). There was not a sandwich or any other items on the lunch tray. There was 1 small container of butter that was not opened, and a carton of milk not opened. There was not a sandwich or side foods/ snack items on the tray. The silverware was still wrapped up in the napkin` sitting on the meal tray. There was no adaptive equipment on the meal tray. (photographic evidence was obtained). An interview was attempted with Resident #20 on 10/01/2020 at 1:10 p.m., when asked if she was okay Resident #20 said, Can you help me? An interview was conducted on 10/01/2020 at 1:17 p.m., Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said, We have about 4 residents on the hall that need help with their meals. Their trays should stay in the delivery cart until we are ready to help them. Resident #20 is one of the residents on this hall that need help with her meals. An observation was conducted on 10/01/2020 at 1:18 p.m., Resident #20's food tray was still sitting at the bedside. A second observation was conducted 10/01/20 at 1:20 p.m., Resident #20 was still in her bed, eyes closed, bed in the low position. The tray of food was still sitting on the bedside table still covered. An observation was conducted on 10/01/20 at 1:22 p.m., Staff C, CNA,walked into Resident #20's room and said, [Resident #20] do you want your meal? Resident #20 opened her eyes and Staff C, CNA elevated the head of her bed. Then without washing or sanitizing his hands picked up a cup of fluid off the meal tray and handed it to the resident an she drank it all of the fluid in the one attempt. Then Staff C put the empty cup back down on the tray. Then without saying another word to Resident #20, Staff C picked up her tray and walked out of the resident's room and down the hall. Staff C placed the tray in the silver dining cart. An interview was conducted on 10/01/20 at 1:25 p.m., Staff C, CNA said, [Resident #20] does not eat much. When Staff C was asked why he did not offer her the food on her tray or for alternative choices Staff C said, She likes tomato soup. Then Staff C walked off. Resident #20 did not refuse her meal nor to eat during this observation. An interview was conducted on 10/01/20 at 1:26 p.m., Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was out in the hallway outside of Resident #20's room and observed the conversation with Staff C. Staff D said, It would be my expectation that they offer her something to eat and maybe an alternative before they just take her tray away like that. An interview was conducted on 10/01/2020 at approximately 2:00 p.m., and explained the meal observation with Resident #20 and Staff C, CNA to the Director of Nursing (DON) and she said, That concerns me too. A review of the facility patient information sheet revealed a recent admission date of 2/20/2019 with pertinent diagnosis of dementia. A review of the minimum data set (MDS), dated [DATE] revealed under Section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status a score of 1 out of 15 indicating the resident is severely cognitively impaired. A review of Section G Functional Status/Activities of Daily Living: Bed mobility-The resident requires extensive assistance of two+ physical assist; Dressing-Extensive assistance of one-person physical assist; Eating-Supervision with one-person physical assist; Toilet use-Extensive assistance of one-person physical assist' Bathing-Total dependence. A review of Resident #20's weights revealed: 11/12/2019 107 pounds 12/10/2020 103 pounds 1/14/2020 98 pounds 1/21/2020 98 pounds Then the next weight documented was 8/01/2020 of 91 pounds. A review of the care plan for Resident #20 with a Focus area identified as: Resident #20 has an ADL (Activities of Daily Living) self-care performance deficit related to activity intolerance, Alzheimer's, cognition and impaired through process, musculoskeletal impairment initiated on 11/16/2018 and revised on 11/16/2018 with pertinent interventions in place for: Eating: Resident #20 requires staff to setup meal and sometimes cue/prompt with meals initiated on 11/16/2018 and revised on 4/05/2019. Focus area: Resident #20 is at nutritional risk related to decreased po (by mouth) intake. Receives pureed diet due to chewing difficulty. History of weight fluctuations with overall weight decline. Often refuses to allow staff to weigh her. Palliative care measures are in place. wishes are no feeding tubes or IV fluids. Interventions listed: Adaptive equipment as ordered, Serve food in separate bowls. Resident #20 likes oatmeal, applesauce, peaches and [NAME] toast with syrup initiated on 11/06/2018. Diet as ordered: Pureed diet, may have mechanical soft items as desired. super foods with meals. offer soft sandwich with lunch and dinner meals imitated on 11/02/2018 and revised on 6/25/2020. Encourage resident to use adaptive equipment as provided to facilitate self-feeding initiate on 12/26/2018 and revised on 10/09/2019 and to honor food preferences with date initiated of 11/02/2018. A family interview was conducted on 10/01/2020 at 10:51 a.m., the family member said, She has a poor appetite, but they do bring her a sandwich which she will eat. I told them if she wants to eat that is fine and if she doesn't that is fine. I don't want anyone trying to force her to eat. An interview was conducted on 10/01/20 at 1:42 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said, To me meal set up means setting up the resident to eat , taking the lids or plastic off of the food and assisting the resident as needed. I will initiate education on this.
