CHARMING LAKES REHAB

2020 W LAKE PARKER DR, LAKELAND, FL 33805 (863) 682-7580
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#621 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Charming Lakes Rehab has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall level of care. It ranks #621 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #18 out of 25 in Polk County, suggesting limited local options that perform better. The facility is showing some improvement, with the number of issues decreasing from 15 in 2023 to 12 in 2025. Staffing is a concern here as it has a below-average rating of 2 out of 5 stars and a high turnover rate of 67%, which is significantly above the state average. Additionally, the facility has incurred $70,702 in fines, which is higher than 85% of Florida facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues. There are critical incidents reported, including failures to prevent two residents at high risk for elopement from leaving the facility unsupervised, raising serious safety concerns. Also, the facility did not provide adequate personal care for residents’ fingernails, which caused harm to one individual. While the facility has some strengths, such as a stable trend in reducing issues, the overall picture remains concerning due to significant deficiencies in care and supervision.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Florida
#621/690
Bottom 10%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
15 → 12 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
67% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$70,702 in fines. Higher than 55% of Florida facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
40 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 15 issues
2025: 12 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 67%

20pts above Florida avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $70,702

Well above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (67%)

19 points above Florida average of 48%

The Ugly 40 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 2 actual harm
Aug 2025 11 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

A resident was harmed · 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 provide ADL care for fingernails for 3 residents, ...

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 provide ADL care for fingernails for 3 residents, (Resident #68, Resident #6, and Resident #1), who were sampled for ADLs. The failure to provide ADL care caused harm to 1 Resident, (Resident #68). The findings included: A review of the facility’s policy for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) effective 04/01/2022, revealed the purpose was to ensure all residents’ needs were met in a manner that promoted their quality of life and preferences. The procedure section included that the facility would provide residents with the appropriate treatment and services to maintain hygiene. This included bathing, dressing, grooming, and oral care. 1.A record review revealed that Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Cerebral Infarction, Dementia, and Spastic Hemiplegia unspecified side The minimum data set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had severe cognitive impairment, and he was dependent on assistance for personal hygiene. Resident #68’s plan of care last revised on 02/03/25 noted that he had an activity of daily living, self-care performance deficit, that was related to a recent stroke, impaired mobility, and impaired communication. One documented intervention was to monitor, document, and report to the Doctor any changes or potential for improvement. During an observation on 08/18/25 at 2:32 PM, Resident #68 lied on his back with his head elevated in his bed. His hands were visible and most of his fingernails were approximately ¾ inch long. Dark brown/black sediment was on the middle fingernail of his right hand, and under the fingernail of the thumb on his left hand. On 08/19/25 at 4:00 PM the fingernails were observed again. The left hand was contracted. Four fingernails were visible, and they were all approximately the same length, ¾ inch long. The end of the pinky nail was not visible. Photographic evidence was obtained. When the resident was asked if he liked his fingernails long, he moved his head from the left to the right, which indicated he did not want long fingernails. An interview with Staff F, (a Licensed Practical Nurse), on 08/20/25 at 10:55 AM revealed that Resident #68 used to receive treatments for his left hand after it had been bleeding and leaking. When Staff F was asked to evaluate the condition of Resident #68’s fingernails, she touched Resident #68’s hand and attempted to turn the hand into a position for inspection. Resident #68 began to shake, and he pulled his hand away. Staff F said that his fingernails needed to be clipped. When asked who was responsible for clipping fingernails, Staff F said that the podiatrist came out to clip nails. She added that she tried to clip his fingernails a few weeks ago with the clippers from the activities room, and those nail clippers didn’t work. During a later interview with Staff F on 08/20/25 at 2:49 PM, when asked to locate documentation in the medical record about her attempt to cut Resident #68’s fingernails, Staff F could not find any documentation to support her statement. When asked how she followed up on the discovery about Resident #68’s injured hand, Staff F said that Staff G, the Nurse Practitioner (NP), came and viewed Resident #68’s fingernails she ordered Bactrim, an antibiotic tablet for his infection to the left big toe and to the left hand on 08/20/25. She also ordered a treatment to clean his hand with saline solution and to apply Nystatin Powder two times a day for 14 days on 08/20/25. Staff F said that “the nail was pretty much deep into the palm of his hand.” When asked if she thought that this hand injury could have been prevented, Staff F said with proper hand and nail care the injury could have been prevented. An interview later that day with Resident #68 at 4:19 PM revealed that his left hand was painful and that he wanted his nails to be cut. During an interview with the Activities Director (AD) on 08/20/25 at 2:58 PM, the AD said that the podiatrist only cut toenails. She said that fingernail care was performed by the nursing department and by the activities department. She added that nursing did the cutting. During a phone Interview on 08/20/25 at 4:20 PM, Staff G, (a Nurse Practitioner), said she performed her usual rounds earlier that morning. She said she reviewed Resident #68’s chronic systems which included medications, gastrostomy tube, and left big toe wound, and then she left the room. Staff G explained that Staff F told her Resident #68 had a problem with his left hand so they went into his room together. She said that they looked at the resident’s hand and saw that his fingernail dug into the palm of his left hand. The Nurse Practitioner said that she told the nurse to follow up and cut his fingernails. On 08/20/25 at 5:15 PM an interview was conducted with Staff S, (a CNA), who stated that Resident #68 was one of the residents in her assignment. She said Resident #68 did not talk; He communicated by nodding yes or no. She stated since the resident had Diabetes, she did not trim his fingernails or his toe nails. She stated the foot doctor trims toe nails and the nurses will trim his finger nails. She stated that at times Resident #68 touched his feces. She then stated that the nurse was aware Resident #68 had those behaviors. During an interview with the Administrator and DON on 08/21/25 at 4:17 PM, the DON said that they first found out about the hand injury on 08/20/25. A record review performed on 08/21/25 revealed that the most recent completed skin evaluation tool was completed on 08/06/25. It showed Resident #68 had an open area to left great toe. The surveyor's concern for the resident's long nails and injury to the palm of his hand was not identified until after the surveyor brought it to the attention of the LPN. The skin evaluation tool that was noted “in progress”, and dated 08/20/25, listed skin impairment to resident's left toe. It had no mention of the resident's fingernails or injury to his hand. 2. A record review revealed that Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Muscle Weakness, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. A Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #6 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13, which indicated that she was cognitively intact. This same MDS assessment documented that Resident #6 was dependent on assistance with personal hygiene. Her plan of care last revised on 07/14/25 noted that she had an ADL self-care performance deficit, and she required partial to moderate assistance with ADLs related to personal hygiene. During an observation on 08/18/2025 at approximately 3:00 PM, Resident #6 was lying in bed with her hands on top of the blanket. Her nails were very long. When asked if she liked her nails that long, Resident #6 said no. During an observation on 08/19/25 at 3:20 PM, Resident #6 was in bed with her hands crossed on top of her abdomen. There were 5 visible fingernails with lengths one half to three quarters of an inch past her fingertips. The nail portion above the fingertip had brown, black sediment underneath the nail. Brown/black sediment was also on the perimeter, top portion of some nails. During an interview with Staff J, (a CNA) on 08/20/2025 at 5:37 PM, the CNA said that she can not cut nails of any resident who was diagnosed with diabetes. She said that she did not report to a nurse manager the need for the resident's nails to be cut. In addition, the CNA said that her fingernails needed to be cleaned. Outside of the resident’s room, the CNA said that this resident was known to put her fingers in her feces. 3. A record review revealed that Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her medical history included the Need for Assistance with Personal Care, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 8, which indicated that she had cognitive impairment. A record review of Resident #1’s plan of care noted that her ADL self-care performance deficit was related to weakness, impaired mobility, some cognitive loss, and the loss of dexterity in her fingers. A listed intervention specified she needed maximum assistance for personal hygiene. During an observation on 08/20/25 at approximately 6:45 PM, Resident #1 was in her bed watching television. Her nails were long and the second digit of her left hand was pressing into the palm of her hand. Her fingers were contracted. [NAME] crusted looking patches of skin were on her palm. Red polish was on the upper half of her nails. There was no hand appliance on at that time. During an observation on 08/21/2025 at 9:17 AM, Resident #1 was in her bed and she was wearing an appliance on her left hand. Staff I removed the hand appliance and photographic evidence was obtained. The resident was asked if she wanted her fingernails cut and she said yes. Staff I was asked whose responsibility it was to clip the resident’s nails. Staff I said that she had cut them before, and that recently when she looked for the clippers she couldn’t find them. 4. During the tour on 08/18/25 at 11:58 AM, an interview was conducted with Resident #31’s spouse. He stated he has filed several grievances regarding care and for Resident #31 to get assistance to eat during meals. He is very concerned that his wife is not being encouraged to eat and drink by the staff. He stated that the facility mentioned the staff has been educated to assist his wife to eat. He stated he comes to visit every day and does help her with the meals; however, he is not sure if anyone is assisting when he is not at the facility. He also stated that Resident #31 appears thinner to him and dehydrated, she’s blind and has a hard time feeding herself. Record review documented Resident #31 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Sequelae of Cerebral Infarction, Malignant Neoplasm of Colon, Adult Failure to Thrive, Generalized Muscle Weakness, Cognitive Communication Deficit. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #31 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09, indicating moderately cognitively impaired. Review of Section GG revealed that Resident #31 required setup or clean-up assistance for eating. Record review of the July Concern Log (Grievances) documented Resident #31’s spouse filed a grievance on 07/31/25 requesting assistance while eating for Resident #31. Further review of the Complaint/Grievance Report revealed the above grievance was resolved with education and the results were verbally communicated to family, who expressed satisfaction on 08/01/25. Record review of Resident #31 weight summary documented the following weights: 07/26/25 19:35 157.0 Lbs. 08/04/25 07:47 152.4 Lbs. 08/04/25 08:04 152.4 Lbs. 08/11/25 10:16 150.4 Lbs. During a breakfast dining observation on 08/19/25 at 8:13 AM, Resident #31 was in bed with the head of the bed raised and the breakfast tray in front of her on the over bed table. Breakfast consisted of scrambled eggs, hashbrown and oatmeal, 4oz container of milk (with a straw) and a foam cup of water with a lid and no straw. There were no staff in the room and Resident #31 was not eating anything on her breakfast tray. Continued observation at 8:22 AM did not show any staff in the room assisting Resident #31 with her meal which was100% untouched. At this time, an interview was conducted with Resident #31, who stated the food at the facility is okay and then grabbed the water foam cup and attempted to drink however was unable to since it had a lid and no straw. She then placed the foam cup back on the tray without drinking water. At 8:30 AM, the breakfast tray was taken out of the room. On 08/21/25 at 8:17 AM another breakfast observation was conducted for Resident #31, and no breakfast tray was observed in the room. Staff L, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was asked to see Resident #31’s tray. Staff L removed the tray from the meal cart and noted that Resident #31 had eaten about 50% of her breakfast. She stated that she assisted the resident with her meal this morning. Staff L also stated that Resident #31 sometimes eats and sometimes does not, she needs encouragement.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide dining in a manner to preserve the dignity ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide dining in a manner to preserve the dignity for 3 of 33 residents in the final sample, Residents #11, 14 and 9. The findings included:The facility’s policy, “Resident Rights – Right to Respect, Dignity and to have Personal Property” with a reference date of 04/01/22, did not address dignity during dining. 1. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the resident’s most recent complete assessment, a Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS), with a reference date of 05/21/25, Resident #14 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating that Resident #14 was moderately cognitively impaired. The assessment documented that the resident required partial/moderate assistance for eating. Resident #14’s diagnoses at the time of the assessment included: Arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, Seizure disorder, muscle weakness, Dysphagia. Resident #14’s care plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) documented, “Resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit related to weakness, impaired mobility, tremors/Parkinson’s disease Date Initiated: 05/14/2024 Revision on: 06/04/2024 The goal of the care plan was documented as, “The resident will maintain or improve current level of function in ADLs through the review date. Date Initiated: 05/14/2024 Revision on: 06/04/2025 Target Date: 11/19/2025. Interventions to the care plan included: • EATING: The resident needs partial/mod assist of 1 when having tremors Date Initiated: 06/04/2024 During an observation of breakfast served to the residents in their rooms, on 08/20/25 at 8:33 AM, Resident #14 was sitting in a wheelchair on the left side of the resident’s bed facing the wall at the head of the bed. Staff N, CNA was noted to be assisting the resident by standing behind him and feeding him from over his right shoulder. 2. Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the resident’s most recent complete assessment, a Significant Change MDS with a reference date of 08/10/25, Resident #11 was not assessed for cognition due to ‘resident is rarely/never understood’. The assessment documented that the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for eating. Resident #11’s diagnoses at the time of the assessment included: Gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), Arthritis, Osteoarthritis, Aphasia, Seizure disorder, Dysphagia. Resident #11’s care plan for ADLs documented, “Resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t Impaired balance, weakness, cognitive and communication deficit, traumatic brain injury, Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) subdural hematoma, contractures risk for decline in function. Date Initiated: 04/10/2023 Revision on: 08/21/2025. The goal of the care plan was documented as, “The resident will maintain or improve current level of function in ADLs through the review date. Date Initiated: 04/10/2023 Revision on: 08/18/2025 Target Date: 11/19/2025. Interventions to the care plan included: • EATING: The resident needs substantial/max assist x1. can feed self finger foods Date Initiated: 04/10/2023. During an observation of breakfast served to the residents in their rooms, on 08/20/25 at 8:33 AM, Resident #11 was positioned in a wheelchair at the resident’s left side of the bed with breakfast on an overbed table, while Staff O, CNA was standing over and to the resident’s left side to feed the resident. At the time of the observations of Resident #14 and Resident #11 being assisted by staff, Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM), was asked to join the surveyor to make the observations. Staff P acknowledged the concerns at the time of the observations. 3. Record review for Resident #9 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: Sequelae of Cerebral Infarction, Dysphagia, Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Polyneuropathy. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #9 dated 07/11/25 revealed in section C a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indicating that she was rarely/never understood. Review of section GG revealed Resident #9 was dependent on staff assistance for eating. During a lunch dining observation conducted on 08/21/25 at 1:02 PM, in the 200-unit hallway, it was noted Staff I, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was in Resident #9’s room assisting with her lunch meal. Staff I was observed standing over Resident #9 while feeding the resident. Further observation of the room revealed an empty chair in the room by the window. At 1:13 PM, an interview was conducted with Staff I, who stated she has worked at the facility for 5 years. When asked if she should be standing to assist with meals, Staff I appeared confused, unsure of what to say and then asked the surveyor if she should sit or stand to assist with meals. Staff I was then asked again what the protocol is when a resident requires assistance with feeding. She then stated that she should sit because the resident might feel rushed to finish the meal. Then Staff I acknowledged that she was standing over Resident #9 while assisting with lunch and that was not per protocol.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to follow orders for fluid restrictions for 1 of 1 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 orders for fluid restrictions for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Dialysis, Resident #3. The findings included:The facility's policy, ‘Fluid Restrictions' with a reference date of 05/2014 and a revision date of 09/2017, documented: A fluid restriction will be implemented only as part of a therapeutic diet prescription. The policy did not address fluids provided by staff for hydration. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the resident's most recent complete assessment, a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), Resident #3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment documented that Resident #15 required supervision or touching assistance for eating. Resident #3's diagnoses at the time of the assessment included: Hypertension, Peripheral Vascular disease (PVD), Diabetes Melitus, Psychotic disorder, Cerebral infarction, Muscle weakness, Dependence on Renal dialysis, Hypothyroidism. Resident #3's orders included;FLUID RESTRICTION - 1500 CC / day 720 ML by dietary, 260 ML 7-3, 260 ML 3-11, 260 ML 11-7 - every shift for nutrition 260 ml per shift by nursing - 07/07/25Resident #3's care plan for dehydration documented, The resident has dehydration risk for fluid restrictions, infections, diuretic use Date Initiated: 07/08/2025 Revision on: 8/18/2025. The goal of the care plan was documented as, The resident will be free of symptoms of dehydration and maintain moist mucous membranes, good skin turgor. Date Initiated: 07/08/2025 Target Date: 10/13/2025. Interventions to the care plan included: Monitor/document/report PRN any s/sx of dehydration. Date Initiated: 07/08/2025 Notify Physician if: Persistent symptoms of diarrhea, nausea/vomiting unresolved past 48 hours; persistent output exceeding intake past 48 hours; abnormal lab. Date Initiated: 07/08/2025 Obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered. Report results to MD and follow up as indicated. Date Initiated: 07/08/2025. Resident #3's care plan for nutrition documented, Resident has nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem related to End Stage Renal Disease, constipation, Hypertension, Peripheral vascular disease, Hypothyroidism, Gastroesophageal reflux disease, Chronic kidney disease, Cerebral infarction, Respiratory failure, Adjustment disorder, Hyperkalemia, eats out of facility, dialysis, fluid restrictions, history of non-compliance to diet, history of readmission, history of appetite stimulant use, Refused renal diet. Date Initiated: 05/30/2025 Revision on: 07/08/2025. Interventions to the care plan included: Fluid restrictions as ordered Date Initiated: 07/08/2025 Provide, serve diet as ordered. Monitor intake and record with each meal. Date Initiated: 04/17/2025. On 08/19/2025 at 11:22 AM Resident #3 was noted to be not in her room. At the time of the observation, there was a 20 ounce foam cup approximately 1/3 full of fluid (water) on her overbed table to the resident's left side of the bed. During an interview, on 08/19/25 at 11:35, with Resident #3, when asked about being aware of the fluid restrictions, Resident #3 stated, I have to watch my water intake because of the dialysis. If I get too much I would have to go to the hospital and get some taken off. When asked about the water on the overbed table, Resident #3 replied, I didn't drink it, I spilled some of it. It is for the middle of the night. On 08/20/25 at 8:30 AM, Resident #3 was not in her room. At the time of the observation, Resident #3's breakfast was on her overbed table and there was a 20 ounce Styrofoam cup of fluid (water) on the nightstand to the resident's left side of the bed. During an interview, on 08/20/25 at 3:15 PM, with Staff A, LPN, when asked about hydration provided to the residents, Staff A stated that 11-7 shift refreshes the fluids at the end of their shift and when they start doing coffee for breakfast they will be refilled. During an interview, on 08/21/25 at 6:50 AM, with Staff Q, CNA, when asked about providing fluids to Resident #3 during her shift (11PM to 7 AM), Staff Q replied, I never give her fluids. The nurse told me that she is on fluid restrictions, so I don't provide water at her bedside. Staff Q further stated that she worked on Monday night (08/18/25) and last night (Wednesday, 08/20/25). During an interview, on 08/21/25 at 6:53 AM with Staff P, LPN/Unit Manager, when the concern was brought to her attention, Staff P stated, she is noncompliant with her fluid restrictions. She has been educated about the risk, but if she gets her own from outside, we can't stop her. When asked about the risk associated with being noncompliant with the restrictions, Staff P stated, She is on dialysis, so they would have to remove more fluid because her kidneys would not be able to process the extra fluids. She could get swollen, she could have congestive heart failure, she can get fluid in her lungs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide nutrition via enteral feedings per physici...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide nutrition via enteral feedings per physician orders for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #68), reviewed for enteral feeding. This had the potential to affect 3 residents who were dependent on enteral feeding for nutrition. The findings included:The facility's policy on Enteral Feeding and Nutrition, effective 04/01/22, was to ensure adequate parameters of nutrition and hydration status through the provision of physician ordered enteral feedings. It specified that the physician orders for enteral nutrition were based on recommendations of the Registered Dietitian. A record review revealed that Resident #68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Cerebral Infarction, Dementia, Dysphagia following Cerebral Infarction, and Gastrostomy Status. The minimum data set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed he had severe cognitive impairment, and he received enteral feeding exclusively, also known as tube feeding, to meet his needs for nutrition. Resident #68's most recent weight was 116.2 lbs. His Body Mass Index was 18.2. This indicated that Resident #68 was underweight. A record review of Resident #68's care plan last revised on 11/26/2024, revealed a focus on tube feeding that was related to his diagnosis Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). The quarterly assessment completed by the Registered Dietitian on 08/06/25 noted that Resident #68 was at risk for malnutrition and tube feeding complications; She calculated that the resident required 1800 Calories to be administered each day. This included 1240 milliliters of water that was a component in the 1500 milliliters of Glucerna 1.2 Cal formula. A doctor's order dated 11/26/24 was for an NPO (nothing by mouth) diet. A doctor's order dated 11/26/24 specified to administer Glucerna 1.2 Cal at a rate of 75 milliliters per hour for 20 hours. On at 2pm, off at 10am; until 1500ml infused. Another order for enteral feeding of Glucerna 1.2 dated 02/27/25 said to administer Glucerna 1.2 via PEG (percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy) to run at 75 milliliters per hour via pump for 20 hours. Total volume to be infused 1500 milliliters/24 hours. Up at 2:00 PM and down at 10 AM. May stop for care and ADLs. There were 2 orders for enteral feeding. An observation of Resident #68 on 08/18/2025 at 12:10 PM during the initial screening process, revealed that the resident had physical signs of malnutrition. He was in bed wearing a loosely tied hospital gown. The enteral feeding pump was off. Severely depressed muscles in between the clavicle bones on his left shoulder were visible. Later that day, on 08/18/25 at 2:32 PM, the pump was on, and the resident's enteral feeding was in progress at 75 milliliters per hour. The 1000 milliliter plastic bottle appeared to be full. The hand-written date on the label was 08/18/25 and the time written on the label said was 2:00 PM. Approximately 50 milliliters was administered. The EntraFlo Pump digital display showed 49 milliliters was delivered since the pump was started (approximately 2:00 PM). Photographic Evidence Provided. An observation of Resident #68's enteral feeding on 08/19/25 at 10:07 AM revealed that the pump was turned off. The turn off time was scheduled at 10:00 AM. The 1000 milliliter bottle had dark black graduated lines printed along the right edge of the large rectangular label, revealed that the bottle still had approximately 800 milliliters left in the bottle. The date on the bottle was 08/19/25 and the start time was listed 4:00 A.M. Photographic Evidence Obtained. An observation of the digital readout of the amount of Glucerna 1.2 Cal that was delivered showed 1324 milliliters. This number was displayed 15 minutes prior to the shut off time. Considering there was 950 milliliters left in the bottle dated 08/18/25, 2:00 PM the difference is 374 milliliters that was delivered from the bottle dated 08/19/25 4:00 AM. A 1000 milliliter bottle minus 374 milliliters leaves 626 milliliters. There were 800 milliliters left in the bottle. The digital readout did not correlate with the observed amount of formula that was left in the bottle. A complete feeding of 1500 milliliters would have left 500 milliliters in the bottle after the 1000 milliliter bottle dated 08/18/25 was finished, and a new 1000 milliliter bottle was started. In the 20-hour feeding from 2:00 PM on 08/18/25, to 10:00 AM on 08/19/25, Resident #68 received approximately 300 milliliters too little formula. Photographic Evidence Obtained. During an observation of the enteral feeding pump connected to Resident #68 on 08/19/25 at 3:30 PM, the digital readout on the EntraFlo pump said 1324 milliliters was delivered. At 3:30 PM Resident #68 received 120 milliliters from the bottle of Glucerna 1.2 that was scheduled to start at 2:00 PM. Approximately 680 milliliters remained in the bottle of Glucerna that was dated 08/19/25, 4:00 AM. Photographic Evidence Obtained. During an observation of the enteral feeding pump connected to Resident #68 on 08/20/25 at 9:45 AM. The tube feeding was in progress at 75 milliliters per hour. The digital readout showed that 518 milliliters was delivered to the resident. The bottle of Glucerna 1.2 had a handwritten date 08/20/25, and time 2:00 AM. Approximately 600 milliliters remained in the bottle. If 518 milliliters was administered from a 1000 milliliter bottle, 482 milliliters would remain. The amount on the digital display did not reflect the observed approximation of 600 milliliters that remained in the bottle. Photographic Evidence Obtained. The amount of Glucerna 1.2 that was delivered from the bottle dated 08/20/25, 2:00 AM was 400 milliliters. The 800 milliliters that remained in the bottle dated 08/19/25, 4:00 AM was administered, plus 400 milliliters administered from the bottle dated 08/20/25, 2:00 AM equals 1200 milliliters. Resident #68 should have received 1500 milliliters in the 20-hour time period between 08/19/25 at 2:00 PM and 08/20/25 at 10 AM. Resident #68 received approximately 300 milliliters less than ordered. During an interview with Staff F on 08/20/25 at 10:52 AM, when asked how she knew when Resident #68 received enough of the Glucerna 1.2 Cal, she said that she turned the pump off at 10:00 AM, and then she turned the pump on at 2:00 PM. When asked how much formula he was supposed to receive everyday she answered Resident #68 received 75 milliliters for 20 hours or until 1500 milliliters was infused. When asked how she knew when 1500 milliliters was infused, Staff F read the digital display that showed 541 milliliters. She said 541 milliliters was the amount delivered. When asked if she ever saw a number 1500 milliliters on the digital display on the pump, Staff F said no.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, in...

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 that a resident who needs respiratory care, including tracheostomy care and tracheal suctioning, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 1 sampled resident for respiratory care (Resident #24). The findings included:Review of the facility's policy titled, Tracheostomy Care with an effective date of 04/01/22 included in part the following: General Guidelines -Aseptic technique must be used: During cleaning and sterilization of reusable tracheostomy tubes. A mask and eyewear must be worn if splashes, spraying of blood or body fluids is likely to occur when performing this procedure. Clean the Removable Inner Cannula- Maintaining sterile field, pour equal parts hydrogen peroxide and normal Saline in one compartment of opened kit. Pour normal saline in another compartment. Put on sterile gloves. Secure the outer neck plate with non-dominate hand. Remove and discard gloves into appropriate receptacle. Wash hands and put on fresh gloves. Record review for Resident #24 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with readmissions on 07/04/25 and 08/01/25, with diagnoses that included in part the following: Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury and Tracheostomy Status. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating a cognitive response. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #24 revealed in part the following orders:An order dated 06/19/24 to change trach collar every night shift and was discontinued 07/02/25.An order dated 06/19/24 to change trach inner cannula every day. Trach size:4UN65H inner cannula #4IC65 every night shift related to Tracheostomy Status and was discontinued on 07/02/25.An order dated 08/01/25 to change trach collar every night shift every 3 days.An order dated 08/06/25 to change trach inner cannula every day. Trach inner cannula size 4UN65H every night shift.In summary the resident did not have orders to change trach collar or to change trach inner cannula from 07/04/25 to 07/30/25 while the resident was in the facility. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for Resident #24 from 07/04/25 to 07/30/25 revealed there was no documentation of trach care. Review of the Progress Notes for Resident #24 from 07/04/25 to 07/30/25 revealed there was no documentation of trach care. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #24 dated 03/27/24 with a focus on the resident has a tracheostomy, resident puts his hands on tracheostomy frequently. The goals were for the resident to have minimal signs/symptoms of infection and for the resident to have clear and equal breath sounds bilaterally through the review date. The interventions included in part the following: Ensure that trach ties are secured at all times. Suction as necessary. On 08/18/25 at 12:42 PM an observation was made of Resident #24 who has a trach collar in place with suction set up at bedside. During an interview conducted on 08/18/25 at 12:45 PM with Resident #24 who was asked if staff perform trach care, he said they usually do it every day but not always. He said the nurse that he has today is good about doing it when she is working. On 08/20/25 at 12:15 PM an observation of tracheostomy care for Resident #24 performed by Staff A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who was assisted by Staff B Licensed Practical Nurse/Wound Care Nurse (LPN/WCN). During the observation Staff A LPN performed suctioning, tracheostomy care that included: removing, cleaning and replacing outer cannula, replacing disposable inner cannula, removing and replacing trach ties. During the observation neither nurse wore any eye protection. Staff A LPN did apply sterile gloves but touched a plastic cover with both sterile gloved hands and touched the tip of the suction tubing prior to performing suctioning. During the suctioning a large mucus plug came out of the resident. Staff B LPN/WCN consistently had to give direction to Staff A LPN during all parts of the procedure including set up, suctioning, removing and cleaning outer cannula, replacing disposable inner cannula and replacing the trach ties. Staff A LPN continued to touch several items on the sterile field with contaminated sterile gloves and with non-sterile gloves. Staff A LPN cleaned the outer cannula and replaced the disposable inner canula with non-sterile gloves. During an interview conducted on 08/20/25 at 12:57 PM with Staff B LPN/WCN who was asked about Staff A LPN's performance of tracheostomy care for Resident #24, she said it was not good. Staff B LPN/WCN admitted he did not maintain a sterile field or use sterile technique while performing the procedures involved in tracheostomy care. During an interview conducted on 08/20/25 at 1:10 PM with Staff A LPN who was asked about his performance of tracheostomy care, he said he saw Staff B LPN/WCN in the hall on his way to this interview and knew it was not good. When asked about maintaining a sterile field maintaining a sterile gloved hand during the procedure, he admitted he did not. When asked about eye protection, he admitted that neither Staff B LPN/WCN nor himself had worn any eye protection during the procedure, but after thinking about it they should have worn eye protection. When asked when the last time he training for tracheostomy care , he said about 1 year ago when he was hired. During an interview conducted on 08/20/25 at 2:00 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), who was asked how often trach care is provided, she said it should be every shift (three 8hour shifts per day). Upon record review for Resident #24 she acknowledged the resident did not have orders or documentation for trach care from 07/04/25 to 07/30/25.
CONCERN (D)

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 observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures...

