TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER

1705 JESS PARRISH CT, TITUSVILLE, FL 32796 (321) 269-5720
Non profit - Corporation 157 Beds FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
36/100
#575 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: June 2024

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

Overview

Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. It ranks #575 out of 690 facilities in Florida, placing it in the bottom half of nursing homes in the state, and #15 of 21 in Brevard County, meaning there are only a few better options locally. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2022 to 13 in 2024. Staffing is a weakness here, with a 62% turnover rate that is much higher than the state average, which can disrupt continuity of care. Although there is average RN coverage, recent inspector findings highlighted critical issues, such as a failure to provide timely CPR for a resident according to their wishes, as well as inadequate mechanisms for residents to voice grievances without fear of reprisal.

Trust Score
F
36/100
In Florida
#575/690
Bottom 17%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 13 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
62% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$17,369 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2022: 2 issues
2024: 13 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 62%

15pts above Florida avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $17,369

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CAR

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (62%)

14 points above Florida average of 48%

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2024 13 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow policy and procedure related to Full Code status leading to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow policy and procedure related to Full Code status leading to a delay in initiating Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Advance Directives of a total sample of 68 residents, (#100). Resident #100 a-[AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included anemia, type II diabetes, occlusion and stenosis of the carotid artery. The resident was admitted to Hospice services on [DATE] with diagnosis of moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. The resident's physician's order dated [DATE] noted full resuscitation. Progress note dated [DATE] at 6:30 AM, documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A read, Patient has expired Hospice notified MD (Medical Doctor) notified. Resident #100 died at the hospital on [DATE]. The facility's failure to provide CPR in a timely manner as per resident #100's wishes and physician's order placed all residents in the facility at risk, and could lead to potential injury/impairment or death if code status is not identified and addressed immediately in an emergent situation. This failure resulted in Immediate Jeopardy starting on [DATE]. The Immediate Jeopardy was removed on [DATE]. Findings: Cross Reference F609 Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident's cognition was intact with a Brief Interview For Mental Status score of 13 out of 15. The resident's physician's order dated [DATE] noted his code status to be Full Resuscitation. Orders entered by LPN A on [DATE] at 6:29 AM, noted two contradictory orders, one for Full Resuscitation, and another for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). A progress note dated [DATE] read, Advance care plan meeting held discussed code status wishes. Resident chooses to remain a full code at this time . hospice is caring for resident at this time for palliative comfort care. The Hospice Certification and Plan of Care with certification period [DATE] to [DATE] revealed his hospice diagnosis was moderate protein-calorie Malnutrition. Review of hospice orders for Advance Directive on [DATE] read, Do Not Resuscitate, and a different order dated two days later on [DATE] noted Resuscitate. Review of Hospice Note Reports dated [DATE], and [DATE] revealed the resident's code status was Full code. A progress note documented by LPN A, dated [DATE] at 6:29 AM, read, Patient has expired Hospice notified, MD notified. On [DATE] at 5:25 PM, the 200 Wing Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) stated he recalled resident #100 was on hospice services and had a full code status. He stated he was not at the facility when the resident coded but heard there may have been some confusion by hospice whether the resident was a DNR or full code. The resident's clinical records were reviewed with the RN/UM and he acknowledged the only documentation pertaining to the resident's change in condition was on [DATE] at 6:29 AM, that indicated the resident expired. The RN/UM stated the normal process when a resident passed was for staff to call the Director of Nursing (DON) who would instruct the staff on what to do. He said the facility's protocol for code status was to go by what was in the resident's medical record. On [DATE] at 5:43 PM, an interview was conducted with the DON, and the Regional Consultant Risk Management Specialist. The DON explained the facility's process regarding advance directives. She stated on admission if the resident was alert and oriented, staff would verify the resident's wishes for advanced directives, notify the physician, and place a physician order in the facility's electronic medical record (EMR). If the resident was not alert and oriented, code status would be confirmed with the responsible party. She explained the order for code status would be entered in the EMR, printed and placed at the front of the resident's physical chart. The DON said if a resident was found unresponsive, the nurse should verify the resident's code status in the physical chart, and the physician order in the EMR. She noted the code status orders were usually verified by two nurses. She explained if the resident was without pulse and respiration and was a Full Code, CPR should be initiated immediately. The DON described a code worksheet on the crash cart, that directed staff to record the time the resident was found without unresponsive, the time 911 was called, and who initiated CPR. The code worksheet included staff who assisted in CPR, 911 response time, and the time 911 assumed care of the resident. She said the code worksheet was a tool to guide documentation for the resident's clinical record. The DON and the Regional Consultant Risk Management Specialist reviewed the resident's physician's order, and progress note, and stated documentation on [DATE] at 6:29 AM, indicated the resident expired, and the physician and hospice services were notified. They acknowledged there was no other documentation other than the resident expired and notifications made. The DON stated a DNR order was initiated for the resident on [DATE] at 6:29 AM, discontinued at 8:44 AM, and a Full code order was initiated at 6:45 AM after resident 100 had expired. She said the following day, post code, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) usually reviewed code status and identified who initiated CPR. She stated she would have questioned the DNR, and Full Code orders both entered on [DATE]. On [DATE] at 6:13 PM, in a telephone interview, LPN A stated she worked at the facility full-time for six months on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift. She confirmed she was resident #100's primary nurse on [DATE], and noted the resident was very sick. LPN A recalled on [DATE] to [DATE] on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift, she did rounds between 12 AM to 1 AM, and at that time resident #100 was okay. She recalled Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) B provided hygiene care for the resident, and when CNA B did her last round at about 5:30 AM, the resident was unresponsive. LPN A explained when she went into the resident's room, the resident appeared to have expired, he had no pulse, and was not breathing. The LPN said the resident was a full code, but in the hospice chart he had a DNR order. She recalled she called the hospice service, and was told the resident was a DNR. She remembered the hospice nurse on call was not familiar with the resident, and by the time she called back to say the resident was a full code, she had already verified the resident was a full code. LPN A said she called the physician to verify the resident's code status, reached out to the former DON, and she verified the resident had rescinded his DNR, and was a full code. She said CPR was initiated immediately after the resident's code status was confirmed by the physician. The LPN noted the facility had a CPR log, and information was documented on the log which was given to the former DON. On [DATE] at 6:42 PM, the DON and Administrator stated an investigation was initiated by the former Administrator and DON. They shared the former Administrator put together a file with timeline on the Code Blue, and included statements from LPN A, and CNA C. There were no statements obtained from other nurses on shift, or from CNA B who initially found the resident unresponsive. They shared the Code Blue Worksheet dated [DATE] identified the resident was found unresponsive at 6:15 AM by CNA B. The worksheet timeline indicated the Emergency Code cart arrived at the resident's room at 6:17 AM. LPN A checked the resident's chart for code status at 6:17 AM, initiated CPR and called 911 at 6:17 AM. The Worksheet indicated Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrived at 6:27 AM. They acknowledged statements were obtained on [DATE] from LPN A, CNA C, and the Director of Rehabilitation, but not from CNA B. Review of the Code Blue Worksheet revealed staff involved in the code were LPN A, CNA B, and CNA C. On [DATE] at 11:28 AM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant, DON, Regional Risk Management Specialist, Regional [NAME] President (VP) of Operations, and Administrator. The DON stated the facility called all parties involved in the code, and staff present at the time of the incident. The Administrator stated LPN A had called 911 from her personal phone and completed a post event report. The Administrator said LPN A identified resident #100 was found unresponsive on [DATE] at 6:15 AM. The resident's chart and crash cart were bought to the resident's room at 6:17 AM. The Administrator said a statement was obtained from CNA B the resident's assigned CNA on [DATE] during the survey. She verbalized that during the interview with CNA B, the CNA voiced that she spoke with the DON after the event but was not asked to write a statement. On [DATE] at 11:28 AM, the conflicting information from interviews and the Code Blue Worksheet timeline as to when the resident was found unresponsive was discussed with the Administrator and DON. They did not have a response, and stated the facility's Corporate staff reviewed the previous Administrator and DON's investigation after the event. The Administrator provided documentation of the interview conducted with CNA B on [DATE] that revealed the CNA found resident #100 unresponsive at approximately 2:30 AM to 3 AM which contradicted previous interviews with Administration and the Code Blue Worksheets which noted the resident was found unresponsive at 6:15 AM. The Administrator stated the facility had statements to refute the CNA's statement. The Administrator stated LPN F worked on the 300 Wing on [DATE], and in her statement obtained yesterday on [DATE], LPN F stated that on [DATE], the ambulance left the facility at approximately 6:30 AM to 7:00 AM. The Administrator said at the time resident #100 was found unresponsive, his code status in the facility's EMR was Full Code, and she was not aware of any DNR order in the hospice binder for the resident. She stated the facility follows the orders in the EMR. The Regional Nurse Consultant stated that based on the resident's physician's order, the resident was a full code from [DATE] and had never had a DNR order in place. She verbalized that based on new statement given today by LPN A, the LPN had looked in the resident's hospice binder that morning and the resident was a DNR. However, the facility could not identify any DNR order in the closed clinical records for resident #100. Review of statements obtained by the current Administrator between [DATE], and [DATE], revealed LPN A reported she was made aware resident #100 was unresponsive around 5 AM to 6 AM. She checked the electronic record for the resident's code status, called a code and started CPR by herself for approximately ten minutes. CNA B's statement indicated the resident was found unresponsive by the CNA between 2:30 AM and 3 AM. The typed statement read, Told (LPN A's name) he wasn't breathing. She checked the computer and she said he was a DNR. She called the hospice and they confirmed he was a DNR. Then about an hour later hospice called back and said he was a full code, so she went back to the room and started doing CPR. Review of the transcript of the call from the facility to hospice on [DATE] revealed the following: 6:09 AM call comes into triage with report patient expired at 6: 00 AM. LPN A We went into patients' room; he is not breathing. We are starting CPR and sending him out. He is still a full code. Triage RN: He is still a full code? LPN A I believe he is a full code unless you have something different 6:15 AM Triage RN returns to state will need to get access to the chart will follow up with a call and will be making a visit with appropriate paperwork if it is there. LPN A Well I do not have an actual DNR, but I am looking at his hospice book you guys give and under the Medicare thing (the election of benefit) it says, 'I request no cardiopulmonary resuscitative measures at the time of my death'. I mean he is gone at this point so there is nothing I can do anyway. I just need to know whether he is a full DNR or not. 6:23 AM hospice nurse calls LPN A stating she sees a DNR, but LPN A says, our records state full code. The hospice nurse let her know she was on the way to the facility to make a visit and told LPN A if you know if your records show full code, then continue to do CPR and call 911. 