LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER

7950 LAKE UNDERHILL ROAD, ORLANDO, FL 32822 (407) 658-2046
For profit - Limited Liability company 180 Beds VENTURA SERVICES FLORIDA Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
56/100
#378 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Lotus Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in Orlando has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among similar facilities. Ranked #378 out of 690 in Florida, it is in the bottom half, and at #19 out of 37 in Orange County, there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is improving, having reduced issues from 8 in 2024 to 3 in 2025, but still faces challenges. Staffing is a concern with a 2-star rating and less RN coverage than 78% of Florida facilities, although the staff turnover rate is a good 29%, lower than the state average. Some specific incidents raised by inspectors include a failure to provide appropriate wound care for residents, which led to preventable injuries and skin infections, and a lack of oversight in ensuring that necessary care services were delivered effectively. While the facility excels in quality measures, families should weigh these strengths against the concerning staffing metrics and recent compliance issues.

Trust Score
C
56/100
In Florida
#378/690
Bottom 46%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
8 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Florida's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$18,875 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (29%)

    19 points below Florida average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Florida average (3.2)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $18,875

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: VENTURA SERVICES FLORIDA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 promote dignity during mealtime assistance for 2 of 2 ...

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 promote dignity during mealtime assistance for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for dining support, of a total sample of 14 residents, (#3, and #5). Findings: 1. Review of resident #3's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted from an acute care hospital on 6/14/25. Her diagnoses included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), vascular dementia, and contracture of the right and left hands. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) annual assessment with an Assessment Reference Date of 5/18/25 revealed resident #3's Brief Interview for Mental Status was not obtained as she was rarely or never understood. Instead, a Staff Assessment for Mental Status was conducted, with memory impairment noted for both short- and long-term memory. The MDS assessment indicated resident #3 was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision-making. Review of Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) Tasks documentation revealed resident #3 was totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living (ADLs), including eating. 2. Review of resident #5's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and glaucoma. Review of the CNA's documentation for the eating task revealed resident #5's ability to eat fluctuated between independence and total dependence. Review of resident #5's baseline ADLs care plan, initiated on 6/21/25, did not identify his specific mealtime assistance needs. On 6/25/25 at 1:04 PM, resident #5 was observed in bed with a lunch tray on his bedside table. A couple of minutes later, CNA C walked into resident #5's room and stated she tried feeding the resident twice previously, but both times he refused. CNA C asked resident #5 if he wanted his lunch and he agreed. CNA C began feeding resident #5 while standing at his right side. Three chairs were available in his room. At 1:09 PM, the Central Supply Coordinator walked into resident #5's room and took one of the chairs and placed it near where CNA C was standing. After moving the bed and setting the chair to resident #5's right side, CNA repositioned the resident sitting down next to him. On 6/26/25 at 5:32 PM, the Central Supply Coordinator explained she helped during meals because she was also a CNA. She confirmed she had observed CNA C feeding resident #5 while standing and stated staff should be seated at eye level with residents during feeding for dignity and proper support. On 6/25/25 at 1:43 PM, CNA A shared she had two residents who needed assistance with their meals. She stated the [NAME] Wing was the hardest because sometimes you have a lot of feeders. She said, The nurse already knows if we have a lot of feeders, one assignment has five. On 6/25/25 at 3:08 PM, while CNA B explained the care she provided to resident #3, she referred to the resident as a feeder. The Director of Nursing (DON), present during the interview, corrected CNA B and said it was assisted diners. CNA B reiterated staff referred to resident #3 as a feeder. She explained she said feeder because she had written the word on her notes. The DON confirmed referring to residents as feeders was a dignity concern and staff should refer to them as assisted diners. On 6/26/25 at 11:12 AM, CNA D identified residents in her assignment who required assistance with meals and said, they are my feeders. When asked what she meant by feeders, she explained they were the ones needed to be fed. CNA D shared after she dropped all the trays to the residents who were able to eat by themselves, she indicated she then got the trays for her feeders. On 6/26/25 at 12:07 PM, CNA E explained her assignment had between two and four residents who needed assistance with their meals. She shared there were feeders in the day room too. The DON was present during the interview. On 6/26/25 at 12:55 PM, the DON validated CNA E referred to residents as feeders during the interview. Later at 2:54 PM, the DON indicated she expected CNAs to sit at resident's eye level when ready to assist with his or her meal. The DON indicated the facility did not have a policy, procedure, or formal competency in place regarding CNA mealtime assistance. She shared it should be in the education the CNAs received when they became CNAs. She stated they had 32 residents who were dependent on staff for eating. Review of the facility's Resident Rights policy and procedure dated 3/01/21 read, It is the policy of the facility to provide Resident Rights in accordance to State and Federal regulations. The list of procedures included, The resident has a right to a dignified existence, . A facility must protect and promote the rights of each resident . The facility will promote care for residents in a manner and an environment that maintains or enhances dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality. Examples include: . Respecting resident social status, speaking respectfully, listening, and addressing the resident with a name of their choice. Review of the Facility Assessment Tool updated on 6/02/25 read, Every staff member has knowledge competency in . resident rights . Additional competencies are determined according to the amount of resident interaction required by the job role, job specific knowledge, skills and abilities and those needed for the resident population.
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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 follow its grievance process for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for gri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its grievance process for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for grievances, of a total sample of 14 residents, (#12). Findings: Review of resident #12's medical record revealed she was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (one-sided paralysis) and hemiparesis (one-sided weakness) following a stroke affecting her right dominant side, contracture of the right hand, congestive heart failure, and type 2 diabetes. Review of the Minimum Data Set quarterly assessment, with an Assessment Reference Date of 6/11/25, revealed resident #12 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15 indicating she was cognitively intact. Review of the Grievance Log from March 2025 through 6/26/25 revealed two grievances were submitted by resident #12: The first was a grievance dated 5/08/25 concerning the demeanor of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), including a delay in response to the call light, and failure to identify herself due to absence of a name badge. The Summary of Findings/Conclusion section indicated the CNA was re-educated on call light response, customer service, and was instructed to wear a name badge at all times. Documentation showed the outcome was communicated to the resident on 5/13/25. The second grievance was dated 6/11/25 related to her repeated voiced concerns regarding the CNA's demeanor and response time to the call light. The Summary of Findings/Conclusion section indicated the CNA was removed from resident #12's assignment and corrective action was taken. However, the Grievance Outcome section was left blank. The complainant's satisfaction question was not answered. The form was signed by the Social Services Director and the Administrator (NHA) on 6/13/25. On 6/26/25 at 1:55 PM, the Social Services Assistant confirmed receipt of resident #12's 6/11/25 grievance. When asked if she clarified with the resident what she meant by the CNA's demeanor, she stated she did, and the resident did not like the CNA's tone of voice and raised her voice at her. The Social Services Assistant confirmed the CNA in question was the same referenced in the 5/08/25 grievance. The Social Services Assistant stated she asked the resident if she felt abused or neglected and the resident replied, No. The NHA was present during this interview. On 6/26/25 at 1:59 PM, the NHA stated she was the Abuse Coordinator for the facility. She explained abuse investigations involved interviewing the resident and assessing how they felt, including physical and emotional effects. She noted grievances were discussed during daily meetings. She validated resident #12's grievance form on 6/11/25 lacked documentation of any follow up with the resident. The NHA acknowledged clarification should have been sought to determine where this grievance met criteria for a reportable event, Review of the facility's Grievances policy and procedure dated 3/01/21 read, It is the policy of the facility to have a Grievance Process in accordance to State and Federal regulations. The policy further indicated, Each facility must respond to the grievance within a reasonable time after its submission.
Feb 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

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 oxygen (O2) therapy was administered as per ph...

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 oxygen (O2) therapy was administered as per physician orders for 1 resident reviewed for oxygen, of a total sample of 7 residents, (#5). Findings: Resident #5, a 75- year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included sequelae of cerebral infarction (stroke complications), major depressive disorder, and chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15, which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. The assessment also revealed resident #5 received oxygen. The resident's care plan for oxygen therapy initiated on 3/01/21, indicated interventions which directed staff to, give medications as ordered by the physician, and, oxygen as ordered. Observations on 2/24/25 at 10:17 AM, at 12:31 PM, and at 12:45 PM, showed the resident sitting up in bed awake, alert, and oriented. She had an O2 nasal cannula (NC) connected to an oxygen concentrator set at 4.5 liters per minute (LPM). The resident could not say how many LPM the flow rate for her O2 should be set at. Clinical record review of the resident's physician orders revealed an order dated 10/01/24 for Oxygen 2 LPM via NC as needed for congested heart failure (CHF). On 2/24/25 at 12:33 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A stated O2 therapy should be checked every shift, unless there was a change in the resident's status. The LPN stated that when care was provided care, and medications given, the nurse was supposed to check the resident's O2 therapy, to ensure the O2 was flowing at the ordered rate. LPN A confirmed resident #5 had physician's orders for O2 at 2 LPM as needed. On 2/24/25 at 12:45 PM, observation of the flow rate of the resident's O2 therapy was conducted with LPN A. She acknowledged that the O2 was infusing at 4.5 LPM, and said the rate should be at 2 LPM. On 2/24/25 at 12:48 PM, the [NAME] Wing Unit Manager (UM) stated O2 therapy should be checked by nurses when giving medications, and throughout the day to ensure that O2 was going at the right flow rate. The resident's physician orders were reviewed by the UM, and she confirmed that the O2 order for the resident was for 2 LPM, not 4.5 LPM as observed. On 2/24/25 at 1:39 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated nurses should check that the O2 flow rate was administered as per the physician's order. The DON explained that whenever nurses went into the resident's room, the O2 flow rate should be checked for the resident's safety, and to ensure physician orders were followed, since O2 was considered a medication. The facility's policy Oxygen Administration copyright 2024, read Oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice .oxygen is administered under orders of a physician.
Oct 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 ensure the Level I Preadmission Screening and Record Review (PASARR...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Level I Preadmission Screening and Record Review (PASARR) was correct upon admission, corrected after admission, and/or referred for Level II PASARR if indicated for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for PASARR, of a total sample of 54 residents, (#19, #7 and #30). Findings: 1. Resident #19 was originally admitted to this facility on 9/15/11 with admission diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety disorder, hypertension, and alcoholic cirrhosis of liver. The medical record revealed resident #19's Level I PASARR dated 8/10/09 indicated the resident had no mental illness nor did it include the diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease or dementia. The resident face sheet, revealed additional diagnoses of other seizures dated 4/12/21, major depressive disorder dated 2/21/14, and unspecified psychosis dated 2/21/14 for this resident. No other Level I PASARR was found in the medical record to include these significant diagnoses. On 10/03/24 at 3:13 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the only PASARR in resident #19's medical record was dated 8/10/09 and its information did not accurately reflect the resident's diagnoses at the time of admission, nor had it been updated to reflect the added diagnoses. She stated the process for Level I PASARR is the hospital who sent the resident to the facility completed the PASARR and the facility's admission Department uploaded it into the system and the clinical staff member who completed the admission reviewed the PASARR for completion and accuracy. The DON continued, if during the stay at the facility there was a change, for example a new diagnosis, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Department staff would put any new diagnosis into the charting system and the PASARR should then be reviewed by the DON for any necessary changes. 2. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including displaced fracture of second cervical vertebra, fracture of right pubis, type 2 diabetes, dementia and seizures. Review of the MDS modified admission assessment with assessment reference date (ARD) of 7/17/24 revealed resident #7 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9/15 which indicated she had moderate cognitive impairment. The document indicated her active diagnoses included depression and schizophrenia. Review of resident #21's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of other schizophrenia and major depressive disorder with an onset date of 7/10/24. The record contained a Level I PASARR screening form dated 6/30/24 which did not indicate resident #7 had a mental illness (MI) or suspected MI diagnosis. The record did not contain a Level II PASARR screening form. 3. Resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular disease, other seizures and unspecified dementia. Review of the MDS quarterly assessment with ARD of 9/08/24 revealed resident #30 had a BIMS score of 8/15 which indicated he had moderate cognitive impairment. The document indicated his active diagnoses included anxiety disorder, depression and psychotic disorder. Review of resident #30's EMR revealed a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with an onset date of 12/07/22, generalized anxiety disorder with an onset date of 4/01/23 and psychotic disorder with delusions with an onset date of 6/06/23. The record contained a Level I PASARR screening form dated 10/18/22 which did not indicate resident #30 had a mental illness (MI) or suspected MI diagnosis. The record did not contain a Level II PASARR screening form. On 10/03/24 at 3:12 PM, the DON stated she was responsible for completing PASARRs. She clarified the hospital provided the initial PASARR upon resident admission to the facility. She explained the clinical team then reviewed the PASARR for completion and accuracy. The DON stated the PASARR was reviewed again if there were a change in the resident's status such as a new diagnosis. She reviewed the Level I PASARR and current diagnoses for residents #19, #7 and #30. The DON verified an updated Level I PASARR had not been completed for any of the identified residents nor were they referred for a Level II PASARR screening if indicated. The facility's policy and procedure for PASARR dated March 2021 indicated the facility would refer all residents with a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability or a related condition for Level II resident review.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, and psyc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, schizophrenia, and psychosis. Review of the Quarterly MDS with assessment reference date of 8/22/24, revealed that resident #86 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 11 out of 15, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. He had diagnoses of psychotic disorder and schizophrenia that were being treated with antipsychotics. Review of resident #86's medical record, revealed a Level I PASARR dated 12/02/21 that was missing the diagnosis page and therefore was incomplete. Further review of the care plan for resident #86 showed he had behaviors such as hoarding and was being monitored for antipsychotic therapy. On 10/03/24 at 03:21 PM, the DON verified the Level I PASARR was incomplete in the electronic medical record, and she was unable to find the completed paper copy of the PASARR. She stated she was the person responsible for completing PASARRs and confirmed a new Level I PASARR should have been completed due to the resident's serious mental health conditions. Review of the Policy and Procedure for PASARR issued 3/21 read it was the policy of the facility to assure all residents admitted to the facility received a Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review, in accordance with State and Federal Regulations. The procedure included staff to incorporate the recommendations from the PASARR Level II determination and the PASARR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care. The procedure described staff should refer all Level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorders, intellectual disability, or a related conditions for Level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Level II was completed and failed to provide a complete PASARR Level I for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for PASARR, of a total sample of 54 residents, (#71 and #86). Findings A PASARR is a federally mandated evaluation process per the Nursing Home Reform Act . A Level I Pre-admission Screening is required for all applicants to Medicaid certified nursing facilities, regardless of payor. A Level II Evaluation and Determination must be completed prior to admission if a serious mental illness and /or intellectual disability or related condition is identified through the Level I screening. A Level II evaluation must also be completed when there is a significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition. (Retrieved on 10/07/24, from www.myflfamilies.com). 1. Review of resident #71's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses include paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, dementia, depression, and mood disorder. The resident's Level I PASARR form was dated 9/25/18, with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, and anxiety. Page five of the document indicated the resident could not be admitted to a nursing facility and should have a Level II completed because there was a diagnosis or suspicion of a serious mental illness. There was no Level II PASARR in the record and the facility was unable to provide a copy of the Level II PASARR. On 10/03/24 at 3:14 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the PASARR was completed by the hospital prior to the resident being admitted to the facility. She stated it should be present before the resident was admitted to the facility. The DON stated after admission to the facility she would only review the PASARR if the resident had a diagnosis change. She stated that the Minimum data Set (MDS) nurse input the new diagnosis into the record. She was not able to explain why resident #71 did not have a Level II PASARR. On 10/03/24 at 3:55 PM, the Director of MDS stated that in the morning meeting she discussed any resident who had a new diagnosis. The DON, Social Worker, Unit Managers and MDS staff attended the meeting, so they would all be aware of the new diagnosis. She stated the MDS department also looked at the PASARR when the resident was admitted . She was unable to explain why resident #71 did not have a Level II PASARR.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order to provide treatment to a non-pressure wound and failed to apply non-pressure wound treatments per ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician's order to provide treatment to a non-pressure wound and failed to apply non-pressure wound treatments per professional standards for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for non pressure wounds, of a total sample of 54 residents, (#19). Findings: On 9/30/24 at 1:36 PM, resident #19 was observed being assisted with his lunch. There was an undated bandage on the resident's left arm near his elbow. On 9/30/24 at 2:10 PM, the Memory Lane Unit Manager (UM) verified the resident had an undated bandage and confirmed nurses should always date a wound dressing to allow staff to know when the dressing was applied. Review of the medical record on 9/30/24 revealed no physician orders for a wound treatment to resident #19's left arm. Review of the medical record on 10/01/24, revealed a new physician order was placed at 1:13 PM, for treatment to the skin tear to resident #19's left elbow. The order indicated staff should cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply triple antibiotic ointment and cover with non-adherent dressing every day shift. On 10/01/24 at 3:45 PM, the resident was observed in the day room wheeling his wheelchair to a table to work on a puzzle. On his left arm near the elbow, an undated white bandage was again observed. In interviews on 10/01/24 at 5:01 PM, and on 10/03/24 at 2:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) was informed an undated dressing was observed on resident #19's left arm on 9/30/24 and again on 10/01/24. She acknowledged she was aware the resident's skin tear on his left arm did not have a physician's order for the treatment when it was initially observed and verified with the UM on 9/30/24. She confirmed the physician's order for treatment was not obtained until after it was observed by the surveyor. The DON stated she expected nurses who saw a skin tear or wound on a resident, would assess the wound and notify the physician for any treatment orders. She stated it was her expectation for nurses to follow physician's orders for wound care, and confirmed all dressings were to be dated when they were applied. The facility's Wound Care policy dated 4/20/20 described wound care procedures and treatments should be performed according to physician orders using proper wound care technique. The document detailed that nurses should then document in the clinical record when treatments were performed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 provide wound care to heel pressure ulcers/injuries pe...

