LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

1801 N LAKE MARIAM DR, WINTER HAVEN, FL 33884 (863) 293-1989
For profit - Limited Liability company 120 Beds ROBERT SCHOENFELD Data: November 2025 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#646 of 690 in FL
Last Inspection: January 2024

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

Overview

Lake Mariam Health and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall reputation. It ranks #646 out of 690 nursing homes in Florida, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #20 of 25 in Polk County, suggesting limited local options. The facility's situation is worsening, with reported issues increasing from 4 in 2023 to 40 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, but a high turnover rate of 61% is concerning as it exceeds the state average. Unfortunately, the facility has accrued $353,123 in fines, which is higher than 97% of Florida facilities, indicating repeated compliance issues. Notably, serious incidents have occurred, including failure to protect residents from sexual abuse and neglecting safety measures for residents at risk of wandering. A resident unable to consent was subjected to sexual abuse by another resident, and another resident at risk of elopement was able to leave the facility unsupervised. While the staffing levels are decent, the facility's overall safety and well-being of residents raise significant red flags for families considering this option.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Florida
#646/690
Bottom 7%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
4 → 40 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
61% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$353,123 in fines. Lower than most Florida facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 37 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Florida. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
61 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 4 issues
2024: 40 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Florida average (3.2)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 61%

15pts above Florida avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $353,123

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: ROBERT SCHOENFELD

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (61%)

13 points above Florida average of 48%

The Ugly 61 deficiencies on record

4 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Oct 2024 3 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

Deficiency F0624 (Tag F0624)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe an orderly discharge and appropriately document in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe an orderly discharge and appropriately document in the medical record the events and follow through of the discharge for one resident (#1) who was transferred to an inappropriate location following an emergent incident between Resident #1 and another resident of three residents reviewed for transfer and discharge rights. Findings included: Review of the admission Record for Resident #1 showed the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with admitting diagnoses to include: unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance and anxiety; major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate; generalized anxiety disorder; other specified persistent mood disorders; nicotine dependence, cigarettes, uncomplicated. The admission Record showed Resident #1 was discharged from the facility on 08/04/2024. Review of a Determination of Incapacity signed by the resident's attending physician on 02/24/2024, revealed the physician evaluated and determined Resident #1 lacked the capacity to give informed consent to make medical decisions and does not have reasonable medical probability of recovering mental and physical capacity to directly exercise rights. Review of an Administration Note, dated 8/5/24 at 00:42 (12:42 a.m.), showed Increase to one on one supervision due to behaviors, every shift. Resident out of facility taken by police. Review of an Administration Note, dated 8/5/24 at 3:52 (a.m.), showed Resident out of facility. resident escorted by police out of facility. A review of a social service note, dated 8/5/24, revealed SS (social services) assisted the assistant administrator with a resident to resident. SS called the [Local Police Department] and advised them we had a Res. To Res. In our memory unit and both residents were incapacitated. The assistant administrator notified SS that the resident had been arrested. SS immediately got in contact with [Local Police Department], and they notified the officer to writer back immediately. The officer that responded to the altercation did call back and at that moment I 3-way [Staff Name] in as we were previously on the phone together. The officer said when he arrived at our facility, he asked multiple times if the resident was incapacitated, and the nurses responded no multiple times. The officer mentioned he knows our facility and he knows our downstairs unit very well this is why he asked multiple times about the resident's capacity. He took the nurses words on no capacity in place. The Officer also stated he had on his body cam footage the resident admitting what she had done and said if she could have hit the other resident, she would have done that. She explained in detail to the officer what she had done. SS will assist where needed. A review of Resident #1's electronic medical revealed the resident was arrested on 08/04/2024, by the [Local] Police Department, after an altercation with another resident in the facility. Resident #1 was charged with Battery on Person [AGE] years of age or Older. Review of an Order Granting Pretrial Release for Resident #1, dated 08/05/2024, revealed the Circuit/County Judge ordered Resident #1 may return to the residence listed on affidavit but must stay on a separate floor. Review of a psychiatry subsequent note, dated 8/5/24, revealed, Resident #1 was unstable and required a psychiatric assessment. As per collected information, DON (Director of Nursing) requested patient be seen due to having an altercation with another patient. Patient states another patient called her a [explicative] So she pushed them. Discussed not touching people and talking with staff. Patient verbalized understanding. No addictive substances cravings. No other psychiatric symptoms noted. No side effects to current psych meds (medications) were reported. Dementia is persisting, but no other behaviors noted. On 10/17/2024 at 11:25 a.m. an interview was conducted with the Social Services Director (SS). She stated Resident #1 was physically aggressive, but not all of the time. She said the behaviors happened more when Resident #1 was initially admitted to the facility because she wanted to smoke. She said the resident would say that she wanted to leave the facility. Resident #1 was deemed to be an elopement risk. The resident was sharing a room with her spouse, and the SS said the facility created a space outside for the resident, so she could smoke. The SS stated Resident #1 did not have behaviors anymore. She enjoyed hanging out in the courtyard with her spouse and drink coffee. The SS said normally when the police are called and the resident is in the memory unit, the resident is [emergency transfer] and not arrested. Resident #1 was housed in the memory care unit and had a dementia diagnosis. The SS said Resident #1's arrest was a result of the police officer deciding to arrest Resident #1 after she pushed the other resident down and admitted it. She said that corporate would not allow Resident #1 to return to the facility after the arrest. An interview was conducted on 10/17/2024 at 12:19 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed she could not find any progress notes related to discharge planning or finding alternative placement for Resident #1. The DON also confirmed Resident #1's discharge care plan had not changed during the resident's stay in the facility. At this time the Assistant Nursing Home Administrator (ANHA) stated the SS called the police and the police spoke to the nurse (Staff A, Registered Nurse). The nurse said he was passing meds in the solarium area and heard Resident #1 yelling out loud and was standing next to the other resident. She stated she pushed the other resident because he called her a [explicative]. The other resident was on the floor on his right side with his wheelchair turned over. The nurse called the DON and the residents were immediately separated. We placed a psych consult and the nurse stated at that point the police arrived. The police decided to do an arrest at this time. An attempt to contact Staff A, RN who was involved in the incident was made and no return call was received during or post survey. A telephone interview was conducted on 10/17/2024 at 12:49 p.m. with Resident #1's Power of Attorney (POA). The POA said her [Resident #1] and her [Resident #1's spouse] were both admitted to the facility at the same time, and everything was going well. She said her [Resident #1] had dementia with psychosis and was placed in the dementia unit along with her [Resident #1's spouse]. The POA said Resident #1 was involved in an altercation with another resident on 08/04/2024 and it was her first physical altercation with another resident. Resident #1 told the POA the altercation started out as something simple and ended up becoming more physical when the other resident pushed her and she pushed the other resident back. The POA said the facility called the [Local] Police Department and had Resident #1 arrested. The facility did not call the POA until after the resident was already out of the facility and headed to jail. She said not even a week after the arrest the facility told her Resident #1 could not return to the facility and the facility forced the POA to sign discharge papers. The POA stated they said they could help find another place for Resident #1. The POA said the Social Services Director (SS) was present at the court hearing held on 08/05/2024. She said Resident #1 was in jail until 09/20/2024 because the facility would not take her back. She was in jail for over a month and I had to accept the ALF (assisted living facility) referral they sent even though I did not think it was the right place for her. I did not want her to sit in jail. She was at the new facility for 24 hours and she left. It was not a safe discharge plan. My big issue was she was in a secured unit because she had behavior issues, and there was nobody supervising them. The POA stated the resident is currently at [Local Hospital] and Resident #1 left the ALF multiple times and had an [Emergency Transfer] initiated. Now she is living in a hospital, has a battery charge on her record and no one can take her. This whole incident and the way it was handled has caused her a lot of pain and anxiety not to mention being separated from her spouse. Review of Resident #1's most recent MDS, dated [DATE], showed in Section C - Cognitive Patterns the resident was moderately impaired; meaning poor decision making and needed cues and supervision. Additional review revealed Resident #1 had no evidence of an acute change in mental status from the resident's baseline. Review of the active physician orders as of 8/6/24 revealed: - Behavior Monitoring - observe for (specify resident's behavior). Document Y if the resident is exhibiting behaviors. N if resident is not exhibiting behaviors. If Y document in the PN's (progress notes), every shift; start date of 7/15/24. - Mood Stabilizing Medication - observe for agitation, and/or fluctuation in mood. Document y if resident is having behaviors and N if the resident does not have behaviors. If Y document in the PNs, every shift; start date 7/16/24. Review of Resident #1's care plan dated, 02/26/2024, showed the following Focus Areas: - [Resident #1's discharge plan was long term care in the facility. Interventions included discussing changes in discharge plan with Resident #1 and resident's representative. - The resident has a behavior problem aggression towards other residents r/t (related to) does not like others to enter her or [spouse's] personal space. Controlling/Verbally & Physically tries to break things. Behaviors throwing things exit seeking more. Refuses Showers (initiated 6/14/24, cancelled 8/7/24). Goal was the resident will have fewer episodes by review date. Interventions included administer medications as ordered, increase to one on one supervision due to behaviors, initiated on 8/4/24; intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others, approach/speak in a calm manner. Divert attention. Remove from situation and take to alternate location as needed, initiated 6/14/24; monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. Consider location, time of day, persons involved, and situations. Document behavior and potential causes. - [Resident #1] is at risk for elopement/exit seeking actively exit seeking. Actively verbalizing desire to leave & has the means to do so. Agitation, aimless wandering due to cognition, has the potential to approach exit doors. History of elopement. Sent to hospital/ER (emergency room) r/t - aggressive behaviors trying to break window with w/c (wheelchair), disruptive behaviors, cursing, yelling, threaten remarks unable to re-direct; police here and took [Resident #1] out of facility: due to her pushed down another resident. She was redirected and spoken to and 15 min checks for observation and behaviors was in place; initiated 3/1/24. Goal was for Resident #1 to not leave the facility unattended through the review date. Interventions included: 15 minute checks on night shift & 1:1 supervision on day and evening shifts for safety, initiated 7/8/24 - Focus Area - [Resident #1] has the following behavior problem(s) restlessness/pacing. [Resident #1] has hx (history) of placing self on floor, refusing care and medication, initated on 2/28/24 and resolved on 5/29/24. An interview was conducted on 10/17/2024 at 1:14 p.m. with the SS and Assistant Nursing Home Administrator (ANHA). and she stated the facility could not accept Resident #1 back to the facility because she would have required 1:1 supervision. The ANHA stated Resident #1 was physically and verbally aggressive, however, she could not confirm another specific incident other than the incident when Resident #1 was arrested. Review of a progress note, dated 06/13/2024, for Resident #1 revealed the resident was taking smoke breaks, and she stated upon entering her room, her bed was occupied by a resident from another room. Resident #1 woke up the resident in her bed and he attempted to kick her, she called for help, the hall monitor entered the room and redirected the intruding resident to his room. Review of a Social Service progress note, dated 07/09/2024, showed a care plan meeting was held with the team and Resident #1's daughter. No new concerns noted at the time. Review of a progress note, dated 07/17/2024, for Resident #1 revealed the resident continues on 1:1 monitoring with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) at bedside. The resident was calm and resting peacefully at that time. Review of a progress note, dated 07/21/2024, for Resident #1 showed the resident remained safe with no behavioral issues throughout the shift with 1:1 at bedside. Review of a progress note, dated 07/26/2024, for Resident #1 showed the resident was observed down the hall with 1:1. The resident was alert with no obvious distress noted, due to meds given as prescribed. No agitation noticed throughout the shift. Review of a progress note, dated 07/30/2024, for Resident #1 showed the resident was on checks every 15 minutes, resident was observed in her room resting, smoke break was provided as needed, no obvious distress noted at that time. A follow-up interview was conducted on 10/17/2024 at 3:58 p.m. with the ANHA and she said it was not her decision to not allow Resident #1 to be admitted back to the facility. She said it was a corporate decision. She agreed the facility did not document the reasons why Resident #1 could not be readmitted to the facility. The ANHA confirmed if a resident's plan of care changed it should be documented in the resident's chart. No documentation was done by the facility indicating the discharge care plan changed for Resident #1. The ANHA stated if Resident #1 had increased behaviors which impacted her residency in the facility these behaviors should have been documented in the resident's chart. The ANHA confirmed she was aware Resident #1 was granted court approval to return to the facility. She re-stated it was not her decision to deny readmission to Resident #1. Review of the facility's Discharge Planning Process Policy, dated 11/3/2020 and revised 9/19/2023, revealed: Policy: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focuses on the resident's discharge goals, the preparation of residents to be active partners and effectively transition them to post-discharge care, and the reduction of factors leading to preventable readmissions. Definitions: Discharge planning is a process that generally begins on admission and involves identifying each resident's discharge goals and needs, developing and implementing interventions to address them, and continuously evaluating them throughout the resident's stay to ensure a successful discharge. Procedure: 1. The facility will support each resident in the exercise of his or her right to participate in his or her care and treatment, including planning for discharge. 2. The facility will determine the resident's expected goals and outcomes regarding discharge upon admission, routinely in accordance with the MDS assessment cycle, and as needed. (a) Initial information and discharge goals will be included in the resident's baseline care plan. (b) Subsequent assessment information and discharge goals will be included in the resident's comprehensive plan of care. 3. If Discharge to community is determined to not be feasible, the facility will document in the clinical record who made the determination and why. 4. In cases where the resident wishes to be discharged to a setting that does not appear to meet his or her post-discharge needs, or appears unsafe, the interdisciplinary team will treat this situation similarly to refusal of care: (a) Discuss with the resident, (and/or his or her representative, if applicable) and document the implications and/or risks of being discharged to a location that is not equipped to meet his/her needs and attempt to ascertain why the resident is choosing that location. (b) Offer other, more suitable, options of locations that are equipped to meet the needs of the resident. Document any discussions related to the options presented. (c) Document refusals of other options that could meet the resident's needs. (d) At time of discharge, follow policies regarding discharges Against Medical Advice, and refer to Adult Protective Services (or other state entity charged with investigating abuse and neglect), as necessary. 5. If discharge to community is a goal, an active discharge plan will be implemented and will involve the interdisciplinary team, including the resident and/or resident representative. 6. An active individualized discharge care plan will address, at a minimum: (a) Discharge destination, with assurances the destination meets the resident's health/safety needs and preferences. (b) Identified needs, such as medical, nursing, equipment, educational or psychosocial needs. (c) Caregiver/support person availability and the resident's caregiver's/support person's capacity and capability to perform required care. (d) Resident's goals of care and treatment preferences. 7. The ongoing process of developing the discharge plan will include a regular re-evaluation of the resident to identify changes that require modification of the discharge plan, and updating of the discharge plan, as needed, to reflect the modifications. 8. The facility will document any referrals to local contact agencies or other appropriate entities made for the purpose of the resident's interest in returning to the community. 9. The facility will update a resident's comprehensive care plan and discharge plan, as appropriate, in response to information received from referrals to local contact agencies or other appropriate entities. 10. The facility will assist residents and their resident representatives in choosing an appropriate post-acute care provider (i.e., another SNF, HHA, IRF, or LTCH) that will meet the resident's needs, goals and preferences. (a) The Social Services Director, or designee, shall compile available data on other post-acute care options to present to the resident, including, but not limited to: (i) Data on providers within the resident's desired geographic area, where available. (ii) Quality measure data, based on standardized patient assessment data, publicly available on the CMS Care Compare website. (iii) Data on resource use to the extent the data is available, such as number of residents/patients are discharged to the community, and rates of potentially preventable hospital readmissions. (b) The facility will ensure that the data used is relevant and applicable to the resident's goals of care and treatment preferences. (c) The facility will comply with the Federal Anti-Kickback statute when making referrals to other provider types. (d) The facility will present provider information to the resident and resident representative, if applicable, in an accessible and understandable format, and will answer any questions to assist in the resident's/representative's understanding. 11. The evaluation of the resident's discharge needs and discharge plan will be completely documented on a timely basis in the clinical record. 12. The results of the evaluation and the final discharge plan will be discussed with the resident or resident's representative. All relevant information will be provided in a discharge summary to avoid unnecessary delays in the resident's discharge or transfer, and to assist the resident in adjustment to his or her new living environment. 13. Education needs, as identified in the discharge plan, will be provided to the resident and/or family member prior to discharge.
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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the transfer and discharge notice to the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for one (#1) of three residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a copy of the transfer and discharge notice to the Office of the State Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for one (#1) of three residents reviewed for transfer and discharge rights. Findings included: Review of the admission Record revealed Resident #1 was originally admitted to the facility in February of 2024 with diagnoses to include unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #1's Nursing Home Transfer and Discharge Notice revealed the notice was given on 8/4/24. The location to which Resident #1 was transferred to was the county jail. The address and phone number were not listed. Under reason for discharge or transfer, none of the boxes were checked. Under brief explanation, the form showed, Resident incarcerated. The area to show that the notice was given to the Local Long Term Care Ombudsman Council was incomplete/blank. Review of a document titled [Name of Facility], and the facility's social services phone number, showed a list of resident names for the Ombudsman discharge notifications dated 08/02/24 to 08/31/24. This list did not include Resident #1's name and there was no entry on 8/4/24 the day Resident #1 was discharged . On 10/17/24 at 2:14 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Social Services Director (SSD). The SSD stated the discharge process included a documented discharge note, a discharge summary and the notification to the Ombudsman. She stated she normally notified the Ombudsman of discharges through an electronic fax on the first of each month. She stated she had emails to confirm the notifications. The SSD stated she did not notify the Ombudsman of Resident #1's discharge, because she only notified the Ombudsman of hospital transfer discharges and any planned discharges. She stated she did not notify the Ombudsman if a resident's transfer was unplanned. She stated she did not have transcripts confirming the receipt of the faxes the last three months. She stated the facility's IT (Information Technology) department deleted their emails after every 30 days. The SSD stated she did not have confirmation of the paperwork being faxed. Review of a facility policy titled, Discharge Planning Process, implemented 11/3/20, did not show expectations regarding Ombudsman notifications of the facility's transfers and discharges.