6:34 AM hospice nurse called LPN A back to confirm patient was in fact a full code which confirms what LPN A stated at 6:09 AM Review of the report from Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provided by the Administrator revealed EMS arrived at the hospital from the facility on [DATE] at 7:09 AM. On [DATE] at 1:47 PM, the Corporate Director of Risk Management (RM) stated she was made aware by the facility there was a code blue on [DATE]. She said CPR was performed after the code status was identified, and in the middle of the code when hospice was made aware, hospice reported they had record of the resident being a DNR but instructed the nurse to follow physician orders on file. The nurse, LPN A, called the DON during the code, and the DON reassured her that once CPR was started, CPR could not be stopped. Later hospice called back and verbalized they made a mistake, and the resident's code status was not DNR, he was a full code. EMS arrived and assumed care for the resident, he was transferred to the hospital, and passed away. The RM said she provided guidance to facility leadership to investigate the event, interview all staff present, and validate there was no pause in CPR. She recalled she reviewed some statements, and there were no concerns, CPR continued until EMS arrived. The RM said the facility was concerned hospice had an incorrect order for the resident's code status that could have resulted in a potential negative effect. She recalled she had a follow-up phone call within the week of the event with the Administrator, and there were no additional concerns. She stated it was her understanding the facility did a thorough investigation. The RM said the statement obtained from CNA B on [DATE] had errors in the timeline, as evidenced by the resident's clinical condition when he arrived to the emergency room (ER). She said the statement from the assigned LPN A indicated she was made aware of the resident's condition at 6:15 AM. The RM explained the statements, code blue timeline, and verbal interviews were used to determine the timeline of the event was correct. She acknowledged there were conflicts between the statements obtained, interviews, and the timeline on the Code Blue Worksheet. She stated review of the progress note documented on [DATE] at 6:29 AM, indicated the resident expired, but the resident expired in the hospital. The RM said the hospital had documentation that conflicted with the facility's documentation, and the review left her with questions. On [DATE] at 3:41 PM, the RM provided the Fire Rescue Patient Care Record dated [DATE]. Documentation on the EMS Patient Care Record-Admin/Hospital form indicated the initial call from the facility was received by EMS on [DATE] at 7:35 AM. The report revealed EMS arrived to the facility a few minutes later at 6:41 AM and arrived to the resident at 6:48 AM. The report read, Rehab staff relates pt (patient) was last seen normal @-1:00 AM during medication administration with no issue noted at that time. Staff relates coming in @-6:30 AM to find pt unresponsive, pulseless, apneic. Staff relates delay in initiating CPR over confusion involving pt's DNR- staff initially believed DNR was current, however realized shortly after that DNR was rescinded by pt. Staff relates CPR was initiated ~ 5-10 mins PTA [Prior to arrival] of EMS. The emergency room Record dated [DATE] revealed, Patient was found last seen around 2 AM found unresponsive and asystole [heart not beating] no bystander CPR. Documentation indicated the time of death was 7:13 AM. Information from EMS, and the ER conflicted with the statements obtained from LPN A, CNA B, the Code Blue Worksheet timeline, and the Triage call to the hospice. The EMS record indicated CPR was provided by facility staff approximately 5 to 10 minutes prior to their arrival on scene at 6:48 AM. This would indicate CPR was initiated by facility staff at approximately 6:30 to 6:35 AM and not at 6:17 AM, as documented on the Code Blue worksheet. This was acknowledged by the RM. On [DATE] at 4:40 PM, CNA B stated she had worked at the facility for four years, on the 3 PM to 11 PM shifts, and on the 11 PM to 7 AM shifts, twice weekly. She confirmed she worked on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on [DATE] through [DATE], and resident #100 was in her assignment. CNA B recalled she checked on the resident between 2:30 AM to 3 AM, found him unresponsive, and immediately alerted LPN A. She recalled LPN A went to the computer to check the resident's code status, and said the resident was DNR. The LPN checked the book, CNA B said she was not sure of which book, and LPN A said it showed DNR. CNA B related CPR was not initiated at that time. CNA B said LPN A instead called hospice, and was told resident #100 was a DNR. She related hospice called back about one hour later and said the resident was a full code, so LPN A then went into the room and started CPR. CNA B stated LPN A performed compressions until EMS arrived and took over. The CNA stated LPN A called 911 before she initiated CPR, and thought CPR was started somewhere between 3:30 AM to 4 AM. She said she would not forget this event, because it was her first death. CNA B stated the Code Blue Worksheet timeline was inaccurate, and the resident was not found unresponsive at 6:15 AM, as documented. She stated her statement was obtained yesterday on [DATE] when the Administrator called her. On [DATE] at 11:44 AM, another interview was conducted with the Regional Nurse Consultant, DON, Regional Risk Management Specialist, Regional VP of Operations, Corporate Director of RM, and the Administrator. The RM stated the facility identified the need for additional investigation, because of the discrepancies identified on the Code Blue worksheet, the documentation in the resident's EMR, the hospital records, and the EMS run report. When asked if CPR was provided timely, or delayed, the RM stated documentation from the hospice triage call indicated LPN A called at 6:09 AM to notify the resident expired at 6:00 AM. She said in the event report 6:00 AM was when the resident expired as per documentation and if 6:09 AM was when CPR was started, it would indicate a nine-minute delay. The RM stated staff were taught to follow physician orders in the EMR regarding code status, not to look at the hospice book. She stated after they received the EMS report, it confirmed the Code Blue Worksheet was not accurate. The RM said the EMS run report showed they arrived at the facility on [DATE] at 6:35 AM, and it appears there may have been a delay in providing CPR based on the EMS run report. (This statement of the EMS arrival time was found to be inaccurate per the EMS record, which indicated 911 call to EMS was at 6:35, with actual arrival time on scene at 6:41 AM.) On [DATE] at 3:12 PM, the Medical Director stated he was not aware of the concern with the discrepancy in code status for resident #100 until today ([DATE]). He stated proper documentation of code status should be in the resident's chart, and if there was no documentation, the resident remained as a full code. He stated the education to the nurse was lacking, and the facility needed to review and put some education in place. The Medical Director said some of the new nurses believed if a resident received hospice services, then the resident would be DNR, which was not always the case. He stated he was not the physician LPN A was reported to have called. He explained it would take the nurse approximately 15 minutes to complete a call to the physician in his opinion. The potential delay in providing CPR to resident #100 was discussed with the Medical Director. He said the facility did not have an AD Hoc Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting for this incident. Essential duties and responsibilities listed on the Job description for Licensed Practical Nurse with date of [DATE] included, Handles emergency situations in a prompt, precise, and professional manner. Perform CPR as required .Maintains accurate, detailed reports and records. The policy CPR Code Status Orders & Response updated February 2023, revealed the procedure for initiating CPR directed that Code Status and resident will be verified by 2 identifiers .with another nursing care center personnel, if resident is a full code CPR will be initiated. Review of the immediate actions to remove the Immediate Jeopardy implemented by the facility as stated in their accepted Immediate Jeopardy Removal Plan revealed the following, which were verified by the surveyor: *[DATE] CPR was initiated for resident #100 and resident was transferred from the facility with a rhythm via EMS and passed away at the hospital. *[DATE] Assistant DON initiated staff education on Code Status Orders and Response Policy and Procedure to include procedure for initiating CPR and documentation of the event. 31 out of 31 licensed nurses were educated as of [DATE]. Re-education was initiated for licensed nursing clinical staff to be completed [DATE]. *[DATE] Facility audit of 100 out of 100 residents advance directives was completed, to confirm accuracy of code status present in the front of the medical records and that it matched the physician's orders in the EMR. *[DATE] additional audit of 21 out of 21 residents receiving hospice services conducted to confirm code status of record with hospice matches the facility's record. The hospice chart stored at the facility was combined with the facility's hard chart, removing individual hospice binders. *[DATE] the Regional [NAME] President provided education to the Administrator and Interim DON on their essential core functions and the code of conduct. *[DATE] the Risk Management Consultant provided education to the Administrator and DON on the Abuse Prevention Program and conducting through investigations. *A total of 9 Code Blue Drills has been completed since [DATE] covering all shifts in order to ensure staff are knowledgeable and prepared to accurately verify resident code status in an emergency and ensure staff provide CPR in a timely manner. *[DATE] Ad Hoc Quality Assurance and Compliance committee reviewed removal plan. Review of the in-service attendance sheets revealed evidence to reflect staff participation in education on CPR & Advance Directives. Between [DATE] and [DATE], interviews were conducted with 4 RNs, 4 LPNs, and 3 CNAs. They all verbalized understanding of the education provided. Interviews, and record reviews revealed no concerns for residents #1, #11, #25 and #87 related to Advance Directives and code status.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] from the h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the medical record revealed resident #72 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] from the hospital. Her diagnosis included bipolar disorder, cognitive communication deficit, metabolic encephalopathy, and need for assistance with personal care. She had a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder on 5/04/24. Resident #72's Entry MDS with an ARD of 5/30/24 revealed the resident was admitted from the hospital on 5/30/24. The MDS admission with an ARD of 6/05/24 was in progress. Resident #72's Order Summary Report and the Medication Administration Record showed resident #74 had physician orders for medications related to diagnoses including bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder. On 6/06/24 at 2:57 PM, the Interim DON stated it was the DON's responsibility to ensure the resident's Level I and Level II PASARRs were completed and submitted timely. She conveyed the DON would review the PASARRs prior to admission and resubmit them if they were inaccurate. She also conveyed if a resident was diagnosed with a new mental illness, the DON would complete another Level I and submit a request for a Level II PASARR if indicated. She verified resident # 72 had a Level I PASARR submitted on 5/03/24 that included only the bipolar diagnosis. The DON also verified the resident received a new diagnosis of major depressive disorder on 5/04/24 but confirmed a new Level I PASARR was not performed. She acknowledged the resident should have had another Level I PASARR completed due to a new major mental disorder diagnosis and said she did not know how it was missed. The facility's PASARR policy read, Preadmission screening for mental illness and intellectual disability is required to be completed prior to admission to a Nursing Home .A resident review must be completed when there has been a significant change in a resident mental or physical condition .Social Services or RN will review to determine if a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and Intellectual Disability (ID) or both exists while reviewing the PASRR form. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer residents with a newly evident mental disorder for Level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) evaluation and determination and failed to request a Level 1 PASARR evaluation for resident with new mental disorder diagnosis for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for PASARR, (#1, & #72), of a total sample of 68 residents. Findings: 1. Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cerebral infarction, encephalopathy and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) significant change in status assessment with assessment reference date (ARD) of 4/25/24 revealed resident #1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 07 which indicated he had severe cognitive impairment. The document indicated his active diagnoses included anxiety disorder and depression. Review of resident #1's care plan revealed a psychotropic medication use care plan initiated 7/31/18 which indicated he received antidepressant medication to manager his depression and anxiety. The care plan included interventions for psychological and psychiatric services as ordered and as needed. Review of resident #1's electronic medical record (EMR) revealed a diagnosis of schizophrenia with an onset date of 12/06/18, recurrent depressive disorders with an onset date of 12/06/18 and anxiety disorder with an onset date of 12/06/18. The record contained a Level I PASARR screening form dated 5/30/18 which did not indicate the resident had a mental illness (MI) or suspected MI. The form indicated resident #1 had a condition that was likely to continue indefinitely and resulted in substantial functional limitations of his capacity for independent living. The form further indicated there was an indication he had or may have had a disorder resulting in functional limitations in major life activities that would otherwise be appropriate for his developmental stage. The record did not contain an updated Level I PASARR or a Level II PASARR screening form after the resident received the new MI diagnoses. On 6/06/24 at 3:26 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed resident #1's PASARR and compared it to diagnoses in EMR. She verified the PASARR was not updated by the facility when the resident was diagnosed with schizophrenia, anxiety and depressive disorder over 6 months after the previous Level I PASARR. She acknowledged the Level I should have been updated and referred for a Level II if it was indicated.