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 provide wound care to heel pressure ulcers/injuries per physician order and plan of care for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for pressure ulcers/injuries, of a total sample of 54 residents, (#48). Findings: Review of the medical record indicated resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from acute care hospital with diagnoses including unstageable pressure wounds bilateral heels, dementia, muscle weakness, muscle wasting and atrophy. Unstageable pressure injuries are widely understood to be full-thickness pressure injuries in which the base is obscured by slough and/or eschar. Correct identification of these pressure injuries can be challenging among health care professionals and, although treatments vary .(Retrieved on 10/04/24 from www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The resident's five-day modification minimum data set assessment dated [DATE] indicated resident was moderately cognitively impaired, required partial to moderate assistance from staff with his toileting, bathing, dressing, bed mobility and he was always incontinent of urine and bowel. The resident was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and had a stage three pressure ulcer/injury present on admission as well as 4 unstageable facility acquired pressure wounds/injuries. The assessment indicated the skin and ulcer treatments that applied were pressure reducing device for bed/chair, nutrition or hydration intervention to manage skin problems and pressure ulcer care. A wound care observation was conducted on 10/02/24 at 2:25 PM, with the wound care nurse. The resident was pleasantly confused and lying in bed with his lower extremities elevated on pillows with his heels off the bed. The nurse explained to resident what he was doing regarding changing the dressings on his heel wounds. The nurse removed the soiled dressings from both heels and exposed wounds which were as per the wound physician documentation dated 10/01/24. The right heel measured 0.7 centimeters (cm) by 1.3 cm by unknown depth, wound appearance with 60% granulation (pink/red tissue), 40% slough (yellow dead tissue), and moderate amount of serous (clear, watery) drainage. The left heel measured 1.3 cm by 1 cm by unknown depth and had 50% granulation 30% slough, 20% connective tissue and moderate amount of serous drainage. The wound nurse performed hand hygiene and proceeded to clean the left heel wound with dermal wound cleanser, applied skin prep peri-wound, then a pea sized amount of Santyl (debriding wound ointment) to the wound bed and covered with border dressing. He performed hand hygiene, then proceeded to do the same procedure to the right heel. Review of the physician orders dated 8/27/24 for the right heel wound and 9/25/24 for the left heel wound read, Cleanse with NS [normal saline], pat dry, skin prep peri wound, apply Santyl-moist gauze to wound bed and cover with gauze and Abd [abdominal pad], wrap with Kerlix and secure with tape every day shift for wound and as needed for soiled/dislodges. The medical record contained a care plan for pressure injury wounds to bilateral heels dated 8/21/24 and listed an intervention for wound care as ordered. On 10/2/24 at 4:18 PM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and wound care nurse. The wound care nurse acknowledged he cleaned the heel wounds with dermal wound cleanser instead of normal saline and failed to apply Santyl moist gauze to wound bed or cover with gauze, Abd pad, and wrap with Kerlix as ordered by the physician. The wound nurse confirmed he did not check the physician orders prior to doing the resident's wound care and the DON said, the nurse must follow the orders when providing wound care. The DON verified it was best practice for nurses to bring a copy of the physician order for wound care into the room when performing wound care to ensure it was done as per the physician orders. Review of the facility policy and procedures for Wound Care issued 4/20 read, Wound care procedures and treatments should be performed according to physician orders .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #152 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included pulmonary fibrosis, COPD, asthma, respiratory fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #152 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included pulmonary fibrosis, COPD, asthma, respiratory failure with hypoxia, dependence on supplemental oxygen, type 2 diabetes mellitus and glaucoma. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment with reference date 8/20/24, revealed resident #152 was cognitively intact, had no behaviors, nor refused care, and required the use of O2. The assessment indicated resident #152 required supervision with activities of daily living and used a wheelchair for mobility. Review of resident #152's physician orders for continuous O2 was 2 LPM via nasal cannula. Resident #152 had a baseline care plan for required use of O2 therapy and an ineffective breathing pattern care plan related to COPD, shortness of breath and wheezing. Interventions included Licensed Nurse to administer O2 as ordered. On 9/30/24 at 11:57 AM, resident #152 was observed in bed, alert and oriented. He wore a nasal cannula connected to an oxygen concentrator. Observation of the oxygen concentrator showed it was set at 5 liters of oxygen per minute. Resident #152 stated he did not know how many liters of oxygen he needed nor the number the concentrator was set at. Resident #152 stated the machine did not work all the time and he thought it was set at 3 LPM. He explained he did not change the setting on the concentrator himself. On 9/30/24 at 1:41 PM, assigned Registered Nurse (RN) A, stated she verified the physician orders at the beginning of her shift but did not remember the amount of oxygen resident #152 received. RN A was accompanied to resident #152's room where she confirmed the flow rate on the oxygen concentrator was currently set at 5 LPM. A few minutes later, RN A was asked to verify the physician orders in the electronic record. She stated the physician's order was for 2 LPM of continuous O2. RN A confirmed resident #152 was not on the physician ordered flow rate of O2 and proceeded to resident #152's room to correct it. Upon exit of resident #152's room to the nurse's station, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B, the UM for Sunflower, was informed of the situation and stated physician orders were verified per shift by the nurses to ensure residents received the correct amount of oxygen. On 10/01/24 at 5:06 PM, the DON stated for residents on oxygen, it was the responsibility of nurses to verify the orders and adjust the oxygen flow rates according to the physician orders at least once per shift. She confirmed resident #152's nurses should have validated the amount of O2 given per the physician order. She stated resident #152 monitored his O2 status and would have changed the flow rate, however, it was the responsibility of the nurses to have reeducated the resident and checked the concentrator more often than once per shift. On 10/02/24 at 9:40 AM, resident #152 was observed with O2 at 2 LPM with a nebulizer treatment running and stated he needed more air. LPN C assigned to resident #152, was made aware of the resident's statement of not getting enough air. The O2 tubing was connected to a new oxygen concentrator. On 10/02/24 at 12:14 PM, assigned LPN C stated she was aware the resident did not receive oxygen as prescribed on 9/30/24 and explained she always checked the concentrator and verified the flow rate with the physician order. She confirmed the resident felt as though he was not getting enough oxygen and spoke with the Nurse Practitioner about the resident's condition who said there was no need to increase the flow rate because resident #152's oxygen saturation was within normal limits. Review of the Oxygen Administration Policy not dated revealed oxygen was administered to residents who need it consistent with professional standards of practice, the resident's care plan and the resident's choice. It also stated as part of the compliance guidelines that oxygen was administered under orders of a physician except in emergencies and once the situation was under control, orders for oxygen were obtained as soon as practicable. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to administer oxygen (O2) therapy as ordered by the physician for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for respiratory care, of a total sample of 54 residents, (#36, #152). Findings: 1. Resident #36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital. His diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, acute and chronic respiratory failure, pneumonia, heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the medical record for resident #36 revealed (AHCA) Agency for Health Care Administration Form 5000-3008 form dated 9/06/24 with Treatment Devices for O2 2 L [liters] NC [nasal cannula] and a physician order dated 9/07/24 that read, Respiratory: Oxygen 2 L via NC continuous. On 10/01/24 at 9:55 AM, and later at 2:10 PM, resident #36 was observed lying in bed wearing a NC attached to the O2 concentrator set at 3.5 liters per minute (LPM). Review of resident #36's care plan initiated on 9/24/24 for altered respiratory status and difficulty breathing related to shortness of breath, obesity, congestive heart failure, sleep apnea, COPD, history of respiratory failure and pneumonia had goals that he would have no signs or symptoms of poor oxygen absorption, maintain normal breathing pattern and no complications related to shortness of breath. The interventions included to administer medications as ordered. Oxygen is a medication that requires a prescription from a healthcare provider. You should only use oxygen therapy as a medical treatment. If you take in more oxygen than your body needs, it can slow your breathing and heart rate to dangerous levels. Too much oxygen can lead to oxygen toxicity or oxygen poisoning .(Retrieved on 10/04/24 from https://my.clevelandclinic.org). On 10/01/24 at 2:12 PM, resident #36's nurse was at lunch and the [NAME] Unit Manager (UM) checked the medical record for the resident and confirmed he was supposed to get O2 at 2 LPM continuously. The unit manager then went into the resident's room and verified the oxygen concentrator was currently set at 3.5 LPM via NC. The UM then adjusted the O2 concentrator setting to 2 LPM. The UM verbalized the assigned nurse should check the settings every time they went into the resident's room to ensure they were getting the oxygen as ordered. On 10/01/24 at 5:03 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurses were supposed to check the residents' oxygen settings at least once per shift and it was best practice to check it every time they went into the room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow Contact Precautions for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Transmission Based precautions, (#17), and failed to ensure use ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow Contact Precautions for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for Transmission Based precautions, (#17), and failed to ensure use of a clean nasal canula for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for oxygen use, (#117), of a total sample of 54 residents. Findings: 1. On 10/01/24 at 2:10 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) I was observed entering resident #17's room without performing hand hygiene and without the required personal protective equipment (PPE) . CNA I was then observed as he placed a food item on this resident's tray and left the room, going straight back to food cart to continue passing meals, again without performing hand hygiene. A sign on resident #17's door indicated the resident was on Contact Isolation and anyone entering the room should wear a gown and gloves and should perform hand hygiene. A few minutes later in the hallway CNA I stated he donned a gown and gloves earlier when he entered the room but acknowledged during three separate other trips into resident #17's room he had not worn the required PPE. CNA I explained he didn't have time to don gown and gloves for each visit and was unaware of why the resident was on Contact Precautions. He stated he got report when he started his shift but was not told about why the resident was on isolation. He stated he understood the importance of wearing the appropriate PPE with residents on Contact Isolation to prevent the spread of infection to other residents. On 10/01/24 at 5:17 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she expected staff to follow the Contact Precaution instructions listed on the residents' door. She added the CNA's were supposed to get report from the prior shift's CNA and the shift nurse regarding the needs of the residents for which they are caring for. She confirmed the CNAs had received education regarding infection control requirements and the wearing of PPE. 2. On 9/30/24 at 2:30 PM, resident #117's oxygen tubing and nasal canula were observed on the ground in his room with the Memory Lane Unit Manager (UM). The UM asked the resident why his oxygen tubing was on the ground, and the resident replied staff had left it there. The UM then asked the resident if he needed the oxygen on right now and he stated, No Ma'am, so the UM turned off the oxygen concentrator and left the dirty nasal canula and tubing on top of the oxygen concentrator machine, and left the room. On 10/01/24 at 5:17 PM, the DON confirmed oxygen tubing that had been on the floor should be promptly disposed of. She explained she expected staff who observed a nasal canula on the floor to throw it away so it would not be picked up and placed on the resident. The policy entitled, Transmission-Based (Isolation) precautions dated 2024 by The Compliance Store, LLC, revealed a facility who implemented the policy would provide signage with instructions and personal protective equipment (PPE) near the entrance of the resident's room.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee developed and implemented timely and appropriate plans of action...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee developed and implemented timely and appropriate plans of action to prevent repeat deficient practices related to pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) and Quality of Care. Findings: Review of the facility's survey history revealed repeated concerns for accuracy of Level I PASARRs, referral for Level II PASARRs, obtaining of non-pressure wound care orders and application of dressings per professional practice during the last annual recertification survey from March 2023 and again during the current recertification survey. On 10/02/24 at 4:00 PM, the Administrator stated he had been working at the facility since April 2024 and was unaware of the previous recertification survey deficiencies due to the change of ownership. He confirmed the facility did not currently have any Performance Improvement Plans at that time for the areas of concerns regarding PASARRs and Quality of Care. The Administrator conveyed the QAPI process should address and or prevent the facility from having repeated deficiency concerns by instituting a plan of correction and ensuring it was followed consistently throughout the year. On 10/03/24 at 3:50 PM, a white notebook accessible to all visitors was located in the main lobby of the facility. Inside the notebook were the nursing home guide and the 2567 Statement of Deficiencies with the plan of corrections from the March 2023 recertification survey. Review of the facility Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan date 6/10/21 read, The QA committee shall be interdisciplinary and shall develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies .and act on available data to make improvement .monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of corrective action/performance improvement activities and revising as needed.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and treatment was provided according to professional st...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and treatment was provided according to professional standards of practice to meet the resident's need, and prevent the potential decline in the residents' physical, mental, and/or psychosocial well-being for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for change in condition of a total sample of 10 residents, (#1). Findings: Resident #1, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and resided on the Memory Care Unit. Her diagnoses included dementia with agitation, diabetes type II, cerebral infarction, mood affective disorder, major depressive disorder, and chronic kidney disease stage 2. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with Assessment Reference Date of 11/09/23 revealed the resident's cognition was severely impaired, with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 02 out of 15. The assessment revealed the resident required substantial to maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, required partial to moderate assistance with personal hygiene, and set up assistance for eating. Review of the physician's orders for resident #1 revealed an order dated 12/24/23 at 12:10 PM for Dextrose intravenous fluid 5% at 80 milliliters per hour for abnormal labs x 3 liters. A physician's order dated 12/24/23 at 12:31 PM read IV (Intravenous) services to start peripheral line. A nursing progress note documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A dated 12/24/23 at 11:43 AM read, Rt (resident) lethargic refusing to eat or drink, Dr. (name) is made aware new orders received. Daughter (name) called and made aware consent given to start IV. 3 PM Dr (name) on call; made aware of abnormal lab results and previous IV order . no new orders at this time, will call back if needed. Awaiting IV services to start line. A nursing progress note on 12/24/23 at 7:52 PM read, Resident continually refused juice, milk and water that was offered throughout shift . attempted to insert a peripheral IV, pt (patient) tried to hit staff. Oncoming shift nurse notified during report. An Administration Note dated 12/25/23 at 7:36 AM, read, Dextrose 5% medication was not given because IV line has not been initiated, awaiting for nurse to come. Report given to the incoming nurse to watch out for the nurse. On 1/10/24 at 2:01 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) B confirmed she was assigned to resident #1 on 12/25/23 on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift. She recalled the resident was confused, in pain, agitated, and was moving from side to side in the bed. LPN B said this behavior was a change from the last time she worked with the resident. She recalled the resident had an order for an intravenous line, and they were about to start antibiotic therapy, because her labs were abnormal. LPN B stated the resident's family visited and requested the resident be transferred to the hospital, as they did not want to wait for the treatment to start. LPN B acknowledged the resident was having pain but said she did not recall if any pain medication was given to the resident prior to her transfer to the hospital. On 1/10/24 at 2:14 PM, LPN A recalled the resident's condition started possibly on 12/24/23. She verbalized the resident was not drinking or eating and was lethargic and she notified the physician. She explained stat labs were done, and IV fluids were ordered. LPN A stated she spoke with the resident's daughter and received consent to start the IV line. LPN A said IV services had not come to the facility to insert the IV line, and IV fluids ordered by the physician was not started before her shift was completed at 3 PM. She indicated she gave report to the oncoming nurse and she did not work the next day, on 12/25/23. She reported she was unsure when the IV services responded. LPN A explained the process for IV services, included physician orders, obtaining consent for the insertion, calling the IV Services to place the order, and placing original order in the IV services binder kept at the nurse's station. On 1/10/24 at 2:44 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed the process for IV services explained by LPN A. The DON stated that before the IV Services came out, nurses were told to at least attempt to insert a peripheral line. The DON noted that if the first two attempts to insert the IV line were unsuccessful, then they should call IV services. The DON stated that a Registered Nurse (RN) attempted once and was unsuccessful. She verbalized she was unsure of the time IV services was called, but as per the nurse, it was immediately after she could not get the IV line inserted. The DON stated resident #1 started to refuse fluids and food on 12/23/24. On 12/24/23, the physician was notified again as the resident continued to refuse fluids and food. She explained physician orders were obtained for labs, and to start IV fluids. She stated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and was already in acute renal failure, and her labs were worsening. She explained that when the lab results were reviewed, the physician changed the IV fluids, and also ordered an antibiotic for possible sepsis. The DON recalled that on 12/25/23 she was informed the resident's daughter was upset and she spoke with the daughter. She indicated the daughter wanted the resident transferred to the hospital, as the resident was in pain. The DON stated the resident was hitting her head against the side rail, smacking her forehead with her hands, and looked uncomfortable. She said the resident was sent to the hospital via 911. The DON recalled she was told IV services came and could not get the IV line started and they had to send another nurse. She said If she had been made aware of this, she would have directed staff to send the resident to the hospital. She said she did not expect to get a call regarding a new order for IV fluids but expected to be informed of the unsuccessful attempt to insert the IV line and the delay of IV services. She stated she was not aware of the situation, until she was told the resident's daughter wanted to talk with her. The DON verbalized that record review revealed the IV line was inserted on 12/25/23 at 12:18 PM, approximately 24 hours after the order was obtained. She stated her expectation was that nurses would have treated the order with urgency and expected a quick response time from the IV services. She verbalized that a resident could decompensate quickly, and nurses needed to notify the physician of any change in condition. The DON confirmed that there was no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate the physician was made aware of the delay by IV services, and delay in implementing orders for IV fluids. On 1/11/24 at 12:01 PM, the Medical Director stated resident #1 was admitted to the Memory Care Unit with history of dementia. He recalled during the Christmas weekend, the facility placed a call to the on-call service, and reported the resident was not eating or drinking but was taking her medications. He stated that based on the on-call report, labs, and reports showed worsening chronic kidney disease. He recalled an IV midline placement was ordered on 12/24/23 but when he rounded in the facility on 12/25/23, the resident did not have an IV midline, and had not received IV fluids. He said he was informed there was an issue with the IV team coming to the facility on [DATE]. He verbalized the resident's behavior was out of her baseline, but her heart rate was stable. He recalled he was very concerned because of her altered mental status, and abnormal labs. The Medical Director explained his expectation was that orders would be carried out, and for nurses to notify the physician of the IV services delay, so the provider could triage appropriately. He said resident #1's vital signs were stable, her labs were severe, and his decision would have been to send the resident to the hospital. He stated it is a disservice if interventions were not implemented. He said the goal was to take care of what can be taken care of in a safe manner in their setting and educating nursing staff that as a clinician he can feel comfortable in adhering to that goal. He explained his expectation was that within 4 hours, the IV team would respond to the order/request. If an order for IV fluids was given, he would want that order carried out within 4 to 12 hours, not 24 hours. Review of the hospital records dated 12/25/23 revealed the Emergency Department (ED) diagnosis for resident #1 was urinary tract infection, dehydration, acute kidney injury, and hypernatremia. Review of the Patient Care Timeline revealed the resident arrived in the ED on 12/25/23 at 4:40 PM, via Emergency Medical Services with a complaint of altered mental status. Assessment revealed the resident was confused, crying, oriented to person, and restless. Pain assessment using the Wong-Baker FACES pain rating revealed the resident Hurts whole lot, and the pain was described as acute, and location was the head. The Emergency Department Physician Note with date of service of 12/25/23 at 5:16 PM revealed the resident's chief complaint was altered mental status. Physical exam showed hematoma to her forehead, and the resident was disoriented, confused, and uncooperative. Documentation revealed the resident appeared thin with dry mucous membranes and altered mental status .noted to have a hematoma to her forehead .CT head obtained showing no acute process. Labs obtained showing hypernatremia, hyperglycemia, elevated creatinine, leukocytosis and elevated troponin. The patient was given fluid .Urinalysis obtained showing pyuria .she was started on Cefepime and Vancomycin and given additional fluid . Patient will be admitted to PCU (Progressive Care Unit) .Diagnosis urinary tract infection, dehydration, acute kidney injury, hypernatremia, atrial fibrillation. Hypernatremia is the medical term to describe too much sodium in your blood (Retrieved on 1/17/24 from webmd.com) Hyperglycemia is when there's too much glucose (sugar) in your bloodstream. (Retrieved on 1/17/24 from webmd.com) Leukocytosis refers to an increase in the total number of white blood cells .can be caused by infection, inflammation .or other miscellaneous causes. (Retrieved on 1/17/24 from emedicine.medscape.com) Pyuria is the presence of an excess of white blood cells in your urine. (Retrieved on 1/17/24 from webmd.com) Cefepime and Vancomycin are antibiotics The Hospital History and Physical documentation read, In the ER, patient was noted to be severely dehydrated .also noted to have UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) admitted for further management Patient blood sugar continued to trend up .Patient noted to be in DKA .consulted ICU for upgrade. Diabetic Ketoacidosis (DKA) is a serious complication of diabetes that can be life-threatening. (Retrieved on 1/17/24 from www.cdc.gov) Additional hospital record review revealed the resident was admitted to ICU on 12/26/23 at 3:55 AM. The facility's policy Notification of Change in Condition with effective date of 11/30/2014, and revision date of 12/16/2020 directs staff to promptly notify the attending physician when there is a change in the resident's status or condition. The document read, The nurse to notify the attending physician .when there is a(n) . significant change in the patient/resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status. Need to alter treatment significantly .Discontinuation of a current treatment due to but not limited to: . acute condition.
Mar 2023 19 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's nursing staff failed to adhere to standards of professional p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's nursing staff failed to adhere to standards of professional practice to promote skin integrity, obtain and implement appropriate wound care orders, and apply treatments and dressings as ordered for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for non-pressure skin conditions, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#61 & #30). The facility's failure to implement adequate preventative interventions and follow policies and procedures for skin and wound care resulted in actual harm for resident #61, preventable injuries during activities of daily living (ADLs) care and development of a skin infection. Findings: 1. Review of resident #61's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease, heart disease, hypertension, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date (ARD) of 1/23/23 revealed resident #61 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. The document noted she had no mood or behavioral issues and did not reject care that was necessary to achieve the resident's goals for health and well-being. Resident #61 required limited assistance for bed mobility, and extensive assistance for transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment showed the resident had no impairments in functional range of motion of her extremities. On 2/27/23 at 10:30 AM, a large purple-brown discoloration was noted on resident #61's right arm. The area extended from above the elbow, around the joint, and faded towards her forearm. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA stated she last worked with resident #61 three days ago, on Friday 2/24/23, and there might have been a small bruise on her right arm, but definitely not as large as it was today. CNA AA lifted the resident's sheet to expose the left elbow which had a large dark purple bruise around the elbow, which extended from her upper arm to her forearm. Beneath the left elbow there was a large, dark red, pendulous area which had the appearance of a blood blister. A dressing dated 2/26/23 on the resident's forearm indicated the probable presence of a wound. CNA AA said, The left arm bruise was not there on Friday. It must have happened over the weekend. I already told the nurse this morning. The resident grimaced and guarded her left arm as CNA AA repositioned and supported the extremity on a rolled towel. The resident stated she had requested pain medication since the incident. Resident #61 said, The CNAs are very rough when they do things with me. She explained the injury and bruising occurred when a CNA took her clothes off. Review of the medical record revealed resident #61 had a care plan for ADL self-care performance deficit initiated on 7/02/19. The interventions directed nursing staff to conduct weekly skin inspections and observe for redness, cuts, and bruises. A care plan for actual skin impairment related to fragile skin, initiated on 7/02/19, had interventions that included avoid scratching, keep skin clean and dry, and use caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking the resident's extremities. Resident #61 had a physician order dated 1/16/23 to check for bleeding and bruising every shift related to use of blood thinner medication, Clopidogrel 75 milligrams once daily. An order dated 2/15/23 directed staff to apply and moisturizing ointment to the resident's extremities for dry skin. A physician order dated 2/17/23 indicated weekly skin evaluations were scheduled on Tuesdays for the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift. Review of resident #61's medical record revealed no Change in Condition forms regarding a recent wound or other skin injury. A Change in Condition form dated 2/15/23 indicated the physician was notified of the resident's decreased appetite and signs of depression. The document revealed the nurse completed a skin evaluation and noted no issues on that date. A Weekly Skin Integrity Review dated 2/21/23 showed resident #61's skin was intact, with no bruises, discolorations, or skin tears noted. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for February 2023 revealed nurses' initials to verify they monitored resident #61 for signs and symptoms of bleeding and bruising every shift from Friday 2/24/23 to Monday 2/27/23. However, review of nursing progress notes revealed no documentation to indicate if, when or how the resident suffered the bruises and skin tear. The TAR did not reflect any treatment order for the dressing dated 2/26/23 that was observed on resident #61's left arm. On 2/27/23 at 3:21 PM, during a meeting with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, they were informed resident #61 reported rough treatment by a CNA and showed evidence of significant bruising on both arms, neither of which was documented anywhere in the medical record. The DON stated her expectation was staff would report skin injuries immediately, and the Administrator stated nurses should have completed an incident report. On 2/27/23 at 3:52 PM, the Interim DON stated she assessed resident #61's left arm and confirmed the resident had a skin tear and a puffy area below her elbow where a large amount of blood seemed to have pooled. She acknowledged there was also a discolored area to the resident's right arm around the elbow. The Interim DON validated a nurse applied a dressing to the skin tear without making physician notification or obtaining an order. Review of the medical record revealed the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) completed a Change in Condition form effective 2/27/23 at 5:12 PM. The document indicated resident #61 had a skin tear left elbow and discoloration to bilateral elbows.Resident states CNA from 3-11 shift was rough while removing her shirt causing a skin tear. The physician was notified on 2/27/23 at 4:55 PM and gave an order to apply triple antibiotic ointment, wrap with gauze and apply geri-sleeves. The resident's son was notified a few minutes later at 5:10 PM. On 2/28/23 at 9:44 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) R stated she was resident #61's regularly assigned day shift nurse on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. She stated she was sure the resident did not have any bruises or discolorations on her arms on the past Thursday, 2/23/23. RN R stated when she checked the electronic medical record this morning she discovered resident #61 had suffered a skin tear at some point over the weekend and had a new treatment order. RN R confirmed resident #61's skin had always been very fragile but she never had an order for a geri-sleeve, a protective stocking sleeve, for her arms. She confirmed once made aware of bruises and skin tears, any nurse assigned to resident #61 should have completed change in condition and incident report forms, informed the physician and family, and done a thorough skin assessment. RN R explained the resident received a daily blood thinner and was at high risk for bleeding and bruising. She confirmed resident #61's left arm showed signs of significant bleeding under the skin. RN R measured the discolored area on the resident's right arm as approximately 15 centimeters (cm) x 17 cm. She stated the bruised area on the left arm was even larger. On 3/01/23 at 5:22 PM, a meeting was held with the Administrator, the RDCS, and the DON. The DON stated she interviewed resident #61 and determined she was alert and oriented and displayed good recall ability. She stated the resident reported an evening shift CNA on the past weekend injured her arm when she removed her shirt which was tight. The DON and RDCS acknowledged it was the CNA's responsibility to recognize the resident's shirt was tight, and remove it with the appropriate level of care and caution to avoid skin injuries. The RDCS verified the assigned nurse should have notified the physician to obtain an immediate treatment order, informed the family, and then contacted the DON regarding the incident. She stated nursing staff assigned to the resident over the weekend and on Monday morning should all have reported the issue to ensure the resident received appropriate care. The RDCS stated resident #61's day shift nurse on Monday received information on the skin tear in change of shift report and applied a treatment although there was no treatment order on the TAR. The RDCS explained the day shift nurse simply followed the treatment applied by a previous nurse without clarifying the absence of a physician order. The RDCS said, We are not calling this a bruise. The resident said the issue with her elbows comes and goes. As far as I see, it does not seem those are bruises. Her skin is thin and there's like a pocket. We are calling them discolorations. She already has something going on and she had orders for an ointment for her skin. We are waiting for [name of the Medical Director] or the Nurse Practitioner to see resident and she needs a dermatologist to diagnose her condition. The RDCS validated there was no nursing documentation in the medical record of bruises on the resident's elbow during the past four weeks. She confirmed she had not yet done additional research to see if resident #61 had a known dermatological condition that was never diagnosed or treated during her time in the facility. Review of a Progress Note dated 2/08/23 revealed resident #61 was assessed by an Advanced Practice Nurse practitioner (APRN) during a long-term care follow up visit. The note indicated nursing staff did not report any acute changes, and the resident was alert and oriented to person, place, and time, and had no complaints. The APRN's Physical Examination read, The elbows/forearms are normal in appearance, mobility, and are nontender. An integumentary or skin examination revealed the resident's skin was pale, but the texture was normal and there were no rashes, eruptions, or skin ulcers observed. On 3/02/23 at 10:41 AM, resident #61's attending physician, the facility's Medical Director, assessed her left arm. He removed the geri sleeve which had been applied only after the facility was informed of the resident's skin injuries. The geri-sleeve was soiled with a moderate amount of drainage from the wound. The Interim DON validated the dressing on resident #61's left arm was dated 2/28 which indicated daily wound care was not performed and a clean treatment not applied on 3/01/23 as ordered by the physician. The Medical Director used normal saline solution to loosen the dressing which was stuck to the wound to reveal the treatment in place was a petrolatum dressing and not the triple antibiotic ointment with gauze that was ordered. After removal of the dressing, resident #61's skin tear actively bled and the Medical Director had to hold pressure on the area with a gauze pad until the bleeding was controlled. The Interim DON confirmed it was not acceptable for a nurse to substitute a dressing without a physician's order. The Medical Director stated the skin tear measured 4 cm x 2 cm and nurses should have called him and/or the Wound Care specialist physician in a timely manner to report the injury and obtain treatment orders. He explained the resident's skin was fragile and thin, and could be bruised or torn during regular ADL care. The Medical Director acknowledged preventative skin protection measures such as geri-sleeves and staff taking precautions during care were important. He said, This is an opportunity for CNA education. When informed the RDCS suggested a dermatological consult was necessary for a possible untreated skin condition, the Medical Director disagreed. He stated he was very familiar with resident #61 and explained she sometimes developed clear, fluid-filled blisters on her bilateral arms as a result of low albumin levels, despite supplementation. The Medical Director informed the Interim DON he recommended a collagen or hydrogel type dressing to promote healing, and consultation with the Wound Care specialist physician for evaluation and treatment. He assessed the skin surrounding the wound and resident #61's left elbow and said, She has developed a cellulitis. The Medical Director explained he would also order an oral antibiotic to treat the resident's skin infection. Cellulitis is a bacterial skin infection that causes redness, swelling, and pain in the infected area. If untreated, cellulitis can spread and cause serious health problems. Good wound care and hygiene are important for preventing cellulitis (retrieved on 3/14/23 from www.cdc.gov). 2. Review of the medical record revealed resident #30 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, obesity, and insomnia. Review of the Annual MDS assessment with ARD of 1/28/23 revealed resident #30 had a BIMS score of 15 which indicated he was cognitively intact. He required extensive assistance for ADLs including bed mobility. transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment showed the resident had no skin issues. Resident #30 had a care plan for ADL self-care performance deficit initiated on 8/15/22. The interventions included weekly skin inspections to observe for issues such as redness and open areas, and report changes as indicated. A care plan for potential for skin impairment related to fragile skin, incontinence, and decreased mobility was initiated on 8/15/22. The interventions directed nursing staff to keep the resident's skin clean and dry, apply lotion on dry skin, and use caution during transfers and bed mobility. On 2/27/23 at 2:43 PM, resident #30 stated he had an unknown type of wound on his bottom, possibly even an infection. CNA AA stated the resident still had a dressing on his sacrum, but the area was now completely healed and the dressing was in place for protection of the skin. Resident #30's Weekly Skin Integrity Review forms revealed on 2/15/23 his skin was intact. A skin evaluation dated 2/20/23 indicated the resident had a pressure ulcer to his left buttock with an intact, clean, dry dressing. The document read, no other open areas, bruising, or redness noted. On 2/28/23 at 9:34 AM, CNA AA prepared to provide ADL care for resident #30. She stated she usually informed nurses when she was ready to start morning care as it was a convenient time for her to assist nurses to turn and reposition the resident for wound care and application of the dressing to his sacrum. CNA AA recalled yesterday, Monday 2/27/23, when she asked the day shift nurse if she was ready to do the dressing change, the nurse informed her there was no order for a dressing in the electronic medical record. With resident #30's permission, CNA AA repositioned him to his right side to expose a bordered dressing on his sacrum which was soiled with feces and slightly lifted around the right side edges. The dressing was dated Sunday 2/26/23 on the 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift. Resident #30's sacrum was slightly pink and no open areas were noted. Review of the TAR for February and March 2023 revealed resident #30 had an active physician treatment order initiated on 2/08/23. The order read, Clean Left buttock area with normal saline, apply skin prep to peri wound. Apply Calcium Alginate to wound bed. Cover with Foam dressing. Secure with tape, every day shift for open blister. Review of the TARs revealed nurses' initials to verify the daily treatment was done as ordered except on 3/01/23. On 3/02/23 at 12:33 PM, the Interim DON was informed resident #30 had a two-day-old dressing in place on his sacrum that did not reflect the physician order, and there was no blister as noted on the TAR. She validated nurses were expected to follow physician orders, and if there was a discrepancy, they should seek clarification from the provider. On 3/03/23 at 12:22 PM, the Interim DON stated she assessed resident #30 with the [NAME] Wing Unit Manager and they found his skin was intact and he no longer had a dressing to his sacrum. She explained the facility had a Wound Care specialist and a nurse who rounded with him, and nurses should have alerted either provider or any member of nursing management that the area was healed. The Interim DON could not explain why nurses continued to apply a dressing without appropriate orders or documentation. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Dressing Change revised on 12/06/17 revealed clean dressings would be applied to wounds to promote healing. The procedure directed nurses to apply treatments as ordered and then document in the medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 determine if self-administration of medication was cli...

