Vivo Healthcare Meadows

5157 PARK CLUB DRIVE, SARASOTA, FL 34235 (941) 377-0022
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds VIVO HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
1/100
#685 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Vivo Healthcare Meadows has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state rank of #685 out of 690 and a county rank of #30 out of 30, this facility is in the bottom tier of options in Florida and Sarasota County. While there is a trend of improvement, going from 19 issues in 2023 to 8 in 2024, there are still serious weaknesses to consider, such as $647,392 in fines, which is higher than 99% of Florida facilities, and less RN coverage than 83% of comparable facilities. Staffing is average with a rating of 3/5, but the turnover rate is concerning at 53%, which is above the state average, meaning that staff may not be as familiar with the residents. Specific incidents include a resident smoking with an oxygen concentrator nearby, posing a fire risk, and multiple failures in maintaining kitchen hygiene, which could lead to foodborne illnesses. Overall, families should weigh these serious issues against the facility's few strengths when considering care options.

Trust Score
F
1/100
In Florida
#685/690
Bottom 1%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
19 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
53% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
○ Average
$647,392 in fines. Higher than 56% of Florida facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Florida. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 19 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 53%

Near Florida avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $647,392

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: VIVO HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Oct 2024 6 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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, facility policy and procedure review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive assessment accurately reflected the status for 2 (Resident #78 and Resident #105) of 32 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The Findings Included: The Resident Assessment - RAI Policy provided by the facility with an October 2024 Revised date stated, This facility makes a comprehensive assessment of each resident's needs, strengths, goals, life history and preferences using the resident assessment instrument (RAI) specified by CMS . The current version of the RAI (MDS 3.0) will be utilized when conducting a comprehensive assessment of each resident in accordance with the instructions found in the RAI Manual . The assessment process will include direct observation and communication with the resident, as well as communication with licensed and non-licensed direct care staff members on all shifts . On 9/30/24 at 1:15 p.m., Resident #78 was observed dressed and lying in bed. She was smiling and kept repeating I love you and you are beautiful. Resident #78 did not answer any interview questions. She was picking at her upper teeth with a plastic drinking straw. All visible top teeth were observed jagged and decayed to the gum line. Clinical record review revealed Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Dementia. The Nursing Comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] noted Resident #78 had her own/natural teeth. No dental concern were noted on the assessment. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a target date of 3/27/23 noted Resident #78 was rarely/never understood. Her cognition was severely impaired. She never/rarely made decisions. The assessment noted Resident #78 had no obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth, no inflamed or bleeding gums or loose natural teeth. The care plan initiated on 4/12/23, revised on 6/11/24, and 7/6/24 noted the resident was at risk for having oral discomfort and/or intolerance to current diet texture due to obvious dental caries/broken teeth related to poor oral hygiene. The goal was for Resident #78 to be free of infection, pain or bleeding in the oral cavity. The interventions as of 4/12/23 included: Monitor/document/report as needed any signs and symptoms of oral/dental problems needing attention, pain (gums, toothache, palate), abscess, debris in mouth, teeth missing, loose, broken, eroded, decayed, ulcers in mouth, lesions. Coordinate arrangements for dental care, transportation as needed/ordered. On 8/25/2023 a Social Service progress note documented the Social Services department had reached out to (specific office), the dental company to get Resident #78 signed up to receive dental services. No other documentation related to dental status and services was noted in Resident #78's clinical record. The Annual MDS Assessment with a target date of 3/25/24 noted No was checked off, indicating Resident #78 had no obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. On 10/2/24 at 2:45 p.m. in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said she reviewed Resident #78's clinical record and verified the MDS assessments did not accurately reflect the resident's dental status. She also verified the lack of documentation the facility coordinated arrangements for dental care to address the resident's dental issues. On 10/2/24 at 3:00 p.m., in an interview the MDS Coordinator verified she completed the section addressing the oral/dental status of Resident #78's on the Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE]. She verified No was checked off indicating Resident #78 had no obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth. The MDS coordinator said she completed the MDS assessment based on the information entered on the Nursing Comprehensive assessment which noted the resident did not have any dental issues. She said she did not see the care plan related to Resident #78's dental issues initiated on 4/12/23. On 10/3/24 at 11:00 a.m., in an interview with the DON said she observed Resident #78's teeth and they were in bad shape. On 10/3/24 at 11:20 a.m., in an interview the MDS Coordinator said the Resident Assessment Instrument manual did not require the person completing the assessment to lay eyes on the resident to complete the assessment. The MDS coordinator said she looked at Resident #78's mouth and will not make that mistake again. On 10/3/24 at 11:55 a.m., in an interview the Administrator said, The dental issues should have been identified and addressed upon admission. Review of the clinical record for Resident #105 revealed an admission date of 10/21/22. The care plan initiated 11/28/22 revealed Resident #105 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. Review of the Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk dated 5/12/23 revealed a score of 15, at risk for developing pressure sores. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with a target date of 7/28/23 noted Resident #105's cognition was severely impaired. Resident #105 was incontinent of urine and feces, was wheelchair bound and totally dependent on staff for turning and repositioning. The MDS noted Resident #105 was not at risk of developing pressure ulcers. Review of the change in skin condition form dated 9/11/23 revealed Resident #105 developed a pressure ulcer. The care plan initiated on 9/26/23 noted Resident #105 had a deep tissue injury (Pressure injury with intact skin) to the left heel. Review of the Treatment Administration Records (TAR) for September and October 2023 revealed ongoing treatment for the deep tissue injury to the left heel from 9/12/23 through 10/7/23. The left heel deep tissue injury was not documented on the Discharge Return Anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE]. On 10/2/24 at 10:26 a.m., the MDS coordinator verified the Discharge MDS dated [DATE] was innacurate and did not document the deep tissue injury. On 10/3/24 at 9:38 a.m., in an interview the MDS coordinator said the Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] should have noted Resident #105 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to update the care plan and implement ph...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to update the care plan and implement physician ordered interventions to prevent the development of pressure ulcers for 1 (Resident #42) of 2 residents reviewed with limited mobility. The findings included: Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included difficulty walking, muscle weakness, reduced mobility and compression fracture of the vertebra. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment with a target date of 4/25/24 noted Resident #42 was dependent (Helper does all of the effort, Resident does none of the effort) to roll left and right, sit to lying, and lying to sitting on the side of the bed. Resident #42 had no pressure ulcer but was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The Quarterly MDS assessment with a target date of 7/26/24 noted Resident #42's cognition was intact with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order dated 9/10/24 to apply bilateral offloading boots (relieve pressure from specific areas of the foot or ankle) as tolerated on every shift while in bed. On 9/30/24 at 9:45 a.m., and on 9/30/24 at 1:30 p.m., Resident #42 was observed in bed and appeared to be sleeping. Resident #42 was not wearing the offloading boots as ordered. Offloading boots were not observed in the resident's room. On 10/01/24 at 10:38 a.m., Resident #42 was observed in bed, sleeping. Resident #42 was not wearing the offloading boots as ordered. Offloading boots were not observed in the resident's room. On 10/01/24 at 1:40 p.m., Resident #42 was observed in bed, awake. She was not wearing the offloading boots as ordered. On 10/02/24 at 8:40 a.m., Resident #42 was observed in bed, awake. She was not wearing the offloading boots as ordered. In an interview Resident #42 said she did not know she was supposed to wear offloading boots to her feet and did not know where the boots would be. Review of the care plan initiated and revised on 4/20/24 noted Resident #42 has potential for pressure ulcer development related to immobility. The goal was for the resident to have intact skin, free of redness, blisters or discoloration. The interventions included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. The care plan was not updated to include the physician's order of 9/10/24 to apply the offloading boots as tolerated every shift while in bed. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) [NAME] (Provides instructions for care) did not include to apply the offloading boots as tolerated every shift while in bed. On 10/3/24 at 8:30 a.m., in an interview CNA Staff C said she was assigned to provide care to Resident #42 on 10/2/24, and 10/3/24 but was not aware Resident #42 had an order for offloading boots while in bed. CNA Staff C reviewed the information in the [NAME] and verified the [NAME] did not include the application of offloading boots for Resident #42. On 10/3/24 at 8:55 a.m., in an interview the MDS Coordinator said MDS staff were responsible to update the care plan and CNA [NAME] with new orders. She verified the Care plan and [NAME] were not updated to reflect the physician's order dated 9/10/24 for the offloading boots.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hy...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene for 1 (Resident #11) of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADL's). The findings included: The facility policy Activities of Daily Living (revised 1/24) documented The facility will, based on the resident's comprehensive assessment and consistent with the resident's abilities in ADL's do not deteriorate unless deterioration in unavoidable. A resident who is unable to carry out activities of daily living will receive the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #11's diagnoses included major depressive disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia, and mood disorder. The care plan initiated 6/7/21 documented Resident #11 had an ADL selfcare performance deficit as evidenced by need for assist with self-care. The interventions instructed The resident requires assist x 1 staff with bathing. The resident requires assist x 1 staff to dress. The resident requires assist x 1 (assistance of 1) staff with personal hygiene and oral care. Further review of the care plan specified the resident was resistive to hygiene care related to anxiety. The goal specified the resident will cooperate with care through next review date and instructed staff to : Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. Educate resident/family/caregivers of the possible outcome(s) of not complying with treatment or care. Give clear explanation of all care activities prior to an as they occur during each contact. On 9/30/24 at 2:20 p.m., Resident #11 was observed in her room in bed. The room had a strong, pungent and foul odor. Resident #11 was noted to have a strong and unpleasant body odor. Her fingernails were long extending approximately half an inch past the fingertip, with the right fifth fingernail extending over one inch past the fingertip. A brown substance was observed under the residents' nails. Resident #11 had facial hair extending approximately one inch. Resident #11 said, I need a shave.Resident #11 said staff sometimes clean her nails but no one cuts her nails. Observation of the resident's feet showed a thick, yellow buildup on the heels and between the toes. On 10/1/24 at 9:46 a.m., Resident #11 was observed in bed wearing the same shirt as the previous day. She had a strong body odor, was disheveled and unkempt. In an interview Resident #11 said, I need someone to cut my nails, this little finger is really long. She still had the facial hair to her chin. Her pillow was ripped with the stuffing coming out. Review of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation showed the resident received assistance with person hygiene daily on the 7:00 a.m., to 3:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., shifts. On 10/1/24 at 2:38 p.m., in a interview CNA Staff C said Resident #11 did not like to come out of bed, was incontinent, refused care but had not refused care for her in a while now. CNA Staff C said the CNAs shower and shave residents. She said, I don't know who does the nail care. On 10/1/24 at 3:18 p.m., in a joint observation, CNA Staff C looked at the resident's fingernails and said, Wow, they are really long. Resident #11 said she wanted her nails cut. CNA Staff C said, I can cut them for you. The resident told CNA Staff C she asks other staff to cut her nails all the time, but they don't cut them. On 10/2/24 at 10:29 a.m., in an interview Registered Nurse Staff D said the expectation was for nails and shaving to be done every day, including women but was not always realistic. On 10/3/24 at 9:40 a.m., in an interview CNA Staff A said nail care and shaving are done daily or with showers. Staff A said if she had a resident who continued to refuse care after she had tried, she would report it to the nurse. On 10/3/24 at 9:56 a.m., Resident #11 was observed in her bed, her nails had been trimmed and she had a new pillow. The resident's feet remained with a dry, yellow thick buildup between her toes and covering the bottom of both feet. On 10/3/24 at 11:06 a.m., in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said she was not aware of the concerns with Resident #11's fingernails, torn pillow, lack of hygiene and the condition of the resident's feet. On 10/3/24 at 12:10 p.m., in an interview Unit Manager Licensed Practical Nurse staff E, said she was informed of the concerns with Resident #11's hygiene and said the resident had a care plan for refusal of care. Staff E said she never saw the resident's facial hair, long fingernails with brown substance underneath the nails, tattered pillow, and resident #11 wearing the same shirt on 9/30/24 and 10/1/24. Staff E repeated the resident had a care plan in place for refusal of care. Staff E said Resident #11 changed her shirt daily. Review of the clinical record showed no documentation Resident #11 had refused personal hygiene or care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0790 (Tag F0790)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of facility's policy and procedure and staff interviews the facility failed to provide or obtain dental services to meet the needs of 1 (Resident #78) of 1 resident observed with multiple broken, carious teeth. The findings included: The facility's policy for Dental Services reviewed/revised January 2024 noted it was the policy of this facility to assist residents in obtaining routine (to the extent covered under the State plan) and emergency dental care. Routine dental services means an annual inspection of the oral cavity for signs of disease, diagnosis of dental disease, dental radiographs as needed, dental cleaning, fillings (new and repairs) . smoothing of broken teeth . The dental needs of each resident are identified through the physical assessment and MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment process and are addressed in each resident's plan of care. Oral/dental status shall be documented according to assessment findings. Referrals to . dental provider shall be made as appropriate. The facility will if necessary or requested, assist the resident with making dental appointments and arranging transportation to and from the dental services location . All actions and information regarding dental services, including any delays related to obtaining dental services, will be documented in the resident's medical record. On 9/30/24 at 1:15 p.m., Resident #78 was observed dressed and lying in bed. She was smiling and kept repeating I love you and you are beautiful. Resident #78 did not answer any interview questions. She was picking at her upper teeth with a plastic drinking straw. All visible top teeth were observed jagged and decayed to the gum line. Clinical record review revealed Resident #78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Dementia. The Nursing Comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] noted Resident #78 had her own/natural teeth. No dental concern were noted on the assessment. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a target date of 3/27/23 noted Resident #78 was rarely/never understood. Her cognition was severely impaired. She never/rarely made decisions. The assessment noted Resident #78 had no obvious or likely cavity or broken natural teeth, no inflamed or bleeding gums or loose natural teeth. The care plan initiated on 4/12/23, revised on 6/11/24, and 7/6/24 noted the resident was at risk for having oral discomfort and/or intolerance to current diet texture due to obvious dental caries/broken teeth related to poor oral hygiene. The goal was for Resident #78 to be free of infection, pain or bleeding in the oral cavity. The interventions as of 4/12/23 included: Monitor/document/report as needed any signs and symptoms of oral/dental problems needing attention, pain (gums, toothache, palate), abscess, debris in mouth, teeth missing, loose, broken, eroded, decayed, ulcers in mouth, lesions. Coordinate arrangements for dental care, transportation as needed/ordered. On 8/25/2023 a Social Service progress note documented the Social Services department had reached out to (specific dental office), the dental company to get Resident #78 signed up to receive dental services. No other documentation related to dental status and services was noted in Resident #78's clinical record. On 10/2/24 at 2:45 p.m. in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said she reviewed Resident #78's clinical record and verified the lack of documentation the facility coordinated arrangements for dental care to address the resident's dental issues. On 10/3/24 at 11:00 a.m., in an interview with the DON said she observed Resident #78's teeth and they were in bad shape. On 10/3/24 at 11:55 a.m., in an interview the Administrator said, The dental issues should have been identified and addressed upon admission.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to make timely necessary repairs to maintain a safe, functional environment for residents, staff and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews the facility failed to make timely necessary repairs to maintain a safe, functional environment for residents, staff and the public. The findings included: Review of the facility Quality Assurance and Improvement Plan specified, We provide a comprehensive maintenance program that maintains building safety, conducts repairs when needed and performs safety inspections in accordance with State and Federal regulations to ensure the safety and well-being of all residents, visitors and staff. On 10/1/24 at 11:10 a.m., in a telephone interview Resident #103's family member said the facility is located down a dark road near the woods. The family member said the parking lot was dark at night, it was creepy and I didn't feel safe going to my car at night. On 10/2/24 at 8:26 a.m., in an interview the Administrator said several lights were out in the parking area and facility grounds. He said the lightbulbs were scheduled to be replaced last week but it was canceled due to the pending hurricane. The Administrator said they needed to order a lift crane to replace the burnt-out bulbs. The Administrator provided copies of the order forms for the lights dated 9/5/24. He said the lightbulbs replacement were scheduled for the next week. On 10/2/24 at 10:29 a.m., in an interview Registered Nurse Staff D said the parking lot was dark at night and could use more lighting. On 10/2/24 at 10:23 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse Staff B said the parking lot was dark at night and could use more lighting. Staff B said some of the parking lot lights have been out for a while. Staff B said, I don't know how long they have been out, but it's been like that for a while. On 10/3/24 at 8:40 a.m., the Maintenance Director said two lights in the parking lot had been out for a month or so and were scheduled to be repaired on 10/10/24.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of facility policy and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to eradicate and contain common household pests. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to eradicate and contain common household pests. The findings included: The facility's Pest Control Program policy revised 8/24 documented It is the policy of the facility to maintain an effective pest control program that eradicates and contains common household pests and rodents. On 9/30/24 at 10:43 a.m., in an interview Resident #45 said she had seen bugs, black and medium sized crawling on the walls at night. The resident said, The man comes in and sprays, but it does not do the job. I have told the nurses several times. He sprays on the floor, but the bugs climb the walls, so it does not stop them. On 9/30/24 at 11:00 a.m., in the back hall of the lobby a medium brown bug was observed on it's back. Photographic evidence obtained. On 10/1/24 at 10:24 a.m., in an interview Resident #63 said she had seen large bugs in her room. She said, They come in from under the air-conditioning unit over there. They climb on the walls and the floor. They spray but that doesn't stop them. Sometimes they are the little brown ones walking around. On 10/1/24 at 3:41 p.m., in an interview Resident #90 said he has seen bugs in his room on the floors, on the walls and in his belongings. He said, It was really bad for a month or so, but it has gotten better. It is Florida, what can you do? I tell the nurse, the guy comes and sprays. When they spray it is good for a couple of days, but they come right back. They come in from under the air-conditioner, and the outside doors, they just walk right in. On 10/2/24 at 10:00 a.m., in an interview the Maintenance Director said he has been at facility one year. He said, There are pest logs at each nursing station. The company comes every Wednesday in the early morning, and he fumigates the outside of the building first, then he goes to the kitchen to spray before they begin cooking. He checks the logs on each unit and then does where it is reported and sprays the resident rooms. On 10/2/24 at 11:53 a.m., and 4:00 p.m., two dead brown insects were observed on their back in the hallway next to the conference room. Photographic evidence obtained. On 10/2/24 at 4:01 p.m., a large dead brown insect was observed on the floor of the 500 hallway. Photographic evidence obtained. On 10//24 at 3:31 p.m., a review of the pest sighting log located at the [NAME] Wing Nurses Station showed documentation of bugs in resident rooms, offices and common areas: On 6/13/24, 6/23/24, 6/27/24 and 6/30/24. On 6/28/24 there were five entries documenting bugs in residents' rooms and the nutrition room. On 7/30/24 there were five documented concerns of bugs in the nourishment room, storage room and resident' rooms. On 7/31/24 the entry for a resident's room documented at 2:20 a.m., bugs all over the room. On 8/6/24 and 8/28/24 documented bugs in resident' rooms. On 9/11/24, 9/17/24, 9/18/24, 9/21/24, 9/25/24, 9/27/24, and 9/30/24 documented bugs in resident' rooms. On 9/24/24 two entries documented bugs in all rooms on the 400 hall and the nourishment room. On 9/30/24 the log documented bugs in the classroom. On 10/2/24 the log documented bugs in all rooms on the 500 hall and in the nourishment room. Review of the Pest Log for the East Wing documented: On 4/8/24 and 4/25/24 documented large bugs running around in rooms. On 4/25/24 documented three bugs in residents room. On 4/26/24 documented bugs near bathroom, doors and bed. On 5/28/24 bugs in bathroom and on walls in residents' room. On 5/29/24 large bugs in resident dresser and in closet. Bugs were noted on 6/2/24, 6/15/24, 6/16/24, 6/25/24, 6/30/24, 7/24/24, 7/28/24, 8/30/34 and 9/4/24. On 10/2/24 at 10:23 a.m., in an interview Licensed Practical Nurse Staff B said the problem with the roaches is getting better but the residents drop food, they have food in the rooms, and some get food in their wheelchair. The facility is surrounded by trees and woods, and I think that is where they come from. I do see them, and I put it in the pest binder. Review of the Pest Control Summary of Service Recommendations dated 8/21/24, 9/11/24, 9/20/24, 9/25/24 and 10/2/24 revealed No activity and documented the following repairs required to prevent pest entry: All of hall 500 rooms baseboard on the bottom of air-conditioner on both sides need to be sealed to prevent pest entry. Trim trees/vegetation touching the building to prevent any pest entry to structure. Common areas all doors gap/damage noted that allows pest access. Please repair to prevent pests. Kitchen cracks or damage to floors allowing pest access. Cracks or damage to drains allowing pest access. On 10/3/24 at 8:33 a.m., in an interview the Maintenance Director said he was not aware the pest control service was documenting no activity noted when visiting the facility. He said the dead bugs observed on the floor were a good thing but confirmed they should have been removed. The Maintenance Director said he was aware of the repairs listed on the pest control reports every month to prevent pests from accessing the facility. He said, We have been working on the repairs, I had a hole in the wall repaired on the 500 hall. He confirmed he had not made the necessary repairs to the access doors, air-conditioning units or in the kitchen as recommended to prevent pests from entering the facility and said, We are working on them.
Apr 2024 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