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 interview, the facility failed to ensure a Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) evaluation was accurate upon admission for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for PASARR accuracy, of a total of 68 residents, (#93). Findings: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #93 was admitted to the facility from the hospital on 4/23/24 with a discharging diagnosis of schizophrenia. Record review of the Level 1 PASARR completed on 3/29/24 by the hospital social worker inaccurately omitted the diagnosis of schizophrenia. On 06/04/24 at 5:29 PM, the interim Administrator said Social Services was responsible for completing PASARRs. The Social Service Director on 6/06/24 at 2:22 PM, related the Director of Nursing (DON) was responsible for the review and accuracy of the PASARRs. The Interim DON on 6/06/24 at 3:22 PM, said she was surprised resident #93 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of schizophrenia which would require a level 1 PASARR. She confirmed the Level 1 PASARR was not checked for the schizophrenia diagnosis by the hospital which was important to ensure accuracy to determine if further screening with a Level II PASARR was necessary. The Interim DON confirmed it was her responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the Level 1 PASARRs and explained if the diagnosis was not accurate another Level 1 PASARR should have been performed.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, chronic atrial fibril...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder, chronic atrial fibrillation, cardiac arrhythmia, unspecified glaucoma, hypertension and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly assessment with assessment reference date of [DATE] revealed resident #25 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 13 which indicated she was cognitively intact. She did not exhibit any behavioral symptoms and did not reject care that was necessary to achieve her goals for health and well-being. The document revealed resident #25 had a diagnosis of unspecified glaucoma. A care plan for potential for impaired visual function related to history of glaucoma was initiated on [DATE] and revised [DATE]. Interventions included, Administer medication as ordered. Review of resident #25's EMR revealed a physician order dated [DATE] for 1 drop of Combigan Ophthalmic solution 0.2-0.5% (Brimonidine Tartrate-Timolol Maleate) to be instilled in both eyes two times a day for glaucoma. On [DATE] at 12:00 PM, daughter to resident #25 stated she did not receive medications in a timely manner. She stated the resident was supposed to get eyes drops 3 times a day. Resident #25 confirmed she had not received any eye drops today. She stated the nurse told her there were no eyes drops on her list of medications to be administered. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for [DATE] at approximately 12:25 PM, revealed eye drops were documented as given for the 9:00 AM administration. On [DATE] at 1:05 PM, LPN G was observed on 100 unit. LPN G verified she had a split assignment between 100 and 200 units. She explained she had left the 200 unit and was on the 100 unit passing medications. LPN G stated she had not administered the eyes drops to resident #25. She explained she preferred to administer eye drops at the end of her medication pass. LPN G reviewed her MAR documentation and verified she documented the eyes drops were already administered. She stated she did not remember documenting the administration. LPN G acknowledged it was not good practice to check off medications as given prior to actual administration. On [DATE] at 3:31 PM, the DON stated she spoke to LPN G and provided one on one education. The DON verified LPN G should not have documented administration of medication when she had not given the medication. The DON acknowledged by doing so, you would not be able to accurately identify which medications had or had not been administered. The facility's policy and procedure for Medication Administration dated [DATE] indicated medications were to be administered within 60 minutes of scheduled times. The policy read, The individual who administers the medication dose, records the administration on the resident's MAR immediately following the medication being given. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Medical Records were complete and accurate pertaining to a change in condition for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for Advance Directives, (#100), and failed to accurately document medication administration for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for accuracy of medical record, (#25), of a total sample of 68 residents. Findings: 1. Resident #100, a-[AGE] year-old male was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included anemia, type II diabetes, stenosis of the carotid artery, and repeated falls. The resident was admitted to hospice services with start of care date of [DATE] with a diagnosis of moderate protein-calorie malnutrition. A progress note documented by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A was dated [DATE] at 6:29 AM, and read, Patient has expired Hospice notified MD (Medical Doctor) notified. Review of the resident's clinical records revealed there were no other documentation to indicate when the change in condition was identified for resident #100. No documentation was noted regarding the actions taken prior to the progress note documented on [DATE] at 6:29 AM. On [DATE] at 5:25 PM, the 200 Wing Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) stated if a resident was found unresponsive, after staff assessment and response, a progress note was to be documented in the resident's electronic medical record (EMR) with the relevant information. Resident #100's clinical records were reviewed with the RN/UM, he acknowledged the progress note dated [DATE] at 6:29 AM, and confirmed no additional documentation could be identified, prior to the progress note which indicated the resident expired. On [DATE] at 6:13 PM, in a telephone interview, LPN A confirmed she was resident #100's primary nurse on [DATE]. She recalled Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) B did her last round on the resident about 5:30 AM and reported to her the resident appeared expired. The LPN stated when she went into the resident's room he did not have a pulse. She stated information and actions taken regarding resident #100's change in condition were documented on the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) log and given to the former DON. She acknowledged the information was not documented in the resident's clinical record. On [DATE] at 4:40 PM, CNA B confirmed she worked on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on [DATE] through [DATE], and resident #100 was in her assignment. She recalled she checked on the resident somewhere between 2:30 AM and 3 AM, found him unresponsive, and reported the change in condition to LPN A. Review of the medical record revealed this information was not documented in the resident's clinical records. Review of the Code Blue Worksheet for resident #100 dated [DATE] revealed documentation which indicated resident 100 was found unresponsive at 6:15 AM. Review of the hospice transcript of the call from the facility on [DATE] revealed LPN A called at 6:09 AM to report patient expired at 0600. Interviews conducted with LPN A, and CNA B, review of the Code Blue Worksheet, and statements obtained from LPN A and CNA B revealed information pertaining to the resident's change in condition, and LPN A's communication between the facility and providers was not documented in the resident's clinical records. On [DATE] at 5:43 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Regional Consultant Risk Management Specialist explained the facility had a code worksheet on the crash cart staff would utilize to record pertinent details of the code event, including the time the resident was found without pulse and respiration, the time 911 was called, who initiated CPR, who assisted, 911 response time, and time 911 assumed care of the resident. They stated the code sheet was a tool to aid documentation in the resident's clinical record. The resident's clinical records were reviewed with the DON, and she acknowledged the progress note documented on [DATE] at 6:29 AM, was the only documentation by nursing staff identified regarding the change in the resident's condition. On [DATE] at 11:28 AM, and on [DATE] at 11:44 AM, the Corporate Director of Risk Management (RM) stated that in reviewing the incident, the facility identified an opportunity for improved documentation. The Regional Consultant Nurse stated LPN A verbalized information in her documentation was in error and should have been documented appropriately in the resident's clinical record. When asked why documentation was not completed, LPN A said she was tired. The RM stated the facility identified discrepancies on the Code Blue worksheet, documentation in the resident's EMR, hospital records, and the Emergency Medical Services run report. She acknowledged the facility had a responsibility to ensure documentation was complete and accurate. Essential duties and responsibilities listed on the Job description for DON dated [DATE] indicated the DON was to ensure, Adherence by staff pertaining to proper documentation of patient care. Essential duties and responsibilities listed on the Job description for LPN with date of [DATE] included, Maintains accurate, detailed reports and records.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of education, proof of consent, or medical co...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of education, proof of consent, or medical contraindication for both influenza and pneumococcal vaccines for 4 of 5 residents reviewed for influenza and pneumococcal immunizations, of a total sample of 68 residents, (#5, #10, #44, and #55). Findings: 1. Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obstructive sleep apnea, dementia, type II diabetes, and heart failure. Review of resident #5's immunization report revealed no documentation of education, consent, refusal or medical contraindication for pneumococcal vaccine. 2. Resident #10 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, encounter for attention to gastrostomy, and dementia. Review of resident #10's immunization report revealed he received the influenza vaccine on 10/09/2023, but there was no documentation of education, or consent for the influenza vaccine. 4. Resident #44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of muscle wasting and atrophy, metabolic encephalopathy, type II diabetes, and pneumonia. Review of resident #44's medical record revealed no documentation of education, consents, refusal or medical contraindication for either influenza or pneumococcal vaccines. 5. Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of hypertensive emergency, non-pressure chronic ulcer of back with fat layer exposed, and stage 4 chronic kidney disease. Review of resident #55's immunization report revealed he received the influenza vaccine on 10/09/2023 but had no documentation of education, consents, refusal or medical contraindication for either influenza or pneumococcal vaccines. Interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 06/07/2024 at 5:20 PM, revealed the facility was unable to provide the record of education or documentation of consent/refusal/contraindication for administration of the influenza or the pneumococcal vaccine for residents #5, #10, #44, or #55. Review of the facility's Policy and Procedure for Immunizations- Pneumococcal, Influenza, and other recommended vaccinations, revealed all residents would be offered the Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine (PPV) unless there was documented evidence of prior administration, documented medical contraindication, refusal or no order. Influenza vaccine would be offered and administered during the optimal time for immunization, which was usually October to March. Furthermore, the document directed the facility staff to screen all newly admitted residents for previous PPV administration, obtain consent for immunization or immunization declination on the pneumococcal and annual influenza vaccination, obtain physician's order, review vaccine information sheet with resident or resident representative prior to administration, and finally document in the medical record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews from the Resident Group Meeting and record reviews, the facility did not promote an environment for residents to voice grievances about care and treatment without fear of discrimin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews from the Resident Group Meeting and record reviews, the facility did not promote an environment for residents to voice grievances about care and treatment without fear of discrimination, and/or reprisal. Findings include: During an interview with the Resident Council President on 06/05/24 at 11:15 AM, they said usually 5-6 people attended the Resident Council meetings. They suggested Thursday, 6/06/24 at 9:30 am would be a good time to meet with the residents. The Resident Council President said there was no place to meet privately with a group of residents except in his room. The regular meetings were held in the atrium on the back of the 200 hall closest to his room, but he explained it wasn't private, with staff standing around listening to what was said. During an interview with the Activity Director on 6/05/24 at 11:35 AM, he stated, There is no private area for the Resident Group meeting to be held, so we will hold it at the back of the 200-hall atrium as that is the only place available. The Resident Council Group Meeting was held on the 200-hall atrium, on 06/06/24 at 9:30 AM, in an open area 15 feet away from the nurse's station. At the time of the meeting, there were 5 staff members located around the nurse's station. This large open common area was centrally located in the middle of the atrium. On 06/06/24 at 9:51 AM, residents attending the meeting were asked if they felt like they could not complain about care or treatment. By a show of hands 20 residents indicated they feared retaliation if they brought up a complaint or complained about their care. The individuals did not wish to be identified for fear of retaliation from the facility staff. Record review of Resident Council minutes provided from March 2024 to June 2024 revealed few voiced concerns.