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 determine if self-administration of medication was clinically appropriate and safe for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for choices and resident rights, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#132). Findings: Review of resident #132's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Anemia, Anxiety, and Mood Disorder. Review of the physician orders revealed resident #132 received two inhalation medications: Breo Ellipta Inhalation Aerosol Powder Breath Activated 200-225 micrograms per inhalation (mcg/INH), one puff every day, and Albuterol Sulfate HFA Aerosol Solution 108 (90 Base) mcg per actuation, two puffs every four hours as needed. On 2/27/23 at 9:36 AM, resident #132 was in bed with cough drops, one Breo Ellipta inhaler, and one Albuterol Sulfate inhaler to the left of her pillow. When asked about the inhalers, the resident explained she had COPD and administered the inhaled medications herself. The assigned nurse, nurse GG, was asked to come to the resident's room and when she arrived at 10:10 AM, she observed the resident's inhalers on the bed and stated resident #132 did not self-administer medications. Approximately one to two minutes later, the Assistant Director of Nursing (DON) entered the room and nurse GG explained the situation. Both staff attempted to convince resident #132 to relinquish the inhalers, but the resident adamantly refused to hand them over. Resident #132 slid the inhalers underneath her pillow as she said, Don't take my inhalers. I need them. The ADON stated she would inform the DON, and nurse GG said she would check the physician orders. Medical record review revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13/15 which indicated her cognition was intact. However, the medical record did not contain any evidence that resident #132 had been assessed by facility staff to verify she could self-administer medication safely. On 3/03/23 at 10:07 AM, the ADON stated although resident #132 initially refused to hand over the inhalers, the DON was able to retrieve the medications from her later that afternoon. The ADON added she reviewed resident #132's medical record and did not see a physician's order for the resident to self-administer medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

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 the right to refuse treatment related to a Do Not Resuscitate...

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 the right to refuse treatment related to a Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNRO), for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for advance directives, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#44). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] after a hospital stay. His diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, seizures, hypertension, Alzheimer's disease, and protein-calorie malnutrition. The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 5000-3008 Medical Certification for Medicaid Long-Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form dated [DATE] revealed resident #44's primary diagnosis in the hospital was septic shock. Septic shock is the final and most severe stage of sepsis, which is the body's extreme reaction to an infection. The inflammation throughout the body can cause dangerously low blood pressure and is life-threatening (retrieved on [DATE] from www.my.clevelandclinic.org). The transfer form indicated resident #44 was not alert and required a surrogate to make healthcare decisions. The Advance Care Planning section of the document read, DO NOT Resuscitate (DNR). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Significant Change in Status assessment with assessment reference date of [DATE] revealed resident #44 had short-term and long-term memory problems, and severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The resident required extensive assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene, and was totally dependent on staff for dressing, eating, and toilet use. The MDS assessment showed resident #44 had functional limitations in range of motion in one arm and both legs and required a wheelchair for mobility. He experienced shortness of breath with exertion and when lying flat. The document indicated resident #44 relied on a feeding tube inserted directly into his stomach for nutrition, and he had four unhealed pressure injuries of different stages. Review of the Order Summary Report dated [DATE] revealed a physician's order dated [DATE] that read, Prognosis: Poor. An active physician's order for Full Code status was entered on [DATE], the day after resident #44 was readmitted from the hospital. Full Code means all resuscitation procedures would be provided to keep someone alive if the person's heart stopped beating and/or he/she stopped breathing, Full resuscitation measures include Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) with chest compressions, intubation or insertion of a breathing tube into the airway, and defibrillation, an electric shock to the heart (retrieved on [DATE] from www.webmd.com). Resident #44 had a care plan for advance directives initiated on [DATE] and revised on [DATE]. The document indicated the resident had a Certificate of Incapacity, a Health Care Proxy, and Full Code status. The goal read, Resident will have advanced directives followed. An intervention dated [DATE] directed staff to discuss advance directives with the resident and/or his representative. On [DATE] at 4:55 PM, in a telephone interview with resident #44's daughter, one of his emergency contacts, she clarified that her father should have a DNR code status. She explained during his last hospitalization in [DATE], the physicians spoke with her and her sisters about the severity of their father's condition. She stated based on the conversation, the family selected DNR status. The daughter explained if their father died naturally and peacefully at his advanced age, they wanted to prevent aggressive attempts to bring him back. She stated the DNR paperwork was supposed to be included in the hospital transfer documents when he returned to the facility in September. The daughter recalled a telephone call from the facility's Long Term Social Services Director (SSD) regarding her father's code status. She stated she informed him it was supposed to be DNR, and the Long Term SSD suggested she go to the hospital to retrieve the document. The daughter explained she had not yet been able to do so due to her work schedule. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Advanced Directives revised on [DATE] revealed upon admission, the SSD or Business Development Coordinator would determine if the resident had an advance directive, and if one existed, either person would .obtain a copy and place it in the resident's medical record. The policy indicated advance directives would be reviewed quarterly and as needed, with a purpose of identifying and clarifying current instructions and determining if changes were desired. On [DATE] at 5:00 PM and 5:39 PM, the Long Term SSD stated he discussed resident #44's code status with the daughter but could not recall when. He reviewed the electronic medical record and confirmed there was no documentation regarding the discussion. The Long Term SSD denied knowledge of an existing DNRO and stated he did not tell the daughter to get the document from the hospital. He explained nurses were responsible for reviewing physician orders including advance directives on admission and readmission, and in addition, charts were reviewed in the daily interdisciplinary team clinical meeting. The Long Term SSD acknowledged if the hospital transfer form indicated resident #44 had DNR status but there was no attached DNRO form, the facility should have sought clarification from the family, attempted to obtain the form from the hospital, or initiated a new DNRO form in the facility. He explained the Social Services Department conducted quarterly reviews to update residents' code statuses; however, he stated he was recently hired and had only checked that all residents assigned to him had a code status selected, but he had not verified the information was accurate. On [DATE] at 5:14 PM, the Medical Records staff checked resident #44's paper chart and discovered a hospital Palliative Care Division Progress Note dated [DATE] that read, Goals of Care: Stabilization, no further aggressive invasive treatments. CODE STATUS: Full DNR. The Medical Records staff acknowledged the resident's code status was circled by an unknown person for emphasis, but there was no DNRO form in the chart. Review of the facility's admission Audit checklist revised on [DATE] revealed a chart audit should be conducted within 24 hours for each newly admitted or readmitted resident. This audit included review of the hospital transfer form, hospital discharge summary and history and physical, and advance directives status. On [DATE] at 5:41 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the charts of all new admissions were reviewed by staff from all departments to ensure pertinent data was complete. The DON said, It is the responsibility of Nursing and Social Services to ensure advance directive information is there and correct. The facility should have called the daughter for verification. She confirmed without the DNRO form, resident #44's code status defaulted to Full Code. On [DATE] at 2:34 PM, the Long Term SSD provided a Care Conference Record that showed meetings held on [DATE] and [DATE] to discuss resident #44's plan of care were attended only by facility staff. The form indicated the daughter who was designated Health Care Proxy did not respond to invitations but there was no documentation of attempts to involve the other daughters who were listed as emergency contacts. The Long Term SSD presented a DNRO form dated [DATE], signed by a physician, that showed verbal consent was obtained from the resident's daughter who was his Health Care Proxy. When asked how the facility obtained the DNRO form, the Long Term SSD explained the facility's Admissions staff contacted the hospital. He said, We got it this morning within about an hour.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 a clean and sanitary environment in 1 of 17 ba...

