CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1450 EAST VENICE AVENUE, VENICE, FL 34292 (941) 486-8088
For profit - Corporation 129 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#617 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Capri Health and Rehabilitation Center has a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the quality of care and overall operations. It ranks #617 out of 690 facilities in Florida and #23 out of 30 in Sarasota County, placing it in the bottom half of both categories, suggesting limited local options that are better. Although the trend shows improvement, with issues decreasing from 11 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, the facility's high staffing turnover rate of 81% raises concerns, as it is well above the state average of 42%. Additionally, the facility has incurred $296,884 in fines, which is higher than 96% of Florida facilities and suggests ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents include a resident who suffered a nasal bone fracture after rolling out of bed due to improper care, and another resident who experienced multiple falls leading to serious injuries, highlighting critical gaps in fall prevention measures. Overall, while there have been some improvements, the combination of high turnover, significant fines, and serious incidents presents a worrying picture for prospective residents and their families.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Florida
#617/690
Bottom 11%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
11 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
81% turnover. Very high, 33 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$296,884 in fines. Higher than 77% of Florida facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 42 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for Florida. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
Violations
⚠ Watch
35 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 11 issues
2025: 1 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

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 81%

35pts above Florida avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $296,884

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Staff turnover is very high (81%)

33 points above Florida average of 48%

The Ugly 35 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect for 1 of 2 (#1) residents sampled. The findings included: A policy on Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment, and Injury of Unknown Origin (ANEMMI) last revised on 1/24 which stated that the Center will seek and accept concerns, complaints, or grievances from residents, resident families and staff without reprisal. The right to report a concern or incident is not limited to a formal, written grievance process, but includes any verbalized complaint to any facility staff member. Any resident event that is reported to any staff by resident, family, or their staff or any other person will be considered as possible ANEMMI if it meets any of the following criteria: A. Any resident or family complaint of physical harm, pain or mental anguish resulting from willful infliction from others. Any and all staff observing or hearing about such events must report the event immediately to the Administrator, Immediate Supervisor and one of the following, the Director of Nursing (DON), ANNEMI Prevention Coordinator, or Risk Manager, so that appropriate reporting and investigation procedures take place immediately. B. Any complaint of deprivation by an individual caregiver of goods and services necessary to attain or maintain physical, mental, and psychological well-being to include toileting issues. Resident #1 is a vulnerable adult who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She is diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, vascular dementia, anxiety disorder, muscle weakness, dysphagia, and cognitive communication deficit. Resident #1 was last assessed as cognitively intact on 1/29/25 by scoring a 13 on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS), a test for potential cognitive impairment. The resident was receiving Speech Therapy for her aphasia (language disorder which affects a person's ability to communicate) until 4/22/24. The resident is not currently receiving speech therapy for her difficulty with voice volume and phonation (ability to produce sound), she was last seen 4/22/24. A Social Service Assessment was performed on 2/24/25 which showed that the resident had a negative trauma screen and was documented as usually understood. On 3/26/25 at 10:00 a.m., during an interview Resident #1 said, a man laid in bed with me when asked about the incident. There was an allegation of someone coming into her room. The resident was asked, How did that make you feel? The resident said, scared and can't sleep. When asked was it a staff member or a resident? She replied, A resident. The resident then began using repetitive words, and it became difficult to continue the interview. On 3/26/25 at 10:26 a.m., direct observation of Resident #1 sitting in a wheelchair in her room with a mesh banner across her doorway that said STOP. On 3/26/25 at 10:30 a.m., during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said that she did not interview the resident when she became aware of the allegation. The DON verified she did not contact the resident's daughter, did not interview other residents on the unit, and did not notify the Administrator of the allegation. The DON didn't believe that any of the male residents on that floor could transfer from a wheelchair to a bed without assistance. The DON said she believed that the STOP banner was sufficient to make the resident feel safe and that the event was likely a matter of another resident wandering into her room by mistake. On 3/26/25 at 11:19 a.m., during an interview Resident #1 said that yes the uninvited resident put his hands in the bed, and yes that she believed he was trying to get into bed with her. The resident was then observed to draw both of her hands under her chin and her eyes became wide. The resident appeared tense and the interview was stopped. On 3/27/25 at 9:34 a.m., during a phone interview the Hospice Director said that Resident #1's daughter notified Hospice via a phone call to report that her mother had a man come into her room and get in bed with her. We were told that she reported the incident to the DON at the facility. On 3/27/25 at 11:44 a.m., during an interview the Administrator stated, it is possible that someone getting into bed with another resident could be an incident that needs to be reported, depending on the situation. On 3/27/25 at 3:28 p.m., during an interview Staff A Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated that the night shift staff knows who can walk but was not aware of a list of residents who wandered.
Sept 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a resident centered care plan to meet the nee...

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 develop a resident centered care plan to meet the needs of 1 (Resident #45) of 3 residents reviewed with impaired hearing. The findings included: Review of the medical record revealed Resident #45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included mixed conductive and sensorineural hearing loss, and cochlear implant (Surgically implanted device that helps people with severe to profound hearing loss perceive sound) status. Review of the Significant Change in Status Assessment with a target date of 8/26/24 revealed Resident #45's hearing was highly impaired with absence of useful hearing. Resident #45's cognition was moderately impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 09. The care plan initiated on 10/16/23 and revised on 10/26/23 noted Resident #45 had a communication problem related to hearing deficit. Per the resident's family, the cochlear implant has stopped working. The care plan initiated on 10/9/23 noted Resident #45 was able to make leisure needs and preferences known. The resident preferred a balance of social and independent leisure activities. The goal was for the resident to express satisfaction with leisure routine. The interventions included to encourage in-room leisure time such as television. On 9/23/24 at 5:27 a.m., Resident #45 was observed in the bedroom with eyes closed. The resident did not respond to interview questions. On 9/23/24 at 11:50 a.m., in an interview the resident's spouse said Resident #45 was 100% deaf. She told staff numerous times it was important for them to turn on the closed captioning (text that reflects an audio track and can be read while watching visual content) when he watched television since he could not hear. She said Resident #45 was not able to turn on the closed captioning himself. Resident #45's spouse said it should be a simple thing to do but the staff don't turn it on. She said every time she visits, she has to turn it on herself, including when she arrived today. On 9/24/24 at 9:51 a.m., Resident #45 was observed in a wheelchair facing the television set. The closed captioning was not turned on. No text was displayed on the television screen. The television remote control was observed on the nightstand on the opposite side of the bed and was not within reach of the resident. On 9/25/24 at 9:18 a.m., Resident #45 was observed in his room. The television was on but the closed captioning was not turned on. No text was displayed on the television screen. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff Y verified the closed caption function was not turned on. In an interview LPN Staff Y said she knew Resident #45's hearing was impaired. She acknowledged there was no care plan interventions to remind staff to turn on the closed caption when Resident #45 was watching television. On 9/25/24 at 9:26 a.m., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator said she was responsible to ensure care plan interventions were individualized to meet the needs of each resident. The MDS coordinator verified Resident #45's care plan included to encourage in-room leisure time such as television but did not direct staff to turn on the closed caption since the resident's hearing was highly impaired.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews, the facility fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of the clinical record, review of facility policy, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to consistently apply a physician ordered orthotic device to prevent the decline in range of motion for 1 (Resident #32) of 1 resident reviewed with contractures (rigidity of joint). The findings included: The facility policy Standards and Guidelines : Physician Orders documented Physician orders should be followed as prescribed, and if not followed, this should be recorded in the resident's medical record during that shift. Physician should be notified and the responsible party if indicated. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #32 had an admission date of 12/10/22 with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, anxiety and muscle weakness. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with an assessment reference date of 9/7/24 documented Resident #32 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living. The MDS noted Resident #32's cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The Physician orders dated 6/28/24 included for the resident to use bilateral palm guards during the day shift. Remove as needed during hygiene care and during meals. Review of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) care [NAME] ( provides instruction for resident care) instructed to use bilateral hand palm guards during the day shift. Remove as needed during hygiene care and during meals. Check skin integrity. On 9/23/24 at 5:47 a.m., and at 3:45 p.m., Resident # 32 was observed in his bed. The resident's hands were contracted. Resident #32 was not wearing the splinting device as ordered. Two hand splints were observed on the nightstand. On 9/24/24 at 10:23 a.m., Resident #32 was observed in bed without the physician's ordered splints to his hands. The splints were observed on the nightstand. On 9/24/24 at 10:30 a.m., CNA Staff A said she was not aware the resident had hands splints. Staff A said she had not observed the resident using the hand splints in a while. On 9/24/24 at 2:53 p.m., Resident #32 was observed in his room in bed without the splints to his hands. In an interview Resident #32 said he did not know why he did not have the hand splints on, and he did not refuse to wear them. On 9/24/24 at 3:00 p.m., during a joint observation with Licensed Practical Nurse Staff D confirmed Resident #32 was not wearing the palm protectors (splints) to his hands as ordered. Resident #32 told the nurse he did not know where his palm protectors were and said no one applied the splints for him. On 9/24/24 at 3:37 p.m., in an interview Occupational Therapist Staff E said Resident #32 was to wear the palm guards daily.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a safe, func...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure housekeeping and maintenance services to maintain a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public on the first and second floor of the facility. The findings included: During a tour of the facility on 9/24/24 at 5:00 p.m., the following environmental observations were made: A black substance was observed on the ceiling vents and surrounding ceiling tiles of the Capri reading room, the first floor hallway near the elevator, and the Social Service Office on the second floor 2nd floor. Photographic evidence obtained. The floor and cove base of the first floor hallway near the nourishment room, the first floor hallway near the central bath, the memory care near the speech therapy room, and near room [ROOM NUMBER] were in poor repair, cracked and separating. Photographic evidence obtained. The wallpaper was peeling from wall with orange discoloration coming through the paper in the memory care near the speech therapy room and the second floor hallway near the elevators Photographic evidence obtained. Black biogrowth was observed on the walls and/or ceiling of the second floor wall across from the elevator and the ceiling tiles of the second floor storage room. Photographic evidence obtained. On 9/25/24 at 9:13 a.m., in an interview the Administrator said they had received quotes for roof replacement which had been sent to corporate for review. The Administrator agreed areas of the building were getting old and could use some attention. She said they had begun working on the walls and wallpaper, but due to the impending hurricane staff had been sent to sister facilities. She said at this time there was no definitive end date for the repairs but was working on getting a plan in place.
Jun 2024 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a clean, safe...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures and staff interview, the facility failed to provide a clean, safe and sanitary environment for residents in 6 (Rooms 110, 113, 114, 116, 118 and 119) of 17 rooms observed on the Memory Care Unit. The findings included: On 6/24/24 at 9:30 a.m., during an initial tour on the Memory Care Unit the following was observed: 1. room [ROOM NUMBER]. In the bathroom there was a bed pan on the floor next to the toilet, a wash basin wedged between the toilet and the wall. There was a container of disinfecting wipes behind the toilet on the floor with a soiled washcloth. Photographic evidence obtained. 2. room [ROOM NUMBER]. The bathroom had cracks in the tiles, brown and black grime on the tiles surrounding the base of the toilet. Photographic evidence obtained. 3. room [ROOM NUMBER] A. Multiple bottle of lotion, cream and sprays were stored in two wash basins on the nightstand. Photographic evidence obtained. 4. room [ROOM NUMBER] B. Bottle of body lotion, shampoo and body wash were stored in a caddy. Photographic evidence obtained. 5. room [ROOM NUMBER]. A wash basin was stored on the floor under the sink, and another one was stored on the floor next to the toilet. Photographic evidence obtained. 6. room [ROOM NUMBER]. A wash basin was stored on the bathroom floor behind the toilet. The tile surrounding the base of the toilet had a black substance on the tiles. Photographic evidence obtained. 7. room [ROOM NUMBER]. A wash basin was stored on the floor in the bathroom near the toilet. Two packs of incontinent wipes, a soiled washcloth, a bottle of lotion and a bottle of foaming wash were stored on the toilet tank. Photographic evidence obtained. 8. room [ROOM NUMBER] A. A tube of antifungal cream was stored unsecured on the nightstand. A nebulizer (machine used to deliver medication into the lungs) mask was observed uncovered on the machine. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/24/24 at 11:30 a.m., in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) was informed of the concerns and findings on the Memory care unit. The DON said he had not toured the unit. On 6/24/24 at 11:40 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Staff C was observed coming down the Memory Care Unit hallway with bags of wash basins and bed pans. Staff C said the DON had called the unit and said to remove them from the bathroom floors. CNA Staff C said resident personal care items should be stored in the resident's bedside dresser along with the wash basins. On 6/24/24 at 11:49 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse Staff A verified the items left in the bathroom on the floors and said, I know, the wash basins should not be on the bathroom floor. The personal care items can be left out. On 6/24/24 at 12:30 p.m., in an interview the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) verified the residents' personal items were left unsecured in the dementia unit, including bottles of shampoo, lotion, sprays and disinfecting wiped. He said the residents on that unit wander. He said, I can't guarantee that a resident won't eat or drink it but like I said, it is not a psych ward. The RNC said he did not know what the policy was for keeping personal items on the Memory Care Unit.
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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on review of facility policy and procedures, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure each resident who is incontine...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on review of facility policy and procedures, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure each resident who is incontinent of urine is identified, assessed and provided appropriate incontinent care for 2(Resident #999 and #900) of 3 residents reviewed with incontinence. The findings included: The facility policy Standards and Guidelines : ADL Care and Services issued 4/2020 (revised 1/2024) documented :Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs)independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition grooming and personal and oral hygiene. Residents will be provided with care treatment and services to ensure that their activities of daily living are met. Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADL's (activities of daily living) independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care including appropriate support and assistance with hygiene and elimination(toileting). 1.Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #999 had an admission date of 1/24/24 with diagnoses including stage 4 pressure ulcer to the sacral region, protein calorie malnutrition and muscle weakness. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with a date of 5/9/24 documented the resident was frequently incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. The MDS noted Resident #999's cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The care plan identified Resident #999 required assistance with ADLs including toileting. The interventions specified The resident is not able to participate in the task at all and will need staff to move, clean, and dress them. This may require the dependent assistance of two people to be done thoroughly and safely. On 6/24/24 at 10:30 a.m., during an interview Resident #999 said I am left in bed and not always assisted out of bed. I use a lift and I can't use the bathroom. When I wet on myself, they don't come or they tell me they will be back with help to change me, but they do not come back. I lay here wet, and I don't like it. The resident said I have a wound on by backside and it is not good for me to be wet. 2. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #900 had an admission date of 7/16/21 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the left side, contracture of the left hand and right and left foot drop. The plan of care identified Resident #900 had was at risk for complications related in bowel or bladder incontinence. The care plan interventions specified, Toileting: The resident is not able to participate in the task at all and will need staff to move, clean, and dress them. This may require the dependent assistance of two people to be done thoroughly and safely. Provide incontinence care with each incontinent episode as tolerated. On 6/24/24 at 2:25 p.m., in an interview Resident #900 said the staff say they change us every two hours but it is more like every four hours. I put the light on to be changed and they turn it off and don't return. I have to have two people because I fell out of bed two years ago when one CNA was changing me. They can never seem to find another person to help. Being wet is not pleasant, I want to be changed. On 6/24/24 at 11:40 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Staff C said we try and toilet the resident whenever they ask. Every couple of hours if they are incontinent, we clean the resident and change them. On 6/25/24 at 12:02 p.m., in an interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff E said I think the CNA's are to toilet/change residents every 2-3 hours and when they request it. On 6/25/24 at 9:30 a.m., in an interview CNA Staff F said in my opinion the emergency light should be answered immediately or within 1 minute. I try to think if it were me that is what I would want. I don't know if the facility has a toileting program and I can only speak for myself, but I try and toilet or change residents every 2 hours. Most of the residents will let you know if they have to use the toilet or they need to be changed. On 6/25/24 at 12:53 p.m., in an interview CNA Staff G said, we toilet the residents every few hours, there isn't a schedule, you just do. 6/25/24 at 8:50 a.m., in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility did not have a toileting program. When asked what the expectation was for staff providing assistance for continent and incontinent residents, the DON replied the same as it would be at any other place.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, review of clinical records and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to secure all medications in a locked storage compartme...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, review of clinical records and staff and resident interview, the facility failed to secure all medications in a locked storage compartment and failed to ensure 1 medication cart (East wing) of 5 medication carts was secured and locked when out of the direct supervision of the nurse. The findings included: The facility policy Medication Storage and Labeling issued 3/2021 (revised 01/2024) specified The facility stores all drugs and biological's in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. Drugs and biological's used in the facility are stored in locked compartments under proper temperature, light, and humidity controls. Only persons authorized to prepare and administer medications have access to locked medications. 1. On 6/24/24 at 2:25 p.m., during an observation on the second floor, the medication cart on the East Wing was observed unlocked, and unattended. Two nurses were observed standing in the East hallway talking. The medication cart was not under direct observation of the nurses. One resident was observed in a wheelchair going past the unsecured medication cart. Photographic evidence obtained. On 6/24/24 at 2:27 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff K quickly came up the hall to the cart and said, I know it was unlocked. I had an emergency. I had to go and I ran and I forgot to lock it. 2. On 6/25/24 at 9:40 a.m., a large bottle of antacid was observed on Resident #800's bedside table. Photographic evidence obtained. In an interview during the observation Resident #800 said, I keep them here and take them when I have heartburn. Resident #800 opened the bottle, placed two antacid tablets in his mouth, chewed and swallowed them. On 6/25/24 at approximately 9:45 a.m., LPN Staff E went in the resident's room and confirmed the observation of the bottle of antacid stored on the resident's bedside table. LPN Staff E said she did not know if it was permitted to self-administer and store medications at the bedside. Review of the clinical record for Resident #800 revealed a physician order dated 7/21/23 to give two tablets of (brand name) chewable antacid every six hours as needed for heartburn. The clinical record did not show an assessment verifying Resident #800 was able to safely self-administer the antacid, and was able to safely, and securely store the antacid. On 6/25/24 at 11:20 a.m., in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said he was not aware Resident #800 kept the bottle of antacid at the bedside. He confirmed Resident #800 was not assessed to determine if he was able to safely self-administer the antacid, and his ability to ensure the antacid is stored safely and securely. .
