SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER

6140 CONGRESS ST, NEW PORT RICHEY, FL 34653 (727) 842-8402
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds BENJAMIN LANDA Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
12/100
#565 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: October 2023

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

Overview

Southern Pines Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a rank of #565 out of 690 in Florida, they fall into the bottom half of facilities in the state, and at #15 out of 18 in Pasco County, there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is, however, showing an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 13 in 2023 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is rated as average with a 3/5 star rating and a concerning turnover rate of 53%, which is above the state average. While they have good RN coverage, exceeding 85% of state facilities, recent critical incidents have raised alarms, including a severe medication error that led to a resident's death due to improper insulin administration and a lack of timely monitoring, highlighting serious lapses in care.

Trust Score
F
12/100
In Florida
#565/690
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
13 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$15,592 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 58 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Florida. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 13 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Florida avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $15,592

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: BENJAMIN LANDA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Jun 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to promptly notify the resident representative of a room change for one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to promptly notify the resident representative of a room change for one resident (#4) of three sampled residents. Findings included: Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 04/16/2025. Review of the admission Record showed diagnoses included but not limited to fracture of the left femur, history of falling, hypertension, anemia, urine retention, and weakness. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed in Section C, Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09 or moderately impaired. Review Resident #4's progress notes lacked any documentation regarding the room change that occurred on 04/09/2025 from room A2A to A5A. Review of a Social Services Director's (SSD) progress note read: On 04/11/2025 at 10:12 a.m. Resident #4 will be moving from A5A to A3A due to family request. Resident was notified of the room change on 04/11/2025. The resident representative was notified, the family member requested the move in person. Resident was agreeable to a room change. Resident's representative was agreeable to a room change at this time. Review of Resident #4's medical record revealed a Room Change Notification for the room change on 04/09/2025 was not documented. Review of Room Change Notification dated 04/11/2025 showed appropriate documentation: Date of room change: 04/11/2025; Moving from A5A to room A3A Reason for room change: family request Was resident notified of room change: yes on 4/11/2025 Resident representative (family member) was notified of room change Review of the Interdisciplinary Plan of Care Plan Meeting (IPOC) dated 04/08/2025 showed Resident #4 attended, family member attended via phone. New resident at facility. Active family involvement, family representative actively involved. Family member felt resident was not compatible with current roommate. Possible placement at another facility close to caregiver. Discussion with room change per family member. During an interview on 6/11/25 at 3:18 p.m. with the Social Service Director (SSD) and the Director of Nursing (DON) the SSD stated if a resident requested a room change we look for an empty room of their liking. SSD stated we show it (the room) and proceed. The SSD stated they document the room change on the Room Change Notification form in the assessment section. The SSD verified the 04/09/2025 room change was not documented on a Room Change Notification form nor in the progress notes. SSD stated If she did not change the room, someone else may have and not performed the notification. SSD stated we have to make sure both SSD and admissions know of the bed changes. SSD verified there was no documentation regarding the room change for 04/09/2025. SSD stated she moved Resident #4 due to the family member requested Resident #4 to be moved. SSD stated she could not remember why the family member wanted the resident moved. Review of the facility's policy, Standards and Guidelines: Room Changes, revised 1/2024 showed changes in room or roommate assignment are made when the facility deems it necessary to meet the needs of current residents or when the resident requests a change. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Resident room or roommate assignments may change if the facility deems it necessary. Resident preferences are taken into account when such changes are considered. 2. Residents have the right to share a room with their roommate of choice, including a spouse, domestic partner, or friend, as long as both parties live in the same facility, and consent to the arrangement. 3. Prior to changing a room or roommate assignment parties involved in the change / assignment (for example residents and their representatives) are given advance notice of such change. 4. Documentation of a room change is recorded in the residence medical record.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow standard infection control practices related to hand hygiene and cleaning of resident care multi-use equipment. Findin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow standard infection control practices related to hand hygiene and cleaning of resident care multi-use equipment. Findings included: On 06/11/2025 at 9:55 a.m. Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was observed entering room A-3 which had Contact Precaution signage on the outside of the door. Staff A placed a blood pressure cuff on Bed A's, Resident #8's lower right arm. While waiting for the blood pressure to be performed Staff A placed her right hand on the footboard of the bed. Staff A removed the blood pressure cuff, exited the room and placed it on the medication cart. Staff A did not hand hygiene nor clean the blood pressure cuff. Staff A documented the blood pressure on her paperwork. Staff A moved the medication cart across the hall to room A-11. Staff A was approached by another staff member, and she went down the hall with the staff member. Staff A opened the wound care cart and removed items and returned to the medication cart without performing hand hygiene. Staff A started performing medication administration for Resident #9 in room A-11 without hand hygiene. Staff A moved the blood pressure cuff which was on top of the medication cart to another spot. Staff A applied gloves without hand hygiene. Staff A opened the medication cart and removed a glucometer machine, a strip, and an alcohol wipe. Staff A entered A-11 and went to the other side of the bed to get a cup of water. Staff A performed the blood glucose monitoring and then returned to the medication cart. Staff A removed her gloves and did not perform hand hygiene. Staff A replaced her gloves and opened the medication cart. She removed Resident #9's insulin pen and drew up the insulin. Staff A reentered room A-11 and administered the insulin. Staff A removed her gloves and returned to the medication cart. Staff A did not perform hand hygiene. Staff A placed the blood pressure cuff inside a bag which was on the medication cart. Staff A moved the medication cart to room A-2 and began medication administration. During an interview on 06/11/2025 at 3:47 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated hand hygiene was to be performed upon removal of gloves, before going into a resident room, when exiting a resident room, between passing of meal trays, before and after resident care. The DON stated items like blood pressure cuffs should be cleaned after use with wipes. The DON stated Resident #8 was on enhanced barriers for c-aureus (candida- aureus). The DON stated she would have to check regarding Resident #8's roommate as to why the contact isolation signage was on the door. The DON stated the roommate was on contact isolation due to an infection in her urine. Review of the facility's policy, Hand Hygiene Infection Control, revised 6.2023 showed hand hygiene is the single most important measure for preventing the spread of infection. The facility shall require facility personnel use accepted hand hygiene after each direct resident contact for which hand hygiene is indicated. Procedure: the facility acknowledges the CDC guidelines to improve adherence to hand hygiene in health care settings. The hand hygiene guidelines are part of an overall CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) strategy to reduce infections in health care settings to promote resident safety. When the hands are not visibly soiled, the CDC recommends the use of alcohol-based hand rubs by healthcare personnel for resident care to address the obstacles that health care professionals face when taking care of residents. Situations that require hand hygiene include, but are not limited to: before and after direct contact (for which hand hygiene is indicated by acceptable professional practice) before and after performing any invasive procedure (for example finger stick blood sampling) before and after entering isolation precaution settings upon and after coming in contact with the resident's intact skin (for example when taking a pulse your blood pressure) after removing gloves or aprons Review of the facility's policy, Infection Control-Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 1/2024 showed an infection prevention and control program are established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Prevention of Infection 1. Important facets of infection prevention include: C. Educating staff and ensuring that they adhere to proper techniques and procedures; G. Implementing appropriate isolation precautions when necessary; and H. Following established general and disease specific guidelines such as those of the Centers for Disease control (CDC). Review of the facility's policy, Standards and Guidelines: Maintenance of Resident Care Items and Equipment, revised 3/2024 showed resident-care equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected according to current CDC recommendations for disinfection and the OSHA bloodborne pathogen standard. 2. Non-critical items are those that come in contact with intact skin but not mucous membranes. A. non-critical resident care items include bed pans, blood pressure cuffs, crutches and computers. B. Most non-critical reusable items can be decontaminated where they are used. 3. reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, sanitary, and homelike environment in four halls (A, B, C, D) of four hallways and one of one dining room. F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide a clean, comfortable, sanitary, and homelike environment in four halls (A, B, C, D) of four hallways and one of one dining room. Findings included: The following observations were made on 6/11/25: - At 9:20 a.m. a treatment cart parked in the dining room beside the exit door to the courtyard. The cart was empty and unlocked, on top of the cart were crumbs of an unknown substance, a piece of black fabric, and the front of the cart was stained with brown and black substances, the cart appeared to be unclean and unsanitary. On the floor next to the cart was a piece of white paper and a plastic domed lid with a brown liquid attached to it. The floor surrounding the cart was unclean and scuffed. The observation revealed a white piece of paper and a clear piece of plastic against the wall opposite of where the cart was parked in the dining room. The floor was unclean. At the time of the observation no residents were eating a meal in the dining room. Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) reported being unsure how long the cart had been parked there. - At approximately 9:23 a.m. an observation was conducted of room D4. The closet doors to be not hanging correctly, not perpendicular to the floor, on the top right hand outside corner of the closet was an unfinished patch, the wall beside the in-room sink was multiple small patches unpainted, the room was painted a bright green however an area behind a box of gloves (above the sink) was a cream color. The ceiling tile was white except for the tile above the sink was outlined with a dark tan color while the inner area of the tile was a cream color. The wall behind the first bed was gouged revealing an unpainted, uncleanable surface. - At approximately 9:46 a.m. the bathroom was shared between rooms D6 and D7 where 6 residents resided, a strong pungent urine smell was emitting from the room, prior to opening the door from room D7. The observation showed the flooring did not meet up with the toilet and the approximate 1.5-to-2-inch gap was filled with cracked white silicone-looking substance and tapered along the side of toilet. A green microfiber-looking cloth was observed on the sink, and a white towel with a brown substance was observed lying across the only toilet paper dispenser. The floor was stained and unclean. - At 9:32 a.m. an observation revealed on the floor of room C16, to the side of the bathroom door was half a circular item attached to the floor, next to the item was an unmovable upside-down bolt. Resident #8 stated the circular item was a door stop. The floor next to the doorstop and bolt was stained black. - At 9:32 a.m. an observation was made of the floor under the window of room C1. The window sill held multiple potted plants and on the floor was 3 small piles of black dirt. - At 9:35 an observation showed an unfinished patch approximately two feet by three feet section of wall behind and beside the entry door of room C7. - At 9:36 a.m. an observation of room C8 revealed an air conditioning unit was observed with a disconnected accordion-style hose lying on the floor at the end of the resident's bed. One of two closet doors was not on its track. The bathroom shared by room C7 and C8 was odorous of bowel. A gray wash basin, unlabeled, was sitting on the floor beside the back of the toilet, the trash can contained an incontinent brief with a brown substance attached to it, and a piece of paper littered the floor. Resident #8 reported using the bathroom with staff assistance. - At 9:40 a.m. an observation was made of room C13. The bathroom was odorous of urine. A toilet plunger was observed sitting on top of an opaque plastic bag on the floor and an upside down gradient clear plastic container was observed sitting on a brown paper towel on the back of toilet. On 6/11/25 at approximately 9:45 a.m., an observation showed two housekeepers were in the dining room, each with a housekeeping cart. - At 9:51 a.m. an observation of the bathroom of room A8 revealed the room was very odorous of urine and a liquid was on the floor surrounding the toilet. The toilet bowl was filled with a yellow liquid and liquid splattered the toilet seat. The flooring was scuffed and dirty looking. - At 9:55 a.m. an observation of room A1 revealed one of two closet doors was off its track and leaning into the closet and an unfinished and uncleanable surface was noted behind and to the right side of the second beds. The bathroom revealed the floor grout was stained, the caulking around toilet and back wall were missing and the tiles on the wall behind the toilet were stained brown. - At 10:08 a.m. an observation was conducted of the treatment cart parked next to the courtyard door in the dining room. The observation showed the domed plastic lid continued to lie next to the cart and the cart continued with splatters of unknown substances. The floor was scuffed and stained. In the lobby area, in front of the half wall looking into the dining room was an area stained with an unknown black substance. - At 10:12 a.m. an observation of room B8 revealed an overturned medication cup was on the floor in front of a trash can which contained unwanted items, a black stain was observed on the floor in front of room's vanity area, and the privacy curtain of B-bed was askew and not fully hooked. The toilet contained a brown-colored substance with crumb-looking material and feces. The bathroom was very odorous. On top of the dresser were piles of different items, specifically an unprotected toothbrush lying on items, and an emesis basin containing an unprotected toothbrush. A bottle of antiseptic oral rinse was observed on top of the dresser. On 6/11/25 at 5:23 p.m. observations were conducted with the Senior Administrator (SA). The SA observed the black stain on the floor next to lobby's half wall and stated he would take care of that. The following observations were made, and some were discussed with the SA: - Observation of the plastic domed lid lying in between the treatment cart and another similar cart in the dining room next to the courtyard exit door. The SA picked it up and threw it away, stating housekeeping should be moving the carts. - Observation of the D6-D7 bathroom, which the SA confirmed, the bathroom continued to be odorous. The washcloth and towel had been removed. Resident #9 was lying on bed and reported thinking there were only 2 of the 6 residents using the bathroom. - Observed the plunger in the bathroom of C13 continued to sit on an opaque plastic bag next to the toilet and the gradient container continued to be upside down on the back of the toilet. The SA reviewed photos taken at 9:40 a.m. showed the items were in the same positions. - Observed the half circular doorstop attached to the floor of room C16, the SA stated it should be removed. The bolt was moveable slightly and the SA stated it should be removed. Immediately following the above observations, the SA reviewed photo taken of the closet doors in room C8 and the unfinished wall in room C7 and stated yes. Additional photos were reviewed with the SA and the NHA and the SA stated it was the expectation that the residents were to be provided with a clean and homelike environment. Review of the Environmental policy - Cleaning, revised 01/2024 revealed the purpose was To maintain a clean, safe, and sanitary environment for residents, staff, and visitors by outlining the procedures and standards for effective housekeeping in accordance with federal, state, and local health regulations including Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Centers for Disease control and prevention (CDC) guidelines. The policy statement showed it is the policy of the facility to ensure that all areas of the facility are maintained in a clear, sanitary, and orderly condition. The housekeeping department is responsible for daily and scheduled cleaning and sanitation services, promoting infection control safety for all residents and staff. The procedures outlined daily cleaning tasks: 1. Resident Rooms: - Empty trash and replace liners. - Sweep/ vacuum and mop floors. - Wipe and disinfect high-touch surfaces (bed rails, tables, doorknobs). - Clean bathroom sinks, toilets, and floors with EPA- registered disinfectants. - Restart toilet paper, paper towels, soap. 2. Common Areas (lounges, hallways, dining rooms) - Vacuum carpets and mop floors. - Dust furniture and fixtures. - Sanitize door handles, elevator buttons, and hand rails. - Clean windows and glass surfaces as needed. B. Weekly/Deep Cleaning Tasks: - Strip and wax floors as scheduled. - Wash walls and ceilings. - Clean light fixtures and vents. - Perform terminal cleaning of vacated rooms before new admissions. - Clean behind and under beds and furniture. C. Infection Control Protocols: - Follow color-coded cleaning cloth system (e.g., red for bathrooms, green for general). The responsibility of the Housekeeping Supervisor was to: - Develop cleaning schedules and assign tasks. - Train staff in cleaning techniques and infection control. - Perform quality checks and audits. The Housekeepers' responsibility was to: - Follow assigned duties. - Use equipment safely and according to protocol. - Report damage, hazards, or unusual conditions. - Maintain supply inventory and request restocking when needed.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice related to performing weekly skin checks for four residents (#1, #3, #5, #6) out of five sampled residents. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #3s admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and discharged to the community on 3/13/25, residing at the facility for a total of 15 days. The record revealed diagnoses not limited to prediabetes, morbid (severe) obesity due to excess calories, and generalized muscle weakness. Review of Resident #3s nursing assessments showed the resident was evaluated on 2/27/25 for an admission/readmission. The clinical record did not reveal a skin evaluation/check was completed during the fifteen days the resident resided at the facility. The admission/readmission evaluation revealed the resident had redness to buttocks. The progress notes did not reveal licensed nursing had completed a weekly skin evaluation/check for the resident. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/11/25 at 4:19 p.m. The DON reviewed Resident #3's record confirming there were no skilled nursing notes or any nursing progress notes. 2. Review of Resident #5's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE]. The record included diagnoses not limited to post-laminectomy syndrome not elsewhere classified, unspecified paraplegia, and thoracic region spinal stenosis. Review of Resident #5's Order Summary Report showed the resident did not have an order for weekly skin checks by licensed nursing staff. Review of an Advanced Practitioner Registered Nurse (APRN) note dated 5/19/25 showed the resident had increased pain seeming like it was due to the location of bed pad was making contact with (pronoun) thoracic incision from surgery. Looking at the site, patient's dressing had peeled up exposing a few of (pronoun) staples which remained intact with no redness or bleeding. The practitioner noted Resident #5 was status post (s/p) T10=T11 laminectomy and was at high risk for skin breakdown that can lead to infections/sepsis that may require admission to the hospital for debridement. Review of Resident #5's assessments showed a Skin Check - Weekly or Other was completed on 5/26/25, showing no new concerns at this time. The evaluation did not reveal the resident had any previous skin conditions. Review of a Summary for Providers change in condition evaluation, dated 5/26/25 at 8:00 p.m. showed no physician recommendations after Resident #5 had fallen and a skin evaluation was not completed. Review of Resident #5's progress notes did not show nursing staff had evaluated the resident's body for any new skin impairments or the status of the post-laminectomy incision until a note on 6/4/25 at 4:42 p.m. revealed a late entry regarding notifying the physician of left lower leg swelling and redness and warmth to the surgical incision. Review of Resident #5's record showed one Skin Check Weekly or Other assessment was completed on 5/26/25 at 8:00 p.m., twelve days after the resident was admitted and eleven days before the resident was transferred to an acute care facility. 3. Review of Resident #6's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with a most recent readmission on [DATE] following a 4-day (5/22/25) hospital stay. The record included diagnoses not limited to unspecified peripheral vascular disease and unspecified type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy. The record showed the resident was discharged on 3/3/25 and returned on 3/24/25. On 6/11/25 at approximately 9:35 a.m. Resident #6 was observed lying in bed, face covered with a sheet, knees bent and uncovered. The observation showed multiple abrasions/ discolorations of reddish/purple coloration to the resident's right knee. An interview was conducted on 6/11/25 at 2:17 p.m. with Resident #6. The resident reported having a wound on the right heel which is dressed daily. Review of Resident #6's care plan revealed the following focuses and related interventions:- At risk for adverse effects of hyper/hypo glycemia related to (r/t) diagnosis of diabetes. The interventions instructed nursing to monitor feet for open areas, sores, pressure areas, blisters, edema, or redness and to report to medical doctor (MD) as indicated. - On anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy r/t cardiac prophylaxis (ppx). The interventions instructed nursing and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) staff to monitor skin for abnormalities and report to nurse/Medical Doctor (MD) as indicated. - Has impaired skin: right (R) heel wound, R great toe wound, (and) R dorsal 3rd toe wound (revised on 1/28/25). The interventions instructed nursing staff to Complete weekly skin checks. Measure length, width, and depth, if possible. Document status of wound and healing progress. Monitor for signs/symptoms (s/s) of infection. Report changes to MD as indicated. Review of Resident #6's clinical record revealed an Unavoidable Skin Condition evaluation was signed by the physician on 4/15/25. The evaluation showed the resident had conditions of peripheral vascular disease (PVD)/peripheral arterial disease, continuous urinary incontinence, diabetes mellitus, and cellulitis. Other risk factors were limitation of range of motion and muscle wasting. The preventative interventions showed a licensed nurse was to complete weekly skin integrity checks. Review of a previous Unavoidable Skin Condition evaluation dated 2/19/25 revealed licensed nursing was to perform weekly skin integrity checks as a preventative intervention. Review of Resident #6's physician orders showed an order dated 1/15/25 for a Skin Assessment to be completed every Wednesday. Review of Resident #6's Skin Check - Weekly or Other assessments showed staff did not complete skin assessment on Wednesday 3/26/25, Wednesday 4/2/25, Wednesday 4/16/25, Wednesday 4/30/25, Wednesday 5/7/25, Wednesday 5/14/25, Wednesday 5/21/25, or Wednesday 6/4/25. An interview was conducted on 6/11/25 at 4:00 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON reviewed the record and stated Resident #6 should be receiving weekly skin checks but was seen weekly by wound care then confirmed the wound physician did not check the entire skin. Review of an in-service roster, dated 5/1/25, revealed the wound care manager (WCI), Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA), and Patient Care Assistants (PCA) were educated on detailed skin assessment on admission (and) schedule weekly. In the upper right-hand corner of the in-service was written all staff. On 6/3/25 licensed nursing staff were educated on Assessments - Increase nurse awareness of the importance of timely completion of assessments upon admission, discharge, transfer (return to hospital (RTH)), and risk events. The DON provided a Cheat Sheet for Assessments, undated, the cheat sheet did not address the timeliness of weekly skin assessments. 4. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 12/24/2024. Review of the admission Record showed diagnoses included but were not limited to metabolic encephalopathy, contusion of scalp, history of falling, necrotizing enterocolitis, dementia with mood disturbance, disorder of brain, orthostatic hypotension, Hypertension, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed in Section C, Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03 or severe impairment. Review of the admission / readmission Nursing Evaluation dated 12/11/2024 showed Skin Evaluation: top of his scalp was left parietal area secondary to ground level fall, scabbing 4 cm [centimeters] x 3 cm both right and left antecubital areas with multiple bruises from hospital IV/blood draws Review of the Skilled Documentation dated 12/12/2024 showed resident had hematoma to head, bilateral upper extremity bruises present on admission.Review of the Skilled Documentation dated 12/13/2024 showed resident had hematoma to head, bilateral upper extremity bruises present on admission.Review of the Skilled Documentation dated 12/14/2024 showed resident had hematoma to head, bilateral upper extremity bruises present on admission.Review of the Skilled Documentation dated 12/15/2024 showed resident had hematoma to head, bilateral upper extremity bruises present on admission.Review of the progress notes showed no skilled notes after 12/15/2024. Progress notes lacked any documentation regarding his skin. Review of the medical record showed no weekly skin checks performed after 12/15/2024. Review of the care plans showed:Resident #1 was at risk for skin impairment related to weakness/decreased mobility as of 12/12/2-24. Interventions included but not limited to monitor/observe skin while providing routine care. Notify nurse for any concern as indicated. During an interview on 06/11/2025 at 3:18 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident #1 had a couple of skilled documentation notes but not the whole time. DON stated they were now reviewing for Skilled Service Notes during the morning meetings. The DON stated Resident #1 had a scab on top of his scalp per the admission assessment. The DON stated they did not do a further assessment / skin check on the resident. The DON stated they should have been doing skin checks on Resident #1. 5. Review of the facility's policy, Standards and Guidelines: Prevention of Skin Impairments/Pressure Injury, revised 01/2024 showed the purpose of this policy is to provide information regarding identification of skin wound risk factors and interventions for specific risk factors. Risk Assessment: 1. Assess the resident on admission for existing wounds risk factors. 2. Conduct a comprehensive skin assessment upon admission, including: a. Skin integrity-any evidence of existing or developing pressure ulcers or injuries; b. Areas of impaired circulation due to pressure from positioning or medical devices. 3. Inspect the skin when performing or assisting with personal care or activities of daily living (ADL's). a. Identify any signs of developing skin wound. B. Inspect pressure points c. Wash the skin after episodes of incontinence d. repositioned resident as indicated on the care plan. Monitoring / Documenting 1. Evaluate, report, and document potential changes in the skin. 2. Notify the physician and the resident / resident representative of changes in the skin. 3. Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis. 4. Evaluate open areas per physician orders.Review of the facility's policy, Standards and Guidelines: Documentation, revised 01/2024 showed services provided to the resident shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care. Procedure: 1. Documentation in the medical record may be electronic, manual, or a combination. 2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: a. Objective observations; b. Treatments or services performed; d. Changes in the resident's condition. 3. Documentation in the medical record is required as updates / changes in the resident's plan of care are made. 4. Documentation in the medical record will be objective, complete, and accurate. 8. Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: a. the date and time the procedure / treatment was provided; b. The name and title of the individual (s) who provided the care; c. The assessment data and/or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/treatment; d. Whether the resident refused the procedure / treatment; e. Notification of family, physician or other staff, if indicated; and f. The signature and title of the individual documenting.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #3's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. The record...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident #3's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. The record included diagnoses not limited to other idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy, unspecified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, unspecified cord compression, and generalized muscle weakness. The resident discharged to a private home on 3/13/25. An interview was conducted on 6/11/25 at 1:57 p.m. with the Director of Rehab (DOR). The DOR stated all new admissions are evaluated or screened by therapy. The DOR reported remembering Resident #3 did participate in physical and occupational therapies. A review of the therapy notes for both disciplines revealed the resident did not miss any scheduled visits. Review of Resident #3's assessments did not reveal any Daily Skilled Nursing notes were completed for the resident.Review of Resident #3's progress notes showed no nursing notes had been completed after the residents' admission. The progress notes showed Physician/Practitioner notes were written on 3/8/25, 3/7/25, and 3/5/25, a pharmacy note was written by pharmacy on 3/3/25, a nutritional evaluation was conducted on 2/27/25, and the Admission/readmission Nursing Evaluation on 2/27/25. Review of Resident #3's bowel management tasks showed from 3/2/25 to 3/13/25 staff had documented 2 no bowel movement, NA no applicable, RR resident refused, or did not document the task. The documentation showed the resident had no bowel movement for 10 days between 3/2/25 to 3/13/25. An interview was conducted on 6/11/25 at 4:19 p.m. with the DON. The DON reviewed Resident #3's insurance and stated she thought it was skilled nursing. She reviewed the resident's record and confirmed not seeing any skilled nursing or nursing progress notes. The DON reviewed the bowel management task documentation and confirmed the facility had a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation issue. 4. Review of Resident #5's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. The record included diagnoses not limited to, thoracic region spinal stenosis, unspecified paraplegia, and not elsewhere classified post-laminectomy syndrome. Review of Resident #5's progress notes showed on 5/19/25 the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Practitioner noted the resident was admitted to the facility to receive subacute rehabilitation with the goal to maximize functional level/independence. The note revealed the resident was seen at bedside and had increased pain upon being moved related to the bed pad was making contact with her thoracic incision from surgery. Looking at the site, patient's dressing had peeled up exposing a few of (pronoun) staples .Review of Resident #5's progress notes revealed from the day of the resident's admission on [DATE] to 5/21/25 staff had not completed a progress note or Skilled Nursing note for this resident. The note on 5/21/25 revealed the resident complied with treatment orders, an indwelling catheter was removed and on 5/22/25 staff noted the resident was voiding sufficient quantity. The resident had an episode of a behavior as noted on 5/24/25 and a fall on 5/26/25. The record did not include any nursing documentation related to the resident's condition from 5/26/25 to 5/29/25 when a Summary of Skilled Service note was completed showing the resident continued on oral antibiotic for an infectious process to surgical incision. The next nursing note was a late entry note dated 6/4/25 regarding redness and warmth to the resident's surgical incision and left lower leg swelling. The last Summary of Skilled Service progress note from nursing staff was completed on 6/5/25. Review of the facility census dated 6/11/25 at 8:48 a.m. revealed Resident #5 was on therapeutic unpaid leave. Review of a Change in Condition evaluation, dated 6/4/25 showed on 6/11/25 at 5:07 p.m. the document was In Progress. The record did not reveal a transfer form, or a Change of Condition evaluation was completed for the resident's transfer. The progress notes did not reveal information regarding the resident's transfer. Review of Resident #5's assessments showed nursing had completed skilled documentation on 5/21/25, 5/29/25, and 6/5/25. Review of the Daily Skilled Documentation list, updated 5/20/25 revealed the 7:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. shift was responsible for the Daily Skilled documentation of Resident #5. Review of the clinical policy - Medical Records, revised 1/2024 revealed Services provided to the resident shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the residence condition and response to care. The procedure outlined:1. Documentation in the medical record may be electronic, manual, or a combination.2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record:- a) Objective observation;- b) Medications administered;- c) Treatments or services performed; stop- d) Changes in the residence condition;3. Documentation in the medical record is required as updates/ changes in the residents plan of care are made.4. Documentation in the medical record will be objective (not opinionated or speculative), complete, and accurate.8. Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care specific details, including:- a) the date and time the procedure/ treatment was provided;- b) the name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care;- c) the assessment data and/ or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure/ treatment;- d) whether the resident refused the procedure/ treatment;- e) notification of the family, physician or other staff, if indicated; and- f) the signature and title of the individual documenting.Review of the facility's policy, Standards and Guidelines: Documentation, revised 01/2024 showed services provided to the resident shall be documented in the resident's medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident's condition and response to care. Procedure: 1. Documentation in the medical record may be electronic, manual, or a combination. 2. The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record: a. Objective observations; b. Treatments or services performed; d. Changes in the resident's condition. Documentation in the medical record is required as updates / changes in the resident's plan of care are made. 4. Documentation in the medical record will be objective, complete, and accurate. 8. Documentation of procedures and treatments will include care-specific details, including: a. the date and time the procedure / treatment was provided; b. The name and title of the individual (s) who provided the care; c. The assessment data and / or any unusual findings obtained during the procedure / treatment; d. Whether the resident refused the procedure / treatment; e. Notification of family, physician or other staff, if indicated; and f. The signature and title of the individual documenting. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain medical records according to standards of practices related to skilled nursing notes, change inconditon notes, transfer notes, activities of daily living notes, for residents receiving skilled services were documented for four residents (#1, #3, #4, and #5) of four sampled residents. Finding included: 1. Resident #4 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 04/16/2025. Review of the admission Record showed diagnoses included but not limited to fracture of the left femur, history of falling, hypertension, anemia, urine retention, and weakness. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed in Section C, Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 09 or moderately impaired. Review of the physician orders showed to admit the resident to the facility for skilled services. Occupational Therapy services five times a week times 30 days as of 04/04/2025. Physical Therapy services five times a week times 30 days as of 04/07/2025. Review of the progress notes showed no Skilled Notes documentation. Review of the medical record showed no Skilled Nurses notes in the assessment section of the chart. During an interview on 06/11/2025 at 3:18 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated skilled services entails, nursing services are needed in a facility and not at home. These services can include IV (intravenous) therapy, wound care, vital signs monitoring, physical therapy, nurses need to oversee the resident. The DON stated there should either be a Skilled Nurses Note, or a Skilled Progress Note in the progress notes every day the resident was on Skilled Services. The DON verified there were no Skilled Nursing Notes in the assessment section. The DON reviewed the progress notes and found no Skilled Notes from the nurse in the progress notes either. The DON stated she would expect to see the Skilled Notes. 2. Resident #1 was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 12/24/2024. Review of the admission Record showed diagnoses included but were not limited to metabolic encephalopathy, contusion of scalp, history of falling, necrotizing enterocolitis, dementia with mood disturbance, disorder of brain, orthostatic hypotension, hypertension, muscle weakness, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed in Section C, Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03 or severe impairment. Review of the physician orders showed admit the resident to the facility for skilled services as of 12/11/2024. Occupational Therapy services four times a week times 30 days as of 12/12/2024. Physical Therapy services four times a week times 30 days as of 12/12/2024 and increased to five times a week for 30 days as of 12/17/2024. Speech Therapy services three times a week for 30 days as of 12/12/2024. Review of the Skilled Documentation showed notes dated 12/12/2024, 12/13/2024, 12/14/2024, 12/15/2024 only. Review of the progress notes showed no Skilled Notes after 12/15/2024. Progress notes lacked any documentation regarding his skin. During an interview on 06/11/2025 at 3:18 p.m. the DON stated Resident #1 had a couple of Skilled Documentation notes but not the whole time. The DON stated they were now reviewing for Skilled Service Notes during the morning meetings.