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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident spaces, and resident equipment were ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident spaces, and resident equipment were clean/sanitary and maintained to include Soiled Air Conditioner unit filters; Soiled walls; Soiled ceiling tiles; Soiled bathroom equipment, Soiled walls and doorways on two of two floors and within two of four halls (100 and 200). Findings included: On 10/7/2024 at 9:08 a.m., 11:00 a.m. and 1:45 p.m., The facility was toured with the following findings. The first floor dementia unit to include resident rooms 101 - 134 revealed: 1. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. 2. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. The baseboard on the right side of the PTAC unit was observed waterlogged and peeled off the wall, leaving a gap between the plastic baseboard and the wall. The shared bathroom was observed with floor material peeled up and leaving a trip hazard, and also was not a cleanable surface. 3. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. The baseboard in the shared bathroom right side observed peeled and leaving hole and gap between the baseboard and wall. 4. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. A spotted black colored biogrowth was observed behind the main room door on the door frame. The shared bathroom was observed with cracked and missing floor tiles at the base of the toilet leaving a non cleanable surface. 5. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. The shared bathroom was observed with a grey metal over the commode seat. All four legs and the metal cross connectors were observed with heavy paint peeling with heavy rusting. 6. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. 7. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. Also, one ceiling tile was observed heavily waterlogged, posing recent water damage. 8. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. Also, observed black biogrowth on the wall on the right side of the a/c PTAC unit. 9. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a hole in the wall on the baseboard on right side of the PTAC unit. 10. The 100 unit Dining room/Activity Solarium room, which was frequented by over 8 residents each time of observation, was observed with heavy wet appearing black biogrowth on four ceiling tiles near the television and at the back of the room. 11. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. The floor baseboard on the right side of the PTAC unit was peeled up and with water damage. 12. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. 13. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. There was also black biogrowth on the wall at and near the PTAC power plug-in plate/area. 14. Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. 15. room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a window wall mounted Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner PTAC unit with heavy caked-on dust debris on both filters. There was also Ceiling water damage on ceiling above window bed. The second main floor was observed with the following: 16. The main hallway ceiling near the 200 unit nurse station, which is frequented by residents, was observed with a metal ceiling vent with black biogrowth spotting as well as heavy rusted areas. The rusted areas were not cleanable. 17. The ceiling above the 200 unit station was observed with a metal ceiling vent with black biogrowth spotting as well as heavy rusted areas. The rusted areas were not cleanable. 18. The main hallway outside resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a metal ceiling vent with black biogrowth spotting as well as heavy rusted areas. The rusted areas were not cleanable. 19. The main hallway outside resident room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a metal ceiling vent with heavy black biogrowth spotting as well as heavy rusted areas. The rusted areas were not cleanable. 20. The main dining room was observed with a tray ceiling. The metal ceiling vent and extended ceiling area above the door leading to the education room, was observed with black and grey colored dirt/debris. The air vent blows directly into the dining room and was above two tables where residents dine and sit. 21. The Education room, which was located on the other side of the door from the main dining room, revealed two sets of doors that led to the outside porch. The outside porch was utilized for residents to sit at and there were four residents and a staff member seated out in this porch. Two of the doors on the inside of the building were noted with heavy blotches of black biogrowth. 22. The 200 unit smaller dining room/activity room was observed with three recently water logged and still wet ceiling and air duct tiles. Many residents were observed in this room during the times of the observations. Also, a metal ceiling vent with black biogrowth spotting as well as heavy rusted areas. 23. The therapy department gym was observed with four recently water logged ceiling tiles and two metal air conditioner ceiling vents with black biogrwoth and heavy rusted areas. Photographic evidence obtained. On 10/17/2024 at 10:02 a.m., Staff I, who was the interim Housekeeping Director was interviewed with relation to Housekeeping cleaning and maintenance services. Staff I revealed she has just taken over as interim Housekeeping Director yesterday on 10/16/2024, as the previous Housekeeping Director was terminated. Staff I did confirm she has been employed at the facility as a Houskeeper for almost two years. She revealed she knows the layout of the facility and proceeded to talk about what a Housekeeper staff's responsibilities were. She proceeded to say on a daily basis staff are to go into residents spaces to include resident rooms and bathrooms and they clean high touch surfaces to include light switches, call light buttons, hand rails on beds, door knobs, A/C PTAC plastic covers, television remotes, etc. She also revealed staff are to change out the trash cans, wipe down tables and furniture, clean the entire bathroom to include floor, walls, toilet and sink. Staff I revealed housekeeping staff use a long stick sweeper to clean ceiling vents in the rooms as well. She also indicated staff sweep and mop the floors and clean the windows that look outside. She revealed housekeeping staff are not responsible for changing the air filters in the PTAC units. Staff I revealed since she had just taken over as interim Housekeeping Director, she did not know where the paper schedules and procedures were located. mmmmmm Interviews with Housekeeping staff at 1:00 p.m. to include Staff I, J, K and L all confirmed their duties as indicated above from interview with Staff I. Staff J, K and L all revealed they feel they are provided with sufficient supplies to do their job however, they felt they could receive more education and inserivces in order to perform their duties with regards to cleaning black biogrowth. Staff I, J, K, and L all revealed that they have seen areas in residents spaces that looked like mold-like substances and did not know how to appropriately clean those areas. Staff I, J, K, and L all revealed once they see areas that appear to be mold-like they report it to maintenance department by way of electronic reporting work order system or by way of word of mouth. Staff I, J, K, and L all revealed that once those areas are reported, it was found that the Maintenance Director would clean off those mold-like areas. They did not know how he cleaned the areas not did they know what type of cleaning agent he used. They all felt the reported areas would be taken care of quickly. Housekeeping staff I, J, K and L could not remember if they had ever received any complaints from residents or visitors with regards to mold-like debris. Staff I, J, K, and L all revealed they felt safe in the building and they have not observed or smelled areas with must or mold-like odors. On 10/27/2024 at 10:35 a.m. an interview was conducted with the Maintenance Director. He revealed he was at the time the only person who handles maintenance issues in the building. He revealed that management was in the process of hiring another employee to add to his department. The Maintenance Director revealed he had been employed at the facility as the Maintenance Director for over a year. He was asked how he handles electronic and word of mouth maintenance work orders. He revealed he reviews the electronic work orders on a daily basis and will do correction based on priority. He revealed the work orders that are put in word of mouth, he will put in electronically so they are documented. He revealed he will try and correct each issue timely, but there are times when he has to order parts or get additional help to correct the issue. The Maintenance Director was asked who was responsible for cleaning and maintaining the resident room wall mounted air conditioner PTAC units. He explained that Housekeeping staff will clean the outside cover and buttons and maintenance department is responsible for cleaning and replacing the air filters. He revealed he will try to clean the PTAC unit air filters at least once a month. He was not able to show paperwork/documentation of this expectation. He was also not able to provide evidence that he had cleaned or replaced PTAC unit air filters the past three months as requested. The Maintenance Director revealed since he was the only maintenance staff in the building, some tasks have not been completed in a timely manner. He was shown photographic evidence of soiled PTAC unit air filters and he confirmed he had not gotten to them yet and that they should not be caked with dust/debris. The Maintenance Director denied any mold in the building. He revealed that if he, or any of the facility staff observe and report black biogrowth suspected as mold, he will immediately go to those areas and assess it. He revealed if he does not think the areas are mold, he will clean with a detergent the area and then housekeeping will continue to clean the areas after that. He revealed if he had suspected mold, he would report to the Nursing Home Administrator and Regional Maintenance Director of that suspicion and the facility has a contacted service to come out and assess and remediate the suspected mold areas. The Maintenance Director revealed since his employ, he has not observed or had any staff report to him of mold, but he has been reported of mold-like biogrowth. He revealed he had cleaned those areas and then brushed on surface of mold killing paint product called, KILZ. He revealed he spreads out this product for preventative maintenance and to keep mold like substances away. The Maintenance Director was unable to confirm how he would identify mold-like substances that would need to be reported as to opposed to just black biogrowth areas that he cleans himself. The Maintenance Director did not have any paper documentation or electronic documentation to support cleaning of black biogrwoth or mold-like substances within the last three months as per request. Further, the Maintenance Director had no current work orders to support evidence that any of the above mentioned areas were in the process of correction. On 10/17/2024 at 3:00 p.m. an interview with the Nursing Home Administrator was not aware of any mold-like substances in the building and that no staff had reported to her of this suspicion. She further confirmed the Maintenance Director would handle suspicion of mold and they have an outside sourced company that would come out and assess and remediate if need. She was not able to provide any documentation to support what the process would be if suspected mold like substances in the building. On 10/17/2024 at 3:00 p.m. the Nursing Home Administrator provided the Safe and Homelike Environment Policy and Procedure with a revision date of 4/11/2023, for review. The policy showed; In accordance with residents' rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, allowing the resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. This includes ensuring that the resident can receive care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximizes resident independence and does not pose a safety risk. Definitions included but was not limited to: Environment refers to any environment int the facility that is frequently that is frequented by residents, including (but not limited to) the residents' rooms, bathrooms, hallways, dining areas, lobby, outdoor patio, therapy areas and activity areas. Sanitary includes, but not limited to, preventing the spread of disease-causing organisms by keeping resident care equipment clean and properly stored. Resident care equipment includes, but is not limited to: equipment used in the completion of the activities of daily living. On 10/17/2024 at 3:00 p.m. Staff I and the Nursing Home Administrator could not provide a Housekeeping and Maintenance department policy and procedure for review.
May 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect residents' right to be free from sexual abu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to protect residents' right to be free from sexual abuse by a resident. Three residents (#2, #4, #8) of five with physician-signed lack of capacity to consent documents experienced sexual abuse in the facility. Resident #1 had a documented history of inappropriately touching and attempting to kiss staff beginning August 25, 2023. The facility did not respond with interventions that prevented sexual abuse from occurring to vulnerable residents. On 9/5/23 Resident #4 was discovered naked in their room with another resident (Resident #1). On 3/29/24 staff observed a resident (Resident #7) removing his hand from Resident #8's pants. On 4/15/24 during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., shift staff observed Resident #1 masturbating while Resident #2 watched standing in his room's doorway. Facility staff did not respond to this observation. On 4/16/2024 Resident #2 was observed in bed with another resident (Resident #1) standing next to the bed, his penis in her mouth. Applying the reasonable person concept to Residents #2, #4, and #8 due to their severe cognitive impairments, they would be expected to be distressed and/or afraid after non-consensual or coerced sexual contact. These failures created situations that resulted in a worsened condition for Residents #2, #4, and #8 and the likelihood for continued sexual abuse to these and other residents and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy that began on 1/26/2024. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 5/17/2024 and the severity and scope was reduced to E after verification of removal of immediacy of harm. Findings Included: An interview was conducted with Staff E, CNA, on 5/15/24 at 1:38 p.m. Staff E, CNA, stated she knew Resident #1 prior to the incident on 4/16/24 with Resident #2. Staff E said while completing shift change rounds with Staff T, CNA, Resident #1 was observed going across the hallway into Resident #2's room. Staff E, CNA, said when she entered Resident #2's room, Resident #2 was sucking his [Resident #1's] thing, and he was so into it he didn't know I was there, I yelled at him to stop. Resident #2 was observed in the B-bed laying on her side, the bed was raised to [Resident #1's] waist . He [Resident #1] had his hand behind his head. I [had] never seen it before that and haven't seen that since. Staff E, CNA, said It was like she [Resident #2] never had a reaction; she went back to sleep, she did not react. Resident #1 didn't say anything to Staff E, CNA, and Staff T, CNA. The Unit Manager, Staff U, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), said to Resident #1 I thought you stopped doing that, and he [Resident #1] stated No, I've never stopped that. Staff T, CNA, told Staff E, CNA, she observed the night before [April 15, 2024] Resident #1 was ejaculating and Resident #2 was watching. Attempts were made to telephone Staff T, CNA, messages left, and no response received. An interview was conducted with Staff R, CNA, on 5/15/24 at 1:57 p.m. Staff R, CNA, said she typically works on the first floor [Memory Unit] and is familiar with Resident #1 and Resident #2. He [Resident #1] has a habit of being sexual. Yesterday [Resident #1] was playing with self in room in his bed. [I] have seen him standing naked. On 4/16/24 Staff R, CNA, was assigned to care for Resident #1 and Resident #2 on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Staff R, CNA, said at approximately 2:00 p.m. after providing care to Resident #2, she observed Resident #1 sitting on the side of his bed and left both room doors open. Staff R, CNA, heard Staff T, CNA, ask Resident #1 What are you doing? Staff R, CNA said she went to Resident #2's room and was told Resident #1's penis was in the mouth of Resident #2. She observed Resident #2 covered with a cloth bed pad. Staff R, CNA, said Staff T, CNA, told her on 4/14/24 during the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift Resident #2 was peeking in the door and Resident #1 who was sitting on his bed with pants down and he was playing with himself. Staff R, CNA said Staff T, CNA, said she told the nurse of her observation of Resident #1 and Resident #2. Staff R, CNA, heard Resident #1 tell Staff U, LPN, I can't stop, I don't want to. Staff R, CNA, said when assigned to 1:1 observation (staff supervision requiring constant visualization of the resident) for Resident #1 would be sexual and would come and stand over me. Staff R, CNA, said when assigned to hall monitoring, she received safety check logs from the hall monitor on the previous shift. Each resident on every 15 minutes, every 30 minute or every 1 hour checks will have separate logs. An interview was conducted on 5/15/24 at 2:34 p.m. with Staff C, Social Services Director (SSD), who said she was familiar with the 4/16/24 incident involving Resident #1 and Resident #2. Staff C, SSD, said she spoke with Resident #2 and asked, If she was ok, remembered anything happen. Resident #2 said She was in pain but did not report area. We sent her to the hospital on the same day and they sent her back. Staff C, SSD, said she spoke with Resident #1 to find out what he was thinking before going deep into investigation. When Resident #1 was asked why he did it, he said because he wanted to. After the incident, she completed a psychosocial evaluation on Resident #1 and Resident #2 and contacted family members for each resident. Resident #2's family member did not want to press charges. Staff C, SSD, said she assumed a full-time employee position at the facility in late February 2024. She did not know Resident #1's history and he was not discussed during the transition by the previous Social Services staff. Staff C, SSD, said Resident #1 had been discussed in Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meetings (QAPI) and the following interventions had been implemented: 1:1 monitoring, room changes and hallway changes. I know right now he's 1:1, prior to this [4/16/24] incident he was referred for transfer to other facilities. During the interview with Staff C, SSD, Staff D, LPN, Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) said, no one wants him [Resident #1], family wants to keep him on 1:1 forever. Staff D, LPN, SDC, said according to Resident #1's family, elopement risk was the reason for his admission to the facility. Resident #1's family member doesn't want anything to do with him and hasn't been forthright with any information. Staff C, SSD, said I did the psychosocial evaluation with Resident #8. I notified Resident #8's family member of the incident on 3/29/24. Resident #8's family did not want the [resident] in the solarium without facility staff. Staff C, SSD, said when Resident #8 was asked about the incident, there was no response. During the interview on 5/15/24 at 2:34 p.m. a situation between Residents #7 and #4 was discussed, Staff C, Social Services Director (SSD) said when Resident #7 was asked about the incident, the resident did not admit the incident occurred. Staff C, SSD, said 1:1 monitoring of Resident #7 was started immediately. Staff C, SSD, said Resident #4 does not remember anything from September. Resident #4 hangs out with others from the same culture and communicates in her [native language]. Resident #2 Review of Resident #2's admission record revealed initial admission to the facility was on 6/4/2023 with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease, major depressive disorder, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, dementia, hyperlipidemia, high blood pressure, encephalopathy, and dysphagia. Review of Resident #2's Minimum Data Set (MDS), quarterly dated 12/4/23, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 out of 15, meaning severe cognitive impairment. Section GG for Functional abilities and goals revealed Resident #2 uses a wheelchair for mobility. Review of section E, Wandering - Presence and Frequency revealed Resident #2 wanders daily. Review of section J, Prognosis revealed Resident #2 has a medical condition or chronic disease that may result in a life expectancy of less than 6 months. Review of a care plan, created on 6/6/23, revealed Resident #2 has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to dementia, impaired decision-making, long-term memory loss, short term memory loss. The care plan's goal is Resident #2 will maintain current level of cognitive functioning. Review a of care plan, created on 2/26/24, revealed Resident #2 is receiving hospice services due to terminal diagnosis of Parkinson's disease. The care plan's goal is to keep Resident #2 comfortable throughout the end-of-life journey. Review of a care plan created on 3/4/24, revealed Resident #2 has a terminal condition related to Parkinson's disease. The care plan's goal is Resident #2's comfort to be maintained. Review of care plan, Resident #2 is at risk for cardiovascular complications related to congestive heart failure and high blood pressure. The care plan's goal is Resident #2 will have minimized complications related to cardiac (heart) condition. Review of the care plan created on 6/23/23, revealed Resident #2 at times wanders but is usually easily redirected to the nurses' station or day activities. The care plan's goal is Resident #2's safety will be maintained through next review date. Review of a care plan created on 9/17/23 revealed Resident #2 is impulsive and pulls wheelchair behind her difficult to redirect. The care plan's goal is Resident #2 will cooperate with care through the next review date. Review of order summary report revealed physician orders active as on 5/13/24 included 1) actively exit seeking, record number of occurrences every shift; 2) Hospice services for Parkinson's disease; 3) Trazodone for depression; 4) Metoprolol for Hypertension; 5) Morphine Sulfate 20 mg/ml (milligrams per milliliter) by mouth every 6 hours when needed for pain ; 6) Ativan 1 mg for anxiety every 4 hours as needed. Review of Resident #2's Determination of Incapacity, dated 4/5/24, and signed by two providers, revealed .resident lacks capacity to give informed consent to make medical decisions and does not have reasonable probability of recovering mental and physical capacity to directly exercise rights. Review of a psychiatric note, authored by the psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner (PMHNP), dated 4/2/24. The history of present illness section revealed no reports of anxiety symptoms .no behaviors reported at this time. Resident #2's mental status examination section revealed the following: Appearance/ behaviors: confused. Mood: Patient mood is fine Affect: constricted Insight judgement: Impaired The plan of action section revealed continue medications, lorazepam for agitation intramuscularly (IM) three times daily as needed (PRN) for the next two weeks. Review of a subsequent psychiatric note, authored by the PMHNP, dated 4/17/24, section history of present illness revealed Prior to last visit, patient was doing well. Patient was not depressed or anxious. Patient had no behaviors reported. During the last visit, patient had no distress noted unit manager and director of nursing (DON) requested resident to be [evaluated] via tele psych due to patient having increase agitation and combativeness. Patient appeared irritable. Resident #2's mental status examination section revealed the following: Appearance/ behaviors: Well groomed, poor eye contact Mood: Patient mood is irritable Affect: Tensed Insight judgement: Impaired The sectioned titled assessment and plan revealed patient is unstable requiring medication changes .symptoms are occurring due to exacerbation of underlying .mood disorder. the symptoms occurring almost daily causing severe distress. The start medication section revealed Trazadone 25mg three times daily. On 5/13/24 at 9:48 a.m. during observation and interview, Resident #2 was found lying on her left side, linen up to her shoulders. Resident #2 opened her eyes when greeted, and nodded when asked if she was feeling okay. She did not respond verbally during the interaction. On 5/14/24 at 2:45 p.m. Resident #2 was observed in bed with her eyes closed. She appeared calm without any indication of pain or discomfort. On 5/17/2024 at approximately 3:40 p.m. Resident #2 was observed waking and was accompanied back to her wheelchair by staff. Review of a progress note, dated 4/17/24 at 10:42 p.m. authored by Staff CC, RN, revealed . Lorazepam was administered due to agitation. Review of Resident #2's facility progress note, dated 4/18/24 at 12:26 p.m. authored by Staff U, LPN, revealed resident noted very agitated refusing care combative Ativan 0.5 mg IM resident placed in crisis care by hospice with 24 hours at bedside. Review of Resident #2's facility progress note, dated 4/19/24 at 9:21 p.m. authored by Staff CC, RN, revealed . resident had increased agitation during the shift. Lorazepam 1 mg administered .to decrease agitation. Review of Resident #2's facility progress note, dated 4/23/23 authored by Staff EE, LPN revealed new order was given by the hospice nurse Lorazepam (Ativan) 1mg every four hours and d/c (discontinue Lorazepam 0.5 mg). Review of Resident #2's eINTERACT SBAR Summary for Providers note dated, 4/16/24 at 6:25 p.m., authored by Staff U, LPN, Unit Manager, revealed the change in condition (CIC) being reported is: other change in condition, and lists vital signs from 4/16/24 at 6:31 p.m. The section titled Outcomes of Physical Assessment revealed: Mental Status evaluation: No changes observed. Functional status evaluation: No changes observed. Behavioral status evaluation: No documentation Nursing observations, evaluation, and recommendation resident to resident altercation MD order resident out evaluation. Review of Resident # 2's progress notes, dated 4/16/24 at 5:00 p.m., authored by Staff C, SSD, revealed, resident was interviewed by writer and does not have memory of a male being in her room or a memory of anything happening to her .verbalized she