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 a clean and sanitary environment in 1 of 17 bathrooms in the Memory Care Unit, (room [ROOM NUMBER]). Findings: Observations conducted on 3/01/23 at 9:43 AM and 10:50 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom revealed a strong odor of urine, the floor tiles appeared dirty, the floor tile grout was discolored, the caulking at the front base of the toilet was brown, and the inner area of the toilet bowl where the water exited the toilet (P-Trap Pipe) was brown/black. The toilet was flushed and the stain remained inside the toilet bowl area. On 3/01/23 at 10:50 AM, the Housekeeping Manager explained all residents' rooms and bathrooms were cleaned every day. An observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom was conducted with the Housekeeping Manager. She confirmed the floor tiles appeared dirty, the floor tile grout was discolored, the caulking at the base of the toilet was brown, and the inner area of the toilet bowl was brown/black. The Housekeeping Manager said, We have been dealing with this bathroom for a long time. My worst issue is the inside of the toilet bowl. The only way to fix this is to have Maintenance remove the toilet and to get a new toilet. The Housekeeping Manager explained there was a process in place for fixing identified issues and she had not informed the Maintenance Director or the Administrator during morning meetings of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom issues. She then said there were maintenance logs on each of the nursing units for all staff to document concerns so maintenance can be informed and fix problems. She said, I did not put room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom concerns in the maintenance book. On 3/01/23 at 11:00 AM, an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER]'s bathroom was conducted with the Administrator and the Housekeeping Manager. The Administrator confirmed the floor tiles and floor tile grout were dirty, the base of toilet grout was brown, and inside of the toilet bowl was brown/black. The Administrator flushed the toilet and the brown/black stain remained in the toilet. The Housekeeping Director explained to the Administrator that she had tried everything to clean the base of the toilet and the inside of the toilet but nothing worked. The Administrator acknowledged this was not a home-like environment and he would need to install a new toilet. The Administrator explained the facility had a program in which management staff were assigned to a resident and responsible to do daily resident room rounds. He said, I stopped the program because we have had so many management staff member changes. Review of the Mock Survey Assignment (Quality Assurance) form which had been being used for daily resident room rounds revealed instructions to check resident bathrooms and ensure they were clean and free from odors. Review of the Contracted Environmental Services 7-Step Daily Washroom Cleaning Procedure dated 10/25/2016 read, Purpose: To teach Environmental Services employees the proper method to sanitize a washroom or bathroom in a long-term care and hospital facility . 5. Clean and Sanitize Commode - The commode includes the tank, the seat, the bowl and the base . 7. Damp Mop Floor Use proper mop and germicide solution to disinfect the floor .
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its policies and procedures to prohibit Abu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its policies and procedures to prohibit Abuse and Neglect for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for Abuse, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#61). Findings: Resident #61's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease, heart disease, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date of 1/23/23 revealed resident #61 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 which indicated she was cognitively intact. The document noted she had no mood or behavioral issues and did not reject care that was necessary to achieve the resident's goals for health and well-being. Resident #61 required limited assistance for bed mobility, and extensive assistance for transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS assessment showed the resident had no impairments in functional range of motion of her extremities. On 2/27/23 at 10:30 AM, a large purple-brown discoloration was noted on resident #61's right arm. The area extended from above the elbow, to around the joint, and faded towards her forearm. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA stated she last worked with resident #61 three days ago, on Friday 2/24/23, and there might have been a small bruise on her right arm, but definitely not as large as it was today. CNA AA lifted the resident's sheet to expose the left elbow which had an extensive dark purple bruise around the elbow, which extended from her upper arm to her forearm. There was a dressing dated 2/26/23 on the resident's forearm. CNA AA said, The left arm bruise was not there on Friday. It must have happened over the weekend. I already told the nurse this morning. The resident grimaced and complained of pain as CNA AA repositioned her left arm to support it on a rolled towel. Resident #61 said, The CNAs are very rough when they do things with me. She explained the injury and bruising occurred when a CNA took her clothes off. Review of the facility's incident log for February 2023 revealed no documentation of an incident involving resident #61. Review of the resident's medical record revealed no progress note or change in condition form regarding her bruise or injury. The facility's policy and procedure for Resident Incident / Accident Reports revised on 8/24/17 revealed all incidents and/or accidents should be recorded and reviewed through the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement process. The procedure indicated an incident report was to be created to document on any happening not consistent with routine operations of the facility or care of a resident. The document directed nurses to conduct an assessment, notify the physician . of any noted or suspected injury. and notify the resident's representative. The policy revealed incidents should be included on the facility's 24-hour report and then reviewed by the Director of Nursing (DON), the interdisciplinary team, and the Administrator. The procedure specified, Certain accidents or incidents may require further investigation. On 2/27/23 at 3:21 PM, during a meeting with the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator, they were informed neither resident #61's report of rough treatment by a CNA nor the significant bruising on both her arms was documented in the medical record or noted on the incident log. The DON stated her expectation was staff would report skin injuries immediately. The Administrator confirmed he was the facility's Risk Manager and was ultimately responsible for incident investigations and determining if Abuse or Neglect were substantiated. He confirmed he was not made aware of any concerns regarding resident #61. He validated staff should have completed an incident report, initiated an investigation, and notified him. The Administrator stated even if an incident occurred on the weekend, staff should start an investigation and collect statements that would be used in determining if it was necessary to file reports with the State agencies and law enforcement or take other appropriate actions. On 2/27/23 at 3:52 PM, the Interim DON stated she assessed resident #61's left arm and noted a skin tear and a puffy area below her elbow where a large amount of blood seemed to have pooled. On 2/28/23 at 9:44 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) R stated she was resident #61's regularly assigned day shift nurse on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. She stated she was sure the resident did not have any bruises or discolorations on her arms on the past Thursday. RN R confirmed resident #61's skin had always been very fragile but she never had a geri-sleeve, a protective stocking sleeve, for her arms. She confirmed once made aware of bruises and skin tears, the nurse assigned to resident #61 should have completed change in condition and incident report forms, informed the physician, and done a thorough skin assessment. On 3/01/23 at 10:14 AM, the Short Term Social Services Director (SSD) stated she believed resident #61 reported injuries that resulted from a CNA handling her roughly during care. The Short Term SSD was informed although a weekend nurse applied a dressing to the skin tear, and the day shift CNA and nurse on Monday were aware of the resident's skin condition and report of rough treatment, no staff made a report to the Administrator, DON, or Social Services. She validated any nurse or CNA assigned to the resident should have reported the incident as it needed to be investigated to rule out possible Abuse or Neglect. The Short Term SSD acknowledged the nurse was not to decide if the situation rose to the level of Abuse or Neglect as his/her responsibility was to report the incident. She explained in this situation, after assessing resident #61, the nurse should have ensured the resident's safety by removing the staff member involved. The Short Term SSD said, Since this was not reported properly, the CNA was not removed from the assignment. On 3/01/23 at 5:22 PM, the Administrator and the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS) confirmed the essential components of Abuse and Neglect prohibition were not implemented for resident #61. They stated the weekend nursing staff did not take the proper actions to identify an incident, start an investigation, report appropriately, and protect the resident. The RDCS acknowledged any allegation of rough treatment, whether it resulted in an injury or not, was serious and warranted a focused investigation. The Administrator confirmed the facility had not met the required federal reporting requirements as nursing staff failed to follow and implement the facility's policies and procedures. On 3/02/23 at 10:41 AM, the Medical Director stated resident #61's skin was very thin and fragile. He explained her skin could be bruised or torn during regular activities of daily living (ADL) care. The Medial Director acknowledged preventative skin protection measures such as geri-sleeves and staff taking precautions during care were important. He said, This is an opportunity for CNA education. The facility's policy and procedure for Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation & Misappropriation revised on 11/16/22 defined Abuse as any deliberate action, whether injury or harm was intended, that resulted in physical harm, pain, or mental anguish. Neglect was defined as the failure to provide goods and services necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish or emotional distress. The policy included examples of Neglect such as failure to take precautionary measures to protect the health and safety of the resident. and failure to notify a resident's representative of an incident or injury. The policy directed staff to report observed or suspected abuse, neglect or misappropriation of resident property to the proper authorities. The procedure indicated the facility would ensure staff were trained on the timelines for reporting allegations of Abuse or Neglect, including injuries of unknown origin, to the Administrator and/or the DON and SSD. The document revealed all reported events including bruises and skin tears would be investigated by the DON and the information forwarded to facility's Administrator or Abuse Coordinator who would investigate allegations of Abuse and/or Neglect and compile a detailed report. The policy indicated employees would be suspended pending investigation and the resident would be evaluated for physical or psychosocial harm. Lastly, the Administrator was responsible for timely and appropriate reporting according to Federal and State regulations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for discharge from the facility, out of a total sample of 66 residents, (#160). Findings: Review of resident #160's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA), Acute Subdural Hemorrhage, Seizures, Hypertension, and Major Depressive Disorder. Resident #160 had a physician's order to discharge home on 2/08/23 with Home Health Services, Home Health Aide, standard wheelchair, and Physical and Occupational Therapy. Review of a nursing progress note dated 2/09/22 at 10:20 AM indicated resident #160 was discharged home with his wife. The Short-Term Social Service Director's (SSD) progress note dated 2/14/23 at 8:30 AM documented resident #160's spouse had expressed that the resident was doing well at home. Review of the Discharge Return Not Anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented resident #as discharged to the hospital. On 3/01/23 at 5:45 PM, MDS Coordinator T explained the Discharge Return Not Anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE] had been coded incorrectly. She validated resident #160 had been discharged home and not to the hospital. MDS Coordinator T said, The 2/09/23 MDS will need to be corrected. The facility's Minimum Data Set Policy, dated 09/25/2017 read . Procedure: . Each person completing a section or portion of a section of the MDS signs the Attestation Statement indicating its accuracy. A Registered Nurse signs and certifies that the assessment is complete.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 ensure the Preadmission Screening and Record Review (PASARR) Level ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Record Review (PASARR) Level I was correct upon admission and corrected after admission for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR, out of a total sample of 66 residents, (#15 & #146). Findings: 1. Review of resident #15's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Schizophrenia, Psychosis, and Major Depressive Disorder. The resident's physician orders included Trazodone 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth (PO), give 0.5 tablet daily for depression, and Ziprasidone 20 mg PO two times a day for psychosis. Review of resident #15's PASARR Level I form dated 7/23/22 documented no diagnosis of Serious Mental Illness (SMI) or Intellectual Disability (ID). 2. Review of resident #146's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder. The resident's physician orders included Trazodone 100 mg PO at bedtime for depressive disorder, Zoloft 50 mg PO daily for depression, and Buspirone 10 mg PO in the morning and at bedtime for anxiety. Review of resident #146's PASARR Level I form dated 12/12/22 documented no diagnosis of SMI or ID. PASARR is a Federal requirement to ensure individuals are evaluated for SMI and/or ID, placed in appropriate setting and provided services they need. Level I is a preliminary screen for SMI and/or ID and if positive, an in-depth evaluation, PASARR Level II, is completed (retrieved from www.medicaid.gov). On 3/01/23 at 4:45 PM, the Director of Clinical Services K explained the admission Coordinator was responsible for ensuring the PASARR Level I was completed and correct before admission to the facility. She explained if there was a diagnoses for SMI or ID then the Social Worker was responsible for a new, corrected PASARR Level I. The Director of Clinical Services K validated the PASARR Level I forms for residents #15's and #146 were incorrect. On 3/02/23 at 9:37 AM, an interview was conducted with the Admissions Coordinator/Marketing Administrator and admission Liaison. They explained PASARR Level I's were reviewed prior to admission to the facility. They explained the reviewed residents' diagnoses and the PASARR Level I forms, and acknowledged the forms needed to be correct, especially for psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia. The Admissions staff said, If the PASARR Level I is incorrect we reach out to the hospital case manager to correct the PASARR Level I. The PASARR Level I has to be correct upon admission to the facility because if the resident has any diagnoses for SMI or ID, a PASARR Level II is initiated. On 3/02/23 at 10:15 AM, the Admissions Coordinator/Marketing Administrator and admission Liaison reviewed the diagnoses and PASARR Level I forms for residents #15 and #146. They both confirmed the residents' PASARR Level I forms were not correct and they should have had a PASARR Level II initiated. On 3/02/23 at 9:56 AM, the Long-term Social Service Director (SSD) and Short-term SSD stated it was the responsibility of the Admissions staff to review and determine if the PASSAR Level I was correct. If not, they were to contact the Case Manager at the hospital to ensure the PASARR Level I was corrected. They acknowledged the form could also be done by the facility. The SSDs explained they were not qualified to complete the PASARR Level I forms as neither one had the required degree, a Masters of Social Work (MSW). On 3/02/23 at 10:33 AM, the Regional Nurse Consultant confirmed the PASARR Level I forms for residents #15 and #146 were incorrect and needed to be corrected. Review of the facility's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) Policy, dated 11/08/2021 read, Policy: The center will assure that all Seriously Mentally Ill (SMI) and Intellectually Disabled (ID) residents receive appropriate pre-admission screenings according to Federal/State Guidelines. The purpose is to ensure that the residents with SMI or are ID receive the care and services they need in the most appropriate setting. Procedure: 1. It is the responsibility of the center to assess and assure that the appropriate preadmission screenings, either Level I or Level II, are conducted and results obtained prior to admission and placed in the appropriate section of the resident's medical record .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer a resident with identified mental illness for a Level II Prea...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer a resident with identified mental illness for a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) evaluation and determination for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for PASARR, out of a total sample of 66 residents, (#38). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder and hypertension. Review of the Minimum Data Set quarterly assessment with assessment reference date of 1/11/23 revealed resident #38 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 7 which indicated he was severely cognitively impaired. The document indicated his active diagnoses included anxiety disorder, depression (other than bipolar) and psychotic disorder (other than schizophrenia). Review of resident #38's care plans revealed a behavior care plan initiated on 1/17/19 which indicated he was resistive to care related to schizophrenia, psychosis, dementia, depression and anxiety. Interventions included education of the resident of possible outcome of not complying with treatment or care, maintain consistency in timing of care as much as possible and praise the resident when behavior if appropriate. Interventions included providing clear explanation of care activities to occur, leave if resident resists and return five to ten minutes later to try again, and praise resident when behavior is appropriate. Review of resident #38's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed diagnoses of major depressive disorder with an onset date of 9/11/12, anxiety disorder with an onset date of 9/11/12, psychotic disorder with hallucinations with an onset date of 9/23/15, unspecified psychosis with an onset date of 1/15/16, and mood disorder due to known physiological condition with an onset date 6/06/22. The EMR contained a Level I PASARR screening form dated 5/20/21 and signed by the facility's Social Services Coordinator. The form indicated resident #38 had depressive disorder, dementia with behavior disturbance and dysthymia. Dysthymia is a depressive disorder which is a continuous, long-term form of depression. Symptoms may include feeling sad and empty, loss of interest in daily activities and having trouble getting things done. A person may also experience low self-esteem, feeling like a failure and feeling hopeless. These feelings last for years and may interfere with relationships, school, work and daily activities (retrieved 3/05/23 from www.mayoclinic.org). Review of the Level I PASSAR screening form revealed resident #38 was identified as having an indication of a serious mental illness which resulted in functional limitations of major life activities and interfered with interpersonal functioning and may lead to a chronic disability. The form indicated the resident was to be admitted for less than 30 days but would require a Level II Evaluation be conducted within 40 days of admission if the individual was later found to require more than 30 days of nursing facility care. The record did not contain a Level II PASARR Evaluation and Determination form. On 3/02/23 at 12:55 PM, the Director of Clinical Service (DCS) K acknowledged a Level II PASARR should have been completed for resident #38. She reviewed the EMR and paper medical records and explained she was unable to locate a Level II PASSAR Evaluation and Determination. She stated she did not know whether or not a screening was completed. The facility's policy and procedure for Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) revised 11/08/21 read, If it is learned after admission that a PASSAR Level II screening is indicated, it will be the responsibility of the Social Services to coordinate and/or inform the appropriate agency to conduct the screening and obtain the results. The form indicated the results of the screening evaluation would be placed in the appropriate section of the individual's medical record.
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** 3. Resident #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified sequelae of nontraumatic intracerebr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Resident #89 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified sequelae of nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage, type 2 diabetes, essential hypertension, end stage renal disease, chronic embolism and thrombosis of other specified veins, seizures, major depressive disorder and insomnia. Review of the MDS admission assessment with assessment reference date of 1/17/23 revealed resident #89 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 which indicated he was cognitively intact. His active diagnoses included non-traumatic brain dysfunction, coronary artery disease, deep venous thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolus, hypertension, renal failure, diabetes mellitus, seizure disorder and depression. The MDS indicated resident #89 received oxygen therapy, intravenous medications and dialysis. The Care Area Assessment (CAA) associated with the admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] indicated resident had conditions which required further evaluation. The identified areas were visual function, communication, activities of daily living (ADL) function, urinary incontinence, falls, nutritional status, pressure ulcer, and psychotropic drug use. The care planning decision was to address these conditions through the care planning process. Review of resident #89's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a comprehensive person-centered care plan was not developed to address the areas identified in the CAA related to discharge and advance directive status. On 3/01/23 at 11:49 AM, MDS Coordinator T reviewed resident #89's EMR and acknowledged a comprehensive person-centered care plan had not been developed and implemented. She clarified a CAA would identify areas of concern once a comprehensive assessment was completed. She stated the interdisciplinary team (IDT) would then have 7 days to develop a comprehensive care plan. She explained resident #89 was previously a resident and had been discharged home and returned. She stated the comprehensive care plan should have been reviewed, updated, and implemented upon his return to the facility following the comprehensive assessment. MDS Coordinator T said, It got missed. It did not get done. Review of the job description for MDS Coordinator LPN I revealed his/her duties and responsibilities included completing accurately and timely MDS assessments and plans of care in accordance with the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual guidelines for all residents in the facility. The facility's policy and procedure for Plans of Care revised 9/25/17 revealed the procedure was to develop a comprehensive plan of care for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. 2. Review of resident #562's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease, osteoporosis, and insomnia. The Quarterly MDS assessment with assessment reference date of 1/31/22 revealed resident #562 rarely or never understood others, was not able to express her needs, and had memory problems. The document indicated during the lookback period the resident required extensive assistance with activities of daily living such as bed mobility, transfers, dressing, and personal hygiene, and did not walk. Review of a Nursing Progress Note dated 7/12/22 at 3:30 PM revealed earlier that day at 11:30 AM, resident #44 was found on the floor beside her bed, with her head leaning on the bathroom door. The facility's Report of Resident Fall investigation dated 7/12/22 revealed resident #562 had an unwitnessed fall to the floor in her room. Her activity at the time of the fall was documented as rolled out of bed. Possible causative factors noted were agitation and confusion. The document read, A new Plan of Care / Intervention has been completed to prevent further events. Resident #562 had a care plan for an actual fall related to poor problems, comprehension, and communication initiated on 07/13/22. The goal was to minimize the risk of further incidents. Interventions implemented 7/13/22 included floor mats on both sides of the bed, and a scoop mattress with raised sides, Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for February and March 2023 revealed nurses' initials every shift to verify floor mats were at resident #562's bedside for safety as ordered by the physician. There was no physician's order for a scoop mattress transcribed to the TAR. On 2/27/23 at 2:12 PM, resident #562 was in bed, close to the edge of a regular mattress. There was a floor mat noted to the right side of the bed only. Across the room, the resident's roommate had a floor mat to the right side of her bed. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) E was informed the resident was close to the edge of the mattress. She explained that position was normal for the resident and she was not concerned as she did not move around in bed. On 2/28/23 at 10:04 AM and 3/01/23 at 9:46 AM, resident #562 remained in bed on a regular mattress with a floor mat to the right side of her bed. There was still no floor mat to the left of her bed and the other floor mat in the room remained against the roommate's bed. On 3/01/23 at 4:19 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Y stated he was familiar with his assigned residents' care needs and explained he received information from other CNAs in change of shift report. When asked about resident #562's floor mat, he said, She didn't used to have it, but it showed up once. During review of resident #562's [NAME] or CNA care plan with CNA Y, he discovered the safety intervention of bilateral floor mats. He went to the resident's room and confirmed there was only one bedside floor mat on the right side of the bed, and the floor on the left side of the bed had none. CNA Y acknowledged if the resident rolled off the left side of her bed, she would hit the floor. On 3/02/23 at 3:16 PM, LPN Z was asked to review resident #562's fall prevention care plan. She checked the resident's electronic medical record and validated the care plan indicated she required bilateral floor mats and a scoop mattress for safety. LPN Z was asked to check the resident's room, and she confirmed the mattress on the bed was not a scoop mattress. The facility's policy and procedure for Fall Management revised on 7/29/19 indicated after a fall, the resident's fall risk would be re-evaluated and the care plan and [NAME] would be updated with new, appropriate interventions. Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to develop and/or implement person-centered comprehensive care plans related to medication side effects (#157), falls (#562), and care concerns triggered by the Care Area Assessment (#89), for 3 residents out of a total sample of 66 residents. Findings: 1. Review of resident #157's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Seizures, Heart Failure, Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, Dementia, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, and Anxiety. Review of the Hospital Medication Orders revealed Aspirin (ASA) 81 milligrams (mg) chewable tablet, chew 1 tablet each day. The resident's physician orders documented ASA 81 mg by mouth (PO) daily for heart failure. Review of resident #157's February 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented he received ASA 81 mg PO daily at 9 AM. Review of resident #157's plan of care revealed no care plan for the use of his ASA, to include monitoring for signs of bleeding. Review of resident #157's History and Physical (H&P) dated 2/09/23 included the instruction to monitor him for signs and symptoms of bleeding. On 3/02/23 at 10:50 AM, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator T and MDS Coordinator U both explained they used the hospital H&P, physician orders, and assessments to develop the resident's care plan. MDS Coordinator T confirmed resident #157 had been receiving ASA and there should have been a care plan for the use of the ASA with interventions to monitor for signs of bleeding. On 3/02/23 at 11:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) and Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) reviewed resident #157's electronic medical record. The RNC explained that the admitting nurses should have completed the MAR and nurses should have been monitoring for bleeding for a resident receiving ASA. The RNC said, The care plan should have included the use of ASA with interventions to observe for signs of bleeding.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow a dietitian's recommendations to maintain suff...