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to meet the needs for 3 (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedures, record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to meet the needs for 3 (Resident #999, #875 and #900) of 5 residents reviewed for activities of daily living (ADLs). The findings included: The facility policy Standards and Guidelines : ADL Care and Services issued 4/2020 (revised 1/2024) documented :Residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living independently will receive the services necessary to maintain good nutrition grooming and personal and oral hygiene . Residents will be provided with care treatment and services to ensure that their activities of daily living are met . Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADL's independently, with the consent of the resident and in accordance with the plan of care including appropriate support and assistance with hygiene bathing dressing grooming nail care and oral care . The resident has the right to refuse any and all ADL care the refusal of care will be documented in the resident's medical record with the appropriate notification including the physician and resident representative. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #999 had an admission date of 1/24/24 with diagnoses including stage 4 pressure ulcer to the sacral region, protein calorie malnutrition and muscle weakness. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with an assessment reference date of 5/9/24 documented the resident was dependent on 1-2 staff for bathing. The MDS noted Resident #999's cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. Review of the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) documentation for May 2024 revealed the resident refused showers on 5/13/24, 5/20/24, 523/24. On 5/30/24 there was no documentation that a shower was provided. The CNA documentation for June showed N/A [not applicable] on 6/3/24 and 6/17/24. There was no documentation in the clinical record the resident had refused care. On 6/6/24 and 6/13/24 the documentation revealed the resident refused showers. There was no documentation in the clinical record indicating the staff attempted to encourage bathing. On 6/24/24 at 10:30 a.m., Resident #999 was observed in bed, her hair was uncombed, and she looked unkempt. In an interview, the resident said she had not received a shower for a while now. She said, I have asked but all I get is a bed bath once a week. 2. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #875 had an admission date of 6/11/24 with diagnoses including muscle weakness, repeated falls, and compression fracture of the first lumbar vertebrae. The admission Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 6/17/24 documented Resident #875 required substantial to maximum assistance for bathing and partial to moderate assistance for personal hygiene. The MDS noted Resident #875's cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. On 6/24/24 at 10:45 a.m., in an interview Resident #875 said staff did not assist her with showers. She said, They give me bed baths. I want a shower, but they said it is easier for them to do a sponge bath, so I just gave up. Resident #875 was observed in her bed. Her hair was greasy and uncombed. She had long fingernails, extending approximately ¼ inch with a brown substance under several nails. Review of the CNA task list failed to show documentation the resident was scheduled for showers or had received any showers since her admission. On 6/24/24 at 12:00 p.m., in an interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff D said she did not know why the resident did not receive any shower since admission. She said all the residents are scheduled for a shower twice a week. LPN Staff D said, I know the CNA will make three attempts to encourage the resident to shower and then the nurse will try. 3. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #900 had an admission date of 7/16/21 with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis affecting the left side, contracture of the left hand and right and left foot drop. The plan of care identified Resident #900 had an ADL self-care deficit and indicated the resident was dependent on 2 staff members for bathing. On 6/24/24 at 2:25 p.m., in an interview Resident #900 said, I don't get showers because they come in all rude and throw the towels on the foot of the bed and say it's time for your shower. I don't know who they are because they have changed staff so much. They don't introduce themselves. Resident #900 said, I do take showers sometimes, if the staff are polite. Resident #900 was in bed during the interview. She appeared unkempt. Her hair was uncombed and severely matted. Her bedding was in disarray and soiled with food crumbs. The resident was completely nude in the bed with a soiled bath towel covering her upper torso. The resident was noted to have contractures of the left shoulder, hand and arm. Review of the care plan initiated 10/30/23 documented Resident #900 is resistive to care/refusing care (heel protectors/boots, showers, medications, treatment, getting out of bed etc. The interventions included: Educate resident/family of the possible outcomes of not complying with treatment of care. Give clear explanation of all care activities as they occur during each contact. Provide consistency within care to promote comfort with ADL's. Review of the CNA documentation for May 2024 documented N/A on 5/4/24 and 5/14/24. The resident refused a shower on 5/23/24 and 5/29/24. Review of the CNA documentation for June 2024 revealed the resident refused scheduled showers on 6/1/24, 6/5/24, 6/8/24, 6/22/24. On 6/26/24 at 2:00 p.m., in a telephone interview Resident #900's son said his mother was very lucid and makes decisions for herself. The son said as a family they expressed concerns related to the care of his mother at the quarterly care plan meeting. He said even though his mother was set in her ways, and it is painful for her but they don't even try to get her out of bed. They even hold care plan meetings in her room. The management staff told him it was easier than getting her out of bed. The resident's son said no one from the facility discussed her personal hygiene or refusal of showers with him. He said he thought his mother received a shower at least weekly. On 6/25/24 at 11:40 a.m., in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said when a resident refuses a shower, three attempts are made. If the resident still refuses, the CNA alerts the nurse and it is documented. The DON said the nurse is responsible to document the refusal in the electronic record. The DON said the staff will notify the family and ask them to speak with the resident to see if they can encourage the resident. We call the family as well and let them know their loved one has refused bathing or any other care. The DON said Resident #900 was alert and oriented and had the right to refuse care. She said, It is in her care plan as well. On 6/25/24 at 12:53 p.m., in an interview CNA Staff G said, the policy is to try three different times during the shift to offer a shower. If the resident continues to refuse, she notifies the nurse. The nurse will speak with the resident. If the resident continues to refuse the shower, the nurse documents the refusal. CNA Staff G said she will then offer a bed bath to the resident. On 6/25/24 at 2:53 p.m., in an interview Unit Manager Staff H said the CNA is to make three attempts to shower the resident then notify the nurse if the resident still refuses. She or the nurse would then try and encourage the resident to shower. If the resident still refuses, the nurse will document the refusal. The Unit Manager said she did not know until 6/24/24 Resident #900 had been refusing showers multiple times. She said Resident #900 was set in her ways and, if she doesn't want it, she doesn't want it. Staff H said it was the resident's right to refuse to shower but she had not collaborated or discussed with staff the reason for the refusal and how they could encourage the resident to accept her showers. On 6/26/24 at 3:08 p.m., in an interview the Medical Director, he said he was not aware Resident #900 was refusing showers. The Medical Director said, The memory changes and someone can be fully demented and still refuse care. We can't physically drag a patient into the shower and force them to shower.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, review of facility policy and procedures and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure pain medications were provided in accordance with professional standard...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, review of facility policy and procedures and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure pain medications were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice and physician orders for 2 (Resident #99 and #399) of 3 residents reviewed for pain management. The findings included: The facility policy Medication Administration issued 10/2020 (revised 1/2024) specified: medications are ordered and administered safely and as prescribed. The director of nursing services directs all personnel who administer medications and or have related functions. Medications are administered in accordance with prescribed orders, including any required time limit. If a drug is withheld, refused, or given at a time other than the schedule time, the individual administering the medication shall document the rationale in the residence medical record and notify the physician and responsible party if indicated. 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #99 had an admission date of 9/29/23 with diagnoses including colon cancer, rheumatoid arthritis and major depressive disorder. On 6/25/24 at 8:25 a.m., in an interview Resident #99 said she was not consistently receiving her pain medications and was informed by the nurse that the pharmacy did not send it. The resident said she was to receive scheduled Oxycodone 5 milligrams (mg) at 6:00 a.m., and 12:00 p.m. Resident #99 said, the medication was scheduled and after that I have to ask for it. I can have it every six hours as needed. Every month they run out and no one can tell me why. I have reported it to the nurse, the Social Worker, and the Unit Manager. No one can tell me why they keep running out and there is always a two-to-three-day gap before I get my medication. I usually take a total of three pain pills per day. My pain is in my back, abdomen and left leg as it swells up. Sometimes I cry because it hurts so bad the pain gets to a 10/10. By that time my whole body is hurting. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order dated 4/19/24 to administer Oxycodone 5 mg two times a day, to be given at 6:00 a.m., and 12:00 p.m. The physician's orders dated 4/19/24 included to administer Oxycodone 5 mg every 6 hours as needed for pain after the routine 12:00 p.m. dose. Review of the June 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) lacked documentation the routine Oxycodone 5 mg was administered on 6/2/24 (6:00 a.m., and 12:00 p.m.), on 6/3/24 at 6:00 a.m., on 6/17/24 at 12:00 p.m., and on 6/23/24 at 12:00 p.m. On 6/2/24 at 5:16 a.m., the nurse documented on a progress note the Oxycodone was on order. On 6/2/24 at 1:42 p.m., the nurse documented the Oxycodone was not available. On 6/3/24 at 6:09 a.m., the nurse documented awaiting delivery On 6/23/24 at 12:13 p.m., the nurse documented the Oxycodone 5 mg was not available. On 6/25/24 at 12:02 p.m., in an interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff E said she has been employed at the facility less than two months. Staff E said sometimes the medications are not available. Staff E said, I don't know why but sometimes the pharmacy does not bring the medications. You need to call the pharmacy and ask them to send the medication. 2. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #399 had an admission date of 5/17/24 with diagnoses including, right hip fracture, end stage renal disease and anxiety. On 6/26/24 at 9:00 a.m., in an interview Resident #399 said she had a fall at another facility and broke her right hip. I am getting my pain medication most of the time. The nurse gives it to me. I can have it so many times a day and then I have to ask for it. Sometimes my hip hurts so bad 10 out of 10. I ask for a pain pill and they don't give it to me. Review of the Physician's order dated 5/21/24 documented to administer Oxycodone HCl oral tablet 5 mg one tablet by mouth three times a day for pain. Review of the MAR for May 2024 failed to reveal documentation the resident received the scheduled dose of Oxycodone on 5/21/24 at 6:00 a.m., 5/26/24 at 6:00 a.m., 5/31/24 at 2:00 p.m., 6/2/24 at 6:00 a.m., 6/4/24 at 10:00 a.m., 6/6/24 at 10:00 a.m., and 2:00 p.m Review of the nursing progress notes failed to show documentation of the reason why the Oxycodone 5 mg was not administered as ordered. On 6/25/24 at 12:30 p.m., in an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said, if a medication was unavailable the nurse can get it from the Pyxis (emergency medication dispensing machine) and contact the pharmacy for delivery. The DON said, Resident #99 confabulates things and it is in her care plan. On 6/25/24 at 1:05 p.m., in an interview the DON said he checked the Pyxis and on 6/2/24 the last Oxycodone 5 mg was removed. The quantity delivered by the pharmacy was 20 Oxycodone 5 mg tablets in the Pyxis. The same thing occurred on 6/22/24, the last Oxycodone 5 mg tablet was removed so it would be empty on 6/23/24. The DON said, I do know we have been having issues with the pharmacy and the delivery of medications this month, I don't know why. I will contact them and increase the par for the Oxycodone 5 mg in the Pyxis. The DON said he did not know when the pharmacy delivers the medications or restocks the Pyxis. The DON said he was not aware Resident #99 had missed several doses of the scheduled pain medication. On 6/26/24 at 9:45 a.m., in an interview Unit Manager Registered Nurse Staff H said when medications are needed they text the physician. They call the pharmacy when they are running low on medications, and if the medication is not at the facility. Staff H said they also check the computer system to see when the medication was reordered and call the pharmacy. She said she was aware Resident #99 ran out of her pain medication twice but she was not in pain when the medication was not available as documented on the MAR. Staff H said Resident #99 also receives Tylenol, Gabapentin and Ibuprofen for pain. On 6/25/24 at 10:00 a.m., review of the Pyxis medication log with the DON showed one Oxycodone 5 mg remaining with a PAR (Periodic Automatic Replacement) level of 10 tablets of Oxycodone. The DON said, You tell me what to do when the pharmacy is not delivering the medications. What do we do? The DON said he did not have weekly or monthly interdisciplinary team (IDT) meetings with the staff to review residents with repeat issues/concerns/care needs. The DON said they have a monthly staff meeting and there is a care plan meeting. On 6/26/24 at 3:08 p.m., in an interview the Medical Director said he was not notified Resident #99 and #399 had missed doses of scheduled pain medication and said he knew there were issues with the pharmacy, the facility was working on that.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, policy and procedures review, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to protect residents' rights to be free from verbal and physical abuse for 3 (Residents #700, #650, and #800) of 3 sampled residents. The findings included: The facility policy Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, Mistreatment and Injury of Unknown Origin issued 8/22 (revised 10/22) documented Our residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation and mistreatment . Patients with needs and behaviors that might lead to conflict with staff or other residents will be identified by the Interdisciplinary Care Planning Team, with interventions and follow through designed to minimize the risk of conflict . Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #999 was admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included Dementia and Major Depressive Disorder. On 12/23/23 the diagnosis list was updated to include adjustment disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) (standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) with an assessment reference date of 10/21/23 documented Resident #999 had behaviors of wandering occurring one to three days in the last seven days. The MDS noted the resident was rarely/never understood. On 11/1/23 at 12:02 p.m., the nurse's progress note documented, Husband/family alerted this nurse to concerns of increased agitation and sadness/hopelessness. Resident assessed for suicidal ideation by 2 nurses, none noted, resident denied thoughts or plans. The physician was notified and ordered Citalopram (antidepressant) 10 milligrams (mg) a day and a Psychiatry consult. Review of the Psychiatric APRN (Advanced Practice Registered Nurse) note dated 12/1/23 documented, Chief complaint . nursing also reports resident (#999) is having behaviors . Nursing reports resident is having behaviors of being verbally inappropriate, combative towards family and hard to redirect . Recommendation: Resident observed today walking around the unit, alert, confused, uncooperative, hard to redirect . Nurse reports resident is having behaviors to be in [sic] combative towards family, verbally inappropriate and hard to redirect. Resident is unstable. Symptoms are occurring due to exasperated mood disorder, the symptoms are occurring daily and causing severe distress . Psych (psychiatry) started Depakote sprinkles 250 mg (milligrams) by mouth twice daily diagnosis of mood disorder . Staff to continue to monitor and document behaviors . On 12/21/23 at 1:59 p.m., a nursing progress note documented, It was reported to this writer that the resident is showing increased aggression, cussing at fellow residents, throwing a cookie at a fellow resident. Notified MD (Physician), psych (Psychiatry) notified she will be in Friday. Will redirect resident. On 12/22/23 at 1:33 p.m., a nursing progress note documented Resident #999 had, Agitation and aggressive behaviors reported to psych Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP). On 12/22/23 the Psychiatric APRN documented, Resident being seen for follow-up psych evaluation due to recent medication change. Nursing reports resident having aggressive behaviors, hard to redirect, throwing things, difficult with her care. Patient observed on unit alert confused, no behaviors noted at time of interview . Psych feels the symptoms are occurring due to exacerbation of underlying MOOD Disorder. The symptoms are occurring daily and causing severe distress . Therefore psych decided to increase Depakote sprinkles to 500 mg by mouth twice daily . Staff to monitor and document behaviors . On 12/22/23 at 1:46 p.m., a nursing progress note documented, Resident had violent outburst wrapped a cord around her husbands [sic] throat and attempted to throw monitor at him, hit him in the face and pulled his hair. Yelled for help and nurses were able to intervene and separate. No violence toward any staff or any other resident noted. She did yell at her husband obscenities. The Psych ARNP was notified and new order for Seroquel 25 mg (Antipsychotic) two times a day for 14 days, increase observation, and any other signs of violence notify primary immediately and send to the emergency room for evaluation and treatment for altered mental status. On 12/29/23 the Psychiatric APRN documented, Nursing reports resident's behaviors appear to be slowly resolving since starting Seroquel . Patient behaviors appear to be stable at this time . Psych recommends decrease Depakote Sprinkles to 250 mg by mouth twice daily X3 (for three) days, then 125 mg by mouth twice daily X2 (for two) days, then discontinue . On 1/2/24 the APRN documented seeing the resident for a follow up visit after Resident #999 fell on [DATE], was sent to the emergency room and returned to the facility that evening. The APRN noted Resident #999 was on multiple psychotropic medications with aggressive behavior with her dementia and psychiatry has been working with her medications. The APRN documented the resident was pleasant and cooperative. She spoke with the resident's husband and deferred discussion of her behaviors to Unit Manager. The APRN documented, Will discontinue seroquel for now. On 1/13/24 at 10:15 p.m., the progress note documented Residents #999 and #800 were in their room. Resident #999 started raising her voice stating that Resident #800 was not to be in her room, shouted get out. Resident #999 started throwing salt and sugar packets and individualized snack packets at Resident #800 saying while throwing things, this is my room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Staff A witnessed Resident #999 pick up a plastic plate cover and toss it at her roommate striking her in the head above left eye. CNA Staff A immediately called for the nurse. Resident #999 was assigned to one to one (1-1) supervision with a CNA and moved to another room. On 1/13/24 at 10:47 p.m., an incident description noted Resident #800 was found sitting on the side of the bed and verbally informed the staff that her roommate (Resident #999) hit her. Resident #999 was seen picking up a broken plate off the floor. When asked how the plate broke Resident #800 said, She went crazy, look at my head. Resident #800 had a lump above her left eye, with a small laceration. Resident #800 stated her roommate became angry and kept telling her this is her room and that she needed to leave, Her roommate turned evil and became so strong and hit her with the lid of the dinner cover. On 1/13/24 at 10:00 p.m., a nursing progress note documented, notified family of incident, husband states It was no surprise for him, then asked why patient was not moved to memory care. The facility's investigation into the abuse allegation noted a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) witnessed Resident #999 pick up a plastic plate cover and toss it at her roommate striking her in the head above the left eye. The CNA immediately called for the nurse to come to the room. The nurse arrived and the residents were immediately separated. Resident #999 was moved to a different room and all potential harmful objects were removed from her room. The facility's investigative findings on 1/18/24 noted, The facility unsubstantiate the allegation of abuse related to the residents being adquately supervised and staff responding immediately. The care plan was updated on 1/15/24 noting Resident #999 had a history of exhibiting the following behaviors: Chronic/frequent refusal of care and/or services, impulsivity, Physical and verbal aggression. The goal was for Resident #999 to have fewer episodes of the identified behavior. The interventions as of 1/15/24 included to administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness; encourage resident to interact with staff members as tolerated; explain procedures to the resident before starting and allow the resident time to adjust to changes as needed; minimize potential for teh resident's disruptive behaviors by offereing tasks with divert attention/redirect behavior as indicated; one on one with staff as needed. On 2/16/24 the facility added non-pharmacological interventions utilized as needed to redirect resident behavior: offering lower stimulus environment, speaking calming, allowing resident to choose care options as they are able or offer activities to divert resident's attention. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) visual/bedside [NAME] (Provides instructions for care) did not list Resident #999's verbal and physical aggressive behaviors. The [NAME] noted to minimize the potential for the resident's disruptive behaviors by offering tasks which divert attention/redirect behavior as indicated. On 1/16/24 at 4:24 p.m., a nursing progress note documented, Resident continues 1-1 observation due to physically aggressive behavior towards other residents. Administered medication as ordered. Resident complained of having too much medication and stated, It will be their fault if I do something to someone because of all the medication. On 1/19/24 the Psychiatric APRN documented, Resident seen today per nursing request as resident had behaviors of being aggressive including a recent incident with her previous roommate. Pt (Patient) alert with confusion, noted agitation, flat mood, and affect, uncooperative at times during interview. On 2/6/24 the Psychiatric APRN documented Resident #999 reportedly made a comment that her roommate was noisy, and she was going to slit her throat if she was not more quiet. On 2/6/24 Unit Manager Registered Nurse Staff B documented, Resident recent aggressive behaviors and statements demonstrate possible further aggressive events, MD, Psychology, husband, sister, and management notified. Resident will remain in a room without a roommate for safety and possible placement at another facility to better suit her needs. On 2/10/24 at 6:18 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing documented, This nurse received notification from day shift and evening nurse, other residents and other residents family member that (Resident #999) is being extremely aggressive. She is using vulgar language, using racial slurs, refusing to leave other resident's rooms . On 2/25/24 a nursing progress note documented Resident #999 was moved in a room with Resident #650. On 2/29/24 at 9:45 a.m., in an interview the Administrator said Resident #999 came to them without a psychiatric background and only dementia as a diagnosis. Resident #999's first roommate Resident #800 was hit in the head with a plate/tray. We removed Resident #800. Resident #999 stayed in the two person room alone for several weeks, but we could not keep her in a double room alone forever. Resident #999 was placed in a room with Resident #700. Resident #999 said she was going to slit her new roommate's throat and made racial slurs to her and her family who were visiting. We moved the roommate out of the room. Both residents reside on the same floor but in different halls. The Administrator said resident #999 was very distant, easily upset and on one occasion she attempted to strangle her spouse with a cord, we had to get staff to get her off of him and still she is here. Right now, Resident #999 is in a room with a friend, another resident who is alert and oriented and kind of looks out for her and can handle her. They agreed to be roommates. On 2/29/24 at 10:15 a.m., Resident #999 was observed ambulating with a rolling walker past other residents in the hallway. She walked up and down the hallway and to the nurse's desk unsupervised by staff. On 2/29/24 at 11:15 a.m., in an interview Registered Nurse (RN) Staff B said Resident #999 had memory problems and behavior issues. During a care plan meeting she had threatened to Jump out of the window. She is very territorial. One day her family member brought in candy for her to share with her friends at the dining room table and when the other ladies asked for a piece of candy, she threw the candy at them. She is very negative and aggressive. On 2/29/24 at 12:00 p.m., Resident #999 was observed ambulating with a rolling walker in the hallway unsupervised. She ambulated to the small seating room and declined to sit. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff C approached and explained to Resident #999 that she had a visitor who wanted to speak with her. Resident #999 made an angry face and said what do you want?. She was noted to have a mask like face with angry expressions. She was not able to recall any incidents of abuse toward her spouse or other residents. She became easily agitated when asked questions and walked away. On 2/29/24 at 1:15 p.m., an attempt was made to interview Resident #700. She did not respond appropriately to interview questions. She continues to reside on the same unit as Resident #999. On 2/29/24 at 2:20 p.m., in a telephone interview Resident #999's Primary Care Physician said she knew the resident had some behaviors prior to her admission but she was doing okay, All of a sudden, she began displaying aggression. I know psych was involved and they were adjusting her medications. I became more involved when the family requested to meet with me because they felt the psych medications she was on were not effective and they wanted to try medications she had used in the past. I said let's try it then because whatever they were trying was not working. On 2/29/24 at 3:05 p.m., in an interview Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Staff D said if Resident #999 was having behaviors, she would call for help if she could not calm her. She would offer her something to eat, take her to activities or talk with her. She said she had not seen her hit anyone but, She walks all the time. She can be mean; she yells at you and does not want you to touch her for care. On 2/29/24 at 4:22 p.m., in a telephone interview the Psychiatric APRN said she was initially asked to see Resident #999 for aggressive behavior. She had aggressive behavior, difficult to redirect and she was refusing care. She said,I don't think a skilled nursing facility is appropriate for her, she needs a psychiatric facility that can manage her behaviors and adjust her medications as needed. This is just my opinion. On 2/29/24 at 5:07 p.m., in an interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff C said they monitor Resident #999 by observation, charting, documentation, and report one shift to the next. She is unpredictable so I guide her and try to be positive with her, so she feels more comfortable. I give her lots of encouragement. I have not seen her physically aggressive but verbally yes. She refuses care, and you must approach her slow, and calm, she startles easily. I have seen her refuse care and refuse redirection. The new room change has been a challenge for her. She walks a lot, and she does not stay in her room. She wanders a lot and most of the time you can redirect her. For her safety and everyone involved with the recent room change we tried to ease her into it. Redirection is difficult sometimes. Observation is a big thing for her, you must know where she is at all times, I encourage activities. I have never seen her verbally aggressive with other residents. When she can't be redirected, we let her walk and calm down. We work as a team. We let her express herself in a safe manner. On 3/4/24 at 10:18 a.m., in an interview CNA Staff E, said she has observed Resident #999 be aggressive with other residents, She yells at them, curses at them and will throw things at them. She tries to pick a fight. On 3/4/24 at 10:45 a.m., in an interview Resident #800, said she remembered the incident with Resident #999. It was in the evening and the curtain was pulled between us. I was in bed and had just eaten. She came over to my side and she was angry, her face was mad and she told me you better not take anything of mine. She started to shake the bedside table and my dinner tray was still on it. She threw the whole thing at me, and the plate warmer fell at the foot of the bed. It was dome shaped. She picked it up and hit me with it, she did not throw it, she hit me. I was yelling and a CNA came in and then two more came in. My left eye was black, black as could be after that. On 3/4/24 at 12:22 p.m., in an interview the Medical Director said he was not the primary care physician for Resident #999 but has discussed the resident because, We have been discussing the risks, so she was always being discussed and managed. She has a psych history of her behaviors. Her primary care physician was not in agreement with psych medications, and he was in constant communication with the family and the facility was in constant communication. We felt this was not the facility for her, but the family wanted her to remain here. They did one to one care, she was not aggressive, so it was discontinued. She was deemed safe and not a danger to herself and others. The family wants the resident to remain here. The staff are constantly monitoring her. Her history of psych behaviors are aggression. Aggression with her own husband, she had hostile behavior with the husband. We are constantly monitoring but not doing one to one, that is what we have in place and monitoring her medications. She becomes more hostile when you try to do something with her. She did not want to be on one to one. The staff are always asking the roommate if there are any problems. I am not her doctor, but I know all about her. On 3/4/24 at 9:20 a.m., in an interview Resident #650, current roommate of Resident #999, said she makes me uneasy. She stands at the foot of my bed staring at me and cursing under her breath. I don't know her, but I know of her behaviors. She comes in and out of the room and walks to the foot of my bed, stares at me and curses. I have asked to see the Director of Nursing twice, but he has not come. I don't feel 100% safe, that's for sure. On 3/4/24 at 1:00 p.m., in an interview the Medical Director said, Resident #999 was not a threat to others. When informed of Resident #650's interview complaining about Resident #999 staring at her, cursing, and not feeling safe, the Medical Director said, Well, that's not threatening, she is just looking at her.