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 provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assure the accurate dispensing, and administering of all drugs for, 7 of 9 residents reviewed for controlled substances (Residents #7, #104, #32, #14, #48, #69, and #85) and failed to establish a system of records of all controlled drugs to ensure discontinued controlled medications are removed from the medication carts for 2 of 9 residents reviewed for controlled medications (Residents #104 and #14). The findings included: 1. During an interview conducted on 08/19/25 at 9:51 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was asked about medications, the DON stated all meds are secured at all times. When asked about what happens to controlled medications for residents who discharged or sent to the hospital, the DON stated the nurse on the med cart will remove the medication and give it to her. The DON said she is always on the floor daily and always asks nurses if they have any discontinued medications they need to give to her. Once she has the controlled medication that is discontinued or no longer in use, she stores them in her office in a locked file cabinet and they are destroyed with two people including herself and the Administrator or the Consultant Pharmacist. If it is her and the Administrator, the Consultant Pharmacist will sign off on the destruction of the medication and they keep a log of the destroyed medications. When asked if they audit the med carts to ensure controlled medications no longer in use or for residents no longer in the facility, she said she or the Consultant Pharmacist will periodically check the carts. On 08/20/25 at 4:00 PM a review of a south unit med cart for the 500 hall was performed with Staff D Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who had a medication cup with 11 pills in the top drawer. Review of the controlled meds and the Medication Monitoring/Control Record for the following residents revealed the following: Resident #48 Hydromorphone 2mg (23) was signed off on the Medication Monitoring/Control Record on 08/20/25 at 6:28 AM and not signed off on the Medication Administration Record (MAR). This was confirmed by Staff D LPN. Resident #14 Tramadol 50mg the resident had two Medication Monitoring/Control Records for the same medication, with one record showing the resident as given the medication on 08/17/25 at 1:30 AM however the medication was not documented on the MAR as the medication was discontinued on 08/12/25. During an interview conducted on 08/20/25 at 4:02 PM with Staff D LPN who was asked about the pills in the cup, she said she did not pull the pills. She said they must have been in the cart from the previous nurse. When asked what time she took over the med cart, she said it was at 7:00 AM this morning. When asked when a controlled medication is taken out to give to a resident where is this documented, she said it should be documented on the Medication Monitoring/Control Record and on the MAR. When asked about when the controlled medications are discontinued or the resident has been discharged or transferred out of the facility what is done with the controlled medications, she said they leave them in the cart until someone comes to pick them up. On 08/21/25 at 10:40 AM a review of a south unit med cart for the 600 hall was performed with Staff E Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Review of the controlled meds and the Medication Monitoring/Control Record for the following residents revealed the following: Resident #32 Tramadol Hcl 50mg (8) the Medication Monitoring/Control Record documented the medication was signed out seven times (07/25/25, 07/27/25, 07/28/25, 07/29/25, 07/31/25, 08/03/25, and 08/05/25) and none of these days the medication was signed out on the MAR. Resident #104 Alprazolam 0.5mg (6) the Medication Monitoring/Control Record documented the medication was signed out 4 times (07/25/25, 07/26/25, 0728/25, and 07/29/25) and none of these days the medication was signed out on the MAR. The medication had in fact been discontinued on 03/05/25 but had remained in the med cart. Resident #7 Fentanyl patch 50mcg (2) the Medication Monitoring/Control Record documented the medication was documented as signed out on 08/16/25 but was not documented on the MAR as administered. During an interview conducted on 08/21/25 at 11:00 AM with Staff E LPN who stated when a controlled medication is removed from the cart to be given to resident she will document the medication removal on the Medication Monitoring/Control Record and document the medication administration on the resident's MAR. Staff E LPN acknowledged Resident #32's Tramadol 50mg was not documented on the MAR but signed out on the Medication Monitoring/Control Record (07/25/25, 07/27/25, 07/28/25, 07/29/25, 07/31/25, 08/03/25, and 08/05/25). Staff E LPN also acknowledged Resident #104 Alprazolam 0.5mg was discontinued on 03/05/25 and had been documented as signed out on the Medication Monitoring/Control Record on 07/25/25, 07/26/25, 07/28/25, and 07/29/25 but not documented on the MAR as being administered on those dates. Staff E LPN acknowledged for Resident #7 the Fentanyl patch 50mcg (2) the Medication Monitoring/Control Record documented the medication was documented as signed out on 08/16/25 but was not documented on the MAR as administered. Record review for Resident #48 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part the following: Fibromyalgia, Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 indicating a cognitive response. a. Review of Physician’s Orders for Resident #48 revealed an order dated 06/18/25 for Hydromorphone HCl Oral Tablet 2 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed. b. Record review for Resident #104 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part the following: Mood Disorder Due to Known Physiological Condition with Mixed Features and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The MDS dated [DATE] documented in Section C a BIMS score of 15 indicating a cognitive response. Review of Physician’s Orders for Resident #104 revealed an order dated 02/19/25 for Alprazolam Tablet 0.5 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for Anxiety for 14 Days was discontinued on 03/05/25. c. Record review for Resident #7 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the most recent readmission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part the following: Multiple Sclerosis and Other Chronic Pain. The MDS dated [DATE] documented in Section C a BIMS score of 15 indicating a cognitive response. Review of the Physician’s Orders for Resident #7 revealed an order dated 06/27/25 for Fentanyl Patch 72 Hour 50 MCG/HR apply 1 patch transdermal every 72 hours for pain Rotate Site and remove per schedule. d. Record review for Resident #32 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part the following: Cerebal Palsy and Rheumatoid Arthritis. The MDS dated [DATE] documented in Section C a BIMS score of 13 indicating a cognitive response. Review of the Physician’s Orders for Resident #32 revealed an order dated 12/19/24 for Tramadol HCl Tablet 50 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain. e. Record review for Resident #14 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part the following: Parkinsons Disease and Other Polyosteoarthritis. The MDS dated [DATE] documented in Section C a BIMS score of 12 indicating a moderate cognitive response. Review of the Physician’s Orders for Resident #14 revealed an order dated 08/15/24 for Tramadol HCl Tablet 50 MG give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed and was discontinued on 08/12/25. 2. Record review for Resident #69 revealed an admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Radiculopathy. Review of Resident #69’s Physician Orders dated 05/28/25 documented “Percocet (Oxycodone with Acetaminophen) 5-325 milligrams (mg) give one tablet every 4 hours as needed for pain (a controlled substance for pain)”. On 08/20/25 at 5:22 PM a medication storage observation was held on the North wing of the facility in which a controlled substance reconciliation was conducted for Resident #69. The medication monitoring/control record sheet documented Oxycod/APAP (Percocet) 5-325 mg was removed from the controlled substance locked box on 08/20/25 at 0042 (12:42 AM), 0822 (8:22 AM), and at 16:36 (4:36 PM). However, a review of the August Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented that Resident #69 was administered Percocet 5-325 mg tablet on 08/20/25 at 0822 and 1637; no entry was documented Resident #69 was administered the controlled substance on 08/20/25 at 0042. 3. Record review for Resident #85 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses included: Diabetes Mellitus due to Underlying condition with Diabetic Neuropathy, Generalized Muscle Weakness, Complete Traumatic Amputation at Level Between Knee and Ankle. Review of Resident #85’s Physician Orders dated 07/12/25 documented Tramadol (a controlled substance for pain) 50 mg, give one tablet every 6 hours as needed for moderate and severe pain. On 08/20/25 at 5:22 PM a medication storage observation was held on the North wing of the facility in which a controlled substance reconciliation was conducted for Resident #85. The medication monitoring/control record sheet documented Tramadol 50 mg was removed from the controlled substance locked box on 08/12/25 at 1855 (6:55 PM), and on 08/16/25 (unable to read the time). The next recorded date that the medication was removed from the locked box was on 08/19/25. Record review of the August MAR documented Resident #85 was never administered Tramadol 50 mg on 08/12/25; and the medication was administered twice on 08/16/25 at 0950 (9:50 AM) and at 1746 (5:46 PM). Further review revealed Resident #85 was administered Tramadol 50 mg on 08/17/25 at 1204 (12:04 PM), which was not documented as administered in Resident #85’s MAR.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring of behaviors and side effects for reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring of behaviors and side effects for residents on psychotropic medications for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Residents #24, #2, #3). The findings included:Review of the facility’s policy titled, “Antipsychotic Medication Use” with an effective date of 04/02/22 included in part the following: Nursing staff shall monitor for and report any of the following side effects and adverse consequences of antipsychotic medications to the Attending Physician. 1. Record review for Resident #2 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included in part the following: Urinary Tract Infection, Dementia, and Psychotic Disorder with Hallucinations Due to Known Physiological Condition. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Physician’s Orders for Resident #2 revealed in part the following: An order dated 07/25/25 for Donepezil HCl Tablet 10 MG Give 0.5 tablet by mouth one time a day. An order dated 07/25/25 for Memantine HCl Tablet 10 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime. An order dated 07/25/25 for Behaviors – Monitor for the Following: Sad Affect, Continuous crying, seems withdrawn, Mood Changes Document: \'N\' if none of the above observed. \'Y\' if any of the above was observed, select chart code \'Other\/ See Nurses Notes\' and progress note findings every shift agitation (Active). An order dated 07/25/25 for Behaviors – Monitor for the following: Restlessness (Agitation), Hitting, Increase in Complaints, Spitting, Cussing, Racial Slurs, Elopement, Psychosis, Aggression, Refusing Care, Angry. Document: \'N\' if none of the above observed. \'Y\' if any of the above was observed, select chart code \'Other\/ See Nurses Notes\' and progress note findings every shift An order dated 07/25/25 for Side Effects 1)Tardive dyskinesia 2)Hypotension 3)Sedation\/Drowsiness 4)Increased falls\/dizziness 4)Appetite changes\/weight change 5)Headache 6)Insomnia 7)Weakness 8)Visual Disturbances 9)Gastrointestinal disturbances 10)Other: see progress notes every shift for monitoring. Put in corresponding code. An order dated 07/26/25 for Antipsychotic Medication – Monitor for Dry Mouth, Constipation, Blurred Vision, Disorientation/Confusion, Difficulty Urinating, Hypotension, Dark Urine, Yellow Skin, Nausea/Vomiting, Lethargy, Drooling, Extrapyramidal Symptoms (Tremors, Disturbed Gait, Increased Agitation, Restlessness, Involuntary Movement of Mouth of Tongue). Document: \'Y\' if monitored and none of the above observed. \'N\' if monitored and any of the above was observed, select chart code \'Other\/ See Nurses Notes\' and progress note findings every day shift. An order dated 08/01/25 for Brexpiprazole (Rexulti )Oral Tablet 2 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime. An order dated 08/02/25 for Mirtazapine Tablet 7.5 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #2 documented for side effects a code of “0” which has no indication according to the order. Review of the MAR for Resident #2 documented for behaviors was just a check mark not a “Y” or “N” to indicate if the resident had behaviors or not. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #2 dated 07/25/25 with a focus on the resident is on antipsychotic therapy at risk for side effects. The goal was for the resident to be/remain free of antipsychotic drug related complications. The interventions included in part the following: Monitor behavioral symptoms and side effects. During an interview conducted on 08/21/25 at 10:40 AM with Staff E Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who was asked about monitoring side effects and behaviors for psychotropic medications, she said they document in the MAR under the order. When asked about Resident #2 she acknowledged the documentation was not clear if the resident had side effects or behaviors. When asked about Resident #24 she acknowledged there were no orders for monitoring behaviors or side effects. During an interview conducted on 08/21/25 at 11:20 AM with Staff A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who was asked about monitoring side effects and behaviors for psychotropic medications, she said they document in the MAR under the order. When asked about Resident #2 he acknowledged the documentation was not clear if the resident had side effects or behaviors. When asked about Resident #24 he acknowledged there were no orders for monitoring behaviors or side effects. 2 Record review for Resident #24 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], transferred to the hospital on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE], and went out to the hospital again on 07/30/25 and returned to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included in part the following: Diffuse Traumatic Brain Injury and Tracheostomy Status. The Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documented in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 15 indicating a cognitive response. Review of the Physician’s Orders for Resident #24 revealed in part the following orders: An order dated 07/04/25 for Lorazepam Tablet 0.5 MG give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day. An order dated 07/10/25 for Duloxetine HCl Capsule Delayed Release Particles 30 MG give 2 capsule by mouth two times a day. In summary there were no orders to monitor behaviors or side effects for resident receiving psychotropic medications. Review of the MAR for Resident #24 from 08/01/25 to 08/17/25 revealed there was no documentation of monitoring behaviors or side effects. Review of Nursing Progress Notes for Resident #24 from 08/01/25 to 08/17/25 revealed there was no documentation of monitoring behaviors or side effects. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #24 dated 04/15/24 with a focus on the resident uses psychotropic medications antidepressant at risk for side effects. The goal was for the resident to be/remain free of psychotropic drug related complications, including movement disorder, discomfort, hypotension, gait disturbance, constipation/impaction or cognitive/behavioral impairment through review date. The interventions included in part the following: Administer psychotropic medications as ordered by physician. Monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. Monitor/document/report PRN any adverse reactions of Psychotropic medications. 3. Record review for Resident #3 revealed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a most recent readmission on [DATE] with diagnoses included: Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions And Conduct; Unspecified Psychosis not due to a Substance or Known Physiological Condition; Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate; Mood Disorder due to Known Physiological Condition with Mixed Features; Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Review of Section C of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #3 had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated that she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #3’s Physician Orders dated 06/11/25 documented Divalproex Sodium 250 milligrams (ml) give 4 tablets by mouth at bedtime for anticonvulsant (a psychotropic medication used for mood disorder and anxiety).” Review of Resident #3’s Physician Orders dated 07/23/25 documented “Paroxetine HCl 20 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depression (a psychotropic medication)”. “Olanzapine 5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for psychotic disorder” and “Olanzapine 2.5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for depression related to Unspecified Psychosis not due to A Substance or Known Physiological Condition (an antipsychotic medication). Review of Resident #3’s Physician Orders dated 07/30/25 documented “0-no behavior, 1-agitation, 2- combative, 3-verbally inappropriate, 4-sexually inappropriate, 5-crying, 6-calling out, 7-screaming, 8-hallucinations, 9-delusions, 10-resists care, 11-socially inappropriate, 12-other see progress notes, every shift for <type the medication class>”. Further review of Resident #3’s Physician Orders revealed no orders to monitor side effects of the above psychotropic and antipsychotic medications. Review of the provider psych notes documented that on 07/23/25 Resident #3 was seen by Psych Health Associates for medication review and the provider recommended for Resident #3 to be monitor closely for side effects, sedation, or increase confusion; and a gradual dose reduction is not clinically indicated at this time due to the resident’s current psychiatric instability and ongoing needs for therapeutic support. Record review of the July and August Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed Resident #3 was administered all her medications, however, was not monitored for side effects for the psychotropic and antipsychotic medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to secure medications at all times during 2 of 4 medicat...

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 secure medications at all times during 2 of 4 medication pass observations (Residents #73 and #45), failed to secure medications at all times for over the counter medications in 1 of 2 unit manager's offices (unit manager for south), and failed to store medications according to facility policy for 1 of 3 medication carts reviewed for medication storage (Med Cart 500 Hall). The findings included:Review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Storage with no date included in part the following: Medications will be stored in a manner that maintains the integrity of the product and ensures the safety of the residents and is in accordance with the Florida Department of Health guidelines. With the exception of Emergency Drug Kits, all medications will be stored in a locked cabinet, cart or room that is accessible only to authorized personnel. Expired, discontinued and/or contaminated medications will be removed from the medication storage areas and disposed of in accordance with the facility policy 1. During an interview conducted on [DATE] at 10:30 AM with Staff P Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) in her office when an observation was made of approximately 36 bottles of over the counter medications and 1 enema solution were located on an open bookshelf in her office. When asked when she leaves her office does she lock the door, she replied no she just shuts the door. When asked about the approximate 36 bottles of medication and 1 enema solution located on an open bookshelf in her office, she said they were in the office when she moved into the office about a week or so ago. She added the medications were removed from the medication carts due to nurses marking a date on the medications and that is not their policy. When asked if the medications should be secured at all times she said yes, from now on I will lock my door when I leave my office. 2. On [DATE] at 4:00 PM a review of a south unit medication cart for the 500 hall was performed with Staff D Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who had a medication cup with 11 pills in the top drawer. During an interview conducted on [DATE] at 4:02 PM with Staff D LPN who was asked about the pills in the cup, she said she did not pull the pills. She said they must have been in the cart from the previous nurse. When asked what time she took over the med cart, she said it was at 7:00 AM this morning. During an interview conducted on [DATE] at 9:51 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON) who was asked about medications, the DON stated all medications are secured at all times. 3. During a medication pass observation for Resident #73 on [DATE] at 9:00 AM performed by Staff A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), he left 2 oral medications (gabapentin 300 MG, and Saccharomyces boulardii Capsule 250 MG) and 1 intravenous medication ( Cefepime HCl Intravenous Solution 2 GM/100ML) on the overbed table in front of the resident, out of his sight when the LPN went to put on a gown and gloves before administering the intravenous antibiotic.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide pureed foods in appropriate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, policy review, and record review, the facility failed to provide pureed foods in appropriate consistency for 3 residents (Resident #30, Resident #78, Resident #76) on Dysphagia Puree texture diets and for one resident (Resident #108) who was on a diet with an order for nectar thickened fluids. This had the potential to affect 27 residents who were on mechanically altered diets. The findings included:A review of the policy on the Levels of the National Dysphagia Diet from the Nutrition Care Manual dated 2019 described the pureed diet as a homogenous, pudding-like consistency without particles, The General Guidelines for Thickened Liquids stated that all liquids should be thickened to the proper consistency, including soups, water, oral supplements, and all other beverages. 1.A record review revealed that Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Dementia, Muscle Weakness, and Lack of Coordination. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #30 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated that she had severe cognitive impairment. This MDS assessment revealed that she received a mechanically altered diet. A review of the medical records showed that Resident #30's diet order dated 02/07/25 was for a regular diet, with Dysphagia Puree texture, and Nectar thickened fluids. A record review revealed that Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Multiple Sclerosis, Muscle Weakness, and Dysphagia, Oral Phase. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 5-day assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #78 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 12, which indicated that she had moderate cognitive impairment. This assessment also documented that Resident #78 was on a mechanically altered diet. A record review revealed that Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Cerebral Infarction, Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, and Unspecified Dementia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) significant change assessment dated [DATE] showed that Resident #76 was cognitively impaired. His most recent weight was 112 lbs on 08/12/25, and his Body Mass Index (BMI) was 16.5. This indicated he was severely underweight. His diet order dated 08/01/24 was for a Regular diet, with Dysphagia Puree texture, and Nectar thickened fluids. During an observation 08/19/25 at 5:10 PM Resident #30 was in the dining room. She received a plate of pureed foods. The pureed rice was lumpy. On 08/19/25 at 6:17 PM Resident #76 was receiving assistance with feeding while he was in bed. The pureed food was lumpy. The resident coughed several times. Photographic evidence obtained. When the surveyor entered the kitchen to examine the pureed foods, there were no pureed leftovers to examine. During observations on 08/20/25 at 12:36 PM, Resident #30, Resident #78, and Resident #76 were served plates of pureed foods. The pureed meat entree, and the pureed bread appeared lumpy. During an interview with the Kitchen Manager on 08/20/25 at 12:40 PM, a plate of pureed foods was requested. The Kitchen Account Manager and the surveyor tasted the pureed bread and the pureed meat. The pureed bread looked lumpy but it tasted smooth. The Kitchen Account Manager said the pureed meat could be smoother. It had sand like particles in it and it was not a homogenous texture. When the Kitchen Account Manager was shown photos from the dinner meal served on 08/19/25, she was asked if the rice appeared to be of a unified texture. The Kitchen Account Manager said that the pureed rice did not appear to be a uniform texture. 2.A record review of Resident #108 revealed that he was admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Muscle Weakness, Dementia, and Dysphagia, Oropharyngeal Phase. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #108 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 06, which indicated that he had severe cognitive impairment. This MDS assessment documented that Resident #108 was on a mechanically altered diet. His diet order dated 03/21/24 was for a Regular diet, with Dysphagia Advanced texture, and Nectar thickened fluids (consistency). During an observation on 08/19/25 at 5:51 PM in the resident's room, Resident #108 had a cup of thin coffee in a mug on his meal tray, and a large styrofoam cup of regular consistency water with a straw in it. The meal ticket on the tray said that he was to be served Nectar thick fluids. Photographic Evidence Obtained. During an interview with Staff K , (a CNA), on 08/19/25 at 6:00 PM, when asked if the water in the Styrofoam cup was regular thin water, Staff K answered yes. When asked if the coffee was regular texture, Staff K said that she thought thickener was added to the liquid and that it was too thin. She got more thickener to add to the coffee. She noticed that there was thickener on the bottom of the cup that was not mixed in thoroughly. Photographic evidence of a spoonful of the lump of unmixed powder from the bottom of the mug was obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

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 ensure that potentially hazardous foods were held a...