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 follow a dietitian's recommendations to maintain sufficient fluid intake and adequate hydration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hydration, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#44). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] after a hospital stay. His diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, difficulty swallowing, Alzheimer's disease, protein-calorie malnutrition, and gastrostomy. A gastrostomy tube or G-tube is a feeding tube that is inserted directly into the stomach through a surgical incision in the abdominal wall. A feeding tube is necessary if someone has difficulty swallowing as it allows the person to receive adequate nutrition, hydration, and medication (retrieved on 3/10/23 from www.my.clevelandclinic.org). The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Significant Change in Status assessment with assessment reference date of 11/29/22 revealed resident #44 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. He had difficulty swallowing and was totally dependent on staff for eating and drinking. The MDS assessment indicated resident #44 had a feeding tube that provided 51% or more of his total caloric intake and 501 milliliters (ml) or more of his fluid intake per day. Review of resident #44's medical record revealed a care plan for the potential for imbalanced nutrition related to his disease process, initiated on 7/20/22. The interventions directed nurses to provide tube feeding and water flushes as ordered. A care plan for tube feeding related to swallowing problems was initiated on 7/20/22. The interventions indicated the Registered Dietitian (RD) would evaluate the resident and make recommendations as needed. Review of the Order Summary Report dated 3/01/23 revealed resident #44 had an physician order dated 9/07/22 for 50 ml water flushes before and after each bolus feeding. A conflicting physician order dated 2/18/23 indicated the resident was to receive continuous tube feeding at 75 ml per hour for 22 hours daily, to be turned off between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM. There was no associated physician order for water flushes related to the continuous tube feeding. Tube feedings can be administered as boluses several times a day or by continuous infusion. Bolus feedings involve giving the total required volume as separate feedings at regular intervals throughout the day. These bolus feedings are usually administered via a syringe attached to the feeding tube and infuse by gravity. After bolus feedings, the G-tube is flushed with water to prevent clogging (retrieved on 3/10/23 from www.merckmanuals.com). On 2/27/23 at 2:23 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) BB stood at resident #44's bedside and started the pump which was set to infuse his tube feeding at 75 ml per hour. There was no container of water hanging on the pole with the tube feeding, and no container with a syringe at bedside to indicate a water flush was administered. On 2/28/23 at 11:51 AM and on 3/01/23 at 1:38 PM, resident #44's tube feeding pump was off as ordered, and only the bottle of tube feeding solution hung on the pole. On 3/01/23 at 7:25 PM, in a telephone interview, resident #44's daughter stated during her father's stay in the facility, he was hospitalized several times. She recalled on one occasion, she was informed by hospital staff that her father was dehydrated. The daughter said, I don't understand because he has the tube to his stomach and they can give him water. Review of the Facility Assessment dated 2/24/23 revealed the facility offered services and care to meet the needs of residents with G-tubes. The document indicated nursing staff were competent in providing specialized care to include tube feedings. On 3/02/23 at 11:30 AM, the facility's RD recalled resident #44 previously had physician orders for six cans of tube feeding formula daily, divided into two cans per shift, with water flushes before and after each bolus. The RD explained due to recent weight loss, she calculated the resident required increased calories, so on 2/16/22 she made a recommendation for continuous tube feedings at 75 ml per hour for 22 hours daily. The RD stated she also recommended resident #44 receive 250 ml of water every six hours for a total of 1000 ml daily. The RD was informed her recommendation for water flushes was never implemented but nurses continued to sign for water flushes after bolus feedings although that type of feeding was discontinued almost two weeks ago. The RD stated she provided her recommendations to the dietary manager who should have passed them on to the Director of Nursing (DON). She said, That is a significant difference. The order was not completed. I need to have the DON change it. He is at risk for dehydration [and] abnormal lab values. On 3/02/23 at 12:01 PM, the [NAME] Wing Unit Manager checked resident #44's medical record and verified the recommendation for free water flushes was never ordered or implemented. She recalled the resident used to get water flushes after his bolus feedings but could not explain what nurses were doing now that the resident had continuous tube feeding. On 3/02/23 at 12:23 PM, the Interim DON explained she never received a copy of the RD's recommendation regarding water flushes for resident #44. She stated all assigned nurses over the past two weeks should have noted the discrepancy, notified the physician, and/or collaborated with the RD. The Interim DON stated inadequate fluid intake could result in dehydration and electrolyte imbalance.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure behavior monitoring and documentation were imp...

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 behavior monitoring and documentation were implemented and conducted for the use of antipsychotic medications for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for behavioral/emotional monitoring, out of a total sample of 66 residents, (#157). Findings: Review of resident #157's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's Disease, Seizures, Heart Failure, Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, Dementia, Psychotic Disturbance, Mood Disturbance, and Anxiety. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented short-term and long-term memory problems, independence with cognitive skills for daily decision making, and no behavioral symptoms. The MDS assessment revealed resident #157 required extensive assistance of one to two staff for activities of daily living (ADL), used a wheel chair for mobility, and was frequently incontinent of bowel and bladder. He received antipsychotic medication on six days and antianxiety medication on three days in the lookback period. Resident #157's physician orders for March 2023 included Clonazepam, an anti-anxiety drug, 0.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth daily for unspecific dementia, unspecific severity without behavioral disturbances, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. There were orders dated 2/09/23 for Olanzapine, an antipsychotic drug, 2.5 mg by mouth daily for mood disorder and Lorazepam, an anti-anxiety drug. 0.5 mg by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety. Review of the plan of care dated 2/09/23 revealed a care plan for antipsychotic medication therapy with a goal to remain free form antipsychotic drug related complications. Interventions included administer medications as ordered by the physician and monitor behavioral symptoms and side effects of medication. A care plan for antianxiety medication had a goal to be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to antianxiety therapy. Interventions included administer medication as ordered by the physician and monitor for side effects and effectiveness of medication every shift. A care plan for mood problem related to admission had a goal of improved mood state. Interventions included administer medications as ordered by the physician, and monitor and document for side effects and effectiveness. Observations of resident #157 on 2/28/23 at 9:30 AM and 12:12 PM, and on 3/01/22 at 9:35 AM and 12:00 PM revealed the resident was in bed. He was well dressed and groomed, calm and relaxed with no behavioral symptoms noted. There was a one-to-one (1:1) sitter at his bedside. Physician visit notes dated 2/09/23 and 2/17/23 documented that the resident was seen at the hospital for altered mental status. Upon admission to the facility, the resident threw himself out of bed onto the floor and yelled, It's a trap. His past medical history included Parkinson's disease, Unspecific dementia, and seizures. The documentation showed the resident reported difficulty concentrating, irritability/mood changes, anxiety, forgetfulness and previous use of psychotropic medication. The Assessment and Plan dated 2/09/23 included monitor side effects of current medications, and monitor for worsening of symptoms of behavioral issues. The Psychiatric Evaluation dated 2/16/23 showed the resident had diagnoses of severe dementia with other behavioral disturbances, psychotic disorder with delusions, and general anxiety disorder. The document indicated resident #157 received Lorazepam 0.5 mg by mouth every eight hours for anxiety, Olanzapine 10 mg by mouth twice a day for dementia, and Clonazepam 0.5 mg by mouth daily for dementia. Staff were to document and monitor the resident's behaviors. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed no behavior monitoring related to #157's antipsychotic, mood, and anti-anxiety medication use. Review of the progress notes dated 2/08/23 to 3/02/23 revealed the only documentation of resident #157's behaviors during the 3-week period occurred on: 2/09/23 at 2:52 PM (agitation and anxious behavior), 2/10/23 at 11:21 AM (no behaviors), 2/19/23 at 2:41 PM (agitation), 0/20/23 at 6:51 AM (resting quietly), 2/21/23 at 5:50 AM (anxiety with ADL care), 2/22/23 at 11:45 AM (anxious), and on 2/23/23 at 1:57 PM (combative behavior). On 3/02/23 at 10:50 AM, MDS Coordinator T explained with all antipsychotic medications listed on the MAR, associated documentation of the behaviors was to be completed every shift. She stated the documentation should include the specific behavior, the number of times the behavior occurred, and the intervention for the behavior. MDS Coordinator T reviewed resident #157's MAR and said, There are no behaviors being monitored or documented. On 3/02/23 at 11:18 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) I stated resident #157 required a 1:1 sitter for behaviors of running, unsteady gait, going in and out of residents' rooms, striking out at staff with redirection, and he had kicked and hit at staff. LPN I explained the resident received antipsychotic and anti-anxiety medications and there was behavior monitoring in place or charting of behaviors. LPN I said, We should be documenting his behaviors every shift. The behaviors should be specific and individualized to the resident. LPN I then reviewed resident #157's MAR and acknowledged, No behaviors are listed on the MAR and no documentation is being completed. On 3/01/23 at 12:00 PM, Home Heath Aide (HHA) L stated he worked with a staffing agency and was assigned to provide 1:1 supervision for resident #157's behaviors and also to assist with ADLs including eating and ambulation to the bathroom. HHA L said, He has not had any behaviors during his time and most of the time he was in bed sleeping. On 3/02/23 at 11:30 AM, an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Regional Nurse Consultant revealed the admitting nurse would complete the MAR and the nurse should have included behavior monitoring for his antipsychotic medication use. The RNC stated, The behaviors need to be specific and individualized to the resident and monitored and documented every shift. The DON and RNC confirmed behavior monitoring was not completed every shift for resident #157. Review of the facility's Behavior Management Policy and Procedure dated 03/21/2019 read, Policy: Residents with dementia or related disorders are not responsible for their reactions due to the irreversible changes in the brain. Reactionary conduct can only be prevented and controlled by well-trained therapeutic caregivers . Secondary Interventions: The Memory Care Manager/designee and the Charge Nurse shall document and track undesirable reactions or conduct as it occurs in order to maximize the potential for future episodes. Modifications and restructuring of individual resident routines may be needed in order to control the possibility of future episodes . Review of the facility's Psychotropic Medication Management Policy and Procedure, dated 10/24/2022, read, Policy . Psychotropic medication is any medication that effects brain activity's associated with mental process and behavior. These drugs include, but are not limited to , drugs in the fallowing categories: antipsychotic, antidepressant, antianxiety and hypnotic . Procedure: . 4. Monitor behavior and side effects every shift utilizing the Behavior Monitoring Flow Record (BMFR) or electronic equivalent. 5. Resident centered non-pharmacological interventions should be initiated as indicated . The Facility Assessment, documented the facility's ability to provide competent staff with the ability to provide care and services to meet the needs for residents with mental health and behavioral diagnoses. The document read, .manage the medical conditions and medication-related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing wish anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma, other psychiatric diagnoses, intellectual or developmental disabilities .
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

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 maintain a medication error rate of less than five pe...

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 maintain a medication error rate of less than five percent for 2 of 4 residents reviewed for medication administration, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#5 & #112). The facility's medication error rate was 14.81% Findings: 1. Review of resident #112's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and mini-strokes. On 2/27/23 at 7:49 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M prepared to administer resident #112's eight scheduled morning medications. LPN M stood at the medication cart and crushed all the tablets which included one tablet Isosorbide Mononitrate Extended Release (ER) 30 milligrams (mg) and one tablet Chewable Aspirin 81 mg. He then mixed six crushed tablets, one whole capsule and the contents of one capsule into applesauce in a small plastic cup. On 2/27/23 at 7:57 AM, LPN M approached resident #112 to administer the medication, and was prompted to stop as he raised the spoon to the resident's mouth. On return to the medication cart LPN M was asked to retrieve and read the blister pack for resident #112's Isosorbide Mononitrate ER. He reviewed the blister pack and discovered printed instructions that read, Do NOT CHEW or CRUSH before swallowing. Medication affects blood pressure. He stated he was familiar with his assigned residents and knew resident #112 would spit out his pills if they were not crushed. When asked why Extended Release medication should not be crushed, LPN M explained the medication would be released at a faster rate than intended. Controlled release drugs which include those with the suffixes ER and DR are designed to release medicine over an extended period of time to promote smooth release and a longer duration of action. Crushing may mean a fatal dose is released. Enteric Coated (EC) medications have a special coating to protect the stomach from the drug and/or protect the drug from the action of stomach acid, and promote release of the drug in the intestine (retrieved on 3/10/23 from www.drugs.com). On 2/27/23 at 8:09 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) was informed that LPN M crushed an ER tablet contrary to instructions on the blister pack. She stated her expectation was prior to medication administration, all nurses would should check all necessary identifiers and follow professional standards related to medication administration to include verification the right medication. The Interim DON explained nurses should check medication lists and containers to ensure medications could be crushed safely. She stated the decision to crush medications should be based on recommendations by the manufacturer and/or pharmacy. The Interim DON stated there would be a physician's order transcribed to the Medication Administration Record regarding crushing medication if not contraindicated. She acknowledged LPN M should have notified the physician resident #112 was no longer able to swallow his medication whole. Review of resident #112's active Order Summary Report during medication reconciliation revealed physician orders for Isosorbide Mononitrate ER 24 hour 30 mg once daily for hypertension and Aspirin EC Delayed Release (DR) 81 mg once daily for clot prevention, not Chewable Aspirin 81 mg as administered by LPN M. The document did not contain a physician order related to crushing medications. 2. On 2/27/23 at 7:51 AM, medication administration was observed for resident #5 with LPN H. Observation of the medication label on the blister package showed Trazodone 50 mg tab, give one by mouth at hour of sleep. The medication blister pack had resident #79's name, a resident located in another room. LPN H placed the medication from the blister pack into a medication cup, poured water into a water cup, and proceeded to walk down the hall into resident #5's room with medication and water in hand. LPN H was prompted to stop the medication administration task. She was informed the Trazodone 50 mg medication label had another resident's name and was therefore not dispensed by the pharmacy for resident #5. Upon return to the medication cart, LPN H retrieved the Trazodone medication blister pack. LPN H confirmed there was another resident's name on the label. She confirmed the medication error and said, I am supposed to check for right name, time, dosage, med. LPN H stated she did not check for the resident's name or read the label carefully prior to placing it in the medication cup. She confirmed she was never to use another resident's medications. She stated she was responsible for checking blister pack labels and confirmed she received orientation related to medication administration two weeks ago. On 2/27/23 at 9:09 AM, the Interim DON stated the expectation was nurses would check the physician's order, and verify the right medication, person, dosage, and time. She said,It is a professional standard. The Interim DON stated it was not accepted facility practice to use another resident's medications. She explained if a resident did not have the ordered medication, nurses were to call the doctor, verify the medication, contact the pharmacy, and ask the doctor if the medication could be administered when it arrived from the pharmacy. She stated it was the nurse's responsibility to check and make sure he or she followed physician orders and professional standards for medication administration. On 2/27/23 at 1:41 PM, during medication reconciliation, a physician order dated 2/08/23 for Acetaminophen 500 mg one tablet by mouth three times a day was noted. The order indicated the dose LPN H administered to resident #5 on 2/27/23 at 7:51 AM,during medication administration observation, was a medication error. On 2/27/23 at 1:46 PM, LPN H stated she could ensure administration of the right medication by taking her time. She stated she was now aware that she administered Acetaminophen 325 mg, and not the ordered dosage of Acetaminophen 500 mg. On 3/03/23 at 04:14 PM, a team interview for the Quality Assessment Assurance (QAA) review was conducted with the Administrator and Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC). The RNC stated the facility was not aware nurses administered medications without following physician orders and adhering to professional standards. She explained the Staff Development Coordinator observed nurses during medication administration and was responsible for conducting audits to ensure accuracy. She stated the pharmacy consultant also came into facility and observed nurses during medication administration and did additional audits. The RNC stated audits and pharmacy reports were presented at QAA meetings. Both the RNC and the Administrator acknowledged they were unsure of the last QAA meeting review of pharmacy reports. The Administrator stated medication administration observations concerns did not show up in the last QAA meeting. The RNC added to ensure medication errors did not reoccur, the facility should do internal audits on medication administration. The facility's policy and procedure for Administering Medications revised in April 2019 revealed medications would be administered as prescribed and in a safe manner. The policy read, The individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) prior to giving the medication. Review of the Facility Assessment revised on 8/18/17 showed on page 8 under the heading Part 2: Services and Care We Offer Based on our Residents' Needs, Resident Support/care needs a section for General Care Medications Specific Care of Practices awareness of any limitations of administering medications Administration of medications that residents need By route: oral, . Etc. Assessment/management of polypharmacy. On page 15 under Education/In-Services a section for Education Nurses for Medication Administration. Timing on Hire/Annual/PRN/On-Demand.
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 maintain proper infection control practices to preven...