Deficiency F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that within 30 days of discharge, eviction or death, residents personal funds and a final accounting is provided to the individual or...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that within 30 days of discharge, eviction or death, residents personal funds and a final accounting is provided to the individual or probate jurisdiction administering the estate for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed discharged mid month. The findings included: On 4/1/24 at 9:53 a.m., Resident #1's son said his mother passed away on January 13, 2024. He said he had still not received a refund from the facility. Resident #1's son said he spoke with someone he believed to be corporate in New Jersey approximately 5 weeks earlier who told him the refund was approved but they were waiting for the check to be cut. Resident #'1's son said he had not yet received a check and had heard nothing since. On 4/1/24 at 1:33 p.m., the Administrator said if a Resident is discharged or passed away, the business office has to issue a refund from that date to the end of the month. He explained the request for refund is handled at the facility but the disbursement is by a third party company. On 4/1/24 at 2:17 p.m., the Administrator said he reviewed Resident #1's account. He said the account was actually closed on 2/21/24 by account rep who works for the third party company. The Administrator said in looking through the account it did look like the refund check was never mailed out. The Administrator said he cannot answer why they did not cut the check and mail it. The Administrator said they are going to go back and audit to make sure there are no other outstanding accounts like that. He said it was an oversight and does not know why it wasn't done.
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

