CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0557
(Tag F0557)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dignity and respect during the dining experience for four (2 unknown, #56, and #322) out of four residents requiring s...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure dignity and respect during the dining experience for four (2 unknown, #56, and #322) out of four residents requiring supervision on the 300-unit as evidence by not removing dinnerware from meal trays, not serving one (#56) out of three residents seated at the common area table together, removing two (one unknown female and #56) out of two residents from the table until their meals arrived, and standing up while assisting one resident (#273) out of one resident observed for needing dining assistance.
Findings included:
An observation on 3/4/24 at 12:15 p.m. was conducted of meal service in the 300-unit common area. The observation revealed three residents (Residents #322, #56, and another female resident) sitting at the table in the common area, the two female residents had meal trays, while Resident #56 did not. The observation showed the dinnerware for the two females were not taken off the tray. Staff Q, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), informed Resident #56 that it (meal) was coming soon.
An observation on 3/4/24 at 12:22 p.m., revealed Resident #56 eating a piece of bread as staff placed a tray in front of the resident without removing the dinnerware from it. Staff Q stated, at the time of the observation, of not knowing where the bread had come from.
An observation on 3/4/24 at 12:31 p.m., was conducted of Resident #273 lying in bed with a tray on the over-bed table. The resident reported needing assistance.
An interview on 3/4/24 at 12:32 p.m, was conducted, Staff Q stated Resident #273 did need assistance at times.
During an observation on 3/4/23 at 12:43 p.m, Staff M, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed standing against the resident's bed fully assisting the resident with eating. The staff member's name badge was turned to the inside of a clear sleeve with another item so the name was not readily visible without having to take the badge out of the sleeve.
An observation was made on 3/6/24 at 12:18 p.m., in the 300-unit common area of 4 residents, (two female and two male) which included Resident #56 and Resident #322, sitting at a table next to the nursing station. Staff members placed a meal tray in front of one male resident and Resident #322, the dinnerware was not removed from the trays. Immediately after the two residents were served, Staff N, CNA, propelled Resident #56 to the area on the other side of the nursing station where one female resident was sitting in a wheelchair directly in front of the television and across from a sitting chair. Resident #56 was placed in the area slightly behind the female resident and to the side nearer the sitting chair. Staff N removed the second female resident from the table and placed her behind Resident #56. The observation continued at 12:32 p.m. of the two female resident's and Resident #56 sitting on the television side of the nursing station and were returned to the table in the common area. The three residents were served a noontime meal, the dinnerware was not removed from the trays.
An interview was conducted, on 3/6/24 at 12:36 p.m.,with Staff N. The staff member stated it was rude to have people sit at a table with others eating so they moved the residents (without trays). Staff N stated the two residents, one female and Resident #56, were removed from the table because their trays came later. The staff member confirmed when trays did not come together (for resident's sitting together) residents without trays were removed from the table.
The policy 02.003- Meal Service, copyrighted 2016, revealed The facility believes that all residents should be treated with dignity and respect at all times period a respectful, positive dining experience is essential to the residents quality of life and helps to identify residents needs and improve their overall nutritional status. Residents will be properly groomed and their needs attended to during the meal service.
- All resident's at one table will be served at the same time prior to serving resident's at other tables. Table service will be rotated so that the same table is not always served first or last period residents who require feeding will not have their trays delivered until a staff member is available to assist with feeding.
- Resident's eating in their rooms will be provided assistance as needed. Resident's who require feeding will not be delivered a meal tray until a staff member is available to assist the resident with eating.
- Alternative dining areas provided to accommodate cultural preferences will follow these guidelines.
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0604
(Tag F0604)
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 one (Resident #180) of one sampled resident...
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 one (Resident #180) of one sampled resident was free from restraints and was not evaluated for a restraint.
Findings included:
On 3/4/2024 at 10:33 a.m., Resident #180 was observed lying in a sitting position in his bed. His head was on the upper right side of mattress; legs were at a 90-degree angle (sitting position) over the edge of the left side of the head of the bed. Resident #180's side rails were up in the raised position on both sides. His legs were in front of the top of the rail on the left side. The side rails went from just below the head of the bed to just above the foot of the bed. The bed was approximately 2 feet off the floor. A blue mat was on each side of the bed. The resident was observed moving about in the bed. The privacy curtain was pulled for privacy. The resident was not visible from the hallway. (Photographic evidence obtained of the side rail).
On 3/6/2024 at 9:01 a.m., the resident was observed lying in bed, with both side rails raised. Resident #180 was observed to be moving legs back and forth. A mat was leaning up against the wall and a mat was on the right side of the bed.
On 3/6/2024 at 12:28 p.m., the resident was observed in the day room at the end of the hallway, sitting in a [Brand name] specialty wheelchair. The wheelchair was pushed up against the wall and the wheels in the locked position. The chair was tilted back, raising the resident's knees, no leg rests were on the chair. The resident was observed moving his legs up and down. The chair did not move.
On 3/7/2024 at 5:28 p.m., Resident #180 was observed in the day room at the end of the hallway, sitting in the specialty wheelchair. The left side of the chair was placed against the wall, the chair was tilted back with Resident's feet slightly raised and hanging off the end of the seat. The chair had no leg rests and was in a locked position.
A review of Resident #180's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses not limited to Dementia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Obstructive Disease (COPD), Transient Cerebral Ischemic Attack, Insomnia, Seizures, Difficulty Walking and other co-morbidities.
A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], showed Resident #180 had no functional impairments, required substantial to maximal assistance with bed mobility, no falls since admission, and no restraints and alarms.
A review of the resident's Order Summary Report (physicians orders), active as of 3/7/2024, showed: bilateral ¼ side rails up when in bed as an enabler for positioning, floor mat on both sides of the bed for poor safety awareness/falls, [Brand name] chair when out of bed, position bed in lowest position for safety awareness, and scoop mattress for safety.
A review Resident #180's care plan included the following:
Focus Area: Resident #180 requires assistance from staff with activities of daily living (ADL) due to muscle weakness, limited mobility, diagnosis of cerebral vascular accident, seizures, dementia, COPD, and chronic kidney disease (date initiated 9/28/2022).
Interventions: assist resident with meals as ordered. Assist with toileting needs. Family prefers resident to wear homemade clothes provided by family; Wears clothes backwards per family preference (revised on 6/28/2023). Keep personal items within reach. Monitor vital signs as ordered per protocol. [Resident #180] is non-ambulatory use of wheelchair for mobility. [Brand name] chair as ordered (revised on 9/20/2023). Bed mobility: the resident requires assistance by staff to turn and reposition in bed and as necessary ( Revised on 12/28/2022). Side rails: bilateral 1/4 side rails up as per doctor's order for safety during care provision, to assist with bed mobility. Observe for injury or entrapment related to side rail use. Reposition and as necessary to avoid injury (Revised on 1/20/2023). Transfer: the resident requires assistance by staff to move between surfaces and as necessary (revision on 12/28/2022).
Focus Area: Resident #180 likes to crawl out of bed and crawl on the floor at times due to dementia (date initiated 1/10/2023).
Interventions: anticipate and meet the resident's needs (revision on 1/10/2023). Assist the resident to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting. Encourage the resident to express feelings appropriately (Revised on 4/5/2023). Caregivers to provided opportunity for positive interaction, attention. Stop and talk with him/her as passing by (Revised 1/10/2023). Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Approach speaking calm manner. Divert attention. Remove from situation and take to alternative location as needed. Monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. Consider location, time of day, person involved, and situations. Document behavior and potential causes.
Focus Area: Resident #180 is at risk for repeat falls due to history of seizures, impaired mobility, incontinence, dementia decreased safety awareness, history of falls. (Date initiated 9/28/2022).
Interventions: 1/10/23 low bed (revised on 1/31/2023). 10/13/22 environmental checks. Encourage proper footwear. 10/24/22 wheelchair eval (evaluation). 10/3/2022 environmental checks. 10/3/2022 close teamwork supervision for 72 hours. 10/31/22 offer hip protectors as ordered (Revision on 10/31/22). 2/16/23 Med review as ordered. 2/16/23 medication review. 2/22/23 wheelchair eval. 2/25/26 close teamwork supervision. 4/6/23 wheelchair eval. 5/15/23 close teamwork supervision for 72 hours. 5/30/23 close teamwork supervision x 72 hours (revision on 5/30/2023). 5/8/2023 close teamwork supervision (revised on 5/8/2023). 5/8/23 labs. Anticipate and meet the resident's needs (Revised 9/28/2022). Assist with mobility as necessary. Assist with toileting needs. Close teamwork supervision for 72 hours. Therapy screen for appropriate wheelchair (revised on 6/26/2023). Floor mats both sides of bed. Floor mats on both sides as ordered. Geri sleeves bilateral arms. Lab work. Resident #180 will be observed by staff for any complications due to choosing to be on the floor or crawling on the floor. Notify family MD as needed. Offer hip protectors as ordered. Physical therapy eval and treat as ordered or as needed. Scoop mattress as ordered.