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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 report significant changes in behaviors to the appropriate state ag...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, and interview the facility failed to report significant changes in behaviors to the appropriate state agencies for a level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) for 1 (Resident #999) of 3 residents reviewed with newly diagnosed psychiatric disorder. The findings included: Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #999 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia and Major Depressive Disorder. A level I PASRR screen form dated 10/13/23 documented No diagnosis or suspicion of serious mental illness or intellectual disability indicated. Level II PASRR evaluation not required. On 11/1/23 at 12:02 p.m., the nurse's progress note documented Husband/family alerted this nurse to concerns of increased agitation and sadness/hopelessness. Resident assessed for suicidal ideation by 2 nurses, none noted, resident denied thoughts or plans. The physician was notified and ordered Citalopram (Antidepressant) 10 milligrams (mg) a day and a Psychiatric consult. Review of the Psychiatric APRN (Advanced Practice Registered Nurse) note dated 12/1/23 documented, Chief complaint . nursing also reports resident (#999) is having behaviors . Nursing reports resident is having behaviors of being verbally inappropriate, combative towards family and hard to redirect . Recommendation: Resident observed today walking around the unit, alert, confused, uncooperative, hard to redirect . Nurse reports resident is having behaviors to be in [sic] combative towards family, verbally inappropriate and hard to redirect. Resident is unstable. Symptoms are occurring due to exasperated mood disorder, the symptoms are occurring daily and causing severe distress . Psych (psychiatry) started Depakote sprinkles 250 mg (milligrams) by mouth twice daily diagnosis of mood disorder . Staff to continue to monitor and document behaviors . On 12/21/23 at 1:59 p.m., a nursing progress note documented, It was reported to this writer that the resident is showing increased aggression, cussing at fellow residents, throwing a cookie at a fellow resident. Notified MD, psych notified she will be in Friday. Will redirect resident. On 12/22/23 at 1:33 p.m., the progress note documented Resident #999 had Agitation and aggressive behaviors reported to psych Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP). On 12/22/23 at 1:46 p.m., the progress note documented, Resident had violent outburst wrapped a cord around her husband's throat and attempted to throw monitor at him, hit him in the face and pulled his hair. Yelled for help and nurses were able to intervene and separate. No violence toward any staff or any other resident noted. She did yell at her husband obscenities. The Psych ARNP was notified and new order for Seroquel 25 mg two times a day for 14 days, increase observation, and any other signs of violence notify primary immediately and send to emergency room (ER) for eval and treatment for altered mental status (AMS). On 12/23/23 the diagnosis list was updated to include adjustment disorder and dementia with behavioral disturbance. On 1/13/24 at 10:15 p.m., the progress note documented Residents #999 and #800 were in their room. Resident #999 started raising her voice stating that Resident #800 was not to be in her room, shouted get out. Resident #999 started throwing salt and sugar packets and individualized snack packets at Resident #800 saying while throwing things, this is my room. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) Staff A witnessed Resident #999 pick up a plastic plate cover and toss it at her roommate striking her in the head above left eye. CNA Staff A immediately called for the nurse. Resident #999 was assigned to 1-1 with a CNA and moved to another room. On 1/14/24 the diagnosis list was updated to include psychotic disorder. On 1/19/24 the Psychiatric ARNP documented Resident seen today per nursing request as resident had behaviors of being aggressive including a recent incident with her previous roommate. Pt alert with confusion, noted agitation, flat mood, and affect, uncooperative at times during interview. On 2/6/24 the Psychiatric ARNP documented Resident #999 reportedly made a comment that her roommate was noisy, and she was going to slit her throat if she was not more quiet. On 2/6/24 Unit Manager Registered Nurse Staff B documented, Resident recent aggressive behaviors and statements demonstrate possible further aggressive events, MD, Psychology, husband, sister, and management notified. Resident will remain in a room without a roommate for safety and possible placement at another facility to better suit her needs. On 2/29/24 at 9:45 a.m., in an interview the Administrator said Resident #999 came to us without a psychiatric background and only dementia as a diagnosis. Resident #999's first roommate Resident #800 was hit in the head with a plate/tray. We removed Resident #800. Resident #999 stayed in the 2-person room alone for several weeks, but we could not keep her in a double room alone forever. Resident #999 was placed in a room with Resident #700. Resident #999 said she was going to slit her new roommate's throat and made racial slurs to her and her family who were visiting. The Administrator said resident #999 was very distant, easily upset and on one occasion she attempted to strangle her spouse with a cord, we had to get staff to get her off of him and still she is here. Right now, Resident #999 is in a room with a friend, another resident who is alert and oriented and kind of looks out for her and can handle her. They agreed to be roommates. On 2/29/24 at 11:15 a.m., in an interview RN Staff B said Resident #999 had memory problems and behavior issues. During a care plan meeting she had threatened to Jump out of the window. She is very territorial. One day her family member brought in candy for her to share with her friends at the dining room table and when the other ladies asked for a piece of candy, she threw the candy at them. She is very negative and aggressive. On 2/29/24 at 4:22 p.m., in a phone interview the Psych ARNP said she was initially asked to see Resident #999 for aggressive behavior. She had aggressive behavior, difficult to redirect and she was refusing care. I don't think a skilled nursing facility is appropriate for her, she needs a psychiatric facility that can manage her behaviors and adjust her medications as needed. This is just my opinion. On 3/4/24 at 9:20 a.m., in an interview Resident #650, current roommate of Resident #999, said she makes me uneasy. She stands at the foot of my bed staring at me and cursing under her breath. I don't know her, but I know of her behaviors. She comes in and out of the room and walks to the foot of my bed, stares at me and curses. I have asked to see the Director of Nursing twice, but he has not come. I don't feel 100% safe, that's for sure. On 2/29/24 at 5:45 p.m., a record review revealed a level II PASRR was not completed. In an interview, the Administrator said a Level II screening was not completed because she did not know a Level II screen was necessary.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure clinical records contained complete and accurate docume...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to ensure clinical records contained complete and accurate documentation of care provided for 2 (Residents #1 and #3) of 3 residents reviewed for accuracy of clinical records. The findings included: 1. Review of the clinical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/2/23 noted the resident's cognition was severely impaired with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 00. The MDS noted Resident #1 was severely cognitively impaired with a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 0. Resident #1 used a manual wheelchair for mobility, was frequently incontinent of urine and always incontinent of bowel. The current physician orders included to assist the resident with all meals. No assistance with meals was documented in the clinical record on 1/3/24, 1/7/24, 1/16/24, 1/17/24, 1/21/24 or 1/24/24. The physician's orders also included to encourage and assist resident with turning and repositioning when in bed and as needed for skin care. No assistance with turning and repositioning was documented for the day shift from 7:00 a.m., to 3:00 p.m., on 1/3/24, 1/7/24, 1/16/24, 1/17/24 or 1/21/24. No assistance with turning and repositioning was documented for the evening shift from 3:00 p.m., to 11:00 p.m., on 1/17/24, 1/21/24 or 1/24/24. No assistance with turning and repositioning was documented for the night shift from 11:00 p.m., to 7:00 a.m., on 1/6/24 or 1/20/24. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) task form did not reflect Turning and Repositioning was done on Day shift from 1/2/24 through 1/8/23, 1/11/24, 1/14/24 through 1/19/24, 1/21/24 through 1/25/24. The Certified Nursing Assistant task form did not reflect turning and Repositioning was done on the evening shift on 1/2/24, 1/4/24, 1/7/24, 1/8/24, 1/11/24 through 1/18/24, 1/22/24 through 1/24/24. The Certified Nursing Assistant task form did not reflect turning and Repositioning was done on the evening shift on 1/2/24, 1/3/24, 1/5/24, 1/7/24, 1/11/24 through 1/13/24, 1/18/24 through 1/24/24. The Certified Nursing Assistant task form did not reflect documentation of breakfast eaten on 1/3/24 through 1/7/24, 1/11/24, 1/16/24, 1/17/24, 1/18/24, 1/20/24 through 1/23/24. The Certified Nursing Assistant task form did not reflect documentation of lunch eaten on 1/1/24, 1/3/24, 1/4/24, 1/5/24 through 1/8/24, 1/11/24, 1/14/24, 1/16/24, 1/17/24, 1/18/24, 1/20/24 through 1/24/24. The Certified Nursing Assistant task form did not reflect documentation of dinner eaten on 1/4/24, 1/7/24, 1/8/24, 1/11/24, 1/12/24, 1/16/24 through 1/18/24, 1/22/24 through 1/24/24. 2. Clinical record review showed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. admission diagnoses listed on the resident face sheet included fracture of left femur, spinal stenosis, fibromyalgia, and repeated falls. The current physician's orders included: Turn and reposition when in bed and as needed. Weigh resident daily for three days, weekly for four weeks, and monthly effective 1/7/24. The clinical record contained one weight obtained on 1/7/24. No other weight was documented. The care plan noted Resident #3 was at risk for skin impairment related to fragile skin, weakness, decreased mobility, incontinence, and risk for malnutrition. The interventions include to encourage and assist the resident to turn and reposition as tolerated. The CNA [NAME] (provides instructions for care) noted to encourage and assist resident to turn and reposition as tolerated, turning and repositioning. The clinical record lacked documentation of turning and repositioning for Resident #3 on: 1/16/24, 1/17/24, 1/21/24 and 1/29/24 for the day shift, 1/9/24, 1/17/24, 1/21/24,1/24/24 for the evening shift, 1/20/24 for the night shift. On 1/31/24 at 2:33 p.m., CNA Staff A said the care provided should be documented and if a resident refuses care, the nurse should be notified. On 1/31/24 at 2:45 p.m., CNA staff B said the residents are checked every two hours and the care provided should be charted at least twice during the shift. On 1/31/24 at 5:03 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff C said CNAs should check all of their residents every two hours and document in the electronic health record. On 1/31/24 at 5:10 p.m., CNA Staff D said she makes rounds every two hours and documents every two hours on the computer. She said all meals are also documented on the computer. On 2/1/24 at 6:40 a.m., CNA staff F said, We are supposed to check and change our residents every two hours, and document within the hour if possible but by definitely by the end of the shift. On 2/1/24 at 11:57 a.m., CNA staff I said everyone has to be turned, and repositioned. Weights are ordered by the physician and everything is documented in PCC (electronic health record). On 2/1/24 at 12:15 p.m., in an interview the Director of nursing (DON) verified the documentation of the care provided was incomplete for Residents #1 and #3. She also verified the lack of documentation Resident #3's weight was obtained as ordered. On 2/1/24 at 2:10 p.m., in an interview the Regional Nurse Consultant said documentation was a challenge with CNAs and agency staff, and physicians orders should be followed.
Aug 2022 16 deficiencies 3 IJ (3 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility's policy and procedure, staff, and resident interview the facility failed to implement a systemic approach to identify risk factors and implement appropriate interventions to prevent avoidable fall related serious injuries for 5 (Resident #20, #85, #193, #392, and #292) and 2 (Resident #27, and #192) with multiple falls, of 10 residents sampled with falls or fall related injuries. Resident #20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was dependent on staff for repositioning. On 1/22/22 the resident rolled out of bed during care and sustained a nasal bone fracture. Resident #85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was assessed to be at risk for falls. On 2/5/22 and 5/14/22 the resident sustained a fall resulting respectively in a fractured hip and wrist and acute head injury. Resident #193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after a fall, and repair of right hip fracture. On 1/10/22 the resident sustained a fall resulting in a dislocation of the right hip prosthesis. Resident #292 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was assessed to be at risk for falls. On 6/11/22 the resident was sent to an acute care hospital after he was found on the floor with a head wound actively bleeding, requiring staples. Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #27 was assessed to be at risk for falls. Resident #27 sustained 12 unwitnessed falls from 2/9/22 through 5/23/22. Resident #192 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a history of falls with injury. Resident #192 sustained eight unwitnessed falls, including four falls on 5/31/22. The facility's failure to implement systemic interventions to prevent avoidable falls and fall related serious injuries resulted in noncompliance at the Immediate Jeopardy level starting on 4/20/22. On 7/30/22 at 6:29 p.m., the Administrator was informed of the determination of ongoing Immediate Jeopardy and provided the Immediate Jeopardy templates. The findings included: Cross reference: F835 and F867. The facility's fall policy revised 2/18/22 noted the facility, perform a post fall assessment to determine the root cause of the fall. Gather assessment data from the patient, staff members, and any witnesses to the fall. Review the events that proceeded the fall and contributing factors. After a fall, complete a detailed incident report to help track the frequency of the patient's fall so that the facility can implement prevention measures with high-risk patients. 1. On 7/24/22 at 2:54 p.m., Review of the clinical record for Resident #85 showed an admission date of 10/29/20 with diagnoses of End Stage Renal Disease, and anemia. Upon admission, Resident #85 was assessed to be at risk for falls and a care plan developed. The care plan for falls initiated on 10/31/20 noted the resident was at risk for falls due to history of falls, impaired balance, poor coordination, and unsteady gait. The goal was to minimize risk for falls. The interventions included to encourage to transfer and change positions slowly, have commonly used articles within easy reach, provide assistance to transfer, reinforce, re-educate and remind patient of the need to call for assistance and use call light. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a target date of 11/17/21 noted Resident #85 was cognitively intact. The discharge from therapy MDS with an assessment reference date of 11/26/21 noted Resident #85 required supervision or touching assistance (Helper provides verbal cues or touching/steadying assistance) for walking as resident completes activity. The progress note dated 1/28/22 at 11:36 a.m., noted, Staff reports that resident states that while reaching for a stuffed animal resident sat herself on the floor . The note did not describe the location of the fall. Review of the incident report created on 2/1/22 (4 days after the fall) at 11:18 a.m., showed on 1/28/22 at 11:00 a.m., Staff reports that resident states that she was reaching for a stuffed animal and sat herself on the floor. The investigation report did not contain any witness statements, or a review of the events that proceeded the fall and contributing factors. The incident investigation did not document if the fall interventions were in place at the time of the incident or interventions implemented to prevent recurrence. The progress note dated 2/5/22 at 4:19 p.m., noted, CNA went into residents [sic] room and noted that she was lying on the floor in front of the foot of the bed. When nurse went in she was sitting on her buttocks with knees slightly bent, on the floor at the foot of her bed . The nurse documented she assisted the resident to a standing position. Resident #85 could barely bear any weight on her left leg and complained of pain. The resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. The incident and investigation report dated 2/5/22 at 3:57 p.m. did not document people interviewed during the investigation, a timeline of critical events, actions taken during the investigation, or a conclusion. The hospital record dated 2/5/22 noted Resident #85 said she came out of her room to walk down the hallway to check on someone who sounds like they were crying, she tripped and fell, she could not bear weight afterwards, and she hit her head. The resident was diagnosed with a left femoral neck fracture (part of the thigh bone), left wrist fracture, left facial abrasion and contusion. Resident #85 returned to the facility on 2/9/22. Resident #85 received Physical, and Occupational Therapy. The care plan was not updated to include preventive measures to prevent recurrence of falls. The progress note dated 3/28/22 at 10:18 a.m., noted, Resident with a fall on 3/26/22. IDT (Interdisciplinary team) reviewed fall care plan and risk factors with interventions added. The incident report created on 3/28/22 at 8:36 a.m., (Two days after the fall) noted Date of incident: 3/26/22 2:00 PM. The housekeeper notified the nurse someone is on the floor. The writer observed the resident sitting on the floor in front of her wheelchair. On 3/28/22 at 10:55 a.m., the nurse documented, She [Resident #85] is able to tell the nurse she fell and how it happened. The note did not document the content of the interview with the resident. On 3/28/22 the care plan was updated to Provide resident with rest periods after meals/throughout the day as needed/desired. The investigative report dated 3/28/22 (two days after the fall of 3/26/22) was incomplete and did not document the content of the interview with the resident to determine the root cause of the incident and ensure the interventions listed on the care plan were appropriate to prevent recurrence of avoidable falls and fall related serious injuries. On 3/31/22 at 9:59 a.m. a progress note documented, Resident with a fall on 3/30/22. IDT reviewed fall care plan and risk factors with intervention added. The incident report created on 3/31/22 at 9:35 a.m. noted, Date of incident 3/30/22 at 12:00 p.m. Resident was observed sitting on floor in front of wheelchair. Resident stated she was attempting to get up on her own. Call light within reach and not activated, gripper socks [anti-skid socks] in place. Wheelchair locks engaged and bed in low position. On 3/31/22 the care plan was updated to assist and encourage resident to have her lunch meal in the Dining Room. The investigation report was not completed. It did not include a root cause analysis to determine if the intervention added to the care plan was appropriate to prevent further avoidable falls. On 5/14/22 at 10:20 a.m., an incident report noted Resident #85 was observed on the floor laying on her right side in front of the wheelchair and the air conditioner. The resident was awake and alert and stated, I slid off the w/c (wheelchair). The investigation report was not completed. The resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation and returned with a diagnosis of acute head injury. The care plan was updated on 5/16/22 (two days after the fall with serious injury) to include a Dycem (anti slip material) to the wheelchair seat. On 7/26/22 at 2:23 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said it is the facility process to complete a fall investigation. The ADON said Resident # 85 was independent prior to her fall of 2/5/22 and has not been able to ambulate on her own since sustaining those injuries. On 7/26/22 at 4:06 p.m., the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Registered Nurse Staff D said that prior to fall of 2/5/22, Resident #85 required supervision to independence with all functional status. As of last MDS assessment completed on 7/1/22, the resident has declined and requires extensive assistant with all functional mobility and is no longer ambulatory. RN Staff D said despite therapy, Resident #85 has not regained her prior level of function. On 7/26/22 at 2:54 p.m., the Rehabilitation Director said Resident #85 received therapy after her fall with major injuries on 2/5/22. The resident was discharged from therapy on 7/1/22 at a maximum assist to dependent with some functions. 2. Resident #292 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission MDS assessment with a target date of 6/16/22 noted the resident had severe cognitive impairment. Resident #292 required extensive physical assistance of one person for bed mobility and extensive assistance of two persons for transfer (how resident moves to or from bed, chair, wheelchair, standing position). The diagnoses included traumatic brain injury. The resident's vision was highly impaired and did not wear corrective lenses. The care plan created on 6/13/22 noted the resident was at risk for falls due to a history of falls, recent falls with head injury, poor safety awareness, new environment, and weakness. On 6/11/22 the facility noted in an incident report, Resident observed lying on the floor with a head wound actively bleeding. He had been placed in w/c [wheelchair] 5 min (minutes) prior d/t (due to) climbing OOB (Out of bed). Resident #292 was sent out to the hospital and returned on 6/13/22 with staples to his head and a diagnosis of unspecified falls. The care plan updated on 6/13/22 noted to, assist with and encourage use of non-skid footwear, non-skid socks in and out of bed. The investigation report was not completed. It did not include a root cause analysis to determine if the intervention added to the care plan was appropriate to prevent further avoidable falls. On 6/14/22 at 12:40 p.m., the facility noted in an incident report, Pt [patient] fell next to bathroom door ambulating without assistive device. The nurse completing the incident report noted the resident sustained a skin tear to the right hand. The care plan was updated on 6/14/22 to assist the resident with toileting and/or provide incontinence care upon rising, before/after meals, at bedtime and as needed. One on one care/observation with staff as needed/indicated. The investigation report for the fall of 6/14/22 was not completed. It did not include an investigation, conclusion to determine the root cause of the incident to ensure the interventions were appropriate to prevent further avoidable falls. On 7/29/22 at 3:00 p.m., the Administrator and the Director of Nursing (DON) said the interdisciplinary team IDT reviewed the falls every morning and afternoon, Mondays through Fridays through the Eagle Room process. The Eagle Room process consists of a check list to ensure the following areas were completed after a fall: Neurological checks, Medication review, Notification of MD and family, electronic incident report, Investigation complete, reportable, fall evaluation completed, Pain evaluation completed, Referral or new intervention, Calcium and Vitamin D protocol, root cause (IDT) management document, care plan and task list (updated). The DON could not provide additional information indicating an investigation to determine root cause of the falls. 6. On 7/24/22 at 10:33 a.m., Resident # 20 said she was rolled out of bed by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who was changing her. She said she told the CNA she was too close to the edge of the bed, but the CNA did it anyway. Resident #20 said she fell off the edge of the bed and landed face down on the floor. Resident #20 said she sustained a broken nose from the fall. Review of the MDS with the ARD of 1/21/22 indicated Resident #20 required the assistance of 2 staff when she fell out of bed on 1/22/22 while being assisted by one CNA. Review of the care plans for Resident #20 revealed the intervention requiring 2 staff at all times for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) which includes toileting needs, was not updated until 2/17/22. Review of the progress notes for Resident #20 revealed a progress note on 1/22/2022 indicating resident #20 had a fall at the facility and transported by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the hospital. The hospital discharge records dated 1/23/22 indicated Resident #20's nose was fractured at the facility where she fell out of bed. The incident report dated 1/22/22 for Resident #20's fall included witness statements from five CNAs who were not in the room at the time of the incident and one CNA in the room assisting the resident. On 7/27/22 at 3:56 p.m., the MDS coordinator responsible for assessing Resident #20 verified the 7-day look back for the MDS with assessment reference date of 1/21/22 indicated Resident #20 required two staff for bed mobility and toileting. On 7/26/22 at 4:09 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed there was only one CNA in the room helping Resident #20 at the time she fell. He said he provided training two days later on 1/24/22. The DON said if the staff were in the facility on that day he provided the training, he would have trained them however, it was not mandatory. Review of the staff training revealed only one CNA who was present when Resident #20 fell received the training. On 7/28/22 at 11:03 a.m., Resident #20 said staff continue to help her using only one staff. Resident #20 said last week one CNA changed her in bed. The CNA told Resident #20 someone would come to assist, but the other CNA never showed up. Resident #20 said the CNA started and completed the toileting task by herself. Review of the CNA toileting documentation for Resident #20 from 6/30/22 through 7/29/22 indicated Resident #20 was toileted by staff 66 times. Twenty-three times out of 66 times Resident #20 was toileted by one person. Review of the grievances revealed Resident #20 complained on 5/19/22 staff can never find two CNAs to help with her care and has to wait. The DON's documented response to the resident was there may be a short wait time due to staff caring for other residents. The resolution of concern was discussed needs and expectations. Will provide education to staff on communication with residents on wait times. The DON unable to produce training documentation. On 7/29/22 at 4:26 p.m., the DON said he does not monitor how many staff assist resident #20 with Bed Mobility and Toileting. He said he is only checking for the red and green marks. 