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on Resident Group interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly and promptly respond to Resident Council concerns and grievances. Findings: During a record review of the June 20...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Resident Group interview, and record review, the facility failed to properly and promptly respond to Resident Council concerns and grievances. Findings: During a record review of the June 2023 to June 2024 Resident Council minutes provided by the Activity Director revealed documentation the Council did not believe their previously initiated concerns/grievances were addressed or resolved for the following dates: June 2023, August 2023, December 2023, April 2024, May 2024 and June 2024. The minutes indicated a new Administrator was introduced on 4/16/24 and told the Council that all concerns were being taken care of and the facility was working on them, but the minutes for May and June 2024 indicated the Council continued to feel their concerns were not addressed by the facility. On 6/05/24 at 11:35 AM, the Activity Director stated they worked alone in the Activity Department from Monday through Friday. The Activity Director explained the Activity Department had no volunteers so when they had been out sick in the hospital for a week, there were no activities in the facility during that time. The Activity Director confirmed the concerns from the Resident Council Meeting on 4/08/24 were not addressed or resolved. During the Resident Group Meeting held on 06/06/24 at 9:41 AM, 11 resident responded there was no facility follow up to the Resident Council Group Concerns. During an interview with the Activity Director on 06/06/24 at 1:15 PM, the Activity Director explained the Resident Council concerns were given to the department involved/concerned, with a two week follow up by the Activity Director who received the resolutions verbally. The Activity Director would notify the Resident Council at the next meeting. The Activity Director was not aware there were any issues the Resident Council felt had not been resolved.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0572 (Tag F0572)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on Resident Group meeting, review of Resident Council Minutes, and interview, the facility staff failed to review and inform residents of their rights in the facility. Findings include: The Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Resident Group meeting, review of Resident Council Minutes, and interview, the facility staff failed to review and inform residents of their rights in the facility. Findings include: The Resident Group meeting was held on the 200-hall atrium, on 06/06/24 beginning at 9:30 AM, in an open area that was 15 feet away from the nurse's station. At the time of the meeting, there were 5 staff members sitting and standing around the nurse's station that was centrally located in the middle of the atrium. The meeting was held in this large open common area. During the Resident Group meeting, held on 06/06/24 beginning at 9:30 AM, seven residents and family representatives responded they did not know what their resident rights were, were not provided a copy of their rights either at admission or during their stay, and that resident rights were not reviewed during the Resident Council meeting. Even the Resident Council President said resident rights had not been reviewed in the Resident Council meetings. In review of the Resident Council minutes for a year from June 2023 to June 2024, the agenda indicated that resident rights reviewed (choose 1-2 monthly) and was expanded upon as answer of yes, but never identified what rights were reviewed. In the last year of Resident Council minutes, there was not an attachment or pamphlet of the [NAME] of Rights handed out or reviewed. Interview with the Activity Director on 06/06/24 at 1:15 PM, the Activity Director confirmed he was responsible to be the liaison and helped to facilitate the Resident Council meetings since he started February 27, 2024. He was unable to say whether resident rights had been reviewed during those Resident Council meetings, nor could he provide documentation that resident rights information had been provided at those meetings.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report potential abuse and/or neglect violations with respect to a d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to report potential abuse and/or neglect violations with respect to a delay in cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) due to inaccurate and incomplete investigation, for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for reporting of alleged abuse and/or neglect, of a total sample of 68 residents, (#100). Findings: Resident #100 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anemia, diabetes type II and muscle wasting. Review of the Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], the resident scored a 13 out of 15 on the Brief Interview for Mental Status, indicating his cognition was intact. There was no evidence resident #100 could not make his own health care decisions. Resident #100 was placed on hospice care on [DATE] with a terminal diagnosis of moderate protein calorie malnutrition. A progress note dated [DATE] revealed a care plan meeting was held to discuss the resident's Advanced Directives/code status. The resident chose to be a Full Code which meant he wanted to be resuscitated including CPR. On [DATE] at 6:29 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A, documented in the medical record, Patient has expired Hospice notified MD. During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 6:13 PM, LPN A said she worked the overnight shift, from 11 PM to 7 AM, on the evening of [DATE] which ended on the morning of [DATE]. LPN A recalled that on or about 5:30 AM, on [DATE], Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) B, notified her that resident #100 appeared expired. LPN A remembered she entered the resident's room and he did not have a pulse and was not breathing. LPN A expressed she called the hospice to verify the resident's code status, then made additional calls to the physician, then to the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) before initiating CPR and calling 911 for transport to the hospital. On [DATE] at 1:47 PM, a meeting was conducted with Director of Risk Management (RM), Regional Nurse Consultant, Regional [NAME] President of Operations, Interim Administrator and Interim Director of Nursing. The RM presented the facility's investigation regarding resident #100's CPR incident. The RM discussed the Code Blue worksheet and how it was used to formulate the facility's time line of events for [DATE]. The RM said on the morning of [DATE] CNA B found resident unresponsive at 6:15 AM. They continued with the timeline, at 6:17 AM, 911 was called and LPN A initiated CPR. The discussion turned to what time LPN A called both the physician and hospice provider. The RM indicated it was standard practice to notify the physician and hospice provider and expressed that LPN A called hospice while she performed CPR on resident #100. The RM explained at first hospice incorrectly identified resident #100 as a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and then the hospice called back later to say the resident was a Full Code. The RM said Emergency Medical Service (EMS) arrived at the facility, took over CPR and transferred the resident to a nearby hospital. The RM explained the Administrator was supposed to make sure statements were obtained by all of the staff involved. The RM added she had a follow up phone call within a week of the event with the Administrator who indicated there were no additional concerns. The RM described that the facility's investigation needed to completed within 5 business days in order to adhere to the regulatory requirement for the reporting of Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation (ANE). The RM confirmed the facility did not submit an Immediate or 5-Day Report in regards to possible ANE, to the State Survey Agency. The Risk Manager maintained the facility staff, on the morning of [DATE], performed CPR in accordance with the the facility's policy & procedures and the staff's training. Review of the EMS report dated [DATE] read, .Staff relates delay in initiating CPR over confusion involving pt's [patient's] DNR-staff initially believed DNR was current, however realized shortly after that DNR was rescinded by pt . The EMS report indicated a 911 call was received at 6:35 AM and EMS arrived to the facility at 6:41 AM. On [DATE] at 4:40 PM, CNA B confirmed she had not been asked to provide a statement for the investigation until the Interim Administrator had called her yesterday on [DATE]. She recalled she had worked on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift and resident # 100 was on her assignment. CNA B remembered she had checked on the resident sometime between 2:30 AM and 3:00 AM, and found him unresponsive. She then informed LPN A who checked the computer for physican orders for his code status. CNA B stated the LPN then looked in the hospice binder and said it indicated the resident was a DNR, so LPN A called the hospice who incorrectly told her the resident was a DNR. CNA B recalled the hospice called back later and said the resident was a Full Code, so LPN A then went to resident #100's room and initiated CPR. CNA B did not have a reason as to why she had not given a statement immediately after the incident but instead over 2 months later. On [DATE] at 11:44 AM, another meeting was conducted with the RM, Interim Administrator, Interim DON, Regional Nurse Consultant, and Regional [NAME] President of Operations. The RM explained her role was not to review all of the facility's incidents, only the incidents required to be reported to the State Survey Agency which included Immediate and 5-day Reports. The RM stated the former Administrator and former DON reported to her they had a conflicting code status but the staff still initiated CPR timely. CNA B's statement from [DATE] was reviewed and the facility determined resident #100 could not had been found unresponsive at 2:30 AM, based on the EMS report. The RM could not explain why it had taken several months to obtain CNA B's statement. The RM stated she was informed by the former Administrator and former DON, they had completed all of the witness interviews. The RM was not aware there was a transcript of the call to hospice made on the morning of [DATE] when LPN B called for clarification of resident #100's code status. The survey team presented the transcript of LPN A's telephone call to the hospice from [DATE]. The RM was asked to read the transcript aloud. The transcript of the call from the facility to hospice on [DATE]: 6:09 AM- Call comes into triage with report patient expired at 6:00. LPN A: We went to the patient's room, he is not breathing, we are starting CPR and sending him out. He is still a full code? Triage RN: He is still a full code? LPN A: I believe he is a full code, unless you have something different. Triage RN: I work in a different system and do not have access to that information but I can call the on call staff member to find out. LPN A: Ok thank you. 6:12 AM Triage places LPN A on HOLD to talk to On Call Nurse (see call below*) 6:15 AM Triage RN returns to state On Call Nurse will need to get access to the chart. On Call Nurse will follow up with a call and will be making a visit with appropriate paperwork if it is there. LPN A: Well I do not have an actual DNR but I am looking at his hospice book you guys give and under the medicare thing (the election of benefit) it says 'I request no cardiopulmonary resuscitative measures (CPR) at the time of my death.' I mean he is gone at this point so there is nothing I can do anyway. I just need to know whether he is a full DNR or not. 6:17 AM call is ended after long pause between callers. *6:12 AM Triage RN places message to On Call Nurse (our employed LPN) On Call Nurse indicates she needs to be added to the chart to verify code status. Discussion to the ability to add On Call Nurse, determine she needs to call Point On Call. 6:15 AM On Call Nurse calls point on call to get added to chart. Looks at attachments and does see a DNR. 6:23 AM On Call Nurse calls LPN A (facility nurse) stating she sees a DNR but LPN A says, our records state full code On Call Nurse let her know she is on the way to the facility to make visit and told LPN A if you know if your records show full code, then continue to do CPR and call 911. 6:32 AM On Call Nurse reads notes and point care alert and see where it does state patient full code. On Call Nurse called to speak to PCM [Patient Care Manager] to verify and PCM noted in the comments of attachments that patient rescinded DNR. 6:34 AM On Call Nurse called LPN A back to confirm patient was in fact a full code . After the reading of the transcript the RM said she could not come to a conclusion about what happened because more information was required. The RM indicated she was not confident to say there was a delay in CPR. She said the facility's investigation was reopened during the current survey because of discrepancies which demonstrate the investigation was not complete and thorough. She indicated the facility would be file an immediate report to the State Agency as more/new information had come to light.