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 maintain proper infection control practices to prevent contamination during medication administration for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for medication administration (#112), and during wound care for 1 of 1 resident observed for wound care of 5 residents reviewed for skin conditions and pressure injuries (#44), of a total sample of 66 residents. Findings: 1. Review of resident #112's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and mini-strokes. On 2/27/23 at 7:49 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M prepared to administer resident #112's scheduled morning medications. He did not perform hand hygiene prior to beginning the task although a bottle of alcohol-based hand sanitizer was on the medication cart. LPN M retrieved two capsules Gabapentin 100 milligrams (mg) and added them to the small plastic cup that contained other scheduled medications. LPN M explained he had to crush the resident's tablets as he would not swallow them whole, but the capsules could not be crushed so he had to open them to access the medication. LPN M unsuccessfully attempted to separate the Gabapentin capsules from the tablets by pouring them into another plastic cup. He checked the drawers of the medication cart, did not find gloves, and used his finger to scoop the Gabapentin capsules from the cup with the tablets into an empty cup. Next, LPN M picked up a capsule with his fingers, pulled it apart at the middle, and rolled each half of the capsule between his thumbs and index fingers to empty the medication into the plastic cup. LPN M repeated the process with the second Gabapentin capsule. On 2/27/23 at 7:57 AM, LPN M approached resident #112 to administer the medication, and was prompted to stop as he raised the spoon to the resident's mouth. On return to the medication cart, LPN M was informed of concerns related to the lack of hand hygiene and touching medication with his bare hands. LPN M acknowledged he should have used the hand sanitizer before starting the medication administration task, and applied gloves prior to touching the Gabapentin capsules. On 2/27/23 at 8:09 AM, the interim Director of Nursing (DON) stated her expectation was nurses would perform hand hygiene prior to the medication administration task. She stated LPN M should have paused the task to get gloves and not touch resident #112's tablets and/or capsules with his fingers. The facility's policy and procedure for Administering Medications revised in April 2019 revealed medications would be administered as prescribed and in a safe manner. The policy revealed nurses would follow the facility's infection control procedures related to handwashing and glove use during medication administration. 2. Review of the medical record revealed resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, and protein-calorie malnutrition. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Significant Change in Status assessment with assessment reference date of 11/29/22 revealed resident #44 had four unhealed pressure injuries. Review of resident #44's medical record revealed a care plan for pressure ulcers, initiated on 7/20/22. The care plan indicated as of 2/14/23, the resident's pressure ulcers were located on his sacrum, right hip, right heel, and right lower leg. The goal read, The resident's Pressure injury will show signs of healing and have minimal risk of infection. Interventions included a wound physician consult and administer treatments as ordered. The Treatment Administration Record revealed Wound Care physician orders dated 3/01/23 that included a twice daily treatment to the resident's right hip wound. The order directed nurses to irrigate the wound with 1/2 strength Dakin's solution, apply skin prep to the peri-wound area, lightly pack the wound bed with Santyl ointment and moist gauze, cover with foam, and secure the dressing with tape. On 3/01/23 at 1:38 PM, LPN M prepared to performed wound care for resident #44's right hip wound. He explained the resident had a wound infection and staff were required to wear personal protective equipment when providing care. LPN M removed a gown and gloves from the caddy on the door and donned them without performing hand hygiene. LPN M pointed to the treatment and dressing supplies on resident #44's overbed table. The items included packets of 4 inch x 4 inch gauze, border dressings, individual tubes of normal saline solution, a bottle of 1/2 strength Dakin's solution, a tube of Santyl ointment, and two pairs of gloves. They were scattered across the overbed table in a disorganized manner, with no barrier between the treatment supplies and the surface of the table. A bottle of the resident's tube feeding solution was on the overbed table with the treatment supplies. LPN M positioned the overbed table to place the supplies within reach and then realized he did not have a trash can nearby. He walked around the bed, picked up a trash can with his gloved hands, and carried it to the far side of the bed. Next, without removing his dirty gloves or performing hand hygiene, LPN M reached across the resident to move the bottle of tube feeding to the edge of the overbed table. He then touched and rearranged the packets of gauze packets and dressing supplies. LPN M repositioned resident #44 to his left side and removed the dressing was saturated with a large amount of serosanguinous drainage, from the right hip wound. He dropped the soiled dressing in the trash and removed the gauze packing from the wound bed. Still wearing the same gloves, LPN M picked up the bottle of Dakin's solution, unscrewed the cap, placed it on the table and poured the Dakin's solution which spilled over the side of the cap onto the table. Next, he opened a package of gauze, dipped a corner of the gauze into the Dakin's solution and used it to clean resident #44's right hip wound. He repeated the process two more times and then screwed the cap back onto the bottle. LPN M then opened another package of gauze, moistened the gauze with normal saline, picked up tube of Santyl ointment, squeezed the medication along the length of the gauze, and touched the tip of the tube to the gauze before he replaced the cap. LPN M packed resident #44's wound with the gauze and covered with a bordered gauze dressing. LPN M used the same gloves throughout the entire wound care procedure. On 3/01/23 at 1:55 PM, LPN M validated he did not perform hand hygiene before or during wound care, did not change gloves between clean and dirty tasks and should have removed his gloves after he touched the trash can. However, he explained use of the Dakin's bottle cap was acceptable as each time he dipped a clean gauze pad into the solution. He was informed the gauze was clean prior to removal from the package, and reminded that he held every item with dirty gloves. He said, I don't know what the facility policy and procedure is for wound care and dressing changes. He picked up a clean pair of gloves and was prompted not to perform the resident's three additional wound treatments until a member of nursing management addressed the identified infection control concerns. On 3/01/23 at 2:01 PM, the Interim [NAME] Wing Unit Manager (UM) was informed of the breaks in infection control during resident #44's right hip wound care. She observed the overbed table with scattered treatment supplies and spilled Dakin's solution and immediately stated the supplies should be on a Styrofoam tray or other type of barrier. She explained the resident's bottle of tube feeding should not in the vicinity of treatment supplies. The Interim [NAME] Wing UM expressed concerns related to continued wound care with use of the same gloves after touching the trash can and the soiled and saturated dressings as the resident had a wound infection. She acknowledged there was only one pair of gloves on top of the scattered treatment supplies and no hand sanitizer, but LPN M should have been prepared to change gloves and do hand hygiene multiple times during care of resident #44's four wounds. The Interim [NAME] Wing UM stated the Santyl ointment should have been placed in a plastic cup prior to starting the procedure to prevent contamination of the tube, and the cap of the Dakin's solution should not have been used as a container and then returned to the bottle. She explained the bottle of Dakin's solution should be discarded to avoid other residents being affected, and the treatment for resident #44's right hip wound needed to be re-done using proper infection control practices. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for Dressing Change revised on 12/06/17 revealed clean dressings would be applied to wounds to promote healing. The procedure directed nurses to assemble equipment including a bag for disposal of soiled dressings. The document read, Place supplies on a prepped work surface, perform hand hygiene, apply gloves, remove and dispose of soiled dressing, remove gloves, perform hand hygiene, apply gloves, evaluate wound. cleanse wound as ordered, dispose of gauze, remove gloves and perform hand hygiene, apply treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 ensure residents completed pneumococcal vaccine consent forms and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents completed pneumococcal vaccine consent forms and received pneumococcal vaccines upon request, for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for immunizations, out of a total sample of 66 residents, (#120 & #137). Findings: 1. Review of the medical record revealed resident #120 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The medical record indicated pneumococcal vaccine consent was obtained by telephone consent from the resident's guardian on 12/28/21. The box was checked to note the facility received permission to administer the pneumococcal vaccine. Review of the immunization audit report and the Medication Administration Records did not reveal administration of the pneumococcal vaccine to resident #120. 2. Review of the medical record revealed resident #137 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a previous admission on [DATE]. Review of the electronic medical record's immunization section, and the immunization audit report dated 3/02/23 showed no pneumococcal vaccine administration documentation by nursing staff. Review of the resident's pneumococcal vaccine consent showed the resident's signature dated 11/23/22 with no documentation under box number one for acceptance to give with permission to administer, box number two for offered pneumococcal vaccine and declined, or box number three for offered pneumococcal vaccine but already received. Resident #137's pneumococcal vaccine consent showed incomplete documentation as none of the boxes were selected. On 3/01/23 at 11:05 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) stated pneumonia vaccines were offered upon admission. She stated nurses would obtain consents with signature and then administer and document the vaccine when given. On 3/02/23 at 1:45 PM, the Director of Clinical Services from the sister facility stated she was unable to locate documentation identifying if the vaccines were administered. She confirmed nurses did not administer the pneumococcal vaccines. On 3/02/23 at 1:53 PM, the Interim DON stated immunizations were part of the admission process. She explained nurses were to administer the vaccine if the resident consented or hold the vaccine if they declined. She noted the Staff Development Coordinator was responsible for monitoring the documentation and the DON was ultimately responsible. She acknowledged the pneumococcal vaccines were not given. The facility's Pneumococcal Vaccine Policy revised October 2019, showed All residents will be offered pneumococcal vaccines to aid in preventing pneumonia/pneumococcal infections. Under Policy Interpretation and Implementation number 2 revealed Assessments of pneumococcal vaccination status will be conducted within 5 days(5) working days of the resident's admission if not conducted prior to admission. Number 4 revealed Pneumococcal vaccines will be administered to residents (unless medically contraindicated, already given, or refused) per our facility's physician- approved pneumococcal vaccination protocol. Number 6 showed For residents who receive the vaccines, the date of vaccination, lot number, expiration date, person administering, and the site of vaccination will be documented in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor the right to be treated with dignity and respect while receiving assistance with meals, (#53, #115 & #105), during pers...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to honor the right to be treated with dignity and respect while receiving assistance with meals, (#53, #115 & #105), during personal care, (#61), and for all residents in and near a common area (West Wing Day Room), of a total sample of 66 residents. Findings: 1. Review of resident #53's medical record revealed she had dementia and moderate cognitive impairment. Her care plan for activities of daily living (ADLs) self-care performance deficit was initiated on 12/22/22, and read, The resident requires extensive assistance by staff to eat. On 3/01/23 at 1:00 PM, resident #53 was seated at a table in the middle of the [NAME] Wing Day Room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) O stood in front of resident #53 as she fed her. There were twelve additional residents seated in the room and the clear glass windows around the perimeter of the room allowed residents, staff, and visitors to visualize the activities in the room. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M stood outside the [NAME] Wing Day Room and observed CNA O's method of assisting resident #53 with her lunch meal. He confirmed it was a dignity issue as CNAs should be seated at eye level when they assisted residents with meals. CNA O continued to feed the resident, whose face was at the level of the CNA's waist. CNA O looked across at LPN M but continued to stand and feed resident #53 until the meal was finished. She then walked towards another resident seated at a table nearby, stood beside her and fed that resident one spoonful of her lunch. When CNA O looked up and realized she was still being watched, she walked across the room and retrieved a chair. On 3/01/23 at 1:05 PM, CNA O confirmed she stood while she assisted resident #53 with lunch. She acknowledged she should have been seated. 2. Review of resident #105's medical record indicated he had moderate cognitive impairment and a diagnosis of Parkinson's Disease. His care plan for ADL self-care performance deficit related to disease process was initiated on 12/15/21, and read, The resident requires extensive assistance by staff to eat. On 3/01/23 at 1:09 PM, the loud clanging of utensils against a plate was heard from the [NAME] Wing nurses' station. A short distance down the hallway, CNA X was observed standing to feed resident #105 who was seated on the side of his bed. She explained the resident required assistance with his meal as the shaking of his arms made it difficult for him to feed himself at times. CNA X continued to feed the resident while loudly hitting the utensil against the plate between scoops of food. She was prompted about standing and feeding the resident and acknowledged the correct procedure involved being seated. 3. Review of resident #115's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date (ARD) of 12/10/22 revealed he had a diagnosis of quadriplegia and was totally dependent on staff for eating. On 3/01/23 at 1:29 PM, CNA D stood at resident #115's bedside as she assisted him with his lunch meal. When prompted regarding standing to feed the resident, CNA D said, I'm not going to lie. They told me we should be sitting. CNA D looked around the room and explained she chose to stand as there were no chairs in the room. On 3/02/23 at 3:29 PM, the [NAME] Wing Unit Manager (UM) stated her expectation was CNAs would find and use chairs of appropriate height to allow them to sit at residents' eye level while they assisted with meals. She stated on hire, nursing staff received education in orientation regarding properly assisting with residents' meals. The UM validated CNAs were to be seated while they assisted with meals to ensure residents were treated with dignity. 4. Review of resident #61's medical record revealed a Quarterly MDS assessment with ARD of 1/23/23 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score was 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. The MDS assessment showed resident #61 required extensive assistance from staff for toilet use and personal hygiene. On 2/27/23 at 10:30 AM, resident #61 complained that CNAs spoke on their cell phones while they cared for her. The resident pointed to her ears and explained CNAs used cell phones with earphones when they changed her brief and completed personal hygiene tasks. She stated CNAs also stood in her bathroom and continued to speak on their phones. On 3/01/23 at 5:22 PM, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) stated after the facility was made aware of resident #61's concerns, she interviewed the resident and determined CNA S was the staff member who recently cared for the resident while on the phone. The Interim DON stated CNA S acknowledged she used her cell phone in resident #61's bathroom. 5. On 3/01/23 at 4:11 PM, CNA N was seated in the doorway of the [NAME] Wing Day Room as she spoke on a cell phone speakerphone. Both sides of the conversation were audible from the hallway, and when asked if she was on her personal cell phone, CNA N paused her conversation and said, Yes. She then said goodbye to the other party on the cell phone, hung up, and placed the device in her pocket. CNA N validated she was aware she should not use a personal cell phone while she worked. On 3/01/23 at 4:14 PM, the Interim [NAME] Wing UM confirmed CNA N's actions were not respectful of the residents in the Day Room, and did not reflect dignified treatment. She emphasized it was against the facility's policy for staff to use personal cell phones in patient care areas. On 3/02/23 at 3:29 PM, the [NAME] Wing UM explained the Day Room was used to monitor residents at risk for falls. She stated her expectation was the assigned CNA would not just sit by the door and talk on the phone while she watched the residents. The [NAME] Wing UM stated CNA N's duties included interacting with the residents in the Day Room by offering snacks, water, and juice, and helping them to participate in activities and games. She validated it was not acceptable for any staff member to use a personal cell phone anywhere on the unit during working hours, especially while performing personal care tasks, as it was not professional behavior and created a dignity issue for residents. Review of the facility's Information Handbook dated December 2021, revealed residents had .the right to be treated with consideration, respect, and full recognition of [their] dignity and individuality. Review of the facility's employee handbook dated December 2022 revealed requirements regarding Use of Personal Cellular Telephones and Electronic Devices. The policy indicated use of personal cellular devices during working hours, while on duty, was prohibited. The document read, Employees are permitted use of personal electronic devices while on their break or meal period as long as the equipment is used in designated outside areas of the care center.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopements fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to prevent elopements for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for elopement, in a total sample of 66 residents, (#134). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed resident #134 was admitted to the facility's secure Memory Care Unit on 3/01/22. Her diagnoses included Schizophrenia, Delusional Disorder, Hypertension, and Bipolar Disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] noted the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 out of 15, which indicated she was cognitively intact. The MDS assessment revealed resident #134 was able to walk independently in her room, but she required supervision of one staff member to person for locomotion both on and off the Memory Care Unit. An Elopement Risk Evaluation dated 7/14/22 indicated resident #134 was at risk for elopement. Review of resident #134's medical record was being seen by a psychiatric provider and there were several notes regarding her delusional thinking. A progress note dated 6/09/22 read, Patient is currently taking Risperidone for schizophrenia disorder.Per staff patient has been delusional, she thinks the family killed her baby. She has been very paranoid. A progress note dated 11/14/22 read, .patient has been exhibiting delusional thinking and refusing medications. On 2/28/23 at 11:37 AM, resident #134 was in her room and there was Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) seated in the hallway just outside the resident's room door to provide one-to-one supervision. Resident #134 explained she was admitted to the facility from the hospital about a month ago and said, I became very aggressive because I've been kidnapped and held against my will. When I checked in here they told me I could never leave. However, resident #134 stated she had been able to get out of the facility on two occasions. She recalled she went out through an exit door at the end of the hall. Resident #134 stated at about 4:00 PM one afternoon she pushed the exit door an alarm sounded. The resident said, You have to really shove it, the door, real hard, and it breaks the lock. It's an insecure lock. They have it set up this way so people can do this. She recalled two staff members apprehended her and brought her back into the facility. Resident #134 stated the second time she eloped from the facility successfully was one morning at approximately 5:00 AM, when all the staff on the Memory Care Unit were busy in residents' rooms. The resident stated she figured out the best time to leave was either nighttime or early in the morning. She explained, Because they were not going out in the dark to come after you. It's not the CNAs' job duties to come after you in the dark. It's a legal thing. She stated the second time she left the facility, she hid in the woods for two and a half hours. She recalled the facility sent three ladies and four Deputy Sheriffs to search for her. Resident #134 stated when she was found, she told the Deputy Sheriffs she had been kidnapped but they took her back to the facility anyway. She said, The Deputies don't care because they are going to get a big payoff. On 2/28/23 at 12:00PM, resident #134 left her room, walked to the Memory Care Unit nurses' station, and pointed to the the exit door at the end of the hallway. The confirmed she got out twice through that exit door. Upon returning to her room, resident #134 pointed to CNA G and stated that she was one of the staff members who apprehended her. On 2/8/23 at 12:11 PM, CNA G recalled the events of resident #134's first elopement attempt on 12/14/22. She stated it was prior to the Big Elopement that occurred in the early morning hours of 12/19/22. CNA G stated she was working during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM shift and at around dinner time as staff passed out the meal trays, she saw resident #134 at the exit door. She confirmed it was the same exit door that resident #134 had pointed out. CNA G stated the resident had a bag in her hand and she pushed the door once and the alarm went off. CNA G stated she called out, Stop! However, instead of stopping, the resident made a big push and the exit door opened. CNA G explained she ran after the resident and caught up with her halfway towards the front of the facility. She stated resident #134 was swung the bag at her and the former Assistant Executive Director and other staff helped to bring the resident back to the facility. On 3/1/23 at 10:42 AM, CNA D recalled the events of resident #134's second elopement, on 12/19/22. She said she arrived at the facility at approximately 6:45 AM that morning, and as she entered the facility, the Medical Records Staff was handing out pictures of the missing resident. She stated she joined a nurse and a CNA from a staffing agency in the search for the resident. CNA D recalled they checked the empty field behind the facility and walked along the wooded area on the east side of the facility. She stated as they walked towards the front of the facility towards the main highway, they spotted resident #134 in a construction site on the adjacent property. She stated as they approached the resident, she raised her arm and swung a large piece of wood, probably debris from the construction site, at the three staff members. CNA D said the nurse got close enough to hug the resident while the other two staff disarmed her. CNA D stated she waved over to the Deputy Sheriff's car as they were also searching for the resident. She explained the resident told the Deputy she had been kidnapped and that her family paid eight million dollars to keep her at the facility. CNA D recalled resident #134 said, Take me to jail. I attacked y'all. Take me to jail. Didn't I? Didn't I attack y'all. It was assault and battery and this is eight to ten years in jail. CNA D stated the Deputy Sheriffs were able to convince the resident to return to the facility by telling her she would have to sign papers and retrieve her personal items before she went to jail. On 3/01/23 at 4:30 PM, the resident most likely elopement route was retraced and measured. The resident left her room and exited the facility through South-East Door #4. The resident walked 701.7 feet until she reached the entrance to the construction site where she was only 261.5 feet from a busy 4-lane divided highway. The resident walked another 80.8 feet over rough,uneven ground towards the center of the construction site. On 3/01/23 at 4:58 PM, the Project Superintendent of the construction site recalled the morning an elderly women got out of the nursing home and staff were seen chasing her. He stated she was swinging a piece of lumber at staff that was either 2 inches x 2 inches or 2 inches x 1 inch. The Project Superintendent stated his work crews were there and they usually arrived at about 6:30 AM. He recalled the sun was already up, but it was a cold morning. On 3/01/23 at 5:21 PM, the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC), Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator discussed resident #134's elopement on 12/19/22. They explained the facility obtained statements from staff that showed on the morning of 12/19/22 at approximately 5:45 AM, a nurse on the unit adjacent to the Memory Care Unit heard an exit door alarm while she was passing medication. They stated the investigation indicated that nurse entered the Memory Care Unit, went out the exit door and looked around for a resident. The nurse did not find a resident so she returned to the building and informed the night shift nursing supervisor. The elopement code was paged overhead and staff conducted a head count on all nursing units and discovered resident #134 was missing. They stated staff continued to search for the missing resident and law enforcement was notified. The facility staff found resident #134 in the construction site on the adjacent property and the Deputy Sheriffs brought her back to the facility. Resident #134 was then placed on one-to-one supervision. The RNC stated that incident was the first time resident #134 had eloped from the facility and the facility's Root Cause Analysis of the elopement was that the resident did not want to be in the facility. On 3/02/23 at 10:27 AM, the Maintenance Director verified resident #134 exited the facility through the South-East Door #4 on the Memory Care Unit. He explained the exit door had a 15-second delayed egress function, and if someone depressed the crash bar, an alarm would sound, and after 15 seconds the magnetic lock would release to unlock the door. However, he stated if someone pushed on the crash bar and/or door with significant force, it was possible to bypass the 15-second delay and open the door. The Maintenance Director stated the exit door was set up that way as a safety feature, so if there was an emergency, staff and residents would not have to wait 15 seconds to get out of the facility. On 3/02/23 at 1:30 PM, the receptionist stated she sometimes worked on the nursing units as a CNA, and she was very familiar with resident #134. She stated she believed she worked on 12/14/22 during the 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM and recalled resident #134 got out of the facility in the afternoon or early evening. The receptionist stated staff were about to pass out dinner trays and resident #134 gave the South-East Door #4 a big push, and the exit door opened. The receptionist stated the person who was the receptionist that day, the Assistant Administrator and a nurse from a staffing agency retrieved the resident and brought her back inside. The receptionist validated resident #134 also got out on 12/19/22. She stated the resident was very smart and she always peeked out from her doorway see if regular staff worked or if there were new staff. On 3/02/23 at 2:53 PM, the Administrator stated that he had just interviewed facility staff and he found out that resident #134 had indeed eloped twice from the facility, on 12/14/22 and 12/19/22. He stated that neither he nor the RNC had been made aware of the first elopement on 12/14/22, until they were informed today. On 3/03/23 at 3:33 PM, resident #134's two elopements were discussed with the Administrator and the RNC. They acknowledged the resident had been at risk for elopement since July 2022, but she refused to wear a electronic monitoring device on her person. The resident elopement care plan was reviewed and the approach, Frequent Monitoring was added on 7/22/22 since the resident refused to wear a electronic monitoring device. The Administrator and the RNC were not able to define the term Frequent Monitoring. They were informed staff were not able to describe the frequency or intervals of safety checks and observations that were necessary to prevent resident #134 from leaving the facility again. They acknowledged the facility needed to determine the Root Cause Analysis of each elopement, to include the ease with which the the exit door was breeched, so the appropriate amount of supervision could had been determined.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services related to safe admin...