7. Review of the medical record revealed Resident #392 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 5:30 p.m. She was [AGE] years old, and her BIMS score was 7, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Her diagnoses included pneumonia, fracture, and dementia. Resident #392 had a peripherally inserted central catheter at the time of admission for intravenous antibiotics. Her medication orders included an antipsychotic, Quetiapine Fumarate 25mg, at bedtime. Resident #392 required extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers from bed to wheelchair, from bed to standing, and for toileting needs. Review of the nursing progress notes for Resident #392 revealed a late entry on 5/19/22 at 3:52 a.m. indicating Resident #392 had a fall prior to admission. Resident #392 was quoted to say, When I fall, I fall real good. Review of the progress notes revealed a second progress note on 5/19/22 at 4:02 a.m. indicating Resident #392 fell in her room at the facility. She was found on the floor, sustained a bump to the back of the head, and was transported to the hospital. Review of the Fall Care Plan for Resident #392 revealed interventions: Use of non-skid footwear, bed in low position, encourage slow transfer, commonly used articles within easy reach, provide assist to transfer and ambulate as needed, and reinforce need to call for assistance. The care plan did not include specific resident-centered interventions to minimize the risk of falls for Resident #392. Review of the facility Incident Report for Resident #392's fall listed the incident date and time as 5/19/22 at 10:49 a.m. The time resident was taken to the hospital was the same. The dates contradicted the hospital records, which revealed Resident #392 was admitted on [DATE] at 4:33 a.m. and discharged on 5/19/22 at 8:09 a.m. Review of the Investigation Report for #392's fall included a blank investigation report (3 pages) and blank witness statement (2 pages). Review of the progress note dated 5/19/22 at 2:18 p.m. indicated Resident #392's risk factors for falls were discussed with the Inter-Disciplinary Team and (Care Plan) interventions added. On 7/28/22 at 9:09 a.m., the DON said resident falls are discussed daily in the Eagle Room Morning Meetings. The DON provided the Eagle Room [NAME] Paper (HCR-MC-0200_F Date: 02/2019) with Resident #392 listed in the bottom 3rd of the paper. The DON could not provide additional information indicating an investigation to determine root cause of the fall was determined with actions the facility would take to prevent another fall for the resident. There were no witness statements from Resident #392, the staff, or staff training. 4. Clinical record review showed Resident #193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] following a fall and fracture requiring right hip surgery. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a target date of 1/13/22 noted Resident #193 scored 13 on the brief interview for mental status indicative of intact cognition. Resident #193 required extensive physical assistance of one person for bed mobility, transfer, and walking. The care plan initiated on 1/7/22 noted Resident #193 was at risk for falls due to weakness, recent fall with fractures. The goal was to minimize the risk for falls. The interventions included to have commonly used articles within reach, provide assistance for transfer and ambulation as needed, reinforce the need to call for assistance. A care plan progress note dated 1/11/22 documented Resident #193 sustained a fall on 1/10/22. The interdisciplinary team reviewed the fall care plan and risk factors with interventions added. The incident report created on 1/11/22 noted Resident #193 sustained a fall on 1/10/22 at 10:21 p.m., Resident noted on floor, laying on right side, on her back. Right leg bent behind her and complaining of pain 10 (A pain score of 10 on a numerical pain scale from 0 to 10 indicates the worse possible pain). Resident #193 was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. The incident report showed no documentation of an investigation date, no documents reviewed, people interviewed, timeline of critical events, or actions taken during or after the investigation. A fall assessment dated [DATE] at 9:10 p.m. showed Resident #193 had difficulty maintaining a standing position and had impaired balance. The fall assessment showed Resident #193 had joint pain and cognitive impairment. The fall assessments showed no environmental factors to the fall. The form showed a care plan was initiated or revised. There was no additional comments or observations documented on the form. A progress note dated 1/11/22 at 4:43 a.m. showed Resident #193 returned from the hospital with a dislocated right hip prosthesis. On 1/11/22 the Care Plan was updated for the resident to be encouraged to wear nonskid footwear and non-skid socks in and out of bed, and for the bed to be in a low position. There was no documentation as to why these interventions were put in place. On 7/27/22 at 4:29 p.m., the DON verified Resident #193 was interviewable. The DON said since there was no documentation of attempts to interview Resident #193 regarding the cause of the fall, he would not be able to determine the cause of the fall. 5. Resident #192 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with history of falls with injury. The admission MDS with a target date of 4/16/22 showed Resident #192's cognition was impaired. The resident required extensive physical assistance of two persons for bed mobility and transfers. A care plan initiated on 4/10/22 showed Resident #192 was a fall risk due to recent falls with fractures and surgery, weakness, cognitive impairment, and poor safety awareness. Review of incident report dated 4/29/22 at 11:10 a.m. for Resident #192 showed on 4/27/22 at 2:15 a.m., the nurse documented she was called to the resident's room by the Certified Nursing Assistant. The resident was observed lying on the floor besides the bed on the left side. The nurse documented she reminded the resident to use the call light and not get up unassisted. The fall evaluation dated 4/27/22 at 2:15 a.m., noted Resident #192 had impaired balance during transition, had impulsivity or poor safety awareness. The care plan for falls was updated to include to assist and encourage use of non-skid footwear, non-skid socks in and out of bed, bed in low position. There was no investigation to determine the root cause of the incident to ensure the interventions were appropriate to prevent further avoidable falls. Review of the incident report dated 5/3/22 showed on 5/3/22 at 11:10 a.m., Resident #192 was observed lying on the floor beside the bed. Bed was low to the floor upon discovery. The resident complained of severe back pain. The resident was sent out to the hospital via emergency medical services. The change in condition progress note dated 5/3/22 noted the resident returned from the hospital. A progress note created on 5/3/22 at 8:28 a.m. shows the MDS Coordinator documented Resident #192 returned from the hospital and that she would be monitored for a significant change for 14 days. The care plan was updated on 5/4/22 to include assist and encourage to be up in chair and ready for breakfast. There was no investigation to determine the root cause of the incident to ensure the interventions were appropriate to prevent further avoidable falls. On 5/16/22 after a fall the care plan was updated to implement use of preventative device: Bed pillows to help resident recognize edge of bed. Review of the incident report created on 5/31/22 showed on 5/30/22 at 11:30 p.m., the resident was found, sitting on floor. Unwitnessed fall. There was no documented investigation to determine the root cause of the incident. There was no documentation if the previous fall interventions were in place at the time of the fall. Review of the incident report dated 5/31/22 showed on 5/31/22 at 8:30 a.m., Resident #192 was observed on the floor besides her wheelchair in the café. She stated she was looking for her ID and slid out of her chair. There was no immediate intervention to prevent the resident from sliding out of her wheelchair. On 5/31/22 an incident report documented on 5/31/22 at 11:30 a.m., the resident was observed sitting on the floor beside her bed. She continues to report that she slid out of bed looking for her ID. There was no documentation if the previous interventions to prevent the resident from rolling out of bed were in place. There was no immediate intervention to prevent recurrence. On 5/31/22 at 3:30 p.m., an incident report documented Resident #192 was observed sitting on the floor between her wheelchair and over bed table. She slid out of the chair trying to pick up a puzzle piece. There was no investigation or immediate intervention to prevent recurrence. On 5/31/22 at 4:17 p.m., an incident report documented, Resident observed sitting on the floor beside her bed. She continues to report that she sled [sic] out of bed looking for her ID. There was no investigation or immediate interventions documented to prevent further avoidable falls and potential fall related injuries. All incident reports showed no investigation, and no actions taken for the resident's falls, no documented root cause of each incident. The resident was assessed for falls on 4/27/22, 5/14/22, and twice on 5/30/22. The four fall assessments completed by the facility show Resident #192 had an impaired balance. Resident #192 was taking cardiac medications, and narcotic analgesics. 3. On 7/28/22 review of Resident #27's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission assessment dated [DATE] assessed Resident #27 to have a BIMS score of 11, a score between 8 to 12 means a person was assessed with moderately impaired cognition for daily decision making. Resident #27 admitting diagnoses included anxiety disorder, unspecified cerebral infarction, cognitive communication deficit, and a history of repeated falls. Further review of Resident #27's medical record revealed a fall care plan created on 2/4/2022 stating Resident #27 was at risk for falls due to weakness, confusion, poor safety awareness, resident placed himself on the floor and would slide out of bed and chair. The facility's goal for falls is the facility would minimize the risk of injury related to falls and decrease the number of falls, with a target date of 9/03/2022. The fall care plan interventions stated they would assist and encourage the resident to be up and out of bed and room daily for supervised activities and dining (4/25/2022), assist Resident #27 with toileting, and/or provide incontinence care upon rising, before/after meals and bedtime (3/11/2022), assist with and encourage the use of non-skid footwear (4/20/2022), bed in low position (2/14/2022), Dycem/anti-slip material to wheelchair seat (2/14/2022), encourage resident to be up in chair daily for breakfast (2/28/2022), encourage resident to attend supervised activity (4/08/2022), encourage to transfer and change position slowly (2/17/2022), follow-up with psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (NP) post 4/16/22 fall (4/18/2022), have commonly used articles within easy reach (2/04/2022), implement use of preventative devices for falls (5/24/2022), medication review with physician, NP and pharmacy consultant (4/18/22), monitor positioning while in bed to ensure safety and reposition as needed in bed (5/06/2022), provide assist to transfer and ambulate as needed (2/04/2022), provide stuffed animal while up in wheelchair and in bed for comfort and happiness (4/01/2022), psychiatric service consult related to sliding out of bed and chair behaviors (2/17/2022), reinforce need to call for assistance (2/04/2022), reinforce wheelchair safety as needed (2/27/2022), and the use of a STOP sign to help prompt/cue Resident #27 to call for assistance related to frequent falls (3/07/2022). A review of Resident #27's Incident Report and Investigation Report forms revealed Resident #27 from his admission on [DATE] to 5/23/22 had 12 unwitnessed falls with no major injury. The incident Report created on 2/9/2022 stated Resident #27 was sitting on the floor in front of his wheelchair during lunchtime on 2/09/2022 at 1:00 p.m. with no injuries. The incident and investigation report dated 2/09/2022 said they took his vital signs, did a full assessment, and started neurological (neuro) checks. The incident and investigation report dated 2/09/2022 did not document the facility staff they interviewed during the investigation, timeline of critical events, actions taken during the investigation, or conclusion of their investigation. The incident Report created on 2/11/2022 stated Resident #27 was observed on the floor next to his bed on 2/10/2022 at 11:30 p.m. with no injuries. The incident and investigation report dated 2/11/2022 said they put Resident #17 back to bed, took his vital signs, and started neuro checks. The incident and investigation form did not document the name of the staff interviewed during the investigation, timeline of critical events, actions taken during the investigation, or conclusion of their investigation. The incident Report created on 2/16/2022 stated Resident #27 was observed next to his bed on 2/16/2022 at 6:15 p.m. with no injuries. The incident report stated Resident #27 told the nurse he rolled out of bed. The incident report investigation stated resident was wearing his non-skid socks, the bed was in a low position, the bedside table with fluid was in reach of Resident #27, and Resident #27 was last seen by nursing staff at 5:45 p.m. The incident and investigation report dated 2/16/2022 did not document the name of the staff interviewed during the investigation, the timeline of critical events, and the conclusion of their investigation. The incident report created on 2/23/2022 stated Resident #27 was observed on the floor next to his bed on 2/23/2022 at 6:32 a.m. with his pillow and blanket, with no injuries. The investigation revealed Resident #27's nurse said Resident #27 had yelled out multiple times during the shift, and when the nurse went into his room the resident was on the floor with his pillow and blanket covering him. Resident #27 told the nurse he placed himself on the floor. The investigation said the nurse did neuro checks, a full assessment, vital signs, and assisted the resident back into bed. The incident and investigation report dated 2/23/2022 did not document the name of the staff interviewed during the investigation, and the conclusion of their investigation. The incident report created on 2/27/2022 stated Resident #27 was observed on the floor next to his bed on 2/27/2022 at 5:45 a.m., with no injuries. The investigation stated Resident #27's nurse said they observed Resident #27 was on the floor next to his bed without injuries. She assisted Resident #27 back to bed, did a full assessment, and started five minutes neuro checks. She further said she had seen Resident #27 five minutes earlier in his bed resting quietly at 5:40 a.m. The incident and investigation report dated 2/27/2022 did not document the name of the staff interviewed during the investigation, and the conclusion of their investigation. The incident report created on 3/05/2022 stated Resident #27 was observed on the floor next to his bed on 3/05/2022 at 10:00 a.m., with no injuries. The investigation revealed Resident #27's nurse said she was notified by Resident #27's certified nursing assistant he was on the floor next to his bed without injuries. The resident was unable to state what happened but said he was not in pain. The nurse did a set of vital signs, initiated neuro checks, and put Resident #27 back to bed. The incident and investigation form did not document the staff interviewed during the investigation, the timeline of critical events, or the conclusion of their investigation. The incident report created on 3/10/2022 stated Resident #27 was observed on the floor during hourly rounds next to his bed on 3/10/2022 at 8:30 p.m., with no injuries. The investigation revealed Resident #27's certified nursing assistant said during her hourly rounds she found Resident #27 on the ground. Resident #27's nurse said they assisted Resident #27 back to bed, initiated neuro checks, started vital signs, and gave Resident #27 Tylenol for generalized pain. The investigation revealed Resident #27 had non-skid socks on, his call light was in reach, and the bedside table with fluids was in reach. The incident report said Resident #27 was unable to state what [TRUNCATED]
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff, and resident interview the facility administration failed to use its resources effectively to ensure consistent and ongoing implementation of effective measures to prevent avoidable falls and fall related injuries. Resident #193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after a fall, and repair of right hip fracture. On 1/10/22 the resident sustained a fall resulting in dislocation of the right hip prosthesis. On 1/22/22 Resident #20 sustained a nasal bone fracture when she was improperly turned in bed and fell. Resident #85 sustained multiple falls at the facility on 1/28/22, 2/5/22, 3/26/22, 3/30/22 and 5/14/22. On 2/5/22 Resident #85 was diagnosed with a left femoral neck, and left wrist fracture, left facial abrasion and contusion. On 5/14/22 Resident #85 was sent to the hospital after the fall and diagnosed with an acute head injury. On 2/20/22 the facility developed a performance improvement plan to address the increase in falls and fall related injuries. The facility administration failed to ensure implementation, and monitoring of the approaches in the performance improvement plan to minimize the risk of falls and fall related injuries. The failure of the facility's administration to implement and monitor effective fall preventive measures resulted in noncompliance at the Immediate Jeopardy level starting on 4/20/22. The Administrator was informed to the determination of ongoing Immediate Jeopardy on 7/30/22 at 6:29 p.m. and provided the Immediate Jeopardy templates. The findings included: Cross reference to F689 and F867. Review of the Administrator's job description signed on 5/10/19 revealed the Administrator, . Manages all business-related activity the HCR (Health Care and Retirement Corporation) Manorcare vision and supporting strategies and assures that . high-quality provider of health services is maintained . follows established safety policies and procedures. Ensures potential safety/health hazards are eliminated . Directs the staff to provide high quality in daily care which meets/exceeds all internal/external standards. The Director of Nursing Job Description signed on 6/21/21 showed the Director of Nursing is responsible to, . Follow established safety policies and procedures . Communicates care delivery trends, issues and opportunities to administration, medical director, and the quality assurance committee. Anticipates customer's needs and works to minimize potential problems. Establishes and manages goals and objects for the nursing department through analysis and strategic planning consistent with the company's mission. Promotes nursing process and critical thinking in nursing care delivery . Participates in clinical risk identification, strategy planning, and risk reduction. Ensures and evaluates systems to plan, promote, develop, assess, interpret, validate, and evaluated the implementation of clinical programs, policies and procedures and forms. Ensures personnel are adequately educated to care for acute events, chronic illnesses of the frail elderly, cognitive impairment, end of life . The facility's incident log showed a total of 157 falls from January 1,2022 through July 22, 2022. Review of a sample of 10 residents with falls and fall related serious injuries revealed four residents sustained serious injuries (broken bones) and one resident sustained a head laceration. Two residents sustained multiple falls without documentation of an investigation to prevent reoccurrence. Review of the Performance Improvement Project (PIP) titled Falls Management dated 2/2/22 noted the overall goal of the improvement project was to reduce the trends of falls and falls with major injury. The target end date was April 20, 2022. The summary of the findings of the root cause analysis noted a Knowledge deficit related to the process steps for identification of resident falls risks, interventions and systems to minimize fall risks while promoting quality of care. The measures included: 1 The facility will identify a subcommittee related to falls management reduction. The team consisted of two nurses, one therapist, two CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) and one leadership team member preference would be Activities Director. The committee will be tasked to review all current residents who have had more than three falls in 90 days or one major fall with injury. Discuss for each: Any with possible sleep deprivation/up frequently during night/awake most of the night. On February 28, 2022, the DON documented increased rounding/observation education provide to all nursing staff with refresher on fall, documentation, interventions and preventions. On March 18, 2022, the DON documented Ongoing review during Eagle Room standup and stand-down. Falls decreased and interventions in place. Monitoring of results of interventions completed. On March 29, 2022, the DON documented Medication review and causes associated with recent falls and correlation of effectiveness of interventions since PIP initiation. The result of the intervention was documented as In progress. 2 The Administrator/Designee will educate the interdisciplinary team and set expectations for the review of falls during Eagle Room and the completion of the Eagle Room QA (Quality Assurance) tool. On 2/28/2022, the DON documented education provided on fall interventions and preventions with implementation of increased rounding and monitoring by all nursing staff. On 3/29/22 the DON documented ongoing reminders and plan for fall documentation review. New falls added to monitoring list for IDT review of causes and preventions. The result of the intervention was documented as Successful. 3 The DON/Designee will educate CNAs and licensed nurses on post fall process review utilizing the FYI (For Your Information) post fall evaluation. On 2/28/22 the DON documented education provided to all nursing staff at mandatory meeting/education on 2/23, 2/24 and 2/25. On 3/18/22 the DON documented reminders to all staff based on situation and likelihood of falls or recurrent falls. Staff continue to monitor and implement fall preventions and interventions. On 3/29/22 the DON documented ongoing education and re-evaluation of fall risks including new admissions. Early prevention and rounding remain priority. The result of the intervention was documented as Successful. 4. The DON/Designee will educate licensed nurses on initial evaluation of residents past history or experiences of falls. Completing the admission/readmission screen with accuracy. On 3/18/22 the DON documented ongoing education and re-evaluation of fall risks including new admissions. Early prevention and rounding remain priority. The result of the intervention was Successful. The DON/Designee will educate licensed nurses on completing incident reports timely (Incident reports will be in incident report management by the end of the shift the incident occurred providing an accurate tracking process). On 3/29/22 the DON documented Monitoring of incident reports, review of preventions in place and new interventions added. The result of the intervention was Successful. The facility QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) team will conduct a trend review of falls to identify residents with falls and falls with major injury utilizing the Eagle Room QA tool to identify areas that are not completed weekly for four weeks then monthly for two months. On 7/29/22 at 2:19 p.m. The DON said the PIP was to last 30 days and the time counted during the PIP for the falls was from 3/1/22 to 3/31/22. The DON stated he thought there was a 50% reduction in falls during that period. He said he noticed the biggest trend was he thought there were more falls on the weekend. He counted the falls over the weekend on each Monday and noticed more falls occurred on the weekend than during the week. The DON verified there was no documentation in QAPI or the PIP regarding the trending of weekend falls. The DON verified there was no documented intervention put in place to reduce falls on the weekend. He stated the intervention put in place were activities were more involved in giving residents stuffed animals to calm them. The DON said he implement increased rounding for both him and the staff caring for the residents. The DON said there was no policy or minimum requirements for how often the staff were to round or when they were to round. The DON said he asked the staff to round more frequently. On 4/20/22 at the end of the PIP the DON said he spoke to staff regarding increased rounding and told them to keep up the increased rounding. No other interventions were put in place due to the PIP. The DON said he had educated all staff on expectations of completing incident reports and fall protocols. He said he did one to one education verbally back and forth. He said he could not remember at the time any nurse he had spoken to or educated. The DON said there was no post fall education he just used the incident reports he said he had copies in an education book, but it was not a fill out form, just informative. He said he would have to look for additional documentation for education. On 7/29/22 at 2:39 p.m., and on 7/29/22 at 3:29 p.m., the DON said he did not have any additional documentation of education provided to the licensed nurses or CNAs related to the interventions listed in the performance improvement plan for falls. On 7/29/22 at 2:30 p.m., the Administrator said there was no documentation of education of the interdisciplinary team and the set expectations for the review of falls. The Administrator and the DON said they could not provide documentation of subcommittee meetings with review of residents with multiple falls or major injury. The DON said the meetings were held in the Eagle room daily and the only documentation they could provide was the Eagle room tool and the MDS Coordinator's documentation of interventions put in place after each fall was reviewed that same day. The facility provided documentation 32 staff members were educated on March 3, 2022. The topic was falls, falls prevention and incident reporting. Fall management initiatives which included post fall evaluation, vital signs, mental status, and assessment, and medication. There was no documentation the five Registered Nurses employed at the facility were educated. Seven of 18 Licensed Practical Nurses (LPNs) were educated. Eight of 32 Certified Nursing Assistants received the education. An active employee list provided by the facility showed on 3/3/22 five RNs, 13 LPNs, and 30 CNAs were listed on the active roster. On 7/29/22 at 3:00 p.m., the Administrator and the DON said the interdisciplinary team (IDT) reviewed the falls every morning and afternoon, Mondays through Fridays through the Eagle Room process. The Eagle Room process consists of a check list to ensure the following areas were completed after a fall: Neurological checks, Medication review, Notification of physician and family, electronic incident report, Investigation complete, reportable, fall evaluation completed, Pain evaluation completed, Referral or new intervention, Calcium and Vitamin D protocol, root cause IDT management document, care plan and task list (updated). A sample of 10 residents with falls from March 2022 through 7/28/2022 showed: Resident #293 sustained a fall on 3/24/22. There was no incident report completed. The resident reported he fell and sat on the floor. Review of the Eagle room process shows interventions circled in red. The DON said they added the interventions but did not update the Eagle Room tool. Resident #294 sustained an unwitnessed fall in the bathroom on 3/30/22. An incident report was initiated but was incomplete. The Eagle Room tool was not updated. Resident #295 sustained a fall on 6/15/22. The resident suffered head trauma. An incident report started but lacked an investigation of the fall. No new interventions were noted in the care plan at that time. The Eagle Room tool was checked as completed. Resident#296 sustained a witnessed fall on 4/19/22 at the nurse's station. An incident report initiated but not completed. The Eagle Room tool was checked as completed. Resident #85 was observed on the floor on 5/14/22. The resident reported she slid off the wheelchair. The incident report was initiated but not completed. Care plan updated with an intervention. The Eagle Room process checked off as completed. Resident #146 sustained a fall on 6/22/22. She was observed on the floor in front of her wheelchair at the nurse's station. An incident report was initiated but not completed. The care plan was updated. The Eagle Room tool was checked off as completed. Resident #26 was observed on the floor on 7/3/22. An Investigation was initiated but not complete. There was no update to the fall care plan noted. The Eagle room tool was checked off as completed. Resident #6 was observed on the floor on 7/3/22. An incident report was partially completed and did not include an investigation of the fall. The Care plan was updated with an intervention. The Eagle Room tool was checked off as being completed. On 7/24/22 at 10:33 a.m., Resident #20 said she was rolled out of bed by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) who was changing her. She said she told the CNA she was too close to the edge of the bed, but the CNA did it anyway. Resident #20 said she fell off the edge of the bed and landed face down on the floor. Resident #20 said she sustained a broken nose from the fall. On 7/29/22 at 2:29 p.m. the DON said he had no documentation of rounding on residents or any auditing for resident falls he completed. The DON said the only intervention put in place during the time of the PIP was he increased his rounding of residents and he asked the staff to increase rounding of residents. He said he did not have documentation of the rounds he or the staff completed. He did not have documentation of which residents they increased rounds for or how often the staff was to round. The DON said he did not have documentation he reviewed the results of the rounds to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention. The Administrator who was present during the interview said there were no minimum standards for rounding at the facility.