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 observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide ongoing program of activities designed to mee...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide ongoing program of activities designed to meet the interests, and physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the residents for 3 out of 3 residents sampled for activities, of a total sample of 68 residents, (#10, #39, and #80). Findings: 1. Resident #10 was observed in bed on 6/03/24 and 6/04/24. On 06/05/24 at 12:53 PM, resident #10 was again observed in bed. The Activity Director was observed to look in the room from the door way and went into the room for less than 3 minutes. On 06/06/24 at 2:08 PM, The Activity Director started the group activity bingo in the 200-hall atrium, where resident #10 lived, but resident #10 was not at the bingo game. During an interview with the Activity Director on 06/06/24 at 3:57 PM, the Activity Director was unable to show any participation by resident #10 in either small group or independent 1:1 programming. The Activity Director confirmed resident #10 spent all his time in bed. When the Activity Director delivered the mail, he opened the letters for him. He explained some days resident #10 could turn on the TV, other days he could not. The Activity Director said, I leave him by himself. 2. Resident #39 was most recently admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including cerebral infarction (stroke), vascular dementia, depression, and anxiety disorder. A record review of progress note dated 4/06/2024 at 11:18 PM, revealed resident #39 was alert and aware to self, and spoke Spanish. A record review of a note dated 4/09/2024 at 3:59 PM, revealed resident #39's mental status was oriented to person and place. A record review of a progress note dated 5/20/24, revealed resident #39's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 6/15 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The document indicated the Interdisciplinary team suggested resident #39 be out of bed for meals. On 06/04/24 at 1:49 PM, resident #39 was not observed in any activity or program appropriate for residents with cognitive impairment. On 06/05/24 at 12:51 PM, the Activity Director was in resident # 39's doorway interacting with the roommate, but not resident #39. On 06/05/24 at 5:00 PM, resident # 39 was observed in a reclining chair just outside his door facing the room, pushing himself back and forth in his chair. Resident #39 did not face the TV or out towards the nurses' station, instead he faced his own bedroom door. On 06/06/24 at 3:43 PM, the Activity Director said he did activities with resident #39 but did not have any documentation of the activities provided. 3. Resident #80 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include depression, anxiety and psychosis. Her admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed her BIMS was 12/15 which indicated mild cognitive impairment. During an interview on 06/03/24 at 12:33 PM, resident #80 shared she was under [AGE] years old and, There is nothing to do in the facility, except watch TV movie marathons. She continued, This afternoon, we should have bingo for the first time in a few weeks because the Activity Director has been on leave and no one filled in for him during the 2 weeks he was gone. On 06/05/24 at 11:35 AM, the Activity Director said he was the only staff who worked in the Activity department, Monday through Friday. He explained he was on leave and there were no activities in the facility during that time. On 06/06/24 at 3:47 PM, the Activity Director said resident #80 smoked and liked live entertainment. He said it was hard to get things done himself. He explained, I'm not saying I'm doing 100%. I would like to spend more time one-to-one just to make sure residents that were stuck in bed that don't have TV's at least have radios to listen to music. The Activity Director said he had been at this facility since February and in the morning he went around the whole facility spending about 10 minutes with each resident. He said he put morning activities on the calendar, but the residents did not attend. The Activity Director said the number of residents that required one to one visits was at least one whole hall of residents or perhaps even more. He did not have a list of residents who required one-to-one visits or have descriptions of the one-to-one programs so he could not give the number of one-to-one visits needed each week. It was pointed out to the Activity Director that if he spent 10 minutes with 101 residents, it would take over 16 hours per day just doing rounding visits for each resident. He stated he could not possibly do that. He explained the facility did not have any volunteers and reiterated that he was the only staff employed to do activities 8 hours per day Monday through Friday. He indicated he was also expected to attend Department head meetings, Care Plan meetings, and write progress notes for the residents, and was presently involved in trying to hire a beautician for the facility residents. On 6/07/24, the last day of survey the Activity Director was unable to provide the Resident Assessment forms and was unable to provide 3 months of group participation records or one-to-one visit documentation for resident #10 and resident #39.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. On 6/05/25 at 8:45 AM, LPN H stated she had been assigned to a maximum of 30 residents when assigned to the 200 unit on the 7a-3p shift. She acknowledged it was impossible to administer the residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 6/05/25 at 8:45 AM, LPN H stated she had been assigned to a maximum of 30 residents when assigned to the 200 unit on the 7a-3p shift. She acknowledged it was impossible to administer the residents' 9 AM medications on time because of the need to share a medication cart with another nurse. She admitted she frequently would not finish administering the 9 AM medications until 11:30 AM. She also stated when she was the split nurse and had assignments simultaneously on both the 100 and 200 units, she could not accommodate the immediate needs of her residents on the unit opposite to where she was administering medications. The 100 and 200 units were situated on opposite sides of the building. On 6/06/24 at 6:20 PM, LPN I stated the highest number of residents assigned to her was 42 residents on the 11PM-7AM shift. She acknowledged her workload remained unmanageable even when assigned to fewer residents during the 3PM-11PM shift, owing to the acuity of the residents. She mentioned that on the 200 unit, there were four residents who received tube feeding and one resident who had a tracheostomy. She expressed she had previously raised her concerns about the residents' quality of care to management but received no feedback. She indicated when nurses called off, management often could not be reached, and failed to provide relief at the end of their shift, which often resulted in nurses either working a double shift or face the risk of abandoning their residents. On 6/07/24 at 10:20 AM, the 200 wing RN UM stated he occasionally administered medications and was assigned up to 40 residents. He acknowledged when there was a third nurse assigned to both the 100 and 200 units, all three nurses could not administer the 9 AM medications simultaneously because they had to share a medication cart. He explained one nurse could not administer medications to the residents until the other nurse completed their medication pass which caused delays. On 6/07/24 at 10:40 AM, the 100/300 wing RN UM stated she had administered medications on occasion and was assigned a maximum of 30 residents. She explained there were often three nurses for the 100 and 200 units. She conveyed the third nurse was assigned residents on both the 100 and 200 units simultaneously, leading the nurse to run back and forth between the two units. The UM acknowledged one nurse had to wait to administer their assigned residents' medications until the other nurse finished their medication pass since they must share the medication cart. On 6/06/24 at 10:55 AM, LPN J mentioned she worked the 7 AM-3 PM shift and floated to all the units but was usually assigned to the 200 unit. She stated the maximum number of residents she had been assigned to was 42. She also stated when one of the three nurses called off, she would have all 42 residents on her assignment until another nurse came in to cover. She expressed how challenging it was to manage her workload and provide safe care due to the high number of assigned residents, which included four residents who required tube feeding and one that needed tracheostomy care. The LPN indicated it was impossible to administer the medications on time, with the 9:00 AM medications often not being completed until 12:00 PM. She acknowledged one nurse must often wait to administer the residents' medications because they shared a medication cart when there were only three nurses on the 100 and 200 units. The LPN reiterated that despite raising concerns about the unmanageable workload, its impact on the residents' care, and timely medication administration, management had provided no feedback, and no action had been taken to address the issues. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure sufficient nursing staff was available to ensure residents received the nursing care and related services required to timely administer medication and failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet the residents' individualized care needs on all shifts on 2 of 3 Wings, (100, 200). Findings: Cross Reference F 755 1. Medication administration observations conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) K, and Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H on the 100 Wing on 6/03/24, showed scheduled 9 AM medications were prepared to be administered at 11:46 AM, and at 11:54 AM for residents # 20, and #3a, approximately three hours after the scheduled time, and not according to established medication administration principles of within one hour before or one hour after the scheduled time. On 6/03/24 at 12:21 PM, LPN H stated she was on the split assignment, and had residents on the 100, and 200 Wings. She stated medication administration was going very slowly and said it was a lot, but due to the facility's census, they were not allowed to have more nurses. LPN H verbalized she still had nine more residents to give scheduled 9 AM medications to. On 6/03/24 at 12:26 PM, RN K stated she still had three more residents to give scheduled 9 AM medications to. The RN said there was one nurse on each Wing, with one nurse on a split assignment between the 100 and 200 Wings. On 6/04/24 at 10:05 AM, and at 10:30 AM, the RN/Unit Manager (UM) for the 100 and 300 Wings was observed on the medication cart administering medications to residents. She stated she was assigned to work on the medication cart, while also performing UM responsibilities for the 100 and 300 Wings. Observations on the 100 Wing on 6/04/24 at 10:32 AM, 10:38 AM, 11:09 AM, and 11:25 AM showed nurses at their medication carts providing the late 9 AM medications for residents. On 6/04/24 at 1:52 PM, RN K verbalized she had been working at the facility for thirty years, and staffing was not like that before. She said there has been issues since the 300 Wing was opened, and nurses had a split assignment between the 100 and 200 Wings. On 06/06/24 at 2:42 PM, the Staffing Coordinator explained that duties included in her role and responsibilities were to ensure staffing hours were accounted for, and the facility had adequate staff on each shift. The Staffing Coordinator stated the facility had three Wings, 100, 200, and 300, and had three shifts for nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA). She verbalized that the facility did not have an evening or night supervisor but had a weekend supervisor. The Staffing Coordinator explained staffing was completed based on the facility's census and was reviewed daily by the Director of Nursing (DON). She indicated on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift, and the 3 PM to 11 PM shifts, four nurses were scheduled. One nurse for each Wing, and the fourth nurse would do a split assignment between the 100 and 200 Wings. On the 11 PM to 7 AM shift there were three to four nurses in the building, depending on the facility's census. She stated she would be happy if things moved back to the previous assignment plan, when there were two nurses scheduled on each Wing. On 6/06/24 at 3:16 PM, LPN L stated she worked on the 3 PM to 11 PM shift and had 23 to 47 residents on her assignment. She verbalized she currently had 35 residents on her assignment, and the other nurse had the split assignment. The LPN stated sometimes only one nurse was scheduled for each Wing. She said it was a lot and nurses had to efficiently manage their time. On 6/06/24 at 6:22 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she had been working at the facility for three weeks. She stated staffing was reviewed with the Staffing Coordinator every morning, and the facility was staffed based on census, and adjusted for acuity. The DON stated nurses worked the split assignment based on the census. She explained the nurse doing the split assignment would have thirteen residents on the 100 Wing, and fifteen residents on the 200 Wing. The DON acknowledged nurses shared a medication cart for the split assignment, and nurses had to wait until the nurse with the split assignment had completed her medication administration, before getting the shared medication cart, because two nurses could not be on the same medication cart at the same time. On 6/07/24 at 9:40 AM, the DON stated the facility was in the process of reviewing the nurse's assignments that were built into the electronic medical record (EMR) system and were looking at medication administration times. She stated she had been discussing with the Assistant DON and staffing coordinator to review the nurses, identify best place/ assignment for them according to their skill set and/or experience, in order for nurses to have a consistent assignment. She stated that due to challenges with staffing it was not always possible. The DON stated there had been a couple days when the facility had concerns regarding nurses' workload and UMs were asked to pick up a few residents and assist with treatments. She said she would like to have two nurses on the 100 and 200 Wings, and one nurse on the 300 Wing. Stating that level of staff would enhance care, and nurses would be able to give more individualized attention to residents in their assignment. On 6/07/24 at 10:06 AM, RN K recalled that on 6/03/24, and 6/04/24 she had thirty-four residents in her assignment and one nurse was on the split assignment. She stated she was unable to give her medications within the expected timeframe since she had to wait until the nurse was off the medication cart, to complete medication administration for her assigned residents. RN K stated on the night shift sometimes they had a nurse on the split assignment and verbalized that on 6/06/24 on the 100 Wing, the nurse was on her own with a census of forty-seven residents on the 11 PM to 7 AM shift. On 6/07/24 at 12:52 PM, the Registered Nurse/Unit Manager (RN/UM) for the 100 and 300 Wings stated staffing could be difficult sometimes. She said, if the facility did not have a nurse on a split assignment, it would be much better. She acknowledged that there could be a delay in medication administration, as nurses had to share a medication cart, and could not work on the medication cart at the same time. Review of the Medication Administration Audit Report for residents assigned to RN K, LPN H, and the RN/UM for the 100 and 300 Wings revealed thirty-one residents received their scheduled medications outside of the time parameters for medication administration. This was acknowledged by the DON.