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 resident reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 resident reviewed who returned to facility from the hospital. The findings included: On 4/1/24 at 9:53 a.m., Resident #1's son said his mother had been at the hospital and when she returned to the facility in January, he did not believe she was getting all her medications. He said his mother passed away on January 13, 2024. Review of Resident #1's chart revealed she was a long term care resident who had been sent out to the hospital and returned to the facility on 1/9/24. Physician progress note dated 1/9/24 indicated discuss case with nursing staff and continue with meds: Gabapentin (anticonvulsant and nerve pain medication), Nitroglycerin sublingual (treats chest pain), Breo Elipta and Ipratropium-Albuterol (inhaler), Protonix (treats reflux), Tegretol (treats seizures and nerve pain), Carbidopa-Levadopa (treats tremors), Pramipexole Dihydrochloride (treats tremors), Amantadine (anti viral), Trazadone (antidepressant), Tramadol (pain), Paxil (antidepressant), Lasix (water pill), and Ativan (anxiety). Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record for January showed these routine medications had not been restarted upon return from the hospital on 1/9/24. On 4/1/24 at 12:31 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said she had not been employed at the facility during Resident #1's stay. She did review the file and agreed it looked as if staff overlooked and the medications had not been re-instated or given to this patient upon return to facility from the hospital. On 4/2/24 at 10:30 a.m., the DON again agreed the routine medications were missed. She said she had spoke to the doctor who said Resident #1 was going to be transitioning to Hospice but had passed before the hospice consult occurred.
Jun 2023 16 deficiencies 2 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview the facility Administration failed to utilize its resources effectively to ensure safe smoking practices, including assessment and supervision of residents who smoke tobacco products to protect residents from serious injury, impairment, or death. On 6/4/23 staff observed Resident #65 smoking in his room with the oxygen concentrator on. The facility failed to reassess Resident #65's ability to adhere to safe smoking precautions and allowed the resident to keep, and store smoking materials. Resident #65 and other residents who required supervision to smoke were observed smoking unsupervised. The smoking area was observed with an overfilled pole cigarette receptacle and the surrounding area littered with cigarette butts. The floor of a clearly marked nonsmoking area had scattered cigarette butts. Residents observed smoking unsupervised in the nonsmoking area with no ashtray. The facility administration's failure to ensure safe smoking practices created a likelihood of serious injury, impairment, or death from thermal burns and fire and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at a scope and severity of isolated (J) starting on 6/4/23. On 6/23/23 at 11:58 a.m., the Administrator was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy and provided the IJ templates. The facility census was 105 and included 11 residents who smoke tobacco products. The findings included: Cross reference F689. The Administrator's job description signed on 3/13/23 noted in the position purpose, Leads, guides, and directs the operations of the healthcare facility in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, standards and established facility policies and procedures to provide appropriate care and services to residents . Major duties and responsibilities . Performs rounds to observe residents and ensure overall needs are being met. Practices management by walking around . Manages and minimizes facility risk through a team approach to achieve desired outcome in customer service . other areas as identified. Additional tasks . Follows appropriate safety . measures at all times to protect residents and themselves . The Director of Nursing's job description signed on 2/3/23 included, Plans, develops, organizes, implements, evaluates, and directs the overall operations of the Nursing Services department, as well as its programs and activities, in accordance with current state and federal laws and regulations. Performs rounds to observe residents and ensure nursing needs are being met . Review of the facility's Resident Smoking policy implemented on 10/01/22 state the facility will provide a safe and health environment for residents, visitors, and employees, including safety related to smoking and safety protections apply to smoking and non-smoking residents. The policy further noted, All residents will be asked about tobacco use during the admission process, and during each quarterly or comprehensive MDS (Medical Data Set) assessment process . Residents who smoke will be further assessed, using the Resident Safe Smoking Assessment, to determine whether or not supervision is required for smoking, or if resident is safe to smoke at all . All safe smoking measures will be documented on each resident's care plan and communicated to all staff, visitors, and volunteers who will be responsible for supervising residents while smoking. Supervision will be provided as indicated on each resident's care plan. Review of the clinical record for Resident #65 revealed an admission date of 4/13/22 and a readmission date of 5/19/23. Diagnoses included Congestive Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) requiring the use of oxygen. Resident #65 smoked tobacco products. On 5/19/23, a smoking evaluation documented the resident was able to smoke independently. The evaluation noted the resident was able to safely hold a cigarette, and the resident was able to properly dispose of ashes or cigarette butts. Review of the progress notes revealed on 6/4/23 staff observed Resident #65 smoking in his room. The oxygen concentrator was on at the bedside but not in use. The staff confiscated the cigarettes. Resident #65 denied having a lighter. The clinical record lacked documentation the resident's ability to adhere to safe smoking practices was reassessed. On 6/20/23 at 12:08 p.m., Resident #65 was observed in bed. The resident had cigarettes and a lighter with him. He said he smoked independently. The oxygen concentrator was in the room but not turned on at the time of the observation. The facility provided a new smoking evaluation completed on 6/20/23 at 3:42 p.m., which noted Resident #65 had unsafe smoking habits and a history of sharing/selling cigarettes or smoking materials. The evaluation noted the resident had a decline in functionality and determined Resident #65 required supervised smoking. On 6/20/23 at 4:20 p.m., Resident #65 was observed smoking unsupervised in the designated smoking area. On 6/22/23 at 1:05 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified a new evaluation was not completed on 6/4/23 after Resident #65 was found smoking in his room with the oxygen concentrator on. She said from that point on, he was put on supervised smoking which meant all his smoking materials needed to be kept at the nurses' station. She said the information was passed on verbally between staff members. On 6/21/23 at 5:40 p.m., the Assistant Maintenance said since she's been employed at the facility a year ago, she has picked up cigarette butts from the floor every day. She said she observed Resident #70, #10 and #30 throwing cigarette butts on the floor. She has told them over and over to discard the cigarette butts in the ashtray to no avail. She said she reported the unsafe smoking practices to the Administrator who said she educated the residents. She said she has not seen any changes. The facility provided the survey team with a list of 11 current smokers. Review of the clinical records for a sample of smokers revealed the following: Resident #70 was a smoker admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the clinical record showed a smoking evaluation with an effective date of 12/6/22 and signed by the DON on 1/20/23 noted the resident required supervised smoking. The resident's care plan dated 12/19/22 noted the resident was a smoker and the resident would smoke only in authorized areas while supervised. No other smoking evaluation was noted in the clinical record after 12/6/22. On 6/20 /23 at 10:25 a.m., and 12:46 p.m., Resident #70 was observed smoking unsupervised in the designated smoking area. The designated smoking area had an overfilled ashtray, and the floor of the wooden gazebo was littered with multiple cigarette butts. On 6/21/23 at 12:30 p.m., an unidentified resident was observed smoking in a covered patio clearly marked with a large nonsmoking sign. The patio did not have an ashtray. Several cigarette butts were observed littering the floor of the nonsmoking patio area. Photographic evidence obtained On 6/21/23 at 4:45 p.m., Resident #70 said he was aware smoking was not allowed in the nonsmoking patio but, we do it all the time. Resident #10 was a smoker admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a readmission date of 5/14/23. Review of Resident #10's clinical record revealed the most recent smoking evaluation completed on 1/19/23 noted the resident used oxygen and required supervised smoking due to safety of others and past behavior. No other smoking evaluation was completed after 1/19/23. Resident #30 was a smoker with an initial admission date of 6/28/21. The resident was discharged with return anticipated and on 6/15/23. The most recent admission was 6/20/23. Review of the clinical record on 6/20/23 showed the last smoking evaluation completed on 1/19/23 noted due to past behavior of choosing to not follow facility policy regarding smoking, supervised smoking was required. Resident #43 was a smoker admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the clinical record showed the last smoking evaluation was completed on 1/20/23. The evaluation noted Resident #43 required supervised smoking. There was no other evaluation completed after 1/20/23. On 6/20 /23 at 10:25 a.m., and 12:46 p.m., Resident #43 was observed smoking unsupervised in the designated smoking area. On 6/22/23 at 1:05 p.m., the Administrator (AD) and Director of Nursing (DON) said the department heads conduct weekly rounds and fill out a form which covers multiple areas. The Administrator and Director of Nursing both said since they have been employed at the facility, respectively in February and March of 2023, no one had voiced concerns related to unsafe smoking practices. The Administrator said she was not aware residents were smoking in nonsmoking areas. The DON said as of 6/4/23 Resident #65 was the only resident who required supervision. She said a smoking evaluation is completed upon admission, on a quarterly basis and as needed. The DON verified staff did not consistently complete the smoking evaluation to address any change in condition placing residents at risk of thermal burns or fire due to unsafe smoking practices. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/23/23 after surveyor verification of an approved removal plan which included: On 6/21/2023 a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) on the smoking practices in the center to ensure safe smoking practices are in place to protect residents from serious injury, impairment or death was completed by the [NAME] President of Clinical Operations (VPCO), Administrator, Director of Nursing and Medical Director. Documentation of the RCA was put on the RCA Tool and will be included in the next Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting. The survey team verified through record review. On 6/23/2023, the VPCO educated the Administrator on ensuring the Center has a system in place to ensure safe smoking habits and practices are in place. Education included making sure staff in knowledgeable about habits that violate safe smoking practices and report them to administration when they occur. The survey team verified through record review. On 6/23/2023, the VPCO educated the Director of Nursing on conducting smoking assessments on residents that smoke on admission, quarterly and when they experience a change in condition that will affect smoking habits and competency. Education also included updating and individualizing plan of care of residents that smoke to reflect current assessment. The survey team verified through record review. On 6/23/23 all 11 smokers had an updated smoking evaluation. On 6/23/2023, the VPCO reviewed job descriptions for Administrator and Director of Nursing to ensure that they understand their duties and responsibilities. Review shows that Administrator and DON are capable of carrying out the job duties. The survey team verified through record review and interview of the Director of Nursing and Administrator. On 6/23/2023, the Administrator hosted an AD HOC Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting on 6/23/2023 with DON, VPCO and Medical Director to review the Root Cause Analysis of Res #65 smoking risk event, center smoking practices & Performance Improvement Plan put in place to address areas of opportunities. The survey team verified through record review. Administrator implemented after review of RCA a (PIP) on residents smoking assessments and plan of care, designated smoke times, supervision of residents during smoking times, application of smoking aprons, adherence to smoking areas, discarding cigarette butts in fire receptacles, and reporting observations of non-compliance on 6/23/2023. The survey team verified through record review of smoking schedules and observation of supervised smoking in the designated smoking area. The SDC or designee re-educated Nursing, Social Services, Housekeeping, Dietary, Therapy, and Maintenance employees on the Smoking Policy and Procedure beginning 6/22/2023 with emphasis on designated smoke times, supervision of residents during smoking times, application of smoking aprons, adherence to smoking areas, discarding cigarette butts in fire receptacles, and reporting observations of non-compliance. Any employee on leave of absence (FMLA), vacation, or PRN will be re-educated prior to returning to duty. Staff re-education: Nursing staff 39/44 (89%); Non nursing staff 15/15 (100%); Therapy 13/13 (100%); Dietary 9/10 (90%); Housekeeping/Laundry 11/11 (100%). Agency staff not currently educated will be educated on this plan prior to working their scheduled assignment. The survey team verified through record review, and interview of three nurses, and two Certified Nursing Assistants. Effective 6/22/2023, designated smoking times will be implemented for all residents who smoke. Cigarette paraphernalia and smoking aprons will be stored in a secure designated smoking storage cart. Additionally, documentation outlining individualized safety measures will be based on the smoking assessment and located on or inside the smoking storage boxes. Designated smoking aide will be added to daily staffing assignment. The survey team verified through record review and observation of supervised smoking at the designated smoking times. Effective 6/22/2023, Director of Nursing and/or designee will review new admissions during the Clinical Meeting to identify smokers and validate a smoking assessment has been completed and a plan of care is in place to maintain resident safety. The survey team verified through record review. If a resident is observed as being non-compliant with smoking, a care plan meeting will be scheduled with resident and/or legal representative. Smoking privileges may be revoked. Any further non-compliance may result in the issuance of an immediate discharge notice and/or a 30-day notice for discharge. The survey team verified through record review.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 6/20/23, review of the clinical record for Resident #43 revealed an initial admission date of 8/20/21. The Annual MDS ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 6/20/23, review of the clinical record for Resident #43 revealed an initial admission date of 8/20/21. The Annual MDS assessment with an assessment reference date of 8/23/22 noted the resident had current tobacco use. Diagnoses included Dementia. The most recent smoking evaluation was dated 1/20/23 and was completed by the DON. The DON answered No to the question Does the resident have dementia?. The evaluation noted, Supervised smoking is required. No other smoking evaluation was noted in the clinical record. The care plan initiated on 8/20/21 and revised on 2/23/23 noted the resident was a current smoker with a goal to remain safe from injury. The interventions included, A smoking history and safe smoking assessment will be completed upon admission/readmission, quarterly, annually, and/or with a change in smoking habits. Resident must have cigarettes/lighters locked up at all times other than smoking time. Resident will smoke only in authorized areas while being supervised. On 6/20/23 at 10:52 a.m., Resident #43 was observed smoking unsupervised in the designated smoking Gazebo. Resident #43 had cigarettes and a lighter. He said he keeps his cigarettes and lighter in his room and smokes when he feels like it. The smoking patio was observed with a large plastic garbage container within proximity of an ashtray mounted to the pole of the gazebo of the smoking area. The garbage container was approximately filled 75% with items including paper items and Styrofoam cups. Multiple cigarette butts were observed on the wooden floor of the gazebo, on the grass surrounding the smoking area and around a pole cigarette receptacle which was overfilled with cigarette butts. Photographic evidence obtained. The wall mounted metal box containing the fire blanket had sharp rusted pieces. Photographic evidence obtained. There were cigarette butts next to the wooden walkway leading to the gazebo. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/20/23 at 1:11 p.m., and 6/21/23 at 9:43 a.m., on the 400-hall patio, there was a nonsmoking sign on the door leading to the outside covered patio. The nonsmoking area did not have an ashtray and multiple cigarette butts were observed on the floor. On 6/21/23 at 12:30 p.m., an unidentified resident was observed smoking in the covered patio clearly marked with a large nonsmoking sign. 5. On 6/20/23, review of the clinical record for Resident #10 revealed an admission date of 11/11/2017 and a readmission date of 5/14/23. The care plan initiated on 5/17/21 and revised on 6/19/23 noted the resident was a smoker and non-compliant with smoking protocol. The goal was for the resident to not suffer injury from unsafe smoking practices. The interventions included instructing resident about the facility policy on smoking, locations, times, safety concerns and wait for assistance from staff. Resident #10's care plan also noted the resident had poor impulse control, had the potential to be physically aggressive, hitting out at staff/residents related to anger, altering oxygen orders per physician's order at bedside. The most recent smoking evaluation was dated 1/19/23 and noted the resident required supervised smoking, due to the safety of other and past behavior. No other smoking evaluation was completed after 1/19/23. On 6/20/23 at 9:13 a.m., Resident #10 was observed lying in bed. He said he usually kept his cigarettes and lighter with him. He said he dropped them on the floor and could not find them. Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to implement processes to ensure accurate assessment and supervision of residents who smoke tobacco products to protect each resident's individual's safety and the safety of other residents. The facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement adequate interventions to minimize falls for 1(Resident #71) of 1 resident reviewed for falls. On 6/4/23 staff observed Resident #65 smoking in his room with the oxygen concentrator on. The facility failed to reassess Resident #65's ability to adhere to safe smoking precautions and allowed the resident to keep, and store smoking materials. Resident #65 and other residents who required supervision to smoke were observed smoking unsupervised. The smoking area was observed with an overfilled pole cigarette receptacle and the surrounding area littered with cigarette butts. The floor of a clearly marked nonsmoking area had scattered cigarette butts. Residents observed smoking unsupervised in the nonsmoking area with no ashtray. The facility failure to ensure safe smoking practices created a likelihood of serious injury, impairment or death from thermal burn and fire, and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) at a scope and severity of pattern (K) starting on 6/4/23. On 6/23/23 at 11:50 a.m., the Administrator was informed of the determination of Immediate Jeopardy and provided the IJ templates. The findings included: Cross Reference to F835. The facility policy Resident Smoking (revised 9/12/22) documented It is the policy of this facility to provide a safe and healthy environment for residents, visitors, and employees, including safety as related to smoking and non-smoking residents. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: 1. Smoking is prohibited in all areas except the designated smoking area. A Designated Smoking Area sign will be prominently posted. 2. Safety measures for the designated smoking area will include, but not limited to: a. Protection from weather conditions (i.e. covered). b. Provision of ashtrays made of noncombustible material and safe design. c. Accessible metal containers with self-closing covers into which ashtrays can be emptied. d. Accessible fire extinguisher. e. Prohibition of oxygen use in the smoking area. f. Located outdoors from main entrances and exits, and common space utilized by other residents in order to protect non-smoking residents from second hand smoke. 4. All residents and family members will be notified of this policy during the admission process and as needed. 5. All residents will be asked about tobacco use during the admission process, and during each quarterly or comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) assessment process. 6. Residents who smoke will be further assessed, using the Resident Safe Smoking Assessment, to determine whether or not supervision is required for smoking, or if resident is safe to smoke at all. 8. Any resident who is deemed safe to smoke will be allowed to smoke in designated areas (weather permitting) at designated times, and in accordance with his/her care plan. 12. Smoking materials of residents will be maintained by the centers designated associate. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #65 had an admission date of 4/13/22 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, anxiety, schizophrenia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #65's cognitive skills for daily decision making were intact. Resident #65 frequently experienced moderate pain which limited his day-to-day activities. The assessment noted the resident was receiving oxygen therapy. The care plan initiated 4/20/22 and revised on 1/19/23 noted Resident #65 was a current smoker. The care plan documented, supervised smoker; chooses at time to not follow facility policy regarding smoking and may require more encouragement. The goal was, The resident will not put other residents/staff at risk secondary to smoking. The interventions included, A smoking history and safe smoking assessment will be completed upon admission/readmission, quarterly, annually, and/or with a change in smoking habits and care smoking care plan will be initiated. Encourage/ educate resident to use safety while smoking; assessed found to be at risk. Resident refuses- - A fire retardant smoking apron must be worn while smoking. Initiated: 01/20/2023 Resident will smoke only in authorized areas while supervised. Smoking education has been provided to resident including not smoking in facility; designated smoking areas; locking up cigarettes/lighters; cigarettes brought in by family/friends must be locked up; only facility ashtrays may be used. Violation of smoking rules or disregard for safety rules my result in revocation of smoking privileges. Smoking rules will be reviewed with the resident upon admission. Date Initiated: 01/20/2023. The care plan initiated on 8/12/22 and revised on 2/2/23 noted the resident had the behavior of picking up cigarettes from the floor and out of the garbage. The interventions included monitoring the resident's behavior and for staff to notify maintenance to ensure there were no remaining cigarette on the floor in the smoking area. The Smoking Evaluation completed by the Unit Manager and dated 5/19/23 noted, Independent smoking is allowed. The Unit Manager entered No to the questions Does the resident use oxygen?, and Does the resident have unsafe smoking habits? Review of the nurse's progress note dated 6/4/23 documented Resident #65 was found to be smoking in his room by certified nursing assistant (CNA). She ensured that he put it out and he put it out on restroom door ledge. This nurse immediately notified, room smells like smoke and resident's oxygen concentrator is on at bedside but not in use while resident was by the restroom. Resident denies that he was smoking educated by nurse and ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing). Cigarettes confiscated and placed in smoker box, resident denies having a lighter. Monitored frequently via 15-minute checks. Will continue to monitor. The smoking evaluation and care plan were not revised to reflect Resident #65's unsafe smoking incident. On 6/20/23 at 9:25 a.m., CNA Staff C said Resident #65 was a smoker and propelled himself to the smoking area several times a day. Staff C said the smoking area was always monitored, and no resident was allowed to smoke independently. On 6/20/23 at 12:08 p.m., Resident #65 was observed in bed with a lighter and cigarettes. An oxygen concentrator was observed in the room. Resident #65 said he smoked daily. He said he had been feeling drained with no energy in the last few weeks but was able to transfer himself and go outside to smoke on his own. On 6/20/23, the facility provided a new smoking evaluation completed on 6/20/23 at 3:42 p.m., which noted Resident #65 used oxygen, had unsafe smoking habits, and a history of sharing/selling cigarettes or smoking materials. The evaluation noted the resident had a decline in functionality and determined Resident #65 required supervised smoking. On 6/20/23 at 3:48 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurse had planned to complete another smoking assessment for Resident # 65 due to significant change in his status and physical decline. On 6/20/23 at 4:20 p.m., Resident #65 was observed propelling himself to the smoking area with cigarettes and a lighter. The resident was observed smoking unsupervised. On 6/20/23 at 4:20 p.m., the designated smoking area was observed with an overfilled pole cigarette receptacle with multiple cigarette butts littering the surrounding area. Photographic evidence obtained. Cigarette butts were observed on the floor of the smoking area of the wooden gazebo. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/21/23 at 9:41 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager Staff E said the smoking materials were kept at the nursing station in a box behind the desk. Staff E said the process was independent smokers can go out when they choose, there were no scheduled smoking times. She said the independent smokers did not require supervision and they come to the desk to get their cigarettes and lighter. Staff E said all staff were responsible to ensure the cigarettes and lighter were returned to the nursing station. Staff E said Resident #65 now required supervision with smoking. Staff E said the CNA was told to go out with the resident when he wants to smoke. Staff E said there was no set time or CNA assigned to assist Resident #65 with smoking. On 6/22/23 at 1:05 p.m., the DON verified a new evaluation was not completed on 6/4/23 after Resident #65 was found smoking in his room with the oxygen concentrator on. She said from that point on, he was put on supervised smoking which meant all his smoking materials needed to be kept at the nurses' station. She said the information was passed on verbally between staff members. 2. Review of the clinical record for Resident #70 revealed an admission date of 12/6/22. The admission MDS assessment with an assessment reference date of 12/13/22 noted the resident's diagnoses included Dementia. The most recent smoking evaluation signed on 1/20/23 with an effective date of 12/6/22 noted the DON answered No to the question, Does the resident have dementia?. The facility determined Supervised smoking is required for Resident #70. No other smoking evaluation was completed after 1/20/23. The care plan initiated on 12/19/22 and revised on 6/19/23 noted, Resident will smoke only in authorized areas while supervised. On 6/20/23 at 10:25 a.m., and 12:46 p.m., Resident #70 was observed smoking unsupervised in the designated smoking area. On 6/21/23 at 4:45 p.m., Resident #70 said smoking was not allowed in the nonsmoking patio but, we do it all the time. 3. Resident #30 was a smoker with an initial admission date of 6/28/21. The resident was transferred to an acute care hospital on 6/15/23 and returned to the facility on 6/20/23. The care plan initiated on 12/7/23 and revised on 1/19/23 noted the resident was a smoker and, Resident chooses to not follow facility protocol regarding smoking at times. The interventions included as of 12/7/21, The resident can smoke unsupervised. Review of the clinical record on 6/20/23 showed the last smoking evaluation completed on 1/19/23 noted due to past behavior of choosing to not follow facility policy regarding smoking, supervised smoking was required. No other evaluation was found in the clinical record after 1/19/23. The care plan was not updated to reflect the resident required supervised smoking. On 6/21/23 at 5:40 p.m., Assistant Maintenance Director Staff B said, I have picked up cigarette butts daily for the last year, they are always on the ground. The management team educates the residents on safe disposal of cigarettes, but I have seen the residents' throwing butts on the ground. Every morning I am picking up butts off the ground. Staff B said I have observed Resident #70, #10 and #30 throwing cigarette butts onto the ground and I tell them over and over to put them in the ashtray. I have spoken to management about the concerns. I have not seen residents smoking on the non-smoking patio but every morning I pick up the cigarette butts. I check every morning at the gazebo area, and I use a reacher and a broom to pick up all the butts from the ground. Staff B said, what you have seen out there was two days' worth of cigarette butts because I did not get to it today. I am responsible to empty the ashtrays and last Friday the 16th was the last time I emptied it. There was no certain time the residents are able to smoke, they smoke all day long. There is a red metal bucket outside by the fence for cigarettes and I empty it daily. I have never emptied the [NAME] bottle ashtray (pole cigarette receptacle). There are butts around the [NAME] ashtray in the rocks and I pick them up every day. I sweep the grass with a broom to try and get them up. Staff B said she had spoken to administration about the cigarette butts being put out on the ground and they spoke to the residents about using the ashtrays and not throwing them on the ground. Staff B said, I have not seen any changes since the Administrator said she educated the residents, they still throw them (cigarette butts) on the ground. On 6/22/23 at 1:05 p.m., the Administrator (AD) and Director of Nursing (DON) said the department heads conduct weekly rounds and fill out a form which covers multiple areas. The Administrator and Director of Nursing both said since they have been employed at the facility, respectively in February and March of 2023, no one had voiced concerns related to unsafe smoking practices. The Administrator said she was not aware residents were smoking in nonsmoking areas. The DON said as of 6/4/23 Resident #65 was the only resident who required supervision. She said a smoking evaluation is completed upon admission, on a quarterly basis and as needed. The DON verified staff did not consistently complete the smoking evaluation to address any change in condition placing residents at risk of thermal burns or fire due to unsafe smoking practices. 5. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a history of hypertension, Cognitive communication deficit, Being unsteady on her feet, muscle weakness, Dementia, and Schizophrenia. On 1/23/23 the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) showed Resident #71 had severe cognitive deterioration with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 2. On 6/19/23 at 10:55 a.m., Resident #71 was observed lying in the bed sleeping. There was a single floor mat noted on the side of the bed of window and wall. On 6/20/23 at 2:00 p.m. Resident #71 was observed lying in the bed sleeping. The same single floor mat was noted on the floor. On 6/21/23 at 11:10 a.m. Resident #71 was observed lying in the bed sleeping. The same single floor mat was noted on the side of the bed. On 6/22/23 at 1:20 P.M. Resident #71's daughter said she was concerned about her mother falling. She stated her mother had fallen two times at the facility where she had to be sent to the hospital due to her injuries. Resident #71's daughter said she was concerned because she did not think the facility had interventions in place to prevent her mother from continuing to fall. An incident report shows on 2/24/23 at 9:30 p.m. Resident #71 fell in her room and hit her head causing her to go to the hospital for treatment. According to the incident report the fall was witnessed by a certified nursing assistant whose statement is recorded as, room [ROOM NUMBER] was sitting up on the bed. I asked is she was ok, and she said OK. When she got up from the bed I asked her where are you going? She told me stop as she was getting up she lost her balance and stumbled and fell down and hit her head on the wall. I was sitting in the room with 301. On 2/24/23 at 10:13 p.m. documentation on the Fall Risk Assessment V2.0 shows Resident #71 was assessed to be a low risk for falls with a score of 9. The form reads a score greater than 10 is considered a risk for falls. On 4/14/23 at 5:45 p.m. an incident report shows Resident #71 had a fall after being put in her bed. The nurse who reported the incident wrote, At the beginning of the shift, resident was sitting in her wheelchair, and became increasingly agitated and combative. Assisted patient back to bed for safety. Bilateral fall matts in place. Bed in low position. Non skid socks in place. At about [5:45 p.m.] got called by staff to resident's room. Resident observed laying on the floor, face down in a moderate to large amount of bright blood. Resident responded to name calling by moaning, attempting to lift self from the floor. [vital signs] stable. Resident lifted off the floor by paramedics. The resident was transported to the hospital on 4/14/23. Resident #71 was diagnosed with a fractured nasal bone on 4/15/23. Resident #71's Had a fall care plan initiated on 1/26/22/ and it was last revised on 4/26/23. Interventions included in the care plan were ensure secure bilateral footwear for safety, Encourage and assist resident to lay down for naps, Review information on past falls and attempt to determine cause of falls. There was no intervention listed on the care plan for a floor mat or bilateral floor mats while the resident is in the bed. On 6/23/23 at approximately 1:30 p.m. the Administrator said if there was one fall mat it should be on the side of the bed toward the door where the resident gets out of bed. The Administrator was referred to the incident report on 4/14/23 where the resident had bilateral floor mats prior to her fall. On 6/23/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m. The administrator said they were removing the floor mat because the resident did not have a physician's order to have them. The Administrator was asked about the potential injury to the resident if she fell from her bed again. The Administrator stated she would have to get back with me. On 6/23/23 at 5:30 p.m. The administrator had not followed up as to whether the facility would continue with floor mats for Resident #71. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 6/23/23 after surveyor verification of an approved removal plan which included: A comprehensive skin assessment was completed by nurse manager/ charge nurse on Resident #65 on 6/5/23; 6/6/23; 6/7/23 and 6/23/2023, no new or old areas of skin impairment noted. The survey team verified through record review. The nurse manager examined Resident #65 clothes for signs of burn, none noted on same dates as skin assessment. The survey team verified through record review. On 6/21/2023 Nurse Manager searched Resident #65 room for smoking paraphernalia, cigarettes and lighter confiscated and placed in a lock box at the west wing nursing station. The survey team verified through observation of the locked box at the west nursing station. The Nurse Manager completed a smoking re-assessment on Resident #65 on 6/23/2023 and revised plan of care to include supervised smoking during assigned smoking times in designated smoking area and to wear an apron while smoking. The survey team verified through record review. Resident #65 was placed on supervised smoking on 6/23/2023. Supervised smoking consists of direct staff observation during designated smoking times in designated smoking area with smoking apron. The survey team verified through record review. The Social Service Director re-educated Resident #65 on smoking policy and procedure on 6/20/2023. Education included adherence to the smoking times, smoking allowed only with staff supervision, smoking only in designated smoke areas only, smoking aprons, discarding of cigarette butts, and turning in cigarette paraphernalia to staff after smoking. Resident #65 signed the policy and procedure contract as good faith to adhere to the policy. The survey team verified through record review. The Administrator hosted an Ad Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting with Medical Director engagement on 6/21/2023 to discuss Smoking Policy and specific emphasis on Implementation of smoking times, supervision of residents during smoking times, application of smoking aprons, adherence to smoking areas, discarding cigarette butts in fire receptacles, and reporting observations of non-compliance. The survey team verified through record review. Administrator and/or designee conducted a room search of residents that smoke to search for and confiscate cigarette paraphernalia. Cigarettes and lighters were retrieved and placed in lock boxes at the west wing nurse's station. Only Nursing and/or Ancillary staff will have access to the storage boxes. The survey team verified through observation of the locked box at the nurse's station. Nurse Manager and/or designee completed a smoking assessment on all residents that smoke on 6/21/2023. All residents that were identified as needing supervised smoking plan of care was updated to reflect smoking supervision. The survey team verified through record review. All residents who smoke plan of care was revised on 6/23/2023 to include smoking allowed only during designated times in designated smoking location. The survey team verified through record review. Social Service Director and/or designee re-educated all residents that smoke on the Smoking Policy and Procedure on 6/21/2023. Education included adherence to the smoking times, smoking allowed only with staff supervision, smoking in designated smoke areas, smoking aprons, discarding of cigarette butts, and turning in cigarette paraphernalia to Nursing. The survey team verified through record review. A Smoking Contract on the policy and procedure was initiated with all residents who smoke to acknowledge and obtain written agreement to smoke only in designated smoke areas, dispose of cigarette butts in fire receptacles, adhering to smoke times, and wearing smoking aprons if needed 6/21/2023. The survey team verified through record review. Interdisciplinary Team thoroughly checked clothing for all resident identified as smokers to ensure no holes or burns were observed on 6/22/2023. No concerns were identified. Center staff on 6/21/2023 did grounds search and picked up cigarettes' butts and emptied ashtrays. Maintenance assistance will be responsible to make sure ash trays are frequently emptied, cigarette butts or evidence of smoking are not discarded in undedicated areas but in fire receptacles and re-educated to report noncompliance on 6/22/2023. The survey team verified through observation, record review and interview with the maintenance assistant and the Administrator. Maintenance assistance completed an audit of the smoking area on 6/22/2023 to validate availability of smoking blanket, fire receptacles, fire extinguishers and aprons. Effective 6/23/2023, smoking aprons will be in the designated smoking area. The survey team verified through observation. Maintenance assistance and/or designee validated no smoking signage is posted in non-smoking areas on 6/22/2023. The survey team verified through observation. Social Service Director and/or designee re-educated all residents that smoke on the Smoking Policy and Procedure on 6/22/2023. Education included adherence to the smoking times, smoking allowed only with staff supervision, smoking in designated smoke areas, smoking aprons, discarding of cigarette butts, and turning in cigarette paraphernalia to Nursing. The SDC or designee re-educated Nursing, Social Services, Housekeeping, Dietary, Therapy, and Maintenance employees on the Smoking Policy and Procedure beginning 6/22/2023 with emphasis on designated smoke times, supervision of residents during smoking times, application of smoking aprons, adherence to smoking areas, discarding cigarette butts in fire receptacles, and reporting observations of non-compliance. The survey team verified through record review and interview of random staff, including licensed Nurses and CNAs. Any employee on leave of absence (FMLA), vacation, or PRN will be re-educated prior to returning to duty. Staff re-education: Nursing staff 39/44 (89%); Non nursing staff 15/15 (100%); Therapy 13/13 (100%); Dietary 9/10 (90%); Housekeeping/Laundry 11/11 (100%). Agency staff not currently educated will be educated on this plan prior to working their scheduled assignment. The survey team verified through record review. Effective 6/22/2023, designated smoking times will be implemented for all residents who smoke. Cigarette paraphernalia and smoking aprons will be stored in a secure designated smoking storage cart. Additionally, documentation outlining individualized safety measures will be based on the smoking assessment and located on or inside the smoking storage boxes. Designated smoking aide will be added to daily staffing assignment. The survey team verified through record review. Effective 6/22/2023, Director of Nursing and/or designee will review new admissions during the Clinical Meeting to identify smokers and validate a smoking assessment has been completed and a plan of care is in place to maintain resident safety. If a resident is observed as being non-compliant with smoking, a care plan meeting will be scheduled with resident and/or legal representative. Smoking privileges may be revoked. Any further non-compliance may result in the issuance of an immediate discharge notice and/or a 30-day notice for discharge. The survey team verified through record review. Administrator hosted an AD HOC Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting on 6/23/2023 with Department Managers and reviewed with the Medical Director on the center's Smoking Policy and the performance improvement measures outlined in this document. The survey team verified through record 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** Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) was completed for 2 (Resident #24, and #74) of 4 residents reviewed with mental illness. This failure prevented residents from further evaluation to determine whether the residents required special services exceeding those provided by the nursing facility. The findings included: Review of the Facility Policy Resident Assessment - Coordination with PASRR Program Revised December 2022: 1. All applicants to this facility will be screened for serious mental disorders or intellectual disabilities and related conditions in accordance with the State's Medicaid rules for screening. a. ii. Positive Level I Screen - necessitates a PASRR Level II evaluation prior to admission. b. PASRR Level II - a comprehensive evaluation by the appropriate stare-designated authority (cannot be completed by the facility) that determines whether the individual has Mental Disorder (MD), Intellectual Disability (ID) or related condition, determines the appropriate setting for the individual, and recommends any specialized services and or rehabilitative services the individual needs. 2. The facility will only admit individuals with a mental disorder or intellectual disability who the State mental health or intellectual disability authority has determined as appropriate for admission. 6. The Social Services Director shall be responsible for keeping track of each resident's PASRR screening status and referring to the appropriate authority. Record review showed Resident #24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Type. The Level I PASRR dated 7/12/21 documented Resident #24 with a diagnosis of Anxiety and Schizoaffective Disorders. The record review showed a PASRR Level I Screen, dated 7/12/21, completed by the hospital's Registered Nurse (RN) Case Manager who documented Resident #24 with Anxiety and Schizoaffective Disorders. The RN concluded Resident #24 did not need a Level II PASRR evaluation. (A Level II PASRR evaluation must be completed if the individual had a suspicion or diagnoses of an SMI [Serious Mental Illness], ID [Intellectual Disability], or both.) On 6/19/23 at 10:53 a.m., observed Resident #24 in her room in bed dressed in facility gown. She said she wanted to be in bed and had nothing to discuss. On 6/20/23, during several observations in the morning and afternoon, Resident #24 was in her room in bed, sleeping. On 6/20/23 at 4:42 p.m. Certified Nursing Assistant Staff X said Resident 24 likes to stay in bed and as you can see is pretty zonked out. On 6/21/23 at 12:05 p.m. Resident #24 was awake in bed in hospital gown. Her hair was long and greasy. Resident #24 said she refused to get a shower and wash hair. On 6/21/23 at 12:44 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse Staff J said Resident #24 likes to stay in bed and refuses to take showers. He said the psychiatrist sees her but was not sure of any other mental illness service. Review of Care Plan initiated on 2/27/23 for Resident #24 revealed a Care Plan for Behaviors of hitting, increase in complaints, cussing, aggression, refusing care, refusing wound care, refusing out of bed activities, and difficult to motivate. Interventions included administering medications and monitoring for side effects; Provide opportunities for positive interactions and attention; Explain all procedures and allow resident to adjust; If reasonable discuss resident's behavior; Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others, approach in a calm manner, divert attention and remove from situation to alternate location; Praise improvement; Provide a program of activities of interest and accommodation of resident. The interventions were initiated on 2/27/23 and there were no updates. The interventions did not include PASRR Level II or additional mental illness services beyond what the facility was providing. On 6/22/23 at 11:05 a.m., the Social Services Director (SSD) said she was familiar with Resident #24 and the resident was admitted with mental illness. She verified Resident #24 had a PASRR Level I only and there was no Level II in Resident #24's medical record. The SSD said she just recently became aware the resident requires a Level II screening and she would initiate it. 2. Resident #74 was transferred to the facility on 4/6/23 from another long-term care facility where he had been residing since 7/25/22. On 4/6/23 at the time of transfer he was receiving Medicaid benefits. The clinical record included a level I PASSR completed by a hospital on 7/25/22 at the time of discharge to the previous skilled nursing facility. The PASSR did not document a history of mental illness, intellectual Disability, or Dementia. Resident #74 had a history of alcohol abuse. Review of Resident #74's medical history shows at the time of his admission to the facility on 4/6/23, diagnoses included cognitive communication deficit, Psychosis, Major Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, and a Mood disorder. Review of Resident #74's physician's orders showed he was ordered the antipsychotic medication Haldol 0.25 milligrams (mg) two times daily for Schizophrenia disorder. On 6/13/23 Resident #74 was order Ativan 0.5 mg daily for anxiety and aggression. On 6/7/23 Resident #74 was ordered Paxil for depression. On 6/12/23 Resident #74 was ordered Tegretol 200 mg daily for mood disorder. Documentation on Resident #74's 6/2023 Medication Administration Record showed the resident had on going mental health behaviors. A progress note dated 6/23/23 at 10:33 reads, Psych ARNP [Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner] was called r/t [related to] resident increased behaviors, yelling, increase agitation, start to scream, and flung arms at staff when trying to redirect. New recommendations to increase Ativan from 0.5 qd [daily] to TID [three times daily]. Resident #74's Brief Interview for Mental Status completed on 4/10/23 showed a score of 11 which showed mild cognitive impairment. The 5-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] showed Resident #74 suffered from anxiety disorder, Depression, and Psychotic Disorder. On 6/22/23 at 3:40 p.m., Registered Nurse Staff BB said she worked part time at the facility completing PASSAR's. She stated at this time she was the only person who was completing PASSAR's. She stated she was not aware Resident #74 needed a updated PASSAR at the time he was admitted on [DATE].
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0646 (Tag F0646)