A review of Resident #180's Advanced Practice Registered Nurse encounter note dated 2/22/2024 showed: 9/23/2022 - patient [seen] to follow up on therapy period patient does not communicate with provider. Staff reports patient continuously placing himself on and off of the bed. 10/10/22 - patient unable to answer questions appropriately. Staff reports skin tear on arm. 10/26/22 - Patient seen to follow up on fall. Patient is unable to be redirected however is unaware of limitations. Patient without visible injury. 12/7/22 - seen to follow up on new open area to his leg reported by staff. Patient was noted to be rubbing his leg on his wheelchair which resulted in the injury. 1/19/23 - patient seen to follow up on behavior issues. 5/8/23 - patient [seen] to follow up on report of frequent falls. Patient is confused, however denies complaints of pain. 5/16/23 - patient seen to follow up on fall. Patient unable to participate. 6/2/23 - Patient seen to follow up on fall patient does not participate. 7/31/23 - patient seen to follow up on fall with emergency room visit. Patient does not participate in exam. Assessment: . frequent falls, dementia with behavioral concerns .
Review of Resident #180's Side Rail Evaluation dated 2/13/2024 showed: 2. Resident expressed a desire to have the side rails raised while in bed for their own safety and or comfort, due to provides resident support when resident is turned. 3. Does the resident have fluctuation in levels of [coq] consciousness or cognitive deficit? Answer yes due to dementia. is the resident able to get in and out of bed? Yes. 6. Does the resident have seizures? No. 7. Does the resident have a history of falls? Yes. 8. Does the resident have problems with poor balance or trunk control? Yes. Due to muscle weakness. 9. Does the resident use the side rails for positioning or support? Yes. 10. Does the side rails help the resident from supine to sitting standing position? No. 12. Is there a possibility the resident will climb over the rails? No. 13. Is there a reason to believe the resident has (or may have) the desire to get out of bed? No 14. Does the resident receive any medications that would require safety precautions? Yes, anti-anxiety. 15. Our side rails indicated for this resident? Yes, as an enabler with positioning. 16. Are there alternatives instead of side rails? No. - No score visible on form.
During an interview on 3/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m., Staff T, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated the side rails were up on resident's bed because the resident moves around a bunch in his bed. Keeps him in the bed.
During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 11:56 a.m., Staff S, CNA stated, [Resident #180] tries to get up and doesn't like to be bothered that is why we use side rails.
During a follow up interview on 3/6/2024 at 1:15 p.m., Staff S, CNA stated, [Resident #180] does not utilize the side rails during care. They [the side rails] just keep him from falling or crawling to the floor.
During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 5:00 p.m., Staff U, Registered Nurse (RN) stated side rails and specialty chairs were utilized to assist in the management of the residents. For example, if a resident tried to get up we might use them. She stated the nurses completed evaluations for side rails for residents if needed. She was not sure if therapy was involved in the decision to use them or not.
During an interview on 3/6/2023 at 5:05 p.m., Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated all the side rails on the unit are ¼ side rails and all residents except one on this unit has them, they are all enablers. The residents were evaluated for them with the Side Rail Evaluation upon admission and quarterly. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) made the determination if side rails were needed with the side rail evaluation. The side rail evaluation did not have a scoring component. The IDT reviewed and determined if the side rails were appropriate.
During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 5:14 p.m., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated Resident #180 was seen in 2022 for physical, occupational and speech therapy. Resident #180 was next seen by Occupation Therapy in June 2023 and recommended a [Brand name] chair for the resident due to frequent falls. The DOR stated, We are not at all involved in side rail evaluations, this is a nursing judgement.
During an interview on 3/7/2024 at 12:10 p.m., Staff O, LPN stated side rails came in different sizes, 1/2 rail is one side of bed and 1/4 rail is not the full length of the bed.
During an interview on 3/7/2024 at 12:18 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, 1/4 rail is just near the head of the bed and a 1/2 rail is longer and goes almost to the middle of the bed or takes up at least ½ of the side of the bed. The DON did not comment when asked about the side rail evaluation for Resident #180.
Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Restorative - Physical Restraint Program not dated shows: Policy: the facility will not impose the use of any physical restraint on any resident for discipline or convenience. The use of restraints will be for the purpose of resident safety related to the treatment of the resident's specific medical symptoms and only after other less restrictive devices or other alternatives have been tried without success. Physical restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material, or equipment attached or adjacent to the residents body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or normal access to one's body. Devices that may meet the definition of physical restraints are leg or hand restraints, hand mitts, waist belts that cannot be removed by the resident of upon command, lap buddies or lap bars, lap trays that cannot be removed by the resident upon command, Mary Walkers, chairs that prevent the resident from rising, placing a bed so close to a wall that it prevents exiting, scoop mattresses, bolsters, and partial or full side rails. Only after a thorough evaluation of the resident and his/her functional and cognitive abilities can the determination be made whether the use of these devices serves to restrain the resident physically. A device that restrains one person may not restrain another, depending on the individual's condition. The evaluation of the necessity of a restraint device for the purpose of resident safety, while addressing the resident's medical symptom(s), will be completed by the facility Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). The evaluation will be documented using the physical restraint evaluation form. All efforts will be made to avoid the use of a restraint device through the use of less restrictive interventions. The IDT will use the restraint evaluation decision algorithm to record the process of determining if the device fits the definition of a restraint device and to verify all necessary documentation has been completed. Procedure: 1. The attending physician will provide a complete order for the restraint. The order must include: * the type of restraint * when to use the restraint (specific period of time) * the reason for the restraint * the medical symptoms that are being addressed by the restraint * how frequently the resident is to be checked while the restraint is in use * how often the restraint is to be released (removed) for exercise and personal care. 2. The resident and or responsible party will be provided information necessary to make an informed choice about the use of the restraint. The facility will explain the reason for the restraint use and the potential negative outcome of the restraint use. The Restraint Risk/Benefit Consent form must be completed and signed by the resident and/or responsible party indicating either acceptance or refusal of the restraint device use. 3. The continued use of the restraint and the reduction to a less restrictive device will be evaluated quarterly and with a significant change in condition by the interdisciplinary team. 4. The IDT will develop and maintain a comprehensive care plan for the resident and use the restraint use of restraints will be included in the plan of care along with the following: * medical symptoms that warrant the need of the restraint * type of restraint * when the restraint is to be used * plan for monitoring the resident for safety when the restraint is in use * plan for releasing the restraint for repositioning, exercise, personal care, and dining * how the use of the restraint will assist the resident at in attaining the highest possible level of well-being 5. Care giving staff assigned to the resident will be instructed in applying the device correctly and removing the device safely. The algorithm was provided that assists in the IDT determination of side rails for enablers or restraints.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for one (Resident #525) of on...
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 obtain physician orders for one (Resident #525) of one resident to ensure a resident who entered the facility with a indwelling catheter was assessed and received appropriate physician orders, treatment, and services.
Findings Included:
On 03/04/2024 at 9:38 a.m., Resident #525 was observed sitting in his bed, with a cast on his right arm and a [Brand name]catheter over his left leg to a drainage bag hanging on the frame of the bed facing the door, no privacy bag present. There was cloudy yellow urine in the tubing and drainage bag. Resident # 525 stated he had the catheter as he had multiple sclerosis (MS) and a neurogenic bladder. Resident #525 stated he had a fall at home which resulted in him having a broken right arm. The resident stated when he first arrived at the facility, they had to change the catheter because the one they put in was too small, was not draining, his bladder felt full, and after they changed to a larger size, he was feeling much better.
On 03/05/2024 at 8:47 a.m., Resident #525 was observed sleeping and his catheter was observed over his left leg and connected to a drainage bag which was connected to the side of the bed frame facing the door and was not in a privacy cover, the drainage bag contained clear yellow urine in the tubing and drainage bag.
On 3/6/2024 at 10:00 a.m., Resident #525 was observed dressed and in the wheelchair. He stated he had an appointment at the doctor for evaluation of his right arm. He said his catheter was attached to a leg bag so he could go to his appointment. The drainage bag was hanging on the bed frame facing the door and was not in a privacy bag. The resident stated no one had come in to provide catheter care, he did it himself and wore a brief for any leakage.
An interview was conducted on 3/6/2024 at 10:15 a.m. with Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN). She stated Resident #525 had a pickup time for his appointment at 1:45 p.m. and he wore a leg bag when he was out of bed or had to go to an appointment.
An interview was conducted on 03/07/2024 at 10:35 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) regarding expectations of catheter care. She said there should be orders, flushing if required, the tubing should be secured to the leg, drainage bag with cover for privacy and care as per orders by physician. She stated the resident had orders and the catheter was removed for a voiding trial. He was unable to void, so the catheter was reinserted.
A review of Resident #525 admission record dated 02/22/2024 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from the hospital and a primary diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and encounter for orthopedic aftercare.
A review of the Medical Certification for Medicaid Long-Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form - 5000-3008 (3008) dated 02/22/2024, signed by the hospital nurse practitioner revealed Resident #525 was incontinent, had a chronic catheter and it was inserted on 02/15/2024. The indications for use were chronic condition.
A review of the physician orders dated 02/22/2024 showed no orders for catheter care in the current orders or the discontinued orders.
A review of the comprehensive care plan date initiated 03/05/2024 showed:
Focus - Resident #525 is at risk for urinary tract infection (UTI) related to [Brand name] catheter related to a diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder.
Interventions - Change [Brand name] catheter as per physician orders, [Brand name] catheter as per physician order, and observe for sign and symptoms of UTI and report to physician as needed.
A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed:
Section C - Cognitive Patterns - Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 15, which meant intact cognition.
Section H - Bladder and Bowel - Section H0100 Appliances - Item A is checked for indwelling catheter.
A review of the progress note dated 02/29/2024 at 11:28 a.m. showed Resident #525 complained of catheter discomfort. Wrong size was inserted on 02/28/2024. Size 14 French catheter was removed and replaced immediately with a 16 French catheter. Leg bag attached.