was not feeling well and was in pain. Review of Resident # 2's progress notes, dated 4/16/24 at 4:02 p.m., authored by Staff DD, RN, revealed tele health done, no new orders. A review of Resident #2's Emergency Department discharge instructions, dated [DATE], section titled, Tests Performed, revealed blood tests for hepatitis and HIV screen were performed. Section titled: Education Material revealed Treating sexual assault. Resident #4 Review of Resident #4's admission record revealed the initial admission date was on 8/11/23 with diagnoses including gastroesophageal reflux disease, hyperlipidemia (high fat content in the blood), dementia, mood disturbance, Alzheimer's disease, cerebral atherosclerosis (buildup of plaque in the artery) major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, other persistent mood disorders and brief psychotic disorder. Review of Resident #4's Minimum Data Set (MDS), quarterly dated 4/21/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 1 out of 15 meaning severe cognitive impairment. Section GG for Functional abilities and goals revealed Resident #4 walks independently and is dependent with personal hygiene. Review of Resident #4's Determination of Incapacity, dated 2/2/24, and signed by two providers revealed .resident lacks capacity to give informed consent to make medical decisions and does not have reasonable probability of recovering mental and physical capacity to directly exercise rights. On 5/13/24 at 11:30 a.m. Resident #4 was observed sitting on the side of her bed. English is a second language for Resident #4 and an interpreter was used for communication. Resident #4 said she was doing well and did not have any concerns. On 5/114 at 2:15 p.m., Resident #4's family member was contacted by telephone and said they would return the phone call with another family member due to language barrier. A return call was not received. Review of Order Summary Report active orders as of 5/15/24 reveal Resident #4: 1) actively exit seek, record interventions. admitted to hospice on 10/23/23 related to diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis. 2) Attest that rounding with visualization of resident has been completed every two hours during the shift, ordered on 8/22/23. Resident #4's Depakote for mood disorder, Trazadone for depression, Paxil for depression, Zonisamide for seizures, and Olanzapine for psychosis. A review of the care plan focus created on 8/14/23 revealed Resident #4 had potential for pain related to muscle weakness and terminal prognosis, and the care plan's goal was Resident #4 will not experience a decline in overall function. A care plan created on 8/20/23 revealed Resident #4 was at risk for complications due to being incontinent of urine and bowel. At risk for developing areas of impaired skin integrity and UTIs (Urinary Tract Infections). The goal was to minimize Resident #4's risk for skin breakdown and infection. A care plan created on 8/14/23 revealed Resident #4 was an elopement risk/wanderer related to impaired safety awareness, resident wanders aimlessly. The care plan's goal was Resident #4's safety will be maintained through the next review date. A review of the care plan created on 8/13/23 revealed Resident #4 had potential to be physically aggressive related to dementia, history of harm to others, poor impulse control, and inappropriate behaviors. The care plan goal was Resident #4 will not harm self or others through the next review date. A review of the care plan created on 8/14/23 revealed Resident #4 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to dementia, impaired decision making, and short-term memory loss. The care plan goal was Resident #4 will maintain level of cognitive function through the review date. A review of Resident #4's care plan focusing on impaired thought process related to dementia, impaired decision making and short-term memory loss, initiated on 8/14/23, stated the care plan goal was resident will maintain the current level of cognitive function through review date. The care plan interventions include cue, reorient and supervise as needed. A review of Resident #4's progress note dated 9/5/23 at 11:25 p.m. revealed .Resident was observed by staff in room with [Resident #1], at this time resident was without clothing, resident was redirected .family member and physician notified. Resident #8 Review of Resident #8's admission record revealed initial admission to the facility was on 6/29/20 with diagnoses of cerebral atherosclerosis, depression, dementia, psychotic disturbance, anxiety, pseudobulbar affect (condition that affects how the brain controls emotion), high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, pressure ulcer (sore) right hip. Review of Resident #8's active orders as of 5/14/24 revealed: 1) hospice services effective 7/6/23 for cerebral atherosclerosis. 2) attest that rounding with visualization of resident every 2 hours. 3) Hydrocodone with acetaminophen every 12 hours as needed for pain. 4) Levothyroxine for hypothyroidism. 5) Trazodone for depression. Review of Resident #8's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly, dated 4/5/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, meaning severe cognitive Impairment. Section F, Preferences for Customary routine Activities, revealed Resident #8 is rarely/never understood and family/significant is not available. Section GG, Functional Abilities and Goals, reveals Resident #8 uses a wheelchair and is dependent on staff for mobility and self-care. On 5/14 at 3:17 p.m. Resident #8 was observed sitting in a Geri chair by the nurses' station. Her eyes were open; she did not react to greetings or respond to questions. Review of Resident #8's Determination of Incapacity, dated 6/8/20, and signed by two providers, revealed .resident lacks capacity to give informed consent to make medical decisions and does not have reasonable probability of recovering mental and physical capacity to directly exercise rights. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 was at risk for skin breakdown. The care plan's goal was Resident #8's Risk for skin breakdown will be minimized through next review. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 had a pressure wound to right hip. The care plan goal was Resident #8 wound will heal without complications. Review of care plan revealed Resident #8 had diabetes and was at risk for high and low blood sugars. The care plan's goal was Resident #8 will remain free from complications related to high and low blood sugars. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 was at risk for decreased ability to perform activities of daily living in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting. The care plan goal revealed Resident #8 will continue to participate in activities of daily living as tolerated. Review of care plan revealed Resident #8 had the potential for pain related to wound, diabetes and depression. The care plan's goal was Resident #8 will not experience a decline in overall function. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 was at risk for complications due to being incontinent of urine and bowel related to impaired cognition and impaired mobility. The care plan goal was Resident #8 will minimize the resident's risk of skin breakdown through the next review date. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 was receiving Hospice services as of 7/6/23 for diagnosis of cerebral atherosclerosis. The care plan goal was Resident #8 will be kept comfortable throughout the end-of-life journey. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 had a terminal condition related to cerebral atherosclerosis. The care plan's goal was Resident #8's comfort will be maintained through next review date. Review of care plan focus revealed Resident #8 had impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes related to dementia. The care plan goal was Resident #8 will maintain current cognitive function through review date. Review of Resident #8's Psychiatry Subsequent Note, authored by the psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner (PMHNP), date of service (DOS) 3/29/24, the History of Present illness section, revealed . as per collected information, DON requested patient to be seen as patient was touched by a male patient. Patient did not respond to providers questions but appears to be lying comfortably with eyes open. No noted signs or symptoms of distress. No other psychiatric symptoms observed. Dementia is persistent, but no behaviors noted. The Mental status examination section revealed; Appearance/ Behaviors: calm, Mood: stable, Affect: appropriate, Insight and Judgement: Impaired. The Plan of action section revealed no medication changes. Resident #1 Review of Resident #1's admission record revealed initial admission to the facility was on 6/22/2023 with diagnoses of Syncope and collapse, Hyperlipidemia, Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, Depressive Disorder, Persistent Mood Disorders, Insomnia, Essential hypertension, Muscle weakness and bradycardia. Review of Resident #1's Determination of Incapacity, dated 3/7/24, and signed by a provider revealed .resident lacks capacity to give informed consent to make medical decisions and does not have reasonable probability of recovering mental and physical capacity to directly exercise rights. Review of Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) quarterly, dated 3/22/24, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 out of 15, meaning moderate cognitive Impairment. Functional Abilities revealed he was independent in walking and transferring from bed to chair. Behaviors showed he had verbal behaviors directed towards others and other behavioral symptoms. He exhibited wandering in the past one to three days. Review of the Facility's progress notes, order summary report and interviews for Resident #1 revealed the following: 7/19/23 transferred to the facility's memory unit due to behaviors. Resident #1 was reported to inappropriately touch and attempt to kiss staff. On 9/5/23 Resident #1 and Resident #4 were observed naked in Resident #1's bedroom. On 9/6/23 he was moved to a room on the opposite hallway away from Resident #4. On 9/8/24 Depakote 250 mgs was prescribed for mood disorder. On 11/6/23 and 12/16/23 Resident #1 had physical and verbal altercations with other residents. On 12/17/23 Resident #1's room was changed due to the 12/16/23 altercation with his roommate. On 2/6/24 resident was redirected because of inappropriate conversation with a female resident. On 2/7/24 Resident #1 was observed exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviors. On 3/5/24 Resident #1 was observed following a female resident, when redirected he became agitated and said, he can if he wants to. On 4/15/24 Resident #1 was masturbating while Resident #2 was watching. On 4/16/24 Resident #1 was observed in Resident #2's room engaged in oral sex. Review of Resident #1's care plans revealed the following focus Resident #1 is at risk for hypersexual behaviors. Resident is inappropriate at times with others, initiated on 10/13/2023. The care plan goal was Resident #1 will be free from inappropriate sexual behaviors through next review, initiated on 10/13/2023. The interventions included medication adjustments, initiated on 12/21/23. Monitor each shift for inappropriate sexual behaviors, initiated on 10/13/23. Resident 1:1 supervision, initiated on 4/17/24. Review of Resident #1's care plans revealed the following focus Resident can be sexually inappropriate with others, initiated on 7/5/23 and revised on 4/30/24. The goal was Resident #1 will cooperate with care through next review date, initiated on 7/5/23. The interventions included psych consult with medication adjustments, initiated on 9/8/23. Review of Resident #1's care plans revealed the following focus: Resident #1 has poor impulse control, initiated on 11/6/23. The goal is Resident will not harm self or others through review date, initiated on 11/6/23. The interventions included psychiatric/psychogeriatric consult as indicated, initiated on 11/6/23. Redirect others as needed from his room, initiated 11/14/23. Review of Resident #1's care plans revealed the following focus: Resident #1 has impaired cognition impaired decision making, initiated on 6/26/23. The goal was Resident will maintain current level of cognitive function through the review date, initiated on 6/26/23. The interventions included cue, reorient and supervise as needed, initiated on 6/26/23. Review of the facility's care plan meeting minutes quarterly, dated 4/9/24, revealed 4 signatures for the team members in attendance. The Discussion section listed the following: Discharge Plans: Long Term Care (LTC) Advanced Directive: Full Code incapacity Acute Medical Conditions: No documentation Chronic Medical Conditions: hypertension (HTN) and hyperlipidemia Skin/ Wound Conditions: Within Normal Limits (WNL) Nutrition/ Hydration: Regular thin liquid Bowel/ Bladder: Continent Rehabilitation Service: No documentation Physical Function: requires assist to complete ADL's. Behavioral Health/ Activities: No documentation Resident/ Family Concerns: No Documentation Review of Resident #1's Order Summary Report, Active orders as of 5/13/24 revealed the following: 1:1 supervision every shift, start date 4/30/24 Observe sexual behaviors. Document 'Y' if resident has behaviors and 'N' if the resident does not have behaviors. If 'Y' document in the progress notes (PNs) and notify provider, start date 4/30/24. Depakote 250 mg three times daily for mood disorder. Estradiol 2 mg twice daily for hypersexual behaviors Lithium 150 mg twice daily for mood disorder, the start date is 5/11/24. Paroxetine 20 mg daily for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) Trazodone 50 mg for depression. Review of Resident #1's facility progress note, dated 8/24/23 at 2:29 p.m. authored by Social Services, revealed notified by staff resident has been inappropriate at times, attempts to hit them on butt and has attempted to kiss them. Review of Resident #1's facility progress note, dated 9/5/23 at 9:32 p.m. authored by Staff FF, LPN, revealed Resident is alert, resident was observed with a female resident in his bed. Resident was not dressed he was redirected to get dressed . [family member] was informed of incident and that there will also be a room change . MD was notified. Review of Resident #1's facility progress note, dated 9/5/23 at 10:17 p.m. authored by Staff GG, LPN, revealed Resident is alert oriented able to make needs known, Resident was observed by staff in a female resident room with missing clothing, resident was redirected, call was placed to [family member] to inform her of current situation, .MD notified .room was changed and staff to constantly monitor resident and redirect as needed. Review of Resident #1's facility progress note, dated 11/6/2023, Nursing, revealed, Resident pushed another resident from his room to the floor on the hallway floor. Resident's family member and MD aware, psych consult, increase Trazadone 25 mg po bid and 50 mg po [milligrams by mouth twice a day] at night, resident stated he is not sleeping at night. Review of Resident 1's facility progress note, dated 12/16/2023, Nursing, revealed, Resident became aggressive towards roommate, started yelling and cursing because roommate stated he was wearing his clothes. Review of Resident1's facility progress note, dated 12/17/2023, Nursing, revealed, Resident had a room change. Review of Resident #1's progress note, dated 2/7/2024 at 9:02 a.m., Social Service Note, Resident was noted to exhibit inappropriate sexual behaviors. Resident was redirected and was currently on every hour checks. Psych was notified for consult. MD was notified regarding behaviors. Resident will be placed on 1:1 observation with staff. Review of Resident #1's progress note dated 3/5/2024 at 8:58 a.m., Nursing, revealed Resident observed following a female resident, when redirected he became agitated and said, he can if he wants to. Review of Resident #1's facility progress note, dated 4/16/24 at 4:08 p.m. authored by Staff FF, LPN, revealed Resident is alert, resident was observed in another resident room inappropriate sexually with another resident. Resident told staff he had no regrets, Resident was removed from the situation and placed on 1:1 supervision. [family member] and MD notified. Review of Resident #1's Medication Administration Record/Treatment Administration Record, dated April 2024, revealed sexual behaviors were observed 4/15/24, on the night shift and 4/22/24 on the day and night shifts. Review of resident #1's progress notes dated 4/15/24 and 4/22/24 did not describe the behaviors or if the medical team was notified as ordered. Review of a Psychiatry Subsequent Note, authored by the psychiatric-mental health nurse practitioner (PMHNP), date of stay (DOS) 4/5/24 revealed the following: The Reason for Today's encounter: .medication management, Mental Status Exam: Appearance Behaviors: Disheveled Mood: Patient mood is okay Affect: [TRUNCATED]
Jan 2024 36 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 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 observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained free of accident hazards for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for accident hazards (Residents #25 and #53). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Safe and Homelike Environment with a reviewed/revised date of 04/11/23, included: In accordance with residents' rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment allowing the resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. This includes ensuring that the resident can receive care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximizes resident independence and does not pose a safety risk. Review of the facility's policy, titled, Administration of Injections with a reviewed/revised date of September 2023, included Practices to prevent injuries: Dispose of sharps in puncture-resistant containers near the point of use. 1. Record review revealed Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Age-Related Nuclear Cataract, Bilateral, Anxiety Disorder, and Mild Intellectual Disabilities. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #25 dated 12/16/23 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was not attempted due to resident is rarely / never understood. Section GG revealed for personal hygiene the resident is dependent on staff. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #25 dated 06/01/23 with a focus on the resident having an ADL (Activity of Daily Living) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) confusion and impaired mobility. The goal was to maintain the current level of function through the review date. The interventions included: Set up for eating. Dependent for hygiene, dressing and shower. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #25 dated 06/01/23 with a focus on the resident is an elopement risk/wanderer r/t disoriented to place, impaired safety awareness. Resident wanders aimlessly, significantly intrudes on the privacy or activities (of others). The goal was for the resident's safety to be maintained through the review date. The interventions included: Redirect resident from other resident's room. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #25 dated 06/12/23 with a focus on the resident has the following behavior problem(s) combative and aggressiveness. The goal was to have fewer episodes of disruptive behavior through the next review date. The interventions included: Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. Redirect resident as necessary. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #25 dated 12/06/23 with a focus on the resident is/has potential to be physically aggressive r/t dementia, poor impulse control. Resident has physical behavioral symptoms toward others and staff such as striking out, propels w/c (wheelchair) without avoiding personal spaces of others, and undresses self in inappropriate areas. Resident does propel self in corners and in different room he is able to lock and unlock his own brakes, will sometimes refuse meals, [NAME] aggressively when agitated, resident showing increased behaviors restlessness, grabbing others, grabbing others food, medications adjusted, 9 swats at nurse while attempting to give him medication, throws food, drinks, grabs food from others or tray carts. The goal was for the resident to not harm self or others through the review date. The interventions included: When resident becomes agitated: intervene before agitation escalates. Guide away from source of distress. Engage calmly in conversation, if response is aggressive, staff to walk calmly away and approach later. On 01/22/24 at 8:18 AM, an observation was made in the bathroom for Resident #25 of 3 safety razors in the bathroom cabinet. Photographic Evidence Obtained. On 1/22/24 at 3:00 PM, an observation was made in the bathroom for Resident #25 of 3 safety razors in the bathroom cabinet. On 01/23/24 at 9:00 AM, an observation was made in the bathroom for Resident #25 of 3 safety razors in the bathroom cabinet. During an environmental tour conducted on 01/24/24 at 1:30 PM with the Director of Plant Operations, the Director of Maintenance (DOM), and the Maintenance Assistant (MA), they acknowledged the 3 safety razors in the unlocked bathroom cabinet for Resident #25. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 10:30 PM with Staff D, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who stated she has been working at the facility for 2 months. When asked about razors, the CNA stated if a resident needs a razor the nurse will have to get the razor to give to the CNA, so the CNA can shave the resident. The razors are never left with the resident or in the resident's room. Once the razor is used it is disposed of in one of the sharp containers, which are in the shower rooms. There are 2 shower rooms on the first floor that are utilized for residents. Shower rooms are locked at all times and residents are never left in the shower rooms unattended. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:00 AM with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked about razors, the LPN stated the nurses get the razors and only give them to a CNA to shave the resident. The LPN said the CNA is responsible for disposing of the razor after use. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, LPN, who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. When asked about razors, the LPN stated she will get the razor for a CNA to shave the resident and the CNA disposes of the razor after use. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, LPN/Unit Manager (LPN/UM), who stated he has worked at the facility since August/September of 2023. When asked about razors, the LPN/UM stated residents cannot have razors in their rooms. We [staff] shave the residents. Razors are disposed of after 1 use. This is a memory unit, and the residents are cognitively impaired. The LPN/UM stated he does rounds each day of each of the residents' rooms to make sure each resident is okay, and the residents' rooms are safe. Staff A had no response about the razors being found in Resident #25's bathroom cabinet. 2. Record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Dementia, Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Unspecified Hearing Loss Bilateral. Review of the MDS for Resident #53 dated 11/19/23 revealed in Section C, a BIMS score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impairment. In Section GG, it revealed for toilet hygiene the resident had a performance of partial / moderate assistance, for walking 10 feet, walking 50 feet with two turns and walking 150 feet, and the resident had a performance of partial/moderate assistance. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 06/06/23 with a focus on the resident is at risk for elopement as evidenced by resident currently on memory unit has verbalizations of wanting to go home. Resident can usually be redirected. Can resist care at times showers and wander. The goals were for the resident's safety will be maintained through the next review date and the resident will not leave facility unattended through the next review date. The interventions included: Distract resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book. Resident prefers music, talking about fishing and hunting. Identify pattern of wandering: Is wandering purposeful, aimless, or escapist? Is the resident looking for something: Does it indicate the need for more exercise? Intervene as appropriate. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 06/06/23 with a focus on the resident has behavioral symptoms not directed to others per spouse has history of sitting himself on floor and even laying on floor at times. Per spouse resident has had episodes of aggressive behavior. Resident has been noted laying himself on the floor in his room beside his bed. The goal was to not harm self and/or others secondary to socially inappropriate and/or disruptive behavior. The interventions included: Administer medications as ordered. Monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness. Explain all procedures to the resident before starting and allow the resident to adjust to changes. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 06/06/23 with a focus on the resident has impaired decision-making r/t diagnosis of Dementia, speaks in low voice memory impaired long and short resident is able to answer simple questions and can make simple needs known. The goal was to maintain current level of cognitive function through the review date. The interventions included: Ask yes/no questions in order to determine the resident's needs. Cue, reorient and supervise as needed. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 08/18/23 with a focus on the resident is at risk for decreased ability to perform ADLs in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting. The goal was to continue to participate in their ADLs as tolerated daily through the next review date. The interventions included: Independent for eating, supervision/touch assist for dressing, partial/moderate assist for hygiene, showers. Transfers independently. On 01/22/24 at 7:45 AM, an observation was made of Resident # 53 in his room and upon opening Resident #53's bathroom there was an overwhelming urine smell, the toilet was closed with plastic over it. On 01/22/24 at 7:55 AM, an observation was made in Resident #53's room of a white uncovered bin with magazines, unused briefs, loose disposable gloves, items of clothing and a spray bottle of fabric spray. Photographic Evidence Obtained. During an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:48 AM with Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), she stated she has worked at the facility for 1 month. When asked about the bottle fabric spray in the uncovered bin, she said she was not sure about that, but acknowledged that the bottle of fabric spray was in Resident #53's room.