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 notify the appropriate mental health authority of a significant chan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the appropriate mental health authority of a significant change in status for 1 (Resident #34) of 3 residents with diagnosis of mental illness reviewed for appropriate care and services. The findings included: Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with a history of mood disorder. The PASSAR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) at the time of admission showed Resident #34 had no history of mental Illness. The Medical Certification for Medicaid Long-Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form (Form 3008) completed at the hospital documented the resident had bouts of confusion, and failure to thrive as the primary diagnosis. Review of Resident #34's progress notes showed on 7/28/22 she was having behavioral issues with excessively calling for staff and not having any issues when staff answered her call light. Resident #34's progress notes show she was screaming for no reason. On 7/29/22 the progress note shows Resident was calling staff every five minutes. On 7/30/22 a sheriff deputy arrived at the facility for a welfare check. Resident #34's significant other had called the police and was complaining because the resident was in the facility. On 8/10/22 a change in condition progress note showed Resident #34 was having agitation and psychosis. On 1/16/23 at 10:58 a.m., a progress note read, S.S [Social Services] received a note today about a long-term friend of the resident passing away. S.S contacted the resident's daughter who asked if she could tell her. S.S. went to the room so the daughter could speak with the resident about the passing of her friend. Resident was visibly upset. Yelling and crying. Psych was in the building at the time and S.S. asked psych to speak with the resident . Review of the Mental Health Nurse's progress note dated 1/16/23 read, Pt is unstable requiring changes. As per collected information and interview , it appears that patient is unstable. I feel the symptoms are occurring due to exacerbation of underlying bipolar disorder. The symptoms are occurring almost daily and causing severe distress. Therefore, I decided to make medication changes to stabilize the symptoms .I have decided to start Lithium 150 mg QHS[every night at bedtime]. On 2/11/23 The Department of Children and Families (DCF) arrived at the building to investigate Resident #34's allegations of abuse and neglect. On 2/27/23 DCF recommended the nursing staff to consult Resident #34 primary physician and obtain a psych evaluation to reassess her capacity. They also recommended Resident #34 be moved closer to nursing station for closer observation during the hours of sleep. On 6/22/23 at 10:20 a.m., the Social Service Director verified Resident #34 had had a significant change in her mental health on 1/16/23 when her significant other had passed away. The Social Service Director verified she was a member of the Interdisciplinary Team involved with providing services to the resident. The Social Service Director did not know if Resident #34 was receiving non-pharmacological mental health services. The Social Service Director did not know what non-pharmacological mental health services were being provided for the residents. The Social Service Director verified Resident #34's capacity to make her own decisions had not been assessed since her mental health decline. The Social Service Director verified Resident #34 was not referred to the appropriate mental health authority for a level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Evaluation as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of policies and procedures, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to sup...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of policies and procedures, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to supervise and ensure adequate monitoring to meet the needs for of 1 (Resident #67) of 2 sampled residents requiring the use of oxygen. The findings included: The facility policy Titled Oxygen Administration, revised December 2022 stated, Oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice. The comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the residents' goals and preferences. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: Oxygen is administered under orders of a physician, except in the case of an emergency . The Residents care plan shall identify the interventions for oxygen therapy, based upon the residents assessment and orders. Clinical record review revealed resident #67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included End-Stage Renal Disease, dialysis, Stroke with one sided weakness, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), recently hospitalized for a respiratory virus. On 6/19/23 at 10:31 a.m., Resident #67 was observed in bed, wearing oxygen per nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set to 3 liters. Resident #67 said he uses 2 liters of oxygen per nasal cannula. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/19/23 at 4:02 p.m., Resident #67 was observed in bed wearing Oxygen per nasal cannula. The oxygen concentrator was set to 3 Liters (L). The resident said he was not able to reach or adjust the concentrator's oxygen flow meter. On 6/19/23 review of the clinical record failed to reveal a physician's order, or a care plan for the use of oxygen. On 6/21/23 at 9:51 a.m., Registered Nurse (RN) Staff O, verified Resident #67's oxygen concentrator was set at 3L per nasal cannula. On 6/21/23 at 10:23 a.m., RN Staff O verified Resident #67 did not have a physician's order for oxygen. On 6/21/23 at 10:28 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff E verified Resident #67 was wearing Oxygen per nasal cannula at 3 liters without a physician's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

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 show evidence of alternatives to side rails were attem...