A review of the progress note dated 02/28/2024 7:52 a.m. revealed Resident #525's catheter was replaced because the previous one was clogged.
A review of the medication administration record (MAR) for 02/22/2024 - 02/29/2024 showed no documentation for catheter care.
A review of the treatment administration record (TAR) for 02/22/2024 - 02/29/2024 showed no documentation for catheter care.
A review of the MAR for 03/01/2024 - 03/06/2024 showed no documentation for catheter care.
A review of the TAR for 03/01/2024 - 03/06/2024 showed no documentation for catheter care.
A review of facility Policy and Procedure Nursing-Catheter Care, Including drainage Bag Care/Maintenance Effective January 1999/Revision September 2009 showed:
Purpose: To provide safe and proper care of the resident with an indwelling urinary catheter. To minimize the risk of bladder infection. To maintain skin integrity
Equipment: Soap and water, washcloth and towel, catheter strap, gloves, and graduated collection container as needed.
Procedure:
1.
Verify physician's order for catheter and catheter care
2.
Date bag when applied.
3.
Assess the output at regular intervals to ensure adequate drainage is occurring.
4.
Apply a privacy cover bag for privacy and dignity. When resident is out of bed, drainage bags should be in a privacy bag, when resident is in bed efforts should be made to cover the drainage bag and hand on the opposite side of bed from door.
5.
Document and report any significant changes to the physician.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one garbage dumpster was maintained in a sanitary condition and free from debris.
Findings included:
An observation of the fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one garbage dumpster was maintained in a sanitary condition and free from debris.
Findings included:
An observation of the facility's garbage area on 03/05/24 at 11:15 a.m., revealed multiple items on the ground around the garbage dumpster. The items were as follows: Photographic evidence obtained.
-
plastic cup
-
blue gloves
-
hamburger buns
-
plastic spoon
-
2 recliners
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 11:15 a.m., Staff F, Dietary Manager (DM) stated he was responsible for the dumpster and confirmed the items found around the dumpster should not be there. Staff F, DM stated he tried to come out daily to keep the area around the dumpster cleaned up.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0645
(Tag F0645)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. A review of the admission Record dated 3/28/1998 for Resident #1 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The record inc...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. A review of the admission Record dated 3/28/1998 for Resident #1 revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The record included diagnoses of bipolar (onset date 3/28/1998).
A review of Resident #1's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated 3/5/2024 revealed:
a. Under Section I B - Services - Currently receiving services for mental illness (MI), and Finding is based on (check all that apply) documented history and medications are checked.
b. Under Section IV PASRR Screen Completion: Individual may be admitted to an nursing facility. No diagnosis or suspicion or serious mental illness or intellectual disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required.
A review of the MDS dated [DATE] showed:
Section A-Identification Information - admission date 3/28/1998.
Section C - Cognitive patterns revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04.
Section I - Active Diagnoses - Bipolar Disorder, Psychotic Disorder, and Alcohol Dependence in Remission
A review of the physician orders as of 3/7/2024 showed; divalproex sodium tablet delayed release for bipolar.
A review of the care plan initiated on 6/28/2022 with a target date of 3/12/2024 showed:
Focus - Resident #1 is incapable of making decisions due to his incapacitation. Resident #1 is dependent on staff for emotional and intellectual needs, and resident requires long term placement related to traumatic brain injury.
A review of the physician progress note dated 2/14/2024 showed a follow up from last visit, dementia noted in disease processes.
An interview was conducted with the SSD on 03/06/24 at 2:30 p.m. She stated a level II was not required given the resident had exhibited no behaviors. She also stated the determination was made from documentation she had access to and was not attached to the Level I PASRR, she would have to reconsider a Level II evaluation.
The residents' record showed no evidence of a Level II PASRR.
6. A review of the admission Record showed Resident #3 was originally admitted on [DATE] and again on 1/18/2024. The record included the resident diagnoses of cognitive communication deficit (onset date 1/22/2024), anxiety disorder (onset date 1/10/2024), psychosis (onset date 10/7/2023), and depressive disorder (onset date 4/24/2023).
A review of Resident #3's Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated 1/22/2024 revealed:
Under Section 1 A - anxiety disorder, depressive disorder and psychotic disorder are checked.
Under Section I B - Services - Currently receiving services for mental illness (MI), and Finding is based on (check all that apply) documented history and medications are checked.
Under Section IV PASRR Screen Completion: Individual may be admitted to an nursing facility. No diagnosis or suspicion or serious mental illness or intellectual disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required.
A review of MDS dated [DATE] revealed:
Section A-Identification Information - admission date 1/18/2024.
Section C - Cognitive patterns revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04.
Section I - Active Diagnoses - Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Psychotic Disorder.
Section N - Medications - N0415 - High-Risk Drug Classes: Use and Indications A. Antipsychotic - is taking and indication noted; C. Antidepressant - is taking and indication noted.
A review of the care plan initiated on 2/15/2024 with a target date of 4/30/2024 showed:
Focus - Resident #3 is alert and able to make own decisions Resident #3 has cognitive impairment and impaired thought processes related to confusion. Resident #3 requires long term placement for 24-hour care which family cannot provide. Resident #3 is at risk for adverse reactions related to polypharmacy related to the antipsychotic and antidepressive medications she receives. Resident #3 has an alteration in neurological status related to depression, psychosis, and anxiety.
An interview was conducted with the SSD on 03/06/24 at 2:40 p.m. She stated a level II was not required given the resident had exhibited no behaviors. She also stated the determination was made from documentation she had access to and was not attached to the Level I PASRR, she would have to reconsider a Level II evaluation.
The resident's record showed no evidence of a Level II PASRR being completed.
7. A review of the admission Record showed Resident #149 was admitted on [DATE], readmitted on [DATE], and 10/16/2023 with diagnoses of Dementia, Major Depressive Disorder, and other comorbidities.
A review of Resident #149's PASRR Level I Assessment, dated 3/5/2024 showed a qualifying mental health diagnosis marked in section I A. and the diagnosis of Dementia. A level II PASRR should have been completed due to the qualifying diagnoses. The Level II request was not submitted.
During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 2:30 p.m. the SSD confirmed a Level II PASRR should have been requested.
Review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Admissions/Social Services- Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), not dated showed: Page 2 - Policy for PASRR The admission Coordinator/Designee is responsible for ensuring that the Level I PASRR Screen and Level II PASRR Evaluation and Determination, if applicable, are completed prior to admission. Procedure 1. Eight level one screening must be completed on all potential new admissions, regardless of payer source. For potential new admissions from a hospital, the level 1 screening should be completed by hospital staff (physician, RN, MSW, or LCSW). For potential new admissions from the community, the level 1 screening must be completed by appropriate nursing facility staff (physician, RN, MSW, or LCSW) or KEPRO staff. 2. A level 1 PASRR must be fully and accurately completed and distributed in accordance with rule 59G-1. 040, F.A.C. Upon or prior to admission, if the facility finds the level 1 to be incomplete or inaccurate, a corrected level 1 PASRR must be completed by hospital staff or appropriate nursing facility staff (physician, RN, MSW, or LCSW). 4. When applicable, a request for a PASRR level II evaluation must be made by Social Services Director/Designee using the FL PASRR provider portal at https://portal.KEPRO.com/.
2. A review of the admission Record for Resident #177 showed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder.
Section I Active Diagnoses of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #177 had diagnoses to include depression and bipolar disorder.
A review of Resident #177's PASARR Level I Screen, dated 07/21/22 showed no diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability indicated. Per the form, a Level II PASRR evaluation was not required although the admission Record and MDS showed diagnoses to include bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder.
3. A review of the admission Record for Resident #151 showed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include dementia and bipolar disorder. Section I Active Diagnoses of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #151 had diagnoses to include bipolar disorder.
A review of Resident #151's PASARR Level I Screen, dated 01/25/24 revealed a mental illness or suspected mental illness of bipolar disorder and the resident was currently receiving services for mental illness. This finding was based on documented history. The form indicated A Level II PASRR evaluation must be completed if the individual has a primary or secondary diagnosis of dementia or related neurocognitive disorder, and a suspicion or diagnosis of a Serious Mental Illness, Intellectual Disability, or both. The form revealed Resident #151 did not have a diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability indicated Level II PASRR evaluation not required although the admission Record and MDS showed diagnoses to include dementia and bipolar disorder.
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for seven (Residents #38, #3, #1, #149, #151, #177,and #189) out of 44 initially sampled residents.
Findings included:
1. An observation and interview was conducted on 3/4/24 at 11:27 a.m. with Resident #38. The resident voiced not wanting to discuss a diagnosed condition.
A review of Resident #38's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to unspecified bipolar disorder, unspecified schizoaffective disorder, unspecified single episode major depressive disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified anxiety disorder, unspecified obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), borderline personality disorder, and unspecified paraphilia.
The Psychotherapy note, dated 12/7/23, showed the resident continued with anxiety and depression and the interventions used would be cognitive behavioral therapy. The Psychotherapy note, dated 12/14/23, was seen to aid in management of depressed mood and obsessive thoughts. The note revealed the resident remained somewhat confused. The Psychotherapy note, dated 1/16/24, revealed Patient reports that he continues to struggle with high levels of anger and sexual preoccupations. The note showed the resident reported being very agitated and experiencing difficulty with impulse control and preoccupation with sexual thoughts.