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 ensure that potentially hazardous foods were held and reheated in a manner to prevent the growth of pathogens that cause foodborne illness and in a manner consistent with professional standards for food safety for 1 of 33 residents in the final sample, Resident #3. The findings included: The facility's policy, ‘Food: Preparation', with a reference date of 05/2014 and a revision date of 09/2027, did not address reheating potentially hazardous foods (PHF) from a resident's meal. Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to the resident's most recent complete assessment, a Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), Resident #3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment documented that Resident #15 required supervision or touching assistance for eating. Resident #3's diagnoses at the time of the assessment included: Diabetes Melitus, Seizure disorder, Depression, Cerebral infarction, Muscle weakness, Need for assistance with personal care, Lack of coordination, Dependence on Renal dialysis. Resident #3's orders included:Hemodialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in house - 07/15/25. During an observation of breakfast served to the residents in their rooms, on 08/20/25 at 8:30 AM, Resident #3 was noted to be out of the room, while her breakfast tray - including scrambled eggs, toast, a half pint carton of milk, and a cup of orange juice - was noted to be on her overbed table. During an interview, on 08/20/25 at 8:33 AM, with Staff D, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse), when asked about the resident's whereabouts, Staff D stated that the resident was at dialysis. When asked about the breakfast meal being left on the resident's overbed table, Staff D replied, They leave it there and they warm it when she gets back in the pantry (referring to the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs)). During an interview, on 08/20/25 at 9:01 AM, with Staff O, CNA, when asked how long Resident #3's dialysis treatments were, Staff O replied, She goes from 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM or so, no more than 2 hours. When asked about reheating the resident's breakfast, Staff O stated that she takes the meal to the pantry and heats it in the microwave in the unit pantry. When asked about the process for reheating potentially hazardous foods in a microwave, Staff O led this surveyor to the unit pantry and referred to a sign that was posted on the cabinet that instructed the staff in the following manner: Temperature limits for warming food:Potentially hazardous food = 135 F (degrees Fahrenheit)Poultry and stuffed meats = 165 FPork = 145 FRare roast beef = 130 Staff O then stated that she re-heats foods to 135 F. when asked about taking the temperature of the food, Staff O then began looking in the cabinets and drawers for the thermometer that was found in a drawer under the microwave. During an interview, on 08/20/25 at 9:07 AM, with Staff R, CNA, when asked about reheating food for the residents, Staff R stated that he uses the microwave oven that is in the unit pantry. Staff R led this surveyor to the unit pantry. Staff R was asked how to determine that the foods were reheated safely and Staff R stated that he takes the temperature. When asked what temperature to cook the food to, Staff R replied, 100-something. When asked about taking the temperature, Staff R stated that he uses a thermometer. Staff R then began looking in the cabinets and drawers, including the drawer that the thermometer was stored in, and struggled to find the thermometer. During an interview, on 08/20/25 at approximately 9:15 AM, the Food Service Manager was made aware of the concerns related to staff reheating potentially hazardous foods in a microwave oven and agreed that the instructions provided to the staff were inaccurate. The Food Service Manager stated that staff would be educated about reheating potentially hazardous foods.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse appropriately. The findings included: Upon arriving to the facility, on 08/18/25 at 8:25 AM, it was noted th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse appropriately. The findings included: Upon arriving to the facility, on 08/18/25 at 8:25 AM, it was noted that the trash dumpster appeared to be overflowing and there was an accumulation of trash and debris on the ground around the dumpster. At the time of the observation, the Director of Nursing (DON) was outside. Upon entering the facility, on 08/18/25 at 8:30 AM, the surveyor explained the concern to the DON to which the DON acknowledged. On 08/19/25 at approximately 8:00 AM, the dumpster area was visible through a window at the end of the 500 unit. It was noted that the accumulation of trash and refuse had not been cleaned up.
Aug 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to implement an effective infection control program r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, and interviews, the facility failed to implement an effective infection control program related to 1. Not following local public health recommendations during an investigation of a possible Legionella outbreak. 2. Failed to ensure respiratory equipment was stored in a clean and sanitary manner for two of two observations. 3. Failed to ensure staff, including providers, used appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to prevent the transmission of an infectious pathogen for one resident (#5) of two residents sampled for transmission-based precautions. 4. Failed to display signage identifying the type of precautions that should be used for one resident (#3) of two sampled residents.Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #1’s clinical record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] from an acute care facility. The record revealed the resident was admitted with diagnoses including but not limited to unspecified organism sepsis, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, unspecified pneumonia, and unspecified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The resident was discharged to an acute care facility on 12/2/24 related to low oxygen saturation. During an interview on 8/7/25 at 1:42 a.m. the Executive Director (ED) reported Resident #1 was at this facility for 12 days and urine had tested positive for Legionella after being discharged . The ED stated the resident had been in and out of the hospital at least three times prior to being at this facility. The ED stated the Department of Health (DOH) had informed her of a suspected case (Legionnaires’ disease) and had conducted testing. The facility had reviewed the Water Management Plan and had implemented “some” of the recommendations made by the DOH. The ED stated she would have to look back to see what the other recommendations were. An interview was conducted on 8/7/25 at 1:28 p.m. with the Director of Maintenance (DM). The DM reported having read about Legionella, it was a bacteria in water faucets, shower heads, and could get into the (water) system. The DM reported working at this building for two years and had not done any (Legionella) testing during this time and had not done an assessment for the bacteria (Legionella). The DM stated he doesn’t necessarily monitor for Legionella and the reason for draining the water tanks was because at the last facility he was employed at it was done so he continued it. The DM stated every day water temps were taken, a couple rooms on the north side, couple rooms on the south side, a nutrition room and the two restrooms (near the lobby). He stated the temperatures are between 110° Fahrenheit (F) and 111°F and periodically takes temperatures at the mixing valve of 115-116°F and by the time it gets to where it goes it’s not that hot. The DM reported the facility had recirculation pumps which kept the water circulating (without areas of stagnation). The DM stated the lines to the showers and faucets were also kept circulating, and the DM doesn’t check temperatures in resident rooms. During the interview the ED asked the DM to report further, he stated he let the water run 10-15 minutes and changed all the aerators (in resident rooms). The ED reported quarterly flushing of the building was done, they did it in November or December, in March, and should have had a quarterly in April, May, or June. An observation was conducted on 8/7/25 at 2:00 p.m. with DM of the South side Boiler Room. The room contained two water heaters. The thermometer on the water heater furthest from the entry door showed a reading of 120°F (thermometer maxed at 120°F) and the thermometer closest to the door read 80 degrees. The reading of 80°F was confirmed by the DM who stated it may be due to resident showers. The DM stated the facility received water from the city and “sometimes” he received water information and would look for an example. The example was not provided by the end of the survey. An interview was conducted on 8/7/25 at 2:44 p.m. with the ED. The ED reported Resident #1’s AHCA form 3008 came in with a diagnosis of severe sepsis from an unknown source. The ED reported Resident #1 had tested positive (for Legionella) after discharging from the facility and returning to the acute care facility. The ED reported that the Department of Health (DOH) requested the facility complete a Legionella Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) prior to the department’s arrival, which was completed on 3/13/25, and the county DOH visited the facility on 3/17/25. The ED stated the facility did not have any Legionella concerns as Legionella occurs when breathing in a hot mist and the facility did not have any areas of hot mist. She stated the facility did implement a revision of the Water Management Plan (WMP) as the previous one was generic and outdated. The facility had pulled up city and county water information to see what they were adding to the water and utilized the information to implement the new plan, had to personalize it the facility, did not have the background or current information from the city, or proof of where previous management had received the information from. She reported the DOH had recommended the facility have consultants from water experts, remediation testing and install micron biological point-of-use filters on sinks, showers, and faucets. “We didn’t go along with all the recommendations” because the facility had tested negative and “we felt it wasn’t necessary”. The ED stated the risk assessor named on the new WMP was a Maintenance / Life Safety consultant and he helped write the new plan and policy. She believes the new WMP was sent to the DOH the last week of July. Review of the DOH letter, dated 3/19/25, sent to the ED of this facility referenced “Legionnaires’ disease case associated with facility”. The letter was provided as a follow up to an on-site visit and discussions conducted on 3/17/24 during an investigation of a single confirmed case of Legionnaires’ disease who reported exposure at this facility between 11/20 and 12/2/24. The letter reported “investigating to determine possible sources of the illnesses, and to identify if anyone else has become ill from the disease. Legionnaires disease is caused by the Legionella bacteria that exist naturally in the environment. It can also be found and man-made water systems such as hot tubs, spas, cooling towers, hot water tanks, or large plumbing systems.” The letter informed the facility of onsite assessment “indicated conditions in the premise plumbing that could harbor and breed biofilms and Legionella bacteria” and made the following recommendations in addition to recommendations provided onsite: 1. Recommended obtaining professional consultation from a qualified water system expert for proper assessment and remediation of your water system. The remediation action plan must be reviewed by the county DOH and results of follow-up monitoring must be provided to the DOH. The letter showed attachments had been included of accepted remediation and maintenance guidelines. 2. Recommend post-remediation testing following a detailed plan that is submitted to the county's DOH along with results from each post remediation sampling event. Post remediation samples should be collected at least 48 hours after the water system or device has been restored to normal operating conditions through at least a six month period post remediation. - We recommend a sampling approach described in HICPAC guidance, in which environment samples are collected for culture at two week intervals for three months and if no Legionella is detected in cultures during three months of monitoring at two week intervals, continue to collect monthly for another three months. - a sampling approach may be adjusted over time based on trend data. DoH must be notified of any adjustments two of the established sampling plan. If Legionella is detected in one or more cultures you should: - review and modify the water management plan (WMP) - perform additional remediation, if indicated - implement a new six month period for post remediation follow-up sampling 3. Recommend that the facility either install 0.2 micron biological point-of-use filters on any showerheads or sink/tub faucets intended for use until remediation of your premise plumbing has occurred or restrict the use of showers to reduce the risk to guests during this investigation until remediation actions are completed. 4. Recommend that facility notify incoming residents in writing about the ongoing investigation of a case of Legionnaires’ disease with association to this facility. This provides residents an opportunity to make an informed decision based on their personal assessment of risk. 5. Recommend that notification of current residents also occur as soon as possible. Management should contact residents who visit the facility in the last four weeks (starting from date to present) to notify them about the ongoing investigation of Legionnaires disease cases associated with facility. This provides recent visitors the opportunity to seek medical care appropriately should they become ill with symptoms of pneumonia. If management is unable to do this, please let us know. 6. For maintenance of the premise plumbing system and to minimize growth of Legionella, domestic hot water should be stored at a minimum of 140° Fahrenheit (F) and delivered within a range of 105°F to 115°F to all points of delivery. Minimum temperatures of 122°F are required to prevent new growth of Legionella within hot water systems. 7. It is recommended that your facility monitor hot water temperatures at distal locations from the boilers/ hot water heaters. Annual inspections of the entire water system are advisable. They should include periodic draining, cleaning with a chlorine solution, and flushing of all water storage tanks to remove biofilm, scale, and sediment. The importance of maintaining complete documentation of the facility premise plumbing maintenance, water management efforts, and temperature logs cannot be overstated. 8. Report all possible cases of Legionnaires disease (staff or residents) immediately to the epidemiology department in county. (phone number and extension included). 9. Update your water safety management plan (WMP) for the prevention and control of Legionella. Provide FDOH (Florida Department of Health) with a copy of your updated facility WMP. Review of the DOH letter showed attachments of “Domestic Hot Water Systems: Emergency Management and Best Practices”, “Cooling Towers, HVAC systems, (and) Individual Air Condition Units” and referenced Centers of Disease Control and Prevention, American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Review of the DOH sample results dated 5/1/25 showed they were collected on 3/17/25 showed the water samples taken from the south side water heaters, south side nutrition room, shower room [ROOM NUMBER], sink in room [ROOM NUMBER], in use shower, and the water main was negative, the swabs taken in the south side nutrition, room [ROOM NUMBER]’s sink and shower hose, room [ROOM NUMBER]’s sink, room [ROOM NUMBER]’s sink, and two shower rooms in use and not in use showed no Legionella pneumophila growth. An interview was conducted on 8/7/25 at 3:35 p.m. with the ED. The ED reported why the WMP took as long to conduct was they had a change in Regional Maintenance, didn’t get the results from testing until May then she was on leave, talking with the interim administrator, then the facility had another change in regional so it “went upwards”. An interview was conducted on 8/7/25 at 4:37 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON, who reported she had not spoken with the DOH, the previous Assistant DON and Infection Preventionist had spoken with them, the DON was kept “abreast” of the new WMP (formulation). An interview was conducted on 8/7/25 at 4:58 p.m. with the ED. The ED reported she believed in March the Activities Director had informed Resident Council that the DOH was testing for Legionella. The ED stated she had not called any families (regarding the Legionella investigation). Review of the current Annual Water Systems Risk Assessment was dated July 2025, 4 months after the facility had received the DOH recommendations. Review of the Water Systems Management Plan, dated July 2025, showed “This plan is targeted at responding to instances where water sample results are positive for the Legionella bacterium or where a patient from a facility has been identified as having Legionellosis.” Review of the Administrator (ED) job description showed the “primary purpose of this position is to direct the day-to-day functions of the facility in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards, guidelines, and regulations that govern nursing facilities to ensure that the highest degree of quality care can be provided to the residents at all times.” The Duties and Responsibilities of the Administrator include, ensure the planning, development, implementation, and monitoring of facility policies and procedures, and develop and implement a facility compliance program that meets state and federal requirements, ensure that a system for maintaining and improving buildings, grounds, and equipment is planned, implemented, and evaluated. 2. On 8/7/25 at 9:30 a.m. an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] showed a blanket folded up under the Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC). The resident in the bed next to the unit stated the blanket was due to water being on the floor and had been like that for a couple of months, then stated it was just a guess it could have been like that for four weeks. 3. On 8/7/25 at 9:35 a.m. an observation of a yellow organizer (caddy) containing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) hanging from the door of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The observation showed a Transmission-based precaution sign for Contact Precautions attached to the yellow organizer. On 8/7/25 at 9:39 a.m. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) dressed in yellow precaution gown and gloves before entering room [ROOM NUMBER]. The observation revealed a provider enter room [ROOM NUMBER] without PPE’s on and stand next to the bed speaking with Resident #5 as Staff C was standing on the opposite side of the bed dressed in PPE. Staff C left the room, after removing PPE, at 9:42 a.m. as the provider continued in the room without PPE’s on. Staff C stated if there was a caddy on the door all staff should be wearing PPE and confirmed the provider in the room was not wearing PPE and should have been. Review of Resident #5’s physician orders with an order date of 8/6/2025 revealed, “contact isolation precautions for esbl [Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase]/UTI [urinary tract infection].” 4. On 8/7/25 at 9:36 a.m. an observation was made of a nasal cannula tubing wrapped around an emergency tank in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The tubing was not stored in a plastic storage bag. On 8/7/25 at 9:37 a.m. an observation was made of nasal cannula tubing lying on the seat of a wheelchair in the 300-hallway diagonally from room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 8/7/25 at 9:46 a.m. Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) observed the cannula tubing lying in the wheelchair. The staff member reported not knowing whose cannula it was, it wasn’t the owners of the wheelchair as the owner did not wear oxygen. An interview was conducted on 8/7/25 at 4:24 p.m. with the Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist (DON/IP). The DON stated if a caddy was on the outside of the door, stop and put on PPE before entering the room, the expectation for storing oxygen tubing was to be in a bag, and said a blanket on the floor to catch water was not appropriate. The DON stated she was made aware of the provider being in the isolation room without PPE (Resident #5’s room) and the provider had been educated. 5. On 8/7/25 at 9:35 a.m. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was observed hanging in a yellow organizer on the door of Resident #3’s room. There was no sign on the outside of the door indicating what kind of precautions. Review of Resident #3's medical record revealed he was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of: sepsis due to Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) and Enterocolitis due to Clostridium Difficile (C-Diff). Review of Resident #3’s physician orders included an order dated 7/29/25 for: contact isolation precautions for C-Diff infection. During an interview on 8/7/25 at 4:30 p.m. with the DON who is also the facility Infection Preventionist (IP), stated that a yellow organizer with PPE hanging outside of a door indicates the resident inside is on isolation precautions and PPE should be put on before entering the room. She stated that you should have a sign outside the door indicating what kind of isolation. The DON stated she educated the staff numerous times on isolation, hand washing and infection control and made rounds a couple of times a week to ensure the signs were there. The DON stated she has told staff not to move the signs. Review of the policy – Infection Control Prevention and Control Program, effective 2/21/23, reported “The facility shall establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections.” The general considerations included but not limited to: 1. The Infection Prevention and Control Program, associated programs, and policies and procedures are based on the facility assessment, incorporating accepted national standards and includes any facility or community risk. 2. The plan should be reviewed and updated as necessary, and a minimum of annually. 3. The facility has designated an Infection Preventionist. The Infection Preventionist is responsible for the oversight of the Infection Prevention and Control Program and works in collaboration with the facility Director of Nursing, Administrator, and Medical Director, and Quality Assurance Committee. The Infection Preventionist serves as resource to staff on infectious illness/disease, infection control and prevention practices, and affected facility processes and examples may include but are not limited to: - b. Implementation of isolation precautions; - c. Exposures; - d. Surveillance – facility and community-acquired infection findings; - e. Compliance and Performance monitors; - f. Results of environmental rounds; - g. Relevant changes in infection prevention and control policies and/or guidelines; - h. Infection related investigations; 4. The Quality Assurance Committee shall be responsible for overseeing and implementing the recommendation that result from the program. 5. All staff are responsible to follow policies, procedures, and expectations related to the program. The procedure portion of the policy included: 10. Resident/Family/Visitor Education and Screening: - a. Residents, family members, and visitors shall be provided information relative to the rationale for the isolation, behaviors required of them in in observing these precautions, and conditions for which to notify the nursing staff. - b. Information on various infectious diseases is available from our Infection Preventionist. - c. Isolation signage is used to alert staff, family members, and visitors of transmission based precautions. 13. Water Management - A water management program has been established as part of the overall infection prevention and control program. - Control measures and testing protocols are in place to address potential hazards associated with the facility’s water systems. - The Maintenance Director serves as the leader of the water management program. Review of a Facility Policy titled Isolation – Initiating Transmission Based Precautions with an effective date of 4/1/22 revealed: When Transmission-Based Precautions are implemented, the Infection Preventionist (or designee) shall post the appropriate notice on the room entrance door and on the front so that all personnel should be aware of precautions or be aware that they must first see a nurse to obtain additional information about the situation before entering the room. (Photographic Evidence Obtained)
Jul 2023 3 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of medical records, facility policy and procedure review, and interviews with facility staff, the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of medical records, facility policy and procedure review, and interviews with facility staff, the facility failed to provide supervision and identify hazards to prevent an unwitnessed exit from the facility for two (Resident #1 and Resident #8) of three residents sampled as high-risk for elopement. Resident #1 was a long-term care resident who was confused, at risk for elopement, known to wander, and had a wander monitoring device on at the time of his elopement. Resident #1 was unsteady on his feet, had a history of falling and age-related cognitive decline. Resident #1 was known to leave the facility every year on July 4th on a supervised leave of absence however on 07/04/2023, he did not go on his yearly supervised leave of absence. Resident #1 was able to exit the facility unsupervised through the front door which was equipped with a door alarm, a wander monitoring device alarm system and a sign with the words Push Until Alarm Sounds Door Can Be Opened In 15 Seconds. Resident #1 walked approximately 0.3 miles down a 2-lane road and was found on 07/04/2023 at approximately 7:12 p.m. sitting in a chair in the grass in front of a lake surrounded by bystanders. Staff arrived at Resident #1's location at approximately 7:12 p.m. The Resident was transported the hospital by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and returned to the facility on [DATE] at 1:45 a.m. without injury. Resident #8 was a long-term resident who was confused, at risk for elopement, a known wanderer, known to push on doors, known to be exit seeking, and had a wander monitoring device on at the time of his unsupervised exit from the facility. Resident #8 was unsteady on his feet, had a history of falling, and age-related cognitive decline. On 07/05/2023 at approximately 9:40 a.m., Resident #8 was able to exit the facility without supervision through an exit door at the end of an uninhabited unit (the 600 hall). The door had an alarm and a sign with the words Push Until Alarm Sounds Door Can Be Opened In 15 Seconds. Resident #8 was located on 07/05/2023 at approximately 9:42 a.m. on the sidewalk that wraps around the building and escorted back into the building unharmed. These failures created a situation that resulted in the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to Resident #1 and Resident #8 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 07/04/2023. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 07/27/2023 and the severity and scope was reduced to a E after verification of removal of Immediate Jeopardy. Findings included: Review of the facility floor plan showed a North Unit consisting of a nurse's station and the 100, 200 and 300 halls, and a South Unit consisting of a nurse's station and the 400, 500 and 600 halls. The front lobby with a reception area and the main entrance is in the middle of the two units. The facility main entrance is across a two-lane road from Lake [NAME] a 2,272 acre Fish Management Area with a maximum depth of 10 feet. According to https://myfwc.com/fishing/[NAME]/sites-forecasts/sw/lake-[NAME] Review of weather history in the Lakeland during the two-day period 7/4/2023 to 7/5/2023 revealed: July 4, 2023, and July 5, 2023, Max temp: 97 degrees Fahrenheit. Minimum temp: 80 degrees (wunderground.com) Review of Resident #1's admission Record showed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unsteadiness on feet, age related physical debility, limitation of activities due to disability, history of falling, age related cognitive decline, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, unspecified lack of expected normal physiological development in childhood, and major depressive disorder. A review of Resident #1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Resident Date (ARD)/target date of 04/09/2023 revealed Resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 06 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section G Functional Status of the MDS showed the resident was independent and needed setup help only for bed mobility and eating and needed supervision with setup help only for transfer and personal hygiene. Resident #1 was independent with no set up or physical help from staff for walk in room, walk in corridor, and locomotion on and off the unit. He needed limited assistance with one-person physical assist with dressing and toilet use. Section P Restraints and Alarms revealed Resident #1 used a wander/elopement alarm daily. An interview was conducted with Staff I, CNA, on 07/25/2023 at 1:51 p.m. She stated she was doing patient care and heard the alarm going off at the front door. She was working on the South unit/400 hall. She said it was not a wander monitoring device alarm, it was just the door alarm going off. No other staff came out to see why the alarm was going off. She said she went to the door, looked out of the glass window, turned the alarm off, and went back to the unit because she did not see anyone. A receptionist was not at the desk at this time. When Staff I, CNA, went back to the unit the phone rang at the nurse's station and she answered it. It was a man who said he was down the street from the facility and believed one of the residents had gotten out. She ran called for the nurse on her South Unit/400 hall. The person that called said Resident #1 had collapsed. She got in her car and went down the street. She went to the park and came back around and didn't see him, so she came back to the facility. She decided to go one more time and observed the nurses were down with Resident #1, so she came back. Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was one of the nurses and she was not sure who the other nurse was. Resident #1 was found across the street from the fire station training center near the lake. She saw people were taking videos. Resident #1 was sitting on a lawn chair with a whole lot of people around. She said they had enough staff that day. Resident #1 walks around and he had a wander monitoring device on. Normally, a resident can get to where the receptionist sits in the front lobby, and the wander guard alarm would sound, and someone would have to input a code to turn it off. When they found him, he was transported to the hospital, and she didn't see him until a couple of days later. When Administration interviewed her about the incident, she told them she didn't hear the wander monitoring device sound going off at the front door. Staff I, CNA, stated you can hear the alarm sounding on South/400 unit, but you cannot hear the alarm sounding on the North Unit /300 hall and this is where Resident #1's room was located. Staff G, LPN, was one of the nurses that found Resident #1 by the lake. During an interview on 7/25/2023 at 3:05 p.m., Staff G, LPN, confirmed she worked on the day of the incident. At 3:30 p.m., Resident #1 was walking around. He was not happy. He usually says I love you to everybody and was very friendly. He said he was not ok on this day and wanted to go outside, so she took him outside. The wander monitoring device was on at the time. She took him outside from 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and they sat out on the front porch. Staff G, LPN, stayed with him the entire time they were outside. The wander monitoring device alarm went off when he was near the front door prior to them going outside. Staff G, LPN, told Resident #1 to step back so she could put the code in, and then she was able to open the door. Other residents were outside. At 4:45 p.m., everyone came in to get ready for dinner. Around 7:10 p.m., the nurse assigned to Resident #1 said they found a patient by the lake, and they said it was Resident #1. She and that nurse ran to the car, and they rode together. Resident #1 was found by the lake right before the fire station training center on the opposite side of the street. He was sitting in a lawn chair near where people were fishing in the lake. Staff G, LPN, stated she was the first one to get out of the car. The bystanders were videoing them. When they attempted to ask Resident #1 questions, one of the bystanders said you are not allowed to talk to him. He had written on a piece of paper that Resident #1 was looking for a former coworker that he used to work with. Every 4th of July, she comes to get him, and she didn't come this time. He kept saying he wanted to go to a local restaurant to see the former coworker. She stayed until 911 came. Resident #1 came back the same night. Staff G, LPN, stated she didn't know how he got out. On that night, she was only there to help. She helped with admissions, she was not assigned to residents, and there were plenty of staff on duty. When she came back to the facility after EMS took Resident #1, they did a head count and got statements from everyone in the building. She called everyone to let them know what was going on, including the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator. The last time she saw him was around 4:45 p.m. She did not remember if there was a sidewalk. Around 7:00 p.m., she was on the North unit and did not hear the alarm go off. Staff K, Registered Nurse (RN), was the nurse assigned to Resident #1 on the day of the elopement. During a telephone interview on 07/26/2023 at 9:49 a.m., Staff K, RN, confirmed Resident #1 was assigned to her on the day of the elopement. She saw him as she was completing medication pass and saw him in his room eating around 6:00 p.m. Ten minutes after coming back from her lunch break, she received a call from a lady stating she may have one of her patients up the road. She asked the staff to check for all patients. Resident #1 was the only patient they couldn't locate. She asked her if he was Resident #1 and she said yes. Staff K, RN, drove about 2 minutes up the road and observed Resident #1 sitting in a chair. The lady that called was there and another guy out there was extremely aggressive so she couldn't assess him. There were no noticeable injuries. No scratches or bruises. He stated at the start of the shift he wanted to go outside and Staff G, LPN, took him outside. Staff K, RN, reported she did not hear an alarm going off and she did not hear any alarm when she came back in from her lunch break. She stated she took a lunch break in her car in the parking lot and did not see the resident come out of the door. On 07/25/2023 at 2:40 p.m., Resident #1 was observed in his room standing next to the bed. A wander monitoring device was observed on his right leg. He stated he was hungry when asked how he was doing. The Staffing Coordinator was in the room with the resident at this time and she stated Resident #1 was on 1:1 supervision and she was scheduled to be with him at this time. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 07/26/2023 showed the following: May go out with responsible party (ordered 03/24/2021); Monitoring wander monitoring device expiration May 2026- every night shift every 4 weeks on Wednesday for monitoring (05/12/2023); Resident is 1:1 at all times every shift for safety (07/04/2023); Snack 3 times a day between meals (06/09/2022); Wander monitoring device- check for function each day every night shift for monitoring (03/25/2021) Wander monitoring device- check every shift for placement and monitoring (03/25/2021) Atorvastatin calcium tablet 20 mg- give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for hyperlipidemia; Tamsulosin HCL capsule 0.4 mg- give 1 capsule by mouth daily for benign prostatic hyperplasia (10/19/2022); Tramadol HCL capsule- give 1 capsule by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain; and Trazodone HCL tablet- give 0.5 tablet by mouth daily related to major depressive disorder and give ½ tablet at bedtime (11/30/2022). During the time from when Resident #1 was last seen to when he was returned to the facility, he should have received atorvastatin calcium, tamsulosin, tramadol, and trazodone between 7:00 p.m. 7/4/2023 and 1:45 a.m. 7/5/2023. He should have received a snack during that time. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for July 2023 showed Resident #1 did not receive these medications or the snack as ordered on 07/04/2023. A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed 6 in the box for checking the function of the wander monitoring device every night shift for monitoring and a 6 was in the box for checking the placement of the wander monitoring device every shift for monitoring on 07/04/2023. A review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Notes revealed the following: On 07/04/2023 at 9:10 p.m., the writer spoke with a staff member from the local hospital taking care of Resident #1. The staff member stated, Resident is pleasantly confused at the moment. On 07/05/2023 at 1:45 a.m., the resident returned to the facility from the local hospital via stretcher with three attendants. The resident was alert and stated he will try to leave every chance he gets. Resident #1 was calling staff names, threatened to knock you down, I will hit you, and telling staff to get the hell away from me. The resident was placed on 1:1 for safety at this time. On 07/05/2023 at 2:21 a.m., the patient returned from the hospital at 145 a.m., he was not happy about coming back and stated he wanted to leave again. The patient is currently on 1:1 since his return and has been displaying negative behaviors such as yelling and cursing at the staff. On 07/07/2023 at 09:00 a.m., (Resident #1) eloped from facility the evening of 07/04/2023. The resident exited the facility through the front doors and proceeded to walk down the sidewalk as he reports in an effort to go to his favorite restaurant that he once worked at. Resident #1 has consistently been taken by friends to the July 4th parade in town where he's been a yearly fixture in handing out flags. This year however, the person that checked him out of the facility to do this annual tradition was out of town on vacation. Upon further investigation by staff, including social services, the resident has consistently stated his intent was to go to the restaurant he used to work at bussing tables to get something to eat and visit and then planned to go hand out flags at the parade. The writer went to question Resident #1 regarding events at his bedside where the resident pointed to pictures on his wall of him at the restaurant in question and also handing out flags at the July 4th celebration. Interventions have included one on one companionship, take out order from a local restaurant, and there are plans in place for next July 4th to take the resident out to enjoy watching fireworks although staff is working out the details as to the safest way to provide this annual expectation to meet his needs while ensuring his safety. The resident has not since tried to leave the facility and a care plan is now in place around this annual expectation. Resident #1 has since not attempted or expressed any want to leave, staff will continue to monitor and follow. Psychiatric care is also following the resident and have conducted a thorough evaluation since the elopement. Psychiatric care will also continue to monitor and follow. An observation of the path the resident may have taken revealed from the front door he turned left heading North after leaving the facility property. A two-lane road with a speed limit of 30 mph (miles per hour) separated the facility grounds from a grassy area that lead onto an asphalt sidewalk. The sidewalk with uneven cemented surfaces, potholes and cracks followed around the lake without barriers. The unprotected lake was approximately 10 feet away from the asphalt sidewalk. The resident was found across the road from the facility in a grassy area. Resident #1's Elopement Risk assessment dated [DATE] completed by Staff C, LPN, showed No was checked for attempt to wander off the unit and positions self by exit areas. Yes was checked for having a history of wandering or elopement. No was checked for attempts to leave the building or grounds without notifying staff, the resident was not able to negotiate environment safely and has a history of substance abuse and/or substance seeking behavior, repetitive verbalizations of I'm going home, and is ambulatory including wheelchair mobility and for not accepting his current residency in the facility. Yes was checked for having a diagnosis of Dementia, Alzheimer's and is able to negotiate environment safety. The assessment showed Resident #1 was not at risk for elopement at this time. The form also revealed a section that showed If there are 'Yes' answers, but the resident is not at risk explain why. The box for the section was blank. A Change in Condition dated 07/04/2023 showed the incident location was outside. Resident #1 left the facility. Staff were notified by anonymous bystanders that the resident was by the fire training center on the ground. The resident description section revealed, I don't want to be here anymore. I'm going to [a local restaurant]. The resident was transported to a local hospital and returned to the facility on 1:45 a.m. on 07/05/2023. Review of Resident #1's care plan revealed a focus area initiated on 03/26/2021 [Resident #1] is an elopement risk, wanders throughout facility independently related to dementia, disoriented to place, impaired safety awareness, and the resident wanders aimlessly at times. Interventions included 1:1 supervision at all times (07/05/2023), assess for elopement risk (03/26/2021), distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book (03/26/2021), identify pattern of wandering: Is wandering purposeful, aimless, or escapist? Is resident looking for something? Does it indicate the need for more exercise? Intervene as appropriate (03/26/2021), provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation, strategies including signs, picture and memory boxes (03/26/2021), psychiatric care evaluation as indicated (07/11/2023), and wander monitoring device (electronic monitoring device)- check placement every shift and function daily (03/26/2021). A review of the psychiatric care note written by Staff R, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNP), with a date of service date of 07/14/2023 showed patient was seen on 07/05/2023 for a telehealth follow up. He is currently taking Trazodone HCL Tablet 25 MG by mouth once a day for major depressive disorder. Patient seen today after eloping yesterday (July 4) from facility. He is alert and pleasantly confused. Appears in no acute distress. Patient reports he intended to have a meal at his favorite local restaurant. He reports he used to work at this restaurant. He stated he was planning to return after his meal. It was reported that the patient walked approximately 7 minutes and was spotted by nearby people who were watching fireworks. He was found sitting in a chair among the people watching fireworks. He was taken to the emergency room that evening to be evaluated. He was discharged later at approximately 1 a.m. on 07/05. Patient has returned and appears in good condition. No adverse effects or injuries noted or reported. No distresses or trauma observed related to the elopement. He denies increased anxiety or depression. Staff reports he remains pleasant and complaint with care. He is currently on one to one supervision for safety monitoring. During an interview on 07/25/2023 at 2:00 p.m., Staff Q, Receptionist, stated the door alarm and the wander monitoring device alarm had the same sound. Her shift ends at 4:00 p.m. daily. They have a part-time employee that works from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday and another part-time employee that works 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. The red alarm is a screamer, the door alarm was a beep. The front door had a high pitch sound, one beep, and a continuous beep until it was turned off. It will also beep if someone holds the door open too long. You must put a code in to turn the alarm off. An interview was conducted on 07/25/2023 at 2:35 p.m. with the Maintenance Director. He reported there were 8 exit doors in the facility, and they all had keypads. Three of the doors also had a wander monitoring device alarm, the front door is one of them. Residents would have to have a code to get through the doors. The Maintenance Director demonstrated how the doors were tested with his device and showed the front door was functioning properly. The Maintenance Director tested the door with the wander monitoring device and the alarm sounded when he was at the door. He said since the elopement that Screamer (very loud) alarms were put on a set of double doors that lead to the lobby, main entrance area. He said he checked the doors daily on weekdays, and according to the Administrator, the nursing staff check the doors on the weekend. The Alarmed and Exit Doors Daily Inspections log was reviewed at that time for the months of May 2023 and June 2023. It showed the doors were checked on weekdays but not checked on the weekend. During the observation the front door alarm was set off with a wander monitoring device by the Maintenance Director. The alarm could not be heard while standing on the North unit/300 hall. This was confirmed by the Maintenance Director. During an interview on 07/25/2023 at 3:29 p.m. with the Administrator and DON, the DON reported Staff G, LPN, contacted the DON and reported Resident #1 was out of the building and she was contacted by some bystanders. The resident was found about 7 minutes away from the facility if you walked. They both came to start the investigation. They called the police, the Power of Attorney (POA), the doctor, psychiatric care, and another outside agency. Interviews were completed with staff and residents. None of the staff reported he wanted to leave the facility that day or mentioned anything about leaving the facility. He walks back and forth all day. He had asked some about going out for fresh air. They went outside and came back in. Staff K, RN, took her lunch break around 6:10 p.m. and her car was facing the door. After her break, she came back in, went to the bathroom, and went back to the unit. Two phone calls came in about a missing resident. The DON stated Staff I, CNA, heard the alarm go off but she didn't see anyone. Resident #1 definitely went out of the front door. If you hold the door for 15 seconds, the door would open. He was a pretty smart guy and can probably read. He didn't verbalize he wanted to see fireworks. Resident #1 had on the wander monitoring device at the time he left the facility. It was removed in the hospital and brought back from the hospital when he returned. They tested the same wander monitoring device when he came back, and it was still working. We put it back on with a new bracelet. The wander monitoring device had an expiration date of 04/20/2025. In-services were started immediately after the incident. Maintenance came and checked the doors, and they were working fine. They set up 30-minute checks on all alarmed doors. The alarm company came out on 07/06/2023. They added screamers to the double doors to have a second alarm, because you cannot hear the alarm at the north Unit nursing station. The receptionist leaves at 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. Once the receptionist leaves, the nurse comes over and sets the alarm. There were no screamers when Resident #1 eloped. An enunciator will be placed at north unit nurse's station, it has been ordered, so alarms can be heard there. You must put a code in to enter or exit the facility. Visitors have to ring the bell. Prior to the incident, the receptionist buzzed everyone in and out. Now the nurse comes and sets the alarms to the front door after the receptionist leaves. The receptionist announces on the intercom that she is leaving for the day. Someone in charge, usually one of the nurses comes to lock the door. The nursing supervisors are the ones that come to turn on screamers. All nurses have keys to screamers. Resident #1 was placed on 1:1. The DON and ADON evaluated all residents for elopement. They checked wander monitoring devices, monitored Resident #1, and did a whole house audit. Staffing was good. No issue with staffing on that day. Staff were educated on the elopement procedure and drills. They did a drill each shift and did them weekly after the incident. During an interview on 07/27/23 at 9:55 a.m., the Administrator and DON reported training was provided on the elopement policy/procedure/protocol prior to July 4, 2023. Elopement audits and drills were completed. On 07/27/2023 12:08 p.m., the DON reported elopement education was completed upon hire. They do not have access to elopement training and elopement drills completed due to a change in systems approximately two months ago. Alarmed and Exit Doors Daily Inspections for the months of May 2023 and June 2023 were verified. The doors were not checked on the weekend. This was confirmed by the Administrator and DON. She stated as of July, nursing staff had been checking the doors on the weekend. 2. On 7/5/23 at approximately 9:40 a.m. Resident #8 was able to exit the facility without supervision through an exit door on an uninhabited hall (600) that was equipped with a door alarm. An interview conducted with the Activity Director on 07/26/2023 at 12:47 p.m. He stated he heard the alarm go off and the 600 area being announced by staff. Everyone jumped up and started moving. Everyone was looking. Staff scattered to their areas. He saw the Maintenance Director going down the 600 hall. The Activity Director went down the 500 hall; when he got to the 500 hall exit door it was locked so he ran toward the 600 side, and he didn't see anyone. The Activity Director stated he then went back to the 500 hall and opened the exit door and saw Resident #8 closer by the dumpster, he was smiling and giggling. He wheeled Resident #8 back into the facility and took him to the nursing station. The resident got out of the door on the end of the 600 hall and went down the sidewalk that surrounds the building towards the 500 unit. During an interview on 07/26/2023 at 12:21 p.m., the Maintenance Director stated on 7/5/2023 he was headed to the morning meeting, he exited the service hall, and heard the alarm going off. He checked the enunciator, and it showed the alarm was coming from the 600 hall. The exit door was open on the end of the 600 hall. He went outside and immediately ran to the front of the building, because there was more danger in the front of the building than the rear. He didn't see anyone. He then came in and headed back to the 600 hall and saw Resident #8 from the window sitting outside. Two other staff members were heading out to get him. Within two minutes they had him back inside. The Maintenance Director went back down the 600 hall, reset the doors and silenced the alarms. He was the first one to respond to the alarm. He immediately looked to see what hall the alarm was coming from. After the incident happened, they put a rope across the hall, caution signs, and wet floor signs. Resident #8 frequently pushes on the doors. He knows the door will open after 15 seconds. The resident was just sitting looking around at the trees. There's a sidewalk in the back parking lot area. Another staff member got to Resident #8 before he did. He went back to secure the doors after the resident was brought back into the facility. Observation of the outside area where the resident was found revealed an uneven cement sidewalk surface that wrapped around the facility's building connecting one entrance to the next. Adjacent to the sidewalk was approximately 5 feet of grassy terrain that led into a large area with trees, overgrown shrubs and standing water. Review of Resident 8's admission Record showed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, unspecified lack of coordination, limitation of activities due to disability, other lack of coordination, history of falling, age related cognitive decline, age related physical decline, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychiatric disturbance, mood disorder, anxiety, unspecified cataract, and Alzheimer's Disease. A review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD/target date of 05/16/2023 revealed Resident #8 had a BIMS score of 00 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section G Functional Status of the MDS showed the resident needed extensive assistance with two plus persons physical assist with bed mobility and transfers and needed supervision with one-person physical assist for locomotion on and off the unit. Resident #8 needed extensive assistance with one-person physical assist for dressing and personal hygiene. He needed supervision with setup help only for eating and he was total dependent with two plus persons physical assist for toilet use. Section P Restraints and Alarms revealed Resident #8 used a wander monitoring device daily. An observation and interview were conducted on 7/24/2023 at 10:05 a.m. of Resident #8 on 1:1 with CNA, Staff O. Resident #8 was observed to be dressed in day clothes, sitting in his wheelchair in front of an exit door at the end of the 400 hallway. Staff O, CNA stated she was on 1:1 with him because around 07/05/2023, he went past the nurses' station and pushed on the exit door to the 600 hall and was found outside by the dumpsters. She stated he always pushes on the doors. He used to be a lawyer and he thinks his car was parked in the parking lot and he says he had to go to work. Since he was admitted he has pretty much always pushed on the doors. You see he is sitting in front of this door, and I told him 'You can't push on the doors okay' and he told me 'Well yeah if I keep pushing on it the door will open, you see the sign.' A sign was observed on the door with the words Push Until Alarm Sounds Door Can Be Opened In 15 Seconds. The resident was observed to have a wander guard on his left ankle under his sock. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 07/26/2023 showed the following: 1:1 close observation every shift for safety (ordered 07/05/2023); May go out with responsible party (10/10/2021); Monitoring wander monitoring device expiration May 2026- every night shift every 4 weeks on Wednesday for monitoring (05/17/2023); (Company name) Hospice for diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy (02/11/2022); Wander monitoring device- check for function each day every night shift for monitoring (07/29/2022); Wander monitoring device- place wander monitoring device on wheelchair (08/04/2022); and Wander monitoring device- check every shift for placement and monitoring (07/29/2022). A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for July 2023 showed that the function and placement of the wander monitoring device was checked every shift according to orders. A review of Resident #8's Nursing Progress Notes revealed the following: On 07/05/2023 at 9:40 a.m., the patient was found on the sidewalk next to the building after exiting out of the 600-hall door. The alarm was sounding and when staff investigated, they found the patient in his wheelchair on the sidewalk. The patient was frequently sitting at the doors down the halls and needed frequent redirection. Patient was subsequently put on 1 to 1 observation. The patient was alert to self which is normal. On 07/05/2023 at 1:00 p.m., Resident #8 eloped from the southside unit he resides on at approximately 9:30 a.m. Resident #8 was located at 9:42 a.m. Witness interviews indicate that he did not verbalize any desire to exit the building nor show any exit seeking behaviors toward staff. Resident interviews were performed, all of which stated they were unaware he'd eloped and did not visually observe him in the hall that morning as they were still in their rooms at the time. Staff interviews revealed Resident #8 was not observed entering the currently unoccupied 600 hall. The Maintenance Director observed the[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of medical records, facility policy and procedure review, and interviews with facility staff, the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of medical records, facility policy and procedure review, and interviews with facility staff, the facility failed to provide supervision and identify hazards to prevent an unwitnessed exit from the facility for two (Resident #1 and Resident #8) of three residents sampled as high-risk for elopement. Resident #1 was a long-term care resident who was confused, at risk for elopement, known to wander, and had a wander monitoring device on at the time of his elopement. Resident #1 was able to exit the facility unsupervised through the front door which was equipped with a door alarm, a wander monitoring device alarm system and a sign with the words Push Until Alarm Sounds Door Can Be Opened In 15 Seconds. Resident #8 was a long-term resident who was confused, at risk for elopement, a known wanderer, known to push on doors, known to be exit seeking, and had a wander monitoring device on at the time of his unsupervised exit from the facility. Resident #8 was unsteady on his feet, had a history of falling, and age-related cognitive decline. On 07/05/2023 at approximately 9:40 a.m., Resident #8 was able to exit the facility without supervision through an exit door at the end of an uninhabited unit (the 600 hall). The door had an alarm and a sign with the words Push Until Alarm Sounds Door Can Be Opened In 15 Seconds. Resident #8 was located on 07/05/2023 at approximately 9:42 a.m. on the sidewalk that wraps around the building and escorted back into the building unharmed. Nursing Elopement prevention policies were not followed regarding supervision of wandering residents and checking thoroughly for a resident elopement after an alarm is heard and before turning off the alarm. These failures created a situation that resulted in the likelihood for serious injury and/or death to Resident #1 and Resident #8 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 07/04/2023. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 07/27/2023 and the severity and scope was reduced to a E after verification of removal of Immediate Jeopardy. Findings included: Review of the facility floor plan showed a North Unit consisting of a nurse's station and the 100, 200 and 300 halls, and a South Unit consisting of a nurse's station and the 400, 500 and 600 halls. The front lobby with a reception area and the main entrance is in the middle of the two units. The facility main entrance is across a two-land road from Lake [NAME] a 2,272 acre Fish Management Area with a maximum depth of 10 feet. According to https://myfwc.com/fishing/[NAME]/sites-forecasts/sw/lake-[NAME] Review of weather history in the Lakeland during the two-day period 7/4/2023 to 7/5/2023 revealed: July 4, 2023, and July 5, 2023, Max temp: 97 degrees Fahrenheit. Minimum temp: 80 degrees (wunderground.com) An interview was conducted with Staff I, CNA, on 07/25/2023 at 1:51 p.m. She stated she was doing patient care and heard the alarm going off at the front door. She was working on the South unit/400 hall. She said it was not a wander monitoring device alarm, it was just the door alarm going off. No other staff came out to see why the alarm was going off. She said she went to the door, looked out of the glass window, turned the alarm off, and went back to the unit because she did not see anyone. A receptionist was not at the desk at this time. When Staff I, CNA, went back to the unit the phone rang at the nurse's station and she answered it. It was a man who said he was down the street from the facility and believed one of the residents had gotten out. She ran called for the nurse on her South Unit/400 hall. The person that called said Resident #1 had collapsed. She got in her car and went down the street. She went to the park and came back around and didn't see him, so she came back to the facility. She decided to go one more time and observed the nurses were down with Resident #1, so she came back. Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), was one of the nurses and she was not sure who the other nurse was. Resident #1 was found across the street from the fire station training center near the lake. She saw people were taking videos. Resident #1 was sitting on a lawn chair with a whole lot of people around. She said they had enough staff that day. Resident #1 walks around and he had a wander monitoring device on. Normally, a resident can get to where the receptionist sits in the front lobby, and the wander guard alarm would sound, and someone would have to input a code to turn it off. When they found him, he was transported to the hospital, and she didn't see him until a couple of days later. When Administration interviewed her about the incident, she told them she didn't hear the wander monitoring device sound going off at the front door. Staff I, CNA, stated you can hear the alarm sounding on South/400 unit, but you cannot hear the alarm sounding on the North Unit /300 hall and this is where Resident #1's room was located. Review of Resident #1's admission Record showed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unsteadiness on feet, age related physical debility, limitation of activities due to disability, history of falling, age related cognitive decline, difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, unspecified lack of expected normal physiological development in childhood, and major depressive disorder. Staff G, LPN, was one of the nurses that found Resident #1 by the lake. During an interview on 7/25/2023 at 3:05 p.m., Staff G, LPN, confirmed she worked on the day of the incident. At 3:30 p.m., Resident #1 was walking around. He was not happy. He usually says I love you to everybody and was very friendly. He said he was not ok on this day and wanted to go outside, so she took him outside. The wander monitoring device was on at the time. She took him outside from 3:30 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and they sat out on the front porch. Staff G, LPN, stayed with him the entire time they were outside. The wander monitoring device alarm went off when he was near the front door prior to them going outside. Staff G, LPN, told Resident #1 to step back so she could put the code in, and then she was able to open the door. Other residents were outside. At 4:45 p.m., everyone came in to get ready for dinner. Around 7:10 p.m., the nurse assigned to Resident #1 said they found a patient by the lake, and they said it was Resident #1. She and that nurse ran to the car, and they rode together. Resident #1 was found by the lake right before the fire station training center on the opposite side of the street. He was sitting in a lawn chair near where people were fishing in the lake. Staff G, LPN, stated she was the first one to get out of the car. He had written on a piece of paper that Resident #1 was looking for a former coworker that he used to work with. Every 4th of July, she comes to get him, and she didn't come this time. He kept saying he wanted to go to a local restaurant to see the former coworker. She stayed until 911 came. Resident #1 came back the same night. Staff G, LPN, stated she didn't know how he got out. She helped with admissions, she was not assigned to residents, and there were plenty of staff on duty. When she came back to the facility after EMS took Resident #1, they did a head count and got statements from everyone in the building. She called everyone to let them know what was going on, including the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator. The last time she saw him was around 4:45 p.m. She did not remember if there was a sidewalk. Around 7:00 p.m., she was on the North unit and did not hear the alarm go off. Staff K, Registered Nurse (RN), was the nurse assigned to Resident #1 on the day of the elopement. During a telephone interview on 07/26/2023 at 9:49 a.m., Staff K, RN, confirmed Resident #1 was assigned to her on the day of the elopement. She saw him as she was completing medication pass and saw him in his room eating around 6:00 p.m. Ten minutes after coming back from her lunch break, she received a call from a lady stating she may have one of her patients up the road. She asked the staff to check for all patients. Resident #1 was the only patient they couldn't locate. She asked her if he was Resident #1 and she said yes. Staff K, RN, drove about 2 minutes up the road and observed Resident #1 sitting in a chair. The lady that called was there and another guy out there was extremely aggressive so she couldn't assess him. There were no noticeable injuries. No scratches or bruises. He stated at the start of the shift he wanted to go outside and Staff G, LPN, took him outside. Staff K, RN, reported she did not hear an alarm going off and she did not hear any alarm when she came back in from her lunch break. She stated she took a lunch break in her car in the parking lot and did not see the resident come out of the door. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 07/26/2023 showed the following: May go out with responsible party (ordered 03/24/2021); Monitoring wander monitoring device expiration May 2026- every night shift every 4 weeks on Wednesday for monitoring (05/12/2023); Resident is 1:1 at all times every shift for safety (07/04/2023); Snack 3 times a day between meals (06/09/2022); Wander monitoring device- check for function each day every night shift for monitoring (03/25/2021) Wander monitoring device- check every shift for placement and monitoring (03/25/2021) Atorvastatin calcium tablet 20 mg- give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for hyperlipidemia; Tamsulosin HCL capsule 0.4 mg- give 1 capsule by mouth daily for benign prostatic hyperplasia (10/19/2022); Tramadol HCL capsule- give 1 capsule by mouth every 8 hours as needed for pain; and Trazodone HCL tablet- give 0.5 tablet by mouth daily related to major depressive disorder and give ½ tablet at bedtime (11/30/2022). During the time from when Resident #1 was last seen to when he was returned to the facility, he should have received atorvastatin calcium, tamsulosin, tramadol, and trazodone between 7:00 p.m. 7/4/2023 and 1:45 a.m. 7/5/2023. He should have received a snack during that time. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for July 2023 showed Resident #1 did not receive these medications or the snack as ordered on 07/04/2023. A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) showed 6 in the box for checking the function of the wander monitoring device every night shift for monitoring and a 6 was in the box for checking the placement of the wander monitoring device every shift for monitoring on 07/04/2023. A review of Resident #1's Nursing Progress Notes revealed the following: On 07/04/2023 at 9:10 p.m., the writer spoke with a staff member from the local hospital taking care of Resident #1. The staff member stated, Resident is pleasantly confused at the moment. On 07/07/2023 at 09:00 a.m., (Resident #1) eloped from facility the evening of 07/04/2023. The resident exited the facility through the front doors and proceeded to walk down the sidewalk as he reports in an effort to go to his favorite restaurant that he once worked at. Resident #1 has consistently been taken by friends to the July 4th parade in town where he's been a yearly fixture in handing out flags. This year however, the person that checked him out of the facility to do this annual tradition was out of town on vacation. Upon further investigation by staff, including social services, the resident has consistently stated his intent was to go to the restaurant he used to work at bussing tables to get something to eat and visit and then planned to go hand out flags at the parade. The writer went to question Resident #1 regarding events at his bedside where the resident pointed to pictures on his wall of him at the restaurant in question and also handing out flags at the July 4th celebration. Interventions have included one on one companionship, take out order from a local restaurant, and there are plans in place for next July 4th to take the resident out to enjoy watching fireworks although staff is working out the details as to the safest way to provide this annual expectation to meet his needs while ensuring his safety. The resident has not since tried to leave the facility and a care plan is now in place around this annual expectation. An observation of the path the resident may have taken revealed from the front door he turned left heading North after leaving the facility property. A two-lane road with a speed limit of 30 mph (miles per hour) separated the facility grounds from a grassy area that lead onto an asphalt sidewalk. The sidewalk with uneven cemented surfaces, potholes and cracks followed around the lake without barriers. The unprotected lake was approximately 10 feet away from the asphalt sidewalk. The resident was found across the road from the facility in a grassy area. Resident #1's Elopement Risk assessment dated [DATE] completed by Staff C, LPN, showed No was checked for attempt to wander off the unit and positions self by exit areas. Yes was checked for having a history of wandering or elopement. No was checked for attempts to leave the building or grounds without notifying staff, the resident was not able to negotiate environment safely and has a history of substance abuse and/or substance seeking behavior, repetitive verbalizations of I'm going home, and is ambulatory including wheelchair mobility and for not accepting his current residency in the facility. Yes was checked for having a diagnosis of Dementia, Alzheimer's and is able to negotiate environment safety. The assessment showed Resident #1 was not at risk for elopement at this time. The form also revealed a section that showed If there are 'Yes' answers, but the resident is not at risk explain why. The box for the section was blank. A Change in Condition dated 07/04/2023 showed the incident location was outside. Resident #1 left the facility. Staff were notified by anonymous bystanders that the resident was by the fire training center on the ground. The resident description section revealed, I don't want to be here anymore. I'm going to [a local restaurant]. The resident was transported to a local hospital and returned to the facility on 1:45 a.m. on 07/05/2023. Review of Resident #1's care plan revealed a focus area initiated on 03/26/2021 [Resident #1] is an elopement risk, wanders throughout facility independently related to dementia, disoriented to place, impaired safety awareness, and the resident wanders aimlessly at times. Interventions included 1:1 supervision at all times (07/05/2023), assess for elopement risk (03/26/2021), distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book (03/26/2021), identify pattern of wandering: Is wandering purposeful, aimless, or escapist? Is resident looking for something? Does it indicate the need for more exercise? Intervene as appropriate (03/26/2021), provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation, strategies including signs, picture and memory boxes (03/26/2021), psychiatric care evaluation as indicated (07/11/2023), and wander monitoring device (electronic monitoring device)- check placement every shift and function daily (03/26/2021). Review of the care plans revealed a focus area initiated on 10/07/2022 [Resident #1] is/has potential to be verbally aggressive towards staff related to ineffective coping skills, limited impulse control inappropriate language use, refuses medications at times, history of elopement, will only allow name/id bracelet on his ankle, then takes it off when agitated, becomes agitated during 4th of July, and Memorial Day when he doesn't have someone take him out due to history of being very active handing out flags in the community. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness (10/07/2022), analyze of key times, places, circumstances, triggers, and what de-escalates behavior and document (10/07/2022), assess resident's coping skills and support systems 10/07/2022), assess resident's understanding of the situation, allow time for the resident to express self and feelings towards the situation (10/07/2022), and psychiatric care evaluation as indicated (07/11/2023. Review of Resident's #1 care plan revealed a focus area initiated on 02/17/2022 [Resident #1] has impaired cognitive function and/or impaired thought processes related to dementia diagnosis. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness (02/17/2022), ask yes/no questions in order to determine the resident's needs (02/17/2022), and communicate with the resident/resident's representative/caregivers regarding resident's capabilities and needs (02/17/2022). Engage the resident in simple, structured activities that avoid overly demanding tasks (02/17/2022) and keep the resident's routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion (02/17/2022). Use the resident preferred name. Identify yourself at each interaction. Face the resident when speaking and make eye contact. Reduce any distractions- turn off TV, radio, close door etc. The resident understands consistent, simple, directive sentences. Provide the resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated (02/17/2022). Review of the care plan revealed a focus area initiated on 04/05/2021 [Resident #1] is at risk for further falls related to confusion, gait/balance problems, episodes of incontinence, medication use, weakness, confusion, ambulates throughout unit wearing regular socks and refuses to have non-skid socks or tennis shoes put on for him at times. Interventions included anticipate and meet the resident's needs (04/05/2021), be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed (04/05/2021), bed in low position (04/05/2021), and educate the resident and as needed the family on any individual fall reduction strategies (02/18/2022). Encourage resident to wear appropriate footwear/non-skid socks when ambulating (04/22/2021). Encourage the resident to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening and improved mobility (04/05/2021). Fall on 04/05/22 with ambulation, therapy evaluation, neurochecks, Xray lumbar spine, and encourage nonskid socks (04/06/2022). Medications as ordered and monitor for side effects (02/16/2022). Physical Therapy to evaluate and treat as ordered or as needed (04/05/2021). A review of the psychiatric care note written by Staff R, Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners (ARNP), with a date of service date of 07/14/2023 showed patient was seen on 07/05/2023 for a telehealth follow up. He is currently taking Trazodone HCL Tablet 25 MG by mouth once a day for major depressive disorder. Patient seen today after eloping yesterday (July 4) from facility. He is alert and pleasantly confused. Appears in no acute distress. Patient reports he intended to have a meal at his favorite local restaurant. He reports he used to work at this restaurant. He stated he was planning to return after his meal. It was reported that the patient walked approximately 7 minutes and was spotted by nearby people who were watching fireworks. He was found sitting in a chair among the people watching fireworks. He was taken to the emergency room that evening to be evaluated. During an interview on 07/25/2023 at 2:00 p.m., Staff Q, Receptionist, stated the door alarm and the wander monitoring device alarm had the same sound. Her shift ends at 4:00 p.m. daily. The red alarm is a screamer, the door alarm was a beep. The front door had a high pitch sound, one beep, and a continuous beep until it was turned off. It will also beep if someone holds the door open too long. You must put a code in to turn the alarm off. An interview was conducted on 07/25/2023 at 2:35 p.m. with the Maintenance Director. He reported there were 8 exit doors in the facility, and they all had keypads. Three of the doors also had a wander monitoring device alarm, the front door is one of them. He said since the elopement that Screamer (very loud) alarms were put on a set of double doors that lead to the lobby, main entrance area. He said he checked the doors daily on weekdays, and according to the Administrator, the nursing staff check the doors on the weekend. The Alarmed and Exit Doors Daily Inspections log was reviewed at that time for the months of May 2023 and June 2023. It showed the doors were checked on weekdays but not checked on the weekend. During the observation the front door alarm was set off with a wander monitoring device by the Maintenance Director. The alarm could not be heard while standing on the North unit/300 hall. This was confirmed by the Maintenance Director. During an interview on 07/25/2023 at 3:29 p.m. with the Administrator and DON, the DON reported Staff G, LPN, contacted the DON and reported Resident #1 was out of the building and she was contacted by some bystanders. The resident was found about 7 minutes away from the facility if you walked. They both came to start the investigation. They called the police, the Power of Attorney (POA), the doctor, psychiatric care, and another outside agency. Interviews were completed with staff and residents. None of the staff reported he wanted to leave the facility that day or mentioned anything about leaving the facility. He walks back and forth all day. He had asked some about going out for fresh air. They went outside and came back in. Staff K, RN, took her lunch break around 6:10 p.m. and her car was facing the door. After her break, she came back in, went to the bathroom, and went back to the unit. Two phone calls came in about a missing resident. The DON stated Staff I, CNA, heard the alarm go off but she didn't see anyone. Resident #1 definitely went out of the front door. If you hold the door for 15 seconds, the door would open. He was a pretty smart guy and can probably read. He didn't verbalize he wanted to see fireworks. Resident #1 had on the wander monitoring device at the time he left the facility. They tested the same wander monitoring device when he came back, and it was still working. In-services were started immediately after the incident. Maintenance came and checked the doors, and they were working fine. They set up 30-minute checks on all alarmed doors. The alarm company came out on 07/06/2023. They added screamers to the double doors to have a second alarm, because you cannot hear the alarm at the north Unit nursing station. The receptionist leaves at 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. Once the receptionist leaves, the nurse comes over and sets the alarm. There were no screamers when Resident #1 eloped. An enunciator will be placed at north unit nurse's station, it has been ordered, so alarms can be heard there. You must put a code in to enter or exit the facility. Visitors have to ring the bell. Prior to the incident, the receptionist buzzed everyone in and out. Now the nurse comes and sets the alarms to the front door after the receptionist leaves. The receptionist announces on the intercom that she is leaving for the day. Someone in charge, usually one of the nurses comes to lock the door. The nursing supervisors are the ones that come to turn on screamers. All nurses have keys to screamers. Resident #1 was placed on 1:1. The DON and ADON evaluated all residents for elopement. They checked wander monitoring devices, monitored Resident #1, and did a whole house audit. Staffing was good. No issue with staffing on that day. Staff were educated on the elopement procedure and drills. They did a drill each shift and did them weekly after the incident. During an interview on 07/27/23 at 9:55 a.m., the Administrator and DON reported training was provided on the elopement policy/procedure/protocol prior to July 4, 2023. Elopement audits and drills were completed. On 07/27/2023 12:08 p.m., the DON reported elopement education was completed upon hire. They do not have access to elopement training and elopement drills completed due to a change in systems approximately two months ago. Alarmed and Exit Doors Daily Inspections for the months of May 2023 and June 2023 were verified. The doors were not checked on the weekend. This was confirmed by the Administrator and DON. She stated as of July, nursing staff had been checking the doors on the weekend. 2. On 7/5/23 at approximately 9:40 a.m. Resident #8 was able to exit the facility without supervision through an exit door on an uninhabited hall (600) that was equipped with a door alarm. An interview was conducted on 07/26/2023 at 12:29 p.m. with Staff M, CNA. She said on 7/5/2023 she served him breakfast around 8:00 a.m., picked up the tray, and the last time she saw him was after 9:00 a.m. He was down 400 hall next to the nurse. Staff M, CNA, stated she went into a room to provide patient care to another resident and heard the alarm going off. She looked on the board and saw the alarm was going off on the 600 hall. She looked and didn't see anything. At that time, they made an announcement to do a patient count. During an interview on 07/26/2023 at 12:11 p.m. with Staff L, LPN, she stated she was assigned to the resident that day. He likes to go back and forth. Around 9:20 a.m., she gave him medications and that was the last time she saw him. She was down the 400 hall passing medications when the alarm went off. She saw the Maintenance Guy and Housekeeping going down the 600 hall when the alarm went off. She continued finishing what she was in the middle of doing. She didn't see Resident #8 outside. After they wheeled him back in, she assessed him. He gravitated towards the doors with lights and guessed he was just going to see what was outside. He pushes on doors and jiggles the handles frequently. He had a wander monitoring device on which is why the alarm was going off. Everyone was busy, it was in the morning after breakfast. One of the CNAs took care of him before she gave him his medications. No one was on break, but everyone was busy with the residents. It was sunny and hot on that day. During an interview on 07/26/2023 at 12:37 p.m., Staff N, CNA, stated she was working on the floor on the day of the incident. She was giving a bed bath to another resident. She heard the alarm, came out of the room, and saw they were working on the doors. She saw the Maintenance Director working on the door around 9:50 a.m. She went back to finish the resident's bed bath. When she later went to nurses' station, the staff asked if she heard the alarm. She was assigned to stay with Resident #8 one on one that day at about 10:00 a.m. and she stayed with him until about 3:00 p.m. that day. An interview conducted with the Activity Director on 07/26/2023 at 12:47 p.m. He stated he heard the alarm go off and the 600 area being announced by staff. Everyone jumped up and started moving. Everyone was looking. Staff scattered to their areas. He saw the Maintenance Director going down the 600 hall. The Activity Director went down the 500 hall; when he got to the 500 hall exit door it was locked so he ran toward the 600 side, and he didn't see anyone. The Activity Director stated he then went back to the 500 hall and opened the exit door and saw Resident #8 closer by the dumpster, he was smiling and giggling. He wheeled Resident #8 back into the facility and took him to the nursing station. The resident got out of the door on the end of the 600 hall and went down the sidewalk that surrounds the building towards the 500 unit. During an interview on 07/26/2023 at 12:21 p.m., the Maintenance Director stated on 7/5/2023 he was headed to the morning meeting, he exited the service hall, and heard the alarm going off. He checked the enunciator, and it showed the alarm was coming from the 600 hall. The exit door was open on the end of the 600 hall. He went outside and immediately ran to the front of the building, because there was more danger in the front of the building than the rear. He didn't see anyone. He then came in and headed back to the 600 hall and saw Resident #8 from the window sitting outside. Two other staff members were heading out to get him. Within two minutes they had him back inside. The Maintenance Director went back down the 600 hall, reset the doors and silenced the alarms. He was the first one to respond to the alarm. He immediately looked to see what hall the alarm was coming from. After the incident happened, they put a rope across the hall, caution signs, and wet floor signs. Resident #8 frequently pushes on the doors. He knows the door will open after 15 seconds. The resident was just sitting looking around at the trees. There's a sidewalk in the back parking lot area. Another staff member got to Resident #8 before he did. He went back to secure the doors after the resident was brought back into the facility. Observation of the outside area where the resident was found revealed an uneven cement sidewalk surface that wrapped around the facility's building connecting one entrance to the next. Adjacent to the sidewalk was approximately 5 feet of grassy terrain that led into a large area with trees, overgrown shrubs and standing water. Review of Resident 8's admission Record showed he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, unspecified lack of coordination, limitation of activities due to disability, other lack of coordination, history of falling, age related cognitive decline, age related physical decline, unspecified dementia, unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychiatric disturbance, mood disorder, anxiety, unspecified cataract, and Alzheimer's Disease. A review of the quarterly MDS with an ARD/target date of 05/16/2023 revealed Resident #8 had a BIMS score of 00 out of 15 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section G Functional Status of the MDS showed the resident needed extensive assistance with two plus persons physical assist with bed mobility and transfers and needed supervision with one-person physical assist for locomotion on and off the unit. Resident #8 needed extensive assistance with one-person physical assist for dressing and personal hygiene. He needed supervision with setup help only for eating and he was total dependent with two plus persons physical assist for toilet use. Section P Restraints and Alarms revealed Resident #8 used a wander monitoring device daily. An observation and interview were conducted on 7/24/2023 at 10:05 a.m. of Resident #8 on 1:1 with CNA, Staff O. Resident #8 was observed to be dressed in day clothes, sitting in his wheelchair in front of an exit door at the end of the 400 hallway. Staff O, CNA stated she was on 1:1 with him because around 07/05/2023, he went past the nurses' station and pushed on the exit door to the 600 hall and was found outside by the dumpsters. She stated he always pushes on the doors. He used to be a lawyer and he thinks his car was parked in the parking lot and he says he had to go to work. Since he was admitted he has pretty much always pushed on the doors. You see he is sitting in front of this door, and I told him 'You can't push on the doors okay' and he told me 'Well yeah if I keep pushing on it the door will open, you see the sign.' A sign was observed on the door with the words Push Until Alarm Sounds Door Can Be Opened In 15 Seconds. The resident was observed to have a wander guard on his left ankle under his sock. A review of the Order Summary Report with active orders as of 07/26/2023 showed the following: 1:1 close observation every shift for safety (ordered 07/05/2023); May go out with responsible party (10/10/2021); Monitoring wander monitoring device expiration May 2026- every night shift every 4 weeks on Wednesday for monitoring (05/17/2023); (Company name) Hospice for diagnosis of metabolic encephalopathy
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan regarding a resident's call l...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan regarding a resident's call light for one (Resident #7) of 8 sampled residents. Findings included: A review of Resident #7's electronic record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that include lack of coordination, abnormal posture, Chronic Pain Syndrome, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety and Traumatic Brain Injury. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated intact cognition. A review of the resident's care plan dated 2/18/19, with a revision date of 5/22/23 related to behavior due to anxiety, depression and insomnia revealed the resident Turns on call light repeatedly after staff has just exited the room; attention seeking. with interventions that included Anticipate and meet The resident's needs. initiated 2/8/19; Caregivers to provide opportunity for positive interaction, attention. Stop and talk with him/her as passing by. initiated 8/13/21. Observations of the 200 hall on 7/24/23 at 10:18 a.m. revealed the call light was on for Resident #7's room. Staff E, Housekeeper was noted to be in the doorway to the room mopping and said a few words in Spanish to the resident. Staff E completed the mopping, exited the room, and put the yellow caution sign in front of the door. Continued observations on 7/24/23 at 10:23 a.m., Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was noted to walk down the hall and enter the room to the left of Resident #7's room. The CNA spoke to the resident in that room, exited the room, and walked down the hall past Resident #7's room toward the nurses station. Resident #7's call light was still illuminating above the room door. Staff B did not respond to the call light. On 7/24/23 at 10:27 a.m., while standing at the nurses station, a beeping sound could be heard. Observation of the call light system located behind the nurses station on the table identified Resident #7's room by illumination. At this time, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was standing at the nurses station with her medication cart and made no attempts to respond to the call light. Observations of the 200 hall continued from the 100 hall and the call light continued to illuminate over Resident #7's room and no one was noted to enter Resident #7's room. Observations on 7/24/23 at 10:30 a.m., revealed the call light was observed to go on above the room to the right of Resident #7's room. Both lights are noted to now be illuminated. At 10: 40 a.m., a staff person was noted to enter the room located to the right of Resident #7's room; however, no one was noted to respond to the call light for Resident #7's room and the light remained on. At this time, another staff person was noted to walk down the 200 hall, pass Resident #7's room and not respond to the call light. An interview with Staff B, CNA at this time revealed she was assigned to room [ROOM NUMBER]-213 and when call lights go on anyone was supposed to respond to call lights even if they were not assigned to the room. After the interview, Staff B was noted to proceed to walk down the 200 hall and not respond to Resident #7's call light. An interview on 7/24/23 at 10:43 a.m., with Staff C, LPN revealed she was assigned to the 200 hall and reported anyone could answer a call light. She said she was not aware that Resident #7's was on. An interview on 7/24/23 at 10:44 a.m., with Staff D, Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS Coordinator) revealed she was currently on the floor answering call lights and was just in the process of going to answer the light for Resident #7's room. She reported all staff could answer the call lights and if they were not able to assist the resident they were to notify nursing. An interview on 7/24/23 at 10:46 a.m., with Staff E, Housekeeping revealed all staff were supposed to answer call lights. When asked about assisting Resident #7 when she was in the room cleaning, she said she did not even realize the lights were on. She stated, [the resident] always puts her light on even if you have just helped her and most of the time it is for something little. An interview on 7/24/23 at 10:54 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the expectation was that any staff member could answer the call lights and if they could not address the concern, they were to find someone that could. During observations of the 200 hall on 7/25/23 at 9:05 a.m., a call light could be heard at nurses station beeping and the call light was noted to be illuminated above Resident #7's room. Continued observation at this time, revealed a nurse was at her cart parked across the hall from Resident #7's room and two CNAs were standing and talking in the hall one room away from Resident #7's room. It was noted that when the CNAs completed their conversation and did not respond to Resident #7's call light. Inspection of the call light system at the nurses station revealed the button for Resident #7's room was illuminated. On 7/25/23 at 9:11 a.m., during an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) she said all staff were to respond to call lights and get assistance if needed. She said Resident #7 always puts her light on even if a staff member just left the room. She reported that staff were still supposed to respond to the light. She reported the resident was care planned for using the call light too much. An interview on 7/25/23 at 9:12 a.m. with Staff F, CNA revealed he did not respond to Resident #7's call light right away because the resident always turned on her light. He said he knew he should respond to call light right away. Observations on 7/25/23 at 1:58 p.m. of Resident #7's room revealed she was in a room alone. During an interview with the resident she confirmed she pressed the call light often, and she pressed the call light when she needed something. The resident reported staff did not always come right away when she pressed the call light and she sometimes waited more than 30 minutes before a response.
May 2023 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0567 (Tag F0567)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure one resident (#60) of one reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, record review and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure one resident (#60) of one reviewed had access to his personal funds. Findings included: On 05/22/23 at 10:17 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #60. He stated he had been asking how much money was in his account and no one could give him that information. He stated he had requested a statement without success. Resident #60 stated he did not know what happened to his money upon admission. A review of Resident #60's admission record showed the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. A review of a document for Resident #60, titled, Resident Fund Management Service, dated 02/06/23, showed an incomplete form that did not show accountability of the resident's funds. On 05/23/23 at 12:18 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff I, the Human Resource Director, and Resident Accounts Manager. Staff I stated this resident did not have any funds that she knew of. Staff I presented a statement showing the resident had a zero balance in his account. On 05/23/23 at 12:20 p.m., an interview with was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). She stated their policy was to send residents financial statements every 3 months. She stated if the resident had money at the facility, any amount, they would mail them statement. On 05/24/23 at 02:02 p.m., a follow up interview was conducted with Resident #60. He stated it would not make sense that his account had a zero balance. Resident #60 said, I had money when I was at [name of facility]. They should have sent my money here. The resident stated he was confident he had money somewhere. On 05/24/23 at 02:24 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Social Services Director (SSD). She stated she did not know anything about this resident's funds concerns but would investigate. The SSD reported that she had contacted the other facility and had left two voicemails. A review of a social services progress note for Resident #60 dated 05/25/23 showed, SSD met with resident in regard to his money that was located in a safe with his name on it that came from [name of previous facility]. SSD informed the resident of the amount and that it would be deposited in his trust account. On 05/25/23 at 09:02 a.m., The SSD stated they had located Resident #60's money. She said, It was in the safe the whole time. His money was here, and no one knew about it. The SSD stated she did not know who had put the money in the safe and why it was not accounted for per their procedures. She stated she did not know how much it was but would find out and update Resident #60. On 05/25/23 at 09:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff I. She stated if the resident brought in cash, someone should have gone to get him a money order so they can deposit the money. She stated social services would normally do this. Staff I said, someone should have documented that the money and his personal belongings were in the safe. On 05/25/23 at 09:40 a.m., a follow up interview was conducted with the NHA, DON (Director of Nursing) and The Regional Clinical Nurse. The DON stated if nursing would have received the resident's wallet it would have been inventoried. A review of the inventory sheet revealed these items were not indicated. The DON stated the resident was originally admitted in December. The DON said, We should have accounted for it. The NHA stated this was before her time, and she could not speak of the process. She said, I would expect a resident to have access to their personal belongings and personal funds. She stated Resident #60 should have had his money this whole time. On 05/25/23 at 11:10 a.m. the NHA stated they did not have a policy on personal funds/personal belongings, but they exercise the Resident's Rights and Responsibilities expectations. She said, However, I would expect staff to complete a full inventory when the resident comes in. If they are alert and oriented ask them what they would like with their belongings. If something needs to be secured, we put it in the safe. We should keep an inventory of what is in the safe and SSD should have a copy. A review of an undated document titled Resident's Rights and Responsibilities, showed the resident has a right to know in advance what charges the facility may impose against your personal funds. Choose to deposit your personal funds with the facility in which the facility must act as a fiduciary and hold, safeguard and manage your funds. Earn interest on any funds in excess of $100.00 that is deposited with the facility. Choose not to deposit your personal funds with the facility. Receive full complete and separate accounting of your funds according to acceptable accounting principles. Receive financial statements at least quarterly and upon request.
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews with family member, facility staff and Hospice staff, the facility failed to notify the parties involved in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews with family member, facility staff and Hospice staff, the facility failed to notify the parties involved in care, of a change in condition (CIC) for one of four residents reviewed, Resident #333. Findings included: On [DATE] at 11:02 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #333's family member. The family member stated they had been out to dinner and decided to stop by the facility to visit the resident. The family member stated when they arrived, they became aware that Resident #333 had died. The family said, We walked into the facility's lobby, signed in and walked into the room and no one said anything. When we got to the room, the door was shut, we knocked and no one said anything, the Responsible Party peeked inside and saw people in the room. He stated he thought they were just taking care of her. She stated when they finally came out of the room, he walked in and sat by the resident's bedside, still unaware she was gone. The family member stated the nurse (Staff A, LPN, Licensed Practical Nurse) stated the resident had just passed away and stated Hospice was supposed to notify the family. The family member stated no one at the facility had spoken to the family all day on [DATE] or on [DATE]. The family member stated they did not know the resident had declined so rapidly. She stated the family was aware she was under Hospice care, but she was still stable, alert, and oriented. The family member stated she would have hoped someone would have alerted them of the decline. A review of Resident #333's admission record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include unspecified cirrhosis of liver and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications. A review of the resident's physician orders, active as of [DATE], showed the resident was admitted to the facility under [name of hospice] consult for continuation of care related to terminal diagnosis of cirrhosis of liver. The order showed the resident required an intermediate level of care. A review of resident #333's progress notes revealed the following: -[DATE] 11:03 p.m. Patient was found unresponsive, hospice was called. The patient was pronounced diseased at 6:17 p.m. on [DATE]. Hospice notified family. Funeral home picked up body at 7:44 pm. Note was entered by Staff A, LPN. -[DATE] 5:51 a.m. BSL (blood sugar level) was 33 mg/dL (Milligrams per deciliters, unit of measuring the concentration of glucose in the blood). Glucagon given. offered juice BS currently at 41. -[DATE] 5:39 a.m. Resident is showing signs of hypoglycemia BSL at 58 mg/dL. -[DATE] 4:39 a.m. Resident is alert , she presents with hypoglycemia BSL at 41. MD (Medical Doctor) notified. Orders received to administer Glucagon and monitor. BSL remains low at 62 mg/dL . Placed call to [name of hospice]. Patient Care Coordinator and Registered Nurse (RN) advised of Hypoglycemia diagnosis. -[DATE] at 11:23 p.m. Nurse notified the ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) and Resident #333's doctor her BSL was 62 mg/dL. An order was given to give Glucagon and recheck blood sugar. Resident was alert and informed of situation. Review of hospice records showed Hospice was notified of Resident #333's low BSL on [DATE] and a nurse came to the facility and assessed the resident. The hospice note showed, Left note to call [name of Hospice] with any concerns. The review of resident #333's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) showed Resident #333 had low blood sugar levels documented from [DATE] to the time of her death [DATE]. The review showed the family was not notified of the change in condition for the resident. The review further showed Resident #333 was last assessed by a Hospice nurse on [DATE] at 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. An interview was conducted with the Hospice nurse who last assessed Resident #333 on [DATE] at 2:27 p.m. She stated at the time she left, the resident was alert, at baseline and was in no distress. She stated she spoke with the nurse at the facility and was not made aware of any blood sugar concerns. She stated she had seen these resident during prior visits and she was herself. This nurse stated she completed routine care and educated the staff on calling with any change in condition., A copy of Record of death and mortician's receipt showed resident died on [DATE] at 6.17 p.m. The receipt showed Hospice was notified of death. On [DATE] at 01:12 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) she stated she remembered the resident. She had worked with her on [DATE] during the first shift, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. She stated on that day Resident #333 did not get out of bed. Staff B said, She was sick, she was looking ill, looking pale. She didn't move, she would normally turn herself in bed. She didn't get out of bed, I gave her a bed bath and tried to offer her snack pudding, she had two bites. She did not want to eat anything. This was not like her. I Kept checking in on her all shift. I knew she was not feeling well. I told the nurse, she had a basin by her chin so if she had to throw up it would be right there. Staff B stated she last saw the resident around 2:30 p.m. She had checked to if she needed to be changed before she left. Staff B said, I fixed her blanket. She didn't want anything to drink. An attempt to reach the nurse who worked the 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift on [DATE] was unsuccessful. On [DATE] at 10:05 a.m., an interview was conducted with [name of Hospice] representative. She stated Hospice received a call on [DATE] around 6:09 p.m. and was notified Resident #333 had died. She stated they sent their Chaplain who responded to the facility at 6:46 p.m. The Hospice representative stated on [DATE] the resident had received a regular visit and on [DATE] at 6:09 p.m. they received a call from the facility stating the resident had expired. She stated they had not received any other calls from the facility indicating a change in condition. She said, if they had called with a CIC, we could not have sent a Chaplain. We could have sent a nurse. A chaplain responded because the resident had already passed on. There were no other calls. She stated the nurse who assessed the resident last would have initiated their change in condition protocol if they felt the resident was showing signs and symptoms of imminent decline. She stated that would have included contacting the family and hospice physician. She stated the nurse's visit on [DATE] was standard and the resident was at baseline at the time. The Hospice representative stated the chaplain could not call the family, because the family was already at the facility. The Hospice Representative said, I Can't speak to the facility's process of reporting. They learned of the death before Hospice. I would expect they would follow their procedures. On [DATE] at 12:57 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff A, LPN Agency. She confirmed she worked with the resident on [DATE] during her 3 p.m. to11 p.m. shift. She said, upon arrival on my shift, I did my rounds around 4 p.m., I do not remember passing meds to her, but I remember she was not in any distress, she was resting. She stated sometime around 6 p.m. during dinner time, one of the aides reported the resident did not want to eat. Staff A stated she assessed the resident and noted she didn't get a pulse. She stated she called the facility's weekend supervisor and Hospice and notified them the resident had died. Staff A stated she believed Hospice notified the family, but she was not sure. She stated the previous nurse had said the resident was on comfort measures only and had not indicated the resident was on comfort measures only. Staff A stated she did not call Resident's #333's family during her shift. On [DATE] at 01:24 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff C, CNA. She confirmed she worked second shift 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. on [DATE] and was assigned to Resident #333 the day she died. Staff C stated at the beginning of the shift the resident was not in pain that she could see. Staff C said, she did not speak much. She answered yes or no or just nodded. I changed her and gave her a bed bath. Staff C stated the last time she saw Resident #333 was dinner time, between 5 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. The resident did not eat. She took a couple bites. She would normally eat and drink. The CNA said, Not this day. She refused. Right after I wiped her face, I noticed she was a little pale, and appeared unwell. I called the nurse, she looked at her and then she left to make a call. Another aide came then we cleaned her. We were in the room when three family members came. When they entered the room, we left. I don't know if she was still breathing at this time. Record review and interview showed on [DATE] at 5:51 a.m. Resident #333 had a BSL of 33. Record review showed no evidence a call was made to the doctor or Hospice or family. Record review showed no nursing notes documented on [DATE] from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. Staff B, CNA confirmed Resident #333 was sick. Review of record did not show a change in condition documented, or contact with family, physician, and hospice. On [DATE] at 02:52 p.m., an interview ws conducted with the facility's Regional Clinical Nurse. She said, I see there are some concerns related to documentation. I spoke with the weekend supervisor. She stated she was notified the resident was not doing well. she stated she contacted the physician. She could not remember the date or the time. There is no evidence of this. It was not documented. The Regional Clinical Nurse stated staff should have documented if any contact was made with the family, physician, or Hospice. She said, I would expect a change in condition to be filled out and documentation to show that the family and physician were notified. She stated the physician was called and he pronounced the resident, I understand it is not documented. The Regional Clinical stated they should have made note of the date and time of notification. She said, I cannot speak of why they did not. A review of a facility policy titled, Nursing - Change in Condition, dated [DATE], showed a purpose to identify and communicate changes in condition to the physician and other employees to implement interventions to prevent further deterioration and possibly prevent hospitalization. Procedure: all staff are encouraged to promptly report any changes in condition to the charge nurse supervisor our director of nursing/assistant director of nursing or designee immediately. This may include but is not limited to a significant change in the resident's physical, mental our psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mentor of psychosocial status. Life threatening conditions, or clinical complications. Circumstances that may require a need to alter treatment this may include new treatment and/or discontinuation of current treatment due to adverse consequences, acute condition, or worsening of her chronic condition. (7.) The resident's family/legal representative/healthcare agent should be notified about the change in condition as required. A review of a facility policy titled, Hospice Care, dated [DATE], showed the center supports the patient/resident's right to a dignified existence and self-determination. The center will assist the patient/resident/and/legal representative in arranging Hospice services. When Hospice are provided in center, the center should meet the following: The center should immediately notify the hospice when the patient/resident experiences a significant change in condition including physical, mental, social, or emotional change, clinical changes suggest a need to alter the plan of care and patient/resident death.
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 to ensure proper treatment of newly identified skin i...