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 provide pharmaceutical services related to safe administration of controlled release medications, and accurate and/or timely acquisition of medication to meet the needs of 12 residents who received controlled release medications, of a total sample of 66 residents, (#8, #40, #49, #50, #69, #110, #112, #125, #126, #131, #141 & #146). Findings: 1. Review of resident #112's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included atherosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and mini-strokes. Review of resident #112's active Order Summary Report revealed a physician order dated 2/05/23 for Isosorbide Mononitrate ER 24 hour 30 milligrams (mg) once daily for hypertension. Controlled release drugs which include those with the suffixes ER (Extended Release) and DR (Delayed Release) are designed to release medicine over an extended period of time to promote smooth release and a longer duration of action. Crushing may mean a fatal dose is released (retrieved on 3/10/23 from www.drugs.com). On 2/27/23 at 7:49 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) M crushed the resident's Isosorbide Mononitrate ER 30 mg tablet. On 2/27/23 at 7:57 AM, LPN M was prompted not to administer the crushed medication. He was asked to retrieve and read the blister pack for resident #112's Isosorbide Mononitrate ER. He discovered printed instructions that read, Do NOT CHEW or CRUSH before swallowing. May cause DIZZINESS. Medication affects blood pressure. He stated he was familiar with his assigned residents and knew resident #112 would spit out his pills if they were not crushed. When asked why ER medication should not be crushed, LPN M explained the medication would be released at a faster rate than intended. Review of the Memory Lane Report Sheets revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #112's medication. On 2/27/23 at 8:09 AM, the Interim Director of Nursing (DON) was informed that LPN M crushed an ER tablet contrary to instructions on the blister pack. She stated her expectation was prior to medication administration, all nurses would follow professional standards related to medication administration. The Interim DON explained nurses should check medication lists and containers to ensure medications could be crushed safely. She stated the decision to crush medications should be based on recommendations by the manufacturer and/or pharmacy. The Interim DON stated there should be a physician's order transcribed to the Medication Administration Record (MAR) regarding crushing medication if not contraindicated. She acknowledged LPN M should have notified the physician resident #112 was no longer able to swallow his medication whole. On 2/28/23 at 4:25 PM, LPN DD was asked to check the medication cart to ensure resident #112's Isosorbide Mononitrate ER 30 mg tablets had been replaced with an alternative form of the medication. She retrieved the same blister pack utilized by LPN M during medication administration the previous day and confirmed the instruction was not to crush the tablet. LPN DD checked her nursing report sheet and confirmed it indicated his medication had to be crushed. She checked the MAR for 2/28/23 and validated resident #112 received the ER tablet again despite the medication error identified on the previous day. On 2/28/23 at 4:42 PM, the Interim [NAME] Wing Unit Manager (UM) was informed neither the assigned nurses nor nursing management removed resident #112's Isosorbide Mononitrate ER tablets after the facility was made aware of the concern related to crushing the tablet. She acknowledged the physician should have been notified immediately and a new order obtained to ensure the resident's medications were administered in an appropriate form. Order Summary Report forms for all residents in the facility who had physicians' orders for medication with the suffix ER were reconciled with nursing report sheets from all medication carts. 2. Resident #8 had physician orders dated 3/22/22 for Namzaric capsule ER 24 hour 21-10 mg once daily for Alzheimer's disease, and Pantoprazole Sodium DR 40 mg once daily for gastroesophageal reflux disease. The blister pack for Namzaric ER 21-10 mg capsules read, Swallow whole - Don't chew/crush. Review of the Memory Lane Report Sheets revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #8's medication. 3. Resident #40 had a physician order dated 3/17/22 for four capsules Zonisamide 100 mg once daily for seizures and an order dated 1/11/19 for Potassium Chloride ER 20 milliequivalents (meq) once daily for hypokalemia. Zonisamide is a drug used to treat seizures. The manufacturer's instructions directed, Swallow the capsule whole and do not crush, chew, break, or open it (retrieved on 3/13/22 from www.drugscom).The Potassium Chloride ER blister pack read, Do NOT CHEW or CRUSH before swallowing. Review of the East Wing Cart 3 nursing report sheet revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #40's medication. 4. Resident #49 had a physician order dated 3/29/17 for Tylenol 8 hour Arthritis ER 650 mg every eight hours as needed for pain. Review of the West Wing Cart 2 nursing report sheet revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #49's medication. On 2/28/23 at 4:52 PM, LPN EE stated she worked for a staffing agency and was not familiar with residents on her assignment. She explained she utilized the nursing report sheets to determine which residents' pills had to be crushed. She checked the medication cart and confirmed there was no container of the ordered drug Tylenol Arthritis ER 650 mg for resident #49. LPN EE explained if the resident complained of pain she would instead administer two tablets of the available stock medication, Tylenol 325 mg. When prompted regarding following physician orders and best nursing practice, LPN EE acknowledged the physician should be notified that the ordered medication was not available. 5. Resident #50 had a physician order dated 2/21/23 for Metoprolol Succinate ER 24 hour 100 mg at bedtime for hypertension. The medication blister pack read, Not to be chewed or crushed. Review of the East Wing Cart 3 nursing report sheet revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #50's medication. 6. Resident #69 had a physician order dated 12/17/22 for Namenda XR Extended Release 24 hour 14 mg via G-tube once daily for dementia. A gastrostomy tube or G-tube is a feeding tube that is inserted directly into the stomach through a surgical incision in the abdominal wall (retrieved on 3/10/23 from www.my.clevelandclinic.org). Review of the MAR for February 2023 revealed the resident received the medication daily as ordered, which indicated it was crushed and dissolved in order to be administered via the tube. 7. Resident #110 had physician orders dated 1/09/23 for Aspirin Enteric Coated DR 81 mg once daily for clot prevention and Diltiazem HCl ER 12 hour 60 mg twice daily for hypertension. Review of the West Wing Cart 1 nursing report sheet revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #110's medication. 8. Resident #125 had a physician order dated 7/12/22 for Desvenlaxafine Succinate ER 24 hour 50 mg once daily for major depressive disorder, and an order dated 1/07/22 for Alendronate Sodium 70 mg every Monday morning for osteoporosis. The manufacturer's instructions for administration of Alendronate read, Do not crush, chew, or suck on an Alendronate regular tablet. Swallow it whole (retrieved on 3/13/23 from www.drugs.com). Review of the West Wing Cart 1 nursing report sheet revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #125's medication. 9. Resident #126 had a physician order dated 7/30/21 for Potassium Chloride ER 10 meq once daily for edema. Review of the West Wing Cart 2 nursing report sheet revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #126's medication. On 3/02/23 at 12:06 PM, LPN FF walked by the [NAME] Wing nurses' station. He held a plastic cup with pills and informed the [NAME] Wing UM resident #126 refused to take her medication. The [NAME] Wing UM checked the nursing report sheet and informed LPN FF that the resident required her medication crushed. LPN FF returned to the medication cart to crush the tablets and when asked to pull the blister packs to verify if the pills should be crushed, he verified the Potassium Chloride ER pack read, Not to be chewed or crushed. Take with plenty of water. 10. Resident #131 had a physician order dated 1/14/22 for Procardia XL ER 24 hour 30 mg once daily for hypertension. The medication blister pack read, Do NOT CHEW or CRUSH before swallowing. Review of the Memory Lane Report Sheets revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #131's medication. 11. Resident #141 had a physician order dated 7/10/22 for Vitamin B12 oral tablet ER 1000 micrograms (mcg) for Vitamin B12 deficiency. Review of the Memory Lane Report Sheets revealed the instruction to crush resident #8's medication. On 2/28/23 at 4:25 PM, LPN DD reviewed resident #141's MAR and noted the resident had an ER medication although she needed her medications crushed. LPN DD checked the medication cart for the Vitamin B12 ER tablet and stated no such medication was in the cart. She explained there was a bottle of Vitamin B12 500 mcg tablets and nurses probably gave two of those tablets instead. The Interim [NAME] Wing UM stated she was not familiar with the ER form of Vitamin B12, and it was not a formulary stock medication. She confirmed resident #141 could not have received the medication as ordered since the facility did not stock it and it was not sent from the pharmacy. The Interim [NAME] Wing UM stated all assigned nurses over the previous six months should have clarified the physician's order to ensure the resident received the correct medication in the appropriate form. 12. Resident #146 had a physician order dated 1/14/23 for two tablets Metoprolol Succinate ER 25 mg once daily for hypertension. The medication blister pack read, Not to be chewed or crushed. Review of the Memory Lane Report Sheets revealed the instruction for nurses to crush resident #146's medication. On 2/27/23 at 1:48 PM, LPN BB stated she worked for a staffing agency and this shift was her second shift in the facility. LPN BB explained she was not familiar with the residents as yesterday she was assigned to another unit. She stated she relied on the nursing report sheet and verbal report from the offgoing nurse. LPN BB showed the report sheet with her handwritten notes and pointed to the indicators beside each resident's name, C for crushed pills or W for whole pills. On 2/28/23 at 4:17 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) CC stated he was on staff and had a regular assignment so he knew which residents took their pills whole and which ones needed their pills to be crushed. During review of the nursing report sheet for RN CC's assignment, he indicated there were inaccuracies on the form related to whether or not to crush pills. He acknowledged it was a concern as nurses from a staffing agency would simply follow the printed instructions. On 2/28/23 at 4:25 PM, LPN DD stated she worked for a staffing agency and this was her first shift on the Memory Care unit. She explained she received a verbal report from the day shift nurse and also had a report sheet with her assigned residents' names, room numbers and other important information such as whether medication were to be crushed. She showed her pre-printed report sheet which had some residents' names with the letter W struck out and replaced with the letter C. LPN DD confirmed the offgoing nurse told her those residents now needed their medications crushed. She reviewed the list of residents who received controlled release drugs and confirmed some of her assigned residents who required crushed medications were on that list. LPN DD validated it was concerning that nurses followed information on a report sheet rather than physician orders, pharmacy instructions, and drug manufacturers' warnings. She acknowledged nurses were responsible for identifying contraindications and informing the ordering physician. On 2/28/23 at 5:03 PM, LPN FF stated he worked for a staffing agency and relied on nursing the report sheet to determine whether or not to crush his assigned residents' medications. He was asked to review the list of residents on controlled release medications and pull the blister packs to check instructions. He searched for resident #69's Namenda XR Extended Release 24 hour 14 mg tablets and confirmed it was not in the medication cart and the MAR indicated it was not administered as ordered during the day shift. He then searched for resident #110's Diltiazem HCl ER 12 hour 60 mg and stated that medication was not in the cart either. He checked the MAR and discovered the drug was not administered during the day shift and was not available for this evening's dose. He explained the nursing report sheet indicated resident #110 required crushed medications, but based on change of shift report, I scratched out crush. He acknowledged he had not verified whether or not the resident had difficulty swallowing. LPN FF randomly selected blister packs with controlled release medications from the cart and was not able to identify instructions regarding not crushing or chewing. He was shown the instructions and prompted to read the card carefully. He stated he would not have noticed the instructions due to the fine print and said, It would be much safer if the pharmacy put warnings in another color like red. On 3/02/23 at 10:59 AM, the facility's Medical Director was informed of significant concerns related to nurses crushing controlled release medications although contraindicated. He stated his expectation was nurses would follow physicians' orders as written, and immediately notify the provider if any change in status including difficulty swallowing suggested an alternate medication was necessary. The Medical Director confirmed nurses should not select substitutions for medications that were not available. On 3/03/23 at 10:24 AM, in a telephone interview, the facility's Consultant Pharmacist confirmed she conducted Monthly Medication Reviews for all residents of the facility to identify any irregularities in medication regimens. She was informed of concerns identified related to residents who required medications to be crushed due to swallowing issues receiving controlled release medications despite contraindication. The Consultant Pharmacist said, I am sure there is a policy and procedure to call the physician. If the instructions say do not crush they should call the physician to substitute. The Consultant Pharmacist stated she was able to answer only general questions regarding medication action, not resident-specific concerns. When given the example of nurses crushing Metoprolol Succinate ER, she repeated that facility would have to follow its policy. The Consultant Pharmacist was asked how the medication action was affected by being crushed. She said. Obviously it would not be Extended Release then. The facility's policy and procedure for Administering Medications revised in April 2019 read, Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The policy read, The individual administering the medication checks the label THREE (3) times to verify the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right time and right method (route) prior to giving the medication. The document indicated if nurses believed a medication dosage was inappropriate or if a potential adverse consequence was identities, the nurse would contact a physician to address the concern. Review of the Facility Assessment dated 2/24/23 revealed the facility could care for residents with common diagnoses and conditions, and offered services to meet residents' needs including medication administration via G-tube and oral routes. The document indicated all nursing staff would demonstrate competency in medication administration on hire, annually, and as needed.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to label stored foods in the walk-in refrigerator and defrost frozen foods under running water. Findings: Review of the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to label stored foods in the walk-in refrigerator and defrost frozen foods under running water. Findings: Review of the facility menu revealed broccoli florets would be served at the lunch meal on 2/27/23. During an initial kitchen inspection on 2/27/23 at 6:16 AM, the facility's walk-in refrigerator was observed. There were two half-pans covered with foil paper. One of the pans had lima beans and the other pan contained cooked rice. The pans were not labeled with the date or the contents. The prep sink was filled with water and there were eight bags floating in the water. The water faucet was not running and the sink was not draining. At 6:34 AM, a Dietary Aide drained the prep sink, removed the bags of broccoli and placed them in a steam table pan. The bags of broccoli were warm to the touch and some of the bags of broccoli were full of water. The prep sink did not have a drain stop and the Dietary Aide explained she used one of the bags of broccoli as a drain stop. On 2/27/23 at 6:54 AM, the walk-in refrigerator was observed with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM). She confirmed the pans of lima beans and rice were not dated or labeled. A large metal bowl on the shelf covered with foil was also not dated or labeled. The CDM removed the foil and said there was pudding in the bowl. A plastic bowl covered with clear wrap was not labeled or dated. The CDM said the plastic container contained tomato sauce. She explained food and leftovers that were stored in the walk-in refrigerator must be labeled and dated. She indicated kitchen staff had been educated on dating and labeling of stored foods. When informed of the bags of broccoli that were soaking in the prep sink, the CDM stated the bags of broccoli should have been defrosted under running water with the drain open. Chapter 3 of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 2022 Food Code noted labeling of foods and the thawing of foods that are completely submerged under running water.
CONCERN (F)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's administration failed to effectively utilize its resources to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's administration failed to effectively utilize its resources to implement processes to identify and address deficient practices, and failed to provide adequate oversight of staff to ensure the provision of necessary care and services to maintain the highest practicable well-being for all residents. Findings: Review of the Facility Assessment updated on 2/24/23 revealed the facility was a 180-bed skilled nursing facility that could meet the needs of residents with common diseases and special conditions. The document indicated residents would receive care and services as determined by their needs and plans of care to include assistance with activities of daily living (ADL) care, prevention of falls, promotion of skin integrity, medication management and administration, and infection control and prevention. The Facility Assessment revealed the facility's intent to offer person-centered care such as build relationship with resident/get to know him/her; engage resident in conversation.prevent abuse and neglect, identify hazards and risks for residents. The document noted the necessary resources to provide competent care for residents included adequate Administration, Nursing, Food and Nutrition, Pharmacy and Support staff. In order to promote coordination and continuity of care, the facility would strive to arrange consistent and routine assignments, and ensure staff were trained and were competent to meet residents' needs. The document listed training topics and competencies such as Resident Rights, Abuse / Neglect / Exploitation, Infection Control, Medication Administration, Resident Assessment and other Specialized Care. Nursing staff competencies would be reviewed on hire, annually, and as needed. In addition to facility staff, contracted staff for Dietary, Housekeeping, and Laundry services were expected to provide necessary services to meet residents' needs and ensure the facility's operational success. On 3/01/23 at 10:00 AM, the Short Term Social Services Director (SSD) was informed of concerns identified related to addressing residents' concerns, specifically for residents who were bedbound and/or cognitively impaired, and not able to adequately make their needs and desires known to staff or actively pursue resolution themselves. She stated in addition to the facility's official grievance process, issues that affected vulnerable residents could be identified during Angel Rounds. The Short Term SSD explained the program involved members of management rounding on assigned rooms every morning. She showed a checklist titled Mock Survey (Quality Assurance) that instructed management staff on required observations and to ensure resident is without grievances/concerns. When asked about a specific resident, the Short Term SSD checked the Angel Rounds assignment sheet and explained the resident was in one of five rooms assigned to the Assistant Business Office Manager (BOM). The Short Term SSD stated the facility no longer had an Assistant BOM and said, That person left a while ago. We have a back up person, the Business Office Manager. On 3/01/23 at 10:24 AM, the BOM stated she had been on staff for approximately three months and there was no Assistant BOM during that period. She said, I have never been told to Angel Rounds. She was shown the Mock Survey (Quality Assurance) form which indicated she was assigned to to daily rounds of five rooms and serve as back up for the Assistant BOM in another five rooms. The BOM stated she had never seen the checklist. She acknowledged if daily Angel Rounds were completed, the concerns of residents in those rooms would probably have been noticed and addressed. On 3/01/23 at 11:00 AM and 3/02/23 at 9:47 AM, the Administrator confirmed the facility no longer had a functional Angel Rounds program in which management staff were assigned to daily room and resident rounds. He said, I stopped the program. because we have changed so many staff members and have all new management staff. The Administrator acknowledged the program would be an effective method of identifying important issues that affected residents' comfort and well-being. On 3/03/23 at 1:06 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator T explained issues identified related to obtaining and implementing physician orders, following interdisciplinary team recommendations, and ensuring continuity of care for residents through the chart review process were in large part attributable to lack of adequate oversight from nursing management. She explained the facility had not been staffed with consistent Unit Managers or a Director of Nursing for several months. LPN MDS Coordinator T stated as a result, the daily clinical meeting had not been as effective as required. She stated concerns identified related to grievances and advance directives were the responsibility of the Social Services department which had also been short-staffed for a while. On 3/03/23 at 3:34 PM, a meeting was held with the facility's Administrator and the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS). They confirmed a resident successfully eloped from the facility on 12/19/22. The Administrator and RDCS were informed the resident and facility staff reported a previous elopement attempt approximately five days before the actual elopement. They denied knowledge of any previous elopement attempts by the resident and could not explain why the incident investigation did not reflect the previous attempt and increased risk. The RDCS confirmed the facility did not define increased or enhanced supervision to ensure direct care staff could provide appropriate care and supervision to prevent additional elopements. The Administrator acknowledged although the facility had recently decreased use of Certified Nursing Assistants from staffing agencies, they continued to rely heavily on nurses from staffing agencies. The RDCS validated reliance on agency nurses who were not familiar with residents and the facility's policies and procedures, in conjunction with lack of general oversight of nursing staff were contributing factors to the breakdowns noted in resident care and services. She explained experienced nurses had been filling in for open Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and Unit Manager (UM) positions, but the facility experienced the outcomes of overall lack of stability in Nursing department leadership. The Administrator recalled since November 2022, the facility had gone through two DONs, two Interim ADONs, and two UMs who lasted no more than one month. He acknowledged daily clinical and department head meetings were still conducted but might not be as productive as they should be. He stated the facility never considered a moratorium on admissions despite the known concerns in the Nursing department. The Administrator and RDCS were informed of a staff CNA who did not know how to locate the [NAME] or CNA care plan in his assigned resident's medical record, an LPN on staff for one year who verbalized he never received education or showed competency in medication administration and wound care, a repeated medication error 24 hours after the the initial error was brought to the attention of nursing management, and multiple residents who received crushed, controlled release medications despite contraindication. The RDCS acknowledged all nursing staff should receive education on hire to ensure they met the facility's standards. She stated the identified medication error was repeated due to lack of communication between nursing management staff. Review of the job description for Director of Clinical Services or DON (undated) revealed the purpose of the position included ensuring .the highest degree of quality care is maintained at all times. The DON's duties and responsibilities included hiring a sufficient number of staff and directing the Nursing and care plan team. Review of the job description for Executive Director I or Administrator (undated) revealed duties and responsibilities were to recruit, hire and provide adequate orientation and training to ensure the facility had a sufficient number of qualified staff, and to ensure a safe, clean and comfortable environment. The functions of the Administrator's position included .provide leadership to all facility staff in meeting the goal of providing quality resident care.
Jan 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 ensure medications were administered as per physician's orders and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered as per physician's orders and according to accepted professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for medication administration of a total sample of 7 residents, (#1). Findings: Review of resident #1's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with his most recent readmission from hospital on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, persistent atrial fibrillation, sick sinus syndrome, cardiac pacemaker, dementia, benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. On 1/06/23 at 5:22 PM, in a telephone interview, resident #1's family member stated the resident usually took his morning medications around 8 AM, but the facility did not administer his medication until approximately 12:00 PM. The family member said she was told by a staff nurse that timing was not important, and it was not a big deal. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Audit Report from 1/01/23 to 1/09/23 showed on 1/01/23, the resident's scheduled 9 AM medications were given between 10:17 AM to 10:25 AM, including: Finasteride 5 milligram (mg) daily (QD), Myrbetriq 50 mg QD for benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms, Eliquis 2.5 mg two times daily (BID) for atrial fibrillation, Metoprolol 12.5 mg QD, Vasotec 10 mg QD, for high blood pressure, Potassium 20 Milliequivalents QD for low potassium level, Procardia 90 mg QD, and Furosemide 40 mg QD for cerebrovascular disease. On 1/05/23 the resident received his scheduled 9 AM medications between 12:05 PM and 12:14 PM. On 1/07/23 the resident received his scheduled 9 AM medications between 10:24 AM and 10:26 AM. On 1/08/23 the resident received his scheduled 9 AM medications between 11:21 AM and 11:27 AM. On 1/09/23 at 12:41 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) A stated that most medications in the facility were due at 9:00 AM, and nurses had an hour before and an hour after the scheduled time to complete medication administration. RN A stated if nurses were running late, the physician should be notified, and a note documented. On 1/10/23 at 10:09 AM, the resident's Medication Administration Audit Report for the period 1/01/23 to 1/09/23 was reviewed with the DON. He acknowledged the resident's scheduled 9 AM medications were administered out of the recommended timeframes on 1/01/23, 1/05/23, 1/07/23, and 1/08/23. The DON confirmed documentation could not be located to to identify notification to the physician, or a progress note regarding medications being administered outside of the recommended timeframes on the dates identified. The facility's policy, Medication-Oral Administration with effective date 11/30/14, and revision date of 8/15/19 read, Document the administration and acceptance or decline of all medications administered . Should the resident decline or be unable to accept the medication this will need to be documented following standard protocol. The policy Administering Medications revised April 2019, read, Medications are administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified If a drug is withheld, refused, given at a time other than the scheduled time, the individual administering the medication shall initial and circle the MAR space provided for that drug dose.
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** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate records according to accepted profe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate records according to accepted professional standards and practices for 4 of 4 residents reviewed for urinary catheter care, (#1, #2, #6, #7) and for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for medication administration (#6) of a total sample of 7 residents, Findings: 1. Review of resident #1's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was hospitalized several times. His most recent readmission to the facility was 11/20/22. The resident's diagnoses included cerebrovascular disease, persistent atrial fibrillation, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder. The resident's physician orders dated 11/21/22 included, catheter care every shift and as needed, monitor catheter for patency and drainage every shift, and flush suprapubic catheter with 100 milliliters (ml) of normal saline for irrigation every evening shift for patency. The resident's care plan for supra pubic catheter care related to neurogenic bladder and benign prostatic hyperplasia was initiated on 5/13/22 and revised 1/10/23. Interventions included, Catheter care as ordered and flushes as ordered. Review of the resident's Treatment Administration Record (TAR) from 1/01/23 to 1/09/23 showed blank spaces for catheter care with no documentation to indicate why the spaces were left blank. The TAR showed supra pubic flush was not done on 1/07/23, catheter care every shift showed blank spaces for the day shift on 1/02/23, and 1/05/23, and on the evening shift on 1/07/23. Blank spaces were identified for monitoring for patency and drainage for the day shift on 1/02/23, 1/05/23, and for the evening shift on 1/07/23. On 1/09/23 at 5:25 PM, the resident's TAR from 1/01/23 to 1/09/23 was reviewed with the Director of Nursing (DON). He confirmed the blank spaces, with no code or signature documented for flushing of the supra pubic catheter on 1/07/23, for catheter care, and monitoring the catheter for patency for the day shift on 1/02/23, and 1/05/23, and for the evening shift on 1/07/23. The DON stated the rule was, if it's not documented, it wasn't done. He said the TAR should be completed and a code entered if the resident refused the treatment. 2. Review of resident #2's medical record noted he was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of diastolic (congestive) heart failure, and obstructive and reflux uropathy. The resident's physician orders dated 12/5/22 included catheter care every shift and as needed. The resident's care plan for foley catheter initiated 7/29/22 and revised on 12/29/22 included interventions, foley cath (catheter) care as ordered. Review of the resident's TAR from 12/19/22 to 1/09/23 revealed blank spaces, with no signature or documentation to indicate why the spaces were blank for catheter care on the following dates: day shift 12/19/22, 12/20/22, 12/30/22, 12/31/22, 1/02/23, and 1/05/23. On the evening shift 1/07/23, and the night shift on 12/21/22, and 12/22/22. On 1/10/23 at 10:14 AM, the resident's TARs were reviewed with the DON. The DON acknowledged the blank spaces in the TAR that indicated catheter care was not provided. He stated catheter care should have been provided and the TAR completed. 3. Review of resident #6's medical record noted he was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of quadriplegia, heart failure, diabetes, anxiety, major depressive disorder and neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder. His physician orders dated 10/4/21 included, catheter care every shift and as needed, and monitor catheter for patency and drainage every shift. The resident's care plan for suprapubic catheter care related to quadriplegia and bladder obstruction initiated 10/01/21 included interventions, Supra Pubic cath care as ordered. Review of the resident's TAR showed blank spaces for catheter care and monitoring the catheter for patency/drainage for the day shift on 1/02/23, and 1/05/23, and for the evening shift on 1/07/23. Review of the resident's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the period 1/01/23 to 1/09/23 showed blank spaces on 1/07/23 for the resident's scheduled 9 PM medications, Trazadone 50 milligram (mg) at bedtime for depression, Ropinirole 0.5 mg at bedtime for restless leg, Senna 8.5-50 mg 2 tablets at bedtime for constipation, insulin Glargine 70 units at bedtime for diabetes, Buspirone 5 mg for anxiety, and Metoprolol 12.5 mg for high blood pressure. On 1/09/23 at 12:21 PM, resident #6 stated he had a suprapubic catheter. He explained the regular nurses changed his catheter monthly, and flushed it as needed. He indicated that nurses from the agency did not want to change his catheter and would want to send him to the hospital for it to be changed. On 1/09/23 at 12:49 PM, and on 1/10/23 at 11:26 AM, the East Wing Unit Manager (UM) stated all residents with catheters had physician orders for catheter care, and care should be provided as per orders. She added nurses documented on the MAR after administration of medications was completed. The resident's TAR and MAR were reviewed with the UM and she confirmed blank spaces for the dates documented, and stated the TAR and MAR should not be left blank. The UM reported there was no documentation to indicate an issue, or if the resident refused medications/treatment/care on the specified dates. The UM explained she was not aware of any issues with the computer system and had no communication regarding the computers being down on 1/07/23. She stated the agency nurse who worked on 1/7/23 should have signed off on the MAR, or a code should have been entered to indicate why the medications were not given. A progress note could not be identified to indicate why the resident's scheduled 9 PM medications were not administered on 1/07/23. On 1/10/23 at 11:08 AM, the DON stated he was unable to contact the agency nurse who worked on 1/7/23 and did not explain why the MAR was blank on that date. 4. Resident #7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of hemiplegia/hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non dominant side, neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder, and benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptoms. Review of the physician orders dated 11/6/22 included catheter care every shift and as needed, cleanse suprapubic catheter site with normal saline, apply dry dressing, change daily and PRN (as needed) every night shift. The resident's care plan for suprapubic catheter related to neurogenic bladder initiated 1/07/21 included, cath care as ordered. Review of the resident's TAR from 1/01/23 to 1/09/23 revealed blank spaces for catheter care on the evening shift on 1/05/23, and 1/06/23, and for the night shift on 1/02/23, and 1/06/23. Blank spaces were identified for catheter site dressing on 1/02/23, and on 1/06/23. On 1/10/23 at 10:40 AM, the resident's TAR was reviewed with the DON, who confirmed the blank spaces on the dates documented, and noted there was no documentation to indicate an issue, or if the resident refused treatment/care.
Apr 2021 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of resident #157's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of resident #157's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure, dementia without behavioral disturbance, and type 2 diabetes. Review of the MDS Discharge return anticipated assessment dated [DATE] Section A, Identification Information indicated discharge assessment-return anticipated. This indicated resident #157 would be returning to the facility. Review of the Monthly Census Recap for March 2021 revealed resident #157 was discharged from the facility to another Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). On 4/21/21 at 5:24 PM, MDS Coordinator B said, The information in question F which had been coded 11-return anticipated was assessed incorrectly and should have been coded 10 return not anticipated. She was unable to explain why it was coded incorrectly as the staff who completed the assessment had retired. Review of the medical record revealed a physician's order dated 3/17/21 for resident #157 to be discharged to another SNF on 3/18/21. A Social Services progress note dated 3/17/21 at 3:01 PM read, Per family and resident request, resident is being discharged on 3/18/21 to a SNF. The note indicated the facility arranged transportation to the new SNF for resident #157. A nursing' progress note dated 3/18/21 at 1:10 PM revealed resident #157 was discharged earlier that morning at 10:50 AM via stretcher to another SNF. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accuracy of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for 1 of 8 residents reviewed for falls (#52) and 1 of 1 resident reviewed for discharge to community (#157) out of a total sample of 64 residents. Findings: 1. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (www.cms.gov) dated November 14, 2012, read, . the MDS provides a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities and helps the nursing home staff identify health problems and . helps provide the foundation upon which the resident's individual care plan is formulated Review of resident #52's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Cerebral Vascular Accident (CVA) Respiratory Failure, Pneumonia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) , Chronic Kidney Failure and Mood Disorder. Review of the facility's Incident Log revealed resident #52 had sustained falls on 12/09/20, 12/23/20 and 01/04/21. Review of resident #52's medical record revealed a 5 Day MDS assessment dated [DATE]. On 02/06/21 resident #52 was sent to the hospital for decreased blood pressure and oxygen saturations, elevated temperature, heart rate and respirations and lethargy. He was then readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the Discharge Return Anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE], Section J, Falls, question J1800 Has the resident had any falls since admission/entry or reentry or prior assessment which ever is more recent? was coded with a 0 (No). This indicated that resident #52 had not sustained any falls since his last MDS assessment (5 Day) dated 12/06/20. 04/21/21 at 11:36 AM, MDS Coordinator A and MDS Coordinator B confirmed that question J1800 which had been coded as a 0 (No) was incorrect and should have been coded as a 1 (Yes) because he had sustained 3 falls since his last MDS dated [DATE]. Both MDS Coordinators A and MDS Coordinator B had no answer as to why the MDS data had been entered incorrectly.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide nail care for 1 of 5 dependent residents revie...