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identif...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies related to prevention of avoidable falls and fall related serious injuries. On 1/22/22 Resident #20 sustained a nasal bone fracture when she was improperly turned in bed and fell. Resident #193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] after a fall, and repair of right hip fracture. On 1/10/22 the resident sustained a fall resulting in dislocation of the right hip prosthesis. Resident #85 sustained multiple falls at the facility on 1/28/22, 2/5/22, 3/26/22, 3/30/22 and 5/14/22. On 2/5/22 Resident #85 sustained a fall, was sent to the hospital and diagnosed with a left femoral neck fracture, left wrist fracture, left facial abrasion and contusion. On 5/14/22 Resident #85 was sent to the hospital after the fall and diagnosed with an acute head injury. Resident #292 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident was assessed to be at risk for falls. On 6/11/22 the resident was sent to an acute care hospital after he was found on the floor with a head wound actively bleeding, requiring staples. On 2/20/22 the facility developed a performance improvement plan to address the increase in falls and fall related injuries. The facility failed to ensure implementation, and monitoring of the approaches in the performance improvement plan to minimize the risk of falls and fall related injuries. The facility failure to implement effective corrective actions and monitor results, created a likelihood other residents suffer from falls resulting in serious harm, and resulted in noncompliance at the Immediate Jeopardy level starting on 4/20/22. The Administrator was informed to the determination of ongoing Immediate Jeopardy on 7/30/22 at 6:29 p.m. and provided the Immediate Jeopardy templates. The findings included: Cross reference to F689 and F835. Review of the facility's QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) plan with an effective date of May 16, 2022, noted, . The purpose of QAPI is to take a pro-active approach to continually improve the quality of care we provide . Eagle Room is a twice daily interdisciplinary care and service management process that functions as an on-going ad-hoc (for this situation) meeting of the center's QAPI Committee with a primary focus on clinical care and services . The scope of QAPI program encompasses all types and segments of care and services that impact clinical care. These include . patient safety .Aspects of service and care are measured against established performance goals and key measures are monitored and trended on a quarterly and/or annual basis . The Administrator, as the chair of the QAPI Committee, is responsible and accountable for ensuring that the QAPI program . is defined, implemented, maintained and addresses identified priorities . corrective actions address gaps in systems and are evaluated for effectiveness . The QAPI committee is responsible and accountable for . ensuring corrective actions are effective . analyzing QAPI program performance to identify and follow up on areas of concern or opportunities for improvement .The QAPI plan addresses the elements of systematic analysis and systemic action through the use of the following processes and systems: root cause analysis, use of a continuous cycle to evaluate the effectiveness of performance improvement initiatives, communication of performance improvement project efforts . On 7/29/22 at 2:39 p.m., the Administrator said the company's corporate office directed them to develop a performance improvement plan (PIP) since they had identified an increase in falls at different facilities. The Administrator said the PIP was initiated at the facility on 2/20/22 and lasted until 4/20/22. Review of the Performance Improvement Plan(PIP) titled Falls Management dated 2/2/22 noted the overall goal of the improvement project was to reduce the trends of falls and falls with major injury. The target end date was April 20, 2022. The summary of the findings of the root cause analysis noted a Knowledge deficit related to the process steps for identification of resident falls risks, interventions and systems to minimize fall risks while promoting quality of care. The measures included: 1. The facility will identify a subcommittee related to falls management reduction. The team consisted of two nurses, one therapist, two CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants) and one leadership team member preference would be Activities Director. The committee will be tasked to review all current residents who have had more than three falls in 90 days or one major fall with injury. Discuss for each: Any with possible sleep deprivation/up frequently during night/awake most of the night. On March 29, 2022, the DON documented Medication review and causes associated with recent falls and correlation of effectiveness of interventions since PIP initiation. The result of the intervention was documented as In progress. 2. The Administrator/Designee will educate the interdisciplinary team and set expectations for the review of falls during Eagle Room and the completion of the Eagle Room QA (Quality Assurance) tool. On 2/28/2022, the DON documented education provided on fall interventions and preventions with implementation of increased rounding and monitoring by all nursing staff. On 3/29/22 the DON documented ongoing reminders and plan for fall documentation review. New falls added to monitoring list for IDT review of causes and preventions. The result of the interventions was documented as Successful. 3. The DON/Designee will educate CNAs and licensed nurses on post fall process review utilizing the FYI (For Your Information) post fall evaluation. On 2/28/22 the DON documented education provided to all nursing staff at mandatory meeting/education on 2/23, 2/24 and 2/25. On 3/18/22 the DON documented reminders to all staff based on situation and likelihood of falls or recurrent falls. Staff continue to monitor and implement fall preventions and interventions. On 3/29/22 the DON documented ongoing education and re-evaluation of fall risks including new admissions. Early prevention and rounding remain priority. The result of the interventions was documented as Successful. 4. The DON/Designee will educate licensed nurses on initial evaluation of residents past history or experiences of falls. Completing the admission/readmission screen with accuracy. On 3/18/22 the DON documented ongoing education and re-evaluation of fall risks including new admissions. Early prevention and rounding remain priority. The result of the interventions was Successful. The DON/Designee will educate licensed nurses on completing incident reports timely (Incident reports will be in incident report management by the end of the shift the incident occurred providing an accurate tracking process). On 3/29/22 the DON documented Monitoring of incident reports, review of preventions in place and new interventions added. The result of the intervention was Successful. The facility QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) team will conduct a trend review of falls to identify residents with falls and falls with major injury utilizing the Eagle Room QA tool to identify areas that are not completed weekly for four weeks then monthly for two months. The facility's incident log showed a total of 157 falls from January 1,2022 through July 22, 2022. Review of a sample of 10 residents with falls and fall related serious injuries revealed four residents sustained serious injuries (broken bones) and one resident sustained a head laceration. Two residents sustained multiple falls without documentation of an investigation to prevent recurrence. On 7/29/22 at 2:39 p.m. the Administrator said there was no documentation a trend review of falls in the building during the time of the PIP. On 7/29/22 at 2:19 p.m. The DON said the PIP was to last 30 days from 3/1/22 to 3/31/22. The DON stated he thought there was a 50% reduction in falls during that period. He said he noticed the biggest trend was that there were more falls on the weekend. Each Monday he counted the falls over the weekend and noticed more falls occurred on the weekend than during the week. The DON said there was no documentation in QAPI or the PIP regarding the trending of weekend falls. The DON said there was no documented intervention put in place to reduce falls on the weekend. He said the intervention put in place were activities was more involved and we tried to give stuffed animals for them it calms them. The DON said he also directed the direct care staff to increase their rounds. He also increased his rounds. The DON said there was no policy or minimum requirements for when and how often the staff were to round. He asked the staff to round more frequently. The DON said on 4/20/22 at the end of the PIP he told staff to keep up the increased rounding. No other interventions related to the PIP were put into place. The DON said did one to one education verbally back and forth and educated all staff on expectations for completing incident reports and fall protocols. He said he could not remember which nurses he spoke to or educated. The DON said there was no post fall education, he just used copies of incident reports which he kept in an education book. The education was just informative but not a fill out form. He said he would have to look for additional documentation for education. On 7/29/22 at 2:39 p.m., and on 7/29/22 at 3:29 p.m., the DON said he did not have any additional documentation of education provided to the licensed nurses or CNAs related to the interventions listed in the performance improvement plan for falls. Review of Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee Meeting (QAPICM) dated 2/18/22 documents a PIP was in place for falls. The QAPICM minutes dated 3/11/22 shows a fall PIP was in progress and was due to be completed on 3/31/22. The The QAPI Committee Summary Findings dated March reads, Fall PIP updated 2/28/22 Please see attached Tracking and Trending. A Floor plan with red dots of the first and second floor, A graph of the regional number of falls dated 2/28/22, and documentation of 6 falls Resident #27 had during the month of February form 2/9/22 to 2/27/22 are noted at this time. The QAPICM minutes dated 4/8/22 show audits were being conducted for falls. There was no further QAPICM minutes regarding falls after 4/8/22. A form titled Abaqis shows the PIP had a target end date of 4/20/22. The goal of the PIP is documented as a less than 5% reduction in falls. The DON documented on the PIP form on three dates, 2/28/22, 3/18/22, and 3/29/22. On 2/28/22 the DON documented, Audits continue of recent falls indication adherence to previous fall interventions in place. On 3/18/22 the DON documented Monitoring for effectiveness . Repeated falls associated with one resident and has improved fall likelihood and occurrences. None to report at this time. Ongoing review during Eagle Room standup and stand down . Falls decreased and interventions in place. Monitoring or results of interventions completed .Reminders to staff based on situation and likelihood of falls or recurrent falls. Staff continue to monitor and implement fall prevention interventions .Completed initial and ongoing .Great success with anticipation of exceeding goal of 50% reductions in falls. Monitoring ER tool shows 7 falls since implementation of PIP and increased monitoring, Audits, and education. 2 of the current falls are from the same residents for a total of 6 residents with 7 falls in 19 days . Conclusions Was PIP successful? Yes Final notes Fall reduction was greater than 50% during the last 30 days Increased Monitoring and early detection of fall risks at the time of admission has decreased falls and the risk of falls. Several of the falls counted in this PIP were the same resident with repeated falls. Resident fall risks were greatly increased due to resident confusion which has increased since admission. Resident has been placed at the nursing station during the day and while awake to increase integration and monitoring. The Medical Director on 7/30/22 at 5:30 p.m. said, I have had had discussion with the administrator about incomplete incident reports and making sure they were completing the incident reports and notifying the physicians about any falls. The physician was asked if these discussions were in QAPI, she said it was when she had seen things were missed was when she had had these discussions with the administrator. The Medical Director was asked about staffing issues at the facility, she said, Overall, we do discuss staffing because the past year has been very difficult. They try to fill in the staffing with minimum as required. The pandemic has impacted staffing as well. We need to work more as a team have a more team approach into these issues. The physician said at other facilities there had been fall committees. The Medical Director was asked if she was aware of a fall committee at the facility, she said she was not aware of the facility having a fall committee during the last year.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, review of policy and procedure, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation of an interdisciplinary evaluation to determine the ability to safely self-administer medications for 1 (Residents #144) of 3 residents observed with unsecured medications at the bedside. The findings included: The facility's Medication Administration: Self-Administration of Medications policy dated 11/2017 stated the purpose of the policy is to provide guidance for the patients, wishing to self-administer medications. The policy stated the resident has the right to self-administer medication if the interdisciplinary team (IDT) has determined the medication(s) is clinically appropriate, the resident's cognitive status, the resident's capacity to follow directions of when the medication needs to be taken, the safety and appropriateness of the medication(s), and the resident's ability to ensure the medication(s) are stored safely and securely after use. The decision to allow a patient to self-administer medication(s) is subject to periodic assessment by the IDT based on changes in the resident's medical and decision-making status. On 7/24/22 at 12:09 p.m., observed one Fluticasone Propionate (Flonase) 50 micrograms nasal spray, two Albuterol Sulfate HFA inhalers, and one tube Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide (antifungal) cream unsecured on Resident #144's bedside table. The medications did not have a pharmacy label on them with the resident's name, the name of the medication with directions for use, and/or any other pertinent information. On 7/24/22 at 12:11 p.m., Resident #144 said, she was admitted to the facility several weeks ago and the nurse told her she could use the nasal spray and inhalers when she needed them. She said she was not given directions for the use of the medications and was not told she needed to keep the medications secured at all times. She said she keeps the medications on the bedside table, even when she is not in the room. On 7/25/22 at 1:34 p.m., observed one Fluticasone Propionate 50 mcg nasal spray, two Albuterol Sulfate HFA inhalers, and one tube Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide cream unsecured on Resident #144's bedside table. Resident #144 was not in her room during the observation. Review of Resident #144's clinical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The physician orders dated 7/8/22 included Albuterol Sulfate HFA, two puffs inhale every six hours as needed for shortness of breath and wheezing and Fluticasone Propionate 50 mcg, two sprays in both nostrils every 24 hours as needed for allergies. The clinical record lacked documentation the interdisciplinary team (IDT) evaluated and determined it was clinically appropriate for Resident #144 to self-administer the Fluticasone Propionate, the Albuterol Sulfate inhaler or applying the Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide cream. On 7/25/22 at 2:45 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) Staff K said she has been working at the facility for five months and is Resident #144's nurse. She said some of the residents are allowed to self-administer their medications and keep them at their bedside. She said she was aware Resident #144 had medications in her room, which she can take at any time when she thinks she needs too. She said she didn't know the facility's policy related to residents' self-administering their medications and how the medications should be stored in the resident's room. On 7/25/22 at 2:50 p.m., a joint observation of Resident #144's room with RN Staff K revealed the bottle of Fluticasone Propionate, the two Albuterol inhalers and the tube of Nystatin Triamcinolone cream remained stored, unsecured on the resident's bedside table. RN Staff K verified the medications were unlabeled. RN Staff K said she did not document when the resident used the medications or if they were effective.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews and staff interviews, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments in the areas of discharge status, fall and elopement device use for 2 (Resident #94 and #52) of 13 reviewed for MDS accuracy. The findings included: The Resident Assessment Instrument manual (October 2019) noted identification of residents who are at high risk of falling is a top priority for care planning. A previous fall is the most important predictor of risk for future falls. Falls are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among nursing home residents. The steps for assessment noted to review nursing home incident reports, fall logs and the medical record. Code one if the resident had one non-injurious fall since admission or reentry or prior assessment. 1. On 7/24/22 at 4:04 p.m., Clinical review indicated Resident #52 admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of Dementia, Essential tremors, and repeated falls. On 7/24/22 at 4:15 p.m., review of fall assessment revealed Resident #52 had a fall on 5/29/22 at 7:59 a.m. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 6/10/22 failed to code the fall. On 7/26/22 at 8:53 a.m., MDS Registered Nurse (RN) staff D said the fall of 5/29/22 should have been coded under Section J of the quarterly with ARD 6/10/22. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with assessment reference date (ARD) of ARD 6/10/22 also noted Resident #52 used a daily wander/elopement alarm. Review of physician's order showed Resident #52 elopement alarm was discontinued on 3/28/22. On 7/26/22 at 10:11 a.m., MDS coordinator RN Staff A reviewed Resident #52's clinical record and said the elopement alarm was discontinued on 3/28/22. She verified the quarterly MDS assessment was not accurate as Resident #52 did not use an elopement alarm. On 7/28/22 at 9:36 a.m., RN MDS Staff D said the MDS assessment is expected to give an accurate view of the resident's clinical condition and services required so problems can be addressed in the plan of care. 2. On 7/28/22 review of the Discharge MDS with an assessment reference date of 5/2/22 documented Resident #94 had a planned discharge to an acute care hospital. A review of Resident #94's clinical record showed a nursing progress note dated 5/2/22 which documented the resident discharged home with husband. Home health to do home visits. The resident escorted to her vehicle with spouse. On 7/28/22 at 11:05 a.m., the MDS coordinator reviewed the discharge MDS and confirmed Resident #94 was coded as a discharge to acute hospital. The MDS coordinator verified Resident #94 was discharged home with her spouse. She said the MDS was not coded correctly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Residents #80) of 1 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Residents #80) of 1 resident's activity program reviewed had received and/or engaged in their activities of choice as identified in their activity/recreational assessment. The failure to ensure each resident is engaged in an activity program of their choice has a potential to cause loneliness and mental anguish for the resident. The findings included: On 7/24/22 at 9:56 a.m., Resident #80 was observed in his bedroom in a hospital gown not involved in an activity program. Further observation noted the television (TV) was not on nor was there a radio playing music for Resident #80. On 7/24/22 at 10:00 a.m., in an interview, Resident #80 said there is nothing to do at the facility and he doesn't remember the last time he had been invited and/or attended an activity program. On 7/24/22 at 1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m., Resident #80 was observed in his bedroom wearing a hospital gown not involved in an activity program. Further observation noted the TV was not on nor was there a radio playing music for Resident #80. On 7/25/22 at 9:00 a.m. and 2:10 p.m., Resident #80 was observed in his bedroom wearing a T-shirt not involved in an activity program. Further observation noted the TV was not on nor was there a radio playing music for Resident #80. On 7/26/22 at 8:30 a.m., 9:34 a.m., and 3:10 p.m., Resident #80 was observed in his bedroom wearing a hospital gown not involved in an activity program. Further observation noted the TV was not on nor was there a radio playing music for Resident #80. On 7/27/22 at 8:20 a.m., 10:24 a.m., and 2:50 p.m., Resident #80 was observed in his bedroom wearing a hospital gown not involved in an activity program. Further observation noted the TV was not on nor was there a radio playing music for Resident #80. On 7/28/22 review of Resident #80's medical record revealed an initial admission date of 4/11/22 and was discharge from the nursing home on 5/09/22. Resident #80 was re-admitted to the nursing home on 6/20/22, was discharged to the hospital on 7/07/21 and returned to the nursing home on 7/21/22. Resident #80's admission assessment dated [DATE] stated Resident #80 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) Score as a 10, a score between 8 to 12 means a person was assessed as moderately cognitively impaired for daily decision making. An activity progress note dated 4/14/22 stated Resident #80 is friendly and is easy to talk too. Resident #80 enjoyed leisure activities such as country music, sitting outdoors, reading the newspaper and magazines, time with friends, watching sports and news on the TV and playing cards. Further review of Resident #80's medical records did not reveal an activity program had been implemented on a continuous basis for Resident #80. On 7/28/22 review of the Activity and Recreation Service Manual dated 7/2019, stated the purpose of the manual is to serve as a guide in providing an ongoing program of activities designed to accommodate individual patient interest and help enhance physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The activity and recreation progress notes are developed to include changes in patient's condition and or progress toward the care plan goal and approaches. The section for readmission activity progress note stated it should include but not limited to the reason the patient left the facility, patient's condition upon return to the facility, and the impact on the patient's participation level in activity programming or recreational therapy treatment. Activity program participation documentation should be completed for each patient in the facility. The activity program participation documentation provided the facility with written information of the patient's interest in both facility-sponsored group, one-to-one, friendly visits, individual and independent activities. On 7/28/22 at 3:22 p.m. in an interview, the Activity Director (AD) said the nursing home is a 129-bed facility and currently she was the only person who ran/conducted the activity program during the week, Monday through Friday and a relief activity aide who worked the weekend. She said part of her job duties were to attend all the resident care plan meetings, run the resident council meetings, go shopping for the facility residents as needed and complete a resident activity assessment for all new admission, re-admission, and quarterly assessments as needed. The AD said after she reviewed Resident #80's medical record and confirmed Resident #80 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a last re-admission date