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 show evidence of alternatives to side rails were attempted and an entrapment assessment was completed prior to the use of side rails for 2 (Residents #10 and #85) of 28 residents reviewed for use of side rails. The findings included: The facility policy, titled Proper Use of Bed Rails, with an effective date of 10/1/22 stated: It is the policy of this facility to utilize a person-centered approach when determining the use of bed rails. Appropriate alternative approaches are attempted prior to installing or using bed rails. If bed rails are used, the facility ensures correct installations, use and maintenance of the rails. The resident assessment must include an evaluation of the alternatives that were attempted prior to the installation or use of a bed rail and how these alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs. The resident assessment should assess the resident's risk of entrapment between the mattress and bed rail or in the bed rail itself. 1. Resident # 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The diagnoses included Stroke with weakness. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) with and Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/4/23 revealed Resident #85 required maximum assistance to transfer, bath, and required a wheelchair for mobility. On 6/19/23 at 1:09 p.m., Resident #85 was observed in bed with half metal side rails elevated on both sides of the bed. Resident #85 said the rails were on the bed when she was admitted to the facility and no alternatives were attempted. On 6/21/23 at 8:53 a.m., Resident #85 was observed in bed. The half metal side rails were elevated on both sides of the bed. Review of the clinical record revealed a side rail evaluation completed on the admission date of 12/29/22. The evaluation noted alternatives to use of bed rail were head of the bed elevated, a Physical, and Occupational Therapy screen. The form did not document an evaluation of the alternatives that were attempted prior to the installation or use of a bed rail and how these alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs. The evaluation form noted there was a gap between the head or foot board and the mattress. The clinical record contained an Informed Consent for Use of Bed rails dated 4/17/23 and signed by the resident. The resident placed her initials noting she voluntarily consent to the use of bed rails recommended above. The consent form was incomplete and did not document the assessed medical needs that would be addressed by the use of the bed rails for the resident. The form did not list what rails were recommended to meet the needs of the resident, upper or lower partial or full rails. 2. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The diagnoses included a history of falling, Anxiety, Heart Failure, and Chronic Pain. The MDS with an ARD of 6/6/2023 indicated Resident #10 required substantial assistance for transfers, mobility, bathing, and dressing. Section C indicated Resident #10 scored 13 on the BIMS assessment meaning cognitively intact. A side rail evaluation was partially completed on 12/9/22. No alternatives were documented, and risk for entrapment was not completed. On 6/20/23 at 9:13 a.m., and 6/21/23 at 10:09 a.m., Resident #10 was observed lying in bed with metal side rails up on both sides of the bed. On 6/20/23 at 4:35 p.m., The Maintenance assistant stated, maintenance does not do an assessment for entrapment. On 6/20/23 at 4:55 p.m., the Rehab Director stated, maintenance will put the rails on and take them off. The only intervention we try would be to determine the size of the rail either 1/4 rail or transfer post. The Rehab Director stated, I'm not sure when the rails were put in place. The Rehab Director stated neither Resident #10 or #85 was assessed for alternative interventions. On 6/22/23 at 3:16 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated we always have therapy assess the resident for side rail use. The DON stated, she is not sure about checking for entrapment, maybe maintenance does it. On 6/22/23 at 3:34 p.m., during a follow up interview, the maintenance assistant stated, I don't measure for entrapment. There is no maintenance schedule for the side rails to be checked. I don't assess the rails on a periodic basis. If there is a problem with the rail, the staff person should enter a work order for it to be fixed. On 6/22/23 at 4:01 p.m., the rehab director said, if rails are the residents' preference, no alternatives are attempted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a yearly performance evaluation for 3 (Staff F, Staff CC, Staff EE) of 5 sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). The findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a yearly performance evaluation for 3 (Staff F, Staff CC, Staff EE) of 5 sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). The findings included: CNA Staff F had a hire date of 6/15/17. CNA Staff CC had a hire date of 5/19/20. CNA Staff EE had a hire date of 6/15/20. Review of the personnel documentation for CNA Staff F, Staff CC and Staff EE failed to reveal a yearly performance evaluation. On 6/23/23 at approximately 3:30 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing verified the lack of documentation of a yearly performance evaluation completed for Staff F, Staff CC or Staff EE.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, review of facility policies, review of the clinical record and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents individualized behavioral health needs were...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, review of facility policies, review of the clinical record and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents individualized behavioral health needs were met and failed to identify the underlying causes of the resident's depression, anxiety and agitation to prevent distress for 1 (Resident #58) of 2 residents reviewed for mental health services. The findings included: The facility policy Behaviors: Management of Symptoms (revised 9/22) documented, Patients exhibiting behavioral symptoms will be individually evaluated to determine the behavior. The interdisciplinary team identifies underlying medical, physical, functional, psychosocial, emotional, psychiatric, or environmental causes that contribute to changes in the patient's behavior. Based on the comprehensive assessment, staff must ensure that a patient: Who displays or is diagnosed with mental disorder or psychosocial adjustment difficulty receives appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem or to attain the highest practicable mental and psychosocial well-being. Whose assessment did not reveal or who does not have a diagnosis of a mental or psychosocial adjustment difficulty does not display a pattern of decreased social intervention and or increased withdrawn, angry, or depressive behaviors. Staff will use non-pharmacological interventions as the first line of approach to managing challenging behaviors. Behaviors and interventions will be addressed in the care plan. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #58 had a readmission date of 4/28/23 with diagnoses including dementia, Parkinson's disease, and depression. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with an assessment reference date of 5/2/23 documented it was very important to the resident to be involved with groups, activities, listen to music, read books and magazines, to go outside and to religious activities. The MDS documented Resident #58's cognitive skills for daily decision making were intact. The care plan initiated 5/3/23 identified Resident #58 had a mood problem related to depression, and insomnia. The goal for Resident #58 was to have improved mood state through the review date. The interventions instructed staff to administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Behavioral health consults as needed (psycho-geriatric team, psychiatrist etc.). Monitor/record/report to physician as needed for acute episode feelings or sadness; loss of pleasure and interest in activities; feelings of worthlessness or guilt; change in appetite/ eating habits; change in sleep patterns; diminished ability to concentrate; change in psychomotor skills. On 6/19/23 at 12:42 p.m., Resident #58 was observed in her room in bed, yelling out for help with no intervention from the staff. Staff were observed in the hallway, including the nurse who was administering medications. There was a television (TV) in the room but it was not turned on. When asked what she needed, Resident #58 said she did not know what she wanted. On 6/20/23 at 1:00 p.m., Resident #58 was observed yelling out for help for 15 minutes before a staff member entered the room to see what the resident needed. On 6/20/23 at 3:49 p.m., Resident #58 was observed in her room, yelling out whenever anyone passed by her room. Resident #58 said she did not realize she was calling out and did not have any needs requiring attention. On 6/21/23 at 12:41 p.m., Resident #58 was in her room watching television. she was clam and pleasant and said she enjoyed watching TV. She said did not know why she calls out and said she did not know if she required assistance when she was calling out. She said she enjoyed being with people and being alone. On 6/21/23 at 12:54 p.m., in an interview Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Staff D said Resident #58 yells out all the time, if you take her to the small TV room she will yell out whenever anyone passes by. I just stop and talk to her, ask if she needs anything. She always wants to be in bed but if you take her back to her room and put her to bed, she will still call out. On 6/21/23 at 12:58 p.m., in an interview the Social Service Director (SSD) said Resident #58 enjoyed going to music programs and the Star Light Room. The SSD explained the Star Light Room was a smaller room where the residents have more personalized interactions and activities. The SSD said the staff assist Resident #58 to the music programs because she enjoys it. She is out of her room all the time. I do not do anything special for her mental health. I have not assessed her or made any recommendations. On 6/21/23 at 1:06 p.m., in an interview the Activity Assistant Staff F said Resident #58 did not attend the Star Light Room activity program. Staff F said there are only 3 residents who attend the program and Resident #58 was not one of them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to make the necessary timely repairs to maintain a functional, and comfortable environment in the laundry room. The findin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to make the necessary timely repairs to maintain a functional, and comfortable environment in the laundry room. The findings included: The facility policy, Preventative Maintenance Program (revised 1/2023) documented, A Preventative Maintenance Program shall be developed and implemented to ensure the provision of a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. The Maintenance Director is responsible for developing and maintaining a schedule of maintenance services to ensure that the buildings, grounds, and equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner. The Maintenance Director shall assess all aspects of the physical plant to determine if Preventative Maintenance (PM) is required. Required PM may be determined from manufacturer's recommendations, maintenance requests, grand rounds, life safety requirements, or experience. On 6/19/23 at 10:39 a.m., during an initial tour the laundry room was noted to be very warm. Laundry Aide Staff R's shirt was wet with sweat from the collar to the middle of the shirt as he folded the clean linens. There were three fans running in the laundry room. The soiled section of the laundry room was extremely warm, the temperature was 98.9 Fahrenheit ((F) and the humidity was 93.9%. The outside temperature was 86 degrees F. Staff R said the air-conditioning had not been functioning in the laundry room and the kitchen for a week or two. The sink in the soiled section of the room was backed up with a brown liquid in the basin. The adjoining room where the dirty laundry is delivered, had a sink that was backed up with a brown liquid in the basin. The sink was leaking and there was a basin under the sink to catch the leaking water. Staff R said the sinks have been backed up for over a month and he had reported it to the facility Management Staff and the previous Maintenance Director. On 6/19/23 at 4:31 p.m., the Administrator, said the facility did not currently have a Maintenance Director. The Administrator said she was aware the air-conditioning in the laundry room and kitchen was not working for more than a week and said it was in the process of being repaired today. The Administrator confirmed the sinks in the laundry room were not functioning and said they should be repaired this week.
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, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote a positive, dignified dining experience by failure to serve meals with appropriate, and matching silverware. The fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident, and staff interviews, the facility failed to promote a positive, dignified dining experience by failure to serve meals with appropriate, and matching silverware. The findings included: On 6/19/23 at 12:24 p.m., observation of the lunch meal in the main dining room revealed the following: Residents were using a mixture of mismatched plastic and metal forks, knives, and spoons. Resident #27 was using a plastic fork, metal knife, and metal spoon. She said they get plastic cutlery 90% of the time and it bothers her, this is not what she would use in her own home. Resident #99 was using a plastic fork, metal knife and spoon. She said the dining room was like a yak place because it was noisy and not nice for dining. By the time she's given the food it is cold. Resident #99 said they are given plastic utensils a third of the time and it is not what she used at home. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/19/23 at 12:49 p.m., Resident #4 said they get served plastic utensils a lot. She was using a plastic fork, plastic knife, and metal spoon. She said she prefers to use real silverware. On 6/20/23 at 8:51 a.m., observed Resident #32 in her room eating breakfast with plastic utensils. She said she was given the plastic fork to eat with along with a metal knife and metal spoon. On 6/20/23 at 8:52 a.m., observed Resident #59 in her room eating breakfast. There was a plastic fork, a metal knife, and a metal spoon on her breakfast tray next to the plate. She said they get plastic utensils a lot and does not like the plastic utensils. Resident #59 said it is not what she used in her home, and she said her guess is they ran out of the metal silverware. On 6/21/23 1:12 p.m., Resident #59 said they get the plastic utensils a lot and it bothers her because holding the food with a plastic fork is difficult, and it is a lower quality plastic fork. On 6/23/23 at 1:24 p.m., observed Resident #59 using a plastic fork and spoon along with metal knife to eat lunch. On 6/20/23 at 9:04 a.m., observed Resident #84 with a plastic fork, metal knife, and metal spoon on the breakfast tray. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/20/23 at 12:18 p.m., observed the kitchen staff preparing the lunch meal trays. Many trays had plastic spoons and forks. On 6/20/23 at 12:41 p.m., observed plastic utensils on the trays served to residents in the 600 Hall. On 6/23/23 at 12:59 p.m., Resident #48 said food served on the weekends is served on foam trays with plastic utensils, so the kitchen staff do not have to wash the dishes. The weekend food is often unappealing and does not taste good. On 6/23/23 at 1:03 p.m., observed plastic fork and spoon with metal knife on Resident #48's tray. On 6/23/23 at 2:50 p.m., the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) said he orders new silverware twice a month, forks, knives, and spoons but mainly knives and spoons. He said he does not get them back and he thinks they may get dumped in the trash. Review of the requisitions revealed on 5/15/23 the CDM ordered 24 dinner forks, 24 dinner knives and 48 dessert spoons. On 6/5/23, the CDM ordered 24 dinner knives.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Review of the facility policy Resident Personal Belongings revised June 2023 showed: All resident personal items will be inve...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 7. Review of the facility policy Resident Personal Belongings revised June 2023 showed: All resident personal items will be inventoried at the time of admission . and documentation shall be retained in the medical record. Additional possessions brought in during the duration of the individual's stay shall be added to the existing personal belongings inventory listing. The facility will exercise reasonable care for the protection of the resident's property from loss or theft. On 6/20/23 at 9:40 a.m., Resident #59 said she submitted a bag of clothes to the laundry department, and none were returned to her. She said the clothes were marked with her name. She said she told the Housekeeping (HSK) Supervisor who said she would look into it, but she has not heard anything about them. She said this occurred about one month ago. On 6/22/23 at 1:26 p.m., the Social Services Director (SSD) said when a laundry complaint is received, the complaint is transferred to the HSK Supervisor. She said the resident, or the Power of Attorney (POA) is always contacted when the complaint is resolved. On 6/22/23 at 1:32 p.m., the HSK Supervisor said when residents are admitted to the facility, personal clothing items are added to the resident's Inventory of Personal Effects. She said after it has been added to the Inventory Sheet, she receives the clothing to apply the resident's name to the clothing with the label maker. The HSK Supervisor said whenever family or friends bring in new clothing for the residents, the process is the same, clothing is added to the Inventory Sheet, and she receives the clothing to apply the label. She said Resident #59 did not come in with much, so when there are unclaimed clothing garments that would fit the resident, she gives them to Resident #59. Review of Resident #59's Inventory of Personal Effects dated 2/22/22 showed one cell phone charger and one pair of glasses written on the Inventory Sheet. No other items were listed on the sheet. The resident had not signed the paper, verifying the accuracy of the personal items listed on the Inventory Sheet. On 6/22/23 at 3:16 p.m., Resident #48 was observed folding clothing for Resident #59. Several of the pieces were observed to have Resident #59's name handwritten in black magic marker on the size tag. There were no white labels with the resident's name on the garments. Resident #59 said she did not know about an Inventory of Personal Effects, and she had not signed one. Resident #48 said if clothing is lost by the facility, they no longer reimburse residents, and you are just screwed. Resident #48 said the system of labeling personal clothing is so bad, some of the residents have resorted to obtaining their own black markers and name stamps to apply to their clothing. On 6/22/23 at 3:19 p.m., observed several garments belonging to Resident #59: Blue and [NAME] flowered nightgown, light pink pajama bottoms, navy blue pants, gray pajama bottoms. The items did not contain the white name label applied by the HSK Supervisor. Resident #59's clothing contained an orange shirt labeled with another resident's name. None of the garments were listed on the Inventory of Personal Effects. 8. Review of the Grievance/Concern Form for Resident #84 received by the facility on 5/15/23: Resident #84 is missing five blankets. The facility found one Christmas blanket with Santa Claus faces. The SSD notified resident's daughter that blankets were returned. The HSK Supervisor signed and dated the form on 5/19/23. On 6/23/23 at 5:34 p.m., the HSK Supervisor said she washes and delivers clothing garments to the residents. She said she does not give the clothing to the Certified Nursing Assistants or any other staff to add to the residents' Inventory of Personal Effects. She said she does not notify the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) when the residents receive new clothing. She said it would be too much to handle. The HSK Supervisor said she notified Resident #84's daughter she could only locate one of the five blankets missing at the facility. The HSK Supervisor said the resident's daughter told her that was okay, so she resolved the grievance. Based on observations, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services to ensure a clean, sanitary and homelike environment in 2 (400 and 600) of 6 halls observed, failed to ensure the availability of bed and bath linen to meet the needs of the residents and failed to implement policies and procedures to prevent the loss of personal items for 2 (Resident #59 and #84) of 5 sampled residents. The findings included: The facility policy, Preventative Maintenance Program (revised 1/2023) documented, A Preventative Maintenance Program shall be developed and implemented to ensure the provision of a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public. On 6/19/23 at 9:30 a.m., during an initial tour of the facility, the following observations were made: 1. The toilet in room [ROOM NUMBER] was missing the cover for the tank, exposing the inner mechanisms of the toilet. The top of the toilet tank was stored on the bathroom counter. There were unlabeled personal hygiene items on the toilet tank in the shared bathroom. There was a wash basin on the bathroom counter containing a used urinal and a large plastic measuring container for liquids that did not have a resident name to identify who the items belonged to. Photographic evidence obtained. 2. In room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a nebulizer mask (a machine that turns liquid medication into a mist through a mask or mouthpiece) stored on the nightstand uncovered. The mask was dusty and grimy. Photographic evidence obtained. 3. In the shared bathroom for room [ROOM NUMBER] there was a large, brown, dead bug on the floor next to the toilet. The observation was confirmed by the Administrator. Photographic evidence obtained. 4. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the cover for the toilet tank was not in place, exposing the inner workings of the toilet. The top to the toilet tank was on the bathroom counter and had a wash basin and toilet tissue on top of the cover. The counter of the shared bathroom contained several personal hygiene products that were not labeled including a toothbrush and hairbrush. The toilet bowel was backed up with urine and feces. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/19/23 at 4:31 p.m., in an interview, the Administrator, said the facility did not currently have a Maintenance Director. The Administrator said she was aware the toilet tank tops were not on the toilets in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], and the improperly stored personal hygiene items. 5. On 6/19/23 at 12:44 p.m. Resident #209's sister said the facility had run out of sheets one day and left her brother lying on the bed without sheets or blankets. The resident's sister had a photo of her brother lying on the facility bed with no sheets or blankets. Review of the Grievance Log shows 19 grievances regarding laundry services over the last 6 months. A grievance dated 6/7/23 shows Resident #209's sister complained when her brother was in the bed without bed linen. The documentation on the form shows certified nursing assistant assigned to the resident on 6/7/23 had a in-service to not put the resident in the bed without linen. To assist Resident to the wheelchair if necessary. The grievance form did not address the lack of bed linen to make the bed. The form documents the complaint as resolved on 6/13/23. On 6/21/23 at approximately 1:00 p.m., the Administrator said on 6/7/23 the laundry was backed up and did not provide enough linen, and verified Resident #209 was placed in bed without linen. She verified the grievance form did not address the lack of linen. The Administrator provided documentation the shortage of linen was brought up in the morning meeting on 6/8/23 and the laundry service was to do a linen review. 