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** 3. Record review revealed Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Age-Related Nuclear C...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Record review revealed Resident #25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Age-Related Nuclear Cataract, Bilateral, Anxiety Disorder, and Mild Intellectual Disabilities. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #25 dated 12/16/23 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) assessment was not attempted, due to the resident is rarely/never understood. Section GG revealed for eating the resident's usual performance is setup or clean-up assistance. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #25 dated 06/07/23 with a focus on the resident remains at risk for nutritional decline related to clinical condition of Depression, Dysphagia, Schizophrenia, and Heart Disease. The goal was for the resident to be free from signs/symptoms (S/S) of dehydration and/or fluid overload. The interventions included: Assist as needed with proper positioning, setup, feeding and encouragement. On 01/22/24 at 12:25 PM, an observation was made of Resident #25 sitting on the side of the bed, being fed lunch by Staff W, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The CNA was standing while feeding the resident. There was a chair observed on the opposite side of the room. An interview was conducted on 01/22/24 at 12:27 PM with Staff W, who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked if she always stands to feed the resident, she replied yeah, and sometimes the resident is sitting in his wheelchair. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 10:30 AM with Staff D, CNA, who stated she has been working at the facility for 2 months. When asked if she stands to feed a resident, she said, No, because what you are supposed to do is sit in a chair beside the resident to assist with feeding. They always have a chair available. Not every room has a chair, sometimes you have to go across the hallway to get a chair. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to treat residents in a dignified manner during dining observations for 3 of 7 sampled residents reviewed for dignity, Residents #79, #40, and #25; and failed to provide timely grooming to preserve dignity, for 1 of 7 sampled residents, Resident #15, also reviewed for dignity. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled Promoting/Maintaining Resident Dignity, revised on 08/02/22, revealed the following: It is the practice of this facility to protect and promote resident rights and treat each resident with respect and dignity as well as care for each resident in a manner and in an environment, that maintains or enhances resident's quality of life by recognizing each resident's individuality. Staff members provide care to residents to promote and maintain resident dignity during interactions with residents. 1. Record review revealed Resident #79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Anxiety, and Dysphagia. The care plan initiated on 06/28/23 revealed that Resident #79 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought process due to his Dementia. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 12:30 PM, Resident #79's roommate received his lunch tray. Resident #79 was noted in his bed with no lunch tray. Resident #79's lunch tray was noted sitting outside on the meal cart in the hallway. At 12:55 PM, Staff S, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), brought Resident #79's lunch meal into the room, about 25 minutes later. Continued observation showed that Resident #79's roommate had already finished his lunch meal. 2. Record review revealed Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia and Behavioral Disturbances. Resident #40 was admitted to hospice services on 07/05/23. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #40 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indicating the score could not be due to cognitive impairment. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 12:43 PM, Resident #40 was in her room with her lunch tray. Staff P, Hospice Registered Nurse, was observed in the room standing over Resident #40 while assisting her with the lunch meal. Closer observation did not show any sitting chairs in the room. An interview was conducted with Staff J, Registered Nurse / Unit Manager, on 01/25/24 at 9:51 AM, who stated that she expects all staff to sit at eye level while assisting residents during dining. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 2:30 PM, with Staff I, Certified Nursing Assistant, who stated that when assisting a resident during dining, they need to sit at eye level and not stand over the resident. 4. Record review revealed Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hypertension, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score from the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/01/23 was 13, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Review of the resident's care plan for risk for decreased ability to perform ADLS (activities of daily living) in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion and toileting, which was created on 06/12/23 revealed an intervention created on 08/06/23 of assist as indicated with transfers, ambulation, WC (wheelchair) mobility, bathing/grooming, and meals. The care plan does not address any refusals that the resident might have made for personal grooming. On 01/22/24 at 10:47 AM, Resident #15 was interviewed during the initial screening process. The resident was observed as having facial hair. The resident was asked if she wanted to keep or remove the facial hair. She stated that she would like it removed but no one has done it yet. An interview was conducted with Staff K, CNA/Transporter on 01/25/24 at 1:12 PM. Staff K was asked if an offer was made to Resident #15 to remove her facial hair. Staff K stated that the resident does allow the CNAs to do it. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director on 01/25/24 at 1:55 PM, who revealed he had an in-service with the CNAs around 6 months ago regarding personal care.
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 F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure call lights remained in reach for 2 of 100 samp...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and policy review, the facility failed to ensure call lights remained in reach for 2 of 100 sampled residents observed during the initial screening process (Resident #58 and Resident #155). The findings included: The policy of the facility, titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response implemented 11/2020 and revised 07/19/22, revealed Staff will ensure the call light is within reach of resident and secured, as needed; and The call system will be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. 1. Review of the resident's Medicare A 5-day scheduled assessment with a target date of 01/06/24 documented: Section C: the resident is rarely/never understood. Section GG: the ability to safely come to a standing position from sitting in a chair or on the side of the bed is not applicable and picking up object is dependent. On 01/22/24 at 7:55 AM, Resident #58 was observed in his wheelchair. The call light was observed on the floor next to the bed. Resident #58 was not able to pick up the call light off the floor to call staff, if needed. 2. Record review revealed Resident #155 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy, Hypothyroidism and Hypocalcemia. Review of the Medicare 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, with an assessment reference date of 11/07/23, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #155 was observed in bed on 01/22/24 at 9:00 AM. His call light was observed on the floor next to his bed and not within reach of the resident. Photographic Evidence Obtained. At the time of observation, Resident #155 was asked if he could reach his call light, and stated that he could not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice to the resident or the reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide written notice to the resident or the resident's representative of a room change for 1 of 32 sampled residents reviewed for room changes (Resident #69). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Change of Room or Roommate with a reviewed / revised date of 03/08/23 included: It is the policy of this facility to conduct changes to room and/or roommate assignments when considered necessary and/or when requested by the resident or resident representative. Prior to making a room change or roommate assignment, all persons involved in the change/assignment, such as residents and their representatives, will be given advance notice of such a change as is possible. The notice of change in room or roommate will be provided in writing, in a language and manner the resident and representative understand. Record review for Resident #69 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #69 dated 01/04/24 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 9, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. During an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 1:33 PM with Resident #69, she stated they (staff) moved her one day and didn't tell her why or where she was going. She said she liked her prior room better because of the staff and her roommate. Review of the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) for Resident #69 revealed no notice of her room change, as required. When a resident is being moved at the request of facility staff, the resident, family, and/or resident representative must receive an explanation in writing of why the move is required. An interview was conducted on 01/22/24 at 1:35 PM with the Activities Director, who stated she has been at the facility for just over a year. When asked about Resident #69, she stated the resident was previously in another room but thinks they moved her to make the previous room a male room. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 9:50 AM with the Resident Representative (Guardian) for Resident #69, who was asked if the facility had discussed a room change for the resident on 01/04/24. She stated the facility contacted her about a room change regarding trying to get all females on one side of the hall and all males on the other side of the hall, and the resident would have a similar room and be near the window. When asked if the facility provided her with any paperwork or documentation about the room change, she said she did not recall. When the Representative was advised that the resident had informed the surveyor that she wanted to go back to her old room, the Resident Representative said the resident changes her mind all of the time and she lacks capacity to make her own decisions. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 9:16 AM with the Social Service Director (SSD), who stated she has worked at the facility for 4 years. When asked if there is a room change for a resident and what she does, she said they notify the resident and the resident's representative. She would complete a room change form and provide it to the resident or the resident representative. When asked about Resident #69, she said they were trying to do room changes to make the memory care unit with a male side and a female side. When asked if she had notified the representative for Resident #69 about the room change, she said she did. The SSD was asked for a copy of the written notice, but none was produced. The SSD stated the notice may not have been uploaded into the resident's EMR.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

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 and implement baseline care plans within 48 h...

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 and implement baseline care plans within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 1 of 1 sampled resident, reviewed for catheter care (Resident #153). The findings included: During an observation on 01/22/24 at 7:30 AM, Resident #153 was observed in bed. On the floor, next to his bed, a catheter bag containing urine was observed on the floor. Record review revealed Resident #153 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], in the late afternoon, with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Heart Failure and Urinary Retention. The resident was admitted with a suprapubic catheter. (A suprapubic catheter is a device that's inserted directly into the bladder to drain urine). Review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed no evidence of a baseline care plan for the catheter or for catheter care. Review of the comprehensive care plans revealed no care plan for a catheter or catheter care. On 01/22/24 at 11:13 AM, an interview was conducted with the Director of Nurses (DON). She was asked who completes the baseline care plans. She stated the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator would initiate the baseline care plans on Monday, if a resident was admitted after hours on a Friday.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide fingernail grooming for 4 of 8 sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide fingernail grooming for 4 of 8 sampled residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) care (Residents #53, #70, #79, and #76). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Nail Care with a reviewed / revised date of 06/07/21 included: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the provisions of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided during ADL care on an ongoing basis. Routine nail care, to include trimming and filing, will be provided on a regular schedule and as the need arises. Principles of nail care: Nails should be kept smooth to avoid skin injury. Only licensed nurses shall trim or file fingernails of residents with diabetes. Procedure included: gently clean underneath nails with an orange stick. Document completion of task, any complications, or if resident refuses. 1. Record review revealed Resident #53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Dementia, Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Unspecified Hearing Loss Bilateral. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #53 dated 11/19/23 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impact. In Section GG, it revealed for toilet hygiene the resident had a performance of partial/moderate assistance, for walking 10 feet, walking 50 feet with two turns and walking 150 feet, the resident had a performance of partial/moderate assistance. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 08/18/23 with a focus on the resident is at risk for decreased ability to perform ADLs in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting. The goal was for the resident to continue to participate in their ADLs as tolerated daily through the next review date. The interventions included assist as indicated with transfers, ambulation, wheelchair mobility, bathing/grooming, and meals. On 01/22/24 at 7:44 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 sitting on the side of his bed. It was noted his fingernails had jagged edges past the end of the fingertips, with a brownish-black matter under the nails. Photographic Evidence Obtained. On 01/22/24 at 11:00 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 lying in bed and again it was noted his fingernails were with jagged edges past the end of the fingertips, with a brownish-black matter under the nails. On 1/22/24 at 2:35 PM, an observation was made of Resident #53 lying in bed and he continued to have his fingernails with jagged edges past the end of the fingertips with a brownish-black matter under the nails. An interview was conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:48 AM with Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 month. When asked how often residents' fingernails are cleaned, she said every time they get showered. When asked how often a resident gets a shower, she said 2 or 3 times a week. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:00 AM, With Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. She stated the CNAs clean the residents' fingernails but was not sure how often. When asked about cutting or filing the nails, she said the CNAs provide the care, and they have their own schedule. She stated she believes it is twice a week. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, LPN, who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. She said the residents' fingernails are cleaned by the CNAs mostly, but the nurse can do it also if the nails are dirty. When asked who cuts the fingernails, she said the nurses can cut the nails, but most of the time it is the CNAs. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, LPN/Unit Manager (UM), who stated he has worked at the facility since August / September last year. When asked about fingernail care, he stated the CNAs clean the fingernails of the residents. 2. Record review for Resident #70 revealed the resident was admitted to facility on 12/13/23 with diagnoses that included: Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, and Anxiety Disorder. Review of the MDS assessment for Resident #70 dated 12/20/23 revealed in Section C, a BIMS score of 0, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section GG revealed for shower / bathe self, the resident had a performance of substantial assistance and for personal hygiene the resident had a performance of dependent. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #70 dated 12/14/23 had a focus on the resident is at risk for decreased ability to perform ADLS in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting. The goal was for the resident to have bathing, grooming, toileting, and ADL needs met with assistance from staff through the next review date. The interventions included: Set up for eating, substantial assist for showers, dependent for hygiene, dressing, grooming and toilet needs. Assist as indicated with transfers, ambulation, WC (wheelchair) mobility, bathing/grooming, and meals. Observe for changes in ADL performance and notify physician, therapy, family as indicated. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #70 dated 12/27/23 had a focus on the resident is resistive to care refuses to be changes showers r/t (related to) Anxiety, Dementia. The goal is the resident will cooperate with care through next review date. The interventions included: Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. If a resident resists with ADLs, reassure the resident, leave, and return 5-10 minutes later and try again. On 01/22/24 at 7:30 AM, an observation was made of Resident #70 lying in bed with brown matter on top of and under his fingernails. The fingernails extended past the edge of his fingers and had jagged edges. On 01/23/24 8:50 AM, an observation was made of Resident #70 lying in bed with his breakfast tray untouched. Resident #70's fingernails continued to have jagged edges, past the edge of his fingers, with dried brown matter on top of the nails and under the nails. 3. Record review revealed Resident #79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Anxiety, and Dysphagia. The care plan initiated on 06/28/23 revealed that Resident #79 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought process due to his Dementia. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:10 AM, Resident #79 was noted in bed. Closer observation showed that his fingernails were unkept, with unidentified brown matter underneath. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 4:50 PM, Resident #79 was noted in bed. Closer observation showed that his fingernails were unkept, with unidentified brown matter underneath. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 9:51 AM with Staff J, RN/UM (Registered Nurse / Unit Manager), who stated she expects her staff to cut the residents' fingernails during shower days, and as needed. Staff should perform the task if the fingernails need to be cleaned and trimmed. She said no when asked if she has a specific day that she audits or monitors to ensure that fingernail care is provided to all residents. They do not have a section in the electronic system specifically allocated for fingernail grooming when it is done. In a tour conducted on 01/25/24 at 9:58 AM accompanied by Staff J, Resident #79 was noted in his bed. Staff J was asked if she thinks that Resident #79's fingernails needed to be cleaned and trimmed, and she said, Definitely, yes. She then stated she had asked the night shift to go around last night and check on any residents who needed their fingernails trimmed and cleaned. 4. Record review revealed Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Heart Failure, and Depression. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] showed a BIMS score of 02, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section GG of this MDS showed that Resident #76 was coded dependent for all grooming activities. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:20 AM, Resident #76 was noted in bed with long fingernails that were unkept. Further observation showed an unidentified brown matter underneath her fingernails. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 8:41 AM, Resident #76 was noted in her wheelchair near the nurse's station. Closer observation showed her with long, unkept fingernails with unidentified brown matter underneath the fingernails. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:16 AM with Staff L, Registered Nurse (RN), who stated that fingernail grooming is usually done when they provide showers to residents by the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). Review of the CNA's documentation under the Task section revealed that from 01/12/24 to 01/21/24, Resident #76 received three showers and six-bed baths. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 2:26 PM with Staff J, RN/UM, who reported the trimming and cleaning of Resident #79's fingernails earlier 'today'. When asked by the surveyor if they needed to be washed and trimmed, she said yes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide toenail care for 1 of 32 sampled residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide toenail care for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident #53) reviewed for Foot Care. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Nail Care with a reviewed / revised date of 06/07/21, included: The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the provisions of care to a resident's nails for good grooming and health. Routine cleaning and inspection of nails will be provided during ADL care on an ongoing basis. Routine nail care, to include trimming and filing, will be provided on a regular schedule and as the need arises. Principles of nail care: Nails should be kept smooth to avoid skin injury. Toenails of residents with diabetes or circulation problems shall be filed only. Procedure included: gently clean underneath nails with an orange stick. Document completion of task, any complications, or if resident refuses. Review of the facility's policy, titled, Skin Integrity - Foot Care with a reviewed / revised date of 07/25/22, included: It is the policy of this facility to ensure residents receive proper treatment and care within professional standards of practice and state scope of practice, as applicable, to maintain mobility and good foot health. This policy pertains to maintaining the skin integrity of the foot. 3. Interventions for Prevention and to Promote Healing a. Interventions will be based on specific factors identified in the risk assessment, skin assessment, and assessment of any foot ulcers. i. As needed, licensed nurses with adequate training may perform nail care to non-diabetic residents, or diabetic residents who are low risk as determined by podiatrist or physician. ii. Appropriate offloading or orthopedic devices, diabetic shoes, or pressure-relieving devices will be utilized. iii. Referrals to podiatrists, vascular or orthopedic surgeons, or wound care physicians will be made when appropriate. The facility will arrange for transportation to and from any appointments. Record review for Resident #53 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Dementia, Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Unspecified Hearing Loss Bilateral. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #53 dated 11/19/23 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impairment. In Section GG, it revealed for toilet hygiene the resident had a performance of partial/moderate assistance, for walking 10 feet, walking 50 feet with two turns and walking 150 feet, the resident had a performance of partial / moderate assistance. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #53 revealed no order for a Podiatry consult. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 08/18/23 with a focus on the resident is at risk for decreased ability to perform ADLs in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting. The goal was for the resident to continue to participate in their ADLs as tolerated daily through the next review date. The interventions included Assist as indicated with transfers, ambulation, wheelchair mobility, bathing/grooming, and meals. Review of the facility's Grievance Logs from 01/01/23 to 01/21/24 revealed no grievance filed by Resident #53 or on his behalf. On 01/22/24 at 7:55 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53's toes. On the left foot, the toenails were extremely long, past the edges of the toes, curled and yellowed. Photographic Evidence Obtained. The observation of the resident's right foot toenail was refused by the resident. An interview was conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:48 AM with Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 month. Staff E acknowledged that Resident #53's right foot toenails were extremely long, curled, and yellowed. When asked how often Resident #53's toenails are cut, she said we don't do that. When asked if the resident had been seen by a podiatrist, she said she did not know. An interview was conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:30 AM with Resident #53's son who stated when he visited his father around November 2023 and at that time his father's toes were very long and looked like they had fungus. When asked if he reported this to staff, he said he spoke to the Administrator. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:00 AM with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked about toenail care for residents, the LPN stated if a resident's toenails are long, the CNAs cut the toenails, maybe twice a week. If toenails are yellowed and crumbly, the CNA will notify the nurse and the nurse will assess the nails and will call the primary physician who would give an order for podiatry consult. Once there is an order for podiatry consultation, the nurse would call the podiatrist to inform him. The podiatrist is in the facility once or twice a week. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, LPN, who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. Residents are scheduled to have their toenails cut by the nurse or the podiatrist. When asked if the resident needs an order to have their toenails cut by the podiatrist, she said she was not sure. She further stated she was not sure if each resident is seen by the podiatrist. The nurse can cut the toenails for the residents but if the shape is too hard or the toenails are too thick, they must be seen by the podiatrist, and she would put them on the list to be seen by the podiatrist. The list of residents to be seen by the podiatrist is usually placed behind the nursing station. However, she was unable to locate the list at the time of the interview. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, LPN/Unit Manager (LPN/UM), who stated he has worked at the facility since August / September of 2023. When asked about toenail care for residents, the LPN/UM stated the podiatrist comes to cut the toenails. If a resident has long or yellow, brittle toenails, the staff would call the Social Service Director (SSD) to put them on the list to be seen by podiatry. For a resident to be seen by the podiatrist, they only have the residents name added to the list by the SSD. When asked if they need an order for a podiatry consult, the LPN/UM stated he has never seen an order put in the chart for a resident to be seen by podiatrist. When asked if Resident #53 has ever been seen by a podiatrist, he was unable to verify the resident had been seen by a podiatrist.
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to identify and treat the resident with hand contracto...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to identify and treat the resident with hand contractors for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for range of motion (Resident #79). The findings included: A review of the facility's policy, titled, Use of Assistive Devices, revised on 2/2023, revealed the following: the purpose of this policy is to provide a reliable process for the proper and consistent use of assistive devices for those residents requiring equipment to maintain or improve function and dignity. The facility will provide assistive devices for residents who need them. The nursing, dietary, social services, and therapy departments will work together to ensure the availability of devices, such as for ordering and replacement. Record review revealed Resident #79 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Anxiety, and Dysphagia. The care plan initiated on 06/28/23 revealed Resident #79 had impaired cognitive function and impaired thought process due to his Dementia. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:10 AM, Resident #79 was noted in bed. Closer observation showed that his hands were contracted tightly close to his chest. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 4:50 PM, Resident #79 was noted in bed. Closer observation showed that his hands were contracted tightly close to his chest. In an interview with the Rehab Director on 01/24/24 at 5:30 PM, she stated that Resident #79 came into the facility as a hospital contract resident. They were told that Resident #79 was only supposed to be seen by Speech Therapy. Resident #79 was first seen on 06/08/23, and the Occupational Therapist Assessment revealed that he was with maximum assistance for transfer and dependent for all care. The Rehab Director said that the assessment done on 06/08/23 did not mention any hand contractors. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 9:36 AM, with the Rehab Director, she stated that she assessed Resident #79 last night and noticed that his hands clamped tight into a fist. She did not remember seeing him like this in the past. She wanted to see how much movement he had and whether he was able to open both hands into a functional position. According to the Rehab Director, when she opened Resident #79's right hand, he brought his left hand over in a functional position and was trying to push her fingers away from his hands. This showed that Resident #79 does have some active movement. She will further assess to see if he will benefit from splinting and a range of motion program. Review of the Occupational Therapist (OT) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment dated 01/25/24 revealed the following: Resident #79 will be trialed on resting hand splints for tone control, prevent further flexion, and encourage extension of digits in hands and wrists. In preparation for splint use, the therapist will introduce palm guards to begin to accustom the patient to having items in his hands to aid in his transition to tolerate splints. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 1:40 PM with the facility's Medical Director, who stated that he was aware that Resident #79's hands had contractors, and he told staff months ago when he noticed his hands. He was unaware that the facility did not take care of the issue and was under the impression that the resident was on a restorative program. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 2:30 PM with Staff I, Certified Nursing Assistant, who stated that she worked with Resident #79 once in the past. She stated that she remembered noticing that his hands were contracted into fists but did not report it to her supervisor or the rehab department.
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to identify significant weight loss in a timely manner...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to identify significant weight loss in a timely manner; and failed to provide nutritional intervention to prevent weight loss for 3 of 5 sampled residents reviewed for weight loss (Resident #55, Resident #57, and Resident #86). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Weight Monitoring, revised on 11/30/23, revealed the following: It is the policy of the facility to minimize the risk of a resident's significant weight loss and for residents to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status. The facility will utilize a systemic approach to optimize a resident's nutritional status. This process includes identifying and assessing each resident's nutritional status and risk factors and evaluating/ analyzing the assessment information. Developing and consistently implementing pertinent approaches, monitoring the effectiveness of interventions, and revising them as necessary. The newly recorded resident weight should be compared to the previously registered weight. A significant change in weight is defined as a. 5% change in weight in 1 month (30 days) b. 7.5% change in weight in 3 months (90 days) C. 10% change in weight in 6 months (180 days). 1. Record review revealed that Resident #55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Dysphagia, Type 2 Diabetes, and Depression. The Order Summary Report showed the following orders: low concentrated sweets, regular texture with large protein at meals (dated 08/16/23), and Glucerna (nutritional supplement) once a day for weight loss, dated 11/21/23. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #55 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, indicating severely cognitively impaired. Further review of physicians' orders revealed an order for Med Pass (high nutritional supplement) two times a day for those at risk for malnutrition for 45 days, which started on 08/16/23 and stopped on 09/30/23. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 8:44 AM, Resident #55 ate his breakfast meal independently. The meal ticket revealed the following: low concentrated sweet, large protein, one serving of omelet, and 1 ounce of sausage patty. Observation of the breakfast plate showed one piece of sausage patty (regular serving) and one serving of a baked omelet (standard serving). In this observation, Resident #55 first ate one serving of omelet and then the sausage patty. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 12:24 PM, Resident #55 was eating his lunch meal. Closer observation showed that he received 8 ounces of shepherd's pie (regular serving) and 4 ounces of corn. Resident #55 was observed enjoying the food on his lunch tray and consumed 100% of his meal. The Weights and Vitals Summary revealed the following weights recorded: 183.8 pounds on 04/06/23, 179.6 pounds on 05/16/23, 175.4 pounds on 06/04/23, 171.6 pounds on 07/04/23, 168.2 pounds on 08/03/23, 165.2 pounds on 09/05/23, 166.3 pounds on 10/01/23, 159.3 pounds on 11/04/23, 158.6 pounds on 11/08/23, 154.2 pounds on 12/03/23, 152.6 pounds on 01/04/24. The above weights revealed 10.1 percent (%) severe weight loss in 6 months from 04/06/23 to 09/05/23 and 8.2% severe weight loss in 3 months from 10/01/23 to 01/04/24. A nutritional progress note dated 10/18/23 showed that Resident #55 was on a regular large protein diet and receiving nutritional supplements as ordered. This note did not address the severe 10.1% severe weight loss in 6 months from 04/06/23 to 09/05/23. It was further noted that Resident #55 was receiving nutritional supplements, which were discontinued on 09/30/23. One month later, a weight change note dated 11/20/23 revealed that Resident #55 continued to trigger significant weight loss with a current weight of 158.6 pounds. Resident #55 was provided with a large amount of protein for each meal. In this note, Staff O, Registered Dietitian, recommended providing one can of Glucerna once a day to promote weight stability. A follow-up nutrition note dated 12/11/23 revealed a recent weight of 154.2 pounds (4.4 pounds of further weight loss). Resident #55's intake of meals fluctuated, but no other nutritional interventions were made at this time. In an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 11:25 AM, Staff O stated that the follow-up nutrition note on 10/18/23 was completed by the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), who only comes to the facility once time a week, and the CDM will follow up on all residents when needed. Staff O confirmed that the 10.1% severe weight loss was not addressed by the CDM in her note on 10/18/23. When asked by the surveyor as to why she ordered only one can of Glucerna a day, she said that this is what Resident #55 agreed to take. Staff O reported that weekly weights are done for residents with significant weight loss. Staff O further stated that all nutritional supplements have a duration period and stop dates when entered into the electronic system. Once the order is completed, the system will not trigger reminders to reorder the supplements again. 2. Record review revealed Resident #57 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Dysphagia, Alzheimer's Disease, and Muscle Weakness. Review of the physician's orders showed the following: On 07/31/23, a mechanical soft diet, pureed meats, pureed vegetables, On 11/14/23, fortified foods, On 01/09/24, house shake (nutritional supplement) 3 times a day. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 8:33 AM, Resident #57 was observed in the main dining room on the 1st floor. In this observation, Staff T, Certified Dietary Assistant, was sitting near Resident #57, and assisted her with her breakfast meal. An interview was conducted with Staff T on 01/24/24 at 8:37 AM who stated that Resident #57 eats between 80% and 100% of her meals and she needed extensive assistance with all her meals. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 12:19 PM, Resident #57 was noted eating her lunch in the 1st-floor dining room. Closer observation showed Staff U, Activity Aide, sitting near Resident #57, assisting her with the lunch meal. In this observation, Staff U said Resident #57 eats between 80% and 100% of all meals. The Weights and Vitals Summary revealed the following: 118.2 pounds dated 10/23/23, 115.3 pounds on 10/29/23, 110.7 pounds on 11/04/23, 109.4 pounds on 11/08/23, 110.9 pounds on 12/03/23, 103.7 pounds on 01/14/24, 101.6 pounds on 01/21/24. A weight change nutrition follow-up note dated 11/13/23 revealed the following: Resident #57 was triggered for significant weight loss of 6% in 30 days. It was recommended to provide fortified foods with all meals to promote weight gain and monitor weekly weights (which was not done). A weight change progress note dated 01/09/24 revealed that Resident #57 triggered significant weight loss of 7.2% in 1 month and 12.2% in 3 months. Resident #57's Ideal Body Weight (IBW) was noted at 115 pounds. In this note, Staff O recommended providing a house shake three times a day and that the weight loss was unplanned and unfavorable. The care plan dated 12/09/23 revealed that Resident #57 was experiencing a nutritional decline related to clinical conditions. Resident #57 will be free of all unavoidable significant weight changes. In an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 11:08 AM, Staff O stated that Resident #57 had a severe weight loss of 6.5% from 10/23/23 to 11/08/23. Fortified foods were ordered on 11/14/23, which was six days later. When asked why she only provided fortified foods and not nutritional supplements, she said that Resident #57 was on dietary supplements in the past, which she had refused. She offered a house shake three times a day, only on 01/09/24. 3. Record review revealed Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinsons, Dementia, and Depression. The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 04, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Physician's orders showed the following: 12/04/23, regular texture diet with fortified foods with meals, 12/05/23, Med Pass at bedtime for weight loss once a day. This was ordered a month after 9.9% significant weight loss was identified on 11/08/23. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 5:13 PM, Resident #86 was in her room with the dinner tray. In this observation, Resident #86 stated that her appetite is picking up. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 8:40 AM, Resident #86 was noted eating her breakfast tray in her room. Closer observation showed a meal plate consisted of one serving of omelet, sausage patty, one slice of toast, 8 ounces of milk, and 6 ounces of hot cereal. Resident #86 ate all of her eggs, toast, and sausage but did not eat any hot cereal or drink any milk. In this observation, Resident #86 was asked why she did not eat any hot cereal or drink any milk. She responded, I am done eating, and I do not like the milk. Resident #86 was shaking and constantly having body movements during this entire observation. No fortified food was noted on the meal ticket or the meal plate. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 12:27 PM, Resident #86 was in the room eating her lunch meal. Closer observation showed 8 ounces of Sheperd's pie, 4 ounces of corn, one serving of dinner roll, and 4 ounces of Sherbert. No fortified food item was noted on the lunch tray or the meal ticket. The Weights and Vitals Summary revealed the following weights for Resident #86: 131.6 pounds on 07/04/23, 118.4 pounds on 11/04/23, 112.4 pounds on 12/03/23, 112.6 pounds on 12/26/23 115.4 pounds on 01/03/23. This showed that Resident #86 lost 14.6% in less than six months from 07/04/23 to 12/3/23 and 9.9% weight loss in 4 months from 07/04/23 to 11/08/23. Review of a weight change note dated 12/04/23 revealed that Resident #86 consumes less than 50% of her meals. Underweight for age range with goal of gradual weight gain. It further showed recommendations for fortified foods (which were not provided) and house supplements three times a day. In an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:08 AM, Staff O stated that fortified foods are foods with added calories provided on meal trays. It is grits / oatmeal; for lunch and dinner, it is mashed potatoes or pudding. If a resident's intake of meals is documented, she cannot tell if the intake of the food items was from the regular food items or the fortified food items on the tray. Staff O said that some nutritional supplements (house shakes, magic cups, mighty shakes) are placed on the meal tray and are entered in the diet order under general directions. This is why she cannot tell the percent intake that is consumed for these nutritional supplements. When asked how often nutrition progress notes are completed, she said as needed or for any significant changes. Staff O further stated that she runs a report on weekly weights to identify any substantial changes in weights.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for tube feedings, for 2 of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for tube feedings, for 2 of 2 sampled residents reviewed for tube feedings (Resident #58 and Resident #34). The findings included: Review of the facility policy, titled, Care and Treatment of Feeding Tubes, revised on 11/27/23, revealed in part the following: 'Direction for staff regarding nutritional products and meeting the residents' nutritional needs will be provided, how to determine whether the tube feedings meet the resident's needs, and when to adjust them accordingly-ensuring that the selection and use of enteral nutrition is consistent with manufacturer's recommendations-ensuring that the administration of enteral nutrition is compatible with and follows the practitioner's orders. Feeding tubes will be utilized according to physician orders, which typically include the kind of feeding and its caloric value, volume, duration, mechanism of administration, and flush frequency. The facility will utilize the Registered Dietitian in estimating and calculating a resident's daily nutritional and hydration needs.' Review of the facility's policy, titled, Weight Monitoring, revised on 11/30/23, revealed, in part, that 'newly admitted residents monitor weight weekly for four weeks, residents with significant weight loss, the Registered Dietitian determines the frequency of obtaining weights, and all others, monitor weight monthly'. 1. Record review documented Resident #58 was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses to include Gastrostomy, Dementia and Sepsis. Review of the 5-day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] showed that Resident #58's cognitive status was impaired. Review of the Physician's orders revealed the following: one time a day for nutritional support, Jevity 1.5 (tube feeding formulary) to be administered at 55 ml an hour for 20 hours with a start time at 2:00 PM and stop time at 10:00 AM, which was discontinued on 01/24/24. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 3:10 PM, Resident #58 was not in the room. Closer observation showed a tube feeding bag, which was dated 01/23/24 and had a start time of 1:45 AM. The tube feeding was noted with Jevity 1.5 (tube feeding formulary) at 55 milliliters (ml) an hour. The tube feeding bag was at the 400 ml mark out of a 1000 ml capacity bottle. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 3:15 PM, with Staff R, Registered Nurse (RN), who stated she arrived at the facility at 6:45 AM this morning and did not touch the tube feeding bag or replace it. Staff R stated the tube feeding was started by the night nurse. Staff R stated she had stopped the tube feeding at 8:30 AM this morning because Resident #58 was walking around the facility with the tube feeding connected. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 3:19 PM with Staff J, Unit Manager, who stated that for tube feeding orders, the nurses would take the tube feeding bottles from the supply room and the set-up kit, which consists of the tube feeding kit and the water kit. The tube feeding formula is then poured into the bag and added to the top level around the 1000 ml level. Some residents' tube feedings may be held for 4 hours for social time and activities. Staff J said that once the tube feeding bag is started, it is only touched or refilled once it is completed and a new tube feeding bag is replaced. When the tube feeding bag is started, they will write the start time, date, name of the resident, name of formulary, and the rate. When asked about the time that is written on the tube feeding bag, she said that it is the actual time that the tube feeding was hung and started. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 8:57 AM, Resident #58's tube feeding was observed to be set with Jevity 1.5 at 55 ml an hour. The tube feeding showed that it started this morning at 6:25 AM by the 11 PM to 7 AM nurse. The tube feeding bag was noted at the 350 ml mark out of the 1000 ml capacity bottle. In this observation, Staff R was asked if she was the one who started the new bag of tube feeding this morning, and she said no. Staff R further said that it was the night nurse who started the tube feeding bag. The surveyor questioned the tube feeding bag observed at the 350 ml mark when the new bag was only started at 6:25 AM. Staff R stated that maybe the night nurse did not fill the bag to capacity level but could not say for sure. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:47 PM, Resident #58 was noted in bed. Closer observation showed the same tube feeding bag that was observed earlier was still noted at the 350 ml mark. The Weights and Vitals Summary revealed the following weights for Resident #58 as follows: 153.6 pounds on 01/04/24, 149.4 pounds on 01/18/24, 145.4 pounds on 01/21/24. This showed a significant weight loss of 5.3% in less than one month. There were no weights obtained or documented weekly for the first three weeks from the readmission on Resident #58. Review of a 'weight change note', dated 01/08/24, revealed Resident #58 had 'a significant weight loss for the last two months. The weight loss's etiology was unknown, and the current tube feeding was meeting nutritional needs.' Review of the nutrition progress note dated 01/22/24 revealed that Resident #58 had 8.2 pounds weight loss in 3 weeks. A goal should be in place for gradual weight gain to Ideal Body Weight (IBW). In this note, Resident #58 tube feeding was increased to Jevity 1.5 at 60 ml an hour running at 20 hours. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 4:18 PM with Staff O, Registered Dietitian, who stated that when she identified the significant weight loss on 01/22/24, she increased the tube feeding order from 55 ml an hour to 60 ml an hour. When the surveyor asked why the new tube feeding rate of 60 ml only started today, she said that nursing thought the order was a mistake and changed it back to 55 ml an hour. Staff O said that she spoke to nursing staff and that the tube feeding order was changed back to 60 ml an hour to meet the resident's nutritional needs better. 2. Resident #34 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Gastrostomy, Psychotic disturbances, and Dementia. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:30 AM, Resident #34 was noted in the room with the tube feeding Jevity 1.2 (tube feeding formulary) running at 60 milliliters (ml) an hour. Closer observation showed that the tube feeding bag was started on 01/22/24 at 2:45 AM. The tube feeding bag was noted at the 1000 ml mark out of the 1000 ml capacity bottle. An observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 4:14 PM showed that Resident #34 was in her bed with the tube feeding running at 60 ml an hour. Closer observation showed the same tube feeding bag that was observed earlier in the day was at the 800 ml mark out of the 1000 ml capacity bottle. This showed that only 200 ml of tube feeding was administered from 9:30 AM to 4:14 PM. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 8:28 AM, Resident #34 was noted in the room with the tube feeding Jevity 1.2 running at 60 ml an hour. The tube feeding bottle was started on 01/23/24 at 12:30 AM today. Closer observation showed that the tube feeding bottle was still at the 1000 ml mark out of the 1000 ml capacity bottle. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 9:42 AM with Staff L, Licenses Practical Nurse, who stated that Resident #34 tolerates her tube feeding very well. Staff L reported that the tube feeding bag was replaced last night by the 11 PM to 7 AM shift, and she did not touch the tube feeding bag or replace it when she came this morning. According to Staff L, once the tube feeding bag is filled to the top and started, it is not touched or changed until the entire tube feeding bag is completed. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 3:12 PM, Resident #34 was noted in her room. The tube feeding was noted with Jevity 1.2 tube feeding formulary running at 60 ml an hour. The tube feeding bag showed that it was started on 01/23/24 at 2:00 PM and was filled all the way to the top, passing the 1000 ml level. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 9:00 AM, Resident #34 was noted in the room with the tube feeding running at 60 ml an hour. The tube feeding showed a start date of 01/24/24 at 4:45 AM. Closer observation showed that the tube feeding bag was at the 300 ml mark of the 1000 ml capacity bag. Review of the Physicians' orders showed the following orders: On 12/31/23, an order for enteral feeding with Jevity 1.2 continuous at 60 ml an hour for 24 hours. On 01/05/24, Start tube feeding at 2:00 PM for 20 hours in the afternoon. A On 01/05/24, to stop feeding for 4 hours. On 12/31/23, an order documented Nothing by Mouth (NPO), with the exception of Speech Therapist, introduced Food/Fluids consistency for enteral feeding which, and was discontinued on 01/23/24. Record review of Resident #34's recorded weights showed the following: 134.0 pounds on 01/05/24, 128.6 pounds on 01/14/24, 129.6 pounds on 01/21/24. Review of the Speech Therapist's note dated 01/16/24 showed the following: communication with a nutritionist for a plan of beginning one meal a day and the best time to do that according to peg feeding times. To follow up tomorrow with her since her computer was being repaired today. Trials of whole pureed meal and thin water. The Resident consumed 50% of the meal with partial feeding by the clinician. A nutrition note completed by Staff O, dated 01/24/24, revealed the following: to change tube feeding to Jevity 1.5 (tube feeding formulary) at 60 ml an hour for 20 hours. This note should have mentioned communication between Staff O and Staff X, the Speech Therapist, regarding Resident #34 starting on a regular pureed diet consistently one time a day for lunch. In an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 1:42 PM, Staff L stated that Resident #34's tube feeding orders are to start at 2:00 PM and to stop at 10:00 AM the following day. The tube-feeding bottles are poured into a new tube-feeding bag and filled all the way to the top around the 1000 ml capacity line. The tube feeding bags are then labeled with the name, room number, formulary, rate, time it started, and the date it started. She will speak to the unit manager if she sees any discrepancy in the tube feeding orders. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:21 PM, Resident #34 was observed at the nurse's station. A tube feeding bag was hanging in the room pretimed at 2:00 PM, but not running. In this observation, Staff L said that she hung the bag, timed it, and labeled it 5 minutes before her interview earlier, which was at 1:42 PM. In an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 4:36 PM, Staff O said she remembered having a verbal conversation with the Speech Therapist regarding starting Resident #34 with trials of diet by mouth. She tried contacting the Speech Therapist the next day (after the note was written on 01/16/24) but did not reach her. The surveyor addressed concerns regarding the communication between the dietary department and the Speech Therapist.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #58). The...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record and policy review, the facility failed to maintain respiratory equipment in a sanitary manner for 1 of 1 sampled resident reviewed for respiratory care (Resident #58). The findings included: The facility's policy, titled, Nebulizer Therapy revised 05/04/22, revealed, in part, Once completely dry, store the nebulizer cup and the mouthpiece in a zip lock bag or plastic bag, change nebulizer tubing weekly or as needed. Review of the record revealed Resident #58's most recent readmission to the facility was on 01/16/24, with diagnoses that included Respiratory Failure, Obstructive Uropathy and Non-Alzheimer's Dementia. Record review revealed the resident receives Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML (milligrams per milliliter) via nebulizer every 4 hours. A nebulizer is a drug delivery device used to administer medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs. On 01/22/24 at 8:00 AM, an observation was made of a nebulizer device on a chair in Resident #58's room. Further observation revealed the nebulizer device that was placed on the chair was not covered, and the tubing was not labeled. Photographic Evidence Obtained.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to assess residents for bedrail use for 1 of 32 sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to assess residents for bedrail use for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident #11) reviewed for bedrail use; and failed to follow recommendations of bedrail assessments for 2 of 32 sampled residents (Residents #58 and #153) reviewed for bedrail use. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Proper Use of Bed Rails with a reviewed / revised date of 07/25/22, included: If bed rails are used, the facility ensures correct installation, use and maintenance of the rails. Under the Section: Ongoing Monitoring and Supervision included: As part of the resident's comprehensive assessment, the following components will be considered when determining the resident's needs, and whether or not the use of bed rails meets those needs: a. Medical diagnosis, conditions, symptoms, and/or behavioral symptoms b. Size and weight c. Sleep habits d. Medication(s) e. Acute medical or surgical interventions f. Underlying medical conditions g. Existence of delirium h. Ability to toilet self safely i. Cognition j. Communication k. Mobility (in and out of bed) l. Risk of falling The resident assessment must include an evaluation of the alternatives that were attempted prior to the installation or use of a bed rail and how these alternatives failed to meet the resident's assessed needs. The facility will continue to provide necessary treatment and care to the resident who has bed rails in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident's choices. This should be evidenced in the resident's records, including their care plan, including but not limited to, the following information: a. The type of specific direct monitoring and supervision provided during the use of the bed rails, including documentation of the monitoring. b. The identification of how needs will be met during use of the bed rails, such as for re-positioning, hydration, meals, use of the bathroom and hygiene. c. Ongoing assessment to assure that the bed rail is used to meet the resident's needs: d. Ongoing evaluation of risks. e. The identification of who may determine when the bed rail will be discontinued f. The identification and interventions to address any residual effects of the bed rail (e.g. generalized weakness, skin breakdown). 1. Record review for Resident #11 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses that included Dementia, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, Anxiety Disorder, Muscle Weakness (Generalized), and Other Lack of Coordination. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #11 dated 11/09/23 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 2, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section GG revealed for all areas for mobility the resident had a performance of independent except for lying to sitting on side of bed the resident had a performance of needing setup of clean-up assistance. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #11 dated 08/13/23 with a focus on the resident is at risk for decreased ability to perform ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting related to impaired cognition. The goal was to continue to participate in their ADLs as tolerated daily through the next review date. The interventions included: ¼ side rail x1 for bed mobility. Assist with transfers as needed. Review of Resident #11's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed no assessment for bedrails. On 01/22/24 at 10:21 AM, an observation was made of Resident #11 lying in bed with the left side bedrail in the up position. The mattress was askew with the widest point between the mattress and the side rail of approximately 4 inches. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:00 AM with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. The LPN stated most of the resident beds have at least 1 siderail. The nurse assesses the resident for siderail safety, there is an assessment in the computer, but she has not had to complete the assessment form because those were done for the resident before she started working at the facility. If there is an incident that happens such as a fall, then she would have to reassess for the side rails but that has not happened. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, LPN, who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. When asked about bedrails, she stated this floor does not use siderails (bedrails). She said all of the beds on this floor that have siderails (bedrails) are all down (in the down position) unless they are on seizure precautions. When asked if they monitor or assess for the bedrails, she said yes, but most of those residents are ambulatory and we just check on the resident every 2 hours. She said they check every morning during rounds to see if the bed is okay. When asked about documentation regarding bedrails, she said if the bed is okay and you have a reason to put in a nursing note for a resident, you can document it in the note. If the siderail (bedrail) is not okay, she would put it on the sheet for maintenance to check or she may call maintenance also to alert them of the issue. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, LPN Unit Manager (LPN/UM), who stated he has worked at the facility since August or September 2023. When asked about bedrails, he said, 'what do you mean'. When asked if beds have bedrails, he said, 'no'. He said very few beds have a siderail (bedrail). The only beds with a siderail are the beds that have the control incorporated into the siderail. When asked if the residents are assessed for bedrails he said, 'yes, upon admission and an assessment for siderails are completed in the residents' chart. When asked if the bedrails are monitored, he stated, 'yes, we nurses walk around and look at the beds'. When asked where the documentation of the monitoring of bedrails is, he said, 'no, we do not document that'. When asked if maintenance inspects the beds, mattresses, or bedrails, he said, 'he has never seen that'. 2. Review of the Side Rail Evaluation for Resident #58, with an effective date of 01/17/24 revealed Side rails not indicated. Review of the resident's Medicare A 5-day scheduled assessment with a target date of 01/06/24 revealed: Section C, the resident is rarely/never understood; and Section P: Bed rail not used. On 01/24/24 at 2:20 PM, an observation was made of Resident #58 in bed with both siderails up. 3. Resident #153 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] post hospitalization. Review of Resident #153's current active physician orders as of 01/25/24 revealed no order for siderails. On 01/25/24 at 9:41 AM, an observation was made of Resident #153 in bed with the siderail on the resident's right side in the up position. An interview was conducted with the Social Worker on 01/25/24 at 1:30 PM regarding siderail use in the facility. The Social Worker stated in June 2023 when the new company took over, they wanted to be siderail free, but this has not been finalized yet. An observation was made by this surveyor throughout the survey process of different types of beds on the second floor. Some beds had controls on the siderails, and some did not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the daily posted nurse staffing information, as observed during the survey week. The findings included: Upon entering the facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to maintain the daily posted nurse staffing information, as observed during the survey week. The findings included: Upon entering the facility on 01/22/24 at 7:00 AM, the surveyors did not observe that the 'daily nurse staffing' was posted at the front desk. Throughout the first day of the survey on 01/22/24 from 7:00 AM until approximately 6:30 PM, the surveyors did not observe that the 'daily nurse staffing' in the facility was posted. Throughout the day on 01/23/24 and 01/24/24, the surveyors continued to not see the daily posted nurse staffing at the front desk or anywhere else in the facility. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:37 PM with the facility's Nurse Staffing Development Coordinator. She stated the daily staffing numbers are to be posted daily at the front desk. The surveyor and the Nurse Staffing Development Coordinator walked to the front desk together and saw that the sign containing the daily staffing numbers was located behind the front desk, not visible to residents and visitors, and the paper inside the sign was dated 01/23/24. At that time, the receptionist stated the staffing had not been updated for the day and that she had told the Staffing Coordinator that morning. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:40 PM with the facility's Staffing Coordinator. She confirmed she was responsible for updating the posted staffing daily and that she had not been able to change the posting for that day. The surveyor asked to see the posted staffing sheets from the two weeks prior to ensure she had been up to date on this task. After approximately 10 minutes, the Staffing Coordinator was only able to produce 3 posted staffing sheets, dated 01/22/24, 01/03/24, and 12/26/23. She was unable to provide a reason for why the other sheets were not found. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:56 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing. The surveyor explained the above concern and she stated she understood.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide physician ordered medications to one (Resident #3) of thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide physician ordered medications to one (Resident #3) of three residents sampled for pharmacy services. Findings included: A review of Resident #3's medical record revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, cerebral infarction, cognitive communication deficit, seizures, and depression. A review of Resident #3's physician's orders summary revealed the following medication orders: - An order, dated 2/13/2024, for lacosamide 200 milligrams (mg), one tablet by gastric tube (GT) two times a day (9:00 AM and 5:00 PM) for seizures. The order remained active until 3/25/2024. - An order, dated 3/25/2024, for lacosamide 10 mg per milliliter (ml), give 10 ml GT two times (6:00 AM and 6:00 PM) a day for seizures. - An order, dated 2/13/2024, for phenobarbital 100 mg GT one time a day at bedtime (9:00 PM) for seizures. The order remained active until 4/1/2024. A review of Resident #3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #3's order for phenobarbital 100 mg GT one time a day at bedtime for seizures: - No documentation of administration on 3/2/2024 and 3/10/2024. - A documented code of 41 on 3/14/2024. The Chart Codes section of the MAR revealed 41=Behavior / Side Effect Did Not Occur. - A documented code of 5 on 3/15, 3/21, and 3/22/2024. The Chart Codes section of the MAR revealed 5=Hold/ See Progress Notes. - A documented code of 9 on 3/16, 3/17, 3/26, 3/27, 3/29, and 3/31/2024. The Chart Codes section of the MAR revealed 9=Other / See Progress Notes. - The medication was documented as administered on 3/1, 3/3, 3/4, 3/5, 3/6, 3/7, 3/8, 3/9, 3/11, 3/12, 3/13, 3/18, 3/19, 3/20, 3/23, 3/24, 3/25, 3/28, and 3/30/2024. A review of Resident #3's MAR for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #3's order for lacosamide 200 mg, one tablet GT two times a day (9:00 AM and 5:00 PM) for seizures: - No documentation of administration on 3/2/2024 at 5:00 PM and 3/10/2024 at 5:00 PM. - A documented code of 9 for the 9:00 AM dose on 3/3, 3/4, 3/5, 3/10, 3/12, 3/14, 3/16, and 3/21/2024. - A documented code of 9 for the 5:00 PM dose on 3/5, 3/9, 3/15, and 3/16/2024. - A documented code of 5 for the 9:00 AM dose on 3/7, 3/9, 3/13, 3/17, 3/18, 3/22, and 3/23/2024. - A documented code of 5 for the 5:00 PM dose on 3/6, 3/7, 3/8, 3/17, 3/21, and 3/22/2024. - A documented code of 2 for the 9:00 AM dose on 3/25/2024. The Chart Codes section of the MAR revealed 2=Drug Refused. - The medication was documented as administered for the 9:00 AM dose on 3/1, 3/2, 3/6, 3/11, 3/15, 3/19, 3/20, and 3/24/2024 and for the 5:00 PM dose on 3/1, 3/3, 3/4, 3/11, 3/12, 3/13, 3/14, 3/18, 3/19, 3/20, 3/23, and 3/24/2024. A review of Resident #3's MAR for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #3's order for lacosamide 10 mg per ml, give 10 ml GT two times (6:00 AM and 6:00 PM) a day for seizures: - A documented code of 9 for the 6:00 AM dose on 3/27 and 3/31/2024. - A documented code of 9 for the 6:00 PM dose on 3/26, 3/27, and 3/31/2024. - The medication was documented as administered for the 6:00 AM dose on 3/26, 3/28, 3/29, and 3/30/2024 and for the 6:00 PM dose on 3/25, 3/28, 3/29, and 3/30/2024. A review of Resident #3's MAR for April 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #3's order for lacosamide 10 mg per ml, give 10 ml GT two times (6:00 AM and 6:00 PM) a day for seizures: - A documented code of 9 for the 6:00 AM dose on 4/1 and 4/2/2024. - A documented code of 5 for the 6:00 PM dose on 4/1/2024. A review of Resident #3's progress notes revealed the following medication administration notes related to Resident #3's order for lacosamide 200 mg one time a day, which remained active until 3/25/2024: - 3/8/2024 10:58 PM: on order. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/9/2024 9:52 AM: Awaits pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/9/2024 10:24 PM: medication unavailable. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/10/2024 1:43 PM: medication unavailable. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/12/2024 4:04 PM: awaiting med. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/13/2024 1:07 PM: awaits pharmarcy (pharmacy). The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/13/2024 10:53 PM: on order. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/14/2024 10:07 AM: Pharmacy scripts (prescriptions) to f/u (follow-up) with md (Medical Doctor). The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the resident's physician. - 3/15/2024 5:00 PM: medication not available, reordered and MD notified and gave order to hold medication until arrival. Review of Resident #3's medical record did not reveal the order for lacosamide 200 mg being placed on hold status at any time. - 3/16/2024 11:52 AM: med not available on hold [per] MD until delivery from pharmacy. Review of Resident #3's medical record did not reveal the order for lacosamide 200 mg being placed on hold status at any time. - 3/16/2024 7:06 PM: waiting on medication pharmacyb (pharmacy) notified. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the resident's physician. - 3/17/2024 1:21 PM: awaits pharmarcy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/17/2024 7:43 PM: medication n/a (not available). The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/18/2024 08:21 AM: Medication on hold per doctor order, until arrival from pharmacy. - 3/20/2024 11:31 PM: on order. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/21/2024 10:58 AM: medication unavailable, pharmacy contacted and they need a script, MD notified. - 3/21/2024 9:01 PM: patient needs a new script, MD notified. - 3/22/2024 09:47 AM: medication unavailable, patient needs a script, MD notified. - 3/22/2024 5:40 PM: medication unavailable, patient needs a script, ARNP (Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner) was notified. - 3/23/2024 9:54 AM: awaiting med. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. A review of Resident #3's progress notes revealed the following medication administration notes related to Resident #3's order for lacosamide 10 mg per ml, give 10 ml GT two times a day: - 3/26/2024 8:01 PM: on order from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/27/2024 6:00 AM: Awaiting arrival from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/27/2024 6:53 PM: Awaits pharmarcy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/31/2024 6:02 AM: Awaiting delivery. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/31/2024 6:42 PM: Awaiting arrival from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 4/1/2024 7:34 AM: Waiting for delivery. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 4/1/2024 5:39 PM: Awaiting arrival from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 4/2/2024 6:38 AM: Waiting for delivery. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. A review of Resident #3's progress notes revealed the following medication administration notes related to Resident #3's order for phenobarbital 100 mg GT one time a day at bedtime: - 3/15/2024 9:38 PM: medication not available, reordered and MD notified ordered ordered to hold until received. Review of Resident #3's medical record did not reveal the order for phenobarbital 100 mg being placed on hold status at any time. - 3/16/2024 10:00 PM: medication not available pharmacy notified. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the resident's physician. - 3/17/2024 10:16 PM: medicament (medication) n/a. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/20/2024 11:31 PM: on order from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/21/2024 9:00 PM: patient needs a new script, MD notified. - 3/22/2024 8:40 PM: medication unavailable, patient needs a script, ARNP was notified. - 3/26/2024 10:49 PM: phenobarbital on order. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/27/2024 8:56 PM: await pharmarcy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/29/2024 8:28 PM: Awaiting arrival from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. - 3/31/2024 8:41 PM: Awaiting arrival from pharmacy. The note did not reveal an attempt to notify the pharmacy or the resident's physician. An interview was conducted on 4/2/2024 at 1:00 PM with Staff N, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff N, LPN stated Resident #3 had orders for phenobarbital and lacosamide, but the medications had not arrived from the pharmacy. Staff N, LPN also stated she was not sure what to do if a resident has an order for a medication that was not available. An interview was conducted on 4/2/2024 at 1:11 PM with Staff I, LPN. Staff I, LPN stated Resident #3's prescriptions for phenobarbital and lacosamide had not arrived from the pharmacy and the medications would not be available in the facility's emergency drug kit (EDK). During the interview, the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) arrived to the unit and was interviewed. The DON stated she would expect nursing staff to call the pharmacy and check on the status of the medication if it had not arrived to the facility and call the resident's physician if a new prescription is needed. A follow up interview was conducted on 4/3/2024 at 1:34 PM with the DON. The DON stated she would expect nursing staff to follow up with the pharmacy if a prescription for a new medication was needed and contact the resident's physician. The DON also stated a medication should not be documented as administered unless it was actually administered to the resident by the nurse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to preserve the nutritional value of food items in the puree diet. This had the potential to affect ten (10) of 10 residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to preserve the nutritional value of food items in the puree diet. This had the potential to affect ten (10) of 10 residents who were on a puree diet. The findings included: Record review of the facility's meal tracker, week 3, showed the following menu items for Monday, 01/22/24: roast chicken, seasoned cornbread, stuffing, and collard greens. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:30 AM, a full-size stainless steel 6-inch deep steam table pan was noted on top of the stove. Closer observation showed cooked collard greens. In this observation, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) said this was the cooked collard green vegetables on the pureed diet for today's lunch meal. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:35 AM, Staff L, Dietary Cook, placed the already-cooked collard greens in the warmer. Staff L stated that she cooked the vegetables for the pureed diet a little earlier, and when she is done with the breakfast tray line, she will puree the cooked collard greens. When asked about the breakfast tray line, she said that it starts at about 7:20 AM and it takes about one hour to finish the breakfast tray line. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 12:20 PM with the Certified Dietary Manager, she stated that she was unaware that cooking raw vegetables and pureeing them too early in the day causes them to lose nutritional value. The surveyor expressed concern that cooking / pureeing cooked vegetables causes them to lose nutrients, especially when prepared too far in advance.
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 F0807 (Tag F0807)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the facility's policy, titled, Hydration with a reviewed/revised date of 11/29/23, included: The facility offers ea...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of the facility's policy, titled, Hydration with a reviewed/revised date of 11/29/23, included: The facility offers each resident sufficient fluid, including water and other liquids, consistent with resident needs and preferences to maintain proper hydration and health. Offer the resident a variety of fluids during and between meals. Provide assistance with drinking. Record review for Resident #53 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Dementia, Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Unspecified Hearing Loss Bilateral. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #53 revealed in Section C, a BIMS score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impairment. In Section GG, it revealed, for toilet hygiene, the resident had a performance of partial / moderate assistance for walking 10 feet, walking 50 feet with two turns and walking 150 feet. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #53 revealed an order dated 05/26/23 for regular diet, mechanical soft texture, thin consistency, large portion, and fortified foods. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #53 revealed an order dated 12/04/23 for Med Pass (or calorie/protein equivalent) three times a day for weight loss/low BMI (Body Mass Index) 90ml (Milliliters) TID (Three times daily). [This equals just over 1 cup of fluid per day]. Review of the CNA Tasks for Nutrition-Fluids dated 12/27/23 - 01/25/24 documented that the resident received the following milliliters: 12/27/23 - 720 12/28/23 - 260 12/29/23 - 900 12/30/23 - 940 12/31/23 - 400 01/01/24 - 484 01/02/24 - 840 01/03/24 - 840 01/04/24 - 9 01/05/24 - 600 01/06/24 - 640 01/07/24 - 720 01/08/24 - 480 01/09/24 - 480 01/10/24 - 125 01/11/24 - 1,440 01/12/24 - 640 01/13/24 - 720 01/14/24 - 484 01/15/24 - 480 01/16/24 - 4 (refused fluids x2) 01/17/24 - 500 01/18/24 - 700 01/19/24 - 840 01/20/24 - 840 01/21/24 - 1,080 01/22/24 - 480 01/23/24 - 964 01/24/24 - 540 01/25/24 - 480. This indicates the resident received an average of 621 milliliters (just over 2.5 cups) of liquid per day. When combined with the med pass, this indicated an average total of just over 3.75 cups per day. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 06/08/23 had a focus on 'the resident remains at risk for nutritional decline r/t (related to) clinical condition'. The goal was for the resident to 'continue to consume adequate calories to meet energy needs. He will be free of all avoidable weight loss. Resident will be free of all s/s (signs/symptoms) of dehydration or fluid overload.' The interventions included: Provide and encourage extra fluids. Monitor for any s/s of dehydration or fluid overload. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #53 dated 06/01/23 had a focus on 'the resident has potential / actual impairment to skin integrity r/t fragile skin.' The goal was for the 'resident to be free from injury through the review date.' The interventions included: Encourage good nutrition and hydration in order to promote healthier skin. On 01/22/24 at 7:44 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 sitting on the side of his bed. There was no water or beverage of any type, nor any cup at the bedside. On 01/22/24 at 11:00 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 lying in bed with no water or beverage of any type, nor any cup at the bedside. On 01/22/24 at 2:35 PM, an observation was made of Resident #53 lying in bed with no water or beverage of any type, nor any cup at the bedside. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 10:30 AM with Staff D, CNA, she stated she has been working at the facility for 2months. When asked how often water is provided to a resident, she stated water is provided to all residents unless they are not supposed to have water. Staff D stated a CNA is assigned Ice daily for each shift, and it is their responsibility to pass water for each resident on the floor. Staff D clarified, when assigned Ice, the water is passed or offered at the end of the shift by the assigned CNA. The water is provided in large white Styrofoam cups with a lid and a straw. When questioned, Staff D did not know the size of the Styrofoam cup and guessed it to be 360 mls. She stated they document all liquids the residents consume, including water and the beverages on the meal trays under fluids in the resident's chart (Electronic Medical Record). An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:00 AM with Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked about water or beverages for the residents, the LPN stated the CNAs primarily pass water in the beginning of the shift each day, and the nurses can get water for residents also. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, LPN, who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. When asked about water or beverages for the residents, the LPN stated the CNAs, from the 11:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift, make sure each resident has a cup for water and it is labeled with the room number and the date. She also stated any staff member can offer water to a resident. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, LPN/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) who stated he has worked at the facility since August / September of 2023. When asked how often residents are provided with water, he said the residents are not provided with cups in the rooms because of their cognition. They are provided with 120 ml (milliliters) of water every 2 to 4 hours filled from a pitcher, usually by a CNA, but anyone can provide a resident with water. Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide the appropriate orders for 3 of 32 sampled residents, for fluids, as prescribed by the attending physicians, Resident #74 and Resident #40; and failed to provide adequate hydration for Resident #53. The findings included: 1. Record review showed that Resident #74 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Diabetes, Anemia, and Hyperlipidemia. During the dining observation on 01/23/24 at 8:28 AM, Resident #74 was noted in his room with the breakfast tray. The breakfast meal ticket showed a regular, mechanical, soft diet with thick nectar liquids. Closer observation of the meal tray revealed a 12-ounce Styrofoam cup of water that was not thickened and placed near the breakfast tray. In this observation, Resident #74 was asked by the surveyor if he was aware that he was on a specific fluid consistency restriction, and Resident #74 could not answer. 2. Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Dementia and Behavioral Disturbances. Resident #40 started in hospice on 07/05/23. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] revealed that Resident #40 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, indciating the score could be obtained. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 12:43 PM, Resident #40 was in her room with her lunch tray. Staff P, a Hospice Registered Nurse (RN), was observed in the room assisting Resident #40 with her lunch meal. Closer observation showed a regular pureed diet meal ticket with thick nectar liquids. The lunch tray was noted with pureed roast turkey, pureed collard green, and 8 ounces of iced tea that was not thickened. During this observation, the surveyor asked Staff P if she knew Resident #40 was on nectar liquids. Staff P stated that she was unsure and proceeded to look at the meal ticket near the tray. An interview was conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:42 AM with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) who stated that any residents with specific fluid orders would be shown on the meal ticket. It is placed in the meal tracker system to reflect the correct diet and runny consistency. They have a machine in the kitchen that thickens the liquids that are placed on the meal trays. If the residents want other fluids that do not come from the kitchen, like coffee or juice, the nursing staff would thicken the liquids on the units. The staff has thickened liquid packets in the nourishment room and on the beverage carts on the floors. The CDM stated that the staff used to have a list of residents who were on thickened liquids, so staff would identify who was on restricted liquids. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 2:30 PM with Staff, I, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated that every staff member on the floor can provide water to residents. She stated she offered water in Styrofoam cups to her residents this morning. When asked how staff knows if any residents are on specific types of liquids, she said they need to look at the meal tickets. If they provide water or other liquids during meals, then staff needs to check the diet order before giving the liquids to residents and know if they need to be thickened or not.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0808 (Tag F0808)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the therapeutic diets as per physician's ord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow the therapeutic diets as per physician's orders for 2 of the 32 sampled residents (Resident #86 and Resident #55). The findings included: A review of the facility's policy, titled, Meal Supervision and Assistant, revised on 11/29/22, showed, in part, that staff needs to check the tray before serving it to the resident to be sure that it is the correct diet ordered and that the food consistency is appropriate to the resident's ability to chew and swallow. 1 . Resident #86 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Parkinson's, Dementia, and Depression. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 04, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the physician's orders, dated 12/04/23, revealed an order for regular texture, thin liquids, and fortified foods with meals. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 8:40 AM, Resident #86 was noted eating her breakfast from the tray in her room. Closer observation showed a meal ticket with the following: regular diet, baked omelet, sausage patty, toast, and hot cereal. The meal ticket did not mention any fortified foods to be provided. The breakfast plate consisted of one serving of omelet, sausage patty, and 6 ounces of hot cereal. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 12:27 PM, Resident #86 was in the room eating her lunch meal. Closer observation showed 8 ounces of shepherd's pie, 4 ounces of corn, and one serving of dinner roll. No fortified food item was noted on the lunch tray or on the meal ticket. 2. Resident #55 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Anemia, Dysphagia, and Depression. Review of the physician's orders revealed an order dated 08/16/23 for regular texture, thin liquids, and large portions of protein at meals. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed Resident #55 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, indicating severe cognitive impairment. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 8:44 AM, Resident #55 ate his breakfast meal independently. The meal ticket revealed the following: low concentrated sweet, large protein, one serving of omelet (average serving), and 1 ounce of sausage patty (average serving). Observation of the breakfast plate did not show that Resident #55 received a large portion of protein. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 12:24 PM, Resident #55 was eating his lunch meal. Closer observation showed that he received 8 ounces of shepherd's pie (normal serving), 4 ounces of corn and a dinner roll. Closer observation did not show that any large portion of protein was provided. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at noon, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) stated that they have a designated staff member who checks the tray line trays and meal tickets to ensure accuracy. Sometimes, food items are missed during the tray line, so nursing staff should also check the meal tickets for accuracy and notify dietary for any changes or missing items. When asked what extra protein was served on the lunch meal on 01/24/24, she said it was about 12-16 ounces of the Shepard pie and not the normal portion of 8 ounces. As for the fortified food items, she stated that they are hot cereal or eggs for breakfast, mashed potatoes for lunch, and pudding for dinner. The CDM stated that when a diet order is changed in the electronic system, a communication slip is provided by nursing so they can place the new order in the meal tracker to reflect the changes on the meal ticket.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety. The findings included: A tour ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food by professional standards for food service safety. The findings included: A tour of the main kitchen conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:14 AM and accompanied by the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) showed the following: 1. No hairnets or facial hairnets were noted outside the main kitchen doorway. 2. A dirty rag was noted on the main production counter that was not in any buckets or solutions. 3. Four large rolls of pork loin were noted in the walk-in refrigerator and placed on a metal tray. The metal tray had a label of pork dated 01/18/24. In this observation, the CDM stated that the pork loin was placed in the walk-in refrigerator to thaw and that it is for the lunch meal tomorrow, 01/23/24. 4. Four large rolls of raw beef (approximately 10 pounds each) were placed in the walk-in refrigerator on a metal tray that needed to be labeled and dated. They did not have a sticker with a date indicating when they were placed in the walk-in refrigerator. 5. The walk-in freezer noted four packs of waffles that needed to be dated and labeled. 6. The walk-in freezer was noted to have a large bag of frozen chicken that needed to be dated and labeled. 7. The dry storage area noted a 6-pound 12-ounce large can of beef ravioli that was dented. 8. Two can openers were sitting in a clear container with an unidentified liquid. In this observation, the CDM said she placed the two can openers earlier in a container with a degrease solution and some water. 9. Partially opened garbage lid in the food production area. 10. A used blue cutting board with a knife, a spatula, and a used whisk sitting on top of the cutting board was not in use or in any other cleaning solution. 11. The exhaust above the dishwasher machine was rusty and filled with debris. 12. A tray was noted with 12 (4-ounce cup) fruits and puddings that needed to be dated and labeled. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 3:14 PM in the 2nd-floor Nourishment room, a tray was noted with ½ prepared sandwiches in the refrigerator that were not labeled or dated. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 5:00 PM with the facility's Administrator, he was told of the findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to administer the facility in a manner that enables the effective and efficient use of its resources. The findings included: A review of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to administer the facility in a manner that enables the effective and efficient use of its resources. The findings included: A review of the Administrator's job description revealed the following: 1. Lead and direct the facility's overall operations in accordance with customer needs, government regulations, and Company policies, focusing on maintaining excellent care for the residents while achieving the facility's business objectives. 2. Manage facility budgets and business practices to include labor costs, payables, and receivables. 3. Consult with department managers concerning the operation of their departments to assist in eliminating/ correcting problem areas and/or improving services. 4. Verify that the building and grounds are maintained appropriately, that equipment and work areas are clean, safe, and orderly, and that any hazardous conditions are addressed. 5. Monitor each department's activities, communicate policies, evaluate performance, provide feedback, and assist, observe, coach, and discipline as needed. 6. Oversee regular rounds to monitor the delivery of nursing care, operations of support departments, cleanliness and appearance of the facility, morale of the staff, and ensure resident needs are being addressed. In an interview with the Maintenance Director on 01/25/24 at 8:06 AM, he stated that he had worked in the facility for the last six weeks. He oversees the facility and ensures everything is in operation and working order. The staff will complete a working order request on any issue that needs fixing. The order forms are placed in a bin outside the central supply office, which he checks daily. He only has one assistant to help him complete all the work that is needed around the facility, and that, at times, is not enough. When asked by the Surveyor if he ever attended a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meeting, he said no. The Maintenance Director reported that some significant issues around the facility needed to be addressed, and he brought it up to the Administrator. He was told by the Administrator that he would contact Corporate for budget approval and that he would let him know. The Administrator told him that Corporate did not approve some of the issues, that his hands were tied, and that he could not do anything. According to the Maintenance Director, this is why he is leaving the facility; tomorrow is his last day. The Administrator was able to give him an allowance to buy the supplies needed for some of the repairs but was told that Corporate did not approve other maintenance. When asked if any audit sheets or forms are completed by the Administrator overseeing his job or his progress in the facility, he said no. The Maintenance Director further said he contacted some previous vendors for needed work around the facility, for example pest control. The vendors told him they would come into the facility once older invoices for work were paid. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 5:15 PM, the Administrator stated that as the Administrator, he is responsible for taking all feedback from his staff and residents. He uses QAPI to keep track of all the issues and areas of resident care around the facility. He determined how staff did their job by conducting physical rounds, looking at patient outcomes, and interviewing department heads. Regarding oversight of the Maintenance Department, he stated that they have weekly maintenance checklists that he and the Maintenance Director fill out. He also has a budget credit card that is used for emergency purchases for any emergency items that need to be bought. The Administrator reported that the Maintenance Director had never approached him in the past regarding supplies that he needed and denied telling him that they didn't have a budget for supplies.