A review on 3/5/24 of Resident #38's downloaded PASRR showed it was completed on 1/26/24 at the facility by the Social Service Director (SSD). The PASRR revealed the resident had diagnoses of bipolar disorder, depressive disorder, schizoaffective disorder, borderline personality disorder and history of OCD. The PASRR did not include the resident's diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, unspecified anxiety disorder, and unspecified paraphilia. The PASRR revealed the resident was currently receiving services for Mental Illness (MI). The facility completed PASRR showed that the resident did not have a diagnosis or suspicion of a Serious MI or Intellectual Disability and a Level II PASRR evaluation was not required.
An interview was conducted on 3/6/24 at 2:43 p.m., with SSD. The staff member stated Resident #38 has a lot of diagnoses (mental illnesses). The SSD reported a mental illness diagnoses was considered a serious mental illness. The staff member stated the facility decided last night the resident's behaviors were being managed and thought the behaviors exhibited by the resident was socially inappropriate verbiage. The SSD stated if she had more time to review Resident #38's record, they probably should have had a Level II.
Review of Resident #38's record showed the SSD had completed a PASRR for the resident on 3/5/24. The PASRR included diagnoses of anxiety, bipolar, depressive, and schizophrenia disorder, paraphilia, and OCD. The PASRR did not included the resident's diagnoses of borderline personality disorder and schizophrenia. The PASRR continued to reveal a Level II PASRR evaluation was not required.
4. A review of the record for Resident #189 showed an admission date of 12/4/23 with admitting diagnoses which included unspecified dementia-moderate with other behavioral disturbance (documented as the primary diagnosis), disorganized schizophrenia and major depressive disorder- recurrent - moderate. A Level I PASRR was completed by another nursing facility on 11/22/23.
A review of the 11/22/23 PASRR showed, Section I: PASRR Screen Decision Making : A. MI or suspected MI (check all that apply). Depressive Disorder and Schizophrenia were checked for Resident #189 and Section I indicated the finding is based on documented history; behavioral observation; Individual, legal representative, or family report and medications.
Section II Other Indications for PASRR Screen Decision Making : Item 5 Indicated yes for Does the individual have a primary diagnosis of Dementia.
Section IV PASRR Screen Completion indicated No diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required.
Resident #189 was transferred to the hospital on 2/5/24 for chest pain and was readmitted on [DATE]. A new PASRR was completed at the hospital and sent to the facility with the readmission. A review of the PASRR, completed 2/7/24 by a hospital Master of Social Work (MSW), revealed;
Section I PASRR Screen Decision Making A. MI or suspected MI (check all that apply - There were no items checked .
Section II Other indications for PASRR Screen Decision Making: Item 5 indicated Resident #189 had no primary diagnosis of dementia and no secondary diagnosis of dementia.
Section IV PASRR Screen Completion showed, No diagnosis or suspicion of Serious Mental Illness or Intellectual Disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required.
No Level II PASRR was located in Resident # 189's record.
An interview was conducted with the SSD, on 3/6/24 at 2: 34 p.m. She confirmed there was no Level II PASRR completed and a Level II PASRR was needed.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory testing and anticoagulant medicatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure laboratory testing and anticoagulant medications were completed and administered per physician orders for one (Resident #182) of one resident sampled for anticoagulant use, failed to obtain orders for management of a Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) for one (Resident #86) of one resident sampled for the use of a PICC, failed to obtain physician orders and document the treatment of one (Resident #271) of one resident sampled for undocumented skin condition, and failed to complete dressing changes as ordered for one (Resident #162) of two residents sampled for dressing changes.
Findings included:
1. An observation and interview was conducted on 3/4/24 at 11:33 a.m., with Resident #182. The observation revealed the resident's urinary catheter tubing was draining dark red liquid. The resident stated the catheter was not normally like that and the facility was working on it. (Photographic evidence was obtained)
An observation and interview was conducted on 3/4/24 at 2:15 p.m. with Resident #182 and spouse. The observation revealed the catheter continued to be draining a dark red liquid. The spouse reported it happened last night (3/3/24) about 6:00 p.m. The staff removed the catheter and reinserted it , when the staff removed it, it was bleeding, was actually blood and urine. The spouse reported the resident's international normalized ratio (INR) was off, the facility had done blood work today,3/4/24. The resident and spouse were waiting for results and what they were going to do.
In an interview on 3/4/24 at 4:43 p.m., with Staff Q, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), she stated Resident #182 had been sent to the hospital due to blood in the urine.
A review of Resident #182's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The record showed medical diagnoses which included but were not limited to hemorrhagic disorder due to extrinsic circulating anticoagulants, dependence on renal dialysis, presence of aortocoronary bypass graft, and benign prostatic hyperplasia without lower urinary tract symptoms.
A review of a progress note dated 3/3/24 at 4:36 p.m., showed Resident #182's [Brand name] catheter was not draining after flushing with 60 cc of normal saline (NS). Resident complain of (c/o) pain in the penis area. [Brand name] catheter removed. Resident was able to urinate, urine red in color. The provider was notified and an order was obtained to reinsert [Brand name] catheter, do Complete Blood Count (CBC), Basic Metabolic Panel (BMP), and Prothrombin(PT)/INR in the morning.
A review of Resident #182's physician orders on 3/4/24 at 11:39 a.m., showed the resident was receiving Coumadin (anticoagulant), Clopidogrel (antiplatelet) and a low dose aspirin tablet daily.
Review of Resident #182's clinical record included the following information:
- Physician note, 2/8/24. INR 1.23, INR subtherapeutic. Target INR 2-3.
- Lab result, 2/9/24 showed INR 2.44. Handwritten note on lab results Sent Coumadin 5 milligram (mg). Next PT/INR 2/12/24. A review of progress notes on 2/9/24 did not show the physician was notified of the lab results. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident was not administered 6 mg of Coumadin due to 3 - absent from home.
- Lab result, 2/12/24: INR 4.24 critical high (CH). reported. Hold Coumadin. Repeat INR on 2/13/24. The MAR showed Coumadin was held on 2/12/24.
- Lab result, 2/13/24: INR 4.04 CH. Result reported to MD. Hold Coumadin 2/13/24. Repeat INR 2/14/24. The MAR showed Coumadin was held on 2/14/24.
- Lab result, 2/14/24: 3.57 high (H). The physician was notified electronically and a response was received on 2/14/24 at 8:54 p.m. showing an order for Coumadin 1 mg by mouth (po) daily, INR tomorrow.
- Review of lab results did not show an INR had been obtained on 2/15/24 (ordered on 2/14/24). The MAR/TAR did not show an order had been documented to obtain an INR on 2/15/24, and the progress notes did not reveal the physician had been notified of lab results on 2/15/24, or an order had been obtained for the resident's Coumadin dosage and/or future lab tests.
- A Complete Metabolic Panel (CMP) had been obtained on 2/17/24, the results did not show an INR level had been drawn. The progress notes dated 2/17/24 did not show the physician had been notified of an INR level or an order for the dosage of Coumadin to administer had been obtained.
- Lab results, dated 2/19/24: INR 1.34, a handwritten note showed 2/17/24, last INR 2.96, PT 30.9, current Coumadin 1 mg. The last recorded INR on the MAR was 2.14 (2/18/24 [no lab documentation]). A progress note on 2/19/24 showed the MD was made aware of results and a new order for Coumadin 4 mg po daily was obtained and labs ordered for 2/20/24.
- Lab results, dated 2/20/24: INR 1.60. The lab results nor the progress notes showed the physician had been notified of the results or if any new order had been obtained.
- The MAR showed the resident was administered 1 mg of Coumadin on 2/20/24 and 2/21/24 at 5:00 p.m. and 4 mg of Coumadin on 2/20/24 and 2/21/24 at 8:00 p.m., showing 5 mg's of Coumadin had been administered on those dates and not the 4 mg's ordered.
- The MAR showed the resident was administered 1 mg of Coumadin on 2/22/24 for a INR of 1.6 and the 4 mg of Coumadin had been discontinued. Review of lab results and progress notes did not show any results dated 2/22/24 or any progress note to show the physician had been notified and an order had been obtained for the discontinuation of the 4 mg's.
- Lab results, dated 2/23/24: INR 3.71 (H). A handwritten note on the results show the physician was texted the results. The note did not reveal any response had been received. The physician note, 2/23/24 at 10:12 a.m., revealed INR supratherapeutic 3.71. Plan to hold Coumadin today. Check INR tomorrow.
- The MAR showed an order had been obtained to start 5 mg of Coumadin on 2/23/24. This dosage was held on 2/23 as the physician note showed.
- No lab results from 2/24, 2/25, or 2/26/24. The resident received 5 mg's of Coumadin on 2/24, 2/25, and 2/26. The record did not include documentation the physician had been notified of lab results or an order had been obtained to restart the Coumadin after holding it on 2/23/24.
- Physician note, dated 2/26/24 showed INR pending.
- Lab results, 2/27/24: INR 6.61 (CH). The handwritten note on the results revealed the current dose of Coumadin was 5 mg, MD aware, and orders were obtained to hold Coumadin today and INR tomorrow 2/28/24.
- Lab results 2/28/24: INR 7.34 (CH). A handwritten notation on the results, LAST INR 6.61 (2/27/24). No further documentation in handwritten or electronic form revealed the physician was notified of the results or if the current ordered dosage was to be continued after holding it on 2/27/24. The MAR revealed 5 mg of Coumadin was administered on 2/28/24.