Oct 2023 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident preference to have medication administered at a la...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to honor a resident preference to have medication administered at a later time in the morning for one resident (#75) of five residents sampled. Findings included: An interview was conducted with Resident #75 on 10/16/2023 at 1:18 PM. Resident #75 stated, I didn't sleep well last night as the facility insists on giving me my medication before the sun is up. I keep telling them, I don't want to be woken up until after 7:00 AM. They don't listen, I have told them numerous times and continue to tell them not to wake me up. A review of Resident #75's electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) revealed a note, dated 8/22/2023 at 5:00 AM that showed, resident does not want to be woke up for meds this early. A review of Resident #75's progress note, dated 8/24/2023 at 11:14 AM, revealed APRN [APRN] (advanced practice registered nurse) in to see resident, new orders for different time on hydralazine due to resident refusals of the 6:00 AM dose. Resident is agreeable. A review of Resident #75's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of hypertension and hyperlipidemia among other co-morbidities. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), Section C Cognitive Patterns, dated 9/20/2023, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15/15, which meant the resident is cognitively intact. A review of Resident #75's Order Summary Report for October 2023 revealed physician orders for Hydralazine HCL oral tablet 50 milligrams (mg) with the following instructions: Give one tablet by mouth three times a day for HTN (hypertension) hold if systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 100 millimeters of Mercury (mmHg) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) less than 50 mmHg, ordered on 9/26/2023. An additional physician order, dated 9/26/2023, revealed Hydralazine HCL 50 mg as an as needed (PRN) every eight hours if resident systolic blood pressure is greater than 160 mmHg. A review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for the month of October 2023 for Resident #75 revealed the Hydralazine administration regimen as every day at 6:00 AM, 2:00PM and 10:00PM. Resident #75 received Hydralazine on all days but refused the morning 6:00 AM dose on 10/18/2023. A review of the electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for the month of September 2023 for Resident #75 revealed the Hydralazine administration regimen as every day at 9:00 AM, 1:00PM and 8:00PM until the new order for 9/26/2023 with Resident #75 compliant with regimen. An interview was conducted with Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) on 10/18/2023 at 12:49 PM. Staff G, LPN stated there is medication Resident #75 refuses to take in the morning, as Resident #75 does not want to be awoken early. Staff G, LPN stated we did not change the orders as it would not matter the timing, as the order is for every 8 hours. Therefore, the resident would have to be woken up in the evening. Staff G, LPN confirmed the medication times were never altered. A review of the facility's Grievance Logs revealed no grievances were filed for a change in medication times for Resident #75, during the months of July, August, September, or October 2023. An interview was conducted with the Social Service Director (SSD) on 10/18/2023 at 3:02 PM. The SSD confirmed there were no grievances filed for Resident #75 regarding medication administration times. The SSD stated the resident requests should be honored, if possible and be care planned. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/18/2023 at 3:15 PM. The DON stated she did not know the resident was refusing medications, due to the timing. Nor was she aware Resident #75 did not want to be woken up early. The DON continued to state, she did not know why the Resident's request was not facilitated. A policy for choices or accommodation of need was requested. No policies were produced upon exit of the survey team on 10/19/2023.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of the admission Record for Resident #33 showed an admission date of 12/20/2019 with diagnoses of cerebrovascular di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of the admission Record for Resident #33 showed an admission date of 12/20/2019 with diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease (Stroke), peripheral vascular disease, muscle weakness and other co-morbidities. On 10/16/2023 at 10:00 a.m. and 1:41 p.m. Resident #33 was observed in bed, covered with a sheet and arms above the sheet. Resident #33's right and left hands were folded at the metacarpophalangeal joints (MCP aka knuckles). During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Resident #33 stated my hands have been like this for a while. The facility has not been working with me on moving them. Resident #33 continued to state; I can open my hands. At this time Resident #33 was able to bilaterally move his fingers from the MCP joints only, however, his middle to pinkie finger remained bent. Resident #33's second finger (pointer) and thumb moved up and down to touch each other and both hands were observed moving in this manner. During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 4:49 p.m. with Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated Resident #33's hands have been like that for a while now. Staff B, CNA stated I clean underneath the fingers and the palm the best I can as they are hard to move. I do not complete range of motion (ROM) with him. Resident #33 does not refuse care for me. During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 12:49 p.m. Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated Resident #33's right and left hands are contracted. I clean Resident #33's hands and clip the nails as this is hard for the CNA to complete due to the rigidity in the fingers. Resident #33 is very sweet and compliant with care for me. A review of Resident #33's physician order, dated 4/25/2023, revealed: May have restorative/maintenance programs as indicated. A review of Resident #33's MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/2023 revealed in Section C - Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eleven out of fifteen which revealed the resident was moderately cognitively intact. Section E Behaviors showed the resident had no behaviors, did not reject care or evaluation of care. Section G Functional Status was marked for no impairment of the upper or lower extremities. Further review of the MDS revealed no documentation that Resident #33 had functional impairments at admission. During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 2:36 p.m. the Regional Director of Rehabilitation (RDOR) stated he has been functioning as the Director of Rehabilitation at the facility. The RDOR stated therapy routinely screens residents on a quarterly basis, based on the MDS calendar. The RDOR was not able to provide a screening form completed on Resident #33, whose MDS was completed on 8/14/2023. The RDOR stated, I have not received a calendar for a while now. The RDOR stated I am unsure when Resident #33 was screened last, we don't have any documentation prior to July 1, 2023. An interview was conducted on 10/17/2023 at 2:41 p.m. with the RN MDS Coordinator and the Regional MDS Director. The RN MDS Coordinator stated the Inter Disciplinary Team is made aware of when the MDS for the residents are due by utilizing the computer software we have. The RN MDS Coordinator stated, I don't know why the screen would not have been completed. An interview on 10/18/23 at 12:59 p.m. was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Regional Clinical Nurse (RCN). The RCN stated we do have a restorative maintenance program. Residents are placed on the program by either a therapy or nursing referral. Residents stay on this program for about 6-8 weeks. Resident #33 is not on restorative. The DON stated Resident #33 is not compliant with care and maybe this is the reason no screening was performed. During an interview on 10/19/2023 at 1:20 p.m. the RN MDS Coordinator stated she was responsible for completing the section of the MDS that would indicate the resident's functional status. The RN MDS Coordinator verified Resident #33's functional status did not have any impairments noted. The RN MDS Coordinator stated there was no documentation of impairment in range of motion. The RN MDS Coordinator stated Resident #33 refused to speak with me. A review of Resident #33's care plan with last care plan review completed 8/29/2023 showed: *Focus: [Resident #33] has an Activity of Daily Living self-care deficit related to muscle weakness, decreased mobility, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar, cerebral vascular disease, adult failure to thrive. [Resident #33] prefers to stay in bed and declines staff request to transfer out of bed and into the wheelchair. [Resident #33] has a history of refusing care, declining showers, and declining to be weighed. Goal: The resident will maintain current level of function through next review date. Interventions: Bathing/Showering: assist of one staff. Bathing/Showering: check nail length and trim and clean on bath day as necessary, report any changes to the nurse. Bed mobility: assist of two staff. Bed fast: the resident is bed fast all or most of the time per his preference. Dressing: assist of one staff. Eating: the resident is able to feed self with setup. Personal hygiene: assist of one staff. Toilet use: assist of one staff. Transfer: requires mechanical lift [name brand] with two staff assistance for transfers. Encourage the resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interaction. Encourage the resident to use the call bell for assistance. Praise all efforts at self-care. Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy evaluation and treatment as per Medical Doctor orders. *Focus: [Resident #33] prefers to stay in bed and declines staff request to transfer out of bed and into the wheelchair. [Resident #33] has a history of refusing care, wound care, declining showers and/or bed baths, refuses nail care, declining to reposition and declining to be weighed. Goal: The resident will cooperate with care through the next review date. Interventions: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regimen, to provide sense of control. Arrange for psych evaluation if resident continues to decline care on a consistent basis, and the root cause of resident's decline for assistance cannot be determined. Educate resident/resident's representative/caregivers of possible outcome(s) of not complying with treatment care. Encourage as much participation/interaction by the resident as possible during care activities. Give clear explanation of all activities prior to and as they occur during each contact. If resident does not cooperate with ADL's (activities of daily living), reassure the resident, leave, and return later and try again. Notify physician as needed of frequent denials to assist with care. Praise the resident when behavior is appropriate. Provide consistency and care to promote comfort with ADLs. Maintain consistency and timing of ADLs, caregivers, and routine, as much as possible. Provide the resident with opportunities for choice during care provision. Resident #33's care plan was silent of a focus, goal or interventions related to the lack of range of motion for the resident's hands. 3. Review of Resident #78's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments showed the resident returned to the facility on 9/27/2023, had an unplanned transfer to the hospital on 9/30/2023, and was readmitted to the facility a 3rd time on 10/10/2023. Review of Resident #78's Nursing Progress notes dated 9/30/2023 at 5:45 AM (just prior to the most recent hospitalization) showed, Resident #78 called a family member and stated I am giving up. Review of the admission Record showed new diagnoses in October of 2023 to include major depressive disorder and anxiety. On 10/16/2023 at 9:53 AM, Resident #78 was observed in bed under the blankets with the lights off. Resident #78 stated I just don't want to get up. On 10/17/2023 at 3:30 PM, Resident #78 was observed in bed under the blankets with the lights off, and on 10/18/2023 at 11:36 AM, Resident #78 was observed a third time in the same state. During the 10/18/2023 observation, Resident #78 stated I went to therapy today. Outside of that, I am going to stay in bed with the lights off. I don't feel like doing anything. Interview on 10/18/2023 at 11:40 AM with Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) revealed Resident #78's only goes to therapy and then lays in the bed with the lights off. Interview on 10/18/2023 at 12:52 PM with Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) revealed it was the resident's choice to stay in bed. Staff G reported Resident #78 was not like this on her prior admissions. Review of Resident #78's physician orders revealed the resident was receiving: Mirtazapine oral tablet 15 mg - give one tablet at bedtime for depression with appetite loss (order and start date 10/10/2023) Paroxetine HCI oral tablet 20 mg - give 1 capsule one time a day for depression related to major depressive disorder, single episode, unspecified (order date 10/4/2023, start date 10/5/2023) Alprazolam oral tablet 0.5 mg - give 1 tablet every 8 hours as needed 3 times daily for anxiety disorder, unspecified for 14 days (order and start date 10/12/2023) Review of Resident #78's care plan revealed no plan of care was developed related to the changes in the resident's mood, behavior and new medications for depression and anxiety. On 10/18/2023 at 3:05 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) reported Resident #78 should have been care planned for depression, especially since the resident doesn't come out of her room. On 10/18/2023 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the expectation is medications for mood and behavior receive a care plan. Review of the policy and procedure titled, Care Plans, dated 8/2022, revealed: Intent: it is the policy of the facility to create care plans in accordance with state and federal regulations. Definition: Resident care plan means a written plan developed, maintained, and reviewed not less than quarterly by a registered nurse, with participation from other facility staff and the resident or his or her designee or legal representative, which includes a comprehensive assessment of the needs of an individual resident, the type and frequency of services required to provide the necessary care for the resident to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, a listing of services provided within or outside the facility to meet those needs, and an explanation of service goals. Procedure: 1. Each resident admitted to the nursing home facility shall have a plan of care. 2. The plan of care must consist of: a. Physician's orders, diagnosis, medical history, physical exam, and rehabilitative or restorative potential. 3. A preliminary nursing evaluation with physician's orders for immediate care, completed upon admission. 4. A complete, comprehensive, accurate, and reproducible assessment of each resident's functional capacity which is standardized in the facility and is completed within 14 days of the resident's admission to the facility, and every 12 months thereafter. 5. The assessment must be: a. Reviewed no less than once every three months, b. Reviewed promptly after a significant change, which is in need to stop a form of treatment because of adverse consequences (e. g., an adverse drug reaction), or commence a new form of treatment to deal with a problem in the resident's physical or mental condition; and c. Revised as appropriate to assure the continued accuracy of the assessment. 6. The facility will develop a comprehensive care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. 7. The care plan will describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and social well-being. 8. The care plan will be completed within seven days after completion of the resident's assessment. 9. At the resident's option, every effort must be made to include the resident and family or responsible party, including private duty nurse or nursing assistant, in the development, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of the resident's plan of care. 10. All staff personnel who provide care, and at the resident's option, private duty nurses or personnel who are not employees of the facility, will be knowledgeable of, and have access to, the resident's plan of care. 11. A summary of the residence plan of care and a copy of any advanced directives must accompany each resident discharge or transferred to another healthcare facility, licensed under chapter 395 or 400, F. S., or must be forwarded to the receiving facility as soon as possible consistent with good medical practice. Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to develop and implement a care plan related to: 1. smoking for one resident (#82), 2. lack of range of motion for one resident (#33), and 3. related to the changes in one resident's (#78) mood, behavior and new medications for depression and anxiety out of thirty-three sampled residents. Findings included: 1. An observation and interview was conducted on 10/16/23 at 10:51 a.m. with Resident #82. The resident confirmed he smoked while at the facility. The resident stated staff members are always with the residents while smoking and the facility keep all cigarettes and lighters. On 10/18/23 at 10:49 a.m. Resident #82 was observed walking the facility's hallway. A review of the admission Record for Resident #82 revealed the resident was originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The record showed the resident had diagnoses not limited to other encephalopathy, fracture of unspecified part of neck of unspecified femur subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing, uncomplicated alcohol abuse, and unspecified nutritional anemia. Review of Resident #82's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], showed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating an intact cognition. Section J Health Conditions revealed the resident did not use tobacco. A review of a Smoking Evaluation, dated 9/5/23, for Resident #82 identified the resident did smoke, was determined a safe smoker, and supervision was not needed. Review of Resident #82's Smoking Evaluation, dated 9/21/23, identified the resident did smoke and was determined to be a safe smoker. The evaluation did not reveal if the resident needed supervision while smoking. Review of Resident #82's active care plan with the last review date of 10/16/23 revealed there was no focus, goal, or intervention regarding the resident's choice to smoke. An interview was conducted with the Registered Nurse Minimum Data Set Coordinator (RN MDS Coordinator) on 10/19/23 at 1:52 p.m. The RN MDS Coordinator stated residents should absolutely have a care plan for smoking if they had gotten to their comprehensive assessment. The RN MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #82's care plan, the options available, and confirmed the resident did not have a care plan for smoking. The staff member stated she must have been unaware Resident #82 was smoking and finds out if a resident was a smoker generally there is a smoking assessment in the electronic clinical record. On 10/19/23 at 2:03 p.m. Resident #82 confirmed smoking and being out there (smoking patio) every day.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure one resident (#33) of two sampled residents received treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure one resident (#33) of two sampled residents received treatment and services to prevent further decrease in range of motion. Findings included: A review of the admission Record for Resident #33 showed an admission date of 12/20/2019 with diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease (stroke), peripheral vascular disease, muscle weakness and other co-morbidities. A review of Resident #33's Minimum Date Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/2023, revealed in Section C - Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eleven out of fifteen which revealed the resident was moderately cognitively intact. Section E Behaviors showed the resident had no behaviors, did not reject care or evaluation of care. Section G Functional Status was marked for no impairment of the upper or lower extremities. Further review of the MDS revealed no documentation that Resident #33 had functional impairments at admission. On 10/16/2023 at 10:00 a.m. and 1:41 p.m. Resident #33 was observed in bed, covered with a sheet and arms above the sheet. Resident #33's right and left hands were folded at the metacarpophalangeal joints (MCPaka knuckles). During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Resident #33 stated my hands have been like this for a while. The facility has not been working with me on moving them. Resident #33 continued to state; I can open my hands. At this time Resident #33 was able to bilaterally move his fingers from the MCP joints only, however, his middle to pinkie finger remained bent. Resident #33's second finger (pointer) and thumb moved up and down to touch each other and both hands were observed moving in this manner. During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 4:49 p.m. with Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated Resident #33's hands have been like that for a while now. Staff B, CNA stated I clean underneath the fingers and the palm the best I can as they are hard to move. I do not complete range of motion (ROM) with him. Resident #33 does not refuse care for me. During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 12:49 p.m. Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated Resident #33's right and left hands are contracted. I clean Resident #33's hands and clip the nails as this is hard for the CNA to complete due to the rigidity in the fingers. Resident #33 is very sweet and compliant with care for me. A review of Resident #33's physician order, dated 4/25/2023, revealed: May have restorative/maintenance programs as indicated. During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 2:36 p.m. the Regional Director of Rehabilitation (RDOR) stated he has been functioning as the Director of Rehabilitation at the facility. The RDOR stated therapy routinely screens residents on a quarterly basis, based on the MDS calendar. The RDOR was not able to provide a screening form completed on Resident #33, whose MDS was completed on 8/14/2023. The RDOR stated, I have not received a calendar for a while now. The RDOR stated I am unsure when Resident #33 was screened last, we don't have any documentation prior to July 1, 2023. An interview was conducted on 10/17/2023 at 2:41 p.m. with the Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator and the Regional MDS Director. The RN MDS Coordinator stated the Inter Disciplinary Team is made aware of when the MDS for the residents are due by utilizing the computer software we have. The RN MDS Coordinator stated, I don't know why the screen would not have been completed. An interview on 10/18/23 at 12:59 p.m. was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Regional Clinical Nurse (RCN). The DON stated Resident #33 is not compliant with care and maybe this is the reason no screening was performed. During an interview on 10/19/2023 at 1:20 p.m. the RN MDS Coordinator stated she was responsible for completing the section of the MDS that would indicate the resident's functional status. The RN MDS Coordinator verified Resident #33's functional status did not have any impairments noted. The RN MDS Coordinator stated there was no documentation of impairment in range of motion. Review of Resident #33's care plan with the last care plan review completed 8/29/2023 showed: *Focus: Resident #33 has an Activity of Daily Living self-care deficit related to muscle weakness, decreased mobility, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, bipolar, cerebral vascular disease, adult failure to thrive. Resident #33 prefers to stay in bed and declines staff request to transfer out of bed and into the wheelchair. Resident #33 has a history of refusing care, declining showers, and declining to be weighed. Interventions included: Bathing/Showering: check nail length and trim and clean on bath day as necessary, report any changes to the nurse. Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy evaluation and treatment as per Medical Doctor orders. *Focus: . Resident #33 has a history of refusing care, wound care, declining showers and/or bed baths, refuses nail care, declining to reposition and declining to be weighed. Goal: The resident will cooperate with care through the next review date. Interventions included: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regimen, to provide sense of control. Resident #33's care plan was silent of a focus, a goal or interventions related to the lack of range of motion for the resident's hands. Review of the facilities policy titled, Mobility/Range of Motion, dated April 2022, showed: it is the policy of the facility to ensure that the residents receive range of motion, in accordance with state and federal regulations. Procedure: 1. The facility will ensure that based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident: a. that a resident who enters the facility without limited range of motion does not experience reduction in range of motion unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that a reduction in range of motion is unavoidable; and b. a resident with limited range of motion receives appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion and or to prevent further decrease in range of motion. c. a resident with limited mobility receives appropriate services, equipment, and assistance to maintain or improve mobility with the maximum practicable independence unless a reduction in mobility is demonstrably unavoidable. 2. The facility will ensure that the resident reaches and maintains his or her highest level of range of motion and to prevent avoidable decline of range of motion.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was changed and mainta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to ensure respiratory equipment was changed and maintained in a sanitary manner for one resident (#60) out of one resident sampled for receiving respiratory therapy. Findings included: On 10/16/23 at 10:01 a.m. Resident #60 was observed wearing a nasal cannula which was attached to an oxygen concentrator. The concentrator showed the resident was receiving 3 liters per minute (lpm) of oxygen. An additional observation of the nebulizer machine on the table next to the resident's bed revealed tubing attached to the machine with an aerosol mask. The tubing was dated 10/01/23. The mask was lying directly on the table and not in a storage bag or standing in the slot provided on the machine. On 10/17/23 at 10:39 a.m. Resident #60 was observed sitting in a wheelchair next to the bed wearing a nasal cannula, and the nebulizer mask was sitting on the round table in front of the resident. On 10/19/23 at 8:42 a.m. Resident #60 was observed lying in bed with the aerosol mask standing up on the nebulizer machine. Review of Resident #60's admission Record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] and diagnoses included heart failure, unspecified anxiety disorder, and unspecified dyspnea. An interview was conducted with Staff I, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) on 10/19/23 at 3:50 p.m. Staff I confirmed the tubing attached to the nebulizer and the tubing attached to the oxygen concentrator was dated 10/01/23. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) A review of Resident #60's physician orders included an order, dated 9/19/23, for Oxygen as needed PRN (as needed) for Shortness of Breath (SOB). The order did not identify the amount of oxygen to be delivered per minute. This order was discontinued on 10/19/23 at 6:02 p.m. An order, dated 10/19/23 at 6:15 pm, revealed the resident was to receive oxygen at 2 lpm as needed for Shortness of Breath. Review of the Resident #60's October 2023 Medication and Treatment Administration Records (MAR/TAR) did not reveal an order to change oxygen and nebulizer tubing. A further review of the resident's October MAR revealed the resident did not have an active nebulizer medication order. The order for Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) milligram (mg)/3 milliliter (mL) was discontinued on 10/1/23. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 6:03 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated oxygen orders should identify the liters per minute (lpm) to be delivered and the oxygen/nebulizer tubing should be changed weekly and listed on the MAR/TAR. The facility provided the policy titled, Physical Environment - Space and Environment, undated. A review of the policy revealed, It is the policy of the facility to provide areas large enough to comfortably accommodate the needs of the residents who usually occupy this space and equipment maintained in safe and working order, in accordance to state and federal regulations. The procedure portion of the policy showed: - 3. The facility will maintain all mechanical, electrical, and patient care equipment in safe operating condition. - 4. Equipment will be maintained according to manufacturer's recommendations. In review the Cleveland Clinic, located at https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/25187-nasal-cannula, identified if using oxygen therapy at home people should take care of the equipment and the nasal cannula be changed at least once a week.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide psychological and behavioral health care se...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide psychological and behavioral health care services to maintain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being for one resident (#60) out of three residents sampled for emotional and mood behaviors. Findings included: An observation and interview was conducted on 10/16/23 at 9:55 a.m., with Resident #60. The resident was very hard of hearing and stated, This is no way to live, and for the last couple of weeks felt if only he had a Couple white pills. The resident stated, Should talk to a mental health specialist. The resident did report he informed others of suicidal thoughts. On 10/16/23 at 10:14 a.m. an interview was conducted with Resident #60's assigned nurse, Staff J, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff J stated the resident had not previously voiced the suicidal thoughts. Staff J stated the psychiatric provider was in the facility and would be notified. On 10/16/23 at 10:33 a.m. Staff J, LPN stated the facility notified Resident #60's Hospice provider and the resident had voiced the same to the Hospice nurse. A Hospice Social Worker (HSW) consult had been made for the resident. The Social Service Director (SSD) stated the resident thought it was a joke to report (regarding the white pills). On 10/19/23 at 2:36 p.m. an interview was conducted with a psychiatric provider, Staff K, Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP). Staff K reported not being aware of the suicidal thoughts made by Resident #60 on 10/16 and was in the facility on Monday (10/16) and yesterday (10/18). Staff K stated another NP visited the facility also and wondered if Perhaps [Resident #60] would benefit speaking with a therapist that was going to visit the facility on Saturday (10/21). Review of Resident #60's admission Record revealed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with the payer source of Hospice Medicaid Pending. The admission Record included diagnoses not limited to unspecified heart failure, unspecified anxiety disorder, unspecified dyspnea, and restlessness and agitation. Review of Resident #60's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of Resident #60's Assessments, conducted on 10/19/23 at 4:12 p.m. did not reveal a psychosocial assessment had been conducted on 10/16, 10/17, 10/18, or 10/19/23 by the facility's Social Service Department. Review of Resident #60's progress notes revealed Staff J, LPN had not noted the resident made suicidal comments to several people, had not contacted the resident's emergency contact, had not notified the facility's Psychiatric provider, and had not notified the Attending Physician. The review of Resident #60's progress notes did not reveal Staff J had completed a Daily Skilled Note on 10/16/23, which would include whether behaviors were present or not. Review of Resident #60's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October 2023 revealed the following: -A physician order, started on 9/19/23, instructing staff to complete a Daily Skilled Note every shift. -On 9/21/23 the resident had previously been ordered Lorazepam 1 mg as needed, which ended on 10/5/23. -Staff J had completed a Daily Skilled Note on 10/16/23. -On 10/18/23 the resident was ordered Celexa 20 milligram (mg) daily for depression. -On 10/19/23 the resident was ordered Lorazepam 1 mg every 2 hours as needed for anxiety. -The monitoring of Resident #60's behaviors started on 10/19/23. Review of the progress notes, on 10/19/23 at 2:49 p.m., did not show the SSD spoke with Resident #60 on 10/16/23 after voicing suicidal thoughts or a psychosocial assessment had been completed. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 3:18 p.m. the SSD reported being the Hospice Liaison for the facility. The SSD stated Hospice had been notified on 10/16/23 following the comments Resident #60 had voiced, the (Hospice) nurse Showed up right away and the Social Worker showed up About an hour later. The SSD reported speaking with the resident on 10/16/23 A little while after the Hospice SW spoke with the resident. The SSD confirmed not putting a note in the resident's record Must've been busy that day, I can put a late one in. The SSD stated the expectation would be to have written a note even when the Hospice nurse said it was one of (Resident #60's) jokes and didn't mean it. The SSD stated the Hospice nurse informed the resident not to say things like that. The SSD reported not knowing if Staff K, Psychiatry NP, had been notified. A late entry note, created on 10/19/23 at 3:46 p.m. and effective 10/16/23 at 11:35 a.m., from the facility's Social Service Director, revealed they were notified of a statement made by Resident #60 in Regards to if there were 3 white pills being on [Resident 60's] floor and [Resident 60] would take them all to see which one takes effect first. [Hospice] was notified and both hospice nurse and social worker were at facility to speak with resident and to educate [Resident 60]. Resident agreed with hospice to not make inappropriate jokes. An interview was conducted on 10/19/23 at 3:52 p.m. with the Hospice Registered Nurse (RN) assigned to Resident #60. The Hospice RN reported visiting the resident on 10/16/23 and the Hospice Social Worker had completed their assessment on that day. The RN stated Resident #60 had not voiced anything like that (suicidal ideation) before. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 6:03 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the Hospice nurse alerted her to Resident #60's comments on 10/16/23 and he had a Dark sense of humor. The DON stated the expectation was the facility staff (nursing and Social Services) would write a note, the facility should have notified psychiatry and the (Attending) physician. The DON said the Hospice nurse informed her that she was going to notify psychiatry. A review of the facility policy titled, Behavioral Health Services - Treatment/Services for Mental/Psychosocial Concerns, undated, revealed the following: It is the policy of the facility to provide Behavioral Health Services in accordance with State and Federal regulations. The procedure revealed the following: - The facility will ensure that, a resident who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty, or who has a history of trauma and/or post-traumatic stress disorder, receives appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem or to attain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being; - If from a rehabilitative service such as but not limited to physical therapy, speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, and rehabilitative services for mental disorders and intellectual disability, are required in the resident's comprehensive plan of care the facility will: a. Provide the required services included specialized rehabilitation services; or b. Obtain the required services from an outside resource or from a Medicare and or Medicaid provider of specialized rehabilitative services. - The facility will provide medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. A review of the facility policy titled, Administration - Social Services, undated, revealed, It is the policy of the facility to provide care and services related to social services, according state and federal regulations. The procedures revealed: - The facility will provide medically related social services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. - Medically related social services means services provided by the facility's staff to assist residents in maintaining or improving their ability to manage their everyday physical, mental, and psychosocial needs. These services might include: b. Maintaining contact with facility (with resident's permission) to report on changes in health, current goals, discharge planning, and encouragement to participate in care planning. c. Assisting staff to inform residents and those they designate about the resident's health status and health care choices and their ramifications; g. Providing or arranging provision of needed counseling services; h. Through the assessment and care planning process, identifying and seeking ways to support residents' individual needs; m. Meeting the needs of residents who are grieving. (Photographic Evidence Obtained)