of 7/21/22. She confirmed her last activity assessment progress note was dated 4/14/22 which stated Resident #80 enjoys leisure activities, country music, sitting outdoors, reading the newspaper and magazines, time with friends, and watching sports and news on the TV. She said she was unable to find documentation she had completed a re-admission activity assessment after each readmission to the facility. The AD further said she was unable to find documentation Resident #80 had attended and/or engaged in any of the activities noted in the 4/11/22 activity progress note, as required per their Activity and Recreation Service Manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility's policy and procedure, and staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation of consistent and accurate monitoring of fluid intake for 1(Resident #56) of 1 resident with a physician's ordered fluid restriction. The findings included: The facility policy Fluid Restrictions, Description and Rationale (8/2019) documented, Fluid restrictions are sometimes used for patients with renal failure, congestive heart failure and hyponatremia, or other condition requiring that intake of fluids be minimized. Specific total fluid restrictions are ordered by the physician and communicated to the dietary department. Developing a fluid restriction plan based on a patient's preference and physician order may assist in meeting the patient's hydration needs and compliance with physician's orders. Review of Resident #56's clinical record showed the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of legal blindness, anxiety, edema, urinary tract infection and hypertension. Review of the admission minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented a weight of 118 pounds and a height of 64 inches. The MDS documented a brief interview for mental status score of 15, indicated the resident's cognition was intact. The MDS documented Resident #56 required supervision and set up at meals. Review of Resident #56's physician orders for July 2022, showed a physician order dated 6/25/22 for a 1500 ml fluid restriction per day. Review of the Dietary progress note dated 7/12/22, documented, a Fluid Restriction Worksheet has been completed for Resident #56. The total daily fluid Physician order is 1500 in milliliters (ml). The Dietary Daily Fluid total is 240 ounces. Please refer to the worksheet for the daily fluid allocation. Review of the Fluid Restriction Worksheet completed by the Registered Dietitian, dated 7/12/22, documented the total fluid allocation for nursing staff to administer was 780 ml per 24 hours, 240 ml for day and evening shift and 280 ml on the night shift. Dietary was to provide a 24-hour total fluid amount of 720 ml. On 7/24/22 at 2:08 p.m., Resident #56 was observed with her meal tray in her room. The dietary ticket read Resident on fluid restriction 8 oz (ounces) with each meal. The resident was observed during dining with a pint (16 ounces) of milk and a cup of coffee. On 7/28/22 at 3:59 p.m., the Registered Dietitian (RD) said Resident #56's meal ticket states 8 ounces (oz) at meals, and they give her milk which is what she wants. The RD said he does not keep a record of the actual amount of fluid Resident #56 consumed throughout the day and said the staff on the unit does that. The RD said the dietary staff only provide 8 ounces of milk on each meal tray and nothing else other than food. The RD said, if the resident asks for additional fluids like coffee, then it is her right, and she can have it. On 7/28/22 at 4:11 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff P said she was the nurse assigned to Resident #56 and said the reason for the fluid restriction was due to hyponatremia (low blood sodium level). She said the CNAs know who is on restrictions and know not to give anything extra without asking the nurse. The CNAs do not give Resident #56 any fluid other then what is served on the meal tray. The LPN said the staff do not keep a record of the fluids the resident consumes each day. On 7/28/22 at 4:24 p.m., Resident #56 was observed in bed. A 16 ounces Styrofoam cup of ice water was observed on the bedside table within easy reach of the resident. Resident #56 said she knew she was on a fluid restriction, did not ask for the water and, they just brought it to me. The resident said, my mouth gets so dry, I need something. On 7/28/22 at 4:29 p.m., LPN Staff P confirmed Resident #56 had a 16 oz (480 ml's) cup of ice water and said that was ok, now she knew not to give her anything tonight. Review of the laboratory results for Resident #56 showed Normal sodium levels range from 136-145 milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L). Sodium is a mineral that conducts nerve impulses, contracts, and relaxes muscles maintains balance of water and minerals. Low sodium levels can produce symptoms of lethargy, confusion, and fatigue. Review of the laboratory results for Resident #56 showed On 6/14/22 the sodium level was 134 mEq/L On 6/24/22 the sodium level was 129 mEq/L On 6/27/22 the sodium level was 128 mEq/L On 7/01/22 the sodium level was 131 mEq/L On 7/14/22 the sodium level was 131 mEq/L On 7/28/22 at 4:40 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the nurse documents the fluid restriction on the Treatment Administration Record for fluid restriction of 1500 ml daily. The DON provided a copy of the July 2022 TAR and confirmed it did not show documentation of an accurate amount of fluids the resident received from the staff and said, we don't document that. The DON said if Resident #56 requests fluids, she would receive it, and confirmed there was no documentation of the amount of fluids the CNA's or nurses were actually providing to the resident each shift. A review of the CNA documentation for July 2022, the Hydration/Fluids offered documentation was incomplete and inaccurate. There was no documentation Resident #56 was offered fluids during the day shift on 7/4/22, 7/8/22, 7/10/22, and 7/25/22. The evening shift showed no documentation on 7/15/22, 7/22/22 and 7/26/22. The night shift showed no documentation on 7/3/22, 7/16/22, 7/20/22 and 7/27/22. On 7/28/22 at 4:57 p.m., the RD said, dietary provides milk on each meal tray for a total 720 ml in 24 hours. The RD said day and evening shift provided 240 ml each shift and night shift 280 ml. The RD said each milk carton was 8 oz which equaled 420 ml. The RD confirmed there was no documentation of the amount of fluid Resident #56 was receiving or accepting daily on each shift. The RD confirmed without documentation of the amount of fluids actually provided to Resident #56 and how much she accepted, it was impossible to know the 1500 ml fluid restriction was being maintained. On 7/28/22 at 5:29 p.m., CNA Staff O said he was assigned to care for Resident #56. CNA Staff O said if a resident was on a fluid restriction, dietary would send the fluids on the meal trays. CNA Staff O said to be honest, I don't know how many ml's of fluid each size cup contained, we don't document it anywhere. The CNA said the nurse just finished instructing me not to give Resident #56 any additional fluids, just let her know and she will give it. The CNA said if a resident wanted fluids, he would get it for them. On 7/29/22 at 12:12 p.m., the facility Medical Director said the fluid restriction was ordered for Resident #56 due to a sodium level of 131 and a previous sodium level of 134. The next step is usually a fluid restriction. The physician said she was aware there was a concern in the facility with documenting fluids and said, I think going forward we will need to do some education on fluid restrictions and better monitoring of the fluids each shift is providing. On 7/29/22 at 12:21 p.m., the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) said Resident #56 had hyponatremia (low blood sodium) with associated weakness and was a fall risk. Fluid restriction was a way to get the sodium level back to normal in the elderly population and was the least aggressive treatment. The APRN said hyponatremia could cause confusion, falls and seizures, and that was the main concern with Resident #56.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the clinical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 5/9/22. The resident received outpatient hemodia...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of the clinical record for Resident #25 revealed an admission date of 5/9/22. The resident received outpatient hemodialysis on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. The facility utilizes a hemodialysis communication form to ensure ongoing assessment, communication, and collaboration with the dialysis facility regarding care and services. A review of the Hemodialysis Communication Form for resident #25 from 5/11/2022 through 7/28/2022 revealed the following: Section 1 to be completed by the facility staff which included vital signs, weight, dialysis access site evaluation, patient status, lab tests, diet order and current medication was not filled out on 5/12/2022, 5/14/22, 5/19/22, 5/24/22, 5/26/22, 5/31/22, 6/2/22, 7/2/22, 7/9/22, 7/14/22, 7/19/22, 7/21/22, 7/23/22, 7/26/22 and 7/28/22. Section 2 to be completed by dialysis center which included vital signs pre and post dialysis, complications during dialysis, medication given during dialysis, laboratory values, post dialysis instructions, new physician's orders and patient status was not completed on 7/7/22. On 7/28/22 at 2:25 p.m., the DON confirmed the facility's Dialysis Guidelines stated the facility and dialysis center are responsible for shared communication regarding the residents receiving dialysis services, either offsite or onsite. The Hemodialysis Communication Form (CLS187) is to be used. Collaborative communication includes information regarding; medication administration by the center and/or dialysis center, physician orders, laboratory values, vital signs, code status, nutritional/fluid management, dialysis treatment provided and response to treatment, and changes in the patient's condition. Based on resident and staff interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure they maintained ongoing communication between the nursing facility and the dialysis center related to the ongoing assessment of a dialysis resident before, during, and after each dialysis treatment for 2 Residents (#25 and #34) of 2 residents receiving dialysis. The findings included: 1. Review of Resident #34's clinical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #34's diagnoses included end stage renal disease. The physician's orders included hemodialysis Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at a local outpatient dialysis center. The care plan for renal insufficiencies revised on 3/3/22 noted to coordinate dialysis care with the dialysis treatment center. On 7/25/22 at 11:14 a.m., Resident #34 said she goes to the dialysis center on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. She said the nursing facility and dialysis center do not always communicate with each other. She said she carries a three-ring dialysis binder with a hemodialysis communication form to the dialysis center and back to the nursing facility when she had completed the dialysis treatment for that day. She said the nursing facility and the dialysis center do not always complete the dialysis communication form. Review of Resident #34's dialysis binder revealed Hemodialysis Communication Forms (HCF) (CLA187) dated 6/22/22, 6/27/22, 7/01/22, 7/04/22, 7/08/22, 7/11/22, and 7/22/22 revealed the facility documentation was incomplete on the HCF, and the dialysis center did not document on the HCF Resident #34's pre and post dialysis vital signs, any patient complication during dialysis, nutritional concerns, medication given during dialysis treatment, laboratory values, post-dialysis instructions and any new physician orders for those treatment days. On the front cover of Resident #34's dialysis binder observed a letter from the nursing facility to the dialysis center asking them to complete the HCF after each dialysis treatment and send the completed HCF back with Resident #34 so then can put the completed HCF into Resident #34's medical record. On 7/26/22 at 10:13 a.m., in an interview, Staff K, a Registered Nurse (RN) said Resident #34 is a dialysis resident and she goes to the dialysis center every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. She said the nurse sending the resident to the dialysis is responsible to fill out an HCF with the resident's vital signs, an assessment of the dialysis access site, any lab work, and a current medication list. The dialysis center is required to send back the form with updated vital signs, any complications during dialysis treatment, lab values if any drawn during the dialysis treatment, and any post-dialysis instruction and/or new physician orders. Staff K confirmed after she reviewed Resident #34's dialysis binder the HCFs dated 6/22, 6/27, 7/01, 7/04, 7/08, 7/11, and 7/22 of 2022, the facility's documentation was incomplete prior to sending Resident #34 to the dialysis center for her dialysis treatments and the dialysis center did not document pre and post dialysis vital signs, any patient complication during dialysis, nutritional concerns, mediation given during dialysis treatment, laboratory values, post-dialysis instructions, and any new physician orders as required. She said she had heard the facility was having concerns about the dialysis center documenting on the HCF forms after each dialysis treatment as required. On 7/26/22 at 10:45 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed Resident #34 receives dialysis treatments every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. She said neither the dialysis center nor the nursing facility is required to fill out the HCF before and after each dialysis treatment as per the facility's dialysis policy. The ADON reviewed Resident #34's dialysis binder and confirmed the HCF dated 6/22, 6/27, 7/01, 7/04, 7/08, 7/11, and 7/22 of 2022 the facility's documentation was incomplete prior to the resident going to the dialysis center, and the dialysis center did not document pre and post dialysis vital signs, any patient complication during dialysis, nutritional concerns, mediation given during dialysis treatment, laboratory values, post-dialysis instructions and any new physician orders on the HCF. She also confirmed a letter attached to Resident #34's dialysis binder from the nursing home asking the dialysis center to complete the HCF aster each dialysis treatment and send the completed HCF back with Resident #34 so then can put the completed HCF into Resident #34's medical record. She said she was unaware the nursing home had asked the dialysis center to fill out the HCF after each dialysis center and return the completed HCF to the facility. On 7/26/22 at 12:45 p.m., an interview with the facility's Registered Dietitian (RD) said, he communicates with the dialysis center RD every month, and they review Resident #34 lab values and discuss any concerns at that time. He said due to his experience at other facilities he has worked, he believed the standard of practice was when a resident goes to their dialysis treatment the facility will fill out a dialysis communication form and the dialysis center will complete the dialysis communication form to inform the facility how the resident's dialysis treatment went that day. The RD reviewed Resident #34's dialysis communication folder and confirmed the HCFs, dated 6/22, 6/27, 7/01, 7/04, 7/08, 7/11, and 7/22 for 2022, the facility's documentation was incomplete prior to Resident #34 going to the dialysis center for treatment, and the dialysis center did not complete the HCF by documenting Resident #34 pre and post dialysis treatment vital signs, any patient complication during dialysis, any nutritional concerns, mediation given during dialysis treatment, laboratory values, post-dialysis instructions and any new physician orders on the HCF. He said he was unaware the HCFs were not being completed by the nursing home and dialysis center staff after Resident #34 dialysis treatments. On 7/28/22 review of the facility's Dialysis Guidelines policy stated both the facility and dialysis center are responsible for collaborative communication regarding the residents receiving dialysis services using the Hemodialysis Communication Form (CLS187). Collaborative communication includes information regarding; medication administration by the center and/or dialysis center, physician orders, laboratory values, vital signs, code status, nutritional/fluid management, dialysis treatment provided and response to treatment, and changes in the patient's condition. On 7/28/22 at 2:25 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said, Resident #34 received dialysis treatments on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday each week. He confirmed the facility's Dialysis Guidelines stated the facility and dialysis center are responsible for shared communication regarding the residents receiving dialysis services, either offsite or onsite. The Hemodialysis Communication Form (CLS187) is to be used. Collaborative communication includes information regarding; medication administration by the center and/or dialysis center, physician orders, laboratory values, vital signs, code status, nutritional/fluid management, dialysis treatment provided and response to treatment, and changes in the patient's condition. The DON reviewed Resident #34's dialysis communication binder and confirmed the Hemodialysis Communication Forms (CLS187) dated 6/22, 6/27, 7/01, 7/04, 7/08, 7/11, 7/22 for 2022 were not completed with the required documentation by the facility staff and dialysis center as required per their Dialysis Guideline policy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 2 licensed P...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, review of facility policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure 2 licensed Practical Nurses (LPN) (LPN E and LPN F) of 4 LPN nursing staff had the appropriate competencies and skill set to administer intravenous (IV) medications. The findings included: Review of Florida Nursing Board Chapter 64B9-12 Competency and Knowledge Requirements Necessary to Qualify Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) to Administer IV Therapy. Contents: the board endorses the Intravenous Therapy Course Guidelines issued by the Education Department of the National Federation of Licensed Practical Nurse November 1983. With specific education and competency requirements for LPNs to administer IV medications. The facility policy IIA4 Infusion Therapy Products, General Information (undated) stated Licensed staff are responsible for following applicable state laws, practice act, .issued by the state licensing board; as well as, applicable Pro-[NAME] Senior Care policy, to assist in exercising professional judgment and determining whether the performance of a procedure is within their scope of practice. On 7/25/22 at 2:55 p.m., a review of Resident #24's clinical record showed the resident was receiving the intravenous (IV) antibiotic Daptomycin Solution Reconstituted 425 milligrams (mg) once a day for history of right hip prosthetic joint infection. The clinical record showed during the month of May 2022, Resident #24 had received the following IV antibiotics, Ceftriaxone Sodium 1 gram, Vancomycin HCL 1000 mg, and Vancomycin HCL 750 mg. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) documented LPN Staff F administered IV medications to Resident #24 on 5/1/22, 5/2/22, 5/6/22, 5/7/22, 5/8/22, 5/9/22, 5/13/22, 5/14/22, 5/16/22, 5/20/22, 5/21/22, 5/22/22, 7/8/22, 7/9/22, 7/16/22, 7/17/22, and 7/22/22. The MAR documented LPN Staff E administered IV medication to Resident #24 on 5/12/22 and 7/24/22 and administered a saline flush via the IV on 5/10/22 and 5/13/22. On 7/26/22 at 2:30 p.m., review of LPN Staff F's and LPN Staff E's personnel file failed to reveal documentation of the state required certification to administer IV medications. On 7/26/22 at 12:09 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed LPN Staff E and LPN Staff F did not have the required IV certification to administer the medications to Resident #24. On 7/28/22 at 2:18 p.m., LPN Staff E confirmed she did not have the required training and competencies to administer IV medications. On 7/29/22 at 3:02 p.m., LPN Staff F confirmed she did not have the required training and competencies to administer IV medications. On 7/27/22 at 5:24 p.m., the Director of Nursing confirmed LPN Staff E and LPN Staff F had administered IV medications to Resident #24 without the required training and competencies to administer the IV medications.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to act on consultant pharmacy recommendations for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to act on consultant pharmacy recommendations for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. This has the potential for delay of treatment and use of unnecessary medications. The findings included: Review of the Policy Medication Regimen Review (MRR) (effective date 1/1/08, revised 8/2018) showed the Nursing Center's Consultant Pharmacist will present MRR recommendations on individual patient specific reports on the day of their review. The process to ensure MRR recommendations are addressed timely. Review of physician's orders for Resident #17 indicated an active order for Paxil 40 milligrams(mg), 1 tablet a day on 9/28/21. Review of MRR for Resident #17 revealed a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) recommendation on 3/28/22: Consider a trial gradual dose reduction to Paxil 30 milligrams (mg) daily. Review of Resident #17's Medication Administration Records for March 2022 thru July 2022 revealed no dose reduction for Paxil 40 mg. On 7/26/22 at 11:02 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said the GDR recommendations could be in the hard chart, medical record department, or sometimes in a binder in his office. Review of Resident #17 hard chart and progress notes from 3/2022 to 7/28/22 revealed no evidence the GDR for 3/28/22 for Paxil was acted upon. On 7/26/22 at 11:10 a.m., the DON confirmed he did not have the GDR response for 3/28/22 in his office. On 7/26/22 at 11:18 a.m., the medical records director said the GDR recommendation for Resident #17 for Paxil on 3/28/22 was not in the medical records in her office. On 7/27/22 at 10:42 a.m., the DON said there is no record the physician was made aware of the recommendation for the reduction of the Paxil for Resident #17 in March 2022. On 07/28/22 at 6:06 p.m., Social Services Coordinator Staff T said she spoke with the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) responsible for adjusting the GDR for Paxil for Resident #17. She said the APRN said she was not aware there was a GDR recommendation for the Paxil for Resident #17.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, and comfortable environment for resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and staff interview the facility failed to ensure a safe, functional, and comfortable environment for residents in 9 (room [ROOM NUMBER], 226, 227,228, 229, 231, 232, 239, 230) of 31 rooms observed by failure to store personal items in a sanitary manner, failure to repair walls and peeling wallpaper, failure to secure exposed cable wires. The findings included: Review of Promedica Senior Care AM Care procedure- #19 Return equipment to designated area and clean/dispose as indicated. #20 Verify that personal items are stored separately in closed, labeled containers. On 7/24/22 at 10:12 a.m., observation revealed an uncovered, unlabeled wash basin was sitting on the toilet of bathroom [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/24/22 at 10:15 a.m., observation revealed several personal care items including bed pans and wash basins were unlabeled and uncovered in bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. One bedpan was on the floor, one bedpan was tucked between the grab bar and wall behind the toilet and 2 wash basins were sitting on the toilet. On 7/24/22 at 10:29 a.m., observation revealed an uncovered specimen collection item used to collect urine and/or feces was wedged between the grab bar and wall in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. An uncovered wash basin was on the floor between the wall and toilet of room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/24/22 at 10:54 a.m., observation revealed an uncovered, unlabeled wash basin was in the sink of the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. An uncovered emesis basin was uncovered and unlabeled sitting on the back of the toilet. On 7/24/22 at 11:36 a.m., observation revealed several personal care items were wedged between the grab bar and the wall in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The items contained 2 wash basins and a bed pan. The items were not covered or labeled. On 7/24/22 at 11:55 a.m., observation revealed a bedpan, and two wash basins were unlabeled and uncovered in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/24/22 at 12:03 p.m., observation revealed an uncovered and unlabeled bedpan and wash basin were wedged between the wall and the toilet of the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER]. There was another bedpan uncovered and sitting in the corner on the floor. On 7/24/22 at 4:18 p.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have peeling wallpaper above the floor molding and an unsecured cable wire protruding from the wall. On 7/24/22 at 5:00 p.m., observation revealed the cold water in bathroom [ROOM NUMBER] did not function properly. Faucet turns and opens wide, but cold water comes out in only a small trickle. On 7/24/22 at approximately 5:01 p.m., in an interview, the Resident in 239A said she likes to rinse her hair with cold water and cannot do that. She said she told staff. She said it has been that way for a while. On 7/24/22 at 5:20 p.m., Observation revealed peeling paint and several unpatched holes above the television in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/25/22 at 9:06 a.m., second observation of the uncovered bed pan wedged between the grab bar and wall, basin uncovered on the toilet and bed pan uncovered on the floor in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/25/22 at 9:12 a.m., second observation of the uncovered urine/feces collection container uncovered and wedged between the toilet and the wall in room [ROOM NUMBER]. On 7/27/22 at 4:32 p.m., third observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] with two bedpans, two basins and measuring cylinder. During this observation, the items were stacked and sitting on the floor. On 7/27/22 at 4:33 p.m., third observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] with urine/feces specimen collection container uncovered and wedged between the wall and the grab bar. The wash basin remained uncovered behind the toilet on the floor. On 7/29/22 at 2:39 p.m., the Administrator and Director of Nursing said they were aware of the storage issue for personal care items. On 7/29 at 2:44 p.m., the maintenance director said his routine for maintenance and repair include checking the computer. He said staff and residents also let him know of repair and maintenance issues when they see him in the hall, or they call him. He confirmed the cold water was not working in room [ROOM NUMBER] and he would tend to that immediately. He agreed the cable wire was an easy fix and he would take care of that. He agreed the peeling wallpaper should be corrected also.