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

Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to provide wound care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one resident (#280) out of two residents sampled...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews the facility failed to provide wound care in accordance with professional standards of practice for one resident (#280) out of two residents sampled for pressure injuries as evidence by a skin tear dressing applied on September 7, 2020 and not addressed until 10/2/2020. Findings included: After pressure ulcer treatment, which began at 10:31 a.m. on 10/2/20 with Staff Member I, Wound Care Registered Nurse, an observation was made of a clear adhesive dressing on Resident #280's left shin. The clear dressing was dated /7/20. The month was obscured but Staff I stated it looked like a 9 or a 7. The staff member removed the dressing that had a small amount of dried deep red/black substance attached to it. Staff I stated the area looked like a little skin tear that had healed. A record review of Resident #280's progress notes indicated a nursing note written on 9/7/20 at 22:07 (10:07 p.m.) that identified the resident had sustained a small skin tear measuring 3 centimeters (cm) long on the left anterior shin from a piece of tape used to cover the left heel pressure ulcer dressing during a shower. The Weekly Skin Observation, dated 9/10/20, indicated Resident #280 had skin/wound treatments to the heels and bilateral buttocks and that there was no new skin/wound issues. The Weekly Nursing Summary which included a skin assessment, dated 9/17/20, identified treatments to Resident #280's bilateral heels and buttocks with no new skin areas. The Weekly Nursing Summary with Skin, dated 9/24/20, indicated treatments to the buttocks, and bilateral heels. The summary identified redness to the right great toe but did not identify a skin tear to the left shin. The Weekly Nursing Summary with a skin assessment, dated 10/1/20, indicated skin treatments to the buttocks and left heel. The summary did not identify any other skin issues. A review of Resident #280's September 2020 Order Summary Report did not include a physician order for a dressing change to the residents skin tear that had occurred on 9/7/20. During an interview on 10/2/20, the Director of Nursing stated her expectation would have been for staff to have a physician order to dress the skin tear and that the dressing should have been changed between the time of 9/7 and 10/2/20.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: 1. The facility failed to ensure food and snack ite...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to maintain professional standards for food service safety as evidenced by: 1. The facility failed to ensure food and snack items were dated and labeled properly in one nutrition room (Light House Way) out of 2 nutrition rooms sampled, 2. The facility failed to ensure hydration carts were maintained in a clean and sanitary manner for one hydration cart (Light House Way) out of three sampled. Findings included: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines labeling as all labels and other written, printed, or graphic matters (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or (2) accompanying such an article. This may include packaging, instructions, product inserts, websites, and other promotional materials. https://www.registrarcorp.com/fda-labeling 1. An observation was conducted during the initial tour of the facility on 9/29/2020 at 9:42 a.m., of the nutrition room located on Light House Way. A loaf of bread was observed sitting on the counter beside the microwave and had a small white blank sticker on the outside of the plastic bag. The bread bag was not labeled or dated. There was also a large plastic bag filled with smaller individual plastic bags of cookies. The smaller individual bags of cookies were not labeled or dated, nor was there a label with a date or information on the outside of the large bag. (Photographic evidence was obtained). A second observation was conducted on 9/30/2020 at 9:30 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way there was the same loaf of bread (9/29/2020) without a label or date on it. (Photographic evidence was obtained). A third observation was conducted on 10/01/2020 at 9:28 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way and the same loaf of bread was on the counter next to the microwave without a label and not dated. (Photographic evidence was obtained) A fourth observation was conducted on 10/02/2020 at approximately 9:40 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way, the same loaf of bread that had been observed from 9/29/2020-10/01/2020 now had a date written on the white sticker on the outer wrapping of the