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Thirty-four medication administration opportunities were observe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Thirty-four medication administration opportunities were observed and three errors were identified for three residents (#240, #33, #64) of seven residents observed. These errors constituted a 8.82% medication error rate. Findings included: 1. On 10/16/23 at 5:06 p.m. an observation of medication administration with Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was conducted with Resident #240. The staff member dispensed the following medications: - Symbicort 160/4.5 microgram (mcg) inhaler - Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 milligram (mg) tablet The staff member confirmed one tablet and one inhaler had been dispensed. A review of Resident #240's October 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed the resident was scheduled to receive Oxycodone/Acetaminophen at 4:00 p.m. 2. On 10/17/23 at 8:54 a.m. an observation of medication administration with Staff M, Registered Nurse (RN) was conducted with Resident #64. The staff member dispensed the following medications: - Lexapro 10 milligram (mg) tablet - Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5/325 mg tablet - Incruse Ellipta 62.5 mcg inhaler - ORDER FOR 1 PUFF DAILY - Multivitamin over-the-counter (otc) tablet - Prostat Liquid Protein 30 milliliter (mL) - Senna S 8.6-50 mg - 2 tablets - Symbicort 160/4.5 mcg inhaler The staff member confirmed dispensing five tablets, one liquid, and two inhalers. Staff M administered oral medications, the liquid protein, administered 2 puffs of the Incruse inhaler, educated the resident to rinse and spit, and administered one puff of Symbicort. A review of Resident #64's October 2023 MAR identified the physician ordered: Incruse Ellipta Inhalation Aerosol Powder Breath Activated 62.5 mcg - 1 puff inhale orally one time a day for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Rinse mouth and spit after each use. 3. On 10/18/23 at 8:19 a.m. an observation of medication administration with Staff G, LPN was conducted with Resident #33. The staff member dispensed and administered the following medications: - Multivitamin otc tablet - Vitamin C 250 mg otc tablet - Zinc 50 mg otc tablet A review of the October 2023 MAR identified the resident was to be administered one tablet of the Multivitamin with Minerals daily for wound healing. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 5:41 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the expectation was for nurses to follow physician orders when administering medications and the medications were to be administered within the time frame of one hour before and one hour after of the scheduled time. A review of the policy titled, Administration of Drugs, dated April 2022, showed: Drugs will be administered in a timely manner and as prescribed by the resident's attending physician or the Center's Medical Director. The Interpretation and Implementation included the following: - Drugs must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. - Unless otherwise specified by the resident's attending physician, routine drugs should be administered as scheduled.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances and progress toward a resolution for concerns expressed in Resident Council Meetings by three re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to make prompt efforts to resolve grievances and progress toward a resolution for concerns expressed in Resident Council Meetings by three residents (#63, #52, and #23) of 36 sampled residents. Findings included: A review of the facility's the Resident Council Minutes from 9/12/2023 at 10:00 a.m. revealed the residents were voicing complaints regarding receiving clothing back from the laundry. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) An interview was conducted with Resident #63 on 10/16/23 at 10:10 a.m. During the interview Resident #63 stated, I had a lot of expensive stuff, now it's gone. They told me to write my name on my stuff, I did, and it didn't make a difference. Yes, I told them, and they said I needed to go to the clothing drive. I told them what's that got to do with my missing stuff. I don't trust them. I don't trust them when it comes to my clothes. An interview was conducted with Resident #52 on 10/16/23 at 11:35 a.m. During the interview Resident #52 stated, Oh, it's bad. You can ask anybody . They just keep saying that they are behind. This has been going on since I've been here .It's frustrating. As a woman it's frustrating because I have to wear the same thing every day. A Resident Council Meeting, conducted on 10/18/23 at 3:18 p.m., revealed residents voicing additional concerns regarding the facility's laundry service. During the meeting Resident #23 stated, It takes 6 weeks to get my laundry back. These findings were discussed and confirmed during an interview with Staff D, Environmental Supervisor, on 10/19/23 at 11:04 a.m. During the interview Staff E stated, The way personal laundry works is that when we get a new resident in the building, the CNAs ( Certified Nursing Assistants) are supposed to bag all their clothing , bring it to us and we label it. The issue that we are having is that clothing is not being brought to us to be labeled. I'm in the process of changing out this process .Yes, it's been bad but it's definitely getting better. It's been an ongoing issue.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of the admission Record for Resident #33 showed an admission date of 12/20/2019 with diagnoses of cerebrovascular di...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of the admission Record for Resident #33 showed an admission date of 12/20/2019 with diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease (Stroke), peripheral vascular disease, muscle weakness and other co-morbidities. A review of Resident #33's MDS with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 8/14/2023 revealed in Section C - Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of eleven out of fifteen which revealed the resident was moderately cognitively intact. Section E Behaviors showed the resident had no behaviors, did not reject care or evaluation of care. Section G Functional Status was marked for no impairment of the upper or lower extremities. Further review of the MDS revealed no documentation that Resident #33 had functional impairments at admission. On 10/16/2023 at 10:00 a.m. and 1:41 p.m. Resident #33 was observed in bed, covered with a sheet and arms above the sheet. Resident #33's right and left hands were folded at the metacarpophalangeal joints (MCP aka knuckles). During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 2:30 p.m. Resident #33 stated my hands have been like this for a while. The facility has not been working with me on moving them. Resident #33 continued to state; I can open my hands. At this time Resident #33 was able to bilaterally move his fingers from the MCP joints only, however, his middle to pinkie finger remained bent. Resident #33's second finger (pointer) and thumb moved up and down to touch each other and both hands were observed moving in this manner. During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 4:49 p.m. with Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated Resident #33's hands have been like that for a while now. Staff B, CNA stated I clean underneath the fingers and the palm the best I can as they are hard to move. I do not complete range of motion (ROM) with him. Resident #33 does not refuse care for me. During an interview on 10/18/2023 at 12:49 p.m. Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated Resident #33's right and left hands are contracted. I clean Resident #33's hands and clip the nails as this is hard for the CNA to complete due to the rigidity in the fingers. Resident #33 is very sweet and compliant with care for me. A review of Resident #33's physician order, dated 4/25/2023, revealed: May have restorative/maintenance programs as indicated. During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 2:36 p.m. the Regional Director of Rehabilitation (RDOR) stated he has been functioning as the Director of Rehabilitation at the facility. The RDOR stated therapy routinely screens residents on a quarterly basis, based on the MDS calendar. The RDOR was not able to provide a screening form completed on Resident #33, whose MDS was completed on 8/14/2023. The RDOR stated, I have not received a calendar for a while now. The RDOR stated I am unsure when Resident #33 was screened last, we don't have any documentation prior to July 1, 2023. An interview was conducted on 10/17/2023 at 2:41 p.m. with the RN MDS Coordinator and the Regional MDS Director. The RN MDS Coordinator stated the Inter Disciplinary Team is made aware of when the MDS for the residents are due by utilizing the computer software we have. The RN MDS Coordinator stated, I don't know why the screen would not have been completed. An interview on 10/18/23 at 12:59 p.m. was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Regional Clinical Nurse (RCN). The DON stated Resident #33 is not compliant with care and maybe this is the reason no screening was performed. During an interview on 10/19/2023 at 1:20 p.m. the RN MDS Coordinator stated she was responsible for completing the section of the MDS that would indicate the resident's functional status. The RN MDS Coordinator verified Resident #33's functional status did not have any impairments noted. The RN MDS Coordinator stated there was no documentation of impairment in range of motion. No Policy and Procedure for Resident Assessments was provided to the survey team upon exit on 10/19/23. Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to accurately reflect each resident's status at the time of assessment on the minimum data set assessment (MDS) for three residents (#3, #40, and #33) out of thirty three sampled residents. Findings included: 1. A review of Resident #3's admission Record showed Resident# 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of spinal bifida, paraplegia and atherosclerotic heart disease of native coronary artery with unspecified angina. A review of the Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], Section N Medications, showed Resident #3 received anticoagulants for six days during the seven-day look back period. A review of Resident #3's current and discontinued physician orders showed no anticoagulant therapy. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 1:30 p.m. the Registered Nurse (RN) MDS Coordinator stated she reviewed anticoagulants on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to ensure the medication was given. The RN MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #3's MAR and stated she did not see an anticoagulant on the MAR. The RN MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #3's current and discontinued physician orders and stated Resident #3 was never ordered or administered anticoagulants and the MDS was marked in error. 2. A review of Resident #40's admission Record showed Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of cerebrovascular disease, hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a cerebral infarction affecting the right dominant side, and dysphasia. A review of Resident #40's Modification to Annual MDS, dated [DATE], Section K Swallowing Nutrition Status showed Yes was marked for weight loss. A review of Resident #40's weights and summary report as of 10/19/23 showed: 6/5/2023 - 106.5 pounds (Lbs) 7/4/2023- 111.5 Lbs 8/11/2023- 111.0 Lbs 9/13/2023- 114.2 Lbs 10/5/2023- 115.2 Lbs On 06/05/2023, Resident #40 weighed 106.5 lbs. On 07/04/2023, Resident #40 weighed 111.5 pounds which was a 4.69 % gain. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 1:28 p.m. the RN MDS Coordinator reviewed Resident #40's Modification to Annual MDS, dated [DATE], Section K Swallowing Nutrition Status and weights. The RN MDS Coordinator stated that usually the Dietitian completes the MDS Section K but stated, I was the one who modified [Resident #40's] MDS to show weight loss. The RN MDS Coordinator stated, I looked at the dates wrong and modified the Dietitian's answer of weight gain to weight loss and that was an error as Resident #40 did not have weight loss.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1) medications on one medication cart (A-wing cart) were secured while unattended, 2) insulin pens and vials were da...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 1) medications on one medication cart (A-wing cart) were secured while unattended, 2) insulin pens and vials were dated in one medication cart (B-wing cart), 3) bottles of ophthalmic solutions were dated and internal/external medications were not stored in the same compartments on one medication cart (C-wing cart) of four medication carts observed. Findings included: An observation was made on 10/18/23 at 8:19 a.m. of medication administration with Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) for Resident #33. The nurse dispensed one Multivitamin over the counter (otc) tablet, one Vitamin C otc tablet, and one Zinc otc tablet from separate bottles. The staff member left the three otc medication bottles sitting on the unlocked and unattended medication cart (A-wing cart) as the medications were administered in the resident's room. The medication cart was parked in the hallway and to the side of the doorway to the resident's room. An observation was conducted with Staff N, Registered Nurse (RN) on 10/18/23 at 11:42 a.m. of the B-wing medication cart. The observation revealed the following: - Lantus insulin pen. Storage bag dated 10/13/23, pen was not dated. A label attached to the pen allowed for the medication to be dated with an open date. -An opened undated Levemir insulin vial, storage bag dated as opened on 10/13 and another date of 10/2/23 was written on another label. -An opened undated Insulin Aspart vial, storage bag dated as opened on 10/12/23. -An opened undated vial of Insulin Lispro. The storage bag was dated with both 10/1/23 and 10/13. -An opened undated bottle of Olopatadine 0.2% solution, storage bag dated 9/29/23. An observation was conducted with Staff O, LPN on 10/18/23 at 12:11 p.m. of the C-wing medication cart. The observation revealed the following: -An opened undated bottle of Latanoprost 0.005% ophthalmic drops. The storage bag was dated 9/20/23. -An opened undated bottle of Brimonidine 0.2% ophthalmic drops, neither the box nor the label attached to the bottle was dated. The storage bag was dated 10/16/23. -An opened undated bottle of Artificial Tears, the box was dated 7/23/23. -An opened undated bottle of Artificial Tears, the box was dated 3/19/23. -An opened undated bottle of Artificial Tears, the box was dated 4/26/23. -A bottle of Saline Nasal spray, was stored with a box of rectal Bisacodyl suppositories, and multiple respiratory inhalers. -An opened, undated bottle of ProStat liquid protein. Staff O, LPN tipped the bottle over to identify the manufacturer's expiration date. The label of the bottle instructed to Discard 3 months after opening. An interview on 10/18/23 at 1:48 p.m. was conducted with the Regional Director of [Pharmacy Name]. The Director stated dates of insulin could be on the package (storage bag) or the pen/vial as staff could not reuse the storage bag, and they should be using the (storage) bag that comes from the pharmacy. She stated the policy was the same for eye drops, dates did not need to be on the bottle itself, the Prostat needed to be discarded after three months, and the pharmacy recommended separating external and internal products. During an observation, on 10/19/23 at 5:45 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated open dates should be on the vials, bottles, and pens. The DON stated the expectation would be all medications were put away and carts locked before leaving them unattended, external, and internal medications should be stored separately. A review of the he facility policy titled, Storage of Medications, dated April 2022, revealed the following: Drugs and biologicals should be stored in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. The Interpretation and Implementation identified the following: -1. Drug containers having soiled, illegible, worn, makeshift, incomplete, damaged, or missing labels are returned to the pharmacy for proper labeling before storing. -3. No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are available for use in this Center. All such drugs are destroyed. -6. Compartments containing drugs and biologicals are locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport such items are not left unattended. (Compartments include, but are not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes.) -7. Drugs are stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, or carts. These compartments are sufficient size to prevent crowding. Each resident is assigned a cubicle or drawer to prevent the possibility of a drug from one resident being given to another resident. According to Cleveland Clinic, (located at https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/drugs/18710-artificial-tears-eye-solution) Most experts recommend discarding the product (Artificial Tears eye solution) after 30 days. According to Mayo Clinic, (located at https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/latanoprost-ophthalmic-route/proper-use/drg-20064474) identified an opened bottle of Latanoprost (Xalatan) can be stored in the refrigerator or at room temperature for 6 weeks. (Photographic Evidence Obtained)
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 10/17/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Staff H, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on B wing, with a ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 10/17/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Staff H, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on B wing, with a resident care lift. Staff H, CNA was observed exiting the room with a resident care lift covered in a clear bag and in her other hand, a clear bag with soiled linen enclosed. Staff H, CNA placed the resident care lift against the handrail and proceeded to discard the linen bag in the appropriate location. An interview was conducted with Staff H, CNA on 10/17/2023 at 10:46 a.m. Staff H, CNA stated they are instructed to bag the resident care lift after each use. This indicates the lift is clean and ready for the next use. We don't wipe the lift down after each use, just bag it. We only wipe the patient lift down with alcohol wipes after utilizing the lift with a resident who is in isolation. Staff H, CNA stated when entering a contact isolation room, you only need to wear gloves. You only need to don a gown if you are going to be providing care. Enhanced isolation means you don gown and gloves when entering the room. During an interview on 10/17/2023 at 4:30 p.m. Staff H, CNA confirmed alcohol wipes are not kept in resident rooms and the patient lift was not wiped down upon exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] on B wing earlier in the day as this was not the process. On 10/18/2023 at 9:53 a.m. Staff T, Plant Ops (PO) was observed approaching the door of room [ROOM NUMBER] on B wing. An isolation cart was observed beside the door and a Contact Isolation sign was posted in the middle of the door instructing staff to don gown and gloves prior to entering the room. Staff T, PO knocked on the door and entered the room. No personal protective equipment (PPE) was donned. Staff T, PO proceeded to work on the closet door. At 9:56 a.m. Staff T, PO exited the room and completed hand hygiene with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer (ABHS). At 10:00 a.m. Staff T, PO entered room [ROOM NUMBER] on B wing, donned gloves, proceeded to the bathroom, completed a task, doffed gloves, exited the bathroom, and proceeded to exit to the hallway. Staff T, PO completed hand hygiene with ABHS after exiting the room. An interview was conducted with Staff T, PO on 10/18/2023 at 10:05 a.m. Staff T, PO stated when entering isolation rooms you only need PPE when going near the resident bed. On 10/18/2023 at 10:20 a.m., Staff U, Housekeeping Aide (HA) was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on A Wing, with gown and gloves. room [ROOM NUMBER] had 4 beds in the room. At the time of the survey, three residents resided in room [ROOM NUMBER] on A wing. All three residents were colonized for C-Auris. Staff U, HA was observed cleaning multiple residents' surfaces with the same rag. Staff U, HA changed the rag throughout the room, just not between residents' sections. On 10/18/2023 at 10:39 a.m., Staff U, (HA) was observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on A wing and a Contact Isolation sign was observed in the middle of door, and an isolation cart sitting next to the door. Staff U, HA donned a gown and gloves. At 10:44 a.m. Staff U, HA was observed exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] on A Wing. Staff U, HA placed the used mop, with the microfiber cloth still attached directly on the cleaning cart between the center console and the clean microfiber mop head bucket. Staff U, HA exited the room, in full PPE (gown and gloves). Staff U, HA proceeded to walk around the cleaning cart. Doffed the gown, draped it on the side of the cleaning cart, the trash receptacle was on. Doffed the gloves, and disposed of them in the trash receptacle, on the cleaning cart. A resident approached Staff U, HA and they hugged. Staff U, HA proceeded to complete hand hygiene with ABHS. An interview was conducted with Staff U, HA on 10/18/2023 at 10:59 a.m. outside of the Speech Therapy (ST) room. The ST room was at the end of B hall. room [ROOM NUMBER] on A wing was on another wing. The soiled mop had not been moved. Staff U, HA stated they treat all isolation rooms the same. They don/doff gown and gloves upon entering/exiting the rooms. Staff U stated they plan for the items they will need in the isolation room to minimize the trips to the cart. She stated they utilize individual rags and microfiber mops to clean and complete hand hygiene by utilizing ABHS. She stated they don't need to utilize soap and water unless their hands get soiled. They need to go to the bathroom or at the end of the day. Staff U, HA confirmed she did not utilize soap and water prior to exiting room [ROOM NUMBER] on A Wing, and the microfiber mop was left to rest on the cleaning cart until getting ready to enter the next room. She stated once she exits the isolation room, she does not touch the mop until she arrives at the next room and puts gloves on. She stated she then removes the dirty microfiber mob head, and places the dirty one in a plastic bag. She then places the mop in the microfiber mop head bucket for a new pad. Staff U, HA confirmed she utilized multiple rags to clean resident rooms but does not change rags in between resident beds (sections). An interview was conducted with Staff D, Environmental Supervisor (EVS) on 10/18/2023 at 11:25 a.m. Staff D, EVS confirmed responsibility of overseeing Housekeeping and Laundry Services. Staff D, EVS stated isolation rooms should have the microfiber mop head removed prior to doffing PPE and placing the used mop head in the bag for appropriate cleaning. He stated the staff should doff the PPE they have on and place the gown and gloves in the trash can inside the room door. He stated they have placed larger trash cans in all isolation rooms to ensure appropriate hygiene practice occurs. Staff D, EVS stated the resident rooms do not have sinks by the door, so the staff only utilize ABHS. Staff D, EVS confirmed Staff U, HA did not practice the correct process, listed above. Review of the facility policy titled, Isolation Precautions, Categories of, dated 2/23/23, revealed the following: Policy: Transmission-based isolation precautions will be used for residents who are documented or suspected to have infections or communicable diseases that can be transmitted by droplet transmission or by contact with dry skin or contaminated surfaces. Transmission-based isolation precautions are to be used in addition to standard precautions. Enhanced barrier precautions are to be used with multidrug-resistant organisms. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1. Transmission-based isolation precautions have been established in order to ensure the appropriate isolation techniques are implemented in this center when necessary. 2. Isolation should be the least restrictive possible for the resident under the circumstances. Contact Precautions: Gown/Gloves Enhanced Barrier Precautions: Gowns/Gloves-during high resident care activities Review of a policy titled, Candida Auris, dated September 2023, revealed the following: Policy: Fungal infections caused by candida auris (C-Auris) are resistant to commonly used antifungal medications and are difficult to treat. C-Auris is associated with a high mortality rate and has the potential to cause outbreaks in facilities. Facility will follow CDC guidelines to manage C-Auris: Currently CDC defines the following targeted organisms for use in Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP): C-Auris Facility will place the resident in either contact or enhanced barrier precautions for the duration of their stay . Residents with colonized infection will be placed on EBP . Having health care personnel change their PPE including gloves and performing hand hygiene before and after interaction with each patient. Alcohol based sanitizers are okay for use as C-Auris does not produce any spores . When patients are placed in shared rooms, facility must implement strategies to help minimize transmission between roommates. Clean and disinfect as if each bed area were a different room. For example: Clean and disinfect any shared or reusable equipment. Change mop heads, cleaning clothes, and other cleaning equipment between bed areas . Gowns and gloves must be worn when providing direct resident care/high contact care . Residents are permitted to leave their rooms for activities, dining, etc. EBP will remain in place for the duration of the admission for residents with colonization . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain and implement an effective infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment, to prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections as evidenced by: 1. five staff members (P, Q, N, T, U) not donning and doffing personal protective equipment (PPE) when entering and exiting resident rooms on contact isolation; 2. one staff member (G) not following infection control guidelines during medication administration; 3. a mechanical lift used for multiple residents not being cleaned and disinfected after each use; and 4. one staff member (U) not effectively cleaning and disinfecting environmental surfaces and tools used for cleaning to mitigate the transmission of communicable diseases for a sample of four resident rooms (B-wing rooms 3, and 5 and A-wing rooms 2, and 5) out of five resident rooms designated as transmission-based precautions. Findings included: 1. On 10/16/23 at 1:22 p.m. Staff P, Physical Therapist (PT) and Staff Q, Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant (COTA) were observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER] on the B Wing. A Contact Precautions sign was observed hanging beside the door that read, STOP EVERYONE MUST: clean their hands, including before entering the room and when leaving the room. PROVIDERS AND STAFF MUST ALSO: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) Staff P, PT and Staff Q, COTA were observed walking into the room without donning a gown or gloves and then assisted a resident in this room out of bed and down the hall to the therapy department. During an interview on 10/16/23 at 1:46 p.m. Staff P, PT confirmed room [ROOM NUMBER] B Wing was on contact precautions due to a foot infection. Staff P, PT confirmed she did not don a gown prior to entering room [ROOM NUMBER] B Wing and she assisted the resident to the therapy department. Staff P, PT stated the therapy department had permission from the nurse to assist this resident to the therapy department. Staff P, PT reviewed the Contact Precautions sign located on the wall next to room [ROOM NUMBER] B Wing and stated, in the other facility I work for we follow what all the signs say. During an interview on 10/16/23 at 1:54 p.m. Staff Q, COTA stated I was aware room [ROOM NUMBER] B Wing was on Contact Precautions. Staff Q, COTA stated a couple of weeks ago Staff S, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit Manager (UM) gave permission for therapy to enter room [ROOM NUMBER] B Wing and assist this resident down to the gym for therapy. Staff Q, COTA stated the resident's wound was covered so the therapy department only used gloves. Staff Q, COTA reviewed the Contact Precautions sign and stated, We use gloves depending on the patient. During an interview on 10/16/23 at 2:05 p.m. Staff S, LPN/UM stated when a room was under Contact Precautions all staff needed to don a gown and gloves before entering the room and doff prior to exiting the designated contact precaution room. On 10/18/23 at 1:04 p.m., Staff N, Registered Nurse (RN) was observed entering room [ROOM NUMBER] B Wing, that still had the Contact Precautions sign, with gloves only. Staff N, RN was touching and investigating the resident's Intravenous Therapy (IV) pump and tubing that was beeping. During an interview on 10/18/23 at 1:10 p.m. Staff N, RN stated, I did not put on a gown because I did not provide direct care. Staff N, RN stated he only checked on the IV that was beeping. Staff N stated when a room was under Enhanced Precautions You wear a gown and gloves no matter what. Staff N, RN stated when a room was under Contact Precautions; You wear gloves, but gown and gloves when doing patient care. Review of the facility policy titled, Contact Precautions sign, revealed the following: STOP CONTACT PRECAUTIONS EVERYONE MUST: clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. PROVIDERS AND STAFF MUST ALSO: Put on gloves before room entry. Discard gloves before room exit. Put on gown before room entry. Discard gown before room exit. Do not wear the same gown and gloves for the care of more than one person. Used dedicated or disposable equipment. Clean and disinfect reusable equipment before use on another person. Review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Precautions sign, revealed the following: STOP ENHANCED PRECAUTIONS EVERYONE MUST: clean their hands, including before entering and when leaving the room. PROVIDERS AND STAFF MUST ALSO: Wear gloves and a gown for the following High-Contact Resident Care Activities. Dressing Bathing/Showering Transferring Changing Linens Providing Hygiene Changing briefs or assisting with toileting Device care or use: central line, urinary catheter, feeding tube, tracheotomy. Wound Care: any skin opening requiring dressing. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 6:29 p.m. the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated she was just hired last week and was still learning the job from Staff S, LPN/Unit Manager and the previous IP. During an interview on 10/19/23 at 6:29 p.m. Staff S, LPN/UM and the previous IP stated the facility was currently looking for Contact Precautions signs that fit the facility's policy. Staff S, LPN/UM stated the Contact Precautions signs the facility had now were from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and stated, We are trying to find signs that match our policy. Staff S, LPN/UM stated for Contact Precaution rooms, You definitely need gloves if you're just going into the room and if you're not going to be in contact with anything else. Staff S, LPN/UM stated the nurse should wear gowns and gloves when the nurse was providing care and when providing care to residents with Intravenous Therapy (IV). Staff S, LPN/UM stated, Housekeeping needs to gown up as well. Staff S, LPN/UM stated residents under Contact Precautions should not come out of their rooms unless a surgical wound has been resolved. Staff S, LPN/UM stated, If it is something that is a wound that has a lot of excoriate and someone can come in contact with that they are encouraged to stay in their rooms. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/19/2023 at 6:34 p.m. The DON stated she has been in contact with the local Department of Health (DOH) infection specialist regarding Candida Auris (C-Auris). The DON stated the facility has implemented isolation precautions based on the DOH and Center for Disease Control (CDC) recommendations. The DON stated the residents who are currently on Enhanced Barrier Precautions do not have active infections. The residents are all colonized. If the resident has a change and has signs and symptoms of an active infection, their isolation would be increased to Contact Precautions. The DON reported she decided the placement of new resident admissions. She stated they try to cohort residents with colonized C-Auris together. She stated Enhanced Precautions require gown and gloves only when you are giving direct care. She stated Contact Isolation requires a gown and gloves when entering the room. 2. During an observation of medication administration on 10/18/23 at 8:21 a.m. with Staff G, LPN the following medications were dispensed for Resident #37: -Buspirone 10 milligram (mg) tablet -Folic Acid 1 mg tablet -Diltiazem 120 mg tablet -Montelukast 10 mg tablet -Spirolactone 50 mg tablet -Xifaxan 550 mg tablet -Potassium 20 milliequivalents (meq) Extended Release (ER) tablet -Omeprazole 20 mg over the counter (otc) tablet -Iron 325 mg otc tablet -Magnesium oxide 400 mg tablet otc. Staff G, LPN placed the tablets in a medication cup while dispensing and when asked to confirm there were 10 tablets, Staff G poured the tablets out of the cup and onto an 8x11 piece of paper lying on the medication cup. Staff G put the tablets back into the cup with bare hands including a couple that had rolled off the paper and onto the top of the medication cart. Staff G confirmed 10 tablets and turned toward the doorway of Resident #37's room.