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 ensure proper treatment of newly identified skin impairments and failed to ensure proper treatment of existing skin conditions were implemented for one (Resident #12) of three residents sampled for skin conditions. Findings included: A review of Resident #12's medical record revealed Resident #12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease, hypertension, and muscle weakness. A review of Resident #12's physician's orders revealed a wound care order dated 5/22/2023 to cleanse wound to right shin with normal saline, pat dry, apply xeroform gauze layers, and cover with abdominal pad twice weekly on Monday and Thursday on the 7 AM to 3 PM (Day) shift and as needed. A review of Resident #12's care plan revealed a Focus, reviewed on 5/2/2023, Resident #12 has skin breakdown of a skin tear to the right shin. Interventions included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness and follow facility policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown. Resident #12's care plan also revealed a Focus, revised on 2/15/2023, Resident #12 had the potential for impairment to skin integrity related to advanced age, fragile skin, history of edema, neuropathy, incontinence, and impaired mobility. Interventions included to follow facility protocols for treatment of injury. A review of Resident #12's Wound Report dated 5/22/2023 revealed Resident #12 non-pressure skin tear to the right shin measuring 4.0 centimeters (cm) by 3.0 cm by 0.1 cm with a small amount of serosanguineous drainage. The Wound Report did not reveal any other skin impairments. An observation was conducted on 5/24/2023 at 1:35 PM in Resident #12's room. Resident #12 was observed resting in bed with a blanket over her legs with Staff J, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) sitting near the bedside. Staff J, CNA stated Resident #12 had a skin tear on her left shin and she was not sure how long the skin tear had been present. Staff J, CNA also stated she was notified of the skin tear by the offgoing CNA at 7 AM and the Day shift nurse was notified. Staff J, CNA removed Resident #12's blanket covering her legs. Resident #12 was observed to have a small skin tear to her left shin with a small amount of serous drainage. The skin tear was observed not covered with a dressing and no dressing was observed in Resident #12's bed. Resident #12 was also observed to have a skin tear to the right shin with no drainage. The skin tear was observed not covered with a dressing and no dressing was observed in Resident #12's bed. Staff J, CNA stated Resident #12 sometimes removes the dressing to her right shin but the nurse was informed of the dressing not being on Resident #12's right shin when she came in at 7 AM. Staff K, License Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed in the hallway outside of the room and was also interviewed. Staff K, LPN stated she was aware of the skin tear to Resident #12's left shin and she was waiting to hear back from the Nurse Practitioner to initiate treatment orders for the wound. Staff K, LPN also stated she was notified of the skin tear earlier but was not able to state what time she was notified. Staff K, LPN addressed Resident #12's wounds to the left and right shins were not covered and was not able to state if Resident #12 had a treatment order in place for the wound to her right shin. Staff K, LPN reviewed Resident #12's physician's orders and verified Resident #12 should have a treatment in place to the wound on her right shin. Staff K, LPN stated when a new skin impairment is discovered on a resident, the nurse should fill out an incident report and a treatment should be initiated. Staff K, LPN reviewed Resident #12's medical record and was not able to find any documentation related to the newly identified skin tear on Resident #12's left shin. An interview was conducted on 5/25/2023 at 1:10 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated when a new skin impairment is identified on a resident, the nurse should contact the resident's physician, complete an incident report, and initiate a treatment for the wound. If the nurse is not able to contact the physician, the nurse should still attempt to close and cover the wound with a dressing. The DON stated she would expect nursing staff to treat wounds upon identification and for nursing staff to replace dressings that were soiled or removed. A review of the facility policy titled Nursing - Change in Condition, revised on 4/4/2023 revealed under the section titled Procedure All staff are encouraged to promptly report any changes in condition to the charge nurse, supervisor, or DON or designee immediately. This may include accidents resulting in injury, or with the potential to require physician intervention and circumstances that may require a need to alter treatment, including new treatment and/or discontinuation of current treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide adequate nutrition to maintain acceptable ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide adequate nutrition to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status for one (Resident #32) of two residents sampled for nutritional requirements. Findings included: A review of Resident #32's medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pneumonia, muscular dystrophy, quadriplegia, and gastrostomy status. A review of Resident #32's physician's orders revealed an enteral feed order dated 2/28/2023 for Glucerna 1.2 Cal administered at 70 milliliters (ml) per hour over 20 hours, off at 10 AM and on at 2 PM. Resident #32's physician's orders also revealed an order dated 2/28/2023 for Nothing by Mouth (NPO). A review of Resident #32's care plan revealed a Focus, initiated on 2/28/2023, Resident #32 has impaired swallowing related to muscular dystrophy and was NPO. Interventions included follow diet as prescribed and enteral feedings as ordered. A review of Resident #32's weight record revealed Resident #32 weighed 136.4 pounds (lbs.) on 4/6/2023. Resident #32's weight record also revealed a weight recorded on 5/5/2023 of 120.8 lbs. Resident #32 had a weight loss of 15.2 lbs. or 11.44% in 29 days. An observation was conducted on 5/22/2023 at 10:27 AM of Resident #32 in the resident's room. Resident #32 was observed sleeping in bed with enteral feeding running to the resident's feeding tube at a rate of 70 ml per hour. A bottle of Glucerna 1.2 Cal was observed hanging from a pole in the room with a hand written date of 5/20/2023 at 6:00 PM. The Glucerna 1.2 Cal bottle was observed to have approximately 300 ml remaining out of the 1,000 ml bottle. Resident #32 was provided approximately 700 ml of Glucerna 1.2 Cal solution over 40 hours and 27 minutes. An interview was conducted on 5/24/2023 at 2:08 PM with Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff D, LPN was Resident #32's assigned nurse on 5/22/2023 and confirmed Resident #32's order for Glucerna 1.2 Cal administered at 70 ml an hour over 20 hours. Staff D, LPN stated she would replace the resident's tube feed solution bottle upon turning off the resident's pump at 10 AM and ensure the solution was being administered properly when she conducted rounds at the beginning of her shift at 7 AM. Staff D, LPN was not able to state if Resident #32 was receiving the appropriate amount of nutrition as ordered. An interview was conducted on 5/25/2023 at 1:15 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated nurses are responsible for ensuring residents with enteral feedings are getting the appropriate nutrition as per the physician's order and she would expect the nurse to verify the rate of administration, the functioning of the tube feed pump, and the patency of the resident's feeding tube. The DON verified Resident #32's physician's order for Glucerna 1.2 Cal administered at 70 ml per hour and stated she would not expect the resident to have 300 ml remaining after over 40 hours. The DON stated if a resident refused tube feeding or was turning off their own tube feeding pump, she would expect the nurse to restart the resident's pump and document refusals in the resident's chart. A review of Resident #32's progress notes revealed a note dated 3/26/2023 at 2:27 PM, documenting Resident #32 turned his tube feeding pump off and was educated on the importance of keeping the tube feeding pump on by the nursing staff. Resident #32's progress notes did not reveal any other instances of Resident #32 turning off his feeding tube pump or refusing tube feedings. A review of the facility policy titled Nursing - Enteral Feedings - Safety Precautions with an effective date of 4/1/2022 revealed under the section titled Preparation the facility should remain current in and follow accepted best practices in enteral nutrition. The policy also revealed under the section titled Preventing errors in administration staff are to check the enteral nutrition label against the order before administration for the following information: - Resident name, ID, and room number. - Type of formula. - Date and time formula was prepared. - Route of delivery. - Access site. - Method (pump, gravity, syringe); and - Rate of administration (ml/hour). On the formula label document initials, date, and time the formula was hung/administered, and initial that the label was checked against the order. The policy revealed under the section titled Documentation staff are to document all assessments, findings, and interventions in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide pain medication to one (#40) of two residents surveyed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to provide pain medication to one (#40) of two residents surveyed for pain management. Findings include: An interview was conducted with Resident #40 on 05/24/23 at 03:36 PM. Resident #40 is a [AGE] year old male admitted to this facility on 5/3/23 for rehabilitation and reconditioning after lengthy illness following complications from cardiac surgery. During the interview Resident #40 said he returned just from the hospital, because the facility did not have his pain medication. Resident #40 said on Monday (5/22/23) night he requested pain medication but the facility did not have it because they ran out and it was not reordered in time (Oxycodone 7.5 mg tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain). Resident #40 said that when he is in pain his breathing gets faster which leads to increased pain and starts a cycle that is hard to get under control. He said he was told the facility was unable to provide him with the medication and would not be available until the morning when the next pharmacy delivery occurred. Resident #40 said the pain was getting unbearable and called 911 for transport to the hospital because the facility was unable to address his pain. Review of Nursing Progress Note from 5/22/23 at 21:30 showed: Resident alert and oriented, resident asked for pain pill nurse don't have the pain pill. Resident got 2 Tylenol, Nurse did a follow up with pharmacy about pain pill. Pharmacy said medication coming on the next round, resident said too long, resident called 911 to go to the hospital to get pain medication. Review of Nursing Progress Note from 5/23/23 at 02:49 showed: Resident was returned from Lakeland Regional Hospital by ambulance, on stretcher. Electrocardiogram testing and troponin levels in the emergency room were negative. No new orders given, resident to continue with meds as previously prescribed. Vital Signs within normal limits. On 05/25/23 at 08:10 AM an interview was conducted with Staff H LPN (Licensed Pratcial Nurse). She stated the medication is available in the Emergency Drug Kit (EDK) which is a machine where staff can get medications if they are not available. Staff H LPN stated it takes two nurses to retrieve controlled medications from the EDK and they did not have two regular staff on shift to pull the medication. She said pharmacy runs are at 2:00PM and 2:00AM and the next delivery would have been around 5:00AM. She said the resident did not want to wait for the next delivery so he called an ambulance for himself. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 05/25/23 at 09:21 AM she stated that they did not have two nurses with access to the EDK. On shift were two agency nurses and one regular nurse. The agency nurses did not have access codes to the EDK machine, so they were unable to obtain medication for Resident #40. The DON said the facility does not have an evening/night supervisor and the staff on duty did not call anyone or she would have come in. She said they are changing their process and providing agency staff access to the EDK. Review of facility policy Nursing-Pain Assessment and Management revised 02/21/23 under General Guidelines states: 1. The pain management program is based on a facility-wide commitment to resident comfort. 2. Pain Management is defined as the process of alleviating the resident's pain to a level that is acceptable to the resident and is based on his or her clinical condition and established treatment goals. Reporting Report the following information to the physician or practitioner: 1. Significant changes in the level of the resident's pain 2. Adverse effects from pain medications, such as gastrointestinal bleeding from anti-inflammatory drugs, anorexia, confusion, lethargy, severe constipation, or ileus related to opioids; and/or 3. Prolonged, unrelieved pain despite care plan interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of Resident #68's medical record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of Resident #68's medical record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis to include cerebral infarction, encephalopathy and Aphasia. A Review of physician orders showed the resident was receiving antipsychotic medications to include Depakote 500mg for encephalopathy and Trazodone HCI oral 50 mg tablet for depression A Review of Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed. -Trazodone HCI oral tablet 50 mg (Milligram), administered daily for depression, effective 1/18/23 and Alprazolam oral tab administered every 8 hours PRN (as needed) for anxiety. A Psychiatric note dated 05/17/23 showed Resident #68 was taking Depakote 300mg TID (three times a day) for manic behaviors, Trazodone 50mg 1 via peg tube daily for depression, Levetiracetam 100mg/ml for seizures and alprazolam 0.5mg 1 every 6 hours PRN for anxiety. The record review showed no behavioral and side effects monitoring indicated for Resident #68. On 05/25/23 at 10:28 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN) Agency. She confirmed if the resident was taking antidepressants and antipsychotics, they should be monitored. She stated there should be monitoring the effects of the medication to ensure it was working well. She said, we monitor side effects and how the resident is responding to the medication by observing for specified behaviors. On 05/25/23 at 10:36 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). She confirmed behavior monitoring should be in place for anyone taking medications in some classes such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, and anticoagulants. She said, Yes, we should have put it in. On 05/25/23 at11:02 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). She reviewed resident #68's MAR and confirmed he was not being monitored. She stated they should have been monitoring side effects and behaviors. Based on record reviews and interviews, the facility failed to monitor behaviors and side effects of psychotropic medications for two (Resident #23 and 68) of the sampled five residents. Findings included: 1. A review of the admission Record for Resident #23 showed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's Disease, persistent mood disorder, depression, schizophreniform disorder, mood disorder, and anxiety disorder. Section N Medications of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed Resident #23 took antipsychotic medications for seven days and antidepressants for seven days. A review of the Active Orders as of 05/25/23 revealed the following: -Olanzapine Tablet 5 MG (milligrams) - Give 1 tablet po (by mouth) daily related to Schizophreniform Disorder -Trazodone HCL Tablet 150 MG- Give 1 tablet po at bedtime for depression monitor for s/s (signs/symptoms) of depression There was no order in place for behavior and side effect monitoring. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and Treatment Administrator Record (TAR) for May and June 2023 revealed behaviors and side effects were not monitored. The care plan for antipsychotic medications initiated on 11/30/23 indicated to administer medications as ordered by physician. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness every shift. On 05/25/23 at 9:38 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the resident had orders for psychiatric medications and no orders for behavior and side effect monitoring. Stated she would expect to see orders for behavior and side effect monitoring.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. A total of thirty medication opportunities were observed with three errors...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5%. A total of thirty medication opportunities were observed with three errors for two (Resident #56 and Resident #70) of five residents observed for medication administration, resulting in a medication error rate of 10%. Findings included: A review of Resident #56's physician's orders revealed the following orders: - An order dated 5/4/2023 for Acetaminophen 325 milligrams (mg), 2 tablets = 650 mg, by mouth two times a day. - An order dated 3/20/2023 for Calcium-Carb (Carbonate) 600 mg by mouth three times a day. - An order dated 3/17/2023 for Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3) 1,000 units by mouth one time daily. - An order dated 3/17/2023 for Divalproex Sodium 125 mg by mouth two times a day. - An order dated 3/17/2023 for Fish Oil capsule 1,000 mg give 2 capsules = 2,000 mg by mouth one time a day. - An order dated 3/17/2023 for Lisinopril 2.5 mg by mouth one time a day. - An order dated 3/18/2023 for Memantine Hydrochloride (HCl) 10 mg by mouth two times a day. An observation of medication administration was conducted on 5/24/2023 at 9:14 AM with Staff L, Registered Nurse (RN). Staff L, RN removed the following medications from the medication cart for administration to Resident #56: - Acetaminophen 325 mg 2 tablets = 650 mg. - Calcium-Carb 500 mg. - Vitamin D3 1,000 units. - Divalproex Sodium 125 mg. - Fish Oil capsule 500 mg, 2 capsules = 1,000 mg. - Lisinopril 2.5 mg. - Memantine HCl 10 mg. Prior to administering the medications, Staff L, RN assessed Resident #56's blood pressure. Resident #56's Lisinopril 2.5 mg was held do to having a blood pressure reading out of parameters. Staff L, RN administered the other six medications to Resident #56 in the resident's room without difficulty and exited the room. An interview was conducted with Staff L, RN following the observation. Staff L, RN reviewed Resident #56's physician's orders and addressed the resident had an order for Calcium-Carb 600 mg and not 500 mg. Staff L, RN stated she never seen it in 600 mg and stated if she had a question about a physician's order she would ask another nurse or the unit manager, but also stated she did not do that. Staff L, RN reviewed Resident #56's physician's orders and addressed the resident had an order for Fish Oil 1,000 mg 2 capsules and not for 500 mg 2 capsules. Staff L, RN stated she thought the order was for Resident #56 to receive 1,000 mg total and not 2,000 mg and she did not realize she had made an error. A review of Resident #70's physician's orders revealed the following orders: - An order dated 1/22/2023 for Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg by mouth two times daily. - An order dated 1/20/2023 for Klor-Con (Potassium Chloride) 10 milliequivalents (mEq), 2 tablets = 20 mEq, by mouth once daily. - An order dated 1/20/2023 for Magnesium Oxide 400 mg by mouth two times daily. - An order dated 1/20/2023 for multivitamin tablet, one tablet by mouth once daily. - An order dated 1/20/2023 for Pantoprazole Sodium 20 mg by mouth two times daily. - An order dated 3/3/2023 for Saccharomyces boulardii 250 mg by mouth once daily. An observation of medication administration was conducted on 5/25/2023 at 10:35 AM with Staff N, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff N, LPN gathered the following medications from the medication cart for administration to Resident #70: - Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg. - Klor-Con 10 mEq, 1 tablet. - Magnesium Oxide 400 mg. - multivitamin 1 tablet. - Pantoprazole 20 mg. - Saccharomyces boulardii 250 mg. Staff N, LPN administered the six medications to Resident #70 in the residents room without difficulty and exited the room. An interview was conducted following the observation with Staff N, LPN. Staff N, LPN reviewed Resident #70's physician's order for Klor-Con 10 mEq 2 tablets and did not realize he only administered 1 tablet to Resident #70. Staff N, LPN stated he would normally verify the five rights of medication administration before administering medications to a resident, which include the right dose, right resident, right route, right medication, at the right time and if he only pulled one tablet instead of two it would by considered a medication error. An interview was conducted on 5/25/2023 at 1:25 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she would expect nursing staff to verify the resident's medication orders and verify they are following the five rights of medication administration before administering medications to residents. The DON stated if nursing staff do not follow the five rights, which include the right time, right route, right dose, right resident, and right medication, it could result in the nurse committing a medication error. A review of the facility policy titled Administering Medications, revised on 2/21/2023 revealed under the section of the policy titled Purpose the purpose of the policy is to ensure medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The policy also revealed under the section titled General Guidelines the individual administering the medication checks the label three (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time, and right method (route) of administration before giving the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to document complete and accurate medical records for one (Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to document complete and accurate medical records for one (Resident #32) of forty-two sampled residents. Findings included: A review of Resident #32's medical record revealed Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of pneumonia, muscular dystrophy, quadriplegia, and sepsis. A review of Resident #32's physician's order revealed an order dated 3/10/2023 for oxygen saturation monitoring every shift. A review of Resident #32's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 5/1/2023 on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift (Day) shift to 5/24/2023 on the Day shift revealed the task for oxygen saturation every shift was being documented as completed but no oxygen saturation readings were documented on the MAR. A review of Resident #32's oxygen saturation readings from 5/1/2023 on the Day shift to 5/24/2023 on the Day shift revealed Resident #32's oxygen saturation levels were not documented every shift as ordered. A total of fourteen oxygen saturation readings were not documented as ordered. Resident #32's most recent oxygen saturation reading was documented on 5/22/2023 at 7:04 AM. An interview was conducted on 5/24/2023 at 4:20 PM with Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff O, LPN was Resident #32's assigned nurse for the 3 PM to 11 PM (Evening) shift and verified Resident #32's order for oxygen saturation readings every shift. Staff O, LPN was not able to state where Resident #32's oxygen saturation readings were documented in the medical record but stated she would normally document the oxygen saturation readings in the resident's progress notes. Staff O, LPN asked Staff P, LPN for assistance with locating Resident #32's oxygen saturation readings. Staff P, LPN reviewed Resident #32's vital signs record and addressed the last oxygen saturation level was documented on 5/22/2023 at 7:04 AM. Staff P, LPN reviewed Resident #32's orders and stated the order needed to be reviewed because it did not include an area for the nurse signing off on the order to document an oxygen saturation level. Staff P, LPN addressed Resident #32's oxygen saturation levels could be documented under the vital signs record but the readings were not being documented as ordered. A review of Resident #32's progress notes from 5/1/2023 to 5/24/2024 did not reveal any oxygen saturation readings documented. An interview was conducted on 5/25/2023 at 1:15 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed Resident #32's physician's order for oxygen saturation readings every shift and stated the readings should be documented in the residents MAR every shift as ordered. The DON verified Resident #32's oxygen saturation levels were not being documented in the resident's MAR or vital signs record and stated she would expect nurse's to follow the physician's orders and document the readings as ordered. A review of the facility policy titled Nursing - Physician's Orders, revised 3/10/2023 revealed under the section titled Purpose the purpose of the policy is to ensure the plan of care is followed in accordance with the orders established by the physician and/or nurse practitioner. The policy also revealed under the section titled Procedure monitoring orders including monitoring of height, weight, vital signs, blood sugar, pulse ox (oxygen saturation), etc. includes entering a value for the monitoring.
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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, interviews and the facility policy review, and the Plan of Correction review, the facility failed to ensure that it had a functioning Quality Assurance Committee. The facility was actively involved in the effective creation, implementation and monitoring of the plan of correction for deficient practice during a recertification survey that was conducted on 5/22/23 through 5/25/23 and was cited F692. On 7/27/23 the facility was recited for F692. The facility had developed a Plan of Correction with a completion date 6/24/23. Findings included: Ongoing non-compliance was identified at the revisit related to the administration of nutritional supplement as ordered by the physician to ensure the resident received an adequate amount of nutritional supplement through his gastrostomy tube. The facility developed a plan of correction that included: Licensed nurses were re-educated by the Director of Nursing (DON)/designee on 6/5/23, the components of this regulation with emphasis on following a residents comprehensive care plan for administering tube feedings as ordered by the Physician. Newly hired clinical staff to be educated in this regard during orientation. Agency staff to be educated in this regard prior to working within the facility. The Director of Clinical Services/designee to conduct quality review to ensure residents tube feedings administered as ordered by the Physician weekly x 4 weeks, and then every 2 weeks x 2 months until substantial compliance achieved. Review of Resident #5's admission record revealed he was admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His medical diagnoses included but were not limited to gastrostomy, cerebral infarction, dysphagia following cerebral infarction, altered mental status, and type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. During the revisit survey on 7/24/23 through 7/27/23, the facility failed to ensure nutritional supplement was administration according to physician orders for one (Resident #5) out of one resident ordered for continuous supplemental nutrition through a gastric tube. Review of Resident #5's physician orders revealed an order with a start date of 3/31/23 and no end date for Glucerna 1.2 cal [calorie] at 75/hr X 20 hours [75 milliliters per hour for 20 hours] total 1500 ml [milliliters] to be infused every shift for ENTERAL FEED On at 2pm, off at 10am; until 1500ml infused. Resident #5 was observed on 7/24/23 at 11:20 a.m. The resident's nutritional supplement pump was off and disconnected from the resident with a bottle of Glucerna with Carbsteady, 1.2 cal hanging on the pump pole labeled with a date of 7/24 Start time written as 7 a.m. and rate written as 75 ml/hr. Resident #5 was observed on 7/24/23 at 2:30 p.m. The resident was not hooked up to his nutritional supplement and the nutritional supplement pump machine was turned off with the same bottle of Glucerna with Carbsteady 1.2 cal hanging on the pump pole. Resident #5 was observed on 7/24/23 at 3:05 p.m. The resident was not hooked up to his nutritional supplement and the nutritional supplement pump machine was turned off with the same bottle of Glucerna with Carbsteady, 1.2 cal hanging on the pump pole. Resident #5's nurse, Staff A, Agency, Registered Nurse (RN), was interviewed on 7/24/23 at 3:13 p.m. She stated she came to the facility about 3 to 4 times a week. She indicated she took the resident off his nutritional supplement around 10:00 a.m. and normally they put him back on his nutritional supplement around 3:00 p.m. before the change of shift. Staff A, Agency, RN stated, It is just like medications we have an hour before and an hour after to hang tube feedings. On 7/24/23 at 3:16 p.m. Staff A, Agency, RN placed the resident on his nutritional supplement of Glucerna Carbsteady 1.2 cal the nutritional supplement pump was observed to be set at an infusion rate of 75ml/hr. The volume delivered/dose limit revealed 3309 ml. which indicated the resident had received 3,309 ml's of his ordered formula. (Picture evidence obtained) Further interview was conducted with Staff A, Agency, RN on 7/24/23 at 3:44 p.m. She stated she received education from the facility related to tube feedings recently but could not recall exactly when. She stated she normally cleared out the pump to see how much total volume was infused. An interview was conducted with the facility's Regional Nurse Consultant, Staff P, on 7/24/23 at 3:45 p.m. She stated she consulted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and she said she would have to reeducate the staff because they should be clearing the pump when they hung a new bottle and to do that they had to hit pause then hold the clear button until it says 0. Review of Resident #5's weights revealed on 7/18/23 the resident weighed 105.0 pounds (lbs.). On 7/11/23 he weighed 105.8 lbs. On 7/6/23 he weighed 104.6 lbs. and on 6/27/23 he weighed 105.2 lbs. Resident #5's care plan dated 11/2/22 revealed [Resident #5] requires tube feeding r/t [related to] Dysphagia. The goals included but are not limited to [Resident #5] will remain free of side effect or complications related to tube feeding through review date. The interventions revealed monitor/document PRN [as needed] any s/sx [signs and symptoms] of: Aspiration. RD [Registered Dietitian] to reevaluate quarterly and PRN. Monitor caloric intake, estimate needs. Make recommendations for changes to tube feeding as needed. [Resident #5] needs the HOB [head of bed] elevated 45 degrees during tube feed. ST [Speech Therapy] evaluation and treatment as ordered. Review of the facility's policy ENTERAL NUTRITION AND HYDRATION Purpose: To ensure adequate parameters of nutrition and hydration status, within the extent possible, through the provision of physician ordered enteral feedings. General Guidelines: .16 . a. A resident who is fed by enteral means receives the appropriate treatment and services to restore, if possible, oral eating skills . An interview was conducted with the DON and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 7/26/23 at 11:17 a.m. The NHA stated We received the 2567 [summary of deficiencies] on 6/6/23 and on 6/7/23 we reviewed the 2567 during our ad hoc meeting. The DON indicated she was present and the medical director was present at this meeting. The NHA continued to say, we had a structured plan on what we were going to do at the ad hoc meeting. On 6/9/23 we had our QAPI [quality assurance performance improvement] meeting, the Medical Director was there but the DON was out. We discussed the citations and we discussed our plan of correction and set up our list of PIPs [performance improvement plans] and how we were going to monitor it. On 6/9/23 we had completed our plan for some of the citations Then the nursing monitoring came later. The DON said we started most of our audits on 6/18/23 because we had a larger majority of education to be provided. Daily, during our clinical meetings we reviewed audits with the interdisciplinary team. The NHA stated On 6/23/23 we had another ad hoc meeting where we discussed the approval of the plan of correction. The DON said when reviewing the audits we had to do additional education to all staff related to behavior monitoring to not put N/A.the NHA stated On 7/7/23 we had a QAPI meeting and we discussed how we were doing and our progress on the plan of correction. Both the DON and the NHA indicated upon their review they were on track making improvements and they have a follow up QAPI meeting coming up. The NHA stated usually on the second Friday of the month is when we have our QAPI meetings. Review of the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement policy with an effective date of 4/1/2022 revealed Purpose: The facility should ensure an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement program including comprehensive data-driven activities that focus on indicators of the outcomes of care and quality of life and addresses all the care and unique services the facility provides are implemented and maintained in the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility did not ensure a safe, clean, and homelike environment relate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility did not ensure a safe, clean, and homelike environment related to proper cleaning and maintenance in nine resident bathrooms (400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, and 409) out of ten bathrooms reviewed, two resident room baseboards (402 and 407) out of ten resident rooms observed, and one resident room wall (407) out of ten resident rooms observed. Findings included: An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 9:30 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a black and brown substance at the base of the toilet, a space between the base of the toilet and the floor was visible. The screws for the bowl base were rusted and dusty. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 9:40 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a brown substance at the base of the toilet. On the window wall beneath the air conditioner the baseboard was not sticking to the wall. The baseboard was protruding past the air conditioner. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 9:45 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a brown substance at the base of the toilet. On the window wall beneath the air conditioner the baseboard was protruding past the air conditioner, not attached to the wall. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 9:50 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a black and brown substance at the base of the toilet. There was a gap between the toilet base and floor. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 10:02 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a black substance around half of the toilet base. There was a gap between half of the base and floor, that had no caulking. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 10:15 a.m., in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and the bathroom. The bathroom toilet had a brown substance at the base of the toilet. On the window wall the baseboard was protruding past the air conditioner. The baseboard was not sticking to the wall. The wall of the resident's over bed light to 407 B was a hole, directly next to the headboard. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 10:33 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a black and brown substance at the base of the toilet. There was a gap between the toilet base and floor. The screws for the toilet base were rusted and had dust build up on them. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 10:38 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a brown substance at the base of the top of the tank of the toilet. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) An observation was made on 5/22/23 at 10:45 a.m. in the bathroom of resident room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom toilet had a black and brown substance at the base of the toilet. (Photographic Evidence Obtained.) On 5/25/23 at 1:10 p.m. an interview was conducted with the District Housekeeping/Laundry Manager (DM) stating there is a department head assigned to all rooms. The department heads are supposed to speak to the resident's and/or families and observe the physical plant for any needs of attention. During the interview, an observation was made with the DM in room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom. When the DM noted the toilet base, she stated oh yes, that could probably be scrubbed, oh goodness, I think that the seal is gone. Maintenance would take care of that part. Continued observations with the DM into the hallway outside of room [ROOM NUMBER] and noted the baseboard protruding past the air conditioning unit. DM stated we should have noted this while mopping was being done and inform Maintenance. DM stated the expectations are for the housekeepers to clean and scrub to the best of their ability and notify their supervisor or Maintenance of any repairs that need or if they are unable to remove a substance. On 5/25/23 at 1:31 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA), regarding the toilet bases, baseboards, and the hole in the resident room's wall. The NHA stated, oh yes, that needs to be caulked. NHA continued to state there is a lot of maintenance that is needed here, we have a lot to do. A facility policy titled, PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, dated 4/1/22 and revised on 3/10/23, showed: The purpose: to develop and implement a preventative maintenance program that promotes a safe, functional, and comfortable environment for all residents. Procedure: 1. The facility's maintenance program is based on regular and routine maintenance designed to maintain a safe, comfortable, operating environment. 2. The Maintenance Director shall assess all aspects of the physical plant to determine if Preventative Maintenance (PM) is required. Required PM may be determined from manufacturer's recommendations, maintenance requests, significant event reviews, life safety requirements, and/or experience. 3. This should include but is not limited to: a. Essential mechanical, electrical, life safety and patient care equipment; b. Well lighted and well-ventilated rooms and common areas; c. Resident furniture such as bed-side cabinet or drawer spaces; d. Maintain comfortable sound levels; e. Secure handrails; f. Effective pest control; g. Maintain nurse call system; h. Maintain comfortable and safe temperature level between 71-81 degrees Fahrenheit; i. Kitchen/Dietary Equipment; j. Therapy Equipment; 4. The Maintenance Director should maintain a system for routine audits of each of the areas above.