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 provide nail care for 1 of 5 dependent residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL) of a total sample of 64 residents (#131). Findings: Resident #131 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] then readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Dementia, Diabetes Mellitus Type 2, Schizophrenia, and Epilepsy. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date of 03/31/21 revealed resident #131 had severely impaired cognition, and was totally dependent on 1 staff person for personal hygiene and bathing. On 04/18/21 at 3:40 PM, resident #131 was in bed, alert and watching television. His fingers nails to both hands were approximately 3/4 centimeters (cm) long with hardened, yellowish debris underneath. His main language was Spanish but he was able to answer minimal English questions. His right hand was able to move freely without limitation. His left hand was contracted. On 04/19/21 at 10:19 AM, resident #131 was observed in bed, alert and watching television. The resident's fingernails remained the same, long with yellowish debris under the nails. The resident was noted to scratch the right side of his face with his nails. On 04/20/21 at 10:00 AM, the resident's fingernails remained the same. At this time the resident lifted his left arm with his right hand to move position. His right hand fingernails pressed into his left lateral forearm deep enough to leave marks. On 04/21/21 at 9:20 AM, resident #131 opened his left hand using his right hand. There was redness measuring 2 cm x 3 cm on his palm near the thumb area from the long fingernails. On 04/21/21 at 11:20 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D said the resident was totally dependent on 2 staff for most of his ADLs. She said he had a gastrostomy tube (GT) for feeding but was provided pleasure foods during meals which he was able to eat with his right hand. She said she provided bed baths for the resident and during bathing, she inspected his skin from head to toe, and cleaned his nails. She noted that Activity Staff usually did nail care for the residents. She indicated the resident sometimes refused care but complied when attempted at a later time. On 04/21/21 at 11:53 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) C acknowledged the resident's finger nails were long and dirty. She said they needed to be cut and cleaned. She stated she had not noticed his nails when she administered medications and added that CNAs had not reported that his nails needed to be trimmed. She indicated that CNAs were responsible to clean and cut the nails but with this particular resident, she had to cut them herself. Care plan initially created on 01/28/2019 revealed that resident #131 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to Dementia, Diabetes Mellitus, Schizophrenia, and Anxiety. Interventions for bathing/showering: check nail length and trim and smooth rough edges, and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. Policy and procedures for Care of Nails dated 11/30/2014, revised 09/01/2017 stated that Procedure .trim fingernails .clean nails.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for 1 of 3 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain physician orders for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for oxygen therapy out of a total sample of 64 residents, (#77). Findings: Resident #77 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], then readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebral infarction, hypertensive heart failure, and vascular dementia. Review of the resident's quarterly Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment with assessment reference date of 3/2/2021 revealed resident #77 was cognitively impaired, required extensive assistance of 2 staff for activities of daily living (ADL), and used oxygen for respiratory treatment. On 4/19/21 at 10:33 AM, resident #77 was lying in bed. The resident was not interviewable. He had oxygen tubing with a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen concentrator. The regulator was set at 4.5 liters of oxygen per minute (LPM). On 4/19/21 at 10:44 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN )E acknowledged the regulator was set at 4.5 LPM. LPN E decreased the oxygen regulator down to 2 liters per minute. LPN E stated, someone has been messing with this, it should be on 2. She stated the resident did not touch the oxygen equipment as he could not get out of bed on his own. She stated that she checked it earlier and the flow was set at 2 LPM. She indicated that nurses had to make sure the concentrator was set to deliver the oxygen as per physician orders. On 4/19/21 at 10:50 AM, LPN E checked the physician orders for resident #77. She stated she could not find a physician order for resident #77's oxygen. On 4/19/21 at 10:55 AM, the East Unit Manager (UM) checked the physician orders. She acknowledged there were no current orders for oxygen for the resident. The UM stated the nurse should have obtained a physician order whenever a resident required oxygen therapy. She noted that a physician order is required to administer oxygen as it was a medication. On 4/21/21 at 7:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nurses were expected to obtain orders for all medications administered, including oxygen. The DON had no explanation as to how, when or why the resident was placed on oxygen without a physician order. The DON added that nurses were expected to observe residents on oxygen and confirm orders. Review of the nursing and physician progress notes and from 8/1/2020 through 4/19/2021 showed a nurse's progress note dated 1/14/2021 at 11:44 PM which read that resident #77 had vomited and was congested. The note showed the resident was given a nebulizer treatment and was placed on oxygen on 2 liter per minute via nasal cannula. A review of the resident's medical record with the Unit Manager showed there was an order for oxygen at 2 LPM as needed for saturation less than 90 per cent (%) dated 5/16/2019. This order was discontinued on 7/27/2020 when resident #77 was discharged to the hospital. The UM stated that upon readmission to the facility on 7/31/2020, resident #77's oxygen orders did not get reordered. A review of physician orders summary report from 1/1/2021 through 4/18/2021 did not indicate any orders for oxygen therapy. Review of the Medication Administration Record from 1/1/2021 to 4/18/2021 revealed no orders for oxygen therapy. Review of the facility policy and procedure for Administration Medication revealed, .2. Medications are administered in accordance with prescribed orders, Including any time frame.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below Florida's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 35 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $18,875 in fines. Above average for Florida. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 56/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Lotus's CMS Rating?

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

How is Lotus Staffed?

CMS rates LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the Florida average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 59%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lotus?

State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 34 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Lotus?

LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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 VENTURA SERVICES FLORIDA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 180 certified beds and approximately 163 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ORLANDO, Florida.

How Does Lotus Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lotus?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "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 below-average staffing rating.

Is Lotus Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Lotus Stick Around?

Staff at LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 17 percentage points below the Florida average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Lotus Ever Fined?

LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $18,875 across 3 penalty actions. This is below the Florida average of $33,268. 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 Lotus on Any Federal Watch List?

LOTUS NURSING AND REHABILITATION 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.