Apr 2023 3 deficiencies 3 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interviews, hospital record review, hospice record review, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interviews, hospital record review, hospice record review, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for insulin administration was free from neglect as evidenced by neglecting to give insulin per physician orders, neglecting to notify the provider immediately after an insulin overdose, and neglecting to monitor the resident after a medication error. Resident #1 had Diabetes Mellitus Type II and had physician orders for Levemir U-100 (long-acting) insulin, 5 units (u) to be given one time daily at 9:00 a.m. He also had orders for Novolog 100 unit (u)/milliliter (ml) (short-acting) insulin to be given per a sliding scale (based on blood glucose measurement) before each meal and at bedtime. On 3/12/23 at 5:20 a.m. Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) checked Resident #1's blood glucose level and charted it was 327. Per the sliding scale, this called for the administration of 12u of Novolog. The nurse neglected to check the medication label on the insulin vial and instead administered 12u of Levemir insulin to Resident #1. Staff A, RN did not notify the physician of this medication error immediately and she proceeded to administer Resident #1 12u of Novolog insulin. Staff A, RN did not notify a provider of the medication error until after finishing her shift, at 7:15 a.m., approximately 2 hours after the resident was administered an overdose of insulin. The Nurse Practitioner told the nurse to monitor the resident closely and have Glucagon (a medication that raises blood glucose levels and is used to treat hypoglycemia) ready if needed. A late entry progress note written recorded on 3/12/23 at 7:36 p.m. by Staff A, RN showed she checked the blood glucose level of Resident #1 approximately 1 hour after the insulin overdose and the reading was 84. The next documented blood glucose level was not until approximately 11:45 a.m. when the resident was found to be unresponsive by Staff B, RN with a blood glucose level of 58. During an interview with Staff B, RN on 4/5/23 at 2:50 p.m., she confirmed she took over care of Resident #1 at 7:00 a.m. She said she had to give her other assigned residents their medications, but she stuck her head in the room of Resident #1 a couple of times and he was sleeping but arousable. There was no documentation showing Resident #1 had vital signs or blood glucose monitored from approximately 6:20 a.m. until 11:45 a.m. Resident #1 was sent to the hospital where he was found to be hypoglycemic (having blood glucose levels less than 70 milligrams (mg)/deciliter(dL)) and having seizure like activity secondary (caused by) to hypoglycemia. The resident was intubated (had a breathing tube placed down the throat into the windpipe to allow a machine to assist with breathing,) placed on life support, and admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. He was later transferred to an in-patient Hospice, where he passed away on 3/27/23. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy beginning on 3/12/23. After surveyor review and verification, it was determined the actions implemented by the facility achieved compliance on 3/17/23. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be corrected on 3/17/23. Findings included: A review of Resident #1's medical record showed an admission date of 1/18/23 with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, and Metabolic encephalopathy (primary.) A review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Five Day Assessment Section C, Cognitive Patterns, showed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score (BIMS) score of 99, indicating he was unable to complete the interview. The assessment showed the resident had short- and long-term memory problems and his cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. Section I, Active Diagnoses showed the resident had Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia but did not have a seizure disorder or epilepsy. The MDS was dated 3/10/23. A review of Resident #1's physician orders related to diabetes revealed: -1/18/23 Insulin aspart (Novolog) 100 unit (u)/milliliter (ml) (70-30) per sliding scale: If blood sugar is less than 70, call MD. If blood sugar is 141-180, give 3 units. If blood sugar is 181-220, give 5 units. If blood sugar Is 221-260, give 8 units. If blood sugar is 261-300, give 10 units. If blood sugar is 301-350, give 12 units. If blood sugar is greater than 350, give 14 units. Subcutaneous. Before meals and at bedtime. 6:00 a.m., 11:15 a.m., 5:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m. -1/18/23 Levemir U-100 Insulin solution; 100 u/ml; amt: 5 units subcutaneous 1 time daily. Give 5 units subcutaneous once per day for Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications. Once in morning, 9:00 a.m. -1/18/23 Glucagon (HCL) Emergency Kit. 1 milligram (mg) IM (intramuscular) injection as directed PRN (as needed) for hypoglycemia. -3/6/23 Side Effects: Hyperglycemia/Insulin Medication Use. Observe resident closely for side effects: confusion, sweating, SOB (shortness of breath), fruity breath, weakness, fatigue, increased thirst, increased urination, shakiness, pale skin, lethargy. Every shift: Days 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Nights 7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. -3/6/23 Side Effects: Monitor resident for s/s (signs/symptoms) of hypoglycemia. Monitor for shaking/trembling, fast heart rate, increased hunger, sweating, confusion/difficulty concentrating, dizziness. Every shift: Days 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Nights 7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. A review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the residents blood glucose levels and insulin administered were as follows: 3/11/23 6:00 a.m. blood glucose was 212 milligram (mg)/deciliter (dL) with 5 units of Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/11/23 between 7:00-11:00 a.m. Levemir U-100, 5 units was administered as ordered. 3/11/23 11:15 a.m. blood glucose was 99 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/11/23 5:00 p.m. blood glucose was 114 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/12/23 6:00 a.m. blood glucose was 327 mg/dL with 12 units of Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale. (Documented on 3/12/23 at 5:20 a.m.) 3/12/23 11:15 a.m. blood glucose was 58 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. (Documented on 3/12/23 at 1:01 p.m.) A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the following care plan: Category: Health Related Complications Resident #1 has a diagnosis of Diabetes and is at risk for unstable blood glucose as evidenced by hyperglycemia with signs and symptoms of increased thirst, headaches, blurred vision, increased urination, fatigue, weight loss, blood sugars >180 mg/dl and hypoglycemia with signs and symptoms of shakiness, dizziness, sweating, intense hunger, irritability, anxiety, decreased level of consciousness, headache. Interventions include blood glucose monitoring as ordered, document non-compliance of diet recommendations, medications as ordered, notify MD with significant changes in signs and symptoms, and observe for/report signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia: shakiness, dizziness, sweating, intense hunger, irritability, anxiety, decreased level of consciousness, headache. Created 1/18/23. A review of Resident #1's medication record showed the following progress notes: A Nursing Note dated 3/12/23 5:45 a.m. (Recorded as late entry on 3/12/23 at 7:36 p.m.) showed Resident's BS [blood sugar] at 0545 am med pass recorded 327. Both Levemir 12u and Novolog 12 units given. Levemir order is for 5u to be given between 7-11 a.m. Rechecked in 1 hour and BS 84. Medication error and BS levels reported to on call nurse manager [Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit Manager (UM)] and ARNP for Medical Director. Received order to hold am dose of Levemir, monitor resident and have glucagon on standby if needed. New orders and BS checks reported to oncoming nurse [Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN).] Resident is awake and alert without s/s [signs and symptoms] of hypoglycemia. Dietary trays on hall and trays passing at this time. The Nursing note was entered by Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN). A Nursing Note dated 3/12/23 1:20 p.m. showed Client observed in bed resting with eyes closed. Blood glucose checked: 58. Rechecked to verify BG [Blood Glucose]: 56, 52. Glucagon 1g injected subq [subcutaneously]. Client breathing was regular at 14 respirations per min [minute]. Sternal rub performed and patient continued to be unresponsive. Pupils pinpoint and BG dropped to 38. Another nurse called 911 while I stayed with the patient. Blood pressure measured manually: BP 70/30 pulse 66. The reading was lower than in the early AM which was 116/60 pulse 70. BG went up to 68 and then back down to 54. Paramedics arrived at 12:55 and patient left at 1300. Client was cool to touch and unresponsive when the paramedics arrived but continued to have steady respiration at 14 bpm. MD notified at 1300 gave ok to send to ER for eval and tx [treatment], and family notified at 1305. The Nursing Note was entered by Staff B, RN. A review of the facility documentation, dated 3/12/23, described the medication error as Nurse mistakenly administered Levemir 12U instead of Novolog 12U, nurse administered Novolog 12U after realizing she gave Levemir 12U. After administering both insulins, nurse contacted MD on call. It showed the correct order was sliding scale Novolog 12u. The type of error was listed as incorrect dose and incorrect medication. The report showed the resident became hypotensive and hypoglycemic around 12:45, resident was unresponsive but maintained respirations and heart rate. The immediate interventions were described as Glucagon 1g injected subq as ordered. Res [resident] blood sugar rechecked. Resident remained unresponsive. 911 activated and res transported to ER [emergency room] via stretcher around 12:55. The report shows the following blood sugar levels: 3/12/23 5:15 a.m. Blood sugar 327 mg/dL 3/12/23 12:04 p.m. Blood sugar 58 mg/dL A phone interview was conducted with Staff A, RN on 4/10/23 at 8:48 a.m. She confirmed she was taking care of Resident #1 the morning of 3/12/23 and made a medication error. She said the resident had been on her wing for a while and she was familiar with him. She said the resident was confused but could converse, saying hello and talking some. She said he did not always recognize family; he was incontinent and needed full care. She added the resident was able to self-propel in his wheelchair with his feet once he had help getting up. Staff A, RN said during her shift running from 3/11/23 7:00 p.m. to 3/12/23 7:00 a.m., the resident had stayed up very late, until 2:00 a.m. She said he did not want to stay in bed and was restless. She said there was no increased confusion, the resident was at his baseline. She said he had a history of falls, so she got him up to a wheelchair for a couple of hours, then put him back to bed. Staff A, RN said when insulin comes from the pharmacy, the vial is in the insulin box with a label on it and it is in a plastic bag that also has a label. Those bags are placed in the medication cart. She said when she pulled the bag out of the drawer, she read the bag, name, and checked everything. She confirmed she did not check the label on the box, she only checked the bag. After she administered the first insulin based on the sliding scale, she came back to the cart to put the vial in the box and bag, she realized she had given the wrong insulin. Staff A, RN said she gave the resident 12u of Levemir long-acting insulin instead of Novolog short-acting insulin. She said she panicked and stated, in my mind his blood sugar was still 327. The long acting was not going to bring down his blood sugar now. She said she went ahead and administered the Novolog within a couple of minutes of the Levemir. Staff A, RN said it was 5:30 a.m. and she could not call the doctor yet as she thought it was too early. She said, that is my error, I gave both. She said right after change of shift, approximately 7:15 a.m., she called and talked to the Nurse Practitioner (NP) for the Medical Director and the on-call manager, Staff C, LPN/UM Staff A, RN said the NP told her to monitor the resident closely, hold the morning dose of Levemir and have Glucagon on hand. An interview was conducted with Staff C, LPN/UM. on 4/17/23 at 12:29 p.m. Staff C, LPN/UM confirmed she was the on-call manager on 3/12/23. She said Staff A, RN called her about 7:20 a.m. and informed her she gave the wrong insulin to Resident #1. Staff C, LPN/UM said she asked Staff A, RN if she had talked to the doctor and Staff A, RN told her no. She said she told Staff A, RN to contact the doctor and follow his orders. She said Staff A, RN only told her she gave the resident long-acting insulin. She said she was not told the resident was also given short-acting insulin at the same time. Staff C, LPN/UM said she then received a call about 2:30 p.m. from Staff B, RN (the nurse caring for Resident #1 on the day shift 3/12/23) saying Resident #1's blood sugar had dropped. Staff B, RN asked her if she was aware of the extra insulin and Staff C, LPN/UM told her she was not aware. Staff B, RN notified her they gave Resident #1 Glucagon, and he was sent to the hospital. Staff C, LPN/UM said she notified the Director of Nursing (DON), and the DON notified the administrator. Staff C, LPN/UM said around 5:00 p.m. the day the error was made (3/12/23) she, along with other management, came in and began doing medication cart audits. During an interview with the DON on 4/18/23 at 4:31 p.m. she confirmed she came to the facility on 3/12/23 to complete medication cart audits with Staff C, LPN/UM. An interview was conducted with Staff B, RN on 4/5/23 at 2:50 p.m. She said she came on shift at 6:45 a.m. on 3/12/23 and received shift report from Staff A, RN between 7:00-7:15 a.m. She said Staff A, RN informed her she gave Resident #1 both long-acting and short-acting insulin that morning. She said Staff A, RN had not called the doctor at that point. Staff B, RN said Staff A, RN called the provider for the first time after she gave her report, approximately 7:15 a.m. She said Staff A, RN told her the NP gave orders to monitor the resident and have glucagon ready. Staff B, RN said she found out later that day Staff A, RN did not inform the NP she gave both the long and short-acting insulin; she only told her about the incorrect dose of Levemir. Staff B, RN said she checked Resident #1's blood glucose level between 8:30-9:00 a.m. and it was in the 90's. She said she did not document the blood glucose check in the resident's medical record because there was no place to enter it. Staff B, RN did say she could have documented it under vitals, but she did not think about that at the time. She said right before lunch trays came out, which is around 12, she rechecked Resident #1s' blood glucose and it was 58. She said she had another nurse (Staff D, LPN) come in and they verified again, it was 56 then 52. Staff B, RN said she administered Glucagon to the resident then checked his blood glucose again. She said it was then 38, so they called 911. She said she continually checked blood glucose levels until paramedics arrived. She said he went up to 68 then dropped back down in the 50's. When asked about monitoring the resident between 9:00 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., she said she was giving all of her other residents their medication. She said she looked in the room a couple of times and the resident was sleeping. She said he was snoring but arousable. A review of records did not reveal any documentation showing Resident #1 was assessed or monitored from 9:00 a.m. until 11:45 a.m. An interview was conducted with Staff D, LPN on 4/18/23 at 1:50 p.m. Staff D, LPN stated I did not know [Resident #1] very well but I do know he was very confused and a fall risk, very impulsive. That day he was sent out I helped the nurse. She came to me and said she checked his sugar [blood glucose] and it was low. She said she couldn't get him to take anything by mouth and I told her well give him the sugar s*** (expletive) [glucagon] we have in our medication carts, so she did that, and she came to me and said it's even lower now and I don't know what to do. I told her you need to call 911 and get them here. They couldn't even bring him back either. He was breathing and his heart was beating but he was just unresponsive. An interview was conducted with Staff E, Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 4/12/23 at 8:42 a.m. The NP stated she does not physically go to this facility and did not know this resident, but she was covering on-call the morning of 3/12/23. She said she does not recall exactly when the nurse called or what she told her specifically. She said she was told Resident #1 had received the wrong dose of insulin and had gotten double what he should have. The NP said she told the nurse to have Glucagon ready to go, monitor the resident and if his blood glucose drops low and you cannot get him out of it, to call her back. The NP said she never heard anything else from the facility. She said Staff A, RN just told her she gave too much insulin; she did not get into details. She said she does not believe Staff A, RN mentioned giving both insulins at the same time. She said she does not remember if she gave specific monitoring parameters, but her standard with low or high blood sugar is they should be checked at least every 2 hours. When asked if it was okay that the resident's blood glucose level was only checked between 8:30/9:00 a.m. then again at 11:45/12:00 p.m. she said, absolutely not. The NP said she did not have any notes related to this call. An interview was conducted with the Regional Consultant Pharmacist on 4/17/23 at 10:33 a.m. She said the onset of action for Levemir is between 3-4 hours after administration and the duration of action can range from 5/6 hours up to 18 hours depending on body weight and other factors specific to the resident. She said the onset of action for Novolog is around 12-18 minutes and the duration of action is between 3-7 hours depending on body weight, age, and other factors specific to the resident. The pharmacist said around 3-4 hours after both insulins were administered to the resident would have most likely been the point, they were at the highest effect together and the blood sugar could drop low. The pharmacist said 12u of Levemir is not an unusual dose, however because insulin is so dependent, for Resident #1 individually it may have been. She said typically the Novolog and Levemir are not administered at the same time, there would be some spacing. The pharmacist said in the incidence of an insulin overdose, the resident's blood glucose should be checked every 15 minutes and if it is below 70, interventions should have been implemented, such as giving Glucagon or IV glucose. She said the onset of Glucagon is 5-20 minutes and most protocols show that if Glucagon is given and the blood glucose is still below 70 you proceed to the next step, in this case send resident to the hospital. The pharmacist said the consultant pharmacist that visited the facility had not identified anything unusual in the facility regarding insulins or other medications. The pharmacist had previously conducted medication cart audits and did not find any issues. An interview was conducted with the facility Medical Director on 4/10/23 at 11:43 a.m. He said the nurse gave Resident #1 12u of rapid acting insulin and 12u or long-acting insulin. He confirmed he was not called that morning. He said the NP told the nurse to monitor the resident and have Glucagon ready. The doctor said he not did have any notes showing he saw Resident #1 and stated, It is very weird. (The Medical Director and NHA both confirmed there was no documentation to show the resident was seen in the facility by a primary provider.) The doctor said when a medication error is made the nurse should let the provider and their immediate supervisor know right then. He said he or the on-call should have been called that morning when the error happened. A review of the local Fire Rescue Patient Care Report showed the 911 call for Resident #1 was received on 3/12/23 at 12:38 p.m. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived at the patient at 12:50 p.m. The reports showed the chief complaint for Resident #1 was Diabetic-Hypoglycemia and the primary symptom was altered mental status. The resident's blood glucose was 48 and his blood pressure was 119/68 at 12:56 p.m. The Fire Rescue Narrative note showed found 77 yom [year old male] lying in his hospital bed. Pt [patient] responded to painful stimuli, Pt equal chest rise and fall, ABC's [airway, breathing, circulation] intact, skin WNL [within normal limits,] lung sounds clear, and perrl [pupils equal, round, reactive to light.] Staff stated pt was assessed and BGL [blood glucose level] was 39. Staff stated they gave 1g of Glucagon with no improvement leading them to call [Fire rescue.] Pt was carried to the stretcher and secured with all appropriate straps, rails x 2 and semi-Fowlers [position] for pt comfort and safety. Pt. further assessed and vitals WNL. Pt. BGL 48. Pt IV established and 250ml of D10 [Dextrose 10% solution] given with an improved response. Staff stated pt has Lewy Body dementia and only has a verbal response as his baseline. Pt continued to improve throughout the entire call. Pt transported to [local hospital] per request. Pt monitored enroute with no notable changes. Fire Rescue arrived at the hospital at 1:13 p.m. on 3/12/23. A review of hospital records, dated 3/12/23, for Resident #1 showed the Chief Complaint as From [facility]: Pt found to be hypoglycemic this morning, given 1 g of glucagon by staff, pt blood sugar in the 40's for EMS given 250ml of D10. Pt hx: dementia. The History or Present Illness revealed Patient presents to the emergency department acutely altered. Patient presents from [facility] with report from EMS indicated the patient was hypoglycemic. He was given glucagon, but this did not improve his blood sugar. When EMS arrived his blood sugar was in the 40s. They subsequently gave D10. He was unresponsive for them the entirety of their time with the patient. I subsequently called patient's emergency contact, [family member.] She states the patient does have Lewy body dementia. However, normally is not unresponsive and is alert. Patient does arrive with a DO NOT RESUSCITATE order and I specifically clarified with the [family member] if he would want to be intubated [have a breathing tube placed down the throat into the windpipe to allow a machine to assist with breathing.] She thinks that that [sic] would be in accordance with his wishes and he would be amenable to intubation. She does not know of any seizure history, which I asked because the patient did have rhythmic eye movements and contracted positioning that made me concerned for possible seizures. I did also call the facility and discussed with the nurse taking care of him. She does confirm that patient is normally able to push himself around in wheelchair and is typically alert. She does state that this morning was an acute change for patient. Patient was unresponsive for her the entire time as well. Patient on arrival unresponsive and unable to answer any questions for me. The record also revealed the resident had recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia on arrival and was again given D50 and a D10 drip was started. Despite the correction of the hypoglycemia, the patient continued to be altered. There was a strong suspicion for possible seizure in the setting of rhythmic movements of the eyes and contracted positioning. The patient was hypothermic on arrival and a forced air warming blanket was used. An intubation was performed and completed without any hypoxia. A continued review of hospital records showed an assessment performed on Resident #1 on 3/12/23 at 1:40 p.m. The assessment showed the resident's level of consciousness as obtunded, meaning he had a lessened interest in the environment and slowed response to stimulation. The Coma Scale showed Resident #1 has no eye-opening response and no verbal response. The resident did have a motor response of flexion withdrawal. His overall coma score was a 6. According to the Centre for Neuro Skills, the Glasgow Coma Scale provides an assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. The total scores were explained as follows: 90% less than or equal to 8 are in a coma, greater than or equal to 9 not in coma, 8 is the critical score, 9-12= moderate severity, and greater than or equal to 13=minor injury. (Accessed on 4/20/23 at https://www.neuroskills.com/education-and-resources/glasgow-coma-scale/) The hospital records, dated 3/12/23 showed after reexamination in the emergency room Resident #1 was found to have a urinary tract infection which could potentially be contributory but does not truthfully explain why the patient was seizing. Following intubation and paralysis wearing off, patient without further rhythmic activity of his eyes and no longer posturing his upper extremities leading me to believe that his seizure likely is stopped. Patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. The hospital Discharge Summary, dated 3/20/23, showed Patient was weaned off sedation, however patient was not waking up and minimally responsive. Therefore, he remained intubated due to concerns of ability to protect airway. Palliative care consulted. Patient was discharged to inpatient hospice facility pending bed availability. The discharge diagnoses included acute hypoxic respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation, acute encephalopathy, likely multifactorial secondary to hypoglycemia, UTI (Urinary tract infection,) possible seizure with underlying Lew body dementia. Low suspicion of meningitis and possible seizure secondary to hypoglycemia. The patient's overall prognosis is terminal with no meaningful recovery. A review of the in-patient Hospice record showed the resident arrived to their facility on 3/20/23 at 1:30 p.m. He was non-responsive to spoken name, his eyes were wide open with no track, and his facial features were relaxed. A hospice note dated 3/20/23 at 4:58 p.m. showed Provider ordering ME [medical examiner] Reportable Death: Patient has been deemed ME case per [medical doctor] for reported medical error of inappropriate insulin at a nursing facility leading to profound hypoglycemia. The record revealed Resident #1's time of death at 12:16 p.m. on 3/27/23. An interview was conducted on 4/17/23 at 12:17 p.m. with a family member of Resident #1. The family member confirmed the resident passed away at the in-patient Hospice facility but was unable to discuss any further details at the time. A facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, Misappropriation of Property, and Injury of Unknown Source Prevention (ANEMMI), undated, was reviewed. The policy showed the following: Intent: The facility will develop and operationalize policies and procedures for screening and training employees, protection of residents and for the prevention, identification, investigation, and reporting of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and misappropriation of property; to include the use of physical or chemical restraints. The purpose is to assure that the facility is doing all that is within its control to prevent occurrences and protect its residents. Procedure: I. Screening: -Screen potential employees for a history of abuse, neglect, or mistreating residents. This includes attempting to obtain information from previous employers and/or current employers and checking with the appropriate licensing boards and registries. -The facility must not employ or otherwise engage individuals who: i. Have been found guilty of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property, or mistreatment by a court of law; ii. Have had a finding entered into the State nurse aide registry concerning abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment or residents or misappropriation of their property; or iii. Have a disciplinary action in effect against his or her professional license by a state licensure body as a result of a finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment of residents or misappropriation of resident property. -The facility will report to the State nurse aide registry or licensing authorities any knowledge it has of actions by a court of law against an employee, which would indicate unfitness for service as a nurse aide or other facility staff. II. Training: -Train employees, through orientation and on-going sessions on issues related to abuse prohibition practices such as: *Prohibiting and preventing all forms of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation; *Appropriate interventions to deal with aggressive and/or catastrophic reactions of residents; *Recognizing signs of abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, such as physical or psychosocial indicators; *Reporting abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property, including injuries of unknown sources, and to whom and when staff and others must report their knowledge related to any alleged violation without fear of reprisal; *Understanding behavioral symptoms of residents that may increase the risk of abuse and neglect and how to respond. These symptoms, include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Aggressive and/or catastrophic reactions of residents; 2. Wandering or elopement-type behaviors; 3. Resistance to care; 4. Outbursts or yelling out; and 5. Difficulty in adjusting to new routines or staff. *How to recognize signs of burnout, frustration and stress that may lead to abuse; *In addition to the freedom from abuse, neglect, and exploitation requirements in § 483.12, facilities must also provide training to their staff that at a minimum educates staff on: 1. § 483.95(c) Activities that constitute abuse, neglect, exploitation, and misappropriation of resident property as set forth at § 483.12. 2. § 493.95(c) Procedures for reporting incidents of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or the misappropriation of resident property. 