CONCERN (E)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Sc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR's) were completed accurately for 5 of 6 residents reviewed, (#60, #18, #68, #16 and #1). Findings included: A review of Resident #60's admission record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include major depressive disorder. A review of current physician orders for Resident #60 dated 05/05/23 showed the resident was receiving Mirtazapine 7.5 MG (Milligrams) by mouth daily for depression. A minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE], section I, showed the resident had a diagnosis of depression. A review of a level I PASARR for Resident #60 dated 12/20/22 revealed no diagnosis were checked. A review of Resident #18's admission record dated 05/23/23revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Major depressive disorder, Vascular Dementia with behavioral disturbance, and Mild cognitive impairment. A review of a level I PASARR for Resident #18, dated 5/23/17 showed upon admission no diagnosis were checked to indicate Resident #18 had any diagnoses of Mental illness or suspected mental illness. A review of Resident #68's record showed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident #68's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 05/25/23 showed the resident was receiving an antipsychotic medication, Depakote 500mg for encephalophagy, a disease of the brain, Levetiracetam oral solution for seizures, and Trazodone HCI oral tablet 50mg daily for depression, effective 1/18/23. An MDS dated [DATE], Section I showed active diagnoses of a neurological diagnosis Aphasia, Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) a psychiatric diagnoses were not indicated. A review of resident #68's PASARR showed upon admission no diagnosis were checked to indicate Resident #68 had any diagnoses of mental illness or suspected mental illness. On 05/24/23 at 11:11 a.m. an interview was conducted with the Social Services Director (SSD). She stated the PASARRs should have been checked to indicate mental diagnoses present upon admission. She stated their process is review PASARRs on admission, but they had not gotten around to it. She stated the DON (Director of Nursing) should be completing them because she did not have access. She stated either way, they should have been reviewed and corrected. On 05/24/23 at 11:13 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Regional Clinical Nurse. She stated they were putting a plan in place to review all the PASARRs in all their facilities to make sure they were accurate. She stated when the residents are admitted to the facility, they come with PASARRs completed from the hospital that are often inaccurate. She stated it was their responsibility to ensure they were updated to match the admitting diagnoses. A review of a facility policy titled, PASARR, dated 04/01/22, showed the facility shall insure each resident in a nursing facility it's screened from a mental disorder (MD) or intellectual disability(ID) prior to admission and that individuals identified with MD or ID are evaluated to receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by coordinating with the appropriate state designated authority. The facility should ensure that individuals with a mental disorder or intellectual disability continues to receive care and services they need in the most appropriate setting when a significant change in their status occurs. A review of the admission Record for Resident #16 showed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of autistic disorder, dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, with agitation, anxiety disorder, mood disorder due to known physiological condition with mixed features, and major depressive disorder and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. The PASARR Level I assessment dated [DATE] indicated a related condition of autism and no other qualifying mental health diagnoses. Section I Active Diagnoses of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed Resident #16 had diagnoses to include depression, bipolar, and autistic disorder. A review of the admission Record for Resident #1 showed she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of anxiety disorder, schizoaffective disorders, and major depressive disorder and the resident was not assessed for PASARR Level II. The PASARR Level I assessment dated [DATE] indicated diagnoses to include anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and schizophrenia and showed that a Level II PASARR evaluation was not required. Section I Active Diagnoses of the MDS dated [DATE] showed Resident #1 had diagnoses to include anxiety disorder, depression, and schizophrenia.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and facility policy review, the facility did not ensure an effective pest control system was i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and facility policy review, the facility did not ensure an effective pest control system was in place in 1 of 3 halls (300) during 3 of 4 days of survey (05/22/23, 05/23/23 and 05/24/23). Findings included: During multiple facility tours, observations were made of live and dead pests/flying insects to include cockroaches in resident's rooms in hall 300 as follows: on 05/22/23 at 9:50 AM room [ROOM NUMBER] an observation was made of a dead cockroach on the floor. On 05/22/23 at 10:14 a.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a dead cockroach On 05/23/23 at 01:07 p.m., an observation was made of flying insects landing on the resident's food (bed B.) in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 05/23/23 at 01:13 room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a live cockroach and flies. The residents confirmed on-going issues with insects and pests. On 05/23/23 at 01:15 p.m., A live insect in the appearance of a spider was observed on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The residents confirmed on-going pest concerns. On 05/23/23 at 01:20 p.m., a live cockroach was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 05/23/23 at 01:26 p.m., a live bug/insect was observed on resident #302's bed. On 05/24/23 at 08:47 a.m., an observation was made of a live cockroach in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 05/24/23 at 08:50 a.m., an observation was made of a live cockroach in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 05/24/23 at 08:52 a.m., an observation was made of a live cockroach in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 05/23/23 at 01:07 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). She stated she had been at the facility a few months. She said, Yes, I have seen roaches, and ants. I just shoos them away if they are on resident's space. She stated she notifies someone such as a nurse. The CNA observed flies on the resident's tray in room [ROOM NUMBER] and shooed them away. On 05/23/23 at 01:17 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff F. She stated she seen pests like gnats and flies. She said, it is on-going issue especially with cockroaches. She stated the expectation was to report to the Director of Maintenance (DOM) so they can spray. On 05/23/23 at 01:28 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff G, CNA. Staff G said, Yes, we have cockroaches. When I see them, I sweep them away and I write it down in the book at the nurses station and also let the maintenance head know. On 05/24/23 at 09:17 a.m., an interview was conducted with the DOM. He stated a pest control company comes out twice a month and they review pest control logs in both north and south nurse's units. He stated they treat specific areas that are documented in the book, and other areas and including exterior and entry ways. The DOM stated he heard there were reports of cockroaches sightings in hall 300. He stated pest control services was scheduled to return and that he would have them treat the areas of concern. 05/24/23 10:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) as she presented the facility's pest control policy. She stated she had walked the halls and noted one bug. She stated she would be changing the pest control service company because it was obvious their pest control program as not working. She stated she did not know there was an on-going problem. She stated she would review the logs, discuss with the DOM and the contracted pest control service technician. A review of a facility policy titled, Pest Control, dated 04/01/22 showed facility wide pest control strategies are developed emphasizing kitchens, cafeterias, laundries, central supply, loading docks, construction activities, and other regions prone to pest infestation. Procedures showed ongoing measures are taken to prevent, contain, and eradicate common household pests such as roaches, ants, mosquitoes, flies, mice, and rats. General measures are taken to decrease pests including the elimination of cracks and crevices, proper lighting and ventilation, use of screens on windows and doors, and use of self-closing doors. A contract with a pest control company may be elected to assure regular inspections and the application of chemical pesticides. The facility will contract for routine pest control services by a credentialed pest control specialist. The pest control contractor shall have knowledge of pest control treatment methods for healthcare facilities. Regular inspections by the local and county sanitation departments are part of the pest control program. The facility will follow applicable state and local regulations unregular pest control.
Dec 2022 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance to prevent a fall with injury for one (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure adequate assistance to prevent a fall with injury for one (Resident #3) of two residents reviewed for falls with injury. Resident #3 rolled off her bed onto the floor during incontinence care, sustaining a fracture. Findings included: Facility incident logs and reportable event logs for October 2022 through December 2022 were reviewed. There was an entry of injury of unknown source, event date 12/18/2022 documented for Resident #3 on the reportable event log. A fall was documented for Resident #3 on the incident log, date 12/16/2022. An interview was conducted with Resident #3 on 12/28/2022 at 12:51 p.m. in her room. She was observed seated in a wheelchair in her room between her bed and the door. She was dressed and wearing socks and pull-on sneakers and playing a game on an electronic tablet. Her bed was positioned at neutral height, bed was made, and there was a quarter rail on the door-facing side of the bed that was in lowered position. Regarding the events listed on the facility logs, Resident #3 said, I broke my toe. She stated it was the big toe on her right foot. Regarding how her toe had been broken she said, I fell out of bed. She said, one of the guys was changing my diaper and I rolled out of bed. The resident stated she did not know the name of the staff person who was changing her, but she thought maybe he was in training, and she had not seen him since. She could not provide the date when the fall occurred and could not provide any information about whether anyone had assessed her for injury immediately after the fall. Resident #3 stated that later (again she could not provide a date) she had pain and bruising of her right hand and right foot, x-rays were ordered of both, nothing was broken in her hand, but the big toe was broken on her right foot. She said therapy had ordered a boot for her foot, but she did not have it yet. She said her foot hurt. She stated she had asked for a bed rail on the other side of her bed but was told she was not allowed to have one. She stated Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) had asked her about the incident and did not buy her story. Staff A, CNA was interviewed on 12/28/2022 at 1:04 p.m. She confirmed she knew about Resident #3's fall and injury. She stated she did not recall the date but said, I came into work that morning and her roommate was in the room with her and said to me come here I need to tell you something. She said I want you to know that [Resident #3] was on the floor the previous night. Staff A stated she went immediately and got the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and they both returned to the room and the ADON questioned Resident #3. Staff A stated Resident #3 reported to them she fell on the floor out of the bed and the male CNA picked her up and put her back in the bed. Staff A stated after Resident #3 made that statement, she asked the nurse from night shift (Staff D) if she was aware of the fall and Staff D stated she was told by the male CNA that the resident was hanging off the side of the bed. Regarding how/when x-rays were ordered of Resident #3's hand and foot Staff A said, I want to say it was a Saturday [she could not recall date]. The resident went into the restroom, and was complaining that her foot was hurting her. I asked her to take her sock off and I noticed that her foot was red. Staff A stated a nurse (Staff E) assessed and ordered an x-ray. Staff A stated she was not involved any further after that and did not have any additional information. She stated she gave her statement to the ADON and the ADON would have more information. Review of Resident #3's medical record was conducted. The admission record revealed diagnoses that included rheumatoid arthritis, anxiety disorder, need for assistance with personal care, history of falling, lack of coordination, osteoporosis, and muscle spasm. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which meant the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS revealed the resident required extensive physical assist of two persons for bed mobility. The care plan revealed Resident #3 required assist with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) related to weakness and impaired balance/gait and interventions included, Bed Mobility: The resident requires extensive assistance of 1-2 staff to turn and reposition in bed, 2 for moving toward head of bed. The care plan revealed Resident #3 was at risk for falls related to gait/balance problems, incontinence, medication use, and multiple chronic conditions and that the resident had fallen related to poor balance, weakness, and impulsivity. The task list for CNAs for Resident #3 revealed a section titled Safety which included, Monitor the resident every shift and prn (as needed) for safety. The resident is taking meds which are associated with an increased risk of confusion, amnesia, loss of balance, and cognitive impairment that looks like dementia and increases risk of falls, broken hips and legs. The task list included a section tiled, Bed Mobility which included, Bed in low position .The resident requires extensive assistance of 1-2 staff to turn and reposition in bed, 2 for moving toward head of bed. The task list included a section titled, Toileting which included, The resident requires limited to extensive assist from 1 staff for toileting, 2 if weak or tired. Review of CNA task documentation for night shift 12/16/2022 revealed care tasks documented by Staff B, CNA, including bowel and bladder care. Review of progress notes in Resident #3's medical record revealed no notes about the fall on 12/16/2022 until an entry with effective date 12/16/2022 1:08 p.m. tiled Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) note authored by the facility Director of Nursing (DON) which read: Plan of care review. Fall 12/16/2022. 11-7 shift while transferring with caregiver. fall lowered to floor while transferring 12/16/22. therapy evaluation. Education provided to sit down slowly to take her time, descend slowly. And not complete quickly. [Resident #3] was referred to therapy for evaluation. Following this note were additional entries related to the fall and injury: Effective Date 12/16/2022 1:31 p.m. Nursing Progress Note authored by Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN): Resident advised nurse that she slipped from her bed onto the floor, during the night. Full assessment completed by RN; no injury noted. No adverse reaction noted. Resident was able to move all lower and upper extremities independently. Resident denied pain. MD (medical doctor) notified no new orders received. POA (power of attorney) - resident's sister [name and contact] notified. Staff continues to monitor resident frequently. Effective Date 12/18/2022 2:41 p.m. Nursing Progress Note authored by Staff E, RN: Resident has reported hand and toe injury to CNA and nurse on 12-18-2022 on 7-3 shift. Nurse has completed assessment on resident and has spoken to NP (nurse practitioner) and x-rays have been ordered for hand and toe. Effective Date 12/18/2022 4:20 p.m. Nursing Progress Note authored by Staff E, RN: Nurse has spoken to family member (sister) and made her aware of resident injury after fall, and has made family member aware that resident will be having x-rays completed STAT (immediately). Effective Date 12/19/2022 2:27 p.m. Nursing Progress Note: Writer contacted Psych ARNP (advanced registered nurse practitioner) to notify of patient's recent fall. New order from Psych ARNP for [labs] .Writer contacted [family member] and notified her of new labs. Writer also notified [family member] of new order for boot to right foot at all times and new order for podiatry consult . Effective date 12/19/2022 3:12 p.m. Nursing Progress Note authored by Staff C, RN: Resident is alert w/ (with) confusion. Resident advised staff that she rolled out of bed. X-ray completed of resident's right great toe. Results - subtle fracture of the toe. No swelling or skin issues noted. Resident denied pain or discomfort. Staff will continue to monitor resident. Review of assessments in Resident #3's medical record did not reveal any nursing assessments or change in condition assessments immediately post-fall on 12/16/2022. The first assessment found was a change in condition assessment with effective date 12/16/2022 1:08 p.m. authored by Staff C, RN. It documented the situation as, Resident advised nurse that she slipped out of her bed onto the floor during the night shift. The following summary was included, Full assessment completed by RN; no injury noted. No adverse reaction noted. Resident was able to move all lower and upper extremities independently. Resident denied pain. MD notified no new orders received. POA notified. Staff continues to monitor resident frequently. An interview was conducted with Staff B, CNA on 12/28/2022 at 4:37 p.m. The Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was present during the interview. Regarding the circumstances surrounding Resident #3's fall on 12/16/2022 Staff B stated, I was doing my last rounds [confirmed date was 12/16/2022 and shift was night shift] I think around a few minutes to 6 in the morning and I offered to change her. I asked her which side was best for her to turn and she told me the side where I was standing because she has a rail to hold on to. Staff B confirmed he was standing on the left side of the bed (side facing door & also on the side that had the rail). Staff B stated the bed height was mid-level, not lowered and not too high because the bed could not go all the way up. Staff B stated the bed would have been waist height on him and stated he was 5 feet 6 inches tall. Staff B stated he changed and cleaned Resident #3 while she was in the bed and rolled onto her left side and facing him. Regarding his technique he stated, I always roll the sheet from the other side so I have a draw sheet to pull while they are rolling back into position. I always have them roll toward me and clean from there. Staff B stated, I told her to roll onto her back (after incontinence care was completed) but she went so fast I did not have time to pull the draw sheet and she rolled off the other side of the bed. He stated she rolled off the bed feet and legs first. Staff B stated, From my same spot I held onto her waist then lowered the bed all the way down so her foot was on the floor, and I eased her gently on the floor with her back against the bed with legs outstretched in front of her. Staff B confirmed that Resident #3 was completely on the floor with her bottom seated on the floor, back against the bed, legs out in front of her. Staff B confirmed the resident did not hit her head at any point. Staff B stated, I asked her if she was hurt, she said no, I asked if she wanted me to get anybody and she said no she was fine and then she started making moves to get back into the bed and I assisted her back on the bed sitting on edge of bed. I asked her then if she was hurting and if she wanted me to get anyone. She said she was fine she just wanted to lay down, I helped her to lay down. Staff B confirmed after he assisted Resident #3 back into bed he reported to the nurse (he did not know name of nurse) and stated the nurse asked him if the resident hit the floor and he told her no and explained what happened. Staff B stated the nurse told him she would check on Resident #3. Staff B did not know any details about nursing assessments of the resident after the fall. He stated after he told the nurse, Resident #3 was pressing her call light and said she wanted water, he brought her water and asked if she was hurting and she said she was fine, and he went on to care for other residents. Staff B stated, I went back to check on her around 6:45 a.m. before I left, and she said she was fine. Regarding whether anyone at the facility had asked him about the fall, Staff B stated someone from the facility (NHA interjected that it was the DON) called me that same morning (12/16/2022) and asked me to come in and give a statement, I did and I told her the same thing I just told you. Regarding how a CNA would know how much assistance a resident needed for bed mobility, Staff B stated they've trained me to go in [NAME] and if two assist you get another person. Staff B stated, at that time (time of the fall) I was not too sure about how to use the [NAME] well because the next day was when I really asked and the DON took me through the process of how to check the computer to know what is needed for the care. Regarding findings when he consulted [NAME] for Resident #3, Staff B stated, I think she was supposed to be two assist or something. Staff B stated, She (the DON) explained that since I was new that should not happen again and let me know to make sure to check the [NAME] (medical patient information system) and if two assist I should get another CNA to assist. Staff B stated the DON also educated him that if a resident was on the floor he should call the nurse and not get the resident up off the floor until the nurse did an assessment. An interview was conducted on 12/18/2022 at 3:30 p.m. with the NHA and ADON. The ADON stated she interviewed Resident #3 on 12/19/2022 after the findings of the toe fracture had occurred. The ADON stated Resident #3 reported she had fallen out of bed prior (fall on 12/16/2022) and when she fell out of bed she remembered she grabbed the bed frame and maybe that was where she hit her hand, she did not know if she hit her foot. The ADON stated she did not ask the resident for any details on what exactly occurred during the provision of care and the fall. The ADON stated she had interviewed Resident #3's roommate on 12/29/2022 and the roommate reported the aide was doing care and Resident #3 rolled out of the bed and was on the floor in between their beds. The ADON stated she did not ask the roommate for any additional details. The ADON stated she interviewed Staff B, CNA on 12/19/2022 and said, From talking with the CNA I learned that he was doing peri care in the bed alone, she's an assist of one, patient rolled over and kept rolling, he said he was able to lower her to the floor. The ADON stated Staff B told her he immediately reported it to Staff E, RN and Staff E told her she assessed the resident and there was no bruising or swelling. Regarding if the assessment happened while the resident was on the floor the ADON stated she did not know how the resident was returned to bed and did not know if an assessment by a nurse happened while the resident was on the floor. The ADON reviewed the notes and assessments in Resident #3's medical record during the interview and confirmed there was nothing documented in the record by Staff E, rather the documentation there had been completed by Staff C, RN. The NHA stated facility protocol after a fall was not to move a resident until they were assessed. The NHA and ADON could not provide further details and stated the DON had handled things and they would reach out to the DON for additional information. The ADON followed up later and provided documentation of a written statement gathered from Staff B on 12/16/2022 and documentation of in-service provided to Staff B on 12/19/2022 on Always check the [NAME] before providing any type of resident care. Remember to properly position the resident during care and after to ensure that all patient safety needs are met. Always notify the nurse before moving the resident if they fall. No additional information was provided. A telephone interview was conducted with Staff C, RN on 12/28/2022 at 5:25 p.m. Regarding Resident #3's fall on 12/16/2022, Staff C stated, I wasn't the nurse assigned to that resident. I was at the nurse's station when the CNA came to tell [Staff E, RN], the resident was sitting at the side of the bed with her feet hanging off the bed and he assisted her feet back in the bed. Both of us walked to her room to make sure she was okay and she was lying on her back in the bed. We spoke to her and asked if everything was okay. She didn't have a fall so we didn't do an assessment. Regarding whether Resident #3 was ever on the floor Staff C stated,No she just had her feet off the bed. Regarding whether Staff C had documented anything about the fall she stated, It wasn't my patient so I don't usually do documentation so I couldn't say yes or no on that one. Staff C stated she had spoken with the ADON and DON about it afterwards because the resident reported, after the event, that she had a fall. Staff C stated, The resident never reported to myself or [Staff E] that she had a fall. I heard that the morning after, the resident reported way in the day maybe 9 or 10 that she had a fall. Regarding facility policy/protocol post-fall Staff C stated, If someone falls the CNA is not to touch the resident, leave in place, get the nurse, the nurse goes in and assesses and if resident is transferable we then transfer back to the bed or the wheelchair, then have to report to DON, MD, POA, do skin assessment, pain assessment, neuro-checks if unwitnessed, have to do thorough fall documentations. Regarding whether she knew about Resident #3's broken toe Staff C stated, I was told she had a broken toe, have no idea where the broken toe came from, I just know as a nurse it was brought to my attention that she had the broken toe and I was to assess her for pain which I have been doing when I care for her. Attempts were made to reach Staff E, RN for telephone interview and she did not respond. Undated facility policy titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing was reviewed. Policy revealed: Definition According to the MDS, a fall is defined as: Unintentionally coming to rest on the ground, floor or other lower level, but not as a result of an overwhelming external force (e.g., a resident pushes another resident). An episode where a resident lost his/her balance and would have fallen, if not for another person or if he or she had not caught him/herself, is considered a fall. A fall without injury is still a fall. Unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise, when a resident is found on the floor, a fall is considered to have occurred. Undated facility procedure titled Transferring Residents was reviewed. It revealed: As with every ADLs the resident must be transferred according to the plan of care. The nurse makes and assessment on admission and obtains orders for evaluation by the Therapy Department related to safe transfers. The therapy department will determine the transfer status. As with all ADLS, Instructions consist of two parts. This will be noted in the ADL transfer section of the nursing instructions. You must follow the instructions. You can give more help if needed but NEVER less. If you feel the resident does not need as much help, have nurse or therapy reassess. Follow the plan until it is change in writing. Undated facility procedure titled, Assisting Residents with ADLS: All Resident Tasks Consist of 2 Parts was reviewed. It revealed the following definitions: Bed mobility: How the resident moves from a lying to sitting position, sitting to lying position and side to side Toileting: how resident's elimination needs are taken care of such as bringing to toilet, placing a bed pan or urinal, providing incontinent care, colostomy care or foley care. Resident may appear to toilet self but if he/she needs help with cleaning up, straightening out closes or personal hygiene related to the task such as handwashing or wiping, it is considered extensive. Extensive assistance: Resident participates in some way even if minimal .(check to see if 2 staff are required)
Aug 2021 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 did not ensure resident and non-resident areas were maintaine...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility did not ensure resident and non-resident areas were maintained in a safe and sanitary manner at the North EXIT door area in Hallway 200, and in six out of ten resident rooms in hallway 200 for three of four days of the survey (08/10/21, 08/11/21 and 08/12/21). Findings included: During the initial facility tour on 08/10/21 at 06:26 a.m., an observation of the North EXIT door area revealed debris on the floor. The metal threshold was covered with bio growth and built up debris. The area was also observed with dead insects, estimated count of 60 insects. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 08/10/21 and 08/11/21, during multiple facility tours of hallway 200, observations revealed resident rooms 211, 213, 208, and 205 with dust, debris, food crumbs, and dead insects on the floor. On 08/10/21 06:32 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff B, Unit Manager who made the observations. Staff B said, The gnats were reported yesterday, I also reported there were [insects] in hall 200. Staff B confirmed that she had seen dead insects in the resident rooms. Staff B said, I just saw one in room [ROOM NUMBER]. It was dead. On 08/10/21 at 06:34 a.m., a blue chair outside room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with brown stains. In an interview with Staff B, Unit Manager, she stated that sometimes residents who wander like to sit on that chair and look outside. During a tour on 08/10/21 at 10:02 a.m., 08/11/21 at 1:25 p.m., and 08/12/21 at 09:50 a.m., the bathroom in room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with fecal matter on the toilet seat and bathroom floor. A toilet seat riser placed over the toilet with a blue toilet seat and its lid were noted with fecal matter and rust on the metal areas. A tour of the room revealed dents on the wall and the paint scratched off. Debris was observed under the head of the bed. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 08/10/21, 08/11/21, and 08/12/21, an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed brown stains on the floor, a puddle of fluid in the middle of the room, and wheelchair tire treads around the room. The floor was noted sticky and with a strong odor. An interview was conducted on 08/10/21 10:30 a.m. with Staff O, LPN. Staff O stated that the puddle of fluid on the floor was urine. Staff O said, The resident does that. He urinates in his urinal and then dumps it on the floor. Staff O stated that they try and clean it up as soon as they can, but it that it was impossible to keep up. On 08/12/21 at 3:59 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff N, Maintenance. He was observed replacing tiles in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Staff N stated that this was the only way to get rid of the smell. Staff N said, The tiles are lifting, you can tell they have been soaking wet. On 08/11/21 08:48 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff J, Housekeeping and Staff K, Housekeeping. Staff J stated that the two did not normally work at this facility. Staff J said, We are helping out from a sister facility because this facility is having staffing problems. Staff K said the resident rooms should be cleaned, Every day. We clean rooms daily, sweep floors, mop bathrooms, and disinfect end tables and chairs An interview was conducted with Staff L, Housekeeping Manager on 08/12/21 at 12:26 p.m. Staff L stated that she and her team clean resident rooms daily and all other areas. Staff L stated that she followed a checklist and checked under beds and furniture to make sure everything was cleaned. Staff L stated that she was aware some areas were bad. Staff L said, It is a lot of work. I am trying. I might not get to everything, but I am trying. Staff L stated that she cleaned resident's rooms at least once daily. Staff L said, We try to. I know it has been hard lately Staff L explained that she lost two staff members the previous week. Staff L stated that her expectation would be to not see anything on the floor such as bugs, food, or dirt. Staff L said, Toilet seats should be moved and cleaned and floors swept and mopped. On 08/12/21 at 12:28 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff M, Housekeeping District Manager. Staff M stated that he was at the facility once a week and toured the entire facility. Staff M said, I'm trying to up the level of cleanliness. It was not up to par. Staff M stated that his expectation would be to deep clean each room and get rid of the smells. An interview was conducted with the DON (Director of Nursing) on 08/12/21 1:11 at p.m. The DON stated that they continuously check for spills, especially in room [ROOM NUMBER] and clean it up. She stated that the Housekeeping department was aware that a resident dumped urine on the floor. She said, We talk about it in our morning meetings. We should increase check-ups and mop it. A follow up interview was conducted with (NHA) Nursing Home Administrator on 08/12/21 at 01:31 p.m. She stated that she was aware the housekeeping department had staffing challenges. She stated, It was worse when I got here. There is no excuse. Housekeeping is definitely a problem. She stated that she expected that they would provide a sanitary place for their residents. Review of the facility's policy titled, Daily patient room cleaning and foot note header, Environmental services operations manual revised 09/05/17 showed that a 5-step room cleaning method should be followed.: 1. Empty trash. 2. Horizontal dusting with a cloth and disinfectant spot clean all vertical surfaces. 3. Spot clean. With a cloth and disinfectant spot clean all vertical surfaces. 4. Dust mop floor. Use dust mop to gather all trash and debris on floor. Sweep to the door, pick up with dustpan. 5. Damp mop floor with germicide solution. Damp mop floor working from back corner to door. Under Bathroom Cleaning the same policy showed an expectation to follow 7-step method. (6) Sanitize commode, tank, bowl, and base. Use brush inside of bowl. (7) Damp mop. Start in far corner. Get behind commode, move trash can, mop out the door. Use wet floor sign when finished.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure that two residents (Resident #94 a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and review of facility policy, the facility did not ensure that two residents (Resident #94 and Resident #97) out of 3 residents sampled for pre-admission screening had a correctly completed Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR). Findings included: 1. A review of Resident #97's Medical Record revealed that Resident #97 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Trisomy 21 (a form of Down Syndrome). A review of Resident #97's Care Plan revealed a problem, last revised on 06/16/2021, that Resident #97 had impaired cognitive function and/or impaired thought process related to Trisomy 21. Interventions included to keep the resident's routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion. A review of Resident #97's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed, under Section C - Cognitive Patterns, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impact. Section C of the MDS assessment also revealed that Resident #97 had signs and symptoms of delirium as evidence by fluctuating occurrences of disorganized thinking. A review of Resident #97's PASRR Level I Screen, which was completed at the hospital prior to admission to the facility, revealed under Section 1B: Intellectual Disability (ID) or suspected ID (check all that apply), that the related condition of Down Syndrome was not selected from the choices given in the screening. The section titled Functional Criteria under Section 1B did not reveal any selections being checked, which included questions related to the condition resulting in substantial functional limitations in three or more life activities including capacity for independent living, learning, mobility, self care, self direction, and understanding and use of language. Section II of the PASRR, titled Other Indications for PASRR Screen Decision-Making included questions related to whether Resident #97 had a disorder which may result in functional limitations in major life events, characteristics of difficulty with interpersonal functioning, concentration, and adaptation to change, and indication of treatment for mental illness, which were all selected as No. Section IV of the PASRR, titled PASRR Screen Completion, documented that Resident #97 had no diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness (SMI) or ID and that a Level II PASRR evaluation was not required. 2. A review of Resident #94's Medical Record revealed that Resident #94 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cognitive Communication Deficit, Anxiety Disorder, Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, and Schizoaffective Disorder. A review of Resident #94's Care Plan revealed a problem, last revised on 07/23/2021, that Resident #94 had impaired cognitive function and/or impaired thought process related to a diagnosis of dementia with behavioral disturbance. Interventions included to keep the resident's routine consistent and try to provide consistent care givers as much as possible in order to decrease confusion. A review of Resident #94's MDS assessment revealed, under Section C - Cognitive Patterns, a BIMS score of 3, which indicated severe cognitive impact. Section C of the MDS assessment also revealed that Resident #94 had signs and symptoms of delirium as evidence by continuous disorganized thinking, continuous inattention, and fluctuating episodes of altered level of consciousness. A review of Resident #94's PASRR Level I Screen, which was completed at the hospital prior to admission to the facility, revealed under Section 1A: Mental Illness (MI) or suspected MI (check all that apply), that the related conditions of Anxiety Disorder and Schizoaffective Disorder were not selected from the choices given in the screening. Section II of the PASRR, titled Other Indications for PASRR Screen Decision-Making included questions related to whether Resident #94 had a disorder which may result in functional limitations in major life events, characteristics of difficulty with interpersonal functioning, concentration, and adaptation to change, and indication of of treatment for mental illness, which were all selected as No. An interview was conducted on 08/12/2021 at 04:02 PM with the facility's Social Services Manager (SSM). The SSM stated that residents were reviewed upon admission to the facility to ensure a PASRR screening was completed. The SSM addressed that Resident #97 required a Level II PASRR due to her diagnosis of Down Syndrome and stated that she just obtained the ability to complete Level II PASRR screenings. The SSM stated that she was not sure who reviewed PASRR screenings for accuracy or who was responsible for correcting them if they were not completed properly. The SSM also stated that the Admissions department received all of the pre-admission paperwork and that they may ensure that the PASRR screenings are completed accurately. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 12:53 PM with the facility's Liaison of Admissions (LA). The LA stated that she reviewed residents prior to admission to ensure a PASRR screening was included in the admission paperwork, but they do not review the screening for accuracy of the diagnoses or details of the screening because the hospital is supposed to review them. The LA also stated that the Social Services department would be responsible for reviewing the PASRR screenings for accuracy and for necessity of a Level II screening. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 02:10 PM with the facility's Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The NHA stated that when a resident is admitted to the facility, the LA verifies that the resident has a PASRR screening in their record prior to admission or with them if they are coming from the hospital. The SSM is responsible for verifying the information on the PASRR screening for accuracy and to determine if the resident would require a Level II screening. If a PASRR assessment was found to not be complete then it should be completed the following morning with whatever information is available. The NHA addressed that Resident #97's PASRR screening was not completed correctly and that the resident should have been identified as having a diagnosis of Down Syndrome. The NHA also addressed that Resident #94's PASRR screening was not properly completed and did not reflect his diagnoses of Anxiety Disorder, Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, and Schizoaffective Disorder. The NHA stated that the mistakes on the PASRR screenings should have been identified. A review of the facility policy titled Pre-admission Screening for Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and Intellectually Disabled (ID) Individuals (PASRR), last revised in September of 2017, revealed that it is the responsibility of the center to assess and assure that the appropriate pre-admission screenings, either Level I or Level II, are conducted and results obtained prior to admission and placed in the appropriate section of the resident's medical record. The policy also revealed that if it is learned after admission that a SMI or ID Level II screening is indicated, it will be the responsibility of Social Services to coordinate and/or inform the appropriate agency to conduct the screening and obtain the results.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions related to oxygen...