CONCERN (E)

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** 3. On 7/24/22 at 2:54 p.m., Review of clinical records for Resident #85 revealed resident admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of E...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 7/24/22 at 2:54 p.m., Review of clinical records for Resident #85 revealed resident admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of End Stage Renal Disease, anemia. Upon admission, Resident #85 was assessed at risk for falls and care planed. The progress note dated 2/5/22 at 4:19 p.m., noted, CNA went into residents [sic] room and noted that she was lying on the floor in front of the foot of the bed. When nurse went in, she was sitting on her buttocks with knees slightly bent, on the floor at the foot of her bed . The nurse documented she assisted the resident to a standing position. Resident #85 could barely bear any weight on her left leg and complained of pain. The resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. The hospital record dated 2/5/22 noted Resident #85 was diagnosed with a left femoral neck fracture, left wrist fracture, left facial abrasion and contusion. The incident report dated 5/14/22 at 10:20 a.m. noted Resident #85 was observed on the floor laying on her right side in front of the wheelchair and the air conditioner. The resident was awake and alert and stated, I slid off the w/c (wheelchair). The resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation and returned with a diagnosis of acute head injury. On 7/26/22 at 11:42 a.m., the Administrator said Resident # 85's falls were not reported to State Survey Agency as required. 4. On 7/27/22 at 2:58 p.m., a review of the facility's incident log showed Resident #292 was admitted on [DATE] and sustained a fall at the facility on 6/11/22. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with a target date of 6/16/22 showed Resident #292 had severe cognitive impairment and was not able to call for assistance. Diagnoses included traumatic brain injury, and a history of fall in the last month prior to admission. The resident was assessed during admission to be at high risk for falls. A care plan for falls was developed due to history of falls, recent falls with head injury, poor safety awareness, new environment, and weakness. The incident report created on 6/13/22 at 1:10 p.m. indicated Resident #292 was found lying on the floor with a serious injury, a head wound actively bleeding. Resident #292 was sent out to the hospital for evaluation and returned on 6/13/22 with staples to his head and a diagnosis of unspecified fall. On 7/28/22 at 3:00 p.m., the DON said the facility did not report the incident to the State Survey Agency as required. Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to report alleged violations which could constitute neglect, resulting in serious bodily injury for 4 residents (#20, #85, #292, and #392) of 9 residents reviewed. The findings included: The facility's policy titled Patient Protection, Abuse, Neglect, Mistreatment, and Misappropriation Prevention dated 10/2021 noted neglect is the failure of the facility, its employees or service providers to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury to the Administrator of the facility and to other officials including to the State Survey Agency. 1. On 7/24/22 at 10:33 a.m., Resident #20 said a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) rolled her out of bed, she fell on the floor, and broke her nose. Resident #20 said the CNA was changing her brief and when the CNA rolled her to her side, she rolled out of bed onto the floor. She said she told the CNA she was too close to the edge, but she rolled her anyway. She said she landed on her stomach and face and suffered a broken nose. Review of the medical record for Resident #20 revealed a general progress note dated 1/22/22 at 6:14 p.m. describing Resident #20's fall. Resident #20 was being assisted with toileting and she rolled out of bed landing on her stomach and face, 911 called as well as Medical Doctor (MD), Director of Nursing (DON), and son. Review of the Hospital Record for Resident #20 Indicated Resident #20 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] at 5:05 p.m. and discharged on 1/23/22 at 3:17 a.m. Discharge Diagnosis included: Closed fracture of the nasal bone; Contusion of left wrist. Review of the facility fall log listed Resident #20 as having a fall with major injury on 1/22/22. Review of the facility reportable events for 2022 did not list Resident #20's fall as being reported to the State Survey Agency. Review of the facility incident report and investigation for Resident #20's fall did not include an immediate or 5-Day report to the State Agency. On 7/26/22 at 4:09 p.m., the Administrator confirmed she did not report Resident #20's fall on 1/22/22 to the State Agency. The Administrator confirmed a broken nose would be considered a serious injury and should have been reported to the State Survey Agency. On 7/26/22 at 4:09 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) said he did not report it. 2. Review of the medical record for Resident #392 revealed a progress note on 5/19/22 at 4:02 a.m. indicating Resident #392 fell in her room at the facility. She was found on the floor, sustained a bump to the back of the head, and was transported to the hospital. Review of the facility handwritten incident report dated 5/19/22 indicated Resident #392 was found on the floor next to her bed at 3:30 a.m. The writer noted a large bump to the back of the resident's head, called the MD, family, and Emergency Medical Services for transport to the Emergency Room. On 7/28/22 at 9:09 a.m., the DON said when a resident falls, the incident is discussed in the Eagle Room Morning Meeting. The DON could not provide documentation verifying the incident for Resident #392's fall was reported to the State Survey Agency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and highest practicable physical and mental w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure sufficient staffing to provide nursing and related services to assure resident safety and highest practicable physical and mental well-being for 5 residents (#60, #56, #16, #34 and #20) of 19 residents reviewed. The findings included: Review of the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) Staff Posting Report dated 7/24/22 indicated Resident Census was 94 during the 7:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m. shift. Review of the Florida Calculating State Minimum Nursing Staff for Long Term Care Facilities form for 7/24/22 indicated Resident Census was 93. The Daily average of 1.8587 CNA hours per resident. On 7/25/22 at 11:49 a.m. Resident #60 said call bell response is at between 15 to 20 minutes. On 7/24/22 at 2:02 p.m., Resident #56 said she was left on the toilet for a long time. Resident #56 said it takes staff a while to answer the call light because they are short-staffed. She said it depends on how many staff are at the facility, it can take 20 minutes or longer for them to answer. On 7/25/22 at 12:06 p.m., Resident #16 said it can take two hours for staff to get to her when she uses the call bell. On 7/25/22 at 11:33 a.m., Resident #34 said staff doesn't always answer her call light timely, and she can wait sometimes up to an hour before staff answer her call light. Review of the grievance filed by Resident #20 on 5/19/22, noted staff can never find two Certified Nursing Assistants to help with her care and she has to wait. The concern is documented as resolved on 5/26/22. On 7/28/22 at 11:03 a.m., Resident #20 said it takes staff as long as two hours to get to her when she needs someone to help her. She said it takes a long time to get to her because they need two staff to be there for her. She said even now, sometimes they will only use one staff when they are aware they need to have two. Review of the grievance log from 5/1/22 through 7/28/22 revealed 16 concerns related to care and treatment, including not receiving showers, not being shaved, call light response. On 7/27/22 at 9:18 a.m., Staffing and Scheduling Coordinator Staff T confirmed the CNA hours were 1.8587 on 7/24/22. Staff T said she was aware the facility was below its mandatory staffing for CNAs on that day (for State requirements).
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 7/24/22 at 10:50 a.m., and 7/29/22 at 1:02 p.m., a bottle of Calcium Carbonate was observed on Resident #62's nightstand. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 7/24/22 at 10:50 a.m., and 7/29/22 at 1:02 p.m., a bottle of Calcium Carbonate was observed on Resident #62's nightstand. Photographic evidence obtained. On 7/29/22 at 1:02 p.m., Resident #62 said, I've had this for a while now. On 07/25/22 at 10:46 a.m., Clinical record review showed Resident #62 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Encephalopathy, Dementia, and Urinary Tract Infection The clinical record showed Resident #62 had no physician's order for Calcium carbonate On 7/29/22 at 1:13 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff P said Resident #62 there was no order for Calcium Carbonate, and it should not be in the resident's room. On 07/29/22 at 1:15 p.m. Registered Nurse (RN) Minimum Data Set (MDS) Staff D said this medication should not have been with Resident #62. 2. On 7/24/22 at 10:33 a.m., Resident #20 was observed in her room lying in bed. The bedside table to the right of resident #20 has an unsecured plastic medicine cup on top of the table containing three pink tablets and one green tablet. Resident #20 said the tablets were medication to control acid reflux. Resident #20 said the nurses give her the medication and she takes it when she needs it, usually before meals. Resident #20 then took one of the pink tablets out of the cup and put it in her mouth. Review of medication order for resident #20 revealed an active order dated 6/16/22 for TUMS tablet chewable 500 mg (calcium carbonate antacid) give 1 tablet by mouth 4 times a day for Gastric Esophageal Reflux Disease 30 minutes before meals and bedtime. Review of the medical records for Resident #20 revealed no evaluation determining resident #20 had the ability to safely administer self-medication. Based on observation, record review, resident and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the safe storage of medications left at residents' bedside for 3 (Resident #144, #62 and #20) of 3 residents observed with unsecured medications at the bedside. The findings included: Review of facility policy Medication and Treatment Administration Guidelines policy dated 7/2006 and updated 3/2018 stated on page 3, under Medication Storage and Security, . Self-administered medication stored in a patient's room must be secured in a locked storage unit. On 7/24/22 at 12:09 p.m., observed one Fluticasone Propionate (Flonase) 50 micrograms nasal spray, two Albuterol Sulfate HFA inhalers, and one tube Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide (antifungal) cream unsecured on Resident #144's bedside table. On 7/25/22 at 1:34 p.m., observed one Fluticasone Propionate 50 mcg nasal spray, two Albuterol Sulfate HFA inhalers, and one tube Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide cream unsecured on Resident #144's bedside table. Resident #144 was not in her room during the observation. On 7/25/22 at 2:45 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) Staff K said she has been working at the facility for five months and is Resident #144's nurse. She said some of the residents are allowed to self-administer their medications and keep them at their bedside. She said she was aware Resident #144 had medications in her room, which she can take at any time when she thinks she needs too. She said she didn't know the facility's policy related to residents' self-administering their medications and how the medications should be stored in the resident's room. On 7/25/22 at 2:50 p.m., a joint observation of Resident #144's room with RN Staff K revealed the bottle of Fluticasone Propionate, the two Albuterol inhalers and the tube of Nystatin Triamcinolone cream remained stored, unsecured on the resident's bedside table. RN Staff K verified the medications were unlabeled. RN Staff K said she did not document when the resident used the medications or if they were effective. After reviewing Resident #144's clinical record, RN Staff K said she was not able to find documentation the interdisciplinary team evaluated the resident's ability to safely self-administer the Fluticasone Propionate, the Albuterol inhaler and apply the Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide cream. On 7/25/22 RN Staff K completed and signed an interdisciplinary team evaluation and granted approval for Resident #144 to fully self-administer medications. The evaluation form documented Resident #144 was able to demonstrate secure storage for the medications kept in her room. On 7/28/22 at 2:02 p.m., a joint observation of Resident #144's room with the Director of Nursing revealed the bottle of Fluticasone Propionate 50 mcg nasal spray, two Albuterol Sulfate HFA inhalers, and one tube Nystatin Triamcinolone Acetonide cream remained unsecured on Resident #144's bedside table. The Director of Nursing (DON) said medications stored in a resident's room should be stored in a locked compartment in the resident's room. The DON verified the facility had not provided Resident #144 with a locked box or a locked drawer to ensure the safe storage and prevent unauthorized access to the medications.
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, review of facility policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date food in 1 (first floor) of 2 nourishment rooms. The facility failed to ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, review of facility policy and procedure and staff interviews, the facility failed to label and date food in 1 (first floor) of 2 nourishment rooms. The facility failed to ensure food was prepared in a sanitary manner. The failure to label and date foods stored in the refrigerator can cause residents to consume food that may have expired. The findings included: The facility policy Food from Outside Sources and In-Room Refrigerators (revised 11/2017) documented Food requiring refrigeration and non-perishable items are stored in labeled (with patient's name and date) closed containers. 1. On 7/24/22 at 11:39 a.m., observation of the first-floor nourishment room, reach-in refrigerator with the Dietary Manager revealed the following: Three unlabeled and undated sandwiches. Photographic evidence obtained. The Dietary Manager confirmed the observations and said, the sandwiches should not be in the refrigerator without a label and date. On 7/25/22 at 11:50 a.m., the Dietary Manager said the dietary staff were trained upon hire and as needed, on dating and labeling food items, the expectation was to discard expired food items twice weekly. On 7/24/22 at 12:23 p.m., Dietary Aide Staff G confirmed she was assigned the task of removing expired items from the reach-in refrigerators. Staff G said she was aware of facility food label policy and indicated that she checked the food twice a week. Dietary Aide Staff G said she did not set aside a specific time during the day to inspect the refrigerators and remove the expired food items. On 7/24/22 at 12:31 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) Staff B said food items should be labeled with the name and date and should be used within three days or discarded. On 7/24/22 at 2:45 p.m., in an interview, Dietary Manager said the task of discarding items was assigned to dietary staff daily. 2. The facility policy Safe food handling/Glove Usage (revised 11/20) specified, Disposable gloves are worn when hands come in direct contact with food or eating surfaces. On 7/25/22 at 11:57 a.m., during an observation of the lunch meal preparation, Dietary [NAME] Staff J was observed preparing cheese sandwiches, a ready-to-eat food, with her bare hands. Staff J was not wearing gloves. Dietary [NAME] Staff J did not wash her hands prior to preparing the food. The Dietary Manager was present during the observation and said it was not acceptable to handle the food without use of gloves.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the required up-to-date nurse staffing information was posted and readily available to residents and visitors. The findings inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure the required up-to-date nurse staffing information was posted and readily available to residents and visitors. The findings included: On 7/24/22 at 9:10 a.m., observed facility lobby with the nurse staffing information on the wall and out-of-date. The information was dated 7/21/22 and did not include the number of residents currently at the facility (resident census). On 7/24/22 at 9:45 a.m., during an observation of the first-floor nursing station, the nurse staffing information was located in a closed binder behind the desk that was not readily accessible to residents and visitors. The staffing information did not contain the nursing staff directly responsible for resident care. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff L confirmed the nurse staffing information was not readily accessible to residents and visitors and did not include accurate information. On 7/29/22 at 1:43 p.m., the Staffing and Scheduling Coordinator Staff T said she was responsible to post the Nurse Staffing information in the facility lobby. Staff T said she does not post the Nurse Staffing information on the weekends because she does not work the weekends.