- Lab results 2/29/24 showed INR level of 7.40 (CH) and the results had been sent to the physician. Neither the results or the progress notes, dated 2/29/24 showed the physician had responded and an order had been received in regards to the resident's Coumadin. The MAR revealed the resident's 5 mg's of Coumadin had been held.
- The March 2024 MAR showed on 3/1/24 the resident received 5 mg of Coumadin. The record did not include documentation of any lab results from 3/1/24 or physician orders had been obtained to restart medication after holding it on 2/29/24 or if a new order had been received.
- Lab results, 3/2/24 INR: 8.76 (CH). A handwritten note showed the results had been sent to the provider and labs scheduled for morning to be repeated.
- A progress note, 3/2/24 at 5:57 p.m., revealed Provider notified of PT/INR test results. repeat in the morning STAT and do CBC. The note did not show an order had been received to hold, administer current dosage, or change dosage of Coumadin.
- The MAR showed on 3/2/24 the resident's Coumadin was held.
- A review of lab results did not show the resident had a PT/INR or CBC done on 3/3/24 as ordered on 3/2/24 by the physician.
- A progress note, 3/3/24 at 5:56 p.m. showed the provider had been notified that Coumadin 5 mg popped up to give resident at 5:00 p.m. The provider called back and reported Coumadin was to be held until further notice. The MAR did not reveal the resident's Coumadin on 3/3/24 was either held or administered.
An interview was conducted on 3/7/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON reviewed Resident #182's MAR, progress notes, and lab results (some of which were not in the electronic record). The DON confirmed the findings regarding the lack of documentation of notifications of reporting results to the physician and the obtaining of orders. She stated she wished staff would document when the physician was notified and what orders were received. The DON stated lab results were not integrated into the electronic record and staff need to print lab results then send them to the physicians.
An interview was conducted on 3/7/24 at 3:10 p.m. with Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN). Staff R reported she did not remember Resident #182 and explained when PT/INR results were received, each resident (receiving Coumadin) had a blue-colored Coumadin Tracking sheet where the results were noted, and documentation of the physician notification and orders received. Staff R stated an electronic note was made (regarding results), the physician was notified, and the next shift was made aware.
An interview was conducted on 3/7/24 at 3:21 p.m. with the DON. The DON reported having to print out the lab results dated 2/14, 2/17, and 3/4/24 which had not been a part of the medical record. The DON confirmed the results did not show the physician was notified. The DON reported the facility was unable to locate the blue-colored Coumadin Tracking Sheet for Resident #182.
Review of Resident #182's care plan revealed the resident was on anticoagulant therapy related to atrial fibrillation. The interventions related to the use of anticoagulant's instructed staff to Administer anticoagulant medications as ordered by physician, monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift, Labs as ordered. Report abnormal lab results to the MD, and Vitamin K - Antidote to anticoagulant for bleeding emergencies. Vitamin K.
Review of the policy - Nursing Policies, Laboratory Tests/Diagnostic Procedures: Communicating the Results, undated, revealed The facility will track ordered labs and diagnostic procedures and promptly notify the resident's physician or nurse practitioner or physician's assistant of results of resident labs results and diagnostic procedure findings. The resident and or resident representative will also be made aware of lab and diagnostic procedure results. The following described the procedure for documenting and communicating lab results.
1. Routine labs and reoccurring diagnostic procedures are printed on the residence monthly physician order sheet and are reflected on the resident's MAR. The facility will designate which nurse(s) will complete the requisitions for routine labs found on the MAR's prior to the beginning of each month.
2. All other lab or diagnostic procedure orders received are documented on Phone Order form when received. The nurse receiving the order is responsible for completing the lab requisition or verifying the diagnostic procedure appointment has been made as part of noting the order. The ordered lab is logged in on the lab log sheet found in front of each date in the binder. The date/time and location of the diagnostic procedure are recorded in the appointment book after transportation arrangements are made and will be noted in the medical record.
5. When the lab results come back from the lab, the receiving nurses to note the date the results were received on the log, and notify the resident's physician of the values.
6. The nurse contacting the physician notes the date the physician was contacted on the lab log and whether any new orders were received.
7. The nurse should also document on the lab result sheet that the physician was notified by date, time, and sign.
8. Any new orders received are to be written using the Phone Order form.
9. The lab result is to be filed in the resident's medical record once all of the above has been completed and this should be noted on the lab log as well.
10. Designated nurse will review lab log sheets daily to verify protocol is followed. The designated nurse will follow up on any discrepancies noted.
11. Once diagnostic test results are back, the receiving nurse will notify the physician of the results, and will document the notification in the medical record.
2. An observation was conducted on 3/4/24 at 10:59 a.m., of Resident #86's double lumen Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) inserted into the resident's upper left arm. The dressing was clear, attached, clean, and undated. Resident #86 confirmed the dressing was undated and the staff had changed the clear dressing today, 3/4/24.
An observation was conducted on 3/5/23 at 9:59 a.m. of Resident #86's double lumen PICC line. The dressing continued to be undated.
A review of Resident #86's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The record revealed a diagnosis of lumbar region osteomyelitis of vertebra.
A review of Resident #86's February Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident had received the antibiotic Daptomycin intravenously every other day on 2/1 through 2/23/24, then daily from on 2/24 through 2/29/24. The MAR showed staff were documenting every shift the IV site had been monitored for infection, checked the dressing, and ensured the IV was secured.
A review of Resident #86's February Treatment Administration Record (TAR) revealed no order to change the resident's PICC dressing.
A review of Resident #86's March MAR revealed the resident received the antibiotic Daptomycin intravenously on 3/1/24 then every 2 days from 3/3 to 3/7/24. The MAR showed staff had monitored every shift the IV site for signs/symptoms of infection, checked dressing and ensured the IV was secure and infusing properly. A physician order instructed staff to flush both lumens of the PICC with 5 milliliters (mL) of normal saline every 24 hours.
An observation was conducted on 3/7/24 at 11:36 a.m., of Resident #86's double lumen PICC line. The dressing was undated. The resident reported having the PICC for approximately one month and the dressing was changed a couple of days ago.
An observation was conducted on 3/7/24 at 11:39 a.m. with Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) of Resident #86's double lumen PICC line. The staff member confirmed the dressing was not dated. Staff P reviewed Resident #86's physician orders and confirmed there was no order to change the dressing. Staff P reported the dressing should be changed every 7 days. She said she would contact the physician for orders and said the order to check the dressing should have been separated to include the dressing change.
An interview was conducted on 3/7/24 at 12:17 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated PICC dressings should be changed per order and every 72 hours, then stated the dressing should be changed every 7 days. She stated the order to change was part of a batch order for PICC lines. The interview continued at 12:26 p.m. on 3/7/24 when the DON stated staff had the option to add certain orders related to PICC line dressings and the resident was admitted with the PICC line. She confirmed there was no order for changing the resident's PICC dressing.
The policy, VAD (Vascular Access Device): Ongoing Assessment, Site Care, and Dressing Change, effective March 2019, revealed A sterile dressing is applied and maintained on all peripheral non-tunneled peripheral inserted central catheters, and accessed implanted vascular access devices (VADS). For tunneled, cuffed catheters, a sterile dressing is applied and maintained until the insertion site is well healed. Short peripheral access site care and dressing changes are performed when the integrity of the dressing is compromised, if moisture, drainage, or blood is present, or for further assessment if site infection or inflammation is suspected. Central vascular access device (CVAD) and midline catheter site care and dressing changes are performed at established intervals, and immediately when the integrity of the dressing is compromised, if moisture, drainage, or blood is present, or for further assessment if site infection or inflammation is suspected. Gauze dressings are changed every two (2) days. Transparent semipermeable membrane (TSM) dressings are changed every five - seven days. The policy assessment included For PICC's, measure upper-arm circumference (10 centimeters (cm) above antecubital fossa when clinically indicated) to assess the presence of edema and possible deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Compare to baseline measurement.
According to MedlinePlus (https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000462.htm), the dressing for a Peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) should change the dressing about once a week. You need to change it sooner if it becomes loose or gets wet or dirty.
3. An observation and interview was conducted on 3/4/24 at 2:09 p.m. with Resident #271. The observation revealed the resident's left wrist was wrapped with rolled gauze and attached with mesh tape. The mesh tape was dated 3/1. The resident reported wound care was not completed every day.
A review of Resident #271's Treatment and Medication Administration Record did not show a physician order for the treatment of the resident's left wrist.
A review of the Admission/readmission Evaluation, dated 2/25/24 showed Resident #271 did not have any skin issues.
During an interview on 3/7/24 at 1:26 p.m., the Director of Nursing reviewed Resident #271's physician orders and stated if there was a dressing on the resident there should be an order and note.
The policy - 5.1 Skin Care and Wound Management, undated, showed The facility will manage wound care based upon current standards of practice. The procedures included:
- 1. When skin impairment is identified, the nurse will review and select appropriate treatment protocol for the wound.
- 2. A physician order will be obtained based on the selected protocol.
- 3. The treatment order will be documented on the Treatment Administration Record.
- 5. The nurse will document the identification of impaired skin, resident/representative notification, physician notification, and initiation of ordered treatment in the resident's medical record.
4. A review of the admission Record revealed Resident #162 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses to include Pulmonary Fibrosis, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Psychotic Disturbance, Squamous Cell Carcinoma, and other co-morbidities.
On 3/4/2024 at 9:40 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., Resident #162 was observed sitting on his bed. His right arm had a dressing dated 3/1/2024. The dressing was wrapped around the resident's forearm, from the wrist to just below the elbow. The dressing was observed with bright red blood on the gauze closest to the resident's elbow. The gauze and tape of the dressing appeared soiled with brownish marks. (Photographic Evidence Obtained).