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 implement care plan interventions related to oxygen use, and proper oxygen flow rate for one (Resident #38) of thirty-one sampled residents, during two of four days observed (8/10/2021, and 8/11/2021). Findings included: Review of Resident #38's current care plans with next review date 9/13/2021 revealed the following areas: - Resident #38 has Hypertension, Shortness of Breath with interventions in place - Resident #38 has oxygen therapy as needed for shortness of breath with interventions in place to include but not limited to: Given medications as ordered by the Physician, Monitor for signs and symptoms of respiratory distress and report to the Physician as need On 8/10/2021 at 6:50 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., Resident #38 was observed in her room and lying in bed. The call light was placed within her reach. Resident #38 was observed with oxygen tubing leading from the oxygen concentrator to her nasal cannula. An interview with the resident revealed that there were times when her machine was not providing the air she needed. She had not spoken to anyone about it in the past, and she did not have the capabilities to change the flow rate herself. On 8/11/2021 at 12:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #38 in her room. She was observed lying flat in her bed and had her meal tray placed on the over the bed table. She revealed she was finished eating. Resident #38 had the oxygen tubing leading from the O2 concentrator to her Nasal Cannula. She said she could not really feel the air and said that the flow rate should be at 3 liters per minute. At 1:00 p.m., an interview with a Registered Nurse, Staff A was conducted. He was not sure what the oxygen flow rate should have been and went to the room to verify. He stated the oxygen flow rate gauge on the oxygen concentrator read about 2 liters per minute. He then went to the nurse station and reviewed electronic medical records to verify that Resident #38 should have oxygen ran routinely at 3 liters per minute. Staff A revealed that it was the nurse's responsibility to read, assess, and adjust the oxygen flow rate on the oxygen concentrator and that other staff to include Certified Nursing Assistants were not to touch the machine. He confirmed that the resident was not able to reach and change the flow rate on her own. He indicated he must not have adjusted to the right flow rate this a.m. On 8/13/2021 at 1:00 p.m., an interview with the South Unit Manager was conducted. She confirmed that only nurses could adjust the oxygen flow rate on the oxygen concentrators. She said staff should always review the medical record to verify the correct oxygen flow rate. She confirmed that Resident #38 could not adjust the flow rate on her own. She said the care plans reflect that oxygen medications should be followed, which would indicate to keep the oxygen concentrator flow rate at 3 liters per minutes. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of the admission diagnosis sheet revealed diagnoses to include: Shortness Of Breath, Anxiety, Depression, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease). Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly assessment, dated 6/5/2021, revealed: Brief Interview Mental Status or BIMS score - 13 of 15, intact cognition, Activities of Daily Living (ADL)s - Extensive assist two person assist with Bed Mobility, Total dependence with Transfers, Extensive assist with one person with Dressing; Treatments - Utilizes Oxygen Review of the current Physician's Order Sheet for the month of 8/2021 revealed Resident #38 orders included: - Respiratory Oxygen continuous 3 liters via nasal cannula (original order date 6/1/2021). On 8/13/2021 at 2:00 p.m. the Director of Nursing provided the Plans of Care policy and procedure with a revision date of 9/25/2017, for review. The policy indicated; An individualized person-centered plan of care will be established by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) with the resident and /or resident representatives to the extent practicable and updated in accordance with state and federal regulatory requirements. Under the procedure section, it was revealed: - Develop and implement an individualized person-centered comprehensive plan of care by the IDT team that includes but is not limited to: The attending physician, a registered nurse with responsibility for the resident, a nurse aide with responsibility for the resident, a member of food and nutrition services staff, and other appropriate staff or professionals in disciplines as determined by the resident's needs or as requested by the resident, and to the extent practicable, the participation of the resident and the resident's representatives within seven days after completion of the comprehensive (MDS).
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure assistance with Activities of Daily Living (A...