6. On 6/21/23 at 2:03 p.m., a resident council meeting was held with eight residents in attendance, including the Resident Council President. During the meeting all the residents complained there never was enough linen, towels, and washcloths when needed. The residents said they had brought up the lack of sufficient linen and towels during the resident council on several occasions and it remained an on-going problem. Resident #4 said she gets a shower twice weekly and the staff do not change her bed linen on shower days. She said she wanted to have clean bed linen on her shower days. The Resident Council President said they have reported the lack of linen and towels to the administration on several occasions. They will fix the problem for a month, then it goes right back to the way it was. Resident #59 said they have been short of linen, towels, and wash cloths for over a year. The grievance log showed on 4/11/23 the Resident Council complained regarding laundry services at the facility. The Administrator provided documentation of emails between administration staff on 6/8/23. One email dated 6/8/23 at 11:50 a.m. read, We ordered a large Hurricane stock, they should not be low. If they are the linen is still being misused. On 6/8/23 at 4:03 p.m., an email read, Please get me the current number of supplies and how much more is needed to get them up to par. On 6/9/23 at 2:20 a.m., an email read, From what I saw yes we are needing more. They are having an issue getting the linen back. I had them pull from the emergency per administrator request for higher PAR level. So, I am needed that to be replaced. On 6/21/23 at approximately 1:10 p.m. the Administrator said they had in-serviced the Certified Nursing Assistants not to hoard linen as this was an identified issue. On 6/23/at 5:45 p.m., after several requests, the administrator was not able to provide documentation of corrective actions, including in-services, and audits to ensure the availability of sufficient linen and towels to meet the needs of the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene for 3(Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to maintain personal hygiene for 3(Resident #33, #60 and #101) of 4 residents observed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The findings included: The facility policy Activities of Daily Living (revised 9/22) documented Based on the comprehensive assessment of a patient and consistent with the patients needs and choices, the Center must provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a patient's abilities in ADL'S do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable. A patient who is unable to carry out ADL's receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #33 had an admission date of 12/8/21 with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, need for assistance with personal care, dementia and major depressive disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with an assessment reference date of 6/3/23 documented Resident #33 was dependent on staff for personal hygiene and bathing. The MDS noted Resident #33's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. The care plan initiated 12/15/21 identified Resident #33 had an ADL self-care performance deficit as evidence by the need for assistance with self-care. The care plan interventions instructed staff to check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. The resident requires up to and including total assist of staff with personal hygiene and oral care. On 6/19/23 at 9:45 a.m., Resident #33 was out of bed in a specialized wheelchair in the small sitting area next to the nurse's station. Resident #33 had not been shaved with approximately 2-3 days growth. His fingernails were long, approximately 1/4 inch in length with a brown substance under the nailbeds. His wheelchair had dried food and other grime on the arm rests and on the seat. Resident # 33 was nonverbal and did not make eye contact when greeted. On 6/20/23 at 9:10 a.m., Resident #33 was observed in the small sitting area, he was unshaven with several days of growth. 2. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #60 had an admission date of 4/27/22 with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (a stroke), type 2 diabetes, and major depressive disorder. The Annual MDS with an assessment reference date of 5/4/23 documented Resident #60 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and was dependent for bathing. The MDS documented Resident #60's cognitive skills for daily decision making were intact. The care plan initiated 5/16/22 and revised 5/16/23, identified Resident #60 had an ADL self-care deficit. The interventions specified check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary. Report any changes to the nurse. The resident requires up to and including extensive assist of staff with bathing/showering on rounds and as necessary. Review of the CNA shower list showed Resident # 60 was scheduled for shower Mondays and Thursdays on the 7-3 shift. Review of the certified nursing assistant (CNA) shower sheets documented Resident #60 received a bed bath on 6/1/23, 6/6/23 and 6/16/23 and a shower on 6/4/23 and 6/12/23. On 6/19/23 at 10:03 a.m., Resident #60 was observed in bed, and dressed in a green T-shirt. The resident was unshaven approximately three days growth and his fingernails were long, approximately 1/2 inch with a brown substance under the nail beds. Resident #60 said he had not received showers because there was only one shower room down the hall and too many people going in and out of it. He said the staff don't provide bed baths most of the time. He said he had wipes and that is how he bathes. Resident #60 said the staff shave him, but it had not done in a few days. He said he did not remember when his nails were cleaned or cut. On 6/20/23 at 9:12 a.m., Resident #60 was observed in bed in the same green T-shirt as the previous day. He remained unshaven with several days of growth. Resident #60's fingernails had recently been trimmed. He said he did not get his shower and did not know when he received a shave but said he needed one. On 6/20/23 at 9:13 a.m., in an interview CNA Staff C said Resident #60 does not always like to get out of bed but he did go to therapy. The CNA said he was not assigned to the resident today but knows him very well. He said Resident #60 was able to transfer with assistance to a wheelchair and was able to make his needs known. CNA Staff C confirmed Resident #60 had a few days growth of stubble on his face. CNA Staff C said the resident did not refuse care when he is on his assignment and said, I have no trouble shaving him. 3. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #101 had a readmission date of 2/25/23 with diagnoses including protein calorie malnutrition, weakness, lack of coordination and anxiety. A significant change MDS with an assessment reference date of 6/15/23 documented Resident #101 required extensive assistance with personal hygiene and was dependent for bathing. The MDS documented Resident #60's cognitive skills for daily decision making were intact. The care plan initiated 6/3/23 identified Resident #101 had a self-care deficit requiring staff assistance with personal hygiene. Review of the CNA shower schedule revealed Resident #101 was scheduled for showers on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., shift every Monday and Thursday. On 6/19/23 at 9:59 a.m., Resident #101 was observed in bed, he was unshaven approximately three days growth. He said he did not receive showers because he was not able to tolerate sitting up for long periods and the staff use wipes to clean him. He said the staff have not offered to shave him and he did not know when he had his nails cleaned and cut. On 6/21/23 at 9:11 a.m., CNA Staff D said the staff follow the shower assignment in the CNA assignment binder. CNA Staff D said fingernails and shaving were provided during shower care, but men should be shaved daily or every other day. Staff D said, some of the male residents didn't want to be shaved every day and some refuse care and we tell the nurse. On 6/21/23 at 10:51 a.m., Registered Nurse Unit Manager Staff G, said the nurses were responsible to ensure the CNAs were providing ADL care, including showers, shave and nail care. I instruct them to look at the resident when they go in to administer medications or care, to make sure the residents look clean, and have they been shaved. Staff G said she was aware of the resident concerns regarding bathing and hygiene care.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, review of facility policies and procedures, and staff interviews, the fac...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, review of the clinical records, review of facility policies and procedures, and staff interviews, the facility the facility failed to implement meaningful resident centered activities to meet the interest and wellbeing of 8 (Resident #22, #33, #34, #47, #71, #74, #88 and #209) of 8 residents reviewed for activities. The lack of an individualized activity program has the potential to cause social isolation, boredom, agitation, and frustration. The findings included: The facility policy Resident Self Determination and Participation (Activities) revised 9/22, specified, The facility's activity program is designed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice and resident rights. Each resident has the opportunity to exercise his or her autonomy regarding those things that are important in his or her life. The Activity Director shall develop a plan of care for the resident based on the resident's assessment, goals, and preferences. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #33 had an admission date of 12/8/21 with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit, dementia, and major depressive disorder. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with an assessment reference date of 6/3/23 documented Resident #33's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. The care plan initiated 12/13/21 and revised on 6/9/23 documented Resident #33 would actively participate in activities of choice. The interventions specified Resident #33 was to be encouraged to attend activities of choice and enjoyed watching TV, spending time with family and listening to music. Provide assistance to location of activities of choice. During random observations on 6/19/23 at 9:11 a.m., and 11:12 a.m., Resident #33 was sitting in his wheelchair in the small television (TV) room on the unit. The TV and the radio were off, and no staff were present. On 6/20/23 at 9:51 a.m., and 3:43 p.m., Resident #33 was observed in the TV room. The TV was on, and the resident was sleeping in his wheelchair. On 6/20/23 at 10:10 a.m., Activities Assistant Staff F, said the facility did not have an Activity Director, and she also assists in other departments. She said the previous Activity Director had left about a month ago. The Activity Assistant said there was no specified room in the facility for activities and she currently used the main dining room on the main unit. Staff F said she did not keep a record of the residents who attend the activity programs. On 6/21/23 at 10:54 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager Staff E, said Resident #33 did not attend activities because there was nothing for the resident to do. She said the resident liked to go outside and was now on Hospice services. Staff E said the Hospice staff will try and take the resident outside when they visit. Staff E said Resident #33's wife visits and when she does, she will have the staff assist him outside and she sits with him. On 6/21/23 at 1:27 p.m., the Activity Assistant, said Resident #33 did not attend activities. I do not do any activities with him. I have not been trained. 2. Resident #34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with diagnoses including failure to thrive. On 6/19/23 at 10:06 a.m., Resident #34 was observed lying in bed. The resident said the facility provided her with no activities, and she felt as though she was being kept in a jail. Resident #34 said she just wanted to go outside for fresh air. On 6/20/23 at 10:10 a.m. Resident #34 was observed in the bed. No activities. On 6/20/23 at 2:40 p.m. Resident was observed in the bed. No activities. Review of Resident #34's progress notes showed on 7/28/22 she was having behavioral issues with excessively calling for staff and not having any issues when staff answered her call light. Resident #34's progress notes show she was screaming for no reason. On 7/29/23 the progress note shows Resident was calling staff every 5 minutes. On 8/10/22 a change in condition progress note showed Resident #34 was having agitation and psychosis. A care plan initiated on 7/29/22 read, BEHAVIOR: The resident has behavior problem: resident calls 911 r/t [related to] mood disorder The care showed Resident #34 was delusional, resistant to care, and refused medications. The interventions initiated on 2/17/23 included to Provide a program of activities that is of interest and accommodates resident status. On 6/21/23 at 1:10 p.m., Activities assistant, Staff F said it had been over a month since she had observed Resident #34 out of the bed. She verified during that time Resident #34 had not attended any group activities. Staff F said she had not provided any one-to-one activities with the resident. Staff F said she was the only staff member who had been providing activities during the weekdays over the last month. 3. Resident #209 was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a history of Metabolic Encephalopathy, Type 2 diabetes, Cognitive communication deficit, Stage 4 chronic kidney disease, and Dysphagia. On 6/19/23 at 12:42 p.m., Resident #209 was observed in bed. Resident #209's sister was visiting and said the facility did not provide any activities for him. She said she visited daily and assisted with his needs. She had not seen any staff member providing any activities for her brother. The sister said Resident #209 liked to be outside. A care plan initiated on 6/1/23 showed Resident #209 will attend/participate in activities of choice . Ensure activities the resident is attending are: compatible with physical and mental capabilities . Establish and record the resident's prior level of activity involvement and interests by talking with the resident. Caregivers, and family on admission and as necessary . Invite the resident to scheduled activities . On 6/21/23 at 1:10 p.m., Activities assistant, Staff F said she was the only staff member who had been providing activities during the weekdays over the last month. Staff F said she had not provided any activities for the resident since he had been admitted to the facility. 4. Resident #47 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with severe cognitive decline. On 6/19/23 at 9:00 a.m., and 10:51 a.m., Resident #47 was observed in the TV room on the memory care unit with several other residents. No staff were observed interacting with the residents. There was no activity in progress. On 6/20/23 at 11:20 a.m., several residents, including Resident #47 were observed in the TV room of the memory care unit. There were no activities being provided for the residents. On 6/21/23 at 1:10 p.m., Activities assistant, Staff F said since the Activities Director resigned about a month ago, she has been the only staff providing activities to the residents on weekdays. She said provides activities for residents without cognitive impairment and brings Resident #47 to activities two or three times weekly. She said the rest of the time Resident #47 spends her days in the TV room of the memory care unit. Staff F said she's never seen staff providing activities for the residents in the TV room of the memory care unit. 5. Resident #71 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a history of hypertension, Cognitive communication deficit, Being unsteady on her feet, Dementia, and Schizophrenia. On 1/23/23 the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment showed Resident #71 had severe cognitive deterioration with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 2. On 6/19/23 at 10:55 a.m., 6/20/23 at 2:00 p.m., and 6/21/23 at 11:10 a.m., Resident #71 was observed lying in bed sleeping. On 6/21/23 at 1:20 p.m., Activities assistant, Staff F said she had not seen Resident #71 out of bed in over a month. Staff F said she had not provided any one-to-one activities to the resident during that time. 6. Resident #74 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a history of Anxiety, Major Depression, Mood disorder, and psychosis. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] shows it was somewhat important to the resident to have activities. A care plan initiated on 4/18/23 showed Resident #74 had a lack of participation in activities. The care interventions included inviting the resident to attend group activities and offer him activities of interest. On 6/21/23 at 1:25 p.m., Activities assistant, Staff F said Resident #74 had outbursts during group activities. Staff F stated he can be combative and start fights with other residents. He gets mad and creates a scene. Staff F said she encouraged Resident #74 to attend coffee and cookies. Staff F said she did not know what activities Resident #74 liked. Staff F said she did not have documentation showing Resident #74's participation in activities of choice. Staff F said she had never been trained in activities since taking her job. She said she spent a short time with the prior Activities Director and the only thing he instructed her on was to complete the activities calendar each month. 7. Review of the facility's Resident Self Determination and Participation (Activities) policy dated September 2022 revealed, the facility's activity program was designed to promote and facilitate resident self-determination through support of resident choice and resident rights. The Activity Director should assist the resident to maintain as normal a lifestyle as possible while in the facility through the provision of activities consistent with the resident's interests. On 6/19/23 at 11:29 a.m., Resident #88 was observed sitting on the side of her bed with her breakfast table in front of her. Resident #88's television (TV) or radio were noted not to be on during the observation. On 6/19/23 at 11:30 a.m., Resident #88 said in an interview, she was admitted to the facility several weeks ago and since being admitted to the facility she was very bored. She said there was nothing to do at the facility and no one had invited her to a facility activity. On 6/19/23 at 1:23 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., Resident #88 was observed sitting on the side of her bed with the lights off. Neither the TV nor the radio were on, nor was she engaged in an activity. On 6/20/23 at 9:25 a.m., Resident #88 was again observed sitting on the side of her bed. Resident #88's TV nor radio were on during the observation. On 6/20/23 at 9:28 a.m., Resident #88 said the only time she was involved in an activity was when her family visited her on the weekends. She said no one from the facility had talked to her about activities she would like to attend nor invited her to any of the facility activities. Review of Resident #88's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A Recreation Comprehensive Evaluation was completed on 6/7/23. The section which asked the resident what kind of hobbies they like, what types of games they like, religious/spiritual background, religious services she likes and what other things she would like to do are all blank. The activity plan of care developed on 6/12/23 stated, the facility would meet Resident #88's emotional, intellectual, physical, and social needs. The facility would ensure that the activities Resident #88 attended were compatible with her physical and mental capabilities and known interests and preferences. The facility would invite Resident #88 to scheduled activities and provide Resident #88 with an activity calendar and the facility would provide 1:1 beside/in-room visits and activities if Resident #88 was unable to attend out of room events. 8. On 6/19/23 at 11:40 a.m., 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., Resident #22 was observed wearing a hospital gown in bed. Resident #22's TV or radio were not on during the observation. On 6/20/23 at 10:40 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., Resident #22 was observed wearing a hospital gown in bed. Resident #22's TV nor radio were not on during the observation. Review of Resident #22's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The activity plan of care stated Resident #22 had the potential for social isolation and the goal was to see Resident #22, 3 times a week. The activity plan of care interventions noted, an activity staff would visit Resident #22 throughout the week, would encourage Resident #22 to attend groups/activities and would encourage her to socialize with others in the TV room. On 6/21/23 at 10:44 a.m., during an interview with Staff Z, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), she said she normally worked the East Nursing Unit. She said she normally worked with Resident #22 and Resident #88 and they were easy to work with. She said she does not remember the last time she had seen Resident #22 out of her bed in a wheelchair involved in an in-room or out of room activity program. She further said she didn't remember the last time she had seen Resident #88 involved in a facility activity program. On 6/21/23 at 11:38 a.m., in an interview with the Activity Assistant, she said she started working as the activity assistant on 5/9/23. She said the old Activity Director left the faciity on 5/10/23 and he gave her about a day and a half of training related to how to run the activity program at the facility. She said she was never given instructions about documenting which residents attended the facility's activity programs and she did not have a list noting which residents required 1:1 room visit from the activity department. She said she was the only person in the activity department, and she did her best to conduct daily activities for the residents in the facility. She said since she did not track which resident attended the activity programs and which residents, she had conducted 1:1 in-room activities with she was unable to say if Resident #22 or Resident #88 had attended an activity program of their choice for the past 2 months.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0680 (Tag F0680)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the activities program was directed by a qualified professional who is a qualified therapeutic recreation specialist or an activity professional. This has the potential to affect all current residents residing in the facility. The findings included: On 6/21/23 at 1:10 p.m., Activities assistant, Staff F said the facility had not had an Activities Director since the previous Activities Director (AD) resigned over a month ago. She stated she spent a small amount of time with the activities Director prior to him leaving and he taught her how to put the monthly activities calendar out every month. Staff F said she provided activities to the residents on weekdays, and a Certified Nursing Assistant provided activities on the weekends. Staff F said she did not receive training in activities since starting at her position, and had had no previous experience in activities prior to accepting the activities assistant position. Review of the background screening clearinghouse showed the previous Activities Director's employment at the facility ended on 5/17/23. On 6/22/23 at approximately 9:10 a.m., the Administrator verified the facility did not currently have an Activities Director.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff interview and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide food that is palat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, staff interview and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide food that is palatable, attractive, and at an appropriate temperature for 3 (Resident #32, 48, and 59) of 3 residents reviewed for food at the facility. The findings included: Review of the facility grievance log from April 2023 through June 2023 revealed 6 dietary complaints from residents and one group complaint from the resident council. The grievances included complaints about hot foods being served cold to the residents. On 6/19/23 at 12:49 p.m., Resident #48 said the food was always cold because the kitchen plate warmer doesn't work, and the food sits in the hall too long when the cart arrives from the kitchen. On 6/19/23 at 3:50 p.m., Resident #32 said the meat cuts they get for lunch and dinner are seldom tender, there is hardly any gravy on the biscuits and gravy, and the coffee is frequently cold. On 6/19/23 at 3:51 p.m., Resident #59 said the breakfast is crap and is ice cold. She said the meals are always cold and they need more gravy on the biscuits. She agreed with Resident #32 and said the meats are seldom tender and they either under or overcook the meat. On 6/20/23 at 8:53 a.m., Resident #59 said the breakfast eggs were cold this morning and the bacon was raw. Photographic evidence obtained On 6/20/23 at 8:54 a.m., Resident #32 said the breakfast eggs were cold, hard, and served like a rubbery ball on her plate. Resident #32 poked at the eggs to indicate they were hard and rubber-ball like. Resident #32 said the bacon was extremely undercooked and raw. Photographic evidence obtained On 6/20/23 at 12:29 p.m., observed the dietary aide remove 10 dish plates from the plate warmer and set them on the counter before plating allowing the dishes to cool before food was applied to them. The cook used the plates one by one until the last one was used at 12:35 p.m. On 6/20/23 at 12:35 p.m., observed stainless steel food cart being transported to 600 Hall. On 6/20/23 at 12:40 p.m., the stainless-steel food cart arrived at 600 hall and two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) distributed trays to residents. The CNAs opened the cart doors, poured beverages, and distributed the trays one by one to all the residents in the hall. The CNAs did not close the food cart door between residents. This had the potential to cool the ambient temperature of the food and decrease the temperature of hot food being served to residents. Photographic evidence obtained On 6/20/23 at 12:50 p.m., the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) said when he started working at the facility in September 2022, they did not have a functioning plate warmer. He said the plate warmer presently at the facility was acquired 2-3 months ago. He said he was unaware of the cook removing the plates from the warmer and setting them on the counter before she used them. On 6/20/23 at 12:55 p.m., a test tray was sampled on the 600 Hall for the lunch meal. Menu consisted of roast beef, brown gravy, mashed potatoes, Prince [NAME] Veggie Blend, Choice of roll, Key Lime cake, margarine, coffee, and tea. The test tray did not include the brown gravy. The temperature of the roast beef was 114 degrees, pale in color, with a large piece of fat to one side. The gravy was missing and there was no seasoning or salt on the meat. The roast beef slice was difficult to cut, chewy, tough, and barely warm. There were no additional condiments served with the roast beef and the taste was very bland. The key lime cake did not have frosting, was dry and over-cooked. The mashed potatoes were 120.3 degrees and seasoned but there was not gravy on top. The vegetables were 121 degrees but there was no seasoning on the vegetables, and they tasted bland. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) who had taken the temperatures of the food at the time, verified the beef did not contain the brown gravy as listed on the menu, was difficult to cut, was tough and contained a large piece of fat on the side. The CDM said the facility baked the key lime cake at the facility and agreed had been overbaked and dry. Photographic evidence obtained On 6/20/23 at 1:05 p.m., the Registered Dietician (RD) confirmed the stainless-steel carts were insulated and doors should be closed between residents to help keep the hot food warm. She said most of the carts have a sign on them with directions to keep the doors closed. 6/23/23 at 12:59 p.m., Resident #48 said last night's dinner was a Mexican dish with beans and rice. She said she requested sour cream and salsa, but there was none. She said food served on the weekends is served on foam trays with plastic utensils, so the kitchen staff do not have to wash the dishes. The weekend food is often unappealing and does not taste good. On 6/23/23 at 1:31 p.m., Resident #32 said her fish was burnt, could not eat it, sent it back for a grilled cheese sandwich. Photographic evidence obtained On 6/23/23 at 2:50 p.m., the food concerns were shared with the CDM. He agreed food served to residents was not consistently attractive, palatable, served at appropriate temperatures, and there was room for improvement.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner and in good repair by failing to store cloths used for wiping surfaces in red...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to maintain the kitchen in a sanitary manner and in good repair by failing to store cloths used for wiping surfaces in red sanitizing pails, failing to repair the leaking 3-compartment sink sprayer, failing to change the ice machine water filter according to manufacturer's specifications, storing measuring scoop for thickener inside of the bin in contact with the thickener, kitchen staff eating lunch while working and touching kitchen equipment, failing to wash hands between eating lunch, changing trash can bag, and placing lunch plates in the plate warmer. The findings included: Review of the facility policy Preventing Foodborne Illness - Employee Hygiene and Sanitary Practices: . Employees must wash their hands: b. After using tobacco, eating, or drinking; d. Before coming in contact with any food surfaces; f. After handling soiled equipment or utensils; h. After engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands. 14. Personnel may not . eat or drink in the food preparation area. On 6/19/23 at 9:15 a.m., during initial kitchen tour, the following was observed: The kitchen air conditioner was not working. The 3-compartment sink sprayer had water leaking continuously while not in use. Wet wiping cloths used to sanitize the counters were laying on the counter next to the coffee maker and not submersed in sanitizing solution. There was no sanitizer bucket in the food preparation area for wiping cloths. Photographic evidence obtained. During a subsequent visit to the kitchen conducted on 6/23/23 at 11:29 a.m., the following concerns were identified: The 3-compartment sink sprayer continued to leak water in a heavy stream while not in use. Wet, wiping cloths were laying on the counter in two separate areas next to the coffee maker and drink machine. There was no sanitizer bucket in the area. Dietary Staff AA was observed putting a black trash can liner in a large trash can near the 3-compartment sink. Staff AA touched the trash can rim. Staff AA did not wash or sanitize his hands after touching the trash can then picked up a piece of his lunch with his hands and walked through the kitchen eating the food with bare hands. Staff AA continued to work in the kitchen without washing or sanitizing his hands after eating, he picked up a green tray containing desserts and placed it in the counter height reach-in refrigerator. Staff AA then used both hands to pick up a stack of white dish plates from the cart and placed them in the plate warmer for lunch service. Dietary Staff AA touched the edges of the plates with both hands as he held them. On 6/23/23 at 11:37 a.m., observed Staff AA pick up the wet cloth laying near the drink machine and wipe a puddle of brown liquid under the drink machine. He then placed the cloth in an empty bucket in an adjoining room. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/23/23 at 11:48 a.m., observed a yellow cloth on the stove top. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) used the yellow cloth to wipe crumbs from the steam table across from the stove top. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/23/23 at 11:50 a.m., the CDM said the air conditioner did not work for a few days and was recently repaired. The CDM was informed of the observation of Staff AA not washing hands, the wiping cloths not kept in a sanitizing solution, and the 3-compartments sink sprayer continuously leaking water when not in use. The CDM looked for a sanitizer bucket in the food preparation area but could not find one. The CDM said he told staff to change the sanitizer buckets every two hours, but they still did not do it. The CDM instructed the dietary staff to re-wash the plates before using them for lunch service. On 6/23/23 at 12:04 p.m., the CDM removed the ice machine water filter from the water line. He poured out brown water from the filter cylinder into the sink. The label on the filter was dated 1/23/19 with instructions that read, Replacement every 6-12 months. The CDM said the filter was installed on 1/23/19. The CDM said he cleaned the ice machine in April 2023, but had not changed the filter. He said he did not keep a log or document when the ice machine was cleaned be changed recently. Review of the manufacturer's specifications for the make and model of the facility ice machine water filter indicated to change the filter every 6-12 months. A handheld scoop was observed laying within a container of dry thickening powder. The CDM verified the scoop stored in the container of thickening powder created the potential to contaminate the thickener with bacteria and germs. The CDM said he created a work order in the computer system for repair of the 3-compartment faucet, but the maintenance director quit over a month ago and it has not been repaired. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/23/23 at 1:50 p.m., the maintenance assistant said the maintenance director quit over a month ago and was responsible for the ice machine maintenance. She said she did not change the ice machine water filter and did not know anything about it. On 6/23/23 at 2:08 p.m., the administrator was made aware of the concerns observed in the kitchen. The ice machine manual, maintenance log, and filter logs were requested. On 6/23/23 2:50 p.m., the CDM agreed with the observations made in the kitchen and said there was room to improve. He said he created a work order for repair of the 3-compartment sprayer a month ago. Review of the Open Work Order #7172 created on 5/26 9:18 a.m., noted, Sprayer by 3 compartment sink leaking. The CDM provided the maintenance logbook for the ice machine. The Logbook Documentation for the Ice Machines noted to Check filters (if present), clean coils, sanitize interior, delime as necessary. The log was marked as done on 1/31/23 and 4/27/23 by the previous maintenance director.
Apr 2023 3 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered treatments and physician orders were...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered treatments and physician orders were completed for 4 (Resident #1, #2, #3 and #4) of 4 residents reviewed. This has potential to adversely affect the quality of care received by the residents. The findings included: 1. On 4/25/23, record review for Resident #1 revealed a physician's order to clean the left great toe stage 4 pressure ulcer with wound cleanser, apply Santyl external ointment, and cover with ABD/Kling/Kerlix every day shift. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for March and April 2023 for Resident #1 lacked documentation the wound care treatment with the Santyl was completed on 3/5, 3/14, 3/15, 3/16, 3/19, 3/30, 3/31, 4/7, 4/8 and 4/9/23. On 4/25/23, record review for Resident #1 revealed a service note from the vascular specialist physician dated 4/7/23 that noted Her dressings today in office were saturated and appeared to have been in place for several days. On 4/26/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m., the DON confirmed the contents of the service note from the vascular specialist physician. On 4/25/23, record review of Resident #1 revealed a physician's order, dated 9/27/22 for Dexamethasone (steroid) 6 milligrams (mg) once a day for Covid. The medication was discontinued on 2/24/23 after the resident's daughter complained the medication should not have been given for almost five months. On 4/25/23 at 3:30 p.m., in a telephone interview, the physician who wrote the order for the Dexamethasone said the intent was to treat the Covid for 10 days, not five months. On 4/26/23, further record review of Resident #1 revealed a pharmacy recommendation dated 1/20/23 noted Resident has an order for Dexamethasone tablet 6 mg. Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for covid positive with no stop date. Long-term corticosteroid use may be associated with more serious adverse effects, such as decrease in bone density. Please clarify stop date for Dexamethasone. There was no evidence the pharmacy recommendation was acted upon. On 4/26/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m., the DON confirmed the pharmacy recommendation to clarify a stop date for the dexamethasone had never been acted upon. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #1 revealed an order dated 4/7/23 from the vascular specialist physician to Paint bilateral lower extremity foot wounds with betadine, cover with dry gauze, change daily. Further record review revealed no evidence the order was ever acted upon. On 4/26/23 at approximately 9:59 a.m., the DON confirmed there was no evidence the order dated 4/7/23 from the vascular specialist physician for Resident #1 was ever acted upon. 2. On 4/25/23, record review for Resident #2 revealed a physician's order to clean the pressure ulcer to the right foot every day shift with wound cleanser, apply [NAME] external ointment, Xeroform, Calcium Alginate/dermablue and cover with B foam. The Treatment Administration Record for March and April 2023 failed to reveal documentation the treatment was done as ordered on 3/1, 3/5, 3/14, 3/15, 3/16, 3/19, 3/26, 3/30, 3/31, 4/7, 4/8, 4/9 and 4/17/23. 3. On 4/25/23, record review of the Treatment Administration Record for March and April 2023 for Resident #3 revealed a physician's order to clean the stage 3 pressure ulcer with wound cleanser every day shift, apply Santyl external ointment/Calcium Alginate and cover with B foam. The TAR lacked documentation the treatment was completed as ordered on 3/5, 3/12, 3/13, 3/15, 3/16, 3/19, 3/24, 3/31, 4/1, 4/5, 4/6, 4/9, 4/10, 4/11 and 4/17/23. 4. On 4/25/23, record review of the TAR for March and April 2023 for Resident #4 revealed a physician's order to clean the left hip unstageable pressure ulcer every day shift with wound cleanser, apply Santyl/Calcium Alginate and cover with B dressing. The TAR lacked documentation the treatment to the left hip was completed on 3/1, 3/11, 3/14, 3/23, 3/24, 3/31, 4/4, 4/8, 4/9, 4/11, 4/16 and 4/18/23. On 4/26/23 at approximately 2:30 p.m., the facility Director of Nursing (DON)confirmed there was no evidence the treatments for Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4 were completed as required on the dates noted.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0712 (Tag F0712)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure timely physician visits were made every 60 days as required by regulation for 3 (Residents #1, #7 and #8) of 3 Residents revie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure timely physician visits were made every 60 days as required by regulation for 3 (Residents #1, #7 and #8) of 3 Residents reviewed. This has the potential to lead to negative outcomes. The findings included: 1. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #1 revealed physician visits were made on 4/15/22, 4/28/22, 6/29/22, 8/30/22, 9/20/22, 1/22/23, and 1/30/23, There was no evidence of a visit as required between 9/21/22 and 1/12/23. 2. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #7 revealed physician visits were made on 3/22/23, 1/13/23, 8/15/22 and 6/9/22. There was no evidence of a visit as required between 8/16/22 and 1/12/23. 3. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #8 revealed physician visits were made on 3/17/23, 1/22/23, 8/15/22 and 6/17/22. There was no evidence of a visit as required between 8/16/22 and 1/21/23. On 4/26/23 at 2:45 p.m., in an interview, the facility Director of Nursing confirmed there was no evidence of a physician's visit every 60 days as required between 9/21/22 and 1/12/23 for Resident #1, between 8/16/22 and 1/12/23 for Resident #7 and between 8/16/22 and 1/21/23 for Resident #8.
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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to act upon pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner for 3 (Resident #1, #5 and #6) of 5 residents reviewed. This has the potential f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to act upon pharmacy recommendations in a timely manner for 3 (Resident #1, #5 and #6) of 5 residents reviewed. This has the potential for delay of treatment and use of unnecessary medication. The findings included: Facility pharmacy (PolarisRX), IIIA2 Documentation and communication of consultant pharmacist recommendations, May 2022 noted .C. Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or the prescriber. If the prescriber does not respond to recommendation within 30 days, the Director of Nursing and/or the consultant pharmacist may contact the Medical Director. 1. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #1 revealed a pharmacy recommendation dated 1/20/23, which noted, Resident has an order for Dexamethasone Tablet 6 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for COVID positive with no stop date. Long term corticosteroid use may be associated with more serious side effects, such as decrease in bone density. Please clarify stop date for Dexamethasone. There was no evidence the recommendation was addressed until the resident's daughter complained on 2/23/23 about the length of time Resident #1 had been on the medication. 2. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #5 revealed a pharmacy recommendation dated 12/23/22 to reevaluate the continued need for Pantoprazole (a protein pump inhibitor (PPI) )used to treat reflux) 40 mg daily. The recommendation noted long term PPI use is associated with increased risk of C. Difficile infections, bone loss and fractures and recommended consider discontinuation if patient has been asymptomatic for eight weeks. There was no evidence the recommendation was ever addressed. 3. On 4/26/23, record review of Resident #6 revealed a pharmacy recommendation dated 2/28/23 to attempt a Gradual Dose Reduction of Gabapentin (for mood disorder) from 100 mg three times a day to twice a day. There was no evidence the recommendation was ever addressed. On 4/26/23 at approximately 12:34 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed the pharmacy recommendations for Residents #1, #5 and #6 were not addressed in a timely manner.
Apr 2022 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews and review of facility policies the facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and homel...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews and review of facility policies the facility failed to maintain a clean, safe, and homelike environment for residents evidenced by nonfunctioning clocks in resident rooms, calls bells not being within resident's reach, insects in resident rooms and common areas, and dirty rooms for four days of observations. The findings included: Review of facility policy, Answering the Call Light, which said, The purpose of this procedure is to respond to the resident's requests and needs When the resident is in bed or confirmed to a chair be sure the call light is within easy reach of the resident. On 3/29/22 at 7:46 a.m., the call bell for Resident # 94, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, was observed in bed with the call bell on the floor not within resident's reach while resident was in bed. On 3/30/22 at 9:03a.m., observed Resident #90, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, in wheelchair with call bell not in reach. Observed call bell clipped to itself on the wall behind the room dividing curtain. * Resident #48, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 1, observed sitting on bed with call bell on floor behind head of bed. * On 3/30/22 at 9:46 a.m., the call bell for Resident # 94, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, was observed in bed with the call bell on the floor not within resident's reach while resident was in bed. * On 3/30/22 at 9:55 a.m., the call bell for Resident #21, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 1, observed behind headboard of bed not within reach of resident. Resident #49, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, call bell observed on the floor under bed not within reach. * On 3/30/22 at 10:26 a.m., the call light was observed inside of drawer next to bed for Resident #100, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, and not accessible to resident. * On 3/30/22 at 3:30 p.m., observed Resident #95, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, in wheelchair with call light clipped to bed not within reach for resident. On 3/29/22 at 7:20 a.m., during initial tour of secured memory unit observed several rooms with inaccurate clock settings or nonfunctioning clocks. Inaccurate or nonfunctioning clocks observed in resident rooms 101, 103, 104, 105, 202, 203, and 205. On 3/30/22 at 11:00 a.m., observed non-working or inaccurate clocks unchanged in rooms 101, 103, 104, 105, 202, 203, and 205. On 3/30/22 at 3:00 p.m., observed non-working or inaccurate clocks unchanged in rooms 101, 103, 104, 105, 202, 203, and 205. On 3/31/22 at 9:00 a.m., observed non-working or inaccurate clocks unchanged in rooms 101, 103, 104, 105, 202, 203, and 205. On 3/31/22 at 9:21 a.m., interviewed while walking through unit with Unit Manager Registered Nurse (RN) asked unit manager if it was important for residents with dementia, Alzheimer's, or confusion to have working clocks in their rooms. Unit Manager RN said, It is important for their clocks to work so that they can be oriented to the best of their ability to date and time. Unit Manager RN confirmed clocks in residents' rooms including 101, 103, 104, 105, 202, 203, and 205 were not accurate or not working. Unit Manager RN, said I guess no one has noticed but I will make sure to have it addressed. During walk through with Unit Manager RN she confirmed Resident #95, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, was in wheelchair and call bell was clipped to bed and not within reach for resident. Unit Manager RN also confirmed Resident #90, room [ROOM NUMBER] bed 2, was in wheelchair and call bell was clipped to wall not within reach. Unit manager RN said, I have work to do. The staff must remember to have the call bells within reach of the residents at all times. On 4/1/22 at 8:52 a.m., observed small brown crawling bug on wall at eye level outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Registered Nurse (RN), Staff S, was in hall passing medications and asked Staff S what it was. RN, Staff S, replied, Yuck that's a roach. I am afraid of roaches. Let me get maintenance. RN, Staff S, walked away to call maintenance. Continued to observe crawling bug and facility administrator was present in hallway, waved him over and, asked administrator what the bug was. Administrator replied, I think it is a roach. Administrator proceeded to kill crawling brown insect and called the maintenance director over from down the hall saying, We need to file a report and call exterminator. Maintenance director picked up bug and said he would call. On 3/29/22 at 10:14 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom observed with feces on the toilet, unbagged, unlabeled bedpan on the floor under the sink, and rusty bedframe for 504 bed A closest to the door. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/29/22 at 10:19 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] bed A closest to the door observed with rusty bed frame. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/29/22 at 10:23 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom observed with toilet bowl ring and feces, soiling of the caulk around the toilet base at the floor, and an empty, soiled toilet paper holder. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/29/22 at 10:41 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom observed with feces and circular water level ring in the toilet bowl. An orange peel, brown paper towel, and straw were observed on the floor under the sink. A bucket was being used as a waste basket. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/29/22 at 3:03 p.m. room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom observed with feces around the toilet bowel and seat, an empty urinal and measuring cylinder on the back of the toilet. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/30/22 at 10:00 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom observed with feces and water ring in the toilet bowel. The orange peel, brown paper towel and straw remained on the floor under the bathroom sink. The bucket was being used as the waste can. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/30/22 at 10:30 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] bathroom remained with feces on the toilet bowel and the unbagged, unlabeled pink bedpan on the floor under the sink. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/30/22 at 2:38 p.m., the orange peel remained on the floor under the bathroom sink and the bucket was being used as the waste can in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/30/22 at 2:39 p.m., the unbagged, unlabeled pink bedpan remained on the floor under the bathroom sink in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Photographic evidence obtained. On 04/01/22 at 9:18 a.m., the Housekeeping Supervisor said the housekeepers start in the morning sweeping residents' rooms and taking out the trash and cleaning the bathrooms. She said she has 2 housekeepers and should have 4. She said the administrator is aware of the housekeeper shortage. On 4/1/22 at 10:19 a.m., the unbagged, unlabeled pink bedpan remained on the floor under the bathroom sink in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Photographic evidence obtained. On 04/01/22 at 02:15 p.m., Housekeeper Staff W said he's worked at the facility for 3 years. He said he thinks housekeeping is short staffed, but it is possible to get all the work done as expected. On 4/1/22 at 2:19 p.m., the orange peel and brown paper towel remained on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER], and the bucket was being used as the waste can. Photographic evidence obtained. On 3/29/22 at 9:48 a.m. during an interview with Resident #80 observed a roach crawling on the wall. The roach was behind resident#80's the night table. On 3/31/22 at 10:17 a.m. during an interview with Resident #80 observed Resident #80's room being dirty and cluttered. On 3/31/22 at 1:44 p.m. in an interview with Agency Certified Nursing Assistant Staff X when asked what the protocol was for pest control, she stated that she will tell the nurse if she sees any roaches. Staff X said she saw ants before. (No specific time provided.) During interview with maintenance director on 3/31/22 at 1:45 p.m. said they had a contract with pest control company and last visit was December 2021. He provided additional weekly visits from to 3/29/22. Maintenance Director said he had not had complaints of cockroaches. Maintenance director said the facility has a system in place and staff reports to him as needed. He proceeded to show the binder utilized by staff to report them. On 3/31/22 at 2:02 p.m. during an interview, the Director of Housekeeping said they had 4 staff that clean daily and when the housekeepers get on the floor they go in the rooms and clean around 10:00 a.m. The Director of Housekeeping said she did not have a cleaning schedule. She said there were two people working 14 hours a day from 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in laundry.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess 2 residents (#35 and #54) out of 2 r...