A review of Resident #162's active Order Summary Report showed an order dated March 2024 to cleanse right forearm with normal saline, pat dry. apply xeroform gauze once daily for 30 days; apply ABD pad once daily for 30 days; apply gauze roll(kerlix) 4.5 once daily for 30 days; apply tape(retention) once daily for 30 days. skin prep for peri wound treatment once daily for 30 days. every day shift for right forearm wound neoplasm AND as needed for dislodgement/shower.
A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for March 2024 showed treatment was provided on 3/1/2024, 3/2/2024, and 3/3/2024.
During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 12:25 p.m., Staff L, Registered Nurse (RN) confirmed routinely caring for Resident #162. Staff L stated, on 3/4/2024, Resident #162's dressing was dated for 3/1/2024 and was soiled and needed to be changed. Staff L stated documentation on Resident #162's Treatment Administration Record indicated the dressing had been changed daily from 3/1/2024 to 3/3/2024. Staff L confirmed the dressing removed on 3/4/2024 was dated 3/1/2024.
An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/6/2024 at 4:45 p.m. The DON stated the dressing should have been changed prior to 3/4/2024. The DON stated her expectation was for the nurses to follow the physician orders.
Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Skin Care & Wound Management - Manage Wound Care, no date showed: Policy the facility will manage wound care based upon current standards of practice. Procedure 1. The skin impairment is identified, the nurse will review and select the appropriate treatment protocol for the wound. 2. A physician order will be obtained based on the selected protocol. 3. The treatment order will be documented on the treatment administration record. 4. The resident representative will be notified regarding the skin impairment and intervention to facilitate healing will be discussed. 5. This will document the identification of impaired skin, resident representative notification, physician notification and initiation of ordered treatment in the residence medical record.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure it had a functioning Quality Assurance Commi...
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 it had a functioning Quality Assurance Committee. The facility was actively involved in the creation, implementation, and monitoring of the plan of correction for deficient practice identified during a recertification survey on 03/04/24 to 03/07/24 and was cited for F 812 and F908. During the revisit on 04/29/24, the facility was recited for F 812 and F908. The facility had developed a Plan of Correction with a completion date 04/06/24. The facility had not comprehensively implemented the plan of correction for the identified deficiencies.
Findings included:
Review of an undated facility policy titled, Quality Management revealed the following:
Guiding Principles:
-The facility will use QAPI to make decisions and improve the day-to-day operations.
-QAPI will include all employees, every department and all services provided.
-QAPI focuses on systems and processes rather than individuals.
-The facility will have a culture that encourages rather than punishes staff who identify errors or system breakdowns.
-The facility will make decisions based on data which include the input and experience of caregivers, residents, ------HealthCare Partners, families, and other stakeholders.
-The facility will set goals for performance and measures progress toward those goals.
-The desired outcome of QAPI in the facility is the improved quality of care and the enhanced quality of life for our residents.
-The administrator is responsible for the quality assessment and assurance committee for the facility. The facility will have an internal quality assurance and performance improvement program designed to provide a comprehensive approach to ensuring high quality and services.
6. Once the root cause has been established, changes or corrective actions tightly linked to the root cause will be implemented. These changes or corrective measures should offer long-term solutions to the problem, must be achievable, objective, and measurable.
7. The committee will review performance improvement projects each month to monitor and provide feedback to sustain continuous improvement.
The facility plan of correction completion date was 04/06/24. The plan of correction showed:
For F 812:
1. Walk in refrigerator inventory revealed several items without date or label -All items that were not labeled and dated correctly were disposed of appropriately. No residents were directly affected by these findings.
2. Outside vendor called, and dish machine serviced on 3/5/2024. Dietary Staff were in-service by Dietary Manager on food labeling and dating, . dish machine and Sani-log . and dish machine were addressed by Dietary Manager. 3. Dietary Manager or designee will audit refrigerator and walk in freezer food labeling and dates, temperature logs for refrigerator, walk in freezer, compartment sink and dish machine/Sani-log daily x 2 weeks then 3x/week x 3 months. Dish machine serviced twice a month by outside vendor.
4. The Dietician or Dietary Manager will bring the result of the audit to the QAPI committee for the next three months. At the end of this period, the committee will decide to continue the monitoring period or discontinue based on the effectiveness of the plan.
During a tour of the facility's kitchen on 04/29/24 from 09:43 a.m. to 11:49 a.m., the following observations were made:
-The refrigerator positioned in the middle of the kitchen was noted with a brown rusty surface.
-Kitchen floors were observed with dirt debris and dried up yellow substance. An observation was made of a dietary aide scrapping the yellow substance off the floors.
-The adjacent wall was observed with food stains and brown colored matter.
-The ice machine filters were observed with dust and debris build-up, visible on the surface of the machine.
-A cup of paper clips was observed on the food prep table.
-The outside of the oven was observed with brown matter and oil residue on the surface.
-The serving tray line was observed with brown stained surfaces and debris on the floor and on the electrical connecting wires.
-Bowls of undated and unlabeled food items were observed on top of the serving tray line shelf.
-A metal tray inside the refrigerator was observed with pieces of lettuce on the surface. A second metal tray was observed with pieces of bread.
-A black plastic shelf containing condiments was observed with dust, white and gray marks on the surface.
-The bottom of a freezer located in the dry food storage area was observed with dried up orange substance.
During the kitchen tour on 04/29/24 at 10:12 a.m., three dietary aides were observed at the dish washing area, washing the dishes. Staff S, Dietary Aide (DA) was at the beginning of the tray line. She was loading dishes to the machine. Staff S stated she had not tested the machine for sanitization and did not know what the washing temperature was. She stated she did not know how to test the machine.
On 04/29/24 at 10:13 a.m., Staff T, DA was observed pushing a rack of dishes inside the machine. She stated she did not know how the sanitizer worked. She stated another staff member usually checks the sanitization levels before they start washing the dishes. She stated she had been washing dishes at this facility and had not received education.
On 04/29/24 at 10:15 a.m., Staff U, DA was observed standing at the end of the dish line and was observed pulling out racks of clean dishes from the dish machine. She stated she had not checked the machine's sanitizer levels. She stated she had seen another staff member test it. Staff U stated she did not know how the dish machine worked. She stated did not know what the washing temperatures should be.
On 04/29/24 at 10:18 a.m., an interview was conducted with Staff E, DA. She stated she had participated in an in-service, but she did not know how to operate the dish machine. She stated she was not exactly sure how the chemicals worked. She stated she did not know about the washing temperatures.
During an interview on 04/29/24 at 10:23 a.m., Staff G, Dietary Supervisor (DS) stepped in and instructed Staff U, DA on how to test the machine. Staff U dipped a testing strip inside the rack of dishes she had just pulled out of the machine. The test strip remained white in color. Staff G stated the strip meant there was not enough sanitization. Staff G, DS stepped in and conducted the test himself. The test showed a slight colorization. He placed it against the test strip tube to analyze the levels. He stated it read 10 PPM (parts per million) and stated there was not enough chemicals to sanitize the dishes. Staff G, DS reached at a button above the machine and primed the machine. He stated it should release more chlorine to the system. Staff G stated the sanitization should be between 50 and 100 PPM. He stated he would educate the staff on how to properly use the dish machine. He stated it was important to clean everything properly to prevent diseases and germs.
During the tour on 04/29/24 at 10:30 a.m., an observation was made of a 3-shelf cart located outside the main freezer. The top shelf had a baking dish with a food item labeled Baked Chicken, dated 04/28/24. The middle shelf had a tray labeled c.o. wheat (Cream of Wheat), dated 04/28/24. The bottom shelf revealed a yellow bag with liquid eggs. In an immediate interview, Staff G Supervisor stated he had pulled these items from the walk-in cooler because it was not working. He stated he was in the process of making room in the milk cooler so he can store these items. He stated the items had been out of the refrigerator Maybe a couple hours now.
During the tour on 04/29/24 at 10:35 a.m., an observation was made of a pan with burnt, brown and black liquid at the bottom of a meat pan. Staff W, [NAME] stated they had burned the turkey, and he was scrapping the burnt pieces. He stated he would have enough good meat to serve for lunch. An observation was made of the spice rack revealing spice containers with dust and spices residue on the containers and on the shelf. The shelving further revealed an open spice container, a whisk and measuring cup exposed to the elements. Staff W stated he was not using these items.
On 04/29/24 at 10:42 a.m. an observation was made of a food item wrapped in a napkin and set on top on a clean cooking pot. Between this pot and another pot was also a bottle of a cleaning chemical. An interview was conducted with Staff X, DA. She stated the food item belonged to another staff member She stated they were not supposed to store personal food items with clean dishes. She stated cleaning chemicals should be locked up when not in use.
On 04/29/24 at 10:56 a.m. an interview was conducted with Staff F, Dietary Manager (DM). He said, I educated our staff on the use of dish machines and how to check the solutions following the last survey. They should know how to make sure chemicals are hooked up and machines are running properly. I am very proactive in ensuring my staff receive education. He stated he heard this morning three of the dietary aides did not know how to test sanitization on the dish machine. He stated , I told them I need to see them so they can be educated again. The dish machine should be checked before they run the machine. He stated the dish machine test result of 10 PPM was not acceptable. They should prime it and rerun the cycle. Staff F stated he made the staff rerun the dishes with proper sanitization. Staff F, DM stated all staff should clean the kitchen as they go. He said, They have cleaning checklists, Monday through Friday but nothing had been implemented for the weekends. Each position has a cleaning duty. He stated after walking through the kitchen this morning, he saw how dirty the kitchen was. He said, It was absolutely not to our standards. I need to have someone supervise the staff on the weekends. The cook is supposed to be in charge. He should direct what happens, including cleaning. Staff F, DM stated all foods should be stored appropriately and dated. He sated cleaning chemicals should be locked up. He stated they would start cleaning the kitchen immediately.