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure scheduled medications were administered within parameters on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift for 31 residents on the 100 Wing, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure scheduled medications were administered within parameters on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift for 31 residents on the 100 Wing, of a total sample of 68 residents, (#3a #20, #77, #354, #3b #16, #33, #26 #68 #84, #5, #59, #56,#88, #34, #50, #95, #47, #19, #58, #651 #52 #55 #37, #38, #91,#89, #35,#23,#64, and, #14). Findings: On 6/03/24 at 11:37 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) K stated she was still doing scheduled 9 AM medication administration and was giving the priority medications first. On 6/03/24 at 11:46 AM, medication administration observation was conducted for resident #20 with RN K. Review of the Medication Admin (Administration) Audit report revealed documentation to indicate resident #20 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 11:52 AM. The resident's administered medications included Coreg 3.125 milligram (mg) twice daily, Norvasc 10 mg daily for high blood pressure, Gabapentin 300 mg twice daily for pain, and Aldactone 25 mg daily for congestive heart failure (CHF). On 6/03/24 at 11:54 AM, medication administration observation was conducted for resident #3a with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) H. Review of the Medication Admin Audit Report revealed documentation to indicate the resident's scheduled 9 AM medications were administered at 12:11 PM, and included Buspirone 30 mg daily for anxiety, Divalproex 125 mg twice daily for depression, Furosemide 40 mg daily for edema, Lisinopril 40 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Lamotrigine 200 mg twice daily for anticonvulsant. In an interview conducted with LPN H after the medication administration, the LPN stated she was on the split assignment between the 100 and 200 Wings, and medication administration was going very slowly. LPN H said it was a lot, but due to the facility's census, they were not allowed to have more nurses. She said she still had to give 9 AM medications to nine more residents. On 6/03/24 at 12:26 PM, RN K stated she still had three more residents to give their 9 AM medications. The RN stated there was one nurse on each Wing, with one nurse on a split assignment between the 100 and 200 Wings. She said medication administration was not like giving candy, because she had to ensure medications were accurate. On 6/04/24 at 10:05 AM, and at 10:30 AM, the RN/Unit Manager (UM) was observed on the medication cart providing medication administration for residents. She stated she was on the medication cart, while also providing UM responsibilities for the 100, and 300 Wings. On 6/04/24 at 10:32 AM, RN K stated she had residents in four rooms to administer their 9 AM medications. RN K explained due to the split assignment, two nurses shared a medication cart, and could not be on the same cart at the same time, so she had to wait on the RN/UM to complete medication administration for her assigned rooms, before she could get medications for her remaining residents. On 6/04/24 at 10:38 AM, and 10:41 AM, the RN/UM for the 100 and 300 Wings stated she had two more residents to complete the 9 AM medications for. She verbalized she would go over to the 200 Wing to check if the nurse working the split assignment had completed medication administration, so she could assume care on the 100 Wing. On 6/04/24 at 11:09 AM, RN K was observed on her medication cart, still giving scheduled 9 AM medications. On 6/04/24 at 11:10 AM, the RN/UM for the 100, and 300 Wings stated residents #34, and #58 still had not received their 9 AM medications. On 6/04/24 at 11:13 AM, resident #34 stated she had not received her 9 AM medications and was not told why her medications were late. On 6/04/24 at 11:17 AM, resident # 64 stated he had not received his 9 AM medications. He stated medications were late sometimes. On 6/04/24 at 11:25 AM, LPN G stated this was her first nursing job, and she was called in this morning due to a call out. She verbalized she came to work at approximately 9 AM, and her assignment included six rooms on the 100 Wing, and six rooms on the 200 Wing. The LPN stated when she left the 100 Wing to go to the 200 Wing, the other nurse on the unit would then have access to the medication cart she used, since the nurse also had her residents' medications on that cart. LPN G stated the facility policy was for medications to be given one hour before, or one hour after the scheduled time. On 6/04/24 at 1:52 PM, RN K stated she completed administration of her 9 AM medications before noon. She said medications should be given one hour before or one hour after scheduled time per facility policy. RN K said she tried to prioritize residents and give them their medications first. Review of the Medication Admin Audit Report revealed the following residents on the assignments for the RN/UM for the 100 and 300 Wings, RN K, and LPN H received their scheduled 9 AM medications outside of the recommended parameters on the 7 AM to 3 PM shifts on 6/03/24, 6/04/24, and on 6/05/24. Resident # 77 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 10:14 AM and 10:18 AM including Metoprolol 50 mg twice daily for high blood pressure, Zoloft 100 mg daily for depression, Buspirone 5 mg twice daily for anxiety, and Gabapentin 800 mg three times daily for pain. A second dose of Gabapentin was administered four hours later at 2:17 PM. Resident # 354 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 10:15 AM and 10:32 AM, and on 6/05/24 between 11:57 AM and 12:03 PM, including Gabapentin 300 mg three times daily for nerve pain, Metoprolol 50 mg daily, Lasix 20 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Paxil 40 mg daily for depression. Scheduled 7:30 AM medications on 6/05/24 were administered at 12:03 PM, including Gabapentin 300 mg, Amiodarone 100 mg daily for heart rhythm, and Lasix 20 mg daily. Resident # 3b received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 10:40 AM and 10:42 AM, and on 6/04/24 between 11:14 AM and 11:18 AM, including Midodrine 10 mg three times daily for low blood pressure, Citalopram 20 mg daily for depression, and Farxiga 10 mg daily for diabetes. Resident # 16 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 10:52 AM and 10:55 AM, and on 6/04/24 between 10:28 AM and 10:30 AM, including Lamictal 100 mg daily, Dilantin 100 mg in the morning for seizures, Depakote 500 mg, and 250 mg to equal 750 mg twice daily for mood disorder, and Baclofen 20 mg twice daily for muscle relaxant/contractures. Resident # 33 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 11:12 AM and 11:19 AM, including Sertraline 25 mg daily for depression, Losartan Potassium 50 mg daily, Metoprolol Extended Release (ER) 25 mg daily for high blood pressure, Meloxicam 15 mg daily for pain, and Dilaudid 4 mg three times daily for cerebral atherosclerosis. Resident # 26 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 11:17 AM and 11:18 AM, including Alprazolam 0.25 mg daily for anxiety/agitation, Celebrex 200 mg daily for non-acute pain, Metformin 1000 mg twice daily for diabetes and Escitalopram 5 mg daily for depression. Resident # 68 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 11:21 AM and 11:22 AM, including Risperidone 0.25 mg twice daily for mood disorder. Resident # 84 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 11:29 AM and 11:35 AM, including Metoprolol 25 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Nifedipine ER 60 mg daily. Resident # 5 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 11:47 AM and 11:51 AM, including Zoloft 100 mg daily for depression, Depakote 250 mg twice daily for behavior, Levetiracetam 500 mg twice daily for seizure, and Buspirone 5 mg twice daily for anxiety. Resident # 59 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 12:06 PM and 12:13 PM, on 6/04/24 between 10:07 AM and 10:13 AM, and on 6/05/24 at 10:20 AM including Duloxetine 30 mg twice daily for depression, Apixaban 5 mg twice daily for atrial fibrillation, Buspirone 15 mg twice daily for anxiety, and Amlodipine 5 mg daily for high blood pressure. Resident # 56 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 12:21 PM and 1:34 PM, and on 6/04/24 between 10:06 AM and 10:26 AM, including Depakote 125 mg twice daily, Levetiracetam 1000 mg twice daily for seizures, and Dabigatran Etexllate Mesylate150 mg twice daily for atrial fibrillation. Resident # 88 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 12:26 PM, and 12:28 PM, including Lisinopril 20 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Citalopram 40 mg daily for depression. Resident # 34 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 12: 33 PM and 12:40 PM, including Hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg daily, Lisinopril 5 mg daily, Metoprolol ER 25 mg give 3 tablets daily for high blood pressure, and Divalproex ER give 3 tablets twice daily for bipolar disorder. Resident # 50 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 12:41 PM and 12:45 PM, including Citalopram 10 mg, give 0.5 tablet daily for depression, Lisinopril 5 mg daily, and Atenolol-Chlorthalidone 50-25 mg daily for high blood pressure. Resident # 95 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 12:57 PM, including Verapamil 120 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Celexa 1 tablet daily for depression. Resident # 47 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 12:57 PM and 12:58 PM, including Amlodipine 10 mg daily, and Lisinopril 10 mg daily for high blood pressure. Resident # 19 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 1:01 PM, and on 6/04/24 between 11:55 AM and 12:02 PM, including Symbicort Aerosol 160-4.5 mcg (microgram) daily for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Resident # 58 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 1:02 PM and 1:05 PM, including Morphine Sulfate 15 mg twice daily for pain, Eliquis 5 mg twice daily for atrial flutter, Coreg 12.5 mg twice daily, and Nifedipine ER 30 mg daily for high blood pressure. Accu-check scheduled for 11:30 AM was documented as administered at 1:26 PM. Resident #651 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 1:02 PM, including Carvedilol 6.25 mg twice daily for high blood pressure. Resident #52 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 1:03 PM and 1:11 PM, and on 6/04/24 between 10:55 AM and 11:06 AM, including Metformin 1000 mg twice daily for diabetes, Celexa 10 mg daily for depression, Norvasc 10 mg daily, Lisinopril 40 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Symbicort Aerosol 160-4.5 mcg 1 puff twice daily for shortness of breath/COPD. Resident #55 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 between 1:07 PM and 1:10 PM, and on 6/04/24 between 10:07 AM and 10:09 AM, including Donepezil 5 mg twice daily for dementia. Hydralazine 100 mg three times daily for high blood pressure was documented as given on 6/03/24 at 1:07 PM, and a second dose was administered at 1:10 PM. Resident #37 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 1:17 PM, and on 6/04/24 between 11:48 AM to 11:52 AM, including Zoloft 50 mg, and Zoloft 25 mg daily to equal 75 mg for depression, and Seroquel 75 mg daily for Huntington's Disease. Resident #38 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 1:27 PM, including Doxycycline 100 mg, Cefuroxime Axetil 500 mg every twelve hours for respiratory infection, Amiodarone 200 mg daily for atrial fibrillation, Toprol ER 25 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Prednisone 20 mg twice daily for COPD. Resident #91 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 1:52 PM, including Seroquel 25 mg every 12 hours for psychosis. Resident #89 received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/03/24 at 2:16 PM, and on 6/04/24 at 10:25 AM, including Valproic acid 250 mg three times daily for convulsions, and Apixaban 5 mg twice daily for blood clot prevention. on 6/03/24, documentation revealed the resident's scheduled 9 AM and 1 PM doses of valproic acid 250 mg three times daily for convulsion were given at same time at 2:16 PM. Resident #3a received her scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/04/24 at 10:36 AM, including Buspirone 30 mg daily for anxiety, Divalproex 125 mg twice daily for depression, Furosemide 40 mg daily for edema, Lisinopril 40 mg daily for high blood pressure, and Lamotrigine 200 mg twice daily for anticonvulsant. Resident #35 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/04/24 between 11:06 AM and 11:12 AM, including Glipizide 2.5 mg with meals, Metoprolol ER 25 mg daily for high blood pressure. On 6/03/24 the resident's scheduled 12:00 PM Glipizide was administered at 2:20 PM, and on 6/04/24 a second dose of Glipizide 2.5 mg was given at 1:21 PM, one hour and fifteen minutes after the first dose was given. Resident #23 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/04/24 between 11:21 AM and 11:22 AM, including Lasix 20 mg daily for edema, Clonidine 0.2 mg twice daily for high blood pressure, and Wellbutrin 150 mg every morning and at bedtime for depression. Resident # 64 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/04/24 at 11:27 AM, including Furosemide 20 mg daily for diuretic, and Empagliflozin 10 mg daily for diabetes. Resident #14 received his scheduled 9 AM medications on 6/04/24 at 11:40 AM, including Ativan 1 mg daily to be given with meals in the AM, and Depakote 125 mg, give 500 mg twice daily for mood disorder. On 6/06/24 at 6:22 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated nurses worked on a split assignment because of the facility's census and explained nurses doing the split assignment would have thirteen residents on the 100 Wing, and fifteen residents on the 200 Wing. She acknowledged when there was a nurse working on the split assignment, nurses shared a medication cart, and had to wait to give medications until the nurse sharing the cart had completed medication administration for residents in their assignment. The DON stated medications were to be given one hour before, and one hour after the scheduled time. She said if medications were going to be late, staff should inform the physician, follow orders from the physician, document the late medication administration in the resident(s) Electronic Medical Record (EMR), and notify the resident/responsible party. The DON acknowledged that documentation to indicate the residents, their physicians, or responsible parties were notified of the late medication administration was not identified in the residents' clinical records. On 6/07/24 at 3:12 PM, the Medical Director stated medications should be given at particular times, and splitting assignment of nurses between two wings should be discouraged. The Policy Medication Administration General Guidelines dated 09/18 read, Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber .Medications are administered within 60 minutes of scheduled time.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment & Assurance (QAA) / Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee conducted performance impr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Quality Assessment & Assurance (QAA) / Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee conducted performance improvement activities to ensure prior improvement measures were sustained. Findings: Review of the facility's QAPI Plan revealed each Performance Improvement Project (PIP) subcommittee would identify areas for improvement. The subcommittee would collect and analyze data to determine the effectiveness of change. The PIP subcommittee would provide the QAA Committee with a summary report, analysis of activities and recommendations. The QAA Committee would monitor progress to ensure interventions or actions were implemented and effective in making and sustaining improvements. The facility had a deficiency cited at F 609, for failing to report during the previous recertification survey conducted 6/13/22 through 6/16/22. During this survey, the facility was found again to be in noncompliance with F 609 for failing to report. As a result of the repeat deficiency, it was identified there was insufficient auditing and oversight to prevent the repeat citation. On 6/07/24 at 4:27 PM, the Administrator stated the QAA Committee usually set up action plans/PIPs for 3 months but reviewed and revised as needed based on findings from audits. She explained after the 3 months, if the issue was resolved, the plan was considered complete but could be re-opened if the issue was brought up again. The Administrator was unable to answer whether or not audits were still being conducted for citations from previous survey. She explained she had only been at the facility about a month. The Administrator could not say why the process failed, resulting in a repeat violation. She acknowledged the system failed, otherwise there would not be a repeat citation.