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 F0837 (Tag F0837)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to communicate effectively between the Administrator and the Governing Body regarding the overall management and operation of the facility. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to communicate effectively between the Administrator and the Governing Body regarding the overall management and operation of the facility. The findings included: A review of the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan (QAPI) dated 2023 revealed that the QAPI Plan and program were reviewed and approved by The Committee of the Governing Body. The Governing Body of our facility has ultimate responsibility and leadership over our QAPI program, working with input from staff, residents, and resident representatives. The Governing Body designates a QAPI Steering Committee (Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Medical Director). The Governing Body ensures that the QAPI program has sufficient resources, facility-wide QAPI training occurs that policies are in place to sustain the program despite personnel changes, supports a culture of resident-centered rights and choices, holds staff accountable for quality in an environment free of retaliation; ensures staff is educated and proficient in their duties. A review of the 2024 QAPI Plan provided to the Surveyor on 01/25/24 at 4:50 PM revealed that the Governing Body is responsible and accountable for overseeing the QAPI program. The Governing Body is responsible and accountable for ensuring that an ongoing QAPI program is defined, implemented, maintained, and addresses identified priorities. The QAPI program is sustained during transitions in leadership and staffing. It further revealed corrective actions address system gaps and evaluate the QAPI programs' effectiveness. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 8:06 AM, the facility's maintenance director stated that the facility had major issues that needed to be addressed right away and that he brought them up with the administration. The Administrator was able to give him the allowance to buy some of the materials that were needed for some of the repairs, but he was told that Corporate did not approve other repairs. Some of the issues he reported were the air conditioning on the roof that is not working, the downstairs door frame being busted and needs to be fixed immediately, and the sprinkler system being red-tagged. He was also told by the vendors that the corporation would not pay them for the work done and would only come into the facility once older invoices for work that was done were paid. The maintenance director reported that the residents' beds in the facility were of all sizes and types and that they needed to follow the directions for using each bed type. When asked if there is a system to check the bed rails and ensure that the frame and mattress fit the bed, he said no. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 1:40 PM with the facility's Medical Director, he stated that he is part of the Governing Body with the Administrator and the Director of Nursing. The goal of the Governing Body is to communicate effectively and to work as a team to treat patients and take ownership of their roles. When asked who is responsible for reporting to him on various issues and concerns in the facility, he said the Director of Nursing (DON). According to the Medical Director, the DON will contact him and discuss any issues that may need addressing. Together, they will decide if performance improvement projects (PIP) must be started. The Surveyor asked if he knew the facility had pest control issues, and he said no. The Medical Director was not told that nurses needed to follow the Physician's orders regarding tube-feeding residents. He was aware of residents who had significant weight losses but needed to know if they were addressed in a timely manner by the facility's Registered Dietitian. According to the Medical Director, he knew that the facility had issues with the contracted hospice companies and that care plans were not completed on time. He had to reach out to the hospice companies himself to discuss the problem. The Medical Director stated that the DON should keep a log of all the communications between them and that he did not have a written log. In the past, residents' care was affected because of a lack of supplies. He has received calls from the hospital regarding the overall care of his residents. He was told by hospital staff that his residents were not being cared for medically while in the facility. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 2:49 PM with the Regional Director of Operation/Owner, she stated that she is part of the Governing Body and is responsible for overseeing the facility and providing any support it may need. When asked who else is part of the Governing Body, she said the following: Regional Minimum Data Set Coordinator, Regional Nurse Consultant, Regional Plant Operations, Regional Risk Management, Chief Executive Officer, and [NAME] President of Operation. They took over as a new management/ownership around June 2023. She oversees the budget and ensures the staffing is appropriate. The Regional Director of Operations reported that she communicates daily with the facility's Administrator. The Administrator is responsible for reporting any negative outcome regarding the point of care to her. When asked if the Administrator or Medical Director had contacted her in the past regarding not having supplies, she said no and that she would have taken care of the issues right away. A review of the facility's assessment revealed that the facility's Chief Operating Officer oversees shared services managers. At the same time, the Administrator manages the management team, which is responsible for the facility's day-to-day operations. The Medical Director oversees medical practice and the clinical policies and programs of the facility. In a phone interview with the pest control company on 02/01/24 at 12:40 PM, the representative stated that the facility had not been paying their invoices since October 2023 and was 90 days behind. It was further reported that no payments were made since October of 2023 and that they finally paid all their due balances on January 31, 2024.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to have an integrative care plan and effective communi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to have an integrative care plan and effective communication between the facility and the hospice provider for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for hospice (Resident #40). The findings included: A review of the facility policy titled, Coordination of Hospice Services, revised on 6/2023, revealed the following: when a resident chooses to receive hospice care and services, the facility will coordinate and provide care in cooperation with hospice staff to promote the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The facility and hospice provider will coordinate a care plan and implement interventions per the resident's needs, goals, and recognized standards of practice in consultation with the resident's attending physician/ practitioner and resident's representative to the extent possible. The plan of care will identify the care and services that each entity will provide to meet the needs of the resident and their expressed desire for hospice care. A record review revealed that Resident #40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Dementia and Behavioral Disturbances. The most recent Quarterly Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] shows that Resident #40 has a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99, which means that the score could not be obtained. A review of the Physician's order showed an order: referral for hospice consult, which was dated 07/05/23. Further review did not show an order to be admitted to hospice. Long-term care facility change in billing revealed that Resident #40 was admitted to Vitas Hospice effective 07/06/23. A progress note dated 07/05/23 showed Resident #40's spouse had concerns regarding possible hospice consultation. He related that he would like to have them notified. A review of the facility care plan did not show that a care plan was initiated and updated regarding hospice for Resident #40. A review of the hospice binder on the 2nd-floor Unit did not show documentation regarding care coordination between the facility and the hospice agency. Further review should have demonstrated that delegation of care was communicated between the facility and hospice. An interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 9:44 AM with Staff Q, Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator, stated that when a resident gets admitted to hospice, they should always be admitted to hospice in the medical chart. She will review the Physician's orders and then knows that a care plan for hospice needs to be created. Social Services will also inform her if a resident was admitted to hospice. When asked why Resident #40 did not have a care plan for hospice, she did not have an answer. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 9:15 AM, Staff J, Unit Manager, said that when residents are admitted to hospice, they will call the doctor to get an order to accept the resident to hospice, which is then placed as an order in the electronic system. The Social Worker communicates with the hospice team and the nurse assigned to the resident. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 1:40 PM with the facility's Medical Director, he stated that he was aware that they had issues with the hospice agency not completing the care plan on time and not communicating with the nursing home. He had to call the hospice company in the past to discuss the issue.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to monitor inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program. The findings included: Review of the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to monitor inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails as part of a regular maintenance program. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Proper Use of Bed Rails with a reviewed/revised date of 07/25/22 included: If bed rails are used, the facility ensures correct installation, use and maintenance of the rails. Under the Section: Ongoing Monitoring and Supervision included: The facility will continue to provide necessary treatment and care to the resident who has bed rails in accordance with professional standards of practice and the resident's choices. This should be evidenced in the resident's records, including their care plan, including but not limited to, the following information: a. The type of specific direct monitoring and supervision provided during the use of the bed rails, including documentation of the monitoring. Responsibilities of ongoing monitoring and supervision are specified as follows: a. Direct care staff will be responsible for care and treatment in accordance with the plan of care. b. A nurse assigned to the resident will complete assessments in accordance with the facility's assessment schedule, but not less than quarterly, upon a significant change in status, or a change in the type of bed/mattress/rail. c. The interdisciplinary team will make decisions regarding when the bed rail will be used or discontinued, or when to revise the care plan to address any residual effects of the bed rail. d. The maintenance director, or designee, is responsible for adhering to a routine maintenance and inspection schedule for all bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 8:30 AM with the Director of Maintenance (DOM), who stated he has been working at the facility for 1.5 months. When asked what kinds of beds they use, he stated there are all different kinds of beds. When asked if the facility uses bed rails, he said yes. He was told by the Regional person to remove the bed rails from all beds but leave the bed rails that have the bed controls incorporated into the bed rail. When asked if they perform any inspection or compatibility of bed frame, mattresses, and bed rails, he said no. When asked if they have the manufacturers instruction for each type of bed, mattress and side rails used in the facility, he said they hardly have any instruction manuals for any equipment. He was asked to provide instruction manuals for the bed frame, mattresses and bed rails used by the facility. None were provided. The DOM stated the nurses should tell him if there are any bed rails in use. The DOM stated they have no system in place that he is aware of for checking the bed rails and he does not monitor bed rails. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:00 AM With Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked about bed rails, she stated most of the resident beds have at least 1 side rail. The nurse assesses the resident for side rail (bed rail) safety, there is an assessment in the computer, but she has not had to complete a form because those were done for the resident before she started working at the facility. If there is an incident such as a fall that happens then she would have to reassess for the side rails but that has not happened. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. When asked about bed rails, she stated this floor does not use side rails (bed rails). She said all of the beds on this floor that have side rails (bed rails) are all down unless they are on seizure precautions. When asked if they monitor or assess for the bed rails, she said yes, but most of those residents are ambulatory and we just check on the resident every 2 hours. She said they check every morning during rounds to see if the bed is okay. When asked about documentation regarding bed rails, she said if the bed is okay and you have a reason to put a nursing note in for a resident you can document, it in the note. If the siderail (Bed rail) is not okay, she will put it on the sheet for maintenance to check or she may call maintenance also to alert them of the issue. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager (LPN/UM), he stated he has worked at the facility since August or September. When asked about bed rails, he said what do you mean. When asked if beds have bed rails, he said no. He said very few beds have a side rail (bed rail). The only beds with a side rail (bed rail) are the beds that have the control incorporated into the side rail (bed rail). When asked are residents assessed for bed rails he said yes, upon admission and an assessment for side rails (bed rails) are completed in the residents' chart. When asked if the bed rails are monitored, he stated yes, nurses walk around and look at the beds. When asked where the documentation of the monitoring of bed rails is, he said no we do not document that. When asked if maintenance inspects the beds, mattresses, or bed rails he said he never saw that.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0918 (Tag F0918)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident room is equipped with a working toi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident room is equipped with a working toilet or located near an accessible toilet for 1 of 100 residents screened (Resident #53). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Safe and Homelike Environment with a reviewed/revised date of 04/11/23 included: In accordance with residents' rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, allowing the resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. This includes ensuring that the resident can receive care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximizes resident independence and does not pose a safety risk. Record review for Resident #53 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Dementia, Muscle Weakness, Unspecified Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, and Unspecified Hearing Loss Bilateral. Review of the Minimum Data Set for Resident #53 dated 11/19/23 revealed in Section C, a Brief Interview of Mental Status Score of 1, indicating severe cognitive impact. In Section GG it revealed for toilet hygiene the resident had a performance of partial/moderate assistance, for walking 10 feet, walking 50 feet with two turns and walking 150 feet the resident had a performance of partial/moderate assistance. On 01/22/24 at 7:45 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 lying on his bed. Upon opening Resident #53's bathroom there was an overwhelming urine smell, the toilet was closed and covered with plastic over the toilet bowl. On 01/22/24 at 8:00 AM, an observation was made of the closest toilet to Resident #53 was in the Bath (Shower) room that was 8 rooms away on the opposite side of the hall and is always locked. On 01/22/24 at 11:00 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 ambulating in room, no staff member present, and the toilet bowl continued to be covered in plastic. On 01/22/24 at 4:05 PM, an observation made of Resident #53's bathroom revealed the bathroom continued to smell of urine, toilet no longer covered with plastic but had brown fecal type matter on toilet seat and in the toilet bowl. On 01/23/24 at 9:00 AM, an observation was made of Resident #53 sitting on edge of bed, there was a sign on the resident's bathroom door that said out of order, toilet bowl covered with plastic and had an out of order sign placed on the toilet bowl. During an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:48 AM with Staff E, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), who had entered Resident #53's room, she stated she has worked at the facility for 1 month. When asked if there was something wrong with the toilet, she said I think it is a little stopped. When asked how long the toilet has been like this, she said I think since Thursday or Friday. When asked if the resident uses the toilet, she said yes sometimes. When asked what happened when the resident had to use the toilet and it was not available, she said he has a brief. During an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:30 AM with Resident #53's son, he stated when he visited his father, in early November 2023 the toilet was not working and would not flush. During an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 4:10 PM with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager, when asked about the broken toilet in Resident #53's bathroom, he stated it has been broken off and on for about a week. When asked what the resident does when he needs to use the toilet, he did not respond. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 1:45 PM with the Director of Maintenance who was asked how long the toilet has not been working in Resident #53's room, he said they have had issues with that toilet off and on for a while.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0920 (Tag F0920)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility needed to ensure adequate lighting in designated resident dining and activities rooms. The findings included: A review of the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility needed to ensure adequate lighting in designated resident dining and activities rooms. The findings included: A review of the facility's policy titled, Safe and Homelike Environment: revised on 04/11/23 revealed that in accordance with resident ' s rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. It further showed providing adequate lighting, which means a level of illumination suitable to tasks the resident chooses to perform or the facility staff must perform. In a dining observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:50 AM, in the main dining room on the 2nd-floor, the following inadequate lighting was noted: The 4 round lights that are noted next to the main kitchen side had one light bulb working out of 4 light bulbs. The four lights noted near the outside window showed that only two bulbs were working out of 4 light bulbs. The dining room was noted to have 25 residents waiting for their breakfast meals. In this observation, Staff M, a Certified Nursing Assistant, was asked about the light bulbs not working. She then turned on the 8 square light bulbs in the middle of the dining room, and the lighting was still dim. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 10:58 AM, on the 1st floor, in the Sunset room, two wall lamps were noted, with one missing a bulb, near the entrance door. The bathroom in the Sunset room was missing the ceiling light cover. In an observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 11:20 AM, in the main dining room on the 2nd floor, the following inadequate lighting was noted: The 4 round lights that are noted next to the main kitchen side had one light bulb working out of 4 light bulbs. The 4 round lights noted near the outside window showed that only two out of 4 light bulbs were working. In this observation, the Surveyor turned on the 8 square light bulbs in the middle of the dining room. Resident #7, sitting in the main dining room, said, Oh, this is much better. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 12:30 PM, in the main dining room on the 2nd floor, 27 residents were eating their lunch meal. The 4 round lights that are noted next to the main kitchen side had one light bulb working out of 4 light bulbs. The 4 round lights noted near the outside window showed that only two out of 4 light bulbs were working. In a tour conducted on 01/25/24 at 9:00 AM, in the main dining room on the 2nd floor with the Maintenance director, the following were noted: the 4 round light bulbs were replaced on the right side, and only 2 out of the 4 round light bulbs were replaced on the left side near the window. In this observation, the Maintenance Director said that he had enough supplies to replace the light bulbs on most of the lights but needed another two light bulbs. When asked by Surveyor if he was aware that a light bulb was missing on the first floor in the Sunset room, he said yes and that he still needed to purchase the specific bulb for that type of lighting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0924 (Tag F0924)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to equip corridors with securely affixed handrails on 1 of 2 floors of the facility (the First floor). The findings included:...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to equip corridors with securely affixed handrails on 1 of 2 floors of the facility (the First floor). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Handrails with a reviewed/revised date of 04/02/23 included: The facility will equip corridors with a handrail on each side of the hall. All handrails will be firmly secured. During an initial tour conducted on 01/22/24 from 7:45 AM to 11:30 AM, on the first floor (Memory Unit), the handrails were observed to be loose and not firmly secured to the wall. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 1:45 PM with the Director of Plant Operations, the Director of Maintenance, and the Maintenance Assistant they acknowledged the handrails were loose. The Director of Plant Operations stated the handrails are secured to the wall, it is just the part of the handrail you hold onto that is loose.
CONCERN (D)

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to follow their smoking policy for 2 of 9...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, record review and policy review, the facility failed to follow their smoking policy for 2 of 9 residents identified as smokers (Resident #15 and #48). The findings included: The facility's policy titled, Smoking Policy revealed All smokers will be supervised during smoking without exception. Metal ashtrays with self-closing covers are to be used to hold and dispose of cigarettes in smoking areas. Resident #15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Hypertension, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Cognitive Communication Deficit. Her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score from the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 11/