3. §493.95(c) Dementia management and resident abuse prevention. III. Prevention: -Provide residents, families, and staff information on how and to whom they may report concerns, incidents, and grievances without the fear of retribution; and provide feedback regarding the concerns that have been expressed. -Ensuring the health and safety of each resident with regard to visitors such as family members or resident representatives, friends, or other individuals subject to the resident's right to deny or withdraw consent at any time and to reasonable clinical and safety restrictions; -Identifying, correcting, and intervening in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, and/or misappropriation of resident property is more likely to occur. This includes the implementation of policies that address the deployment of trained and qualified, registered, licensed, and certified staff on each shift in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of the residents, and assure that the staff assigned have knowledge of the individual residents' care needs and behavioral symptoms, if any. -Assuring that residents are free from neglect by having the structures and processes to provide needed care and services to all residents, which includes, but is not limited to, the provision of a facility assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently; [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, hospital record review, hospice record review, facility documentation and policy review, the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, hospital record review, hospice record review, facility documentation and policy review, the facility failed to provide competent staff, which ensured residents reviewed for insulin administration received medication as ordered and follow-up monitoring occurred after a medication error. The facility failed to ensure one (Resident #1) of five residents were assessed and monitored for approximately five hours following identification of an insulin medication error and failed to notify the provider of a medication error in a timely manner as evidenced by a lapse of approximately two hours after the medication error occurred. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy beginning on 3/12/23. After surveyor review and verification, it was determined the actions implemented by the facility achieved compliance on 3/17/23. Findings included: Reference citation F600 A review of Resident #1's medical record showed an admission date of 1/18/23 with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, and Metabolic encephalopathy (primary.) A review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Five Day Assessment Section C, Cognitive Patterns, showed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score (BIMS) score of 99, indicating he was unable to complete the interview. The assessment also showed the resident had short- and long-term memory problems and his cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. Section I, Active Diagnoses showed the resident had Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia but did not have a seizure disorder or epilepsy. The MDS was dated 3/10/23. A review of Resident #1's physician orders related to diabetes revealed: -1/18/23 Insulin aspart (Novolog) 100 unit (u)/milliliter (ml) (70-30) per sliding scale: If blood sugar is less than 70, call MD. If blood sugar is 141-180, give 3 units. If blood sugar is 181-220, give 5 units. If blood sugar Is 221-260, give 8 units. If blood sugar is 261-300, give 10 units. If blood sugar is 301-350, give 12 units. If blood sugar is greater than 350, give 14 units. Subcutaneous. Before meals and at bedtime. 6:00 a.m., 11:15 a.m., 5:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m. -1/18/23 Levemir U-100 Insulin solution; 100 u/ml; amt: 5 units subcutaneous 1 time daily. Give 5 units subcutaneous once per day for Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications. Once in morning, 9:00 a.m. -1/18/23 Glucagon (HCL) Emergency Kit. 1 milligram (mg) IM (intramuscular) injection as directed PRN (as needed) for hypoglycemia. -3/6/23 Side Effects: Hyperglycemia/Insulin Medication Use. Observe resident closely for side effects: confusion, sweating, SOB (shortness of breath), fruity breath, weakness, fatigue, increased thirst, increased urination, shakiness, pale skin, lethargy. Every shift: Days 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Nights 7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. -3/6/23 Side Effects: Monitor resident for s/s (signs/symptoms) of hypoglycemia. Monitor for shaking/trembling, fast heart rate, increased hunger, sweating, confusion/difficulty concentrating, dizziness. Every shift: Days 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Nights 7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. A review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the residents blood glucose levels and insulin administered were as follows: 3/11/23 6:00 a.m. blood glucose was 212 milligram (mg)/deciliter (dL) with 5 units of Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/11/23 between 7:00-11:00 a.m. Levemir U-100, 5 units was administered as ordered. 3/11/23 11:15 a.m. blood glucose was 99 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/11/23 5:00 p.m. blood glucose was 114 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/12/23 6:00 a.m. blood glucose was 327 mg/dL with 12 units of Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale. (Documented on 3/12/23 at 5:20 a.m.) 3/12/23 11:15 a.m. blood glucose was 58 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. (Documented on 3/12/23 at 1:01 p.m.) A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the following care plan: Category: Health Related Complications Resident #1 has a diagnosis of Diabetes and is at risk for unstable blood glucose as evidenced by hyperglycemia with signs and symptoms of increased thirst, headaches, blurred vision, increased urination, fatigue, weight loss, blood sugars >180 mg/dl and hypoglycemia with signs and symptoms of shakiness, dizziness, sweating, intense hunger, irritability, anxiety, decreased level of consciousness, headache. Interventions include blood glucose monitoring as ordered, document non-compliance of diet recommendations, medications as ordered, notify MD with significant changes in signs and symptoms, and observe for/report signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia: shakiness, dizziness, sweating, intense hunger, irritability, anxiety, decreased level of consciousness, headache. Created 1/18/23. A review of Resident #1's medication record showed the following progress notes: A Nursing Note dated 3/12/23 5:45 a.m. (Recorded as late entry on 3/12/23 at 7:36 p.m.) showed Resident's BS [blood sugar] at 0545 am med pass recorded 327. Both Levemir 12u and Novolog 12 units given. Levemir order is for 5u to be given between 7-11 a.m. Rechecked in 1 hour and BS 84. Medication error and BS levels reported to on call nurse manager [Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit Manager (UM)] and ARNP for Medical Director. Received order to hold am dose of Levemir, monitor resident and have glucagon on standby if needed. New orders and BS checks reported to oncoming nurse [Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN).] Resident is awake and alert without s/s [signs and symptoms] of hypoglycemia. Dietary trays on hall and trays passing at this time. The Nursing note was entered by Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN). A Nursing Note dated 3/12/23 1:20 p.m. showed Client observed in bed resting with eyes closed. Blood glucose checked: 58. Rechecked to verify BG [Blood Glucose]: 56, 52. Glucagon 1g injected subq [subcutaneously]. Client breathing was regular at 14 respirations per min [minute]. Sternal rub performed and patient continued to be unresponsive. Pupils pinpoint and BG dropped to 38. Another nurse called 911 while I stayed with the patient. Blood pressure measured manually: BP 70/30 pulse 66. The reading was lower than in the early AM which was 116/60 pulse 70. BG went up to 68 and then back down to 54. Paramedics arrived at 12:55 and patient left at 1300. Client was cool to touch and unresponsive when the paramedics arrived but continued to have steady respiration at 14 bpm. MD notified at 1300 gave ok to send to ER for eval and tx [treatment], and family notified at 1305. The Nursing Note was entered by Staff B, RN. A review of the facility documentation, dated 3/12/23, described the medication error as Nurse mistakenly administered Levemir 12U instead of Novolog 12U, nurse administered Novolog 12U after realizing she gave Levemir 12U. After administering both insulins, nurse contacted MD on call. It showed the correct order was sliding scale Novolog 12u. The type of error was listed as incorrect dose and incorrect medication. The report showed the resident became hypotensive and hypoglycemic around 12:45 p.m., resident was unresponsive but maintained respirations and heart rate. The immediate interventions were described as Glucagon 1g injected subq as ordered. Res [resident] blood sugar rechecked. Resident remained unresponsive. 911 activated and res transported to ER [emergency room] via stretcher around 12:55. The report shows the following blood sugar levels: 3/12/23 5:15 a.m. Blood sugar 327 mg/dL 3/12/23 12:04 p.m. Blood sugar 58 mg/dL A phone interview was conducted with Staff A, RN on 4/10/23 at 8:48 a.m. She confirmed she was taking care of Resident #1 the morning of 3/12/23 and made a medication error. She said the resident had been on her wing for a while and she was familiar with him. She said the resident was confused but could converse, saying hello and talking some. She said he did not always recognize family; he was incontinent and needed full care. She added the resident was able to self-propel in his wheelchair with his feet once he had help getting up. Staff A, RN said during her shift running from 3/11/23 7:00 p.m. to 3/12/23 7:00 a.m., the resident had stayed up very late, until 2:00 a.m. She said he did not want to stay in bed and was restless. She said there was no increased confusion, the resident was at his baseline. She said he had a history of falls, so she got him up to a wheelchair for a couple of hours, then put him back to bed. Staff A, RN said when insulin comes from the pharmacy, the vial is in the insulin box with a label on it and it is in a plastic bag that also has a label. Those bags are placed in the medication cart. She said when she pulled the bag out of the drawer, she read the bag, name, and checked everything. She confirmed she did not check the label on the box, she only checked the bag. After she administered the first insulin based on the sliding scale, she came back to the cart to put the vial in the box and bag, she realized she had given the wrong insulin. Staff A, RN said she gave the resident 12u of Levemir long-acting insulin instead of Novolog short-acting insulin. She said she panicked and stated, in my mind his blood sugar was still 327. The long acting was not going to bring down his blood sugar now. She said she went ahead and administered the Novolog within a couple of minutes of the Levemir. Staff A, RN said it was 5:30 a.m. and she could not call the doctor yet as she thought it was too early. She said, that is my error, I gave both. She said right after change of shift, approximately 7:15 a.m., she called and talked to the Nurse Practitioner (NP) for the Medical Director and the on-call manager, Staff C, LPN/UM Staff A, RN said the NP told her to monitor the resident closely, hold the morning dose of Levemir and have Glucagon on hand. An interview was conducted with Staff C, LPN/UM. on 4/17/23 at 12:29 p.m. Staff C, LPN/UM confirmed she was the on-call manager on 3/12/23. She said Staff A, RN called her about 7:20 a.m. and informed her she gave the wrong insulin to Resident #1. Staff C, LPN/UM said she asked Staff A, RN if she had talked to the doctor and Staff A, RN told her no. She said she told Staff A, RN to contact the doctor and follow his orders. She said Staff A, RN only told her she gave the resident long-acting insulin. She said she was not told the resident was also given short-acting insulin at the same time. Staff C, LPN/UM said she then received a call about 2:30 p.m. from Staff B, RN (the nurse caring for Resident #1 on the day shift 3/12/23) saying Resident #1's blood sugar had dropped. Staff B, RN asked her if she was aware of the extra insulin and Staff C, LPN/UM told her she was not aware. Staff B, RN notified her they gave Resident #1 Glucagon, and he was sent to the hospital. Staff C, LPN/UM said she notified the Director of Nursing (DON), and the DON notified the administrator. Staff C, LPN/UM said around 5:00 p.m. the day the error was made (3/12/23) she, along with other management, came in and began doing medication cart audits. During an interview with the DON on 4/18/23 at 4:31 p.m. she confirmed she came to the facility on 3/12/23 to complete medication cart audits with Staff C, LPN/UM. An interview was conducted with Staff B, RN on 4/5/23 at 2:50 p.m. She said she came on shift at 6:45 on 3/12/23 and received shift report from Staff A, RN between 7:00-7:15 a.m. She said Staff A, RN informed her she gave Resident #1 both long-acting and short-acting insulin that morning. She said Staff A, RN had not called the doctor at that point. Staff B, RN said Staff A, RN called the provider for the first time after she gave her report, approximately 7:15 a.m. She said Staff A, RN told her the NP gave orders to monitor the resident and have glucagon ready. Staff B, RN said she found out later that day Staff A, RN did not inform the NP she gave both the long and short-acting insulin; she only told her about the incorrect dose of Levemir. Staff B, RN said she checked Resident #1's blood glucose level between 8:30-9:00 a.m. and it was in the 90's. She said she did not document the blood glucose check in the resident's medical record because there was no place to enter it. Staff B, RN did say she could have documented it under vitals, but she did not think about that at the time. She said right before lunch trays came out, which is around 12, she rechecked Resident #1s' blood glucose and it was 58. She said she had another nurse (Staff D, LPN) come in and they verified again, it was 56 then 52. Staff B, RN said she administered Glucagon to the resident then checked his blood glucose again. She said it was then 38, so they called 911. She said she continually checked blood glucose levels until paramedics arrived. She said he went up to 68 then dropped back down in the 50's. When asked about monitoring the resident between 9:00 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., she said she was giving all of her other residents their medication. She said she looked in the room a couple of times and the resident was sleeping. She said he was snoring but arousable. A review of records did not reveal any documentation showing Resident #1 was assessed or monitored from 9:00 a.m. until 11:45 a.m. An interview was conducted with Staff D, LPN on 4/18/23 at 1:50 p.m. Staff D, LPN stated I did not know [Resident #1] very well but I do know he was very confused and a fall risk, very impulsive. That day he was sent out I helped the nurse. She came to me and said she checked his sugar [blood glucose] and it was low. She said she couldn't get him to take anything by mouth and I told her well give him the sugar s*** (expletive) [glucagon] we have in our medication carts, so she did that, and she came to me and said it's even lower now and I don't know what to do. I told her you need to call 911 and get them here. They couldn't even bring him back either. He was breathing and his heart was beating but he was just unresponsive. An interview was conducted with Staff E, Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 4/12/23 at 8:42 a.m. The NP stated she does not physically go to this facility and did not know this resident, but she was covering on-call the morning of 3/12/23. She said she does not recall exactly when the nurse called or what she told her specifically. She said she was told Resident #1 had received the wrong dose of insulin and had gotten double what he should have. The NP said she told the nurse to have Glucagon ready to go, monitor the resident and if his blood glucose drops low and you cannot get him out of it, to call her back. The NP said she never heard anything else from the facility. She said Staff A, RN just told her she gave too much insulin; she did not get into details. She said she does not believe Staff A, RN mentioned giving both insulins at the same time. She said she does not remember if she gave specific monitoring parameters, but her standard with low or high blood sugar is they should be checked at least every 2 hours. When asked if it was okay that the resident's blood glucose level was only checked between 8:30/9:00 a.m. then again at 11:45/12:00 p.m. she said, absolutely not. The NP said she did not have any notes related to this call. An interview was conducted with the Regional Consultant Pharmacist on 4/17/23 at 10:33 a.m. She said the onset of action for Levemir is between 3-4 hours after administration and the duration of action can range from 5/6 hours up to 18 hours depending on body weight and other factors specific to the resident. She said the onset of action for Novolog is around 12-18 minutes and the duration of action is between 3-7 hours depending on body weight, age, and other factors specific to the resident. The pharmacist said around 3-4 hours after both insulins were administered to the resident would have most likely been the point, they were at the highest effect together and the blood sugar could drop low. The pharmacist said 12u of Levemir is not an unusual dose, however because insulin is so dependent, for Resident #1 individually it may have been. She said typically the Novolog and Levemir are not administered at the same time, there would be some spacing. The pharmacist said in the incidence of an insulin overdose, the resident's blood glucose should be checked every 15 minutes and if it is below 70, interventions should have been implemented, such as giving Glucagon or IV glucose. She said the onset of Glucagon is 5-20 minutes and most protocols show that if Glucagon is given and the blood glucose is still below 70 you proceed to the next step, in this case send resident to the hospital. The pharmacist said the consultant pharmacist that visited the facility had not identified anything unusual in the facility regarding insulins or other medications. The pharmacist had previously conducted medication cart audits and did not find any issues. An interview was conducted with the facility Medical Director on 4/10/23 at 11:43 a.m. He said the nurse gave Resident #1 12u of rapid acting insulin and 12u or long-acting insulin. He confirmed he was not called that morning. He said the NP told the nurse to monitor the resident and have Glucagon ready. The doctor said he did not have any notes showing he saw Resident #1 and stated, It is very weird. (The Medical Director and NHA both confirmed there was no documentation to show the resident was seen in the facility by a primary provider.) The doctor said when a medication error is made the nurse should let the provider and their immediate supervisor know right then. He said he or the on-call should have been called that morning when the error happened. A review of the local Fire Rescue Patient Care Report showed the 911 call for Resident #1 was received on 3/12/23 at 12:38 p.m. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived at the patient at 12:50 p.m. The reports showed the chief complaint for Resident #1 was Diabetic-Hypoglycemia and the primary symptom was altered mental status. The resident's blood glucose was 48 and his blood pressure was 119/68 at 12:56 p.m. The Fire Rescue Narrative note showed found 77 yom [year old male] lying in his hospital bed. Pt [patient] responded to painful stimuli, Pt equal chest rise and fall, ABC's [airway, breathing, circulation] intact, skin WNL [within normal limits,] lung sounds clear, and perrl [pupils equal, round, reactive to light.] Staff stated pt was assessed and BGL [blood glucose level] was 39. Staff stated they gave 1g of Glucagon with no improvement leading them to call [Fire rescue.] Pt was carried to the stretcher and secured with all appropriate straps, rails x 2 and semi-Fowlers [position] for pt comfort and safety. Pt. further assessed and vitals WNL. Pt. BGL 48. Pt IV established and 250ml of D10 [Dextrose 10% solution] given with an improved response. Staff stated pt has Lewy Body dementia and only has a verbal response as his baseline. Pt continued to improve throughout the entire call. Pt transported to [local hospital] per request. Pt monitored enroute with no notable changes. Fire Rescue arrived at the hospital at 1:13 p.m. on 3/12/23. A review of hospital records, dated 3/12/23, for Resident #1 showed the Chief Complaint as From [facility]: Pt found to be hypoglycemic this morning, given 1 g of glucagon by staff, pt blood sugar in the 40's for EMS given 250ml of D10. Pt hx: dementia. The History or Present Illness revealed Patient presents to the emergency department acutely altered. Patient presents from [facility] with report from EMS indicated the patient was hypoglycemic. He was given glucagon, but this did not improve his blood sugar. When EMS arrived his blood sugar was in the 40s. They subsequently gave D10. He was unresponsive for them the entirety of their time with the patient. I subsequently called patient's emergency contact, [family member.] She states the patient does have Lewy body dementia. However, normally is not unresponsive and is alert. Patient does arrive with a DO NOT RESUSCITATE order and I specifically clarified with the [family member] if he would want to be intubated [have a breathing tube placed down the throat into the windpipe to allow a machine to assist with breathing.] She thinks that that [sic] would be in accordance with his wishes and he would be amenable to intubation. She does not know of any seizure history, which I asked because the patient did have rhythmic eye movements and contracted positioning that made me concerned for possible seizures. I did also call the facility and discussed with the nurse taking care of him. She does confirm that patient is normally able to push himself around in wheelchair and is typically alert. She does state that this morning was an acute change for patient. Patient was unresponsive for her the entire time as well. Patient on arrival unresponsive and unable to answer any questions for me. The record also revealed the resident had recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia on arrival and was again given D50 and a D10 drip was started. Despite the correction of the hypoglycemia, the patient continued to be altered. There was a strong suspicion for possible seizure in the setting of rhythmic movements of the eyes and contracted positioning. The patient was hypothermic on arrival and a forced air warming blanket was used. An intubation was performed and completed without any hypoxia. A continued review of hospital records showed an assessment performed on Resident #1 on 3/12/23 at 1:40 p.m. The assessment showed the resident's level of consciousness as obtunded, meaning he had a lessened interest in the environment and slowed response to stimulation. The Coma Scale showed Resident #1 has no eye-opening response and no verbal response. The resident did have a motor response of flexion withdrawal. His overall coma score was a 6. According to the Centre for Neuro Skills, the Glasgow Coma Scale provides an assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. The total scores were explained as follows: 90% less than or equal to 8 are in a coma, greater than or equal to 9 not in coma, 8 is the critical score, 9-12= moderate severity, and greater than or equal to 13=minor injury. (Accessed on 4/20/23 at https://www.neuroskills.com/education-and-resources/glasgow-coma-scale/) The hospital records, dated 3/12/23 showed after reexamination in the emergency room Resident #1 was found to have a urinary tract infection which could potentially be contributory but does not truthfully explain why the patient was seizing. Following intubation and paralysis wearing off, patient without further rhythmic activity of his eyes and no longer posturing his upper extremities leading me to believe that his seizure likely is stopped. Patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. The hospital Discharge Summary, dated 3/20/23, showed Patient was weaned off sedation, however patient was not waking up and minimally responsive. Therefore, he remained intubated due to concerns of ability to protect airway. Palliative care consulted. Patient was discharged to inpatient hospice facility pending bed availability. The discharge diagnoses included acute hypoxic respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation, acute encephalopathy, likely multifactorial secondary to hypoglycemia, UTI (Urinary tract infection,) possible seizure with underlying Lew body dementia. Low suspicion of meningitis and possible seizure secondary to hypoglycemia. The patient's overall prognosis is terminal with no meaningful recovery. A review of the in-patient Hospice record showed the resident arrived to their facility on 3/20/23 at 1:30 p.m. He was non-responsive to spoken name, his eyes were wide open with no track, and his facial features were relaxed. A hospice note dated 3/20/23 at 4:58 p.m. showed Provider ordering ME [medical examiner] Reportable Death: Patient has been deemed ME case per [medical doctor] for reported medical error of inappropriate insulin at a nursing facility leading to profound hypoglycemia. The record revealed Resident #1's time of death at 12:16 p.m. on 3/27/23. An interview was conducted on 4/17/23 at 12:17 p.m. with a family member of Resident #1. The family member confirmed the resident passed away at the in-patient Hospice facility but was unable to discuss any further details at the time. A facility policy titled Administration of Drugs, dated April 2022, was reviewed. The following showed the following: Policy Drugs will be administered in a timely manner and as prescribed by the resident's attending physician or the Center's Medical Director. 2. Drugs must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. 3. All current drugs and dosage schedules must be recorded on the resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR). 7. Drugs may not be set up in advance and must be administered within one (1) hour before or after their prescribed time. 11. When PRN drugs are administered, the nurse should record: a. The date and time administered inside eMAR displays; b. Any complaints or symptoms for which the drug was administered; and c. Any results achieved from administering the drug and the time such results were observed. 13. The nurse should enter an explanatory note in the progress notes for eMAR when drugs are withheld, refused, or given other than at scheduled times. The physician should be notified of drugs that are withheld and or repeated refusal of drugs. 15. Prior to administering the resident's drug, the nurse should compare the drug and dosage schedule on the resident's eMAR with the drug label. A facility policy titled Diabetes Care-Insulin Administration, dated April 2022 was reviewed. The policy showed the following: Policy Special precautions should be followed when administering insulin. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Special precautions should be followed in the administration of insulin. 2. Insulin dosage should be drawn only by personnel licensed to administer such drug and must be administered by the person drawing the injection. 3. The type of insulin, dosage requirements, strength, and method of administration should be verified to assure that it corresponds with the order on the medication sheet and the physician's order. 4. Any discrepancies should be reported to the Charge Nurse or designee. 5. The resident's physician should be notified of any discrepancies or adverse drug reactions. A facility policy titled Medication Errors and Adverse Reactions, undated, was reviewed. The policy showed the following: Policy Drug errors and adverse drug reactions should be reported to the resident's attending physician. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Adverse drug reactions and drug errors with adverse clinical consequences should be reported to the resident's attending physician or physician designee. 2. Nursing services should implement and follow the physician's orders. The resident's condition should be closely observed for seventy-two (72) hours or as may be directed. 3. A detailed account of the incident should be recorded on a medication error report. 4. Documentation of the residence condition and response to treatment should be recorded during the observation period. 5. The Medical Director and Director of Nursing Services should be informed of all drug errors and adverse reactions. 6. If the reaction is allergic in nature, the chart will be labeled to inform all parties of the drug that the resident is allergic to. A facility job description titled Registered Nurse, dated 8/16/19 was reviewed. The job description listed the following: Overview Under the direction of the Director of Nursing, supervises the nursing personnel and the day-to-day nursing activities of the facility during an assigned tour of duty. Such supervision must be in accordance with accepted professional standards and current federal, state and local regulations to ensure the highest degree of quality care is always maintained. Responsibilities: -Monitor the daily delivery of nursing care and nursing staff performance as they deliver nursing care to the patients/residents in accordance with established policies and procedures -Identify problems or potential problems in the delivery of nursing care to residents and implement corrective action immediately -Oversee the nursing care to patients/residents to ensure safe, efficient and customer-oriented services are delivered at all times. -Visit resident on report daily in order to observe and evaluate each resident's physical and emotional status -Provide direct nursing care as necessary -Ensure the staff refer to the resident's care plan prior to administering care to the resident -Assist the staff nurses in monitoring seriously ill resident -Ensure that all nurses on your shift comply with the written procedures for the administration, storage and control of medications and supplies -Monitor medication passes and treatments to ensure compliance with physician orders and facility policy -Review medication administration records (MAR) for completeness of information, accuracy in the transcription of physician orders -Report all accident and incidents to Supervisor immediately upon occurrence -Conduct all activities within established safety, security and infection control procedures and guidelines Conducts all activities within established corporate compliance policies and procedures -Ensure residents safety in accordance with resident safety program. An article titled Hypoglycemia (Nursing,) dated January 2023, was reviewed. The article showed the following: Nursing Diagnosis According to the North American Nursing Diagnosis Association International 9 ([NAME]-I), the nursing diagnosis of risk for unstable blood glucose level poses many additional risks and additional nursing diagnoses for the patient. The nurse's responsibility is to diagnose human responses within the nurse's scope and level of competency. It is vital that critical thinking is used to identify and understand the risk factors of unstable blood glucose levels, particularly low levels for the sake of this topic, and the accompanying signs and symptoms upon presentation of the patient. Medical Management Identification of a hypoglycemic patient is critical due to potential adverse effects including coma and/or death. Severe hypoglycemia can be treated with intravenous (IV) dextrose followed by infusion of glucose. For conscious patients able to take oral (PO) medications, readily absorbable carbohydrate sources (such as fruit juice) should be given. For patients unable to take oral agents, a 1-mg intramuscular (IM) injection of glucagon can be administered. Once the patient is more awake, a complex carbohydrate food source should be given to the patient to achieve sustained euglycemia. More frequent blood glucose monitoring should occur to rule out further drops in blood sugar. Nursing Management Nursing management of hypoglycemic episodes may consist of pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic actions. Immediate and frequent glucose monitoring is vital for any patient presenting with symptoms of unstable blood glucose, particularly with hypoglycemia. Risk Management Patient safety remains the priority in any event. The nurse should monitor the patient closely during and following a hypoglycemic episode. It is important to avoid leaving the patient unattended, due to the risks of worsening s[TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, interviews, hospital record review, hospice record review, facility documentation and policy review the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, interviews, hospital record review, hospice record review, facility documentation and policy review the facility failed to ensure one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for insulin administration was free from a significant medication error as evidenced by the wrong dose and wrong type of insulin being administered a diabetic resident. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy beginning on 3/12/23. After surveyor review and verification, it was determined the actions implemented by the facility achieved compliance on 3/17/23. Findings included: Reference citation F600 A review of Resident #1's medical record showed an admission date of 1/18/23 with diagnoses that included Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications, Neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies, and Metabolic encephalopathy (primary.) A review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Five Day Assessment Section C, Cognitive Patterns, showed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status Score (BIMS) score of 99, indicating he was unable to complete the interview. The assessment also showed the resident had short- and long-term memory problems and his cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. Section I, Active Diagnoses showed the resident had Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia but did not have a seizure disorder or epilepsy. The MDS was dated 3/10/23. A review of Resident #1's physician orders related to diabetes revealed: -1/18/23 Insulin aspart (Novolog) 100 unit (u)/milliliter (ml) (70-30) per sliding scale: If blood sugar is less than 70, call MD. If blood sugar is 141-180, give 3 units. If blood sugar is 181-220, give 5 units. If blood sugar Is 221-260, give 8 units. If blood sugar is 261-300, give 10 units. If blood sugar is 301-350, give 12 units. If blood sugar is greater than 350, give 14 units. Subcutaneous. Before meals and at bedtime. 6:00 a.m., 11:15 a.m., 5:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m. -1/18/23 Levemir U-100 Insulin solution; 100 u/ml; amt: 5 units subcutaneous 1 time daily. Give 5 units subcutaneous once per day for Type II Diabetes Mellitus without complications. Once in morning, 9:00 a.m. -1/18/23 Glucagon (HCL) Emergency Kit. 1 milligram (mg) IM (intramuscular) injection as directed PRN (as needed) for hypoglycemia. -3/6/23 Side Effects: Hyperglycemia/Insulin Medication Use. Observe resident closely for side effects: confusion, sweating, SOB (shortness of breath), fruity breath, weakness, fatigue, increased thirst, increased urination, shakiness, pale skin, lethargy. Every shift: Days 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Nights 7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. -3/6/23 Side Effects: Monitor resident for s/s (signs/symptoms) of hypoglycemia. Monitor for shaking/trembling, fast heart rate, increased hunger, sweating, confusion/difficulty concentrating, dizziness. Every shift: Days 7:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. Nights 7:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. A review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the residents blood glucose levels and insulin administered were as follows: 3/11/23 6:00 a.m. blood glucose was 212 milligram (mg)/deciliter (dL) with 5 units of Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/11/23 between 7:00-11:00 a.m. Levemir U-100, 5 units was administered as ordered. 3/11/23 11:15 a.m. blood glucose was 99 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/11/23 5:00 p.m. blood glucose was 114 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. 3/12/23 6:00 a.m. blood glucose was 327 mg/dL with 12 units of Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale. (Documented on 3/12/23 at 5:20 a.m.) 3/12/23 11:15 a.m. blood glucose was 58 mg/dL with no Novolog insulin administered per sliding scale order. (Documented on 3/12/23 at 1:01 p.m.) A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed the following care plan: Category: Health Related Complications Resident #1 has a diagnosis of Diabetes and is at risk for unstable blood glucose as evidenced by hyperglycemia with signs and symptoms of increased thirst, headaches, blurred vision, increased urination, fatigue, weight loss, blood sugars >180 mg/dl and hypoglycemia with signs and symptoms of shakiness, dizziness, sweating, intense hunger, irritability, anxiety, decreased level of consciousness, headache. Interventions include blood glucose monitoring as ordered, document non-compliance of diet recommendations, medications as ordered, notify MD with significant changes in signs and symptoms, and observe for/report signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia: shakiness, dizziness, sweating, intense hunger, irritability, anxiety, decreased level of consciousness, headache. Created 1/18/23. A review of Resident #1's medication record showed the following progress notes: A Nursing Note dated 3/12/23 5:45 a.m. (Recorded as late entry on 3/12/23 at 7:36 p.m.) showed Resident's BS [blood sugar] at 0545 am med pass recorded 327. Both Levemir 12u and Novolog 12 units given. Levemir order is for 5u to be given between 7-11 a.m. Rechecked in 1 hour and BS 84. Medication error and BS levels reported to on call nurse manager [Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit Manager (UM)] and ARNP for Medical Director. Received order to hold am dose of Levemir, monitor resident and have glucagon on standby if needed. New orders and BS checks reported to oncoming nurse [Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN).] Resident is awake and alert without s/s [signs and symptoms] of hypoglycemia. Dietary trays on hall and trays passing at this time. The Nursing note was entered by Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN). A Nursing Note dated 3/12/23 1:20 p.m. showed Client observed in bed resting with eyes closed. Blood glucose checked: 58. Rechecked to verify BG [Blood Glucose]: 56, 52. Glucagon 1g injected subq [subcutaneously]. Client breathing was regular at 14 respirations per min [minute]. Sternal rub performed and patient continued to be unresponsive. Pupils pinpoint and BG dropped to 38. Another nurse called 911 while I stayed with the patient. Blood pressure measured manually: BP 70/30 pulse 66. The reading was lower than in the early AM which was 116/60 pulse 70. BG went up to 68 and then back down to 54. Paramedics arrived at 12:55 and patient left at 1300. Client was cool to touch and unresponsive when the paramedics arrived but continued to have steady respiration at 14 bpm. MD notified at 1300 gave ok to send to ER for eval and tx [treatment], and family notified at 1305. The Nursing Note was entered by Staff B, RN. A review of the facility documentation, dated 3/12/23, described the medication error as Nurse mistakenly administered Levemir 12U instead of Novolog 12U, nurse administered Novolog 12U after realizing she gave Levemir 12U. After administering both insulins, nurse contacted MD on call. It showed the correct order was sliding scale Novolog 12u. The type of error was listed as incorrect dose and incorrect medication. The report showed the resident became hypotensive and hypoglycemic around 12:45, resident was unresponsive but maintained respirations and heart rate. The immediate interventions were described as Glucagon 1g injected subq as ordered. Res [resident] blood sugar rechecked. Resident remained unresponsive. 911 activated and res transported to ER [emergency room] via stretcher around 12:55. The report shows the following blood sugar levels: 3/12/23 5:15 a.m. Blood sugar 327 mg/dL 3/12/23 12:04 p.m. Blood sugar 58 mg/dL A phone interview was conducted with Staff A, RN on 4/10/23 at 8:48 a.m. She confirmed she was taking care of Resident #1 the morning of 3/12/23 and made a medication error. She said the resident had been on her wing for a while and she was familiar with him. She said the resident was confused but could converse, saying hello and talking some. She said he did not always recognize family; he was incontinent and needed full care. She added the resident was able to self-propel in his wheelchair with his feet once he had help getting up. Staff A, RN said during her shift running from 3/11/23 7:00 p.m. to 3/12/23 7:00 a.m., the resident had stayed up very late, until 2:00 a.m. She said he did not want to stay in bed and was restless. She said there was no increased confusion, the resident was at his baseline. She said he had a history of falls, so she got him up to a wheelchair for a couple of hours, then put him back to bed. Staff A, RN said when insulin comes from the pharmacy, the vial is in the insulin box with a label on it and it is in a plastic bag that also has a label. Those bags are placed in the medication cart. She said when she pulled the bag out of the drawer, she read the bag, name, and checked everything. She confirmed she did not check the label on the box, she only checked the bag. After she administered the first insulin based on the sliding scale, she came back to the cart to put the vial in the box and bag, she realized she had given the wrong insulin. Staff A, RN said she gave the resident 12u of Levemir long-acting insulin instead of Novolog short-acting insulin. She said she panicked and stated, in my mind his blood sugar was still 327. The long acting was not going to bring down his blood sugar now. She said she went ahead and administered the Novolog within a couple of minutes of the Levemir. Staff A, RN said it was 5:30 a.m. and she could not call the doctor yet as she thought it was too early. She said, that is my error, I gave both. She said right after change of shift, approximately 7:15 a.m., she called and talked to the Nurse Practitioner (NP) for the Medical Director and the on-call manager, Staff C, LPN/UM Staff A, RN said the NP told her to monitor the resident closely, hold the morning dose of Levemir and have Glucagon on hand. An interview was conducted with Staff C, LPN/UM. on 4/17/23 at 12:29 p.m. Staff C, LPN/UM confirmed she was the on-call manager on 3/12/23. She said Staff A, RN called her about 7:20 a.m. and informed her she gave the wrong insulin to Resident #1. Staff C, LPN/UM said she asked Staff A, RN if she had talked to the doctor and Staff A, RN told her no. She said she told Staff A, RN to contact the doctor and follow his orders. She said Staff A, RN only told her she gave the resident long-acting insulin. She said she was not told the resident was also given short-acting insulin at the same time. Staff C, LPN/UM said she then received a call about 2:30 p.m. from Staff B, RN (the nurse caring for Resident #1 on the day shift 3/12/23) saying Resident #1's blood sugar had dropped. Staff B, RN asked her if she was aware of the extra insulin and Staff C, LPN/UM told her she was not aware. Staff B, RN notified her they gave Resident #1 Glucagon, and he was sent to the hospital. Staff C, LPN/UM said she notified the Director of Nursing (DON), and the DON notified the administrator. Staff C, LPN/UM said around 5:00 p.m. the day the error was made (3/12/23) she, along with other management, came in and began doing medication cart audits. During an interview with the DON on 4/18/23 at 4:31 p.m. she confirmed she came to the facility on 3/12/23 to complete medication cart audits with Staff C, LPN/UM. An interview was conducted with Staff B, RN on 4/5/23 at 2:50 p.m. She said she came on shift at 6:45 on 3/12/23 and received shift report from Staff A, RN between 7:00-7:15 a.m. She said Staff A, RN informed her she gave Resident #1 both long-acting and short-acting insulin that morning. She said Staff A, RN had not called the doctor at that point. Staff B, RN said Staff A, RN called the provider for the first time after she gave her report, approximately 7:15 a.m. She said Staff A, RN told her the NP gave orders to monitor the resident and have glucagon ready. Staff B, RN said she found out later that day Staff A, RN did not inform the NP she gave both the long and short-acting insulin; she only told her about the incorrect dose of Levemir. Staff B, RN said she checked Resident #1's blood glucose level between 8:30-9:00 a.m. and it was in the 90's. She said she did not document the blood glucose check in the resident's medical record because there was no place to enter it. B, RN did say she could have documented it under vitals, but she did not think about that at the time. She said right before lunch trays came out, which is around 12, she rechecked Resident #1s' blood glucose and it was 58. She said she had another nurse (Staff D, LPN) come in and they verified again, it was 56 then 52. Staff B, RN said she administered Glucagon to the resident then checked his blood glucose again. She said it was then 38, so they called 911. She said she continually checked blood glucose levels until paramedics arrived. She said he went up to 68 then dropped back down in the 50's. When asked about monitoring the resident between 9:00 a.m. and 11:45 a.m., she said she was giving all of her other residents their medication. She said she looked in the room a couple of times and the resident was sleeping. She said he was snoring but arousable. A review of records did not reveal any documentation showing Resident #1 was assessed or monitored from 9:00 a.m. until 11:45 a.m. An interview was conducted with Staff D, LPN on 4/18/23 at 1:50 p.m. Staff D, LPN stated I did not know [Resident #1] very well but I do know he was very confused and a fall risk, very impulsive. That day he was sent out I helped the nurse. She came to me and said she checked his sugar [blood glucose] and it was low. She said she couldn't get him to take anything by mouth and I told her well give him the sugar s*** (expletive) [glucagon] we have in our medication carts, so she did that, and she came to me and said it's even lower now and I don't know what to do. I told her you need to call 911 and get them here. They couldn't even bring him back either. He was breathing and his heart was beating but he was just unresponsive. An interview was conducted with Staff E, Nurse Practitioner (NP) on 4/12/23 at 8:42 a.m. The NP stated she does not physically go to this facility and did not know this resident, but she was covering on-call the morning of 3/12/23. She said she does not recall exactly when the nurse called or what she told her specifically. She said she was told Resident #1 had received the wrong dose of insulin and had gotten double what he should have. The NP said she told the nurse to have Glucagon ready to go, monitor the resident and if his blood glucose drops low and you cannot get him out of it, to call her back. The NP said she never heard anything else from the facility. She said Staff A, RN just told her she gave too much insulin; she did not get into details. She said she does not believe Staff A, RN mentioned giving both insulins at the same time. She said she does not remember if she gave specific monitoring parameters, but her standard with low or high blood sugar is they should be checked at least every 2 hours. When asked if it was okay that the resident's blood glucose level was only checked between 8:30/9:00 a.m. then again at 11:45/12:00 p.m. she said, absolutely not. The NP said she did not have any notes related to this call. An interview was conducted with the Regional Consultant Pharmacist on 4/17/23 at 10:33 a.m. She said the onset of action for Levemir is between 3-4 hours after administration and the duration of action can range from 5/6 hours up to 18 hours depending on body weight and other factors specific to the resident. She said the onset of action for Novolog is around 12-18 minutes and the duration of action is between 3-7 hours depending on body weight, age, and other factors specific to the resident. The pharmacist said around 3-4 hours after both insulins were administered to the resident would have most likely been the point, they were at the highest effect together and the blood sugar could drop low. The pharmacist said 12u of Levemir is not an unusual dose, however because insulin is so dependent, for Resident #1 individually it may have been. She said typically the Novolog and Levemir are not administered at the same time, there would be some spacing. The pharmacist said in the incidence of an insulin overdose, the resident's blood glucose should be checked every 15 minutes and if it is below 70, interventions should have been implemented, such as giving Glucagon or IV glucose. She said the onset of Glucagon is 5-20 minutes and most protocols show that if Glucagon is given and the blood glucose is still below 70 you proceed to the next step, in this case send resident to the hospital. The pharmacist said the consultant pharmacist that visited the facility had not identified anything unusual in the facility regarding insulins or other medications. The pharmacist had previously conducted medication cart audits and did not find any issues. An interview was conducted with the facility Medical Director on 4/10/23 at 11:43 a.m. He said the nurse gave Resident #1 12u of rapid acting insulin and 12u or long-acting insulin. He confirmed he was not called that morning. He said the NP told the nurse to monitor the resident and have Glucagon ready. The doctor said he did not have any notes showing he saw Resident #1 and stated, It is very weird. (The Medical Director and NHA both confirmed there was no documentation to show the resident was seen in the facility by a primary provider.) The doctor said when a medication error is made the nurse should let the provider and their immediate supervisor know right then. He said he or the on-call should have been called that morning when the error happened. A review of the local Fire Rescue Patient Care Report showed the 911 call for Resident #1 was received on 3/12/23 at 12:38 p.m. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) arrived at the patient at 12:50 p.m. The reports showed the chief complaint for Resident #1 was Diabetic-Hypoglycemia and the primary symptom was altered mental status. The resident's blood glucose was 48 and his blood pressure was 119/68 at 12:56 p.m. The Fire Rescue Narrative note showed found 77 yom [year old male] lying in his hospital bed. Pt [patient] responded to painful stimuli, Pt equal chest rise and fall, ABC's [airway, breathing, circulation] intact, skin WNL [within normal limits,] lung sounds clear, and perrl [pupils equal, round, reactive to light.] Staff stated pt was assessed and BGL [blood glucose level] was 39. Staff stated they gave 1g of Glucagon with no improvement leading them to call [Fire rescue.] Pt was carried to the stretcher and secured with all appropriate straps, rails x 2 and semi-Fowlers [position] for pt comfort and safety. Pt. further assessed and vitals WNL. Pt. BGL 48. Pt IV established and 250ml of D10 [Dextrose 10% solution] given with an improved response. Staff stated pt has Lewy Body dementia and only has a verbal response as his baseline. Pt continued to improve throughout the entire call. Pt transported to [local hospital] per request. Pt monitored enroute with no notable changes. Fire Rescue arrived at the hospital at 1:13 p.m. on 3/12/23. A review of hospital records, dated 3/12/23, for Resident #1 showed the Chief Complaint as From [facility]: Pt found to be hypoglycemic this morning, given 1 g of glucagon by staff, pt blood sugar in the 40's for EMS given 250ml of D10. Pt hx: dementia. The History or Present Illness revealed Patient presents to the emergency department acutely altered. Patient presents from [facility] with report from EMS indicated the patient was hypoglycemic. He was given glucagon, but this did not improve his blood sugar. When EMS arrived his blood sugar was in the 40s. They subsequently gave D10. He was unresponsive for them the entirety of their time with the patient. I subsequently called patient's emergency contact, [family member.] She states the patient does have Lewy body dementia. However, normally is not unresponsive and is alert. Patient does arrive with a DO NOT RESUSCITATE order and I specifically clarified with the [family member] if he would want to be intubated [have a breathing tube placed down the throat into the windpipe to allow a machine to assist with breathing.] She thinks that that [sic] would be in accordance with his wishes and he would be amenable to intubation. She does not know of any seizure history, which I asked because the patient did have rhythmic eye movements and contracted positioning that made me concerned for possible seizures. I did also call the facility and discussed with the nurse taking care of him. She does confirm that patient is normally able to push himself around in wheelchair and is typically alert. She does state that this morning was an acute change for patient. Patient was unresponsive for her the entire time as well. Patient on arrival unresponsive and unable to answer any questions for me. The record also revealed the resident had recurrent episodes of hypoglycemia on arrival and was again given D50 and a D10 drip was started. Despite the correction of the hypoglycemia, the patient continued to be altered. There was a strong suspicion for possible seizure in the setting of rhythmic movements of the eyes and contracted positioning. The patient was hypothermic on arrival and a forced air warming blanket was used. An intubation was performed and completed without any hypoxia. A continued review of hospital records showed an assessment performed on Resident #1 on 3/12/23 at 1:40 p.m. The assessment showed the resident's level of consciousness as obtunded, meaning he had a lessened interest in the environment and slowed response to stimulation. The Coma Scale showed Resident #1 has no eye-opening response and no verbal response. The resident did have a motor response of flexion withdrawal. His overall coma score was a 6. According to the Centre for Neuro Skills, the Glasgow Coma Scale provides an assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. The total scores were explained as follows: 90% less than or equal to 8 are in a coma, greater than or equal to 9 not in coma, 8 is the critical score, 9-12= moderate severity, and greater than or equal to 13=minor injury. (Accessed on 4/20/23 at https://www.neuroskills.com/education-and-resources/glasgow-coma-scale/) The hospital records, dated 3/12/23 showed after reexamination in the emergency room Resident #1 was found to have a urinary tract infection which could potentially be contributory but does not truthfully explain why the patient was seizing. Following intubation and paralysis wearing off, patient without further rhythmic activity of his eyes and no longer posturing his upper extremities leading me to believe that his seizure likely is stopped. Patient was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. The hospital Discharge Summary, dated 3/20/23, showed Patient was weaned off sedation, however patient was not waking up and minimally responsive. Therefore, he remained intubated due to concerns of ability to protect airway. Palliative care consulted. Patient was discharged to inpatient hospice facility pending bed availability. The discharge diagnoses included acute hypoxic respiratory failure, requiring mechanical ventilation, acute encephalopathy, likely multifactorial secondary to hypoglycemia, UTI (Urinary tract infection,) possible seizure with underlying Lew body dementia. Low suspicion of meningitis and possible seizure secondary to hypoglycemia. The patient's overall prognosis is terminal with no meaningful recovery. A review of the in-patient Hospice record showed the resident arrived to their facility on 3/20/23 at 1:30 p.m. He was non-responsive to spoken name, his eyes were wide open with no track, and his facial features were relaxed. A hospice note dated 3/20/23 at 4:58 p.m. showed Provider ordering ME [medical examiner] Reportable Death: Patient has been deemed ME case per [medical doctor] for reported medical error of inappropriate insulin at a nursing facility leading to profound hypoglycemia. The record revealed Resident #1's time of death at 12:16 p.m. on 3/27/23. An interview was conducted on 4/17/23 at 12:17 p.m. with a family member of Resident #1. The family member confirmed the resident passed away at the in-patient Hospice facility but was unable to discuss any further details at the time. A facility policy titled Administration of Drugs, dated April 2022, was reviewed. The following showed the following: Policy Drugs will be administered in a timely manner and as prescribed by the resident's attending physician or the Center's Medical Director. 2. Drugs must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. 3. All current drugs and dosage schedules must be recorded on the resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR). 7. Drugs may not be set up in advance and must be administered within one (1) hour before or after their prescribed time. 11. When PRN drugs are administered, the nurse should record: a. The date and time administered inside eMAR displays; b. Any complaints or symptoms for which the drug was administered; and c. Any results achieved from administering the drug and the time such results were observed. 13. The nurse should enter an explanatory note in the progress notes for eMAR when drugs are withheld, refused, or given other than at scheduled times. The physician should be notified of drugs that are withheld and or repeated refusal of drugs. 15. Prior to administering the resident's drug, the nurse should compare the drug and dosage schedule on the resident's eMAR with the drug label. A facility policy titled Diabetes Care-Insulin Administration, dated April 2022 was reviewed. The policy showed the following: Policy Special precautions should be followed when administering insulin. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Special precautions should be followed in the administration of insulin. 2. Insulin dosage should be drawn only by personnel licensed to administer such drug and must be administered by the person drawing the injection. 3. The type of insulin, dosage requirements, strength, and method of administration should be verified to assure that it corresponds with the order on the medication sheet and the physician's order. 4. Any discrepancies should be reported to the Charge Nurse or designee. 5. The resident's physician should be notified of any discrepancies or adverse drug reactions. A facility policy titled Medication Errors and Adverse Reactions, undated, was reviewed. The policy showed the following: Policy Drug errors and adverse drug reactions should be reported to the resident's attending physician. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1. Adverse drug reactions and drug errors with adverse clinical consequences should be reported to the resident's attending physician or physician designee. 2. Nursing services should implement and follow the physician's orders. The resident's condition should be closely observed for seventy-two (72) hours or as may be directed. 3. A detailed account of the incident should be recorded on a medication error report. 4. Documentation of the residence condition and response to treatment should be recorded during the observation period. 5. The Medical Director and Director of Nursing Services should be informed of all drug errors and adverse reactions. 6. If the reaction is allergic in nature, the chart will be labeled to inform all parties of the drug that the resident is allergic to. A facility job description titled Registered Nurse, dated 8/16/19 was reviewed. The job description listed the following: Overview Under the direction of the Director of Nursing, supervises the nursing personnel and the day-to-day nursing activities of the facility during an assigned tour of duty. Such supervision must be in accordance with accepted professional standards and current federal, state and local regulations to ensure the highest degree of quality care is always maintained. Responsibilities: -Monitor the daily delivery of nursing care and nursing staff performance as they deliver nursing care to the patients/residents in accordance with established policies and procedures -Identify problems or potential problems in the delivery of nursing care to residents and implement corrective action immediately -Oversee the nursing care to patients/residents to ensure safe, efficient and customer-oriented services are delivered at all times. -Visit resident on report daily in order to observe and evaluate each resident's physical and emotional status -Provide direct nursing care as necessary -Ensure the staff refer to the resident's care plan prior to administering care to the resident -Assist the staff nurses in monitoring seriously ill resident -Ensure that all nurses on your shift comply with the written procedures for the administration, storage and control of medications and supplies -Monitor medication passes and treatments to ensure compliance with physician orders and facility policy -Review medication administration records (MAR) for completeness of information, accuracy in the transcription of physician orders -Report all accident and incidents to Supervisor immediately upon occurrence -Conduct all activities within established safety, security and infection control procedures and guidelines Conducts all activities within established corporate compliance policies and procedures -Ensure residents safety in accordance with resident safety program. According to the Food and Drug Administration Levemir injection label, Levemir is a long-acting (up to 24-hour duration of action) human insulin analog used to improve glycemic control in adults and children with diabetes mellitus. Warnings and Precautions included: -Dose adjustment and monitoring: Monitor blood glucose in all patients treated with insulin. Insulin regiments should be modified cautiously and only under medical supervision. -Hypoglycemia is the most common adverse reaction to insulin therapy and may be life-threatening. 5.3 Hypoglycemia Hypoglycemia is the most common adverse reaction of insulin therapy, including LEVEMIR. The risk of hypoglycemia increases with intensive glycemic control. Patients must be educated to recognize and manage hypoglycemia. Severe hypoglycemia can lead to unconsciousness or convulsions and may result in temporary or permanent impairment of brain function or death. Severe hypoglycemia requiring the assistance of another person or parental glucose infusion, or glucagon administration has been observed in clinical trials with insulin, including trials with LEVEMIR. 8.5 Geriatric Use In elderly patients with diabetes, the initial dosing, dose increments and maintenance dosage should be conservative to avoid hypoglycemia. 10. Overdosage An excess of insulin relative to food intake, energy expenditure, or both may lead to severe and sometimes prolonged and life-threatening hypoglycemia. Mild episodes of hypoglycemia usually can be treated with oral glucose. Adjustments in drug dosage, meal patterns or exercise may be needed. More severe episode with coma, seizure, or neurological impairment may be treated with intramuscular/subcutaneous glucagon or concentrated intravenous glucose. (Accessed on 4/21/23 at https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/021536s037lbl.pdf) Facility immediate actions to correct deficient practice and remove the Immediate Jeopardy included: On 3/12/2023: The DON/designee completed cart audit of all insulin to ensure all insulin is labeled and stored appropriately. The physician and family notified and Medication error. Statements were obtained from Staff who were worki[TRUNCATED]