bread. The date written in black marker showed 9/30/2020. There was also a large plastic bag filled with smaller individual plastic bags of cookies and none of the bags for the cookies were dated. (Photographic evidence was obtained). An interview was conducted on 10/02/20 at 9:42 a.m., Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN), confirmed the cookies did not have a date or label of any kind. Staff I said, Why don't I just throw them out. An interview was conducted on 10/02/20 at 12:17 p.m., and the Dietary Supervisor said, Well I know the bread came in on 9/27/2020. No, the bread does not have a label on it. I am not sure who wrote in the date. Yes, the date on there is 9/30/2020. The Dietary Supervisor confirmed the bags of cookies did not have a date or label on them. The Dietary Supervisor said, Yes, all food should be dated. 2. An observation was conducted on 9/29/20 at 9:42 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way. A hydration cart in the nutrition room had a tray on one of the shelves with plastic white spoons out and not covered. The ice scoop was observed on the hydration cart in a round plastic container (silverware holder), with holes in it that was attached to the side of the cart. The container with the ice scoop in it was not covered. (Photographic evidence was obtained) An observation was conducted on 9/29/20 at approximately 10:10 a.m., Certified Nursing Aides were observed pushing the hydration cart on Light House Way hall. The ice scoop was being used to scoop ice out of the ice chest into individual resident bedside hydration cups. The CNAs then placed the scoop in a plastic container with holes in it that was attached to the side of the hydration cart. The container with the ice scoop in it was not covered. (Photographic evidence was obtained) An interview was conducted on 9/29/20 at 10:40 a.m., Staff J, CNA said, Yes, we were passing water with ice out to the residents. We use this ice chest and this scoop. I am not sure when it gets cleaned. A second observation was conducted on 9/30/20 at 9:30 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way. The ice scoop on the hydration cart was stored in a silverware holder and uncovered. (Photographic evidence was obtained) A third observation was conducted on 10/01/20 at 9:28 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way. The ice scoop on the hydration cart was stored in a silverware holder and uncovered. (Photographic evidence was obtained) A fourth observation was conducted on 10/02/20 at approximately 9:40 a.m., in the nutrition room located on Light House Way. The ice scoop on the hydration cart was stored in a silverware holder and uncovered. (Photographic evidence was obtained) An interview was conducted on 10/02/20 at 9:42 a.m., Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN), confirmed that the ice scoop was not covered. A facility policy was requested but not provided by the end of the survey on 10/2/20.
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?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $37,198 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $37,198 in fines. Higher than 94% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (31/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 31/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Bear Creek Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Bear Creek Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 56%, which is 10 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Bear Creek Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER during 2020 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 18 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 Bear Creek Nursing Center?

BEAR CREEK NURSING 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 HEALTH SERVICES MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 103 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in HUDSON, Florida.

How Does Bear Creek Nursing Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (56%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Bear Creek Nursing 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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Bear Creek Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-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 Bear Creek Nursing Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER is high. At 56%, the facility is 10 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Bear Creek Nursing Center Ever Fined?

BEAR CREEK NURSING CENTER has been fined $37,198 across 2 penalty actions. The Florida average is $33,451. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Bear Creek Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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