Jun 2022 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 report an alleged violation of abuse for 1 of 1 resident reviewed f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an alleged violation of abuse for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for abuse of a total sample of 45 residents (#50). Findings: Resident #50's medical records revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Corona Virus Disease 2019, chronic obstructive lung disease, depression, and hypothyroidism. Reesident #50's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/27/22, revealed she had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15 which indicated intact cognition. The MDS revealed resident #50 demonstrated no behaviors, no rejection of care, and required the assistance of 2 staff for bed mobility, toileting and dressing. On 6/13/22 at 12:57 PM, resident #50 said she had an issue with 2 Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). She explained the second shift CNAs, B and C, forcibly pushed her down about 3 weeks ago and she reported it to a nurse. Resident #50 indicated she waited until the morning to report the incident to the assigned nurse. She said she told her nurse she did not want CNAs B and C taking care of her again. She noted there were no follow-up interviews from anyone in the facility, and no one came to get more details about the incident she reported. Resident #50 stated a week after the incident, CNA C was assigned to take care of her again and she told CNA C she did not want her to provide care. She said the nurse asked her what happened with CNA C. Resident #50 explained that during the incident, CNA C pulled her right arm and CNA B pushed her back, and both were rough handling her when proving toileting care. Review of the facility's reportable incidents and grievance logs from January to June of 2022 did not include an abuse report for resident #50. On 6/15/22 at 10:00 AM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A explained a few weeks ago, resident #50 told her she did not want a certain CNA to provide care. LPN A stated resident #50 mentioned 2 CNAs were rough with her when they provided care. LPN A recalled she asked the resident what the assigned nurse on the day of the incident did as it was the nurse's responsibility to report the incident to administration. LPN A indicated the incident happened 2 or 3 days before she reported it to her. LPN A stated she told resident #50 she would get her a grievance form for the resident to fill it out and she could write what happened on that form. LPN A said, Like I said, I wasn't there, all I can do is have her fill out the grievance and management would handle it from there. LPN A stated if she observed or suspected abuse or neglect with a resident, she was supposed to handle it and inform the Director of Nursing (DON) or Administrator. LPN A said reporting abuse would depend on the person making the allegation. LPN A stated if the resident had visible physical marks or anything like that, but she (resident #50) did not have any when she assessed her, and it sounded like she just did not want those CNAs to change her. LPN A stated when the CNAs went in to resident #50's room, the resident did not want them to change her, but the CNAs did it anyway because they could not leave her 8 hours without changing her. LPN A indicated resident #50 told her she had reported the incident to her assigned nurse during the shift the incident occurred. LPN A stated she could not believe how CNAs who had been working years in the facility would do something like that, but she had to give her the grievance form for the resident to fill it out. LPN A stated she assessed the resident's wrist and there were no visible marks. LPN A reiterated the alleged incident had happened days before the report and she did not see anything, hence why she gave the grievance form, that's why I did it that way. LPN A stated she would only handle reporting if it happened during her shift. LPN A stated she did not know if resident #50 turned the grievance form in. LPN A stated she did not report what resident #50 told her to her manager, and she only gave the grievance form to the resident. LPN A stated she received abuse and neglect training quite often, with most recent time within the previous week. LPN A explained whenever someone filed a grievance about abuse, management went around and in-serviced them about abuse and neglect. LPN A stated she should had called her supervisor at home as they did not have a supervisor in the facility that day. LPN A stated in the 12 years she had been working in the facility, this was the first time this resident mentioned something like that to her. On 6/15/22 at 4:49 PM, the Administrator indicated she was made aware of an incident for resident #50 the previous Monday, 6/13/22. The Administrator explained LPN A had reported the incident with the 2 CNAs to the Director of Nursing (DON), and the DON spoke and assessed resident #50. The Administrator stated the DON found no bruises, scratches, or skin discoloration during her assessment. The Administrator stated that Monday, 6/13/22, they spoke with resident #50 and the resident did not think the CNAs did anything intentionally. The Administrator indicated resident #50 mentioned she did not want CNA B to be assigned to her care. The Administrator did not file a report and they did not obtain written statements because the resident told them she did not think it was deliberate. On 6/15/22 at 5:13 PM, the DON explained when she came in to work the previous Monday a therapist, who had been working with the resident that morning, came to her and informed her what resident #50 had told her. The DON stated resident #50 told the therapist she had reported an incident with 2 CNAs to LPN A and LPN A left a grievance form with her. The DON indicated the occupational therapist (OT) wanted her to know that resident #50 said the girls were turning her, one of the CNAs was holding her right wrist and she was sore. The DON stated she immediately went to the unit and spoke with LPN A. The DON visited resident #50 by herself and resident #50 told her while getting care from the 2 CNAs, it caused pain in her wrist. The DON stated resident #50 told her she was unable to complete the grievance form LPN A left her and no one offered to assist her with completing the grievance form. The DON explained resident #50 told her she did not like CNA B and she wanted to only have the assistance of CNA C but CNA C told her she needed assistance to turn her and asked CNA B to help her. The DON stated the resident indicated CNA B was behind her, while CNA C was positioned in front of her when she hurt her wrist. The DON stated she assessed resident #50 and there were no negative findings. The DON reported resident #50 did not say CNAs B and C were rough. The DON stated neither the Administrator nor her received a call that weekend from LPN A with a report of alleged abuse. The DON stated she returned to resident #50 with LPN A and together they assessed the resident's arm. The DON stated LPN A mentioned the arm did not look any different than before resident reported soreness, and no bruises or redness was noted. The DON stated she did not feel there was abuse or neglect and that was why they did not file an immediate report with the State Agency. The Administrator agreed if LPN A had reported what resident #50 told her timely, an investigation could have been started sooner. The Administrator stated the staff was not responsible to determine if a report from a resident was abuse or not. Review of in-service objectives from staff education on 5/02/22 included, All reported, suspected or alleged form of resident abuse, neglect and misappropriation should be reported immediately to the administrator/DON. All staff is responsible reporters of abuse, neglect, misappropriation. On 3/02/22, an abuse and neglect in-service attended by LPN A revealed the objectives were, How to identify abuse, when to report abuse and whom you report abuse to. Review of sign-in sheets revealed LPN A attended abuse and neglect in-services provided by the facility. Review of the facility policy and procedure Abuse Prevention Program, reviewed in March 2022 read, Staff are instructed to report concerns, incidents and grievances without fear of retaliation . The Administrator, DON, and/or designated individual are responsible for the investigation and reporting of suspected, or alleged abuse, neglect .
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment, cookware and refrigerators, in a clean, sanitary, and functional condition. The kitchen staff also...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment, cookware and refrigerators, in a clean, sanitary, and functional condition. The kitchen staff also failed to ensure milk was returned to the vendor or discarded after the expiration date. Findings: During the initial kitchen inspection on 6/13/22 at 10:37 AM: 1. The 3-compartment sink was observed with pots and pans sticking out of the sanitizer solution in the third sink compartment. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) used a 10-second test strip to determine the sanitizer solution's strength/parts per million (ppm). After submerging the test strip in the sanitizer mixture for 10 seconds, the CDM referred to the test strip and said, it was barley readable, that indicated the sanitizer strength could not be determined. Review of the sanitizer solution manufacturer's instructions noted it was effective against commonly identified sources of food contamination such as Escherichia Coli, Staphylococcus Aureas, Campylobactor Jejuni, Listeria Monocytogenes, Salmonella and Shigella, when the sanitizer solution was mixed with water and had strength between 200 ppm to 400 ppm. On 6/16/22 at 1:25 PM, the CDM stated the contractor had been in the kitchen to adjust the sanitizer solution dispenser. The CDM said the contractor found issues with the lines and the right amount of sanitizer was not being pumped. 2. There were 3 frying pans on the bottom of a 2 tier wire shelf in the food preparation area. Two of the frying pans were heavily covered with black carbon stains/scoring. The CDM and the Registered Dietitian (RD) could not explain if the 2 frying pans were non-stick pans that had lost their non-stick coatings or if they were stainless steel pans with heavy carbon scoring. 3. The juice dispenser in the kitchen was observed with the CDM. When the nozzle was removed, a light brown substance on the dispenser gun was noted. The CDM stated that it needed to be cleaned. The walk-in refrigerator had 2 half-pints of lactose free milk and both cartons had an expiration date of 6/11/22. The CDM could not explain why the milk was in the refrigerator past it's expiration date. 4. On 6/16/22 at 12:43 PM, the 200 Wing Pantry Top Freezer Refrigerator was observed. In the freezer section there was a purple like juice stain on the sides and bottom of the freezer. The freezer did not have a thermometer but there was a popsicle and an individual pot in the freezer. In the refrigerator section there was milk and liquid supplements on the door rack. At the bottom of the refrigerator was a crisper that had spilled juice and a brown-like substance on the edges of the crisper. The RD stated she would informed housekeeping staff that the Freezer/Refrigerator needed to be cleaned.
Jan 2021 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain Advance Directives and physician order for code status for 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain Advance Directives and physician order for code status for 1 of 28 residents reviewed for Advance Directives, (#459). Findings: Resident #459 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia and altered mental status. Review of the resident's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 that indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Hospital admission Data dated 12/2/2020 indicated resident #459 was not capable of making his own medical decisions. A review of the resident's medical record revealed no documentation that indicated the resident/responsible party's wishes for code status. On 1/4/2021 at 1:40 PM, the Unit Manager of Wing 1 stated she was unable to find a physician order for code status for resident #459. She said the process was, Upon admission, the Social Worker discusses the code status with the resident/family/responsible party and verifies the code status. Any documents supporting the decision are requested. Those documents are then placed in the resident's medical record under the Advance Directives tab. The physician is then notified, and an order is obtained and placed in front of the medical record. The order is then submitted electronically. If a resident becomes unresponsive, the staff calls for help and checks the hard chart for an order for either Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNRO) or Full Resuscitation Order. The Unit Manager stated that if resident #459 was found unresponsive, Full Resuscitation would be initiated and 911 called as there was no order for code status. During a telephone conversation on 1/4/21 at 1:55 PM, resident #439's daughter stated she had Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care and a Living Will dated 1/16/2020. She stated the document named her as the resident's Health Care Agent for his health decisions. She added, The will states he does not want anything done to keep him alive if he stops breathing. He just wants to go peacefully. The resident's daughter noted the facility had not contacted her about her father's advanced directives. On 1/4/21 at 2:15 PM, interviews were attempted with resident #459's admitting nurse and the facility's Social Worker at the time of his admission [DATE]. Both no longer worked at the facility and could not be reached. During an interview on 1/4/2021 at 2:40 PM, the Medical Director stated the Resident/Responsible Party should be interviewed to determine their wishes related to Code Status and all documentation in place should an event occur. On 1/4/21 at 10:05 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON ) did not explain why resident #439 did not have a DNR in place according to his wishes. The DON did not explain why the Social Worker did not follow-up to find out the resident's wishes and ensure a DNRO order was placed at the front of his medical record. Review of the Code Status Orders and Response Policy dated 2/2020, read, The physician order for full or Do Not Resuscitate is written based on the wishes of the resident/resident representative. Advance Directives will be honored. Code status orders and wishes will be reviewed on admission, quarterly and as needed by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT). Code status physician's order (DNR or Full Code), state specific forms and/or resident preference will be filed as the first item within the medical record. Social services will be notified if resident has any general questions and concerns about advance directives.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

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 complete discharge assessment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete discharge assessment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for resident assessments of a total sample of 28 residents, (#1). Findings: Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged home with home health services on 07/18/20. A review of the medical record revealed that a discharge Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was not completed as required. On 01/05/21 at 3:52 PM, the MDS Coordinator described the facility's process for discharged residents. She stated that MDS Coordinators had to review the discharge orders, then complete and submit the MDS assessment. She said she did not get resident's #1's discharge completed. She added, I don't know how I missed it especially since the computer system sends an alert. Section 5.2 of the RAI Version 3.0 Manual indicated that for all non-admission Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) and Prospective Payment System (PPS) assessment, the MDS completion date (Z0500B) must be no later than 14 days after the Assessment Reference Date (A2300).