Sept 2021 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure one of one outside courtyard area was maintained in a safe, clean, and sanitary manner during four of four days observed (8/31/...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure one of one outside courtyard area was maintained in a safe, clean, and sanitary manner during four of four days observed (8/31/2021, 9/1/2021, 9/2/2021, and 9/3/2021). Findings included: On 8/31/2021 at 9:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., 9/1/2021 at 9:00 a.m. and 12:41 p.m., 9/2/2021 at 8:00 a.m., and 9/3/2021 at 7:45 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., the outside smoking porch/courtyard area was observed. During the observations, four of six chairs were observed with black bio-growth with ripped/torn chair coverings. Residents were observed seated in these chairs during all smoking scheduled times on four of four survey days. In addition, the sidewalk in the courtyard area was covered with black bio-growth. The bio-growth was observed to be slippery from the extensive rain and created a possible accident hazard. Many residents were observed walking and or self propelling in wheelchairs in this area during all four days of the survey. Continued observations revealed the outside double doors for the courtyard area had built up heavy grime, or black bio-growth in the areas where they were pushed and pulled. Many residents frequented this area throughout the survey and were observed to push and pull on the doors to open and close them. On 9/1/21 at 12:40 p.m., Employee F revealed he was responsible for monitoring the smoking out in the courtyard during scheduled smoking times. Employee F revealed that he tried to clean the smoking areas after smoking times had been completed, but he was not aware of the outside furniture that was soiled and in disrepair. Employee F was unaware of the slippery sidewalk which had black grime/bio-growth on it. On 9/3/2021 at 11:00 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) and Maintenance Director confirmed that the furniture in the smoking area was not maintained and was torn in the seat areas. The NHA further revealed that the types of chairs observed were not meant to be outside. She was not aware that the chairs had gotten that bad. The Maintenance Director revealed he had an electronic system that tells him when he should clean areas to include the outside doors, change air filters, etc. He revealed that in between scheduled cleaning and maintenance of furniture and doors, staff should be putting in work orders of observations so he can fix and clean the areas timely. Photographic evidence was obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to implement interventions for a fall care plan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and medical record review, the facility failed to implement interventions for a fall care plan for one (#16) of four residents sampled for accidents out of a total resident sample of 39. Findings included: On 08/31/21 at 8:19 a.m., Resident #16 was observed sitting on the right side of the bed. A floor mat was visible on the floor to the left of the bed. A second floor mat was observed propped against the wall behind the door. On 09/01/21 at 8:22 a.m., Resident #16 was observed sitting in his wheelchair. The floor mat on the left side of the bed was placed on the floor with the front left corner caught on the wheel of bed. The other floor mat was observed propped against the wall. On 09/01/21 at 12:35 p.m., Resident #16 was observed in bed. The floor mat placed on the left of the bed was not placed flat on the floor, and the corner edge of the mat was still caught on the bed. Photographic evidence was obtained. Review of the Resident Face Sheet for Resident #16 revealed diagnoses of muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, muscle wasting and atrophy, and unsteadiness on feet. Review of the resident's most recent comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 9 indicating moderate cognitive impairment and no history of falls. Review of Resident #16's Care Plan dated 5/28/21 revealed Resident #16 was at risk of falls related to muscle weakness. Interventions included: Fall mat to left and right side of bed when in bed Review of Resident #16's Nursing Progress notes revealed that on 8/16/21 Resident #16 was found sitting on the floor next to the bed. The resident stated that he slid to the floor. Resident uses bed controller in unsafe manner, he puts the bed as high as it will go. The resident returned to bed, and assessment completed with no signs or symptoms or complaints of injury. Physician and friend notified. On 09/01/21 at 3:05 p.m., Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated that if the resident was at risk for falls, the nurse would contact the physician to get an order to use floor mats. The mats should be always used and be placed on both sides of the bed. Staff E reported that Resident #16 does not like having the floor mats and insisted the one on the right side of the bed be removed. Staff E stated she has received training/in-service regarding the use of floor mats. The CNA staff look at the care plan to find out if the residents need floor mats, and that if she has any concerns, she would let the hall nurse know. On 09/01/21 at 3:04 p.m., Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN), stated that if a resident was a fall risk, had a history of falls or had a fall in the facility, the use of mats would be care planned. Floor mats are generally up when the resident was out of bed and put down when the resident was in bed. If the CNA staff have any concerns they will notify the hall nurse, who will follow up with the resident's physician and the Director of Nursing (DON). On 09/02/21 at 10:52 a.m., an interview was conducted with the DON and Nursing Home Administrator NHA. The NHA stated that residents were assessed on admission for history of falls, or if they were a fall risk due to medical conditions. The decision to implement safety measures including use of floor mats was the decision by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). The IDT meet every morning to discuss resident falls. The use of floor mats was documented in the care plan, and no physician order was required. Floor mats should be down when the resident's in bed and up when the resident's out of bed. Floor mats should be on both sides of the bed for resident safety. On 9/3/2021 the DON provided the Comprehensive Care Plans policy and procedure with an effective date of 4/6/2015 and last review date of 7/19/2018. The policy statement revealed: A person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident. The care plan will include how the facility will assist the resident to meet their needs, and goals and preferences. The Guidelines of the policy and procedure revealed: Person-centered care means the facility focuses on the resident as the center of control and supports each resident in making his or her own choices. Following pertinent areas to include, revealed: 1. The nurse/Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) develops and maintains a comprehensive care plan for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain. The Comprehensive Care Plan will be developed with participation form the resident, resident's family or resident representative as indicated. 2. Each resident's Comprehensive Care plan is designed to: a. Incorporate identified problem areas; b. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems; c. Build on resident's strengths; d. Reflect the resident's expressed wishes regarding care and treatment goals; e. Reflect treatment goals, timetable and objectives in measurable outcomes; f. Identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care; g. Include any specialized services or specialized rehabilitative services to be provided as identified in the PASRR (pre-admission screening and resident review) recommendations; h. Aid in preventing or reducing declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels; i. Enhance optimal functioning of the resident by focusing on a rehabilitative program; j. Reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions; 3. The Comprehensive Care Plan will include the goals for admission and desired outcomes gathered from the resident and the resident representative. 4. Care Plan interventions are implemented after consideration of the resident's problem areas and their causes. Interventions address the underlying source(s) of the problem area(s), rather than addressing only symptoms or triggers. The interventions will reflect action, treatment, or procedure to meet the objectives toward achieving the resident goals.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, medical record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the safety and supervision for one (#36) of four residents sampled for accidents related to Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, medical record review and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the safety and supervision for one (#36) of four residents sampled for accidents related to Resident #36 self propelling through a busy parking area, positioning himself off of the facility property with no orders for leave of absence, and smoking cigarettes unsupervised in an area with high vehicle traffic. Findings included: On 9/2/2021 at 7:57 a.m., Resident #36 was observed in the front parking lot, as viewed from the conference room window. Resident #36 was observed self propelling while seated in his wheelchair. The resident was using both hands to turn the wheels to propel. His right foot was placed on a foot pedal and his left foot was amputated from below the knee. He was observed to propel on the paved throughway where cars drive to park. The resident continued heading towards the south entrance of the parking lot where vehicles would enter. Resident #36 continued to the entrance of the parking lot and continued out to the sidewalk, near a two lane road. There was approximately thirty feet of paved incline to the sidewalk. The resident appeared to become tired from self propelling using only his arms all the way up to the sidewalk. Once he reached the sidewalk, he positioned himself in an area in between the driveway to enter into the facility and another driveway to enter an adjacent Assisted Living Facility. Observations revealed both driveways were busy with vehicles entering to park. Resident #36 was observed at 8:02 a.m. to pull out cigarettes and a smoking lighter from his left jacket pocket and started smoking a cigarette. During that time he left the facility and sat in the area to smoke, it was observed with light rain. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 9/2/2021 at 8:15 a.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) was brought to the conference room to look out the window to see where Resident #36 was located. The NHA confirmed that the resident was off the property and was smoking. She indicated that the resident could sign himself out and that he was a safe smoker. She revealed that she was not aware of how Resident #36 got to the community sidewalk, but confirmed that vehicles to include cars and large delivery trucks drive in through the one way area to the facility's parking lot. During the interview with the NHA, a large garbage truck was observed coming up the driveway near the area where Resident #36 was seated and smoking. The NHA revealed that Resident #36 can self check himself out and in from the facility and should have signed himself out using the sign in/sign out log. On 9/2/2021 at 8:25 a.m., the sign in/sign out log was reviewed at both nurses stations. Resident #36 was not in any of the logs. This was confirmed by the Director of Nursing (DON) who reviewed the logs and could not see any evidence that the Resident had signed in/out. On 9/2/2021 at 8:48 a.m., the DON was observed to walk out to the resident and assist him back to the facility. On 9/2/2021 at 9:15 a.m., an interview attempt was made with Resident #36. Resident #36 refused to speak with the survey team. On 9/2/2021 at 10:20 a.m., an interview with the DON confirmed she was familiar with Resident #36 and was outside this morning with him to walk back from the outside sidewalk to the inside of the facility. She confirmed that Resident #36 did not sign himself out and she could not provide evidence that he signed himself out LOA on any date. The DON was provided both Leave Of Absence Binders, from the A/B and C/D units for review. She confirmed Resident #36 was not in either of the books. She confirmed that he has gone out to the sidewalk and street to smoke in the past and this was not the first time. The DON reviewed Resident #36's medical records to include the current month 9/2021 and last month's 8/2021 Physician's Order Sheet. She confirmed that Resident #36 did not have an order for LOA. She further confirmed by reviewing the current care plans that Resident #36 was not care planned for LOA. The DON also confirmed that she could not find an acknowledge form or understanding of smoking rules that was signed by Resident #36. Review of Resident #36's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility in March of 2021. Review of the advance directives revealed the resident was his own responsible party. Review of the admission diagnosis sheet revealed diagnoses to include tremors, muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, need for assistance with personal care, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment, dated 6/16/2021 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating the resident's cognition was intact. Review of the Elopement evaluation dated 7/22/2021 revealed Resident #36 had the ability to exit the facility and was not determined to be at risk for elopement. Review of the Smoking evaluations dated 3/23/2021 at 2:01 p.m. and 9/1/2021 at 12:40 p.m. revealed Resident #36 was determined to be a safe smoker. Review of the current care plans with last review date of 7/28/2021 revealed the following areas: a. Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self care deficit related to muscle weakness. Interventions included: Locomotion as Independent. b. Smokes and at risk for safety concerns related to desire to smoke with intervention to include but not limited to: Resident and responsible party will be oriented to the smoking policy and smoking areas, demonstrate ability to physically hold the smoking device while smoking, and resident will be supervised while smoking at all times. c. Risk for falls related to below the knee amputation (BKA) with interventions in place to include: cueing for safety awareness. d. Risk for alteration in mood, behavior, cognition, and level of functioning due to recent restrictions regarding visitation. The current visitor restrictions have the potential to cause resident to experience adverse psychosocial changes such as an increase in depressive and anxious signs/symptoms that have the potential to negativity affect my well being with interventions in place. Further review of all the care plans, did not reveal any problem areas, with goals and interventions related to the ability to go on LOA. On 9/3/2021 at 12:50 p.m., an interview with the care plan coordinator revealed if a resident was ordered for LOA, there was usually a care plan that was initiated with interventions. She confirmed that Resident #36 was not care planned for LOA and that there was no order for LOA as well. On 9/3/2021 a follow up interview with the NHA at 10:00 a.m. confirmed Resident #36 was not assessed or care planned to go on LOA, even just off the property line to smoke. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Leave of Absence most recently revised on 11/7/2018 revealed: Policy Statement: The organization promotes person-centered care and affords leave from the facility based on physician approval. A leave of absence (LOA) is a period of time the resident is away from the facility while maintaining the status of a resident of the facility. Definitions: Therapeutic leave is defined as an absence from the facility for purposes other than required hospitalization. Guidelines: 1. Residents will be afforded therapeutic leave from the facility based on physician orders and approval; 2. A resident who wishes to take an unsupervised leave of absence may do so contingent upon each of the following: The completed and signed written release of responsibility for Leave of Absence form; Approval of the Licensed Health Professional; Documentation of Interdisciplinary agreement; Inclusion of the Leave of Absence in the care plan; The therapeutic Leave of Absence will be consistent with the resident's goals for care and included in the comprehensive assessment (when applicable) and incorporated into the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding dialysis care and services for one (#73) of one resident sampled for dialysis out of 3 facility residents receiving dialysis. Findings included: Review of Resident # 73's admissions record revealed that he was admitted to the facility in October of 2020 with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus, end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. Review of the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, which indicates that Resident # 73 was cognitively intact. Review of Resident # 73's medical records revealed no documentation of communication between the facility and the dialysis center related to his status prior to and after hemodialysis treatment. A review of Resident # 73 care plan dated 10/26/2020 and edited on 8/24/21 under the category Dialysis revealed: Resident #73 is at risk complications related to ESRD (End Stage Renal Disease) and dependent on Hemodialysis. Interventions included: -Communicate with dialysis center regarding medication, diet, and lab results. Coordinate resident's care with dialysis center. On 09/02/21 at 9:54 a.m., the facility's Dialysis communication sheet or form was requested from the Director of Nursing (DON). On 09/02/21 at 12:56 p.m., the DON stated that because of the pandemic, paperwork was not being sent to the dialysis center with the residents. She stated that paperwork was being faxed to maintain communication with the dialysis center. The faxed communication documents were requested from the DON. On 09/03/21 at 10:44 a.m., follow-up interview with the DON revealed she was unable to provide communication sheets for the past 30 days. She provided two communication sheets, one dated 7/30/21 and the other dated 8/4/21. The dialysis communication sheets were not completed in their entirety. The section under the subheading Dialysis nurse completes this section post Dialysis was not completed. On 09/03/21 at 2:36 p.m., Staff D, Registered Nurse (RN), stated that dialysis communication sheets were not being used between the facility and the dialysis center. She stated that the DON was in the process of putting together a hemodialysis (HD) binder two weeks ago for residents on dialysis, but she does not know what happened to that process. On 09/03/21 at 2:52 p.m., Staff K, RN stated that the facility does not have any form of communication in place to communicate with the dialysis facility. She stated that the dialysis center would call the facility and fax information for a resident if there were any changes or adjustment in medications or any other procedures or problems, but the facility has not been sending or faxing communication information prior to dialysis services to communicate with the dialysis center. Review of the facility's Dialysis Transfer Agreement dated 12/2/2014 revealed, #3 under the subheading Designated Resident Information, Facility shall make its best effort to provide appropriate medical, social, administrative, and other information accompany all Designated Residents at the time of transfer to Center. This information, shall include, but not limited to, where appropriate, the following: (E) Treatment presently being provided to the Designated Resident, including medications and any changes in a patient condition (physical or mental), change in medication, diet, or fluid intake.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews and facility record review, the facility failed to ensure it had an effective pest control program with regards to flying insects observed in resident spaces to inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews and facility record review, the facility failed to ensure it had an effective pest control program with regards to flying insects observed in resident spaces to include one of one main dining room, hallways, and one of one kitchen, during four of four days observed, (8/31/2021, 9/1/2021, 9/2/2021, and 9/3/2021). Findings included: On 8/31/20212 at 11:00 a.m., the main dining room was observed for the lunch meal service. The dining room was a very large open area located in between both the 100/200 and 300/400 unit stations. Further, the middle of the dining room was observed with double doors that led to the smoking area/courtyard. The dining room was observed with ten tables with thirty residents seated throughout the area. While interviewing several random residents at least twelve medium sized flying insects (possible house flies) were observed on the table tops and then started buzzing around the tables. There were three residents that were in the immediate area while being interviewed. Two of the residents were observed to swat away the flies with their hands. There were also several flies that were observed to land on Resident #19's face, food, mustache and eyebrows. Resident #19 along with another resident, Resident #60 confirmed that many bugs and flies have been in the facility and buzzing around the dining room for weeks now. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 8/31/2021 the lunch meal service started at 11:40 a.m. There were over twenty medium sized flying insects buzzing around many of the tables in the dining room and where residents ate. At 11:52 a.m. the meal tray cart arrived from the kitchen and staff immediately started to pass trays to residents at tables. During the entire meal service and while residents were eating, residents were observed to swat at the buzzing flies around their table. Flies had been observed landing on various residents and their plates of food and drinks. On 8/31/2021 at 12:08 p.m. an observation and interview with Resident #33 and Resident #19, who were seated at a table together, confirmed the buzzing flies around them and were attempting to swat them away with their hands and cloth napkins. Residents #33 and #19 both revealed they, along with many other residents, have constantly complained about the huge fly problem for months now and nothing has been done other than the facility putting up an air blaster at the door that leads outside to the smoking area/courtyard. On 9/1/2021 at 7:45 a.m., the main dining room was observed for the breakfast meal service. During that time there were five residents seated in their wheelchairs, at tables in the room. Further observations revealed at least seven medium sized flying insects buzzing around various tables and landing on residents wheelchairs and tables. Two of the residents were observed to swat away flies for a period of time. On 9/1/2021 at 9:20 a.m., a group activity was beginning in the the main dining room. Ten residents were seated at various tables and at least fifteen flies were observed flying/buzzing around the residents and landing on their heads, shoulders, hands, face, and on the tables. Most of the residents were observed to swat at the flies while participating in the group activities. Residents were overheard speaking to one another about the fly problem. On 9/1/2021 at 11:19 a.m. the main dining room was observed with eighteen residents seated at various tables and awaiting the lunch meal service. Further observations revealed twenty flies buzzing around the residents in the main dining room. Some residents were swatting the flies away with their hands. On 9/2/2021 at 5:50 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., the main dining room and 200/300 nursing station were observed with over ten flies buzzing around the tables and desks. There were no residents present at the time. Further observations of the double doors that leads to the smoking area/courtyard revealed a large electronic air blast curtain affixed to the wall above only one of the doors. This electronic air curtain had been observed operating and functioning appropriately. However, the device only covered one of the two doors that led outside to the smoking area/courtyard. These doors were observed to open and close multiple times throughout the day. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 9/2/21 at 7:30 a.m. the main dining room was observed with twelve residents seated at six tables. The residents were served their breakfast trays at 8:00 a.m. During their dining experience, there were over ten flies observed at and near the residents. Flies were observed to land on and off of the residents' food, resident,s and their chairs/wheelchairs. Some residents were observed to swat at the flies and were talking with one another about the fly problem. On 9/2/2021 at 11:30 a.m., a kitchen tour was conducted. The food prep area, food holding area/steam table were observed with five medium sized flying insects. The flies were observed to land on various kitchen equipment and food prep surfaces. Interview with two cooks, Employees G and H revealed that they have had a facility-wide problem with flies the past few weeks and more since the recent heavy rains. They revealed pest control comes and maintenance treats, but the flies just keep coming back. On 9/2/2021 at 12:00 p.m., the main dining room was observed with over twenty-five residents seated at various tables. During the entire meal service, there were approximately fifteen medium sized flying insects buzzing and flying around residents and landing on food items, resident wheelchairs, and landing on residents' faces, arms and hair. Most residents were observed swatting the flies away with their hands. Staff were observed to swat at flies as well. On 9/3/2021 at 9:10 a.m., random interviews with six residents who all wished to remain anonymous revealed the facility has had a fly problem for months now and they, along with other residents have routinely complained about them. They revealed their dining experience was terrible with flies landing all over them and their food. They have reported to staff with no correction. On 9/2/2021 at 11:00 a.m., a resident group meeting was held with three random residents, to include Residents #25 and #33 and #60. The residents expressed that there was a huge fly problem in the facility and that there were flies in spaces to include their rooms, bathrooms, shower rooms, hallways and mainly in the main dining/activity room. The residents indicated that they continue to complain about the flies, but it does not seem to get any better. Resident #25 revealed he was provided with a fly swatter to swat flies in her room. On 9/3/2021 at 7:20 a.m., the C/D wing nurse desk was observed with a bright green fly swatter with left over remnants of dead insects on it. Interview with two nurses, Employees J and I, confirmed the fly swatter at the desk and continued to say, we use it for the large fly problem we are having here. Employee I also stated, I don't know what's going on lately with the flies, but it's awful. Neither nurse knew if the pest control company had visited recently and both had told maintenance about the problem in the past. On 9/3/2021 at 7:40 a.m., the main dining room was observed with seven residents seated at tables. They were provided with their breakfast meal and began to eat. While they were eating there were ten medium sized flying insects landing on and off the residents' food, tables, heads and arms. Residents were observed trying to swat flies away with their hands. On 9/3/2021 the Director of Nursing (DON), provided the facility's pest control contract and log for review. A Review from March 2021 through the current month of September of 2021 revealed normal pest control treatment had occurred but no specific treatment to include houseflies, or any type of flying insects was noted. The contract was reviewed and it was current between the pest control company and the facility. On 9/3/2021 at 11:00, the Maintenance Director and Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) were interviewed related to the pest control program and the flies observed throughout the facility. The Maintenance Director and NHA confirmed that their pest control company comes routinely at least once a month and treats for various pests/bugs. The NHA and the Maintenance Director confirmed the housefly issue as of recent and have tried different interventions to include putting up a door air blast curtain at the double doors that lead from the dining room to the smoking porch. They confirmed that the house flies must be coming from somewhere else. Neither the NHA or the Maintenance Director could say exactly when the house fly issue started.
Jan 2020 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plans for one resident ...