Jan 2021 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide urinary bag covers to promote resident d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and staff interview, the facility failed to provide urinary bag covers to promote resident dignity for 2 (Residents #275 and #276) of 2 residents reviewed. The findings included: The facility's guidelines for Catheter Care titled Indwelling Catheter with a revision date of 4/2019 read Note: Catheter bags should be covered with a catheter dignity bag to preserve the dignity of the patient. 1. Resident #276 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 1/26/21 at 11:15 a.m., during an observation, Resident #276's urinary drainage catheter bag was observed from hallway with urine noted in the drainage bag. On 1/26/21 at 11:22 a.m., in an interview, Resident #276 said a catheter bag cover would be appropriate for self-regard. 2. Resident #275 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 1/26/21 at 11:40 a.m., during an observation, Resident #275's urinary drainage device was observed from the hallway with urine noted in the drainage bag. On 1/27/21 at 11:45 a.m., in an interview, the 1st floor unit manager Staff B said the catheter drainage bag should be covered to conserve the resident's dignity. On 1/28/21 at 1:10 p.m., during an interview with the Administrator, accompanied by the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, We usually have the catheter dignity bag available to cover the urinary drainage device. The DON said she expected the drainage device to be covered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation of observation, and monitoring of a dialysis access site for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 dialysis resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation of observation, and monitoring of a dialysis access site for 1 (Resident #8) of 1 dialysis resident. The findings included: On 1/27/21 review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Assessment of arteriovenous shunts, fistulas and grafts updated 7/2017 revealed the frequency of assessment is determined by the patient's condition and medical practitioner order with a minimum frequency of daily. The procedure read Place a hand over the site and palpate for the presence of thrill (motion of blood flowing through the site). Using a stethoscope, auscultate over the site for the presence of bruit (a sound which may range from a wooshing [sic] noise to a whistle-like sound). Fistulas and grafts are access sites placed by minor surgery to reach the blood for hemodialysis. On 1/27/21 at 2:07 p.m., in an interview, Registered Nurse Staff A said Resident #8 had a fistula in her left upper arm. She said the resident had a chest port to be used for dialysis but 4-5 months ago, the physician changed it to a left upper arm fistula. On 1/27/21 review of the hemodialysis communication form for 1/23/21 and 1/26/21 revealed a notation in the post dialysis instructions indicating Resident #8's dressing to the left arm was clean dry and intact. On 1/27/21 a review of the comprehensive care plan for Resident #8 revealed a focus area initiated on 10/30/20 indicating the resident needed hemodialysis related to end stage renal disease. The interventions dated 10/30/20 included LUE [Left upper extremity] AV [arteriovenous] graft not working. Right chest dialysis catheter in place . Monitor/report to MD [Medical Doctor] & Dialysis Center s/sx [signs and symptoms] of infection to access site- Right chest dialysis catheter: Redness, Swelling, warmth or drainage. The care plan was not updated to include measures for monitoring of the left upper extremity fistula. On 1/27/21 at 2:13 p.m., during an observation Resident #8 showed her dialysis fistula located in her left upper arm. On 1/27/21 a review of the resident's Medication Administration record (MAR), Treatment Administration record (TAR) and nursing notes from the admission date through the time of the survey failed to reveal documentation of observation or assessment (pulse, bruit and thrill) of Resident #8's AV fistula to assure adequate blood flow.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct accurate reconciliation between the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) and the Controlled Substance Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct accurate reconciliation between the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) and the Controlled Substance Record for 3 (Residents #11, #28, and #72) of 3 sampled residents reviewed. The findings included: The facility's guidelines for Medication Administration: Master Controlled Substance Log with an original date of 11/2017 read .Document controlled substance administration on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and on the Controlled Substance Record immediately after administering the medication. 1. During the medication storage observation and review conducted on 1/27/21 at 10:47 a.m., a review of the controlled substances record was conducted for Resident #11. A discrepancy was noted between the eMAR and the control record. Record review revealed the pain medication Tramadol Hydrochloride (HCL) tablet 50 milligram (mg) was ordered to be administered every six (6) hours as needed for Resident #11. The controlled substances record indicated the medication was signed out and removed from the locked controlled medication box on 5/6/20, 6/13/20 and 11/12/20. The corresponding eMAR for May, June and November had no documentation the Tramadol was administered on these dates. During the observation and review on 1/27/21 at 10:47 a.m., of the East Hall medication cart Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff E confirmed an inaccurate reconciliation between the eMAR and the Controlled Substance Record for Resident #11 for May 2020, June 2020, and November 2020. 2. During the medication storage observation and review conducted on 1/27/21 at 11:23 a.m., a review of the controlled substances record was conducted for Resident #28. A discrepancy was noted between the eMAR and the control record. Record review revealed the pain medication Tramadol HCL tablet 50 mg was ordered for every eight (8) hours as needed for Resident #28. The medication monitoring control record indicated that the medication was signed out and removed from the locked controlled medication box on 1/24/21 at 6:00 p.m. The corresponding eMAR for January had no documentation the Tramadol was administered for the date and time. During the observation and review on 1/27/21 at 11:23 a.m., of the North Hall medication cart LPN Staff D confirmed the inaccurate reconciliation between the eMAR and the Controlled Substance Record for Resident #28 for the month of January 2021. 3. During the medication storage observation and review conducted on 1/27/21 at 11:23 a.m., a review of the controlled substances record was conducted for Resident #72. A discrepancy was noted between the eMAR and the control record. Record review revealed the pain medication Tramadol HCL 1/2 tablet 50 mg was ordered for every six (6) hours as needed for Resident #72. The medication monitoring control record indicated the medication was signed out and removed from the locked controlled medication box on 1/25/21 at 4:30 p.m. The corresponding eMAR for January had no documentation the Tramadol was administered for this date at this time. During the observation and review on 1/27/21 at 11:23 a.m., of the North Hall medication cart LPN Staff D confirmed the inaccurate reconciliation between the eMAR and the Controlled Substance Record for Resident #72 for the month of January 2021.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure psychoactive medications were monitored and reduced wh...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure psychoactive medications were monitored and reduced when the behaviors were not exhibited in an attempt to discontinue the medications, and the facility failed to ensure the drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings included: The facility policy Number 52, October 2017 specified, Consultant Pharmacists perform Medication Regime Review (MRR) for patients and will generate recommendations with the overall goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences Pharmacist conducts review of the medical record. The findings and or recommendations are entered in the electronic health record assessment Irregularities may include, but are not limited to dosing concerns (including duplicate drug therapy), excessive duration, without adequate monitoring, without adequate indications for use, and/or use in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued The Director of Nursing (DON) or designee reviews the MRR and contacts the attending physician to review and obtain orders as warranted. On 1/25/21 at 3:00 p.m., Resident #1 was observed in her room in a wheelchair. Resident #1 was fidgeting while seated in the wheelchair. Resident #1 was not able to answer any questions during the observation. Review of the clinical record showed Resident #1 had a diagnosis of dementia and schizoaffective disorder (a mental health disorder marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations, delusions, depression, or mania). The record documented Resident #1 medications included the following psychotropic medications (medications used to treat mental illness) Risperidone 0.25 milligram (mg) in the a.m., Risperidone 0.25 mg 2 times a day, Seroquel 50 mg at bedtime, , Buspar 5 mg every 8 hours. The record showed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles (used to treat mental and mood disorders) 125 mg every 8 hours and duloxetine (an antidepressant) 20 mg daily. The record showed the Consultant Pharmacist conducted a MRR on 11/13/20 documented irregularities were noted, dual antipsychotic therapy with Risperidone and Seroquel. The Consultant recommended, consider re-evaluating and if appropriate, discontinue Seroquel and change Risperdal to 0.25 mg every 8 hours for schizoaffective disorder. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented Resident #1 continued to receive Risperidone 0.25 mg in the a.m., Risperidone 0.25 mg 2 times a day, Seroquel 50 mg at bedtime from 11/16/20 through 1/26/21. The clinical record showed Resident #1 had a Psychiatric Evaluation with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner (PNP) on 11/16/20. The PNP documented: does not answer questions appropriately due to dementia. Anxiety fair. No depression noted. Non combative. No noted psychosis at this time. Sleep and appetite fair. Frail appearing. No other behavioral concerns reported by staff at this time. Recommendations included monitor for changes in mood or behaviors, continue medications as prescribed. The clinical record showed a Nurse Practitioner (NP) note dated 12/18/20 documented: seen in follow up. In bed was somewhat fidgety. No complaints. Does not make sense when speaking, holding a baby doll. Nursing reports she has been eating a little bit better. No report of issues. Has lost about 18 lbs [pounds] however despite nutritional interventions. Labs have been stable will do quarterly and prn heretofore. On 1/27/21 at 11:42 a.m., in an interview the Activity Director said she provided in room activities since COVID-19 restrictions were in place and offered Resident #1 an animated stuffed cat. The Activity Director said the resident enjoyed face time with her husband, TV and baby dolls. The Activity Director said she had never observed Resident #1 to have any behaviors and said, No never, not with me. On 1/27/21 at 11:56 a.m., in an interview, Certified Nursing Assistant Staff G said Resident #1 required total care with her activities of daily living and said the resident had no behaviors. On 1/27/21 at 12:09 p.m., in an interview, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Staff D said Resident #1 had no behaviors but acted like she had ants in her pants and would rock, swivel and shake at times but never calls out or is combative. On 1/27/21 at 12:21 p.m., in an interview, LPN/Unit Manager (UM) Staff F said Resident #1 did not have any behaviors and said, I have not heard of or seen any behaviors. LPN/UM Staff F said Resident # 1 was on multiple antipsychotic medications, but she did not know why. LPN/UM Staff F said when the Pharmacist came in and if he made a recommendation, they put it in the physician folder for him to review and make changes if in agreement. LPN/UM Staff F said once signed by the physician she would place the signed pharmacy recommendation in the resident's chart. LPN/UM Staff F said Resident #1 had lost weight and the medications could alter the resident's intake but did not know why the resident's medications were not adjusted. On 1/27/21 at 1:19 p.m., in an interview, the DON said there were no behavior monitoring reported or documented because Resident #1 had not had any behaviors. The DON said if the resident had a behavior it would be documented but I found nothing because there is nothing. The DON said she had monthly meetings with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner and the medications and behaviors were reviewed and they would make changes at that time if needed. The DON confirmed Resident #1 had no documented behaviors sine her admission on [DATE]. On 1/27/21 at 1:24 p.m., in an interview the Social Service Director (SSD) said the PNP visited every month for a review of all residents on antipsychotic medications, and the SSD would print a list from the electronic records of all the residents in the facility on antipsychotic medications and the NP signs it indicating she reviewed them all. The SSD said, if a resident was having behaviors, she would notify the NP. The SSD said it was only herself and the PNP in the monthly meeting to review the antipsychotic medications. The SSD said she did not bring the Pharmacy Review/recommendation sheets in the meeting for the NP to review. The SSD said Resident # 1 was reviewed on 11/16/20 but had no other documentation to show Resident #1 had behaviors, lack of behaviors or medications were addressed. The SSD said the PNP just signs the list and we talk about it. The SSD said she would know if a resident had behaviors. The SSD confirmed she did not collaborate with other staff caring for Resident #1 prior to the monthly meeting and said, they would tell me. The SSD confirmed she had no additional documentation Resident #1 was reviewed in the monthly meeting and said, she was not on my list as receiving the medications, but I see that she had them on the MAR. Record review of Resident #1 revealed a pharmacy recommendation dated 11/13/20, to discontinue Seroquel (used to treat psychosis) and change Risperidone (used to treat psychosis) to 0.25 milligrams by mouth every 8 hours for Schizoaffective disorder. The recommendation also noted dual therapy may increase risk of adverse side effects. On 1/27/21 at 1:51 p.m., in a phone interview, the PNP said, when she reviewed Resident #1's chart she was on the same antipsychotic medications before she came in to the facility and she kept them on because Resident #1 had dementia and schizoaffective disorder. The PNP said she was not aware the resident did not have documentation of behaviors and said when she came and saw her, she was always fidgeting. The PNP said she was not aware of the Consultant Pharmacist recommendation and had seen Resident #1 on 11/16/20. She said sometimes the facility gives her the recommendations and sometimes the facility does not. She said she did not consistently receive the recommendations from the facility staff. The PNP said she visited the resident 3 times since her admission and kept her on the same medications. She said she was not aware Resident #1 had lost a significant amount of weight and agreed the medications might be a factor, but so could the progression of dementia and her schizoaffective disorder. The PNP said it might be beneficial to decrease the medications and see if she could handle it. On 1/27/21 at 1:19 p.m., in an interview, LPN/UM Staff F said the Pharmacist came in and if he made a recommendation, they put it in the physician folder for him to review and make changes if in agreement. LPN/UM Staff F said once signed by the physician she would place the signed pharmacy recommendation in the resident's chart. LPN/UM Staff F was not able to locate the physician signed copy of the Consultant Pharmacist. On 1/27/21 at 3:38 p.m., in an interview the DON said the Consultant Pharmacist recommendations were given to the physician to review and sign. If the physician changed the medication the nurse would write the order and place the signed Pharmacist recommendation and physician order in the chart. The DON confirmed the facility was not able to provide documentation the Pharmacist Recommendation was reviewed and signed by the physician. The DON confirmed Resident #1 continued to receive the original dosage of Risperidone and Seroquel after the Consultant Pharmacist reviewed the medications on 11/13/20 and recommended Seroquel be discontinued, and Risperidone be decreased.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and hom...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident and staff interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment as evidenced by dry wall damage in residents' rooms on the second floor, ceiling tile and wall damage in the second floor shower room and a broken elevator button. Failure to identify and complete needed repairs could cause a safety and sanitary hazards to vulnerable residents. The findings included: On 1/25/21 at approximately 9:00 a.m., an environmental tour was conducted, and the following resident's room and facility damages were noted: 1. rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] on the wall across from the residents' beds the dry wall was damaged and some of the areas which had been patched were not painted as required. **Photographic Evidence Obtained ** 2. room [ROOM NUMBER] on the wall across from the residents' beds the drywall was damaged and the paint was peeling in multiple areas. **Photographic Evidence Obtained ** 3. room [ROOM NUMBER] on the wall across from the residents' beds the drywall was damaged and there was a hole in the drywall between Bed A and the bathroom. **Photographic Evidence Obtained ** 4. room [ROOM NUMBER] the drywall next to the window and the closet door were damaged. The cover spacer/base board below the air conditioner (A/C) was not attached to the wall and was laying on the ground. **Photographic Evidence Obtained ** 5. Main shower room on the second floor a ceiling tile was damaged with a large brown staining and the wall below the damaged ceiling tile the paint was peeling. **Photographic Evidence Obtained ** 6. room [ROOM NUMBER] on the wall across from the residents' beds the drywall and the paint were peeling. 7. The interior elevator button on the lower right corner was broken which exposed the wires behind the button. **Photographic Evidence Obtained ** On 1/25/21 at 10:32 a.m., during an interview with Resident #13 in room [ROOM NUMBER] he said when he moved into the room several months ago, he noted the hole in the drywall next to the bathroom. He said he had told multiple nursing staff about the hole in the wall and they told him the Maintenance Director was busy but would fix the hole in the drywall soon. He further said the damage and hole in the drywall made him feel like he was living in an old hotel. On 1/25/21 at 1:32 p.m., during an interview with Resident #54 she said when she moved into room [ROOM NUMBER] the drywall next to the window had a large hole and the closet door was damaged. When they turned on the heat the A/C unit below the window started to leak water and the cover spacer/base board got wet and fell. She said she told the Social Service Assist (SSA) and multiple nursing staff. She said the facility staff told her the Maintenance Director would be coming soon to repair the damaged wall, closet door, and A/C unit. She said it had been over 3 weeks since she told the staff about the room damage and no one had attempted to repair any of the damage. On 1/27/21 at 4:00 p.m., in an interview 2nd Floor Unit Manager (UM) Staff F said all facility staff were required to report any facility damage they observed to her or enter it into the Technology-Enhanced Learning in Science (TELS) computer maintenance program. She said the TELS computer program was where the facility staff documented all concerns related to all areas in the facility, equipment and/or damaged furnishing needing to be replaced and/or repaired by the maintenance department. On 1/27/21, at 4:03 p.m., a tour of rooms 214, 222, 225, 227, 231 and 240 was conducted with UM Staff F and she confirmed the rooms damage as noted. She said the staff had not informed her of the damage but were required to enter the room damage into the TELS system to ensure the maintenance department could address the areas in a timely manner. On 1/27/21 at 2:12 p.m., in an interview, the Maintenance Director said he started at the facility in November 2020 and he was the only person in his department. He said every morning he did facility rounds and reviewed all the entries in the TELS program to identify all needed repairs and/or concerns entered by the facility staff. He said all staff were required to document any areas of concerns into the TELS system to ensure those concerns were addressed in a timely manner. On 1/27/21 at 2:12 p.m., a tour was conducted with the Maintenance Director for the areas and rooms identified on the 1/25/21 environmental tour and he confirmed the drywall damage, peeling paint and repairs as documented on the 1/25/21 tour. He said the elevator button was broken and he was waiting on a part to fix the broken button. He confirmed that a resident or staff could be injured if they stuck their finger into the broken elevator button and a temporary cover should had been put over the button until the replacement part arrived. On 1/27/21 at 4:20 p.m., the Maintenance Director said he reviewed the work orders in the TELS program and said none of the areas identified on the tour were listed as required. He said he was unaware of the room damage due to the staff not entering the room damage into the TELS computer program as required causing those areas not to be repaired in a timely manner. He confirmed the drywall damage, peeling paint and the broken elevator button could cause a safety and sanitary hazards to staff and vulnerable residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation in the residents' medical record the physicians and/or nurse practitioners reviewed and addressed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to have documentation in the residents' medical record the physicians and/or nurse practitioners reviewed and addressed the pharmacist's recommendations for 2 (Residents #1 and Resident # 2) of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy (Number 52) Medication Regimen Review (dated October 2017) read: d) The attending physician documents the review and any resulting actions or orders on the MRR [Medication Regimen Review] . 1. Review of the clinical record revealed the pharmacy consultant completed a Medication Regimen Review (MRR) for Resident #2 on 11/13/20 and 12/10/20. These MRRs identified irregularities and recommendations were made. The clinical record lacked documentation the attending physician reviewed and addressed the recommendations. On 1/27/21 at 12:28 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) Unit Manager (UM) Staff F said the pharmacy recommendations went to the Director of Nursing (DON) and she gave them to the Unit Managers (UM). The UMs place the recommendations in the physician folders for when they came to the facility. Staff F said if the physician was not in, she would notify Nurse Practitioners and wait for a response, usually one or two weeks. On 1/27/21 at 12:50 p.m., UM Staff F said she was unable to locate a physician's response to MRRs for Resident #2 and said they may be in medical records. Staff F said she placed paper recommendations in the chart and agreed you would not know if the physicians and/or nurse practitioners had reviewed the MRR if this was not placed in chart. On 1/28/21 at 9:17 a.m., during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) said if medical records did not have physician responses to pharmacist recommendations for Resident #2, they did not exist. The DON was not able to provide documentation indicating the physician addressed the pharmacy consultant's recommendations for Resident #2. 2. A review of the clinical record showed Resident #1 had a diagnosis of dementia and schizoaffective disorder (a mental health disorder marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations, delusions, depression, or mania). The record documented Resident #1 medications included the following psychotropic medications (medications used to treat mental illness) Risperidone 0.25 milligram (mg) in the a.m., Risperidone 0.25 mg 2 times a day, Seroquel 50 mg at bedtime, Buspar 5 mg every 8 hours. The record showed Resident #1 received Depakote sprinkles (used to treat mental and mood disorders) 125 mg every 8 hours and duloxetine (an antidepressant) 20 mg daily. The record showed the Consultant Pharmacist conducted a MRR on 11/13/20, documented irregularities were noted, dual antipsychotic therapy with Risperidone and Seroquel. The Consultant recommended to consider re-evaluating and if appropriate discontinue Seroquel and change Risperdal to 0.25 mg every 8 hours for schizoaffective disorder. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) documented Resident #1 continued to receive Risperidone 0.25 mg in the a.m., Risperidone 0.25 mg 2 times a day, Seroquel 50 mg at bedtime from 11/16/20 through 1/26/21. On 1/27/21 at 1:19 p.m., in an interview Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)/Unit Manager (UM) Staff F said the Pharmacist came in and if he made a recommendation, they put it in the physician folder for him to review and make changes if in agreement. LPN/UM Staff F said once signed by the physician she would place the signed pharmacy recommendation in the resident's chart. LPN/UM Staff F was not able to locate the physician signed copy of the Consultant Pharmacist. On 1/27/21 at 3:38 p.m., in an interview the DON said the Consultant Pharmacist recommendations were given to the physician to review and sign, if the physician changed the medication the nurse would write the order and place the signed Pharmacist recommendation and physician order in the chart. The DON confirmed the facility was not able to provide documentation the Pharmacist Recommendation was reviewed and signed by the physician. The DON confirmed Resident #1 continued to receive the Risperidone and Seroquel after the Consultant Pharmacist reviewed the medications on 11/13/20.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, diet census report, facility provided menu for review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 10 (Residents #2, #13, #25, #32, #39, #44, #51, #275, #276, and #324) of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, diet census report, facility provided menu for review, and staff interview, the facility failed to ensure 10 (Residents #2, #13, #25, #32, #39, #44, #51, #275, #276, and #324) of 10 residents received a wheat roll for lunch. The failure to follow the menu could potentially cause significant unintentional weight loss. The findings included: On 1/28/21 9:15 a.m., review of the Diet Order Census showed the following: Resident #2 had an order for an Enhanced Mechanical Soft diet. Resident #13 had an order for an Enhanced Regular Diet. Resident #25 had a diet order for a CHO Controlled/NAS (Carbohydrate Controlled/No added Salt) diet. Resident #32 had a diet order for an Enhanced/ NAS diet (Enhanced No Added Salt). Resident #39 had a diet order for a Mechanical Soft diet. Resident #44 had a diet order for CHO Controlled/NAS (Controlled Carbohydrate/No Added Salt) diet. Resident #51 had a diet order for CHO Controlled/NAS (Carbohydrate Controlled, No Added Salt) diet. Resident #275 had a diet order for CHO Controlled/NAS (Carbohydrate Controlled/No Added Salt) diet. Resident #276 had a diet order for NAS/ Mechanical Soft (No Added Salt/ Mechanical Soft) diet. Resident #324 had a diet order for a Regular diet. On 1/27/21 from 11:26 a.m., to 12:35 p.m., during the lunch tray line observation, the above listed residents were to be served a wheat roll for lunch per the facility extended menu. On 1/27/21 at 12:35 p.m., during an interview the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and Executive Chef (EC) confirmed only residents on pureed (soft, pudding like) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) diets were served wheat rolls and they forgot them for the other diets. On 1/27/21 at 12:40 p.m., wheat rolls were observed in a covered pan on the tray line behind the cook. The CDM and EC said they were going to ensure the residents would get wheat rolls as listed on the extended menu. **Photographic evidence obtained**
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: 3 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $296,884 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 35 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $296,884 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Florida. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Capri Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Capri Center Staffed?

CMS rates CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 81%, which is 35 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 68%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Capri Center?

State health inspectors documented 35 deficiencies at CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 30 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Capri Center?

CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 129 certified beds and approximately 102 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in VENICE, Florida.

How Does Capri Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (81%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Capri 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 Capri Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Florida. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Capri Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 81%, the facility is 35 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 68%. 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 Capri Center Ever Fined?

CAPRI HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $296,884 across 2 penalty actions. This is 8.2x the Florida average of $36,048. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Capri Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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