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 assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL)s was provided for one (Resident # 54) of three residents sampled. Findings included: Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses of unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, generalized anxiety disorder, difficulty walking, and mood disorder. Review of the MDS (minimum data set) dated 06/25/21 revealed a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) of 13. Section G, Functional status, under dressing revealed that Resident #54 required extensive assistance for dressing - how resident put on, fastened and took off all items of clothing, including putting on and changing clothing. Under Toilet use, how the resident used the toilet room, commode, bed pan or urinal, cleaned self after elimination, changed and adjusted clothes. Resident #54 required one-person physical assist. Care plan with a last review date 07/05/21 revealed that Resident #54 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to activity intolerance, limited mobility, dementia, and anxiety. Resident #54 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder. Performance of ADL's fluctuated and gradual decline was anticipated due to terminal prognosis. The intervention under dressing indicated, staff will offer to help with changing soiled clothes. During multiple tours on 08/10/21, 08/11/21 and 08/12/21, Resident #54 was observed in his wheelchair outside his room wearing wet pants. Resident #54 was seen wearing khaki, stained, soiled pants. On 08/12/21 at 03:52 p.m., Resident #54 was wearing blue jeans noted soiled from the front. On 08/12/21 at 10:00 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff Q,Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who worked with Resident #54 regularly. Staff Q confirmed that Resident #54 occasionally is seen with wet pants. Staff Q stated that when they saw that, they asked him to change. Staff Q said, If he needs help, I assist him. Staff Q stated that Resident #54 soiled his pants about once daily, or twice. An interview was conducted with Staff R, CNA on 08/12/21 at 10:37 a.m. Staff R stated that sometimes Resident #54 needed assistance with his pants because he had wet pants on. Staff R said, He goes on himself. We change him every day. On 08/12/21 at 03:52 p.m. Staff S, CNA was observed standing in the hallway next to Resident #54. Resident #54 was in his wheelchair outside his room interacting with a maintenance personnel. Staff S noticed the surveyor looking at Resident #54. Staff S noticed the resident was wearing soiled jeans pants. Staff S walked over to the surveyor and stated that Resident #54 went to the bathroom by himself. Staff S said, Sometimes he (Resident #54) struggles to unbutton his pants. Maybe they should get him elastic pants. Staff S said the resident should be checked more often. Staff S proceeded to escort resident to his room after interview. On 08/12/21 10:53 a.m., an interview was conducted Staff B, Unit Manger. Staff B stated that occasionally Resident #54 pants were wet. Staff B said, This week is worse. he tries to be independent it doesn't help. Staff B stated that Resident #54 had requested new clothes the previous week, because he only had a couple pairs of pants. Staff B said that the resident's pants were either stained or they did not fit. Staff B stated that they try and prompt him before he goes on himself. Staff B stated that they should probably be checking on him every hour. An interview was conducted with the DON (Director of Nursing) on 08/12/21 at 1:13 p.m. The DON stated that she was familiar with the resident. She said, He needs to be changed often. He can do a lot for himself. He needs assistance or cues.The DON said, I do not expect a resident to be sitting in wet clothes Review of the facility's policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), with an effective date 01/07 showed all residents will remain at their highest practical level of ADL function, unless a medical condition demonstrates a decline is unavoidable. Purpose: To have the resident achieve the highest level of self-help or independence. The role of the clinical services staff is to teach, support, and supervise the resident in regaining and maintaining these function. Under procedure: (3). Make sure the resident is comfortable. (4). Provide verbal cues, demonstrations and physical assistance as needed.
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 record review, interviews, observation, and policy review the facility did not ensure a hospice care plan and/or assess...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, observation, and policy review the facility did not ensure a hospice care plan and/or assessment and appropriate communication related to hospice services including updates for a change of condition were in the medical record for one resident (#64) of nine residents receiving hospice care at the facility. Also based on interview and policy review the facility did not ensure there was a contract with the hospice provider for one resident (#64) of nine residents receiving hospice care. Findings included: Resident #64 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to, heart failure, type II diabetes mellitus, and Afib (atrial fibrillation), according to the face sheet in the admission record. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating Resident #64 was cognitively intact. Further review under Functional Status reflected the need for supervision with set up help for eating. A review of Section K, Swallowing/Nutritional Status, revealed Resident #64 did not have a swallowing disorder at the time of the assessment, nor was he receiving a therapeutic diet. Review of Section O, Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs reflected Resident #64 was receiving hospice care. Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Services were not marked, indicating Resident #64 was not receiving any services. On 8/12/21 at 11:38 AM an interview was conducted with the resident's nurse, Staff E, LPN (licensed practical nurse). Staff E, LPN said Resident #64s' hospice care plan was comfort measures and remain pain free. Staff E, LPN said Resident #64 stopped eating as much as he used to eat. His appetite is poor now. Staff E, LPN also said she has spoken to Resident #64's wife and asked her to talk to him on the phone to get him to eat. He is confused sometimes. He seems to understand. He can answer questions appropriately. Staff E, LPN said a hospice nurse came about a week ago and she told the hospice nurse about his poor intake. His food is pureed now. I thought he was having trouble so I consulted speech therapy who evaluated him and changed it to pureed. He can't cut and eat the meat. It's too hard. We keep jello in there. He will take that. On 8/12/21 at 11:47 AM an interview was conducted with the unit manager, Staff D, LPN. Staff D, LPN unit manager said Resident #64 was at hospice house at (Company Name) hospice. They had to repair the building so they sent their patients out. Resident #64 has been here before. His wife wanted him here. His wife ended up in the hospital and when she got out she didn't want him home because she can't take care of him. So he will be staying here. Hospice is supposed to put progress notes in the chart when they visit. The hospice care plan was at hospice house, but it didn't get transferred to us on admission. He was only supposed to be here a few days so that might be why. Staff D, LPN unit manager said she has not asked for it and the only documents provided were a discharge form and a 3008 (transfer form). When the hospice nurse comes in Staff D, LPN asks for a progress report in the chart. She said hospice does medication changes if he needs it. Staff go by the care plan that's in the chart. MDS makes the care plans. On 8/12/21 at 12:39 PM an observation was conducted in Resident #64's room. There were two gelatin cups on the bed side table in front of Resident #64, that were unopened. The lunch meal tray was on the dietary cart outside Resident #64's room in the hallway. The meal was untouched. There was pureed meat, a pureed vegetable, mashed potatoes, pureed lemon cake, and tea. On 8/13/21 at 9:37 AM an interview was conducted with Staff F, OT (occupational therapist). Staff F, OT said the last speech evaluation for Resident #64 was completed on 4/29/21. On 8/13/21 at 9:39 AM an interview was conducted with the director of therapy. The director of therapy said there has not been a therapy referral for Resident #64. Normally hospice will come and give us any information for him. Review of physician's orders in the medical record reflected a diet order dated 6/25/21 Regular diet, regular texture, regular thin liquids consistency. Further review of the orders revealed speech therapy services were not ordered. An order dated 8/5/21 indicated hospice services with (Company Name) Hospice Dx (diagnosis) CHF (congestive heart failure). A review of the care plan dated 4/28/21 revealed, The resident is at nutritional risk r/t (related to) multiple medical dx (diagnoses) including UTI (urinary tract infection), DM (diabetes mellitus), htn (hypertension), anemia, BMI/obese class 1, potential for weight fluctuation r/t hx (history) edema, usually declines to be weighed, weight changes noted on readmit, end stage dx-provided hospice services. Interventions included provide and serve diet as ordered. A review of nurses' notes in the electronic medical record from readmission on [DATE] to 8/12/21 reflected no documentation of any changes or communication with hospice. An 8/10/21 dietary note indicated a regular diet. Continue with nutritional care plan. An IDT note dated 7/14/21 indicated a care plan meeting was held with Resident #64 regarding his desire for therapy services so that he can develop enough strength to return home and that hospice will be contacted by SS (social services) regarding this. There wasn't any further documentation if this occurred or hospice had been contacted for any other reason. There was also no note indicating the provider or hospice had been contacted regarding a change to Resident #64's diet and the reason. Review of the physical chart at the nurses' station on 8/12/21 also reflected no documented communication to or from hospice, and a hospice care plan or assessment could not be found either. On 8/13/21 at 10:17 AM an interview was conducted with the CDM (certified dietary manager) at the facility. The CDM said staff give her a yellow slip that says diet change. She gets on the computer and enters it in meal tracker. Whatever staff give her is what she enters in the meal tracker. The CDM was shown the physician's order for a regular diet, regular texture, and she confirmed the order. The CDM provided a yellow Diet Order and Communication form dated 8/9/21, indicting a change to Dysphagia puree. Review of the form during the interview reflected it did not match the physician's order. The CDM also provided the meal ticket dated 8/13/21, which was reviewed and reflected pureed food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A telephone interview was conducted with Staff U, RN (registered nurse) manager of (Company Name) hospice on 8/13/21 at 11:08 AM. Staff U, RN manager said there is a packet with consents with advance directives, certs and recerts, IDT (interdisciplinary) notes, care plans and contact information. I made one for him. I go by monthly and check to see if its there. I check the chart and if its not there I recreate it for them. We admitted him on 5/13. I made him a brand new one when he came back. I don't know what the facility does with it. I don't see an order for a pureed diet. They should contact us for a diet change. We would approve a speech consult if they wanted one as well. We have him on a regular diet. The latest note said regular. That was last Friday. It was 8/6. We meet every two weeks to review all our patients. That note (8/6) indicated a regular diet. I don't see where the facility notified us or requested a speech eval. The last note says his appetite varies related to agitation and facility versus outside food. We have not approved a speech evaluation. On 8/13/21 at 1:24 PM a follow up interview was conducted with Staff D, LPN unit manager. Staff D, LPN unit manager said He got choked one day. Hospice won't cover an eval (for speech therapy). The hospice nurse said she can't guarantee any visits for speech therapy. She might be able to get an eval. Staff E, LPN said she talked to the speech therapist who told her to down grade his diet. Staff D, LPN unit manager said she doesn't know if Staff E, LPN told hospice his diet was down graded. Staff D, LPN unit manager confirmed there should be documentation of a change of condition indicting the physician and family were notified, as well as notification to hospice. On 8/13/21 at 1:45 PM an interview was conducted with the SLP (speech language pathologist) at the facility. She said she did not get a referral. We have to wait for hospice to refer them before we go in and see them. She has not heard anything about Resident #64. She has not laid eyes on him. No one has said anything to her about him. Hospice referred him today. On 8/13/21 at 2:29 PM an interview was conducted with the DON. She said if we observe a patient having chewing or swallowing problems while eating we as nurses can down grade the diet. Then they should make a therapy referral for speech to come and do a screen. The DON also confirmed there should be notification to the doctor, the family, hospice, and speech therapy. If the nurse down grades the diet there should be documentation. She also confirmed there should be a change of condition completed. Staff will come to her if their is a concern. The nurses notify hospice of a change of condition. It should be documented. Hospice should be notified of any changes. A hospice contract with the facility was requested for Company Name Hospice during the interview. The DON said Company Name Hospice won't provide a contract. Review of the Hospice Nursing assessment dated [DATE], revealed it had been faxed to the facility on 8/12/21. There were also two additional Hospice Nursing Assessments dated 7/25/21 and 8/1/21 also with a fax date of 8/12/21. Attached to the faxed assessments was a Recertification Heart Disease dated 8/6/21. Review of the policy Notification of Change in Condition, dated 12/16/20, reflected the following: Policy: The Center to promptly notify the patient. resident, attending physician, and the resident representative when there is a change in the status or condition. Procedure: The nurse to notify the attending physician and resident representative when there is a(n): Significant change in he patient/resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status Need to alter treatment significantly New treatment Discontinuation of a current treatment due to but not limited to: acute condition exacerbation of a chronic condition The nurse to complete an evaluation of the patient/resident. Document evaluation in the medical record. The nurse will contact the physician. Notify the patient/resident and the resident representative of the change of condition. Document notification in the medical record. Review of the policy, Physician Orders, revised 3/3/21 revealed the following information: Policy: The center will ensure that physician orders are appropriately and timely documented in the medical record. Procedure: Routine orders: A nurse may accept a telephone order from he physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner (as permitted by state law). The order will be repeated back to the physician, PA, or ARNP (nurse practitioner) for his/her verbal confirmation. The order is transcribed to all appropriate areas of the electronic health record). Review of the policy, Hospice Care, revised 9/20/17, reflected the following relevant information: Policy: The center supports the patient/resident's right to a dignified existence and self determination. The center will assist the patient/resident and/or legal representative in arranging hospice services. Procedure: When hospice are provided in the center, the center should meet the following: Ensure hospice services meet professional standards and principles that apply to individuals providing services in the center, and to the timeliness of the services. The center will have a written agreement with hospice that is signed by an authorized representative from the hospice and the center (prior to providing services to a patient/resident). The agreement to include but not limited to: the services that hospice will provide Hospice's responsibilities for determining the appropriate hospice plan of care The services the center will continue to provide according to the patient/resident's plan of care. The communication process, including how the communication should be documented between the center and the hospice, to ensure the needs of the patient/resident are met 24 hours a day. The center should immediately notify the hospice when: The patient t/resident experiences a significant change in condition including physical, mental, social or emotional Clinical changes suggest a need to alter the plan of care. The center will furnish 24 hour room and board, and meet the patient/resident's personal and nursing care needs in coordination with hospice based on the patient/resident's individual plan of care. Hospice assumes responsibility for determining the appropriate course of hospice care, including the determination to change the level of services provided. Hospice responsibilities include but are not limited to: Provide medical direction and management of the patient/resident, nursing, counseling, social work To ensure continuity of care between the center and the hospice provider, the director of nursing will designate a clinical member of the interdisciplinary team to work with hospice including the following: Coordination of the care plan process between the hospice and the center Communication with hospice representatives, hospice medial director and the patient/resident's attending physician to ensure coordination of care Ensure the following information is obtained from the hospice: Most recent hospice plan of care Provide education to the hospice staff on the center policies and procedures, including: resident rights, documentation and forms The center will ensure the care plan includes the most current hospice plan of care and the center's plan to attained or maintain the patient/resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 08/11/21 at 02:16 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #17. He stated that he wears the CPAP (continuous positiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 08/11/21 at 02:16 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident #17. He stated that he wears the CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure mask) every night. When asked if it had been cleaned, Resident #17 stated that he did not know the last time it was cleaned or changed. The CPAP was observed on the nightstand uncovered. A resident information sheet revealed that Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include: Acute Respiratory failure, Gastro esophageal reflux disease, essential hypertension, obesity, Edema, idiopathic chronic gout, unspecified lack of coordination, muscle weakness, Body mass index, major depressive disorder, adjustment disorder with depressed mood and shortness of breath. An annual MDS (minimum data set) dated 11/17/20 revealed Resident #17 has a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) of 15, indicating intact cognition. Section J of the MDS under health conditions showed that Resident #17 had shortness of breath with exertion (such as walking, bathing, transferring), when sitting at rest and when lying flat. During an initial tour of hallway 200 on 08/10/21 at 08:13 a.m., an observation was made of Resident #17's CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure) on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident # 17's CPAP's mouthpiece was resting on a floor surface noted with dirt and food particles. Photographic evidence was obtained. During subsequent tours on 08/10/21 and 08/11/21 the CPAP machine was observed on the bedside table. The CPAP was not covered and the tubing was not dated. Photographic evidence was obtained. An interview was conducted on 08/11/21 at 02:21 p.m. with Staff O, LPN. Staff O stated that the CPAP machine should be cleaned per manufacturer's order. Staff O stated that the night-time nurse makes sure it has water before use and the day-time nurse should empty the water chamber and disinfect with wipes. Staff O looked at the CPAP stored on top of the nightstand. Staff O said, it should be in a bag, cleaned and dated. I honestly did not look at it. On 8/11/21 2:30 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff P, ADON (assistant director of nursing). Staff P stated that it is expected that the CPAP machine should be cleaned after each use and stored in a belonging's bag with resident's identifying information, such as name, date of birth , room number and date the tubing was changed. Staff P reviewed a photograph of observation of the CPAP on the floor and said, it should not be on the floor, definitely Review of Resident #17's physician's orders showed the following: Clean mask and tubing every week and air dry. Every day shift, every Sunday, order date: 1/18/21. Change storage bag every Sunday. Order date 08/12/21. Device and settings per home setting. Order date 11/14/20 Fill water chamber with distilled water every HS (hours of sleep) order date 11/14/20 Empty water chamber and air dry every AM (morning) order date 11/14/20 An interview was conducted with DON (director of nursing) on 08/12/21 01:26 p.m. DON stated that she was made aware that there was a problem and that they have started education on infection control and proper storage for CPAP's and nebulizers. The DON stated the expectation is for the day shift nurse to clean and properly store the machine. The DON stated that the machine should never be on the floor or left open to the elements. Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide respiratory care in accordance with professional standards for 2 (Resident #499 and Resident #17) of 3 residents sampled for respiratory care. Findings included: 1. A review of Resident #499's Physician's Orders revealed that Resident #499 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). A review of Resident #499's Physician's Orders revealed an order, dated 08/03/2021, for continuous oxygen at 4 liters per minute (lpm) via nasal cannula. A review of Resident #499's Care Plan revealed a problem, revised on 08/05/2021, that Resident #499 had Emphysema/COPD. Interventions included continuous oxygen via nasal prongs at 4 lpm (liters per minute), monitor for difficulty breathing on exertion, and monitor/document any signs and symptoms of respiratory infection. An observation was conducted on 08/10/2021 at 11:47 AM in Resident #499's room. A nasal cannula with oxygen tubing was observed connected to an oxygen concentrator next to Resident #499's bed. Resident #499 was not in the room at the time of the observation. The nasal cannula and oxygen tubing were observed laying on the floor next to Resident #499's bed. No date was observed on the oxygen tubing or nasal cannula and no storage bag for the respiratory equipment was observed in Resident #499's room. Staff H, Certified Nurse's Aide (CNA) was observed entering the room, picked up the nasal cannula from off of the floor, coiled the tubing and nasal cannula, and placed it on Resident #499's bedside stand before exiting the room. An observation was made on 08/12/2021 at 02:15 PM of Resident #499 in her room resting in bed. Resident #499 was observed to have her nasal cannula in place with oxygen running. An observation of Resident #499's oxygen concentrator revealed the oxygen flow meter to be set at 5 lpm. Resident #499 stated that her oxygen was usually set to 4 lpm. An interview was conducted on 08/12/2021 at 02:18 PM with Staff E, Registered Nurse (RN) at the unit nurse's station. Staff E, RN verified in Resident #499's Physician's Orders an order for continuous oxygen at 4 lpm via nasal cannula. An observation was conducted with Staff E, RN in Resident #499's room. Staff E, RN addressed that Resident #499's oxygen flow meter was set to 5 lpm. Staff E, RN stated that she conducted rounds in the morning when she came in to verify that oxygen flow meters were set to ordered levels and was not able to state why Resident #499's oxygen flow meter was set to 5 lpm. An observation as conducted on 08/13/2021 at 07:50 AM of Resident #499 eating breakfast in her room. Resident #499 was observed to have her oxygen nasal cannula in place with oxygen running via oxygen concentrator. An observation of Resident #499's oxygen flow meter revealed an oxygen setting of 3.5 lpm. Following the observation, an interview was conducted with Staff E, RN. Staff E, RN stated that she had not completed her morning rounds yet to verify oxygen settings and addressed that Resident #499's oxygen flow meter was set to 3.5 lpm. Staff E, RN stated that Resident #499's oxygen flow meter should have been set to 4 lpm per her Physician's Order. An interview was conducted on 08/13/21 at 03:36 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that any oxygen tubing, nasal cannulas, or other respiratory equipment should be stored in a storage bag when not in use. The DON also stated that respiratory equipment should be kept off of the floor and she would not expect a staff member to place respiratory equipment back onto a bedside table after it had touched the floor. The DON would expect the staff member to notify the nurse so that the entire set would be changed out after touching the floor. The DON stated that the nurse on the floor was responsible for ensuring oxygen flow rates were set per the physician's order and that nurse's should be verifying the flow meter is set correctly any time they entered the resident's room. A review of the facility policy titled Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection, revised in November of 2011, revealed under the section titled Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration that staff are to change the oxygen cannula and tubing every seven days or as needed and keep the oxygen cannula and tubing used as needed (PRN) in a plastic bag when not in use. Photographic evidence obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to post the current Nurse Staffing Information to include all shifts for the day/night, the resident census, and numbers of each discipl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to post the current Nurse Staffing Information to include all shifts for the day/night, the resident census, and numbers of each disciplined nursing staff for each shift, during one of four days observed, (8/10/2021). It was observed that the facility had the Daily Staffing Sheet posted and displayed with a date of four days prior. Findings included: On 8/10/2021 6:02 a.m., the front lobby doors were approached from the outside parking lot. Upon reaching the doors, they were observed locked. A sign on the door indicated to call a number to have someone come to the front door to let anyone in. The number was called and a staff member, Nurse Employee B indicated she would be right up to the door. At 6:06 a.m. Employee B came to the front door. However, another staff member let the team inside the facility. Upon entering the facility, Employee B was notified of the team and the visit reason. She indicates she was in charge during the current shift and is actually the North unit manager during the days. While Employee B was walking the team through to the interior of the facility, several administration offices were passed and there was a wall with a sheet of paper hanging on it. The sheet of paper revealed it was the Daily Staffing Sheet. The sheet was dated for 8/6/2021 and to include areas 1:1, House, North wing, South wing. The sheet included the following information: a. All shifts (6:45 a.m. - 3:15 p.m., 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m., 9:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 2:45 p.m. - 11:15 p.m., and 10:45 p.m. - 7:15 a.m.). b. Census - 105 c. Number of Certified Nursing Assistants (documented for each shift) d. Number of Licensed Practical Nurses (documented for each shift) e. Number of Registered Nurses (documented for each shift) It was found that this Daily Staffing Sheet was not current and had information that was four days old. On 8/12/2021 at 12:30 p.m. an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and the Director of Nursing (DON) was conducted. The DON revealed that the staffing coordinator is the person who is typically responsible for changing and updating the Daily Staffing Sheet on Mondays through Fridays. She further revealed that they had a weekend shift supervisor who was typically responsible for changing and updating the sheet. She revealed that as of recent they had to terminate a weekend supervisor and that is perhaps the reason the sheet was not updated since 8/6/2021. The DON and NHA both revealed that the Staffing Coordinator was not in the building this week to be interviewed related to the expectations of posting and updating the Daily Staffing Sheet. The DON further confirmed that this sheet is only posted in the lobby area.
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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication administration error rate below 5%. A total of 31 administration opportunities were observed with 4 er...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a medication administration error rate below 5%. A total of 31 administration opportunities were observed with 4 errors for 4 (Resident #2, Resident #81, Resident #92 and Resident #502) of 5 residents observed for medication administration, resulting in a medications administration error rate of 12.9%. Findings included: An observation of medication administration was conducted on 08/12/2021 at 08:55 AM with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) on the 500 unit of the facility. The following medications were administered to Resident #92 during the observation: - Multi Vitamin with Minerals 1 tablet by mouth. - Aspirin 81 milligrams (mg) by mouth. - Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder 250 micrograms (mcg)-50 mcg/dose 1 puff inhalation. - Celexa 20 mg by mouth. - Losartan 25 mg by mouth. - Metformin 500 mg by mouth. - Metoprolol 25 mg by mouth. - Artificial tears solution 1 drop in each eye. After verifying Resident #92's medications, Staff A, RN entered the resident's room and administered medications by mouth without difficulty. Staff A, RN also administered Artificial tears in each of Resident #92's eyes without difficulty. Staff A, RN then administered fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder 250-50 1 puff inhalation to Resident #92. After administration of the inhalation powder, Staff A, RN exited the room. Staff A, RN did not instruct Resident #92 to rinse his mouth after administration of Fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. An interview was conducted following medication administration on 08/12/2021 at 09:02 AM with Staff A, RN. Staff A, RN addressed that he did not instruct Resident #92 to rinse his mouth after administration of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder. Staff A, RN stated that he would normally have a resident rinse out there mouth after inhaler usage if it was in the instructions but he felt like he was under a lot of pressure due to having someone watching him during his normal work duties and addressed that he made a mistake. An review of the manufacturer's box for fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhalation powder 250-50 revealed instructions, under the section titled Remember, which read After each dose, rinse your mouth with water and spit it out. Do not swallow the water. An observation of medication administration was conducted on 08/12/2021 at 09:14 AM with Staff A, RN on the 500 unit of the facility. The following medications were administered to Resident #2 during the observation: - Calcium-Vitamin D 600 mg-200 International Units (IU) by mouth. - Apixaban 5 mg by mouth. - Senna S 8.6 mg-50 mg by mouth. - Effexor 150 mg by mouth. - Nudexta 20 mg -10 mg by mouth. After verifying Resident #2's medications, Staff A, RN entered the resident's room and administered medications by mouth without difficulty and exited the room. A review of Resident #2's Physician's Order revealed an order, dated 10/13/2020, for Calcium-Vitamin D 600 mg-400 IU by mouth twice daily for supplement. An interview was conducted on 08/12/2021 at 09:26 AM with Staff A, RN. Staff A, RN verified that he did not administer the right dose of Calcium and Vitamin D to Resident #2 and that the dosage of Vitamin D3 in the medication was not in accordance with the order. Staff A, RN stated that he had education related to the five rights of medications administration, which included verifying the right dose before administering. An observation of medication administration was conducted on 08/12/2021 at 09:45 AM with Staff E, RN on the 400 unit of the facility. The following medications were administered to Resident #502 during the observation: - Calcium-Vitamin D 600 mg-200 IU by mouth. - Amlodipine 5 mg by mouth. - Colace 100 mg by mouth. - Lovenox 30 mg/0.3 milliliters (ml) subcutaneous injection. - Gabapentin 300 mg by mouth. - Vitamin C 1000 mg by mouth. - Zinc 220 mg by mouth. After verifying Resident #502's medications, Staff E, RN entered the resident's room and administered medications by mouth and subcutaneously without difficulty and exited the room. A review of Resident #502's Physician's Order revealed an order, dated 07/29/2021, for Calcium-Vitamin D 600 mg-400 IU by mouth twice daily for vitamin deficiency. An interview was conducted 08/12/2021 at 10:02 AM with Staff E, RN. Staff E, RN observed the bottle of Calcium and Vitamin D3 600 mg-5 mcg and addressed that the physician's order was different from what she administered. Staff E, RN asked would that come from pharmacy?. Staff E, RN was able to locate Calcium and Vitamin D3 600 mg-10 mcg by mouth in the unit's medication room. An observation of medication administration was observed on 08/13/2021 at 11:38 AM with Staff E, RN. After obtaining a blood glucose reading of 293 from Resident #81, Staff E, RN verified a dosage of 4 units of Insulin Lispro to be administered per Resident #81's physician's order. Staff E, RN prepared administration of Insulin Lispro via KwikPen to Resident #81 by gathering Resident #81's Insulin Lispro KwikPen, an alcohol prep pad, and an insulin pen needle before entering Resident #81's room. Staff E, RN explained the procedure to Resident #81 and prepared the Insulin Lispro KwikPen by cleaning the needle hub and applying the needle to the top of the KwikPen. Staff E, RN then dialed 4 units on the dosage selector and administered the medication to Resident #81 in her left abdomen subcutaneously. Staff E, RN did not prime the needle of the insulin KwikPen before dialing the selector to 4 units. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 11:42 AM with Staff E, RN. Staff E, RN stated that normally she would simply apply the needle to the insulin pen, dial the dosage on the selector, and administer the insulin in accordance with the physician's order. Staff E, RN stated that she was not aware that insulin needles required priming before selecting the dose and administering it to the resident. A telephone interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 01:40 PM with the facility's Consultant Pharmacist. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that nursing staff should be paying attention to any instructions included on the manufacturer's box related to medication administration. Nursing staff should instruct residents to rinse their mouth out with water after administration of an oral steroid, such as fluticasone, or they may risk developing oral thrush. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that most insulin pens did require the needle to be primed to remove any air before administration and verified that the Insulin Lispro Flex Pen would require the insulin needle to be primed. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 03:36 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that staff were educated on the five rights of medication administration and that nursing staff should be following the manufacturer's instructions when administering medications. If a resident was not instructed to rinse their mouth after receiving an orally inhaled steroid, their mouth could become irritated. The DON stated that the nursing staff may have been moving too fast and were not taking the time to verify the correct dosage as they should. The DON also stated that nursing staff should ensure that insulin pens are primed before administering insulin to residents because the resident may not get the correct dosage due to having air inside of the needle. A review of the facility policy titled Inhaler Administration, effective on 11/30/2014, revealed that staff should check the medication sheet against the instructions on the inhaler canister and to be certain to follow the specific directions that accompany the inhaler. A review of the manufacturer's instructions for the Insulin Lispro Injection KwikPen indicated the following steps under the section titled Priming your Pen: - Prime before each injection. Priming your Pen means removing the air from the Needle and Cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures that the Pen is working correctly. If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin. - To prime your Pen, turn the Dose Knob to select 2 units. - Hold your Pen with the Needle pointing up. Tap the Cartridge Holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top. - Continue holding your Pen with Needle pointing up. Push the Dose Knob in until it stops, and 0 is seen in the Dose Window. Hold the Dose Knob in and count to 5 slowly. - You should see insulin at the tip of the Needle. - If you do not see insulin, repeat priming steps no more than 4 times. - If you still do not see insulin, change the Needle and repeat priming steps. Photographic evidence obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, observation, and policy review the facility did not ensure services were obtained to determi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, observation, and policy review the facility did not ensure services were obtained to determine the appropriate therapeutic diet for one resident (#64) of nine residents receiving hospice care at the facility. Findings included: Resident #64 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to, heart failure, type II diabetes mellitus, and Afib (atrial fibrillation), according to the face sheet in the admission record. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], reflected a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating Resident #64 was cognitively intact. Further review under Functional Status reflected the need for supervision with set up help for eating. A review of Section K, Swallowing/Nutritional Status, revealed Resident #64 did not have a swallowing disorder at the time of the assessment, nor was he receiving a therapeutic diet. Review of Section O, Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs reflected Resident #64 was receiving hospice care. Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Services were not marked, indicating Resident #64 was not receiving any services. On 8/12/21 at 11:38 AM an interview was conducted with the resident's nurse, Staff E, LPN (licensed practical nurse). Staff E, LPN said Resident #64 stopped eating as much as he used to eat. His appetite is poor now. Staff E, LPN also said she has spoken to Resident #64's wife and asked her to talk to him on the phone to get him to eat. He is confused sometimes. He seems to understand. He can answer questions appropriately. Staff E, LPN said a hospice nurse came about a week ago and she told the hospice nurse about his poor intake. His food is pureed now. I thought he was having trouble so I consulted speech therapy who evaluated him and changed it to pureed. He can't cut and eat the meat. It's too hard. We keep jello in there. He will take that. On 8/12/21 at 11:47 AM an interview was conducted with the unit manager, Staff D, LPN. Staff D, LPN unit manager said Resident #64 was at hospice house at Company Name hospice. They had to repair the building so they sent their patients out. Resident #64 has been here before. His wife wanted him here. His wife ended up in the hospital and when she got out she didn't want him home because she can't take care of him. So he will be staying here. Staff go by the care plan that's in the chart. MDS makes the care plans. On 8/12/21 at 12:39 PM an observation was conducted in Resident #64's room. There were two gelatin cups on the bed side table in front of Resident #64, that were unopened. The lunch meal tray was on the dietary cart outside Resident #64's room in the hallway. The meal was untouched. There was pureed meat, a pureed vegetable, mashed potatoes, pureed lemon cake, and tea. On 8/13/21 at 9:37 AM an interview was conducted with Staff F, OT (occupational therapist). Staff F, OT said the last speech evaluation for Resident #64 was completed on 4/29/21. On 8/13/21 at 9:39 AM an interview was conducted with the director of therapy. The director of therapy said there has not been a therapy referral for Resident #64. Normally hospice will come and give us any information for him. Review of physician's orders in the medical record reflected a diet order dated 6/25/21 Regular diet, regular texture, regular thin liquids consistency. Further review of the orders revealed speech therapy services were not ordered. An order dated 8/5/21 indicated hospice services with Company Name Hospice Dx (diagnosis) CHF (congestive heart failure). A review of the care plan dated 4/28/21 revealed, The resident is at nutritional risk r/t (related to) multiple medical dx (diagnoses) including UTI (urinary tract infection), DM (diabetes mellitus), htn (hypertension), anemia, BMI/obese class 1, potential for weight fluctuation r/t hx (history) edema, usually declines to be weighed, weight changes noted on readmit, end stage dx (diagnosis)-provided hospice services. Interventions included provide and serve diet as ordered. A review of nurses' notes in the electronic medical record from readmission on [DATE] to 8/12/21 reflected no documentation of any changes or communication with hospice. An 8/10/21 dietary note indicated a regular diet. Continue with nutritional care plan. There were no notes indicating the provider or hospice had been contacted regarding a change to Resident #64's diet and the reason. Review of the physical chart at the nurses' station on 8/12/21 also reflected no documented communication to or from hospice. On 8/13/21 at 10:17 AM an interview was conducted with the CDM (certified dietary manager) at the facility. The CDM said staff give her a yellow slip that says diet change. She gets on the computer and enters it in meal tracker. Whatever staff give her is what she enters in the meal tracker. The CDM was shown the physician's order for a regular diet, regular texture, and she confirmed the order. The CDM provided a yellow Diet Order and Communication form dated 8/9/21, indicting a change to Dysphagia puree. Review of the form during the interview reflected it did not match the physician's order. The CDM also provided the meal ticket dated 8/13/21, which was reviewed and reflected pureed food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. A telephone interview was conducted with Staff U, RN (registered nurse) manager of Company Name hospice on 8/13/21 at 11:08 AM. Staff U, RN manager said there is a packet with consents with advance directives, certs and recerts, IDT (interdisciplinary) notes, care plans and contact information. I made one for him. I go by monthly and check to see if its there. I check the chart and if its not there I recreate it for them. We admitted him on 5/13. I made him a brand new one when he came back. I don't know what the facility does with it. I don't see an order for a pureed diet. They should contact us for a diet change. We would approve a speech consult if they wanted one as well. We have him on a regular diet. The latest note said regular. That was last Friday. It was 8/6. We meet every two weeks to review all our patients. That note (8/6) indicated a regular diet. I don't see where the facility notified us or requested a speech eval. The last note says his appetite varies related to agitation and facility versus outside food. We have not approved a speech evaluation. On 8/13/21 at 1:24 PM a follow up interview was conducted with Staff D, LPN unit manager. Staff D, LPN unit manager said He got choked one day. Hospice won't cover an eval (for speech therapy). The hospice nurse said she can't guarantee any visits for speech therapy. She might be able to get an eval. Staff E, LPN said she talked to the speech therapist who told her to down grade his diet. Staff D, LPN unit manager said she doesn't know if Staff E, LPN told hospice his diet was down graded. Staff D, LPN unit manager confirmed there should be documentation of a change of condition indicting the physician and family were notified, as well as notification to hospice. On 8/13/21 at 1:45 PM an interview was conducted with the SLP (speech language pathologist) at the facility. She said she did not get a referral. We have to wait for hospice to refer them before we go in and see them. She has not heard anything about Resident #64. She has not laid eyes on him. No one has said anything to her about him. Hospice referred him today. On 8/13/21 at 2:29 PM an interview was conducted with the DON. She said if we observe a patient having chewing or swallowing problems while eating we as nurses can down grade the diet. Then they should make a therapy referral for speech to come and do a screen. The DON also confirmed there should be notification to the doctor, the family, hospice, and speech therapy. If the nurse down grades the diet there should be documentation. She also confirmed there should be a change of condition completed. Staff will come to her if their is a concern. The nurses notify hospice of a change of condition. It should be documented. Hospice should be notified of any changes. Review of the policy Notification of Change in Condition, dated 12/16/20, reflected the following: Policy: The Center to promptly notify the patient. resident, attending physician, and the resident representative when there is a change in the status or condition. Procedure: The nurse to notify the attending physician and resident representative when there is a(n): Significant change in he patient/resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status Need to alter treatment significantly New treatment Discontinuation of a current treatment due to but not limited to: acute condition exacerbation of a chronic condition The nurse to complete an evaluation of the patient/resident. Document evaluation in the medical record. The nurse will contact the physician. Notify the patient/resident and the resident representative of the change of condition. Document notification in the medical record. Review of the policy, Physician Orders, revised 3/3/21 revealed the following information: Policy: The center will ensure that physician orders are appropriately and timely documented in the medical record. Procedure: Routine orders: A nurse may accept a telephone order from he physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner (as permitted by state law). The order will be repeated back to the physician, PA, or ARNP (nurse practitioner) for his/her verbal confirmation. The order is transcribed to all appropriate areas of the electronic health record). Review of the policy, Hospice Care, revised 9/20/17, reflected the following relevant information: Policy: The center supports the patient/resident's right to a dignified existence and self determination. The center will assist the patient/resident and/or legal representative in arranging hospice services. Procedure: When hospice are provided in the center, the center should meet the following: Ensure hospice services meet professional standards and principles that apply to individuals providing services in the center, and to the timeliness of the services. The center will have a written agreement with hospice that is signed by an authorized representative from the hospice and the center (prior to providing services to a patient/resident). The agreement to include but not limited to: the services that hospice will provide Hospice's responsibilities for determining the appropriate hospice plan of care The services the center will continue to provide according to the patient/resident's plan of care. The communication process, including how the communication should be documented between the center and the hospice, to ensure the needs of the patient/resident are met 24 hours a day. The center should immediately notify the hospice when: The patient t/resident experiences a significant change in condition including physical, mental, social or emotional Clinical changes suggest a need to alter the plan of care. The center will furnish 24 hour room and board, and meet the patient/resident's personal and nursing care needs in coordination with hospice based on the patient/resident's individual plan of care. Hospice assumes responsibility for determining the appropriate course of hospice care, including the determination to change the level of services provided. Hospice responsibilities include but are not limited to: Provide medical direction and management of the patient/resident, nursing, counseling, social work To ensure continuity of care between the center and the hospice provider, the director of nursing will designate a clinical member of the interdisciplinary team to work with hospice including the following: Coordination of the care plan process between the hospice and the center Communication with hospice representatives, hospice medial director and the patient/resident's attending physician to ensure coordination of care Ensure the following information is obtained from the hospice: Most recent hospice plan of care Provide education to the hospice staff on the center policies and procedures, including: resident rights, documentation and forms The center will ensure the care plan includes the most current hospice plan of care and the center's plan to attained or maintain the patient/resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, review of facility policy, and review of the Center for Disease Control and P...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, review of facility policy, and review of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines, the facility failed to implement and maintain an infection prevention and control program to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by 1.) failing to post appropriate signage related to transmission based precautions on 2 resident rooms (406 and 408) of 11 resident rooms under transmission based precautions, 2.) failing to ensure that two staff members (H, A) donned appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) before entering the rooms of 2 resident's rooms (606 and 608) of 11 resident rooms on transmission based precautions, 3.) failing to ensure that PPE was doffed by 3 staff members (G, H, A) prior to exiting the rooms of 2 residents (406 and 606) of 11 resident rooms under transmission based precautions, 4.) two staff members (H, W) failing to wear protective face masks properly throughout the facility in 2 hallways (200 and 600) of 6 hallways in the facility, and 5.) failing to ensure one staff member (T) and one visitor (Lab Technician) were appropriately screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 before entering resident care areas on 1 of 4 days observed with the potential to affect a census of 101 residents. Findings included: 1. An observation was conducted on 08/10/2021 at 6:57 a.m. in the 400 unit of the facility of Staff G, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) exiting room [ROOM NUMBER]. Staff G, CNA stated that the resident in 406 was on droplet isolation precautions. Staff G, CNA was observed wearing an N95 mask, an isolation gown, and eye protection when she walked out of room [ROOM NUMBER] and into the unit hallway. Staff G, CNA stated that she would not normally wear PPE in the unit hallways and doffed the isolation gown she was wearing while standing in the unit hallway, and then disposed of the isolation gown in the trash can near the exit of room [ROOM NUMBER]. No signage was observed on the door of room [ROOM NUMBER] indicating that the resident was on droplet isolation precautions. Staff G, CNA stated, They must have ran out. Staff G stated all of the residents in the 400 hallway were on droplet isolation precautions. No signage was observed on the door of room [ROOM NUMBER] to indicate the residents in the room were on droplet isolation precautions. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) 2. An observation was made on 08/10/2021 at 8:10 a.m. during a breakfast meal tray pass on the 600 unit of the facility. Staff H, CNA was observed exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] wearing an isolation gown, a surgical mask, and a face shield while carrying a resident's tray down the hall and onto the tray cart. An observation of the door of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed that the residents in the room were on droplet isolation precautions. Staff H, CNA then went back into room [ROOM NUMBER] to doff the PPE before exiting the room again. Staff H, CNA then entered room [ROOM NUMBER] to retrieve a meal tray. An observation of the door of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed that the residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] were on droplet isolation precautions. Staff H, CNA did not don an isolation gown or gloves before entering room [ROOM NUMBER]. Staff H, CNA was observed taking the meal tray out of room [ROOM NUMBER] and placing it onto the meal cart. Staff H, CNA then donned an isolation gown, dropped her face shield onto the floor of the hallway, placed the face shield back on, and entered room [ROOM NUMBER] again. An interview was conducted on 08/10/2021 at 8:49 a.m. with Staff H, CNA. Staff H, CNA stated that the residents in 606 and 608 were on droplet isolation precautions and that staff were to don an N95 mask, eye protection, an isolation gown, and gloves before entering the room. Staff H, CNA addressed that she was only wearing a surgical mask and stated she should have an N95 mask on, but she had not had time that morning to get an N95 mask from the front desk. Staff H, CNA was not able to explain why she did not obtain an N95 mask when she entered the building at the beginning of her shift. Staff H, CNA stated she would not normally wear PPE out in the unit hallways and was not able to state why she wore PPE in the unit hallway. Staff H, CNA stated that she did not don an isolation gown before entering room [ROOM NUMBER] because the isolation gown did not properly fit her, but then addressed that she donned an isolation gown when re-entering room [ROOM NUMBER]. Staff H, CNA stated they would normally use bleach wipes to sanitize face shields if they become soiled and addressed that she did not sanitize her face shield after dropping it on the floor of the unit hallway before putting it back on. 3. An observation was conducted on 08/10/2021 at 10:01 a.m. of Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) on the 600 unit of the facility. Staff A, RN was observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER] to administer medications and wearing an N95 mask, face shield, gloves, and an isolation gown. The isolation gown was observed to be not tied in the back or at the neck and was observed to be hanging off of the shoulders of Staff A, RN while in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Staff A, RN was observed exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] with the isolation gown balled up in his hand. Staff A, RN then disposed of the isolation gown in the trash can of the medication cart. An interview was conducted on 08/10/2021 at 10:10 a.m. with Staff A, RN. Staff A, RN stated that the residents in room [ROOM NUMBER] were on droplet isolation precautions to monitor for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and that an isolation gown, N95 mask, gloves, and eye protection were worn when inside of the room. Staff A, RN stated that he disposed of his isolation gown in the trash can of his medication cart because the trash can inside of room [ROOM NUMBER] did not have a trash bag in it. Staff A, RN stated he would normally dispose of PPE before exiting the resident's room. 4. An observation was conducted on 08/13 2021 at 8:38 a.m. on the 200 unit of the facility of Staff W, CNA. Staff W, CNA was observed wearing an N95 mask in the unit hallway with the bottom strap of the mask hanging below her chin. An interview was conducted following the observation with Staff W, CNA. Staff W, CNA stated that she would normally have both straps of the N95 mask in place, but she had taken the mask off in the bathroom and did not put both straps back on. Staff W, CNA addressed the proper way to don the N95 mask would be to have both straps properly in place. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 2:34 p.m. with the facility's Infection Preventionist (IP). The IP stated residents that were newly admitted to the facility were placed on droplet isolation precautions and monitored for fourteen days for any signs or symptoms of COVID-19. Signage should be placed on the door to indicate that a resident is on transmission-based precautions and PPE should be available outside of the resident's room. The IP stated signage and PPE should be put into place upon admission by the floor nurse. Staff should be conducting hand hygiene, applying the isolation gown tied around their waist and neck, KN95 with surgical mask over top, eye protection, and gloves when entering the room of a resident on droplet isolation precautions. Garbage cans should be right near the door of the resident rooms and staff should be taking off soiled gloves first, perform hand hygiene, clean eye protection, perform hand hygiene, untie gown, roll into itself, and dispose of it in the trash can, then remove the surgical mask on top of the KN95 mask and perform hand hygiene before exiting the room. The IP stated staff should not be wearing PPE in the unit hallways and staff should not be breaking the plane of the door with PPE still on. PPE should be disposed of in the resident's room before exiting and not in the medication cart trash can. Isolation gowns should be tied and should not have any strings hanging untied off the gown. A regular surgical mask should not be donned without an N95 or KN95 mask, which are available at the front of the facility. An interview was conducted on 08/13/2021 at 3:36 p.m. with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that any resident that is under transmission-based precautions should have the appropriate signage on the door and that Unit Managers or the floor nurses should be ensuring that the signage and PPE were put into place when the resident arrives at the facility. The DON stated that signage may not have been placed on the doors because the floor nurse may not have known where to find the appropriate signage to put on the door. The DON stated she would not expect to see a staff member wearing PPE in the unit hallways and they should be doffing PPE when in the resident's room. Staff are expected to wear either a KN95 or an N95 mask and not just a regular surgical mask when on the unit. Staff should be provided with an N95 mask when they enter the facility for their shift if they do not have one. The DON stated all staff were educated on the proper PPE donning and doffing procedures and how to proper wear PPE. The DON stated she would not expect to see staff wearing an isolation gown untied or wearing an N95 mask with a strap not properly in place. A review of the CDC website (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nocv/hcp/infection-control-reommendations.html) revealed guidelines, dated 2/23/21 with updates as of 02/10/2021, to help prepare long term care facilities for COVID-19. The guidance revealed, under the section titled, Screen and Triage Everyone Entering a Healthcare Facility for Signs and Symptoms of COVID-19, that although screening for symptoms will not identify asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, symptom screening remains an important strategy to identify those who could have COVID-19 so appropriate precautions can be implemented. Facilities should establish a process to ensure everyone (patients, healthcare personnel, and visitors) entering the facility is assessed for symptoms of COVID-19, or exposure to others with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and that they are practicing source control. Options could include (but are not limited to): individual screening on arrival at the facility; or implementing an electronic monitoring system in which, prior to arrival at the facility, people report absence of fever and symptoms of COVID-19, absence of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the prior 10 days and confirm they have not been exposed to others with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the prior 14 days. The section of the guidance titled, 2. Recommended infection prevention and control (IPC) practices when caring for a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection, revealed that HCP (health care personnel) who enter the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection should adhere to Standard Precautions and use an N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, gown, gloves, and eye protection. HCP must receive training on and demonstrate an understanding of when to use PPE, what PPE is necessary, how to properly don, use, and doff PPE in a manner to prevent self-contamination, how to properly dispose of or disinfect and maintain PPE, and the limitations of PPE. Reusable eye protection (e.g., goggles) must be cleaned and disinfected according to manufacturer's reprocessing instructions prior to re-use. Disposable eye protection should be discarded after use unless following protocols for extended use or reuse. Put on a clean isolation gown upon entry into the patient room or area. Change the gown if it becomes soiled. Remove and discard the gown in a dedicated container for waste or linen before leaving the patient room or care area. Disposable gowns should be discarded after use. 5. On 08/10/21 at 6:12 a.m. an observation was conducted. Staff T, Dietary Aide entered the facility through the front door entrance to the lobby. Staff T, Dietary Aide walked past the front desk through the double doors without screening or getting a temperature check. A lab technician was also observed entering through the front door of the facility. The lab technician walked past the screening area at the front desk and entered the facility through the double doors from the lobby. An interview was conducted with Staff B, RN/Unit Manager (UM) during the observation. Staff B, RN/UM did not stop the lab technician or Staff T, Dietary Aide to request a screening or temperature check. Staff B, RN/UM confirmed that Staff T, Dietary Aide and the lab technician did not stop at the desk for the COVID-19 screening or temperature check. Staff B, RN/UM confirmed they are supposed to fill out the screening form and get a temperature check prior to entering the facility. On 8/12/21 at 12:34 p.m. an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON confirmed the lab technician and Staff T, Dietary Aide did not fill out a COVID-19 screening form or have their temperatures checked. She said the lab technician was already gone when she arrived. Staff T, Dietary Aide didn't do the screening. She said she did not know if Staff T, Dietary Aide came back and screened or not. On 8/13/21 at 11:31 a.m. an interview was conducted with the DON and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), who was the infection preventionist at the facility. The ADON said the expectation is that prior to entering the facility staff and vendors come through the front entrance and get a temperature check and then the receptionist asks the screening questions captured on the COVID screening form. During off hours they have their temperature checked and find a nurse who verifies the screening. A review of the COVID screening form for staff, revised 4/29/21, reflected a box for a temperature, screening questions for COVID-19 symptoms, exposure to COVID-19, screening for infection with COVID-19, return to work screening, travel questions, and an area at the bottom for the screener to fill out. A review of the Visitor/Vendor screening, dated 4/29/21, reflected a box to mark a temperature check, an area with COVID symptom screening, vaccination status, exposure, instructions for the screener to direct the visitor/vendor to perform hand hygiene, and provide PPE (personal protective equipment) for compassionate care givers or visitors. The bottom of the form indicated a line for a screener to sign, indicating the visitor/vendor was screened. A review of the policy, undated, titled, Emergency Procedure-Pandemic COVID-19, revealed the following findings: 1. The following procedure should be utilized in the event of a Pandemic COVID-19 outbreak in the community. 2. Employees including contract employees, should be evaluated and observed at the beginning of each shift for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 (including temperature check). Employees should be instructed to self report symptoms and exposure. 5. Health care personnel (including but not limited to, physicians, physician extenders, hospice providers, laboratory and radiology staff) will be screened and observed for COVID-19 signs and symptoms (including temperature check) and instructed to perform hand hygiene, provided information on self monitor for respiratory symptoms for 14 days after visit and notify the facility of the date of the visit and location.
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident traffic areas and resident spaces were kept ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident traffic areas and resident spaces were kept safe during three of four days observed (8/10/2021, 8/11/2021, and 8/12/2201). It was determined that a large remote air conditioner handler was plugged into an extension cord, which was stretched out causing a non-safe walking area. Two (#65, #69) of seven total residents that were ambulatory were observed to be walking near the cords. Findings included: On 8/10/2021 from 6:10 a.m. through to at least 2:00 p.m. the North wing was toured and observed on the main floor, across from the nurse station and next to the soiled utility room, there was a large satellite air conditioner handler with tubing leading from the machine and going up through ceiling tiles. Interview with the floor staff had all indicated the air conditioning was not working well on the hallways and this unit has been placed in this spot for about three weeks or so. The unit was observed in an area where staff and resident frequent. Photographic evidence was taken. Further observations of the unit revealed it was plugged in to a long orange twenty foot extension cord and plugged into the wall approximately fifteen feet away from the machine. The cord was observed coiled on the floor at the machine and near the door frame of the soiled utility room. Further, the cord was on the floor passing two other doors/spaces to include the storage room and clean utility room. Residents were observed either walking at and near this area with the cord or seated in wheelchairs at and over the cord. Photographic evidence was taken. On 8/11/2021 at 6:50 a.m. the air handler was observed in the same place with the same observations with the power cord and unit cord coiled on the floor presenting a tripping hazard near the soiled utility closet, at the storage closet, and the clean utility closet. At 8:28 a.m. Resident #69 was observed walking from his room and shuffling his feet and walking with slightly unbalanced gait. He walked all the way to the air handler and started to go in the soiled utility closet behind a staff member. He walked and stepped on the power cord from the air handler and the aide then touched his right shoulder and backed him away from the area and walked with him to his room. Review of resident #69's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the 6/29/2021 Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment revealed the following areas: Cognition/Brief Interview Mental Status or BIMS score 3 of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Also Resident #65 was observed many times of the day walking out from her room and shuffling her feet while walking to the nurse station. She was observed shuffling her feet at and near the area of the air handler and extension and power cord. She had been noted several times touching the cords with her feet. Review of resident #65's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the 5 day MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the following areas: Cognition/BIMS score 3 of 15, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. On 8/13/2021 at 1:00 p.m. an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator confirmed that the air handler was in the North unit hallway and has been there to provide air in the hallways for about three weeks. She revealed that they are awaiting parts to come in to fix the hallway air conditioner. The Nursing Home Administrator revealed that the Maintenance Director who set up the remote air handler is no longer employed by the facility and she, nor her floor staff paid enough attention that this device was plugged into an extension cord and stretched out on the ground passing several spaces/doors. Work orders or paperwork related to the use of the remote handler could not be obtained from the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** An observation was made on [DATE] at 08:27 AM of a treatment cart on the 600 unit of the facility. The treatment cart was observ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** An observation was made on [DATE] at 08:27 AM of a treatment cart on the 600 unit of the facility. The treatment cart was observed to be unlocked in the unit hallway with no staff members observed in the immediate area. The treatment cart was inspected until 08:36 AM and several staff members walked by the treatment cart during the inspection. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 08:36 AM with Staff D, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Unit Manager. Staff D, LPN stated that treatment carts on the unit should remain locked at all times when not in use and that all nurses on the unit were responsible for ensuring treatment carts remained secured. Staff D, LPN addressed that nursing staff on the unit were responsible for securing the treatment cart. An observation was conducted on [DATE] at 09:57 AM of a treatment cart on the 600 unit of the facility. The treatment cart was observed to be unlocked in the unit hallway. An interview was conducted following the observation with Staff C, LPN. Staff C, LPN stated that he needed to quickly get some wound care supplies and accidentally left the treatment cart unlocked. Staff C, LPN stated that normally the treatment cart would remain locked if not in use. An observation was made of medication administration on [DATE] at 08:47 AM with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN). Staff A, RN was observed administering medication to Resident #503. Resident #503 was observed dropping 3 medications onto the floor of her room while trying to pick the medications up one at a time. Staff A, RN was observed picking the medications up and throwing them into Resident #503's trash can. Staff A, RN replaced the medications with new medications from the medication cart and administered them without difficulty. Two round white tablets and an oblong white tablet were observed in Resident #503's trash can following the observation. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 09:37 AM with Staff A, RN. Staff A, RN stated that they would normally dispose of medications in the Drug Buster solution or in the black box in the unit medication room. Staff A, RN observed the three medications in Resident #503's trash can and stated that he did not even realize that he threw the medications away in the resident's trash can. Staff A, RN stated that he would not normally dispose of medications in a resident's trash can and stated I'm just not focused. Staff A stated that he had been a nurse for a long time and that he knew the proper way to dispose of medications. An observation was conducted on [DATE] at 02:00 PM of a treatment cart on the 600 unit of the facility in front of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The treatment cart was observed to be unlocked at the time of the observation and a resident was observed opening the bottom drawer of the cart. An interview was conducted following the observations with Staff E, RN. Staff E, RN was observed closing and locking the cart while re-directing the resident away from the treatment cart. Staff E, RN stated that the treatment cart should remain locked at all times when a staff member is not present. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 08:17 AM with Staff D, LPN Unit Manager. Staff D, LPN stated that nursing staff were to use the Drug Buster solution in the medication storage room to dispose of any non-controlled medications and would not expect the nursing staff to simply dispose of medications inside of a regular trash can. An observation of medication administration was conducted on [DATE] at 08:21 AM in the 200 hall of the facility with Staff V, LPN. Staff V, LPN was observed entering a resident's room after dispensing medications from the medication cart and left the cart unlocked while inside of the resident's room. After administering medications to the resident, an interview was conducted with Staff V, LPN. Staff V, LPN addressed that she had left the medication cart unlocked after stepping away from it and stated that she had left the cart unlocked because she had the cart positioned close to the resident's room and was able to keep an eye on it. An inspection of a medication cart was conducted on [DATE] at 09:05 AM with Staff I, LPN on the 100 unit of the facility. A vial of Latanoprost 0.005% eye drops were observed stored inside of the manufacturer's box and inside of a plastic storage bag. The plastic storage bag contained the medication label as well as a yellow label that read Date Opened and Discard After 42 Days. No date was documented in the Date Opened section of the label. The date of opening was also not documented anywhere on the manufacturer's box. An open manufacturer's box of Symbicort 160-4.5 was observed inside of the medication cart with a green label that read Date Opened and Discard After 90 Days. No date was documented in the Date Opened section of the label. An interview was conducted following the observations with Staff I, LPN. Staff I, LPN stated that medications such as inhalers and eye drops should be dated when they were opened by either using the label provided by pharmacy or labeling the date somewhere on the box. Staff I, LPN addressed that the Latanoprost eye drops and Symbicort inhaler should have had dates labeled on them to indicate when they were opened. On [DATE] at 11:18 a.m., an unsupervised medication cart was observed positioned up against the wall between resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. There were no nurses at or around the cart. Further, the nurse Employee C was overheard in a resident room down the hall, approximately twenty-five feet from the medication cart. Employee C was in another resident room assisting with medication pass. During the time of the observation, the unsupervised medication cart was observed with a small clear plastic cup placed on the top surface of the cart. The medication cup was observed with 10 various medication capsules and tablets. The cup was labeled in black marker, waste. Photographic evidence was taken. From 11:20 a.m. through to 11:23 a.m. there were two residents who were self propelling while seated in their wheelchairs, up and down the hallway and passing the medication cart with the cup of medications on it. There were no nursing staff at or around the medication cart where the unsecured medications were. At 11:24 a.m. Nurse Employee C was observed to walk out from a room down the hall and approximately twenty-five feet from the medication cart. He was then asked about the state of his medication cart and he confirmed the cup of medications. He explained that they are empty capsules and they are to be wasted/discarded. However, further evidence revealed two tablets, among the empty capsules. He confirmed that the cup of medications were not supervised while he was in other residents' rooms and that he does know to secure the medications even if they are in a cup that is labeled waste. On [DATE] at 1:00 p.m. an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that medications should never be left unsupervised, and especially left on top of a medication cart that is not supervised. She revealed that even though the medication cup read, waste on it, it still should have been locked in the medication cart and kept away from free access of passing residents in the hallway. A telephone interview was conducted on [DATE] at 01:40 PM with the facility's Consultant Pharmacist. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that she was at the facility on [DATE]. During her visit she observed the facility for medication storage issues, including cleanliness of the carts, organization, and for any expired and undated medications. The Unit Managers would also conduct audits related to medication storage. Nursing staff should ensure that medication and treatment carts remain locked when they are not supervising them and that typically the nurse that has the keys to the cart would be the one responsible for ensuring that the cart is kept secured. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that she would expect nursing staff in the facility to follow facility policy related to disposal of medications. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 03:36 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that nursing staff should be using the Drug Buster solution in the medication room to dispose of any medications that needed to be wasted and that she would not expect nursing staff to use a regular trash can to dispose of medications. Medication and treatment carts should remain locked at all times, even if the nurse quickly steps away from it. Unit Managers should also be ensuring that medication and treatment carts remain locked at all times. A review of the facility procedure titled Storage and Expiration of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes, and Needles, last revised on [DATE], revealed the following procedures: - The Facility should ensure that all medications and biologicals, including treatment items, are securely stored in a locked cabinet/cart or locked medication room that is inaccessible by residents and visitors. - The Facility should ensure that medications and biologicals have an expiration date on the label. - Once any medication or biological package is opened, Facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications. Facility staff should record the date opened on the medication container when the medication has a shortened expiration date once opened. A review of the facility policy titled Medication and Medication Supply Storage and Disposal, effective on [DATE], revealed under the section titled Policy, that central storage of medications is required for prescription, prescribed over-the-counter medications, and Complimentary and Alternative Medicine will be kept in a locked area, in their original labeled container, and may not be removed more than 2 hours prior to the scheduled administration. Meds will be kept in a medication cart that locks and keys are only accessible to the licensed personnel distributing medications. Photographic evidence obtained. Based on observations, interviews, and review of facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure medications and biologicals were stored, secured, and disposed of in accordance with professional standards related to 1.) not ensuring 1 of 2 treatment carts in the facility remained secured and locked, 2.) not ensuring that 1 of 5 medication carts in the facility remained secured and locked, 3.) not ensuring medications had proper labeling in 1 of 3 medication carts observed, 4.) not ensuring that medications were disposed of and stored properly during observation of medication administration for 1 (Resident #503) of 7 residents observed during medication administration and 5.) not ensuring medications were properly secured during a tour of the facility on 1 of 4 days. Findings included:
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), 2 harm violation(s), $70,702 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 40 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $70,702 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Charming Lakes Rehab's CMS Rating?

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

How is Charming Lakes Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates CHARMING LAKES REHAB's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 67%, which is 20 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Charming Lakes Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 40 deficiencies at CHARMING LAKES REHAB during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 2 that caused actual resident harm, 35 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Charming Lakes Rehab?

CHARMING LAKES REHAB is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by EXCELSIOR CARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 112 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in LAKELAND, Florida.

How Does Charming Lakes Rehab Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, CHARMING LAKES REHAB's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (67%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Charming Lakes Rehab?

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 you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Charming Lakes Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CHARMING LAKES REHAB 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 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Charming Lakes Rehab Stick Around?

Staff turnover at CHARMING LAKES REHAB is high. At 67%, the facility is 20 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 67%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Charming Lakes Rehab Ever Fined?

CHARMING LAKES REHAB has been fined $70,702 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the Florida average of $33,786. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Charming Lakes Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

CHARMING LAKES REHAB 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.