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 accurately assess 2 residents (#35 and #54) out of 2 residents with oxygen and pacemakers. The findings included: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #35 was admitted to the facility in September 2020 with a diagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Review of the Minimum Data Sets (MDS) dated [DATE], 1/26/22, and 3/19/22 revealed Resident #35 was using oxygen while admitted to the facility. Review of the January, February, and March 2022 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident #35 revealed an active order for Oxygen 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed for shortness of breath. The order had a start date of 12/5/21. There were no initials from nursing staff on the MAR signifying Resident #35 was using oxygen at the facility during the months of January, February, or March. Review of the care plans for Resident #35 revealed no oxygen care plan had been formulated for Resident #35 indicating appropriate individualized interventions for oxygen use. On 3/29/22 at 9:15 a.m., Resident #35 was observed sitting on the side of his bed, wearing a nasal canula. The nasal canula was connected to an oxygen concentrator next to the bed. The oxygen concentrator was set at 5 liters per minute. Resident #35 said the nurses told him to use the oxygen, so he uses the oxygen. On 3/30/22 at 12:32 p.m., Resident #35 was observed for a 2nd time sitting on the side of his bed, wearing a nasal canula. The nasal canula was connected to the oxygen concentrator next to the bed. The oxygen concentrator was set at 5 liters per minute. On 03/31/22 at 09:47 a.m. during an observation of Resident #35 in his room with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON acknowledged the oxygen concentrator was set to 5 liters per minute. At that time, Resident #35 said he had turned the concentrator to 5 liters per minute. Resident #35 confirmed he puts the oxygen on and takes the oxygen off whenever he wants to. On 04/01/22 at 08:36 a.m., the MDS coordinator confirmed the MDS of 12/17/21, 1/27/22, and 3/19/22 indicated Resident #35 uses oxygen while at the facility. The MDS coordinator said she had failed to create the oxygen care plan for Resident #35 because the Medication Administration Records (MARS) indicated Resident #35 was not using the oxygen. The MDS Director said when she realized Resident #35 had been using the oxygens on 3/31/22, she formulated the oxygen care plan for Resident #35. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of Cardiac Pacemaker. Review of the Minimum Data Sets (MDS) dated [DATE] and 1/21/22 indicated the Cardiac Pacemaker was not included in the coding of the active diagnosis for Resident #54. Review of the care plans for Resident #54 revealed there was no care plan created for Resident #54's Cardiac Pacemaker with individualized interventions indicating how to care for the device. On 3/31/22 at 1:32 p.m. Resident #54 said she has a pacemaker originally inserted on August 2021. She said she is concerned because no one at the facility is monitoring the pacemaker. She said she has asked staff to arrange a cardiology appointment, but they have not arranged the appointment. On 3/31/22 at 4:12 p.m., the MDS Director said she has worked at the facility for 6.5 years and has coded the MDS for 15 years. She said her duties include uploading the active diagnosis list into the MDS and creation of the care plans into the electronic health records. She confirmed Resident #54's MDS was not coded for the Cardiac Pacemaker. The MDS coordinator confirmed there was no care plan for the Pacemaker either. The MDS coordinator said there should have been a Pacemaker care plan for Resident #54, but it was overlooked. On 3/31/22 at 5:10 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) Staff V said she knew the resident had a pacemaker but has never done anything for the pacemaker and is not sure what is going on with it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care to address ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation and staff interview, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive plan of care to address the identified problem of edema (swelling) for 1 (Resident #41) of 1 residents reviewed for edema. The findings included: Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the resident's diagnoses upon admission showed no history of edema. Review of the Resident #41's EMPC Nursing Comprehensive Assessment V3.2 completed at the time of admission showed Resident #1 had +1 edema to her extremities at the time of her admission. Review of resident #41's physician's orders shows she had an order for the diuretic Hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg daily (used to treat swelling) for edema ordered on 1/29/22. The order was discontinued on 3/7/22. At 3/30/22 at 9:52 a.m. Resident #41 was observed in the Starlight dining room sitting in a wheelchair with her legs not elevated. Edema was observed to both lower extremities. The swelling extended above the resident's ankles. The resident's socks observed to be indented around her lower legs due to the excessive edema in her legs. On 3/30/22 at 11:23 a.m. Resident #41 was observed in the Starlight dining room with her legs still not elevated, sitting in a chair near the door of the dining room. On 3/30/22 at 2:35 p.m. Resident #41 was observed in the Starlight dining room. She was still sitting in a wheelchair with her legs not elevated. On 3/31/22 at 3:10 p.m. Registered Nurse, Staff A said if a resident had edema, she would ensure a resident had ted hose and elevated their feet as much as possible to relieve the swelling. On 3/31/22 at 3:30 p.m. Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff E verified she was assigned to Resident #41. Staff E said Resident #41 had had Edema in her legs since she was admitted to the facility. Staff E said Resident #41 had been on a diuretic which was discontinued due to her having loose stools at the time. Staff E said she was not aware of a care plan or interventions in place to reduce the swelling in the resident's lower extremities. On 3/31/22, record review of Resident #41 revealed no evidence of a care plan in place to help manage Resident #41's edema On 4/1/22 at 2:02 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) said Resident #41 had chronic edema and he did not think there were any interventions which would reduce the swelling in the resident's legs other than a diuretic. The DON verified the facility had no documentation of a care plan or interventions that had been attempted to reduce the swelling in the resident's lower extremities.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, resident record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good grooming for 2 (Residents #94 and #202)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, resident record review and review of facility policy the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain good grooming for 2 (Residents #94 and #202) of 2 residents requiring assistance with activities of daily living. This has the potential to cause psychological harm to the resident. The findings included: Review of facility policy titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised 11/28/2016 stated, The Center must provide the necessary care and services to ensure that a patient's abilities in activities of daily living do not diminish unless circumstances of the individual's clinical condition demonstrate that such diminution was unavoidable. Activities of daily living (ADLs) include: Hygiene- bathing, dressing, grooming and oral care . ADL care is documented every shift by the nursing assistant on the ADL flow record or in Point Click Care (PCC) ADL Point of Care (POC) . A patient who is unable to carry out ADLs receives the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, foot care, grooming and dressing, hair care, nail care, oral care, perineal care, shaving the patient, shower, tub bath and use of the bedpan, urinal or commode. On 3/29/22 at 7:47 a.m., Resident #94 was observed in bed wearing a hospital gown, which appeared dirty, with disheveled hair, unshaved and long fingernails, especially his thumb nails. Left wrist brace was dirty with what appeared to be dried food on brace. Resident #94 was asked if staff members ever offer to cut his nails. Resident #94 replied, No. On 3/29/22 at 08:46 a.m., observed Resident #202 in room still in hospital gown. Resident was sitting on side of bed, hair appeared uncombed and disheveled. On 3/30/22 at 8:30 a.m., observed Resident #94 awake in bed, appearance, and clothing unchanged from 3/29/22. On 3/30/22 at 9:43 a.m., in an interview, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Staff D, working for six months at facility, said she was assigned to Resident #94 that day. CNA, Staff D said Resident #94 had a bed bath yesterday, so she was just setting up to do his ADL care. CNA, Staff D was asked what ADL care included. CNA, Staff D, replied, Mouth care, washing his face and hands, shaving if needed, combing his hair for him, really whatever is needed to have him clean and ready for the day. On 4/1/22 at 9:08 a.m., observed Resident #94 in bed in hospital gown, CNA, Staff D, said to surveyor upon entry, I am just getting ready to help him clean up. On 3/30/22 at 835 a.m., observed Resident#202 in bed awake, not dressed wearing nightgown, disheveled with hair uncombed. On 3/30/22 at 3:30 p.m., Resident #202 observed awake still in night clothes, still in bed and hair appears disheveled and uncombed. On 3/31/22 at 1:34 p.m., reviewed clinical record for Resident #94 including care plan with focus stating, The Resident has an ADL Self Care Performance Deficit as Evidenced by need for assist with self-care, initiated 6/15/2021. Interventions for this focus included, check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary, provide sponge bath when full bath or shower cannot be tolerated, the resident is totally dependent on 1-2 staff to provide bath/ shower per schedule and as necessary, the resident is totally dependent on 1 staff for personal hygiene and oral care. Review of Resident #94 POC documentation showed no shower or bath was given on the following scheduled shower/bath days during March 2022; 3/1/22, 3/4/22, 3/8/22, 3/15/22, 3/22/22. Resident #94 missed five out of eight scheduled shower/ bath with no refusals documented. Personal hygiene care was not documented or refused for nine days during March 2022 including 3/1/22, 3/2/22, 3/4/22, 3/5/22, 3/6/22, 3/7/22, 3/8/22, 3/9/22, and 3/20/22. On 3/31/22 at 2:15 p.m., reviewed clinical record or resident #202 including care plan initiated on 8/5/2021 with focus stating, The Resident has an ADL Self Care Performance Deficit as Evidenced by need for assist with self-care, initiated 6/15/2021. Interventions for this focus included, check nail length and trim and clean on bath day and as necessary, provide sponge bath when full bath or shower cannot be tolerated, the resident requires up to and including extensive assistance staff to provide bath/ shower per schedule and as necessary, the resident requires up to and including extensive assistance for personal hygiene and oral care. Review of Resident #202 POC documentation showed no shower or bath was given on the following scheduled shower/bath days during March 2022; 3/5/22, 3/12/22, 3/19/22, 3/26/22, 3/29/22. Resident #94 missed five out of nine scheduled shower/ bath with no refusals documented. Personal hygiene care was not documented or refused for six days during March 2022 including 3/5/22, 3/6/22, 3/9/22, 3/12/22, 3/13/22, and 3/27/22. On 3/31/22 at 3:59 p.m., interviewed agency CNA, Staff F, about ADL care and documentation in POC. CNA Staff F, said, I know how to document in POC, I mark all the ADLS that are completed and if they refuse you mark that and let the nurse know. On 3/31/22 at 4:30 p.m., reviewed ADL documentation for Resident #94 and #202 with Unit Manager Registered Nurse (RN) who confirmed no documentation on identified shifts for showers, baths, or ADL care. Unit Manager RN said, There is no way to know if it has been done or not. I know it looks as though we haven't been providing that care for the resident. Unit Manager RN confirmed the expectation is CNA to report to nurse if someone refuses ADL care and to document in POC. On 4/1/22 at 1230 p.m., interviewed Director of Nursing (DON) who confirmed missing documentation for showers, baths, and ADL care for resident #94 and #202. DON said, I know ADL care is lacking and we are working on it. DON confirmed expectation that staff document ADL care and any refusal is documented and reported to the nurse assigned to the resident.
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, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards for suture removal for 1 (Resident #8...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, resident and staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards for suture removal for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 resident reviewed for suture removal. The findings included: Record Review of the Facility Policy on Skin Integrity Management, Practice Standards #2. Complete comprehensive evaluation of the patient upon admission/re-admission to the Center. #3. Identify patient's skin integrity status and need for prevention, intervention, or treatment modalities through review of all appropriate assessment information. On 3/29/22 at 11:10 a.m. in an interview, Resident #8 said he was admitted to the facility a few months ago after an automobile injury and hospital admission. Resident #8 said a few days ago he found sutures from the injury that were never removed by the facility after he was admitted . Resident #8 exposed the right side of his chest under the arm to reveal the sutures. On 3/31/22 at 10:10 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said the nurse performs skin checks once a week on the residents at the facility. The ADON said the skin check is a head-to-toe inspection of the skin used to detect anything unusual. Review of the medical record indicated Resident #8 had skin checks performed by nurses at the facility on 12/24/21, 12/31/21, 1/7/22, 1/19/22, 1/26/22, 2/2/22, 2/9/22, 2/11/22, 2/18/22, 2/25/22, 3/4/22, and 3/11/22. The sutures were not identified on any of the skin checks. Review of the progress notes for Resident #8 from 12/17/21 through 3/31/22 did not include identification of the sutures. On 03/31/22 at 10:10 a.m. during a 2nd interview with the ADON and Resident #8 in his room, the ADON observed the sutures in Resident #8's right side chest under his arm. The ADON said there appeared to be 4 intact sutures. At that time, the ADON said the sutures had been overlooked by the facility and should have been removed. Review of Resident #8's Medication Administration Record (MARS) for March 2022 revealed an order on dated 3/31/22 at 11:45 a.m. for removal of sutures right lateral chest (under arm) one time only.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure the absence of accident hazards for 1 resident (Resident #35) out of 1 residents observed for accident hazards. The findin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure the absence of accident hazards for 1 resident (Resident #35) out of 1 residents observed for accident hazards. The findings included: Record review of the facility Resident Smoking Policy and Procedure, 2020. This policy will maintain an environment that remains as free of accident hazards as possible #1b. Residents are not permitted to have any smoking paraphernalia in their room or on their person. On 3/19/22 at 9:15 a.m. Resident #35 was observed in his room using oxygen running at 5 liters per minute. There was a pack of cigarettes and a lighter on his bedside tray table in open view observable from 6 feet away. Resident #35 said he keeps the cigarettes and lighter in his room all the time. On 3/19/22 at 9:47 a.m. Resident #35 was observed in his room. The oxygen was running at 5 liters per minute. The cigarettes and lighter were on the bedside tray table in open view observable from 6 feet away. On 3/30/22 at 12:15 p.m. Resident #35 was observed in his room. The oxygen was running at 5 liters per minute. The cigarettes and lighter were on the bedside tray in open view observable from 6 feet away. On 03/30/22 03:15 p.m. Resident #35 was observed in his wheelchair sitting in the hallway. The pack of cigarettes and the lighter were stored in his gray t-shirt pocket. The cigarettes and lighter were in plain view and observable from 6 feet away. On 04/01/22 at 12:39 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was made aware of the cigarettes and lighter in Resident #35's room. The DON acknowledged the lighter was an accident hazard and should not be stored in the resident's room. The DON searched the resident's belongings and found the lighter in Resident #35's robe pocket.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy, in accordance with physician's orders for 1 resident (Resident #80) of 2 residents reviewed for oxyg...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to provide oxygen therapy, in accordance with physician's orders for 1 resident (Resident #80) of 2 residents reviewed for oxygen administration. Failure to follow prescribed oxygen therapy may result in inadequate oxygen treatment or an increased risk of side effects and complications. Findings included: Received a copy of policy and procedure for oxygen administration. Record review of Oxygen Administration policy, Revised 12/12/20: Oxygen will be administered as per MD order to aid in breathing. Emergency oxygen may be administered by licensed nurse without a M.D. order. The M.D. will be consulted as soon as possible and order oxygen if continuation is required. On 3/29/22 at approximately 8:00 a.m. observation revealed Resident #80 was asleep in bed. The Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) mask was on the bed next to resident #80. Resident #80 was receiving oxygen therapy via nasal canula that was connected to an oxygen concentrator. The concentrator was set at 5 liters per minute (LPM). On 3/29/22 at 9:45 a.m. in an interview, Resident #80 said he uses the (CPAP) machine and mask. At the time of the interview, Resident #80 was receiving oxygen therapy treatment via nasal cannula connected to an oxygen concentrator that was set at 5.5 liters per minute. Resident #80 said he puts the nasal cannula (NC) on and then CPAP mask over the nasal cannula. Resident #80 did not know how many liters (L) of oxygen (O2) he has. Resident #80 said the nursing staff adjust the oxygen concentrator. There is an order dated 5/5/21 for O2 2L via NC as needed to maintain oxygen saturation greater than 90%. On 3/29/22 at 10:43 a.m. observation revealed Resident #80 receiving oxygen treatment via nasal cannula connected to an oxygen concentrator that was set at 5.5 liters per minute. On 3/30/22 at 08:52 a.m. observed Resident #80 receiving oxygen treatment via nasal cannula connected to an oxygen concentrator that was set at 4 liters per minute. Resident #80 again said he uses the O2 nasal cannula and the CPAP mask on top. Record review for Resident #80 revealed physician orders dated May 5, 2021 Resident to wear CPAP with 2 liters O2 (oxygen), on at 10 p.m., off at 7 a.m. for diagnosis sleep apnea. Another physician order dated May 5, 2021, stated O2 2 liters per nasal cannula as needed to maintain sats (oxygen saturation) greater than 90%. Neither of these orders was listed on Resident #80's MAR. On 3/31/22 at 10:17 a.m. Resident #80 was observed receiving oxygen treatment via nasal canula connected to an oxygen concentrator that was set at 4 liters per minute. The resident had a CPAP mask on top of the nasal canula. CPAP was running as well. Registered Nurse (RN), staff A, was present at time of observation. Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), said Resident #80 had on both Oxygen and a CPAP. Staff A observed the Oxygen concentrator that was running at 4 liters per minute. Staff A also observed the CPAP over the Oxygen therapy. Staff A said Resident #80 liked it like that. When Staff A, RN, looked at the oxygen concentrator in Resident #80's room she stated: The O2 is too high. Staff A, RN, adjusted the oxygen concentrator and said the oxygen concentrator was supposed to be on 3 liters. Staff A checked the oxygen orders on the computer for Resident #80 and verified that the order stated 2 LPM via nasal canula. When surveyor asked Staff A if she was going to leave O2 concentrator at 3 liters per minute, Staff A, stated: Yes, I am going to leave it at 3 liters and check on him later. On 3/31/22 at 10:50 a.m. during an interview the Director of nursing (DON) acknowledged that the oxygen order for Resident #80 was for 2 LPM via nasal canula. DON acknowledged that there was no order on record indicating that CPAP and O2 therapy can be administered at the same time. He said Resident #80 liked it like that. He said they needed to re-educate the resident. DON said they need to notify the physician to obtain a new order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure two residents' (Resident #44, and #19) of 5 residents surveyed for unnecessary medications were free from significant medication err...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure two residents' (Resident #44, and #19) of 5 residents surveyed for unnecessary medications were free from significant medication errors. The Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #44 revealed a physician's order dated 3/16/22 for, Ceftriaxone Sodium Powder Inject 1 gram intramuscularly one time only for UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) for 1 Day. Review of Resident #44's Medication Administration Record (MAR) shows on 3/16/22 Licensed Practical Nurse, Staff Y documented a number 9 on the MAR. for Ceftriaxone. Review of the code on the MAR shows 9 means, See Progress Note. The progress notes for Resident #44 documented on 3/16/22 at 4:22 p.m. showed the medication was not available. There was no documentation on the MAR to show Resident #44 received the antibiotic ordered. On 3/31/21 at 3:35 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) verified there was no documentation Resident #44 received the intermuscular antibiotic medication ordered by the physician. The DON said the antibiotic was always available in a locked box in the medication room. He said Staff Y must not have been aware of this because she was an agency nurse. 2. Review of Resident #19's physician's order shows the resident was to have coverage with Humalog insulin 4 times daily at 6:30 am, 11:30 am, 4:30 pm, and 9:00 pm. The coverage was to be given with any blood glucose greater than 200. Review of Resident #19's MAR shows on 3/6/21 there was no documentation the resident's blood sugar was obtained or the resident received insulin coverage at 11:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Review of the documented blood glucose results show on 3/6/22 only two blood glucose levels were obtained by facility staff at 5:46 am and 4:54 p.m. The electronic record showed Resident #19 did not have a blood glucose record obtained the morning of 3/13/22. Resident #19's MAR shows the resident did not receive insulin coverage on 3/13/22 at 6:30 a.m. The electronic record showed no blood glucose was obtained on the morning of 3/19/22. Resident #19's MAR shows the resident did not receive insulin coverage at 6:30 a.m. on 3/19/22. The electronic record shows no blood glucose was obtained on the morning of 3/26/22. Resident # 19's MAR shows the resident did not receive insulin coverage at 11:30 a.m. on 3/26/22. There is no documentation a blood glucose was not obtained at 9:00 p.m. on 3/27/22. Resident #19's MAR shows the resident did not receive insulin coverage at 9:00 p.m. on 3/27/22. On 3/31/22 at 3:35 p.m. the DON verified Resident #19's blood glucose was not obtained as ordered on 3/6/22, 3/19/22, 3/26/22, and 3/27/22. The DON verified he had failed to obtain blood glucose to ascertain the need to provide insulin coverage to Resident #19 on the morning of 3/13/22.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $647,392 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 35 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $647,392 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (1/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 1/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Vivo Healthcare Meadows's CMS Rating?

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

How is Vivo Healthcare Meadows Staffed?

CMS rates Vivo Healthcare Meadows's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 53%, compared to the Florida average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Vivo Healthcare Meadows?

State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at Vivo Healthcare Meadows during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 33 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Vivo Healthcare Meadows?

Vivo Healthcare Meadows 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 VIVO HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 98 residents (about 82% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SARASOTA, Florida.

How Does Vivo Healthcare Meadows Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, Vivo Healthcare Meadows's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (53%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Vivo Healthcare Meadows?

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

Is Vivo Healthcare Meadows Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Vivo Healthcare Meadows has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Vivo Healthcare Meadows Stick Around?

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

Was Vivo Healthcare Meadows Ever Fined?

Vivo Healthcare Meadows has been fined $647,392 across 2 penalty actions. This is 16.4x the Florida average of $39,553. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Vivo Healthcare Meadows on Any Federal Watch List?

Vivo Healthcare Meadows 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.