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 revise the comprehensive care plans for one resident of forty-three residents sampled related to Resident #242's safe smoking ability. Findings included: Resident #242 was admitted on [DATE] with multiple diagnoses that included Pulmonary Embolism without acute cor pulmonale, Dysphagia oropharyngeal phase, Conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions and Exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, Nicotine dependence, other tobacco product, with withdrawal. A record review identified the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], for Resident # 242 to have a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 15 (on a 1-15 score range) indicating the resident to be cognitively intact. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #242's most recent smoking evaluation (observation detail report) was dated 12/24/19, which indicated the resident was a safe smoker and did not require supervision while smoking. The comprehensive care-plan with last revision date of 12/27/19 for Resident #242 included a problem area which read Smokes and at risk for safety concerns related to:__ Desires to smoke and is designated as a __Safe Smoker, __Impaired Smoker,___Resident needs the following while smoking___ Protective Gear. (the blanks were not filled in) The Approaches section included: Resident #242 will be supervised while smoking at all times. During an interview conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) on 1/08/20 at 1:45 p.m., they were both shown the resident's comprehensive care plan and the smoking evaluation (observation detail report). Both the DON and NHA confirmed that the comprehensive care-plan Problem area was not filled in or checked for smoking status, and that the smoking evaluation (observation) was different than what the Approaches indicated on the comprehensive care plan. The DON stated It contradicts each other, I see what the issue is, there is supposed to be something checked in the problem area under categories. I see the care-plan states she should be supervised in the approaches section. A review of Facility Policy Titled Comprehensive Care Plans, Revision Date: 7/19/18, Page 01 and 02 of Page 03, showed the following under Guidelines: 4. Each resident's Comprehensive Care Plan is designed to: a. Incorporate identified areas; b. Incorporate Risk factors associated with identified problems; e. Reflect treatment goals, timetables and objectives in measurable outcomes; j. Reflect currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions. 13. Care plans are ongoing and revised as information about the resident and the resident's condition change.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Thirty-seven medication administration opportunities were observ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was less than 5.00%. Thirty-seven medication administration opportunities were observed, and twenty-eight errors were identified for three (#72, #88, and #33) of five residents observed. These errors constituted a 75.68% medication error rate. Findings included: 1. On 1/9/20 at 11:19 a.m., an observation of medication administration with Staff Member F, Registered Nurse (RN), was conducted with Resident #72. Staff Member F, RN was observed administering the following medications: - Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 7.5-325 milligram (mg) tablet orally - Alprazolam 0.25 mg tablet orally - Acidophilus tablet orally - Iron 325 mg tablet orally - Vitamin D3 5000 international unit (iu) tablet orally - Breo-Ellipta 100 microgram/25 microgram (mcg/mcg) inhaler, one puff inhaled - Fluticasone Propionate 50 mcg nasal spray, one spray bilateral nares - Lisinopril 10 mg orally - Myrbetriq Extended Release (ER) 50 mg tablet orally - Sertraline Hydrochloride (HCl) 100 mg tablet orally - Vitamin B12 500 mcg tablet orally - Vitamin E 400 units (u) softgel orally When asked why the Resident profile was colored red, Staff Member F confirmed the medications were due at 11:00 a.m. Staff Member F entered Resident #72's room at 11:33 a.m. to administer the above medications. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #72 revealed the above medications were scheduled to be administered: - Alprazolam at 9:00 a.m. - Acidophilus at 7:00 - 11:00 a.m. - Iron (Ferrous Sulfate) at 7:00 - 11:00 a.m. - Vitamin D3 at 7:00 - 11:00 a.m. - Med Pass No added sugar at 07:00 - 11:00 a.m. - Breo-Ellipta at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Fluticasone at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Lisinopril at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Myrbetriq at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Sertraline at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Vitamin B12 at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Vitamin E at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Folic Acid at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. - Xyzal at 7:15 - 11:00 Staff Member F stated, on 1/9/20 at 11:27 a.m., that she needed to look into the overflow for the residents' folic acid. Resident #72's ordered medication of Folic Acid and Xyzal were not administered during the observation. 2. On 1/9/20 at 11:57 a.m., an observation of medication administration with Staff Member F, RN, was conducted with Resident #88. The electronic profile for Resident #88 was colored red. Staff Member F was observed administering the following medications: - Gabapentin 300 mg capsule orally - Glipizide 5 mg tablet orally - Lisinopril 30 mg tablet orally - Oxybutnin chloride Extended Release (ER) 10 mg tablet orally - Furosemide 20 mg tablet orally - Sertraline 50 mg tablet orally - Sertraline 25 mg tablet orally - Iron (Ferrous Sulfate) 325 mg tablet orally - Artificial Tears eye drops A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #88 revealed the above medications were scheduled to be administered by 11:00 a.m. A review of the Physician's orders for Resident #88 revealed the following medication orders: - Gabapentin 300 mg capsule orally twice daily at 7:00-11:00 a.m. - Glipizide 5 mg tablet orally once a day at 7:15-11:00 a.m. - Lisinopril 30 mg tablet orally once a day at 7:15-11:00 a.m. - Oxybutynin chloride ER 10 mg tablet one time daily at 7:15-11:00 a.m. - Furosemide 20 mg tablet once a day at 7:15-11:00 a.m. - Sertraline 50 mg tablet once a day with 25 mg to equal 75 mg at 7:15-11:00 a.m. - Sertraline 25 mg tablet once a day with 50 mg to equal 75 mg at 7:15-11:00 a.m. - Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg tablet three times dailyc at 9:15-11:00 a.m. - Artifical Tear 1.4% drop in both eyes four times daily at 7:00-11:00 a.m. Staff Member F documented on the MAR the above medications were administered late. 3. On 1/9/20 at 11:57 a.m., an observation of medication administration with Staff Member F, RN, was conducted with Resident #33. The observation revealed Resident #33's medication profile was colored red. Staff Member F was observed administering the following medications: - Aspirin 81 mg Enteric Coated (EC) tablet orally - Furosemide 20 mg one half tablet orally - Escitalopram Oxalate 10 mg tablet orally - Escitalopram Oxalate 10 mg tablet orally - Famotidine 20 mg tablet orally - Lisinopril 20 mg tablet orally A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #33 revealed the above medications were scheduled to be administered at 7:15 - 11:00 a.m. A review of the Physician's orders for Resident #33 revealed the following medication orders: - Aspirin 81 mg chewable tablet once a day by mouth - Furosemide 20 mg tablet: 10 mg tablet once a day oral - Lexapro (escitalopram oxalate) 10 mg: 20 mg once a day oral - Pepcid (famotidine) 20 mg once a day oral - Lisinopril 20 mg tablet once a day by mouth On 1/9/20 at 11:45 a.m., Staff Member F was asked why medications for residents were late, the staff member stated a physician order needed to be put into the computer right away and a Vancomycin lab draw needed to be done. At 12:18 p.m. on 1/9/20, Staff Member F reviewed the resident sheets and stated seven (7) residents still had 7:00 - 11:00 a.m. medications to be administered. When asked what the process was for administering late medications, the RN stated the process for late medications were to keep going, if we stopped we would run into the 1 or 2 o'clock meds (medications). At 4:52 p.m. on 1/10/20, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated due to the open medication pass medications administered outside of the administration times were considered late. She confirmed, when asked for a clarification, if a medication was to be administered, for example: between 7:00 - 11:00 a.m., any medication administered after 11:00 a.m. would be considered late. The DON explained that after a medication error event was documented, the physician and the resident and/or resident representative would be notified. The policy titled, Medication Administration: General Guidelines, dated 09/18, indicated medications are administered with good nursing principles and practices. The policy directed staff to review and confirm medication orders prior to administration and to verify medication was correct three (3) times before administering the medication. The guidelines identified medication administration timing parameters included any facility specific policies and procedures.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, policy review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from two of four medication carts, medication ointment was labeled with a resident na...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, policy review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure expired medications were removed from two of four medication carts, medication ointment was labeled with a resident name in one of two treatment carts, and one of two treatment carts were locked when left unattended. Findings included: An observation, on 1/8/20 at 3:58 p.m., was conducted with Staff Member E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), of the D-wing medication cart. The D-cart contained a 100 unit/milliliter (u/mL) vial of Humulin R insulin which the label identified as being opened 12/7/20 and expired on 1/7/20, one 100 u/mL vial of Lantus which the label identified as being opened 12/7/19 and expired on 1/7/20. The D-wing medication cart contained six (6) 14 milligram (mg) Nicotine Transdermal System patches which the packaging indicated had expired in August (Aug) 2019. A 4 fluid ounce bottle of Tearless Baby Shampoo was observed to be stored with mulitple bottles of oral over-the-counter medications. Photographic evidence was obtained. The Consulting Pharmacist stated, on 1/8/20 at 4:01 p.m., he checks the medication carts every couple of months and the insulin should have been removed. On 1/10/20 at 5:02 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed an opened tube of Triamincolone Acetonide 0.5%, observed in the A and B -wings treatment cart, was unlabeled with a residents name or pharmacy information. At 5:27 p.m. on 1/10/20, as the DON and surveyor were walking past the C and D-wing nursing station, it was noted that the C and D wings' treatment cart was unlocked and unattended. The treatment cart contained multiple containers of topically ointments in clear bags. The DON asked, was that unlocked? and shook her head. An observation was conducted with the DON and Staff Member G, LPN, of the medication cart on C-wing at that time. The observation revealed a Lantus Solostar insulin pen, opened 11/27/19 and expired 12/25/19. Photographic evidence was obtained. Staff Member G confirmed the expiration date of the Lantus insulin pen and removed it from the cart. The policy titled, Medication Storage: Storage of Medication, dated 09/18, indicated medications and biologicals are stored properly, following manufacturer's or provider pharmacy recommendations, to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective drug administration, and the medication supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized to administer medications. The procedures of the policy identified medication rooms, cabinets, adn medication supplies should remain locked when not in use or attended by persons with authorized access. The procedure revealed internally administered medications are stored separately from medications used externally such as lotions, creams, ointments, and suppositories. Procedure #14 of the policy indicated outdated, contaminated, discontinued, or deteriorated medications and those that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the indwelling catheter tubing and bag were ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the indwelling catheter tubing and bag were appropriately maintained for Resident #55 for three of four days observed (1/8/20, 1/9/20 and 1/10/20); and failed to perform hand hygiene during the task of medication administration. Findings included: 1. On 1/8/20 at 9:54 a.m., Resident #55 was observed to be seated in a wheelchair located on the smoking patio. The resident's indwelling catheter was inside a privacy bag, that was dragging on the ground along with the catheter tubing when the resident self-propelled in the wheelchair. Resident #55 was immediately interview and he indicated that the Certified Nursing Assistant's (CNA), put his indwelling catheter bag inside the privacy bag. On 1/9/20 at 08:11 a.m. Resident #55 was observed to be sitting in a wheelchair in the main dining room, holding a large Styrofoam cup filled with coffee. The resident's indwelling catheter tubing was on the floor, and the catheter bag was contained in a privacy bag that was dragging on the floor when the resident self-propelled in the wheelchair. On 1/10/20 at 08:10 a.m., Resident #55 was observed to be in the dining area drinking from a large Styrofoam cup. The catheter bag was observed to be in a privacy bag which was located on the floor next to the catheter tubing. When Resident #55 self-propelled around the dining room table in the wheelchair, it was observed that his privacy catheter bag was dragging along with the catheter tubing on the floor. The resident was asked if any staff had assisted him with inserting the indwelling catheter in the privacy bag and affixing it to the wheelchair when he transferred into it. Resident #55 pleasantly stated I use a walker to transfer but Staff A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), put the indwelling catheter in the bag and helped me with everything else. The resident was asked if he was aware that his catheter privacy bag and catheter tubing were dragging each time he self-propelled in his wheelchair around the facility. The resident indicated that he did know that it was and said he would tell Staff B (CNA) when he saw her again. A record review for Resident #55 revealed Physician Order dated 1/07/20 for indwelling catheter (Foley) insertion. Nursing progress note date and time of 1/7/20 at 23:21 p.m., read Foley catheter reinserted patient tolerated well, amber urine in drainage bag, patient tolerated well. A record review identified the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], for Resident # 55 to have a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 15 (on a 1-15 score range) indicating the resident to be cognitively intact. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 01/10/20 at 08:16 a.m. During the interview the DON was informed all observations of the resident's catheter tubing and privacy catheter bag being on the floor or dragging on the floor while the resident self-propelled in his wheelchair around the facility premises. The DON confirmed the catheter tubing was on the dining room floor, and that it was an infection control issue from what she could see, that needed to be addressed immediately. The DON stated, I will get the CNA to empty the catheter, and of course you can't have the catheter privacy bag dragging on the floor at any time. During a random follow-up observation on 1/10/20 at 09:04 a.m., Resident # 55 was observed to be sitting in his wheelchair on the smoking patio. The indwelling catheter's tubing was inserted into the privacy catheter bag, which was located on the ground on the smoking patio. (Photographic Evidenced Obtained.) Resident #55 smiled and politely stated Yes, they fixed it. On 1/10/20 at 09:07 a.m., an immediate interview was conducted with the DON. The DON was shown the photographic evidence obtained of Resident #55's indwelling catheter privacy bag being on the ground during the 09:04 a.m. observation. The DON revealed she would take care of it. 2. An observation was conducted, on 11/9/20 at 11:33 a.m., with Staff Member F, Registered Nurse (RN) of the administration of medications. The staff member dispensed medications for Resident #72 at the medication cart, entered the resident's room, and handed the medication cup to the resident. Staff Member F donned gloves (without performing hand hygiene), administered nasal spray for Resident #72. The staff member placed the cap back on the bottle, returned to the medication cart, and documented the administration of the medication. The staff member was called to the telephone, which was answered in the unit hallway, and left the area to finalize the telephone call. At 11:46 a.m. on 11/9/20, Staff Member F began to dispense medications for Resident #91. The staff member placed all medications into one medication cup, entered the resident's room, and administered the medications. After leaving Resident #91's room, Staff Member F returned to the cart and signed the medications as administered, then left to verify location of other residents. The staff member did not perform hand hygiene after the dispensing or administration of medications to Resident #91. On 1/9/20 at 11:57 a.m., an observation with Staff Member F administer medications to Resident #88. The staff member did not perform hand hygiene prior to or after dispensing the medications for Resident #88. Resident #88 asked the staff member for eye drops. Staff F returned to the medication cart, retrieved the resident's eye drops, and re-entered Resident #88's room. Staff Member F applied gloves and administered one drop into each eye, removed gloves, and returned to the medication cart. The RN did not perform hand hygiene before dispensing medications or prior to applying gloves for the administration of eye drops. The staff member pulled down the lid of the resident's right eye and administered one drop of Artificial Tears, then without removing gloves or performing hand hygiene and re-applying gloves, Staff Member F pulled the lid of the left eye down and administered one drop. The staff member removed gloves and returned to the medication cart in the hallway, without performing hand hygiene. At 12:08 p.m. on 1/9/20, Staff Member F dispensed medications for Resident #33, without performing hand hygiene after the administration of medications for Resident #88. At 12:13 p.m., the staff member entered the resident's room, assisted the resident to a sitting position by the allowing him to hold her hand, then administered the medications to Resident #33. After the administration, Staff Member F returned to the medication cart and signed out the medications as administered in the electronic record. Staff Member did not perform hand hygiene prior to the dispensing of the medications or after the administration. The policy titled, Standard Precautions, dated October 2018, indicated standard precautions, such as hand hygiene, was to be performed before and after contact with resident, after removing gloves, and before and after contact with items in the resident's room. The policy revealed gloves are to be changed as necessary, during the care of a resident to prevent cross-contamination from one body site to another and after gloves are removed, hands are to be washed immediately to avoid transfer of microorganisms to the other residents or environments.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, reviewed and revised on 7/19/18, indicated a person-centered Comprehensive Care ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The policy titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, reviewed and revised on 7/19/18, indicated a person-centered Comprehensive Care Plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents' medical, nursing, mental, and psychological needs is developed for each resident. The Guideline portion of the policy indicated the following: - The nurse/Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) develops and maintains a comprehensive care plan for each resident that identifies the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain. - Each resident's Comprehensive Care Plan is designed to incorporate identified problem areas and risk factors associated with identified problems, identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care, and include any specialized services or specialized rehabilitative services, and reflect current recognized standards of practice for problem areas and condition. Resident #77 was admitted on [DATE] and 11/20/19. The face sheet included diagnoses not limited to Diabetes mellitus due to underlying condition with ketoacidosis without coma, unspecified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and unspecified stare of pressure ulcer of sacral region. An observation, on 1/7/20 at 11:45 a.m., revealed Resident #77 lying on a low air-loss mattress, watching television in an transmission-based precaution room. On 1/8/20 at 12:30 p.m., an interview was attempted with Resident #77, the resident was confused and non-interviewable, continued to be under transmission-based precautions. The care plan for Resident #77 indicated the resident was at risk for impaired skin integrity due to incontinence, requires assist with bed mobility and transfers and Diabetes, started and edited on 11/20/19. The approaches for this problem instructed staff to report changes in skin status to physician and to complete a weekly skin assessment. The care plan, titled Nutritional Status, started and edited on 11/20/19, identified Resident #77 required a mechanically-altered diet related to (r/t) swallowing/chewing problems, decreased albumin, pressure ulcer, Body Mass Index (BMI) was greater than 24.9%, and diagnosis of Diabetes. The approaches related to the resident's nutritional risk did not include care of a pressure ulcer. Resident #77's care plan did not identify the resident had actual pressure ulcers or instruct staff in the care of the existing pressure ulcers. A review of the active physician orders for Resident #77 revealed the following: - Cleanse wound to sacrum with normal saline (NS), pat dry, pack with Dakins soaked gauze, and cover with a clean dry dressing daily and as needed (prn), if soiled or missing dressing. Special instructions: cleanse wound to sacrum with NS, pat dry, pack with Dakin soaked gauze, and cover with a clean dry dressing daily and prn if soiled or missing dressing. Two identical orders were reviewed, one for prn and one for daily application of dressing during the 23:00 - 07:00 shift. The orders started on 11/2/19 with an open end date. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 12/11/19 - 1/10/20, indicated staff had applied a dressing to Resident #77's sacrum area daily. A review of a wound care vendor progress note, dated 11/21/19, identified Resident #77 had a stage 4 pressure ulcer of sacral region and an unstageable pressure area to the right heel. The wound care vendor note, dated 11/28/19, indicated the resident had a stage 4 pressure ulcer to the sacrum/coccyx, an unstageable area to the right heel, a deep tissue injury to the left heel, and an unstageable to the right forearm. The nursing observation of Resident #77, dated 1/6/20, identified pressure ulcers to the right and left buttocks. The observation documentation, dated 12/30/19, indicated bilateral buttock pressure areas. The posterior skin evaluation, dated 12/23/19, indicated Resident #77 had pressure areas to the left and right buttocks. During an interview, on 1/9/20 at 5:33 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Resident #77 had a large wound to her bottom area. On 1/10/20 at 1:04 p.m., the DON stated she did not need to review the care plan as she believed the findings of this writer. She stated the care plan should reflect that Resident #77 had an actual wound and should include interventions related to the wound. 3. Resident #45 was admitted on [DATE] and 11/16/19. The face sheet included Parkinson's disease, left hand contracture, left elbow contracture, and right hand contracture. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident had no functional Range of Motion (ROM) limitation to bilateral upper and/or lower extremities and did have a indwelling catheter. Resident #45's care plan indicated the resident had a problem with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Functional/ Rehabilitation potential. The problem described that the resident had a self-care deficit as evidenced related to (r/t) Parkinson's disease, Alzheimers, and weakness. The approaches, start date 10/23/19, indicated nursing and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)'s were responsible for the application of right (rt) and left (lt) hand splint applied as tolerated, and to check skin integrity every shift. The care plan did not include an approach related to Resident #45's indwelling catheter. The care plan did indicate the resident did have a problem, started 9/2/19 and edited 11/6/19, related to elimination. The problem of elimination indicated Resident #45 was not a candidate for bowel or bladder retraining as evidence by severe cognitive deficit. The approaches revealed staff were to check resident every (q) 2 to 3 hours and as needed (prn) for incontinent episodes and to provide incontinent/peri-care after each incontinent episode. An observation, on 1/7/20 at 11:58 a.m., revealed an elderly resident sitting in a reclining wheelchair. The resident appeared to have bilateral hand contractures and was not wearing any splints or braces. On 1/8/20 at 8:08 a.m., Resident #45 was sitting in the Dining Room after being assisted with breakfast, no splints were observed on either hands. At 12:14 p.m. on 1/8/20, hand splints were observed lying atop of Resident #45's bedside dresser and the resident was holding a teddy bear. On 1/9/20 at 2:57 p.m., Resident #45 was observed lying in bed, a urinary drainage bag was hanging from the frame of the bed. An observation, on 1/10/20 at 9:10 a.m., revealed the resident was sitting in a reclined wheelchair and urinary catheter tubing was visible coming from the resident's pant leg and a privacy bag was hanging from the leg rest of the chair. The physician order report identified patient (pt) to wear right (rt) resting hand splint during daytime as tolerated for contraction management twice daily, start date 6/18/19 and open ended. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 12/11/19 through 1/10/20, indicated staff documented the right hand splint twice daily. The TAR indicated during the 7:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift, Resident #45 refused the splint on 12/13, 12/16, 12/18, 12/20, 12/21, 12/22, 12/25, 12/26, and 12/27/19. The TAR did not indicate Resident #45 refused the application of splint during the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift. The Plan of Care, dated 1/10/20, indicated the resident received Restorative splint or brace assistance. The Occupational Therapy Discharge Summary indicated Resident #45 was discharged from therapy on 1/4/20 and referred to the Restorative Nursing Program (RNP). The summary indicated the resident was tolerating bilateral finger separators for 2 hours and the short-term goal had been met. The Occupational Therapy note, dated 1/2/20, indicated caregiver instruction was done in proper use, care and wearing time of hand and elbow splints and assessment of patient (pt) tolerance to splint wear with pt wearing splints x2 hours with no adverse reactions noted. The physician order report did not include orders for the care of Resident #45's indwelling catheter. The TAR did not reveal indwelling catheter care had been completed. The progress notes, dated 12/2/19 through 1/8/20, did not include any mention of Resident #45's indwelling catheter. A progress note, dated 11/16/19, indicated the resident was re-admitted from the hospital with a Foley urinary catheter. During an interview, on 1/10/20 at 9:27 a.m., Staff Member C, Registered Nurse (RN) stated Physical Therapy puts splints on Resident #45 after range of motion and the resident sometimes refuses to wear them. The Director of Therapy stated, on 1/10/20 at 9:39 a.m., therapy does not apply splints on the resident, they had trained staff to put them (splints) on. On 1/10/20 at 9:41 a.m., Staff Member C stated nursing charts whether the resident has splints on or not and if the resident refuses them. On 1/10/20 at 9:48 a.m., Staff Member D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated she did not put splints on Resident #45 as resident was going from therapy to restorative. The staff member stated she had spoken with the restorative nurse yesterday about the splints. The CNA explained about being transferred from the restorative department to the floor this week and had been training with therapy during the week. The Director of Nursing (DON) stated, on 1/10/20 at 1:15 p.m., the aides are responsible for putting splints on the resident and believed she was in between therapy and restorative. The DON explained when staff set up orders they need to tie the order into the Plan of Care and if they do not tie it up the aides are unable to document on the order. She stated the order for splints was not put in correctly so the aides were unable to document for the application of splints. After a review of the MAR and TAR, she stated if the resident had refused to wear splints her expectation was for staff to document the refusal. A review of Resident #45's progress notes was completed and the DON confirmed staff had not documented splint refusals. The Director of Nursing verified the indwelling urinary catheter was not a part of the resident's care plan. 4. Resident #51 was admitted on [DATE]. The face sheet included diagnoses not limited to other sequelae of cerebral infarction and contracture of left hand. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated resident had no functional limitation of range of motion in lower or upper extremities. The quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident #51 had range of motion limitation on one side of the upper extremities. Resident #51's annual Brief Interview of Mental Status, dated 11/25/19, indicated no score as the resident was rarely/never understood. An observation, on 1/7/20 at 3:42 p.m., revealed Resident #51 was not wearing a hand splint/brace to a left hand contracture. At 1/8/20 on 2:10 p.m., the resident was observed sitting in wheelchair, across from nursing station, wearing white tube socks and no splint to left hand. At 9:22 a.m. on 1/10/20, the resident was observed lying in bed and was not wearing hand splint or bilateral boots. At 11:58 a.m. on 1/10/20, Resident #51 was observed sitting in chair, wearing bilateral boots and removing splint from left hand. Resident #51's care plan indicated a problem of an actual contracture/impaired functional range of motion of left hand related to (r/t) history of Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), started and edited on 9/3/19. The approaches included: apply at (blank) pm/am, remove at (blank) pm/am; started and created on 9/3/19, on (blank) hours/off (blank) hours; started and created 9/3/19, continuous (may remove for bathing or personal care activities); created and started 9/3/19, splint type: (blank), apply to: (blank); created and started 9/3/19. The care plan identified Resident #51 had a self-care deficit as evidenced by weakness, impaired mobility, and incontinence. The approaches included the nurse was to ensure that resident was wearing her boots to prevent foot drop every shift, start date 9/3/19 and edited 1/7/20. The physician order report revealed the following: - start date 6/13/19: Left hand splint to be applied as tolerated for contracture prevention. Check skin for redness and edema every shift; days, evenings, and nights. - start date 12/9/19: nurse to ensure that resident is wearing her boots to prevent foot drop every shift. Every shift; days, evenings, and nights. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated 12/11/19 - 1/10/20, indicated there resident refused the left hand splint on 12/11-12/13, 12/16, 12/18, 12/20-12/22, and 12/25/19 during the day shift. The TAR did not indicate Resident #51 refused the left hand splint on evening or night shift. The TAR indicated the resident did not refuse to wear bilateral boots during day, evening, or night shift. During an interview, on 1/10/20 at 1:35 p.m., the Director of Nursing stated the floor aides are responsible for applying the splints. She verified the approach regarding the left hand contracture did not indicate what and when to apply and when to remove. She stated there should be a progress note that says Resident #51 removes the splint and the care plan should reflect that the resident has a behavior of removing the splint. Based on resident record review, interviews, observation and review of policy and procedure, it was determined that the facility did not ensure development of a comprehensive person centered care plan with individualized approaches for Resident #39's behaviors, did not develop a care plan for Resident #77's pressure ulcers, #45's indwelling catheter, and the implementation of care plan for #51 and #45 related to application of devices out of a total sample of 43 residents. Findings Included: Review of the record for Resident #39 revealed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Unspecified Dementia without behavioral disturbance, Cardiovascular Disease with hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting left dominant side and unsteadiness on feet. A quarterly Minimum Data Set ( MDS) assessment was completed on 11/13/19. The Brief Interview for Mental Status ( BIMS) score on this MDS was 9 , indicative of moderate cognitive impairment. On 1/9/20, the Social Service Director completed a BIMS assessment for Resident # 39 with a score of 7, indicative of severe cognitive impairment. Review of progress notes in Resident # 39's clinical record revealed: 10/30/19 12: 51 Activities note : . He is often found on D wing hanging outside his girlfriend's room and needs continuous redirection for her and her roommate's privacy. (An attempt was made to interview the resident who was reported to be his girlfriend (Resident # 13) on 1/10/20 and she stated she would rather not discuss Resident # 39) 10/31/19 11:36 : IDT reviewed (# 39's) behaviors in risk meeting. (# 39) has one resident in particular room he goes into all time. It is a female resident. At times this female does encourage him to be in there. Staff redirects frequently. ( #39) continuously asks where him and this female resident can get married. (# 39) also will wander in other resident's females, particular females ( sic). Staff removes ( #39) from rooms and reminds him not to be in the female rooms. Staff attempts to keep in common areas. (#39) is inappropriate with female staff members at times. Staff redirect him. Will continue to monitor. 11/23/19 07:40 : Resident sitting in the dining room beside (Resident 16). Resident had his hand between ( Resident # 16's ) legs. Resident was moved from the dining room, Spoke to the resident about his inappropriate behavior and stressed to the resident that his actions are inappropriate and can get him into trouble. Resident states to the nurse that it was not him, ' it was the other man in room .'. Resident informed that there are no male residents in room . and he needs to keep his hands to himself. 11/23/19 13: 44 : In to the resident room to recheck BP, resident lying in the bed with (Resident 16) in the bed with him. The resident had his hands between the resident legs. (Resident 16) was escorted out of the resident room and back to her room. Resident was informed that he needs to keep his hands to himself. Incident was reported to the ADON. 11/23/19 16: 58 : Progress note written by Director of Nursing (DON) : This writer was contacted and made aware that resident was found with a female resident lying next to him in bed., witnessed rubbing the female resident's inner thigh when the nurse entered the room. The resident was immediately put on a one to one until police were able to come and investigate the situation. Police were unable to determine intent for battery. Resident was given a warning from the police and placed on Q 15 minute checks by staff. AHCA immediate reporting completed and abuse registry was contacted. Abuse registry name was . Call to service number for police Will continue to monitor resident for behaviors. There were no progress notes for Resident #39 since 12/4/19. The DON states staff charts by exception. Review of the 11/13/19 MDS quarterly revealed no behaviors for Resident # 39. Review of care plans revealed no care plans related to the resident's behaviors with female residents and staff. On 1/10/20, the facility provided a Care Plan History for Resident # 39. Review of the care plan history revealed a problem area of ADL (Activities of Daily Living) Functional/Rehabilitation Potential, self care deficit as evidenced by: CVA (Cerebro Vascular Accident) sequela- Weakness which was started 10/18/19. The goal was stated as Will have reduced risk regarding complications related to decreased mobility and will be appropriately groomed and dressed Approaches (dated 10/31/19 ) included: ( Resident # 39) goes into female rooms when he is aware he should not be in these female rooms. Staff educates and reminds to stay out of these rooms, (Resident 39) inappropriately speaks to staff members and other female resident. Staff remind/ redirect as needed. Approaches dated 10/18/19 included encourage out of room dining and activities daily, invite encourage, remind and escort to activity programs, observe need for referral/screen and provide as indicated, provide ADL care to ensure daily needs are met.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,592 in fines. Above average for Florida. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (12/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Southern Pines Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Florida, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Southern Pines Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Southern Pines Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER during 2020 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 25 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Southern Pines Nursing Center?

SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by BENJAMIN LANDA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 87 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in NEW PORT RICHEY, Florida.

How Does Southern Pines Nursing Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Southern Pines Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Southern Pines Nursing Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Southern Pines Nursing Center Stick Around?

SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 53%, which is 7 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Southern Pines Nursing Center Ever Fined?

SOUTHERN PINES NURSING CENTER has been fined $15,592 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Florida average of $33,235. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Southern Pines Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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