On 04/29/24 at 1:34 p.m. an interview was conducted with Resident#1 and a family member. Resident #1 stated sometimes the meals were incomplete. She said, They do not follow very basic food guidelines. On 4/17/24, I was served a yogurt, pudding, a fruit bowl, and dessert, nothing else. No protein, no carbohydrate. The resident sated when she asked for something else to eat, they brought her a cheesecake. The family member stated they notified staff. He stated the aide said the kitchen was closed. He stated they never offered the resident something else to eat. The Family member stated they had filed a grievance as this was not the first time.
Review of the admission record showed Resident #1 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, (intact cognition).
On 4/29/24 at 1:18 p.m., an interview and lunch time observation of Resident #2 was conducted. The resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She stated she did not like a serving of greens on her plate. She stated it appeared they came out of can and had no taste. The person did not bother to add any seasoning. The resident stated on numerous occasions she was served small amount of food. She stated her family brings her snacks to supplement. A family member reported on 04/14/24, the resident was served a small portion of mashed potatoes with bacon bits. The family member reported there was no meat or fruit on the tray. Resident #2 stated she did not remember receiving an alternate.
During an interview and observation on 4/29/24 at 11:35 a.m., Resident #3 stated the food did not taste good. He stated the greens were tasteless. He said, It is never enough. They serve us like we are little children. They forget we are adults. The food has temperature issues, if it is supposed to be served hot, they serve it cold. If it is supposed to be cold, they serve it warm. They serve the same thing over and over, especially carrots. Resident #3 stated he had reported his concerns to staff. He stated they discuss food issues during resident council meetings. He said, No one does anything. The kitchen is always running out of stuff, like orange juice. Today, we did not receive any juice. The liquid eggs yesterday were not cooked right. They were not done.
Review of an admission record showed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a quarterly MDS for Resident #3 dated 02/19/24 revealed a BIMS score of 15 (intact cognition).
During an observation and interview conducted on 04/29/24 at 11:47 a.m., Resident #4 stated on the previous Sunday, the residents were served one small serving of an item he could not identify. He stated it looked like a blob of some potato but not mashed. He stated he had taken a picture of it. He showed surveyors the photo and a time stamp next to the Sunday meal ticket was observed. The surveyor observed a medium scoop of what appeared to be potatoes mixed with some diced vegetable or meat. It was not clear what the meal item was. The scoop was the only item on the Styrofoam plate and on the entire tray. There was no salad, fruit, desert, or any other food item. The resident stated this happened quite often. The resident said, This is what you would serve a child. The food is bad, it is not enough, they only serve a sandwich for dinner. Resident #4 stated the hot meals were served cold. He stated the food was not presented well. He said, Sometimes you do not know what it is. The resident stated it was bad, especially on the weekends. He said, It does not do any good to complain. We have brought it up in resident council. Many of us have submitted grievances. They don't respond to them. The resident stated a staff member said they had a $7/per day budget for each resident. The resident asked, Who came up with that rule. I think the issue is that they lack money. There is no way you can feed an adult with such a limited amount.
Review of an admission record showed he was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of a quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 (intact cognition).
On 04/29/24 at 3:18 p.m. an interview was conducted with Staff F, DM, Staff I Registered Dietician (RD) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). Staff F, DM stated he had started education again on deep cleaning and properly checking dish machine temperatures and sanitization. He stated he was not aware there were grievances related to food because he did not attend morning meetings. The NHA stated she was aware of some grievances that she and Staff F, RD had addressed. Staff F stated he had received phone calls the previous Sunday night that the residents were complaining about the evening meal. He stated he was told it was not enough. He stated he had a new chef who had served the residents one scoop of a ham and potato casserole. The ham was diced into the potato, and you could not see it. Staff F stated he instructed the chef to serve at least two scoops but at that time, some trays had gone out. He stated he was aware there was nothing else on that tray. He stated this was not acceptable. He stated he had educated that chef. He stated they did not follow-up with the residents who received one small scoop of the meal. He stated they could have done better. The NHA stated he had instructed them to start using a bigger scoop. The RD stated she expected residents to be served a full and balanced meal.
During an interview on 04/29/24 at 3:55 p.m. the NHA stated she expected the kitchen to be maintained in a sanitary manner. She stated she was surprised the residents had food complaints. She said, I talk to the residents all the time. I am surprised they are saying these things. Of course we are not limiting the food budget. The NHA stated she was aware of a grievance that had been filed related to Resident #1 not receiving enough food. She stated she thought they had resolved it. She stated she did not know the resident was not offered something else to eat. She stated she would do her rounds and speak with the residents about their food concerns.
Review of an undated facility policy titled, Mechanical Cleaning and Sanitizing of Utensils and Portable Equipment showed the facility will follow the cleaning and sanitizing requirements of the Florida Food Code for mechanical cleaning in order to ensure that all utensils and equipment are thoroughly cleaned ad sanitized to minimize the risk of food hazards. (f.) A test kit or other device that accurately measures the part per million concentrations of the solution must be available and used. A sample Dish Machine Temperature and Sanitizing Log follows this policy.
Review of an undated facility policy titled, General kitchen sanitation showed the facility recognizes that food borne illness has the potential to harm elderly and frail residents. All dietary employees will maintain clean, sanitary kitchen facilities in accordance with the Florida Food Code in order to minimize the risk of infection and food borne illness. Procedures included (1.). Clean nd sanitize all food preparation area, food contact surfaces, dining facilities and equipment.
Review of the facility's POC for F908 showed:
1. Ice build-up in walk in refrigerator addressed immediately by Maintenance removing ice. No residents were affected by this finding.
2. The Dietary Staff were in-service by the Dietary Manager on maintaining the walk-in refrigerator closed to avoid ice build-up. Maintenance will remove ice build-up 3x weekly.
3. The Dietary Manager will audit the walk-in refrigerator daily x 2 weeks then 3x/week x 3 months.
4. The Dietary Manager will bring the result of the audit to the QAPI committee for the next three months. At the end of this period, the committee will decide to continue the monitoring period or discontinue based on the effectiveness of the plan.
During a tour of the facility's kitchen on 04/29/24 at 10:50 a.m., observations and interviews were conducted with Staff F, Dietary Manager (DM) . The walk-in freezer was observed with ice build up on the floor surface, on the vents, on the frozen food boxes and on the metal and plastic shelving. Staff F stated these was an on-going problem. A tour of the walk-in cooler located next to the freezer was noted with a strong smell and water coming up from the floor of the cooler. The water was observed rising from the floor when stepped on. Staff F, DM stated the walk-in cooler was not working. He stated maintenance had been trying to figure out what was going on. Staff F, DM said, The water keeps backing up. I think something needs to be done. I have notified the administration. It is something we are trying to take care of. An observation of a multi-unit refrigerator located in the dry good storage area revealed there were no food items stored in the refrigerator. Staff F, DM stated the unit was not working. During the continued tour a steamer in the kitchen area located near the stove and a steam jacketed kettle were observed with a sign NOT IN USE. OUT OF ORDER.
On 04/29/24 at 10:56 a.m. an interview was conducted with Staff F, DM. He stated he was fully aware they had a problem with ice build -up in the freezer. He stated the problem had been going on for the last year and half. He said, We have been trying to deal with that issue. We had someone come and replace the water pipe but that did not solve the problem. Someone from corporate said we needed a new freezer. Staff F, DM stated since the last survey, the plan was for maintenance to come in at least 3 times a week and break down the ice. He stated on Mondays there was more ice build up because there was no one to break it down during the weekends. Staff F, DM said regarding the machines that were out of order, We use old equipment. I have started requesting new equipment. He stated he had notified the administration they needed to update their kitchen equipment. He confirmed he was aware of equipment being out of order. He said, We are in the works of getting a new steamer and other equipment. Money is an issue. We make do with what we have.
On 04/29/24 at 3:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with Staff J, Environmental Services. He stated regarding the freezer that was observed with buildup ice on the floor, walls and over the food boxes, We mainly defrost it, we check it daily, we have it on a cleaning schedule. We turn the freezer off for about 15 minutes, three times a week. We try to get the ice off as much as we can. We shut it off, give it time to melt and then scrape it off. He stated they had been doing this for some time now. He stated there were four staff members who worked in the maintenance department but none of them worked weekends. He stated if there was ice buildup on the weekend, the kitchen staff should call the on-call. He stated the last time they checked the freezer was the previous Thursday. He stated no one came to clear up the buildup ice over the weekend. He stated on the morning of 04/29/24 the freezer had a lot of ice all over the surfaces.
On 04/29/24 at 3:42 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). She stated the problem with the freezer was because staff were opening and leaving the freezer door wide open. She stated there was nothing wrong with the freezer. She said, We just need to follow the cleaning schedule. She stated they had scheduled for maintenance staff to de-scale the freezer three times a week, on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. She stated they were reminding staff not to leave it open. She stated it had been working fine and she was not aware there was a problem. She said, I can have someone come out and look at it. The NHA said she did not know there were other broken equipment sets in the kitchen. She stated some of the items should be removed, like the kettle. She said, I did not know the steamer was not working. Maintenance has been addressing the ice build-up. It should not have been an issue.
Review of an undated facility policy titled, Refrigerators, coolers and freezers, showed the facility will maintain refrigerators, coolers and freezers in a clean and sanitary manner to minimize the risk of food hazards.
An interview was conducted on 04/29/24 at 03:42 p.m. with the NHA stated. She stated they took the previous survey findings to QAPI. She stated they discussed expectations to keep the kitchen clean and up to code and all foods labeled and dated. She stated she had addressed meal portion sizes with the Registered Dietician. She said, We now use one large spoon to measure an appropriate food amount. We educated the kitchen staff. They should have known how to test the dish machine. It is not acceptable. They should know. The NHA stated she did not know there was broken equipment in the kitchen. She said, I did not know. Some of the items should be removed like the kettle. I did not know the steamer was not working. Maintenance has been addressing the ice build-up problem. It should not have been an issue.
Review of a facility document titled, Quality Assessments and Assurance Committee, dated 04/17/24 for March 2024, showed the facility's 14 members of the committee had met. The Quality improvement initiates included: Maintenance - kitchen freezer cleaning and under committee recommendations on PIP - Dietary POC on labeling of open containers.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was labeled and dated in the walk-in refrigerator, temperature logs were completed per facility policy, and dinne...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure food was labeled and dated in the walk-in refrigerator, temperature logs were completed per facility policy, and dinnerware was properly sanitized.
Findings included:
An observation on 03/05/24 at 9:05 a.m., revealed a walk-in refrigerator that contained food items that were not labeled or dated. The items consisted of:
- One 4-quart (qt) container of a pureed yellow substance that was identified by Staff E, Dietary Clerk (DC) as apple sauce.
- One 4-quart (qt) container of squared yellow substance that was identified by Staff E, DC as pineapples.
- One 4-quart (qt) container of squared white substance that was identified by Staff E, DC as pears.
- 2 long metal pans of yellow substance that was identified by Staff E, DC as macaroni and cheese.
- An opened package of orange shredded substance re-wrapped in plastic wrap that was identified by staff E, DC as shredded cheddar cheese.
Photographic evidence obtained.
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 9:05 a.m., Staff E, DC stated all food items in the walk-in refrigerator should have been labeled and dated.
A review of the temperature logs for the walk-in refrigerator, walk in freezer, and the compartment sink revealed incomplete logs. The Daily Fridge Refrigeration and Storage Temperature Log revealed missing mid-day temperatures for 03/01/24 and 03/03/24. The Three compartment sink revealed missing morning and midday temperatures on the dates of 03/01/24 and 03/04/24. Photographic evidence obtained.
In an interview on 03/05/24 at 9:12 a.m., Staff F, Dietary Manager (DM) stated the temperature logs were expected to be completed three times a day and all dietary staff knew this. Staff F, DM stated that he was going to write some staff up for not doing their jobs.
A review of the Dish Machine Temp and Sani Log on 03/05/24 at 11:05 a.m., revealed no temperatures or sanitation checks for 03/01/24 and 03/04/24. The log revealed no evening temperatures or sanitation checks on 03/02/24 and 03/03/24 and no morning temperatures or sanitation checks on 03/05/24. Photographic evidence obtained.
In an interview on 03/05/24 at 11:05 a.m., Staff F, DM stated that the Dish Machine Temp and Sani Log should be completed three times a day. Staff D, DM confirmed the log was incomplete.
On 03/05/24 at 10:50 a.m., Staff F, DM was observed running the low temperature dishwasher. The washing and rinsing cycle met appropriate water temperature levels. Staff F, DM then used a test strip to see how much sanitizer was in the water. The test strip did not turn any color and remained white.
In an interview on 03/05/24 at 10:50 a.m., Staff F, DM stated the test strip should have turned dark purple to indicate proper sanitation but did not.
During an additional observation on 03/05/24 at 10:55 a.m., Staff F, DM looked under the dishwasher and stated the tube from the dishwasher to the sanitation container was not connected. Staff F, DM was observed placing the tube, which laid on floor, into the sanitization container. Staff F, DM proceeded to run the dishwasher cycle a second time and a test strip was utilized. Staff F, DM showed the test strip remained white and did not react to the water.
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 10:55 a.m., Staff F, DM stated, I did not know the dish washer was not working and don't know how long it has not been working.
During an observation on 03/05/24 at 11:00 a.m., Staff F, DM was observed as he pushed the power button on the wall above the dishwasher. Staff F, DM turned the dishwasher off and then turned it back on. Staff F, DM proceeded to run the dishwasher cycle a third time and utilized the test strip that remained white.
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 11:00 a.m., Staff F, DM stated that he would need to call the local dishwasher chemical company and put in a work order as the dishwasher was not working properly and not sanitizing the dishes as it should be.
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 11:05 a.m., Staff F, DM stated that the Dish Machine Temp and Sani Log should be completed three times a day. Staff D, DM confirmed the log was incomplete.
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 2:45 p.m., Staff G, Dietary Aide (DA) stated that he used the dish washer this morning and he saw that the hose was in the sanitizer this morning.
During an interview on 03/05/24 at 2:50 p.m., Staff H, Dietary Aide (DA) stated that she used the dishwasher this morning and the temperature was appropriate but did not notice if the hose was in sanitizer container or not.
During an interview on 03/06/24 at 12:08 p.m., Staff J, Environmental Services (ES) stated that prior to 03/05/24 he was not aware of any dishwasher concerns.
During an interview on 03/06/24 at 12:50 p.m., the Administrator stated that she did not know of any issues with the dishwasher prior to 03/05/24. The Administrator stated the facility called the local dishwasher company to have the problem fixed immediately.
A review of the [local dishwasher company] Ware washing Service Report dated 03/05/24 showed this was an emergency visit arrival at 3:30 p.m. and departure 4:30 p.m
Conditions Found:
Staff reports sanitizer is testing below 50 ppm.
Action Taken/ Other Comments:
Replaced sanitizer and rinse dry squeeze tubes on chemical pump.
Replaced the sanitizer pickup and discharge line.
Replaced rinse dry discharge line.
Replaced sanitizer injector.
Installed new bucket of sanitizer and titrated concentration.
Correctly installed final rinse arms- they were not fully inserted.
A review of the facility's policy Food Storage not dated showed . 2. Refrigerators d. Date, label and tightly seal all refrigerated foods using clean, nonabsorbent, covered containers that are approved for food storage .h. Temperatures should be checked each morning when the kitchen is opened, once during the day and in the evening when the kitchen is closed. Record the temperatures on the log that is kept near the refrigerator. 3. Freezer .h. Temperatures should be checked each morning when the kitchen is opened, once during the day and in the evening when the kitchen is closed. Record the temperatures on the log that is kept near the refrigerator.
A review of the facility's policy Mechanical Cleaning and Sanitizing of Utensils and Portable Equipment not dated showed .f. A test kit or other device that accurately measures the part per million concentrations of the solution must be available and used. A sample Dish Machine Temperature and Sanitizing Log follows this policy.
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one walk in refrigerator was free from ice buildup and was maintained in safe operating conditions.
Findings included:
An obs...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one walk in refrigerator was free from ice buildup and was maintained in safe operating conditions.
Findings included:
An observation on 03/04/24 at 9:10 a.m., showed a walk-in refrigerator with lots of ice on the floor. A huge icicle located on the walk-in refrigerator ceiling above the ice on the floor was dripping. Photographic evidence obtained.
In an interview on 03/04/24 at 9:10 a.m., Staff E, Dietary Clerk (DC) stated yes, this walk-in refrigerator has been like this for a while. Staff E, DC stated she heard it accumulated ice because the walk-in refrigerator ran too cold. Staff E, DC stated the facility was aware of the concern and in the past talked about getting a new walk-in refrigerator.
During an interview on 03/06/24 at 12:08 p.m., Staff J, Environmental Services (ES) stated he was aware of the ice buildup in the walk-in refrigerator as the maintenance department was scheduled to go into the kitchen two times a week to remove the ice buildup. Staff J, ES stated he did not think the walk-in refrigerator was malfunctioning but more of a humidity problem that caused ice buildup. Staff J, ES stated the facility was aware and recalled talking about getting a walk-in refrigerator because it was old and needed to be upgraded but did not know if anything came of that.
During an interview on 03/06/24 12:50 p.m., the Administrator stated she was aware that maintenance went into the kitchen two times a week to remove the ice buildup in the walk-in refrigerator but was informed it was because the door got left open, and humidity got in. The Administrator was shown the photographic evidence of the ice buildup, at which time, the Administrator stated, I did not know that it was that bad. The Administrator stated she even had corporate come in to the facility a few weeks ago to look at the walk-in refrigerator and she was told it is still working.
During an interview on 03/06/24 at 1:50 p.m., Staff F, Dietary Manager (DM) stated the walk-in refrigerator did have a leak in the fan, so maintenance came in twice a week to remove the ice buildup. Staff F, DM stated he heard the facility was supposed to be looking for a new walk-in refrigerator but was trying to find one for the best price.
During an interview on 03/06/24 at 2:00 p.m , Staff I, Dietitian stated she was aware the facility talked about the need for a new walk-in refrigerator however she did not realize the leak was getting that bad. Staff I, Dietitian stated the leak must be getting worse.