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer 2 of 28 sampled residents with diagnoses of serious mental he...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer 2 of 28 sampled residents with diagnoses of serious mental health illness for Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level 2 , (#14, #42). Findings: 1. Review of resident #14's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included seizures, anxiety disorder, recurrent depression, schizophrenia, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of the State PASRR form dated 5/30/18, section A, mental illness (MI) or suspected MI, check all that apply, was left blank. This section included documented areas of diagnoses of Anxiety, Depressive disorder, and Schizophrenia. Section IV PASRR Screen Completion area documented a blackened box that represented No diagnosis or suspicion of SMI (serious mental illness) or intellectual disability (ID) indicated, Level II PASRR evaluation not required. Review of the resident's General Progress Note dated 8/26/20 and completed by an Advanced Professional Registered Nurse and Licensed Clinical Social Worker documented: Chief complaint/Nature of Presenting Problem: Schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder. Diagnoses documented Disorganized Schizophrenia, Generalized anxiety disorder, Major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate. The resident's record did not show that a PASRR level 2 had been completed. In an interview with the Administrator and Social Worker on 1/6/20 at 2:15 PM, they related the resident had not been referred to the appropriate entity for a Level 2 PASRR and it was not indicated on the Level I. They were informed by the surveyor of the documented diagnosis of the resident having a SMI. Review of the facility policy titled, PASRR Requirements Level I and Level II-Florida, Page 1 under PASRR Level I-Procedure #2 read: Social services or RN will review to determine if a Serious Mental Illness (SMI) and Intellectual disability or both exists while reviewing the PASRR form. The existence of either or both conditions triggers the requirement for Level II review and will be provided to the appropriate State Agency by the social services director upon admission. The Social services director /Nursing administration will review for completion and accuracy during the clinical meeting process. Page 2 section PASRR Level II #3 read: Level II PASRR must be completed if the below are listed but not limited to: The second bullet read: the resident has a primary or secondary diagnosis of dementia or related neurocognitive disorder, and a suspicion or diagnosis of SMI, ID, or both, and are currently exhibiting interpersonal issues, difficulty maintaining concentration, persistence and pace. 2. Review of resident #42's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included major depressive disorder and unspecified psychosis. Review of the resident's medication record revealed the resident received antipsychotic medication, Haldol, for psychosis; Schizophrenia. Review of the State PASRR form dated 1/23/20 revealed on page 5, Section IV PASRR Completion, Individual may not be admitted to a Nursing Facility. Use this form and required documentation to request a Level II PASRR evaluation because there is a diagnosis of or suspicion of: (check one of the following). The Serious Mental illness was checked by the hospital who completed the PASRR form. Further review of the medical record did not show a Level II screen. In an interview with the facility Administrator and Social Worker on 1/6/20 at 2:30 PM, they stated that a PASRR level 2 had not been referred or completed. They stated that serious mental illness (SMI) was checked on the Level I PASRR.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide intravenous (IV) care and services according ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide intravenous (IV) care and services according to standards of practice and plan of care for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for IV care, out of 28 total sampled residents, (#65). Findings: Resident #65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] from an acute care hospital with diagnoses that included urinary tract infection (UTI). He had a Midline IV line inserted 12/29/20 in the left arm for administration of IV antibiotics. He was receiving Ceftriaxone (IV antibiotic) daily for UTI until 1/3/21. He had additional orders in effect dated 12/31/20 for nurses to document the IV site appearance every shift (3 times per day) and flush every 8 hours. A midline catheter is put into a vein by the bend in your elbow or your upper arm . The midline tube ends in a vein below your armpit .midline catheter may allow you to receive long-term intravenous (IV) medicine or treatments .(www.drugs.com). On 01/03/21 at 12:45 PM, resident #65 was observed in bed. He had a transparent dressing on his left upper arm midline IV site with no date. The lower portion of the transparent dressing had gauze under it which was soiled with dark brown substance and was lifting off the skin. The resident was alert and oriented and said that he was getting IV antibiotics for a UTI and his nurse just left his room. On 01/04/21 at 11 AM, resident #65 was observed in bed and the midline IV in his left forearm appeared same as yesterday's observation. There was no date on the dressing which was soiled and lower 1/3 of the dressing was lifting off the skin. A review of the medication administration record (MAR) revealed that nursing staff documented: Flushing IV 01/03/21- 6 AM, 2 PM and 11 PM 01/04/21- 6 AM and 2 PM IV site appearance was unremarkable on : 01/03/21- Day, Evening and Night shift 01/04/21- Day shift The nurses' documentation of resident #65's IV site appearance contradicted actual observations conducted by surveyor on both days (01/03 to 01/04/21). Resident #65's care plan initiated on 12/31/20 for IV Medications included interventions to Check dressing site daily. Change per facility policy/MD (medical doctor) orders . On 1/04/21 at 5:20 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A was in resident # 65's room and observed the resident's midline dressing on left upper arm without a date, soiled and lifting off the skin. LPN A said, the Wing III Unit Manager (UM) was aware of the condition of his IV site as of this morning as she brought it to her attention. LPN A said, she was too busy to change the dressing and could not get to it yet. LPN A noted the standard of practice regarding soiled dressing was that it should have been changed this morning when identified as not changing it could lead to infection. On 01/04/21 at 5:37 PM, the Wing III UM said she saw resident #65's soiled IV dressing at lunch time when she was setting up his lunch tray. She stated she spoke to assigned LPN A about the need to change resident #65's dressing. She indicated that LPN A did not inform her that she was too busy to change the dressing or needed help. The UM then checked the resident's orders and said the nurse should have changed the dressing immediately as it was loose and soiled. She added that the resident had physician orders to change the dressing as needed if soiled. On 01/04/21 at 6:00 PM, LPN B verified that he was assigned to resident #65 on 01/03/21 day shift, 7 AM to 7 PM. He said he did not notice that resident #65's IV dressing was soiled or lifting off the skin yesterday (01/03/21). He said he gave the resident's IV antibiotics and documented twice on his shift that he checked the site. LPN B indicated it was the facility policy to change IV dressings within 24 hours of admission and there was no excuse as he should have changed it yesterday because not changing it could lead to blood infection. On 01/06/21 at 12:02 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said the expectation was that nurses checked the IV site every time they went into resident rooms to give medications or flush IV. she added the nurses should have changed the IV dressing timely as not changing it could have caused infection or the IV could have come out. According to the facility Infection Control policy dated 08/16, Dressing Changes .Transparent, semi-permeable membrane (TSM) dressings are changed a minimum of every 7 days and /or prn (as needed) whenever the dressing becomes wet, loose, or soiled
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of resident #508's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cere...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of resident #508's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebrovascular accident and hypothyroidism. A physician order dated 12/31/20 read, Oxygen at 2 LPM via n/c continuous for shortness of breath. On 01/04/21 at 1:14 PM, the resident was observed resting on his bed. He was confused and not able to answer questions appropriately. He received oxygen via nasal cannula, attached to a portable oxygen concentrator set at 3 liters per minute. On 01/04/21 at 5:11 PM, the resident was observed in bed with O2 set at 3 LPM via n/c. On 01/04/21 at 5:33 PM, the Wing 3 Unit Manager stated that the resident's O2 concentrator was set at 3 LPM. She checked the physician orders and said the orders were for the oxygen to be given at 2 LPM continuously for SOB. The UM explained that nurses were expected to check O2 at the start, end and throughout the shift. She added that nurses should checked the oxygen settings any time they went into the resident's room. The UM could not explain why the oxygen was not set at the prescribed rate. Review of the policy titled, Oxygen Therapy and Devices read, purpose is to maintain normal body function. It indicated that oxygen is a drug which must be ordered by a physician. The policy also included to verify physician order, apply device to the patient with appropriate liter flow . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure respiratory therapy was provided as per physician orders for 2 of 5 residents of a total sample of 28 residents, (#73, #508). Findings: 1. Resident #73 was re-admitted to the facility from an acute care hospital on [DATE]. The resident's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and fracture of the left lower leg. The Medical Certification for Medicaid Long Term Care Services and Patient Transfer 3008 Form dated 12/23/20 indicated the resident was on continuous oxygen (O2) at 2 liters per minute (LPM) via nasal cannula. A review of the resident's medical record revealed physician orders dated 01/03/21 for Oxygen at 2 LPM via NC continuously for COPD every shift for shortness of breath (SOB). The resident's care plan for oxygen noted an intervention to administer as ordered . A review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 01/03 to 01/04/21 revealed the nurses documented every shift (3 times) per day that the resident received the ordered dose of oxygen at 2 LPM. On 01/03/21 at 12:20 PM and 01/04/21 at 11:05 AM and 5:10 PM, resident #73 was observed in bed with O2 via nasal cannula. The concentrator was set at 3.5 LPM. Resident #73 was alert and oriented to person and place and denied adjusting her oxygen concentrator. On 01/04/21 at 5:15 PM, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) A entered the resident's room and stated the resident's O2 concentrator was set at 3.5 LPM. LPN A stated the oxygen should be at 2 LPM. She said the resident had COPD and getting increased oxygen could make her condition worse and cause increased shortness of breath. On 01/04/21 at 5:44 PM, Wing III Unit Manger (UM) stated that resident #73 was ordered to receive oxygen at 2 LPM via NC. The UM added that the assigned nurses should have checked the liter flow every time they went in the resident's room to ensure the prescribed rate. The UM indicated that too much oxygen with resident that has COPD could have an adverse reaction. She said that resident #73 went out to a doctor's appointment today at 11:30 AM and the nurse should have checked the oxygen rate when she returned to ensure it was at 2 LPM. The UM was asked about the resident's ability to adjust her oxygen concentrator. She stated that, even if she could get to the concentrator, I don't know that she would try to adjust it. On 01/04/21 at 5:53 PM, LPN B verified he was assigned to resident #73's care yesterday, on 01/03/21 (7 AM to 7 PM). He said he checked her oxygen concentrator rate and put it at 2 LPM. He could not remember if he checked during his shift. LPN B said that if the resident received a higher rate of oxygen, she could stop breathing. On 01/06/21 at 11:44 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurses should have observed the oxygen concentrator setting every time they went in resident rooms to ensure the correct dose was being given. She added that if residents with COPD received too much oxygen, this could cause increased shortness of breath.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $17,369 in fines. Above average for Florida. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 36/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 62%, which is 15 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 76%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER during 2021 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 19 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 Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center?

TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by FLORIDA INSTITUTE FOR LONG-TERM CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 157 certified beds and approximately 102 residents (about 65% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in TITUSVILLE, Florida.

How Does Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (62%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the facility's high staff turnover rate, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER is high. At 62%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 76%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center Ever Fined?

TITUSVILLE REHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER has been fined $17,369 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Florida average of $33,253. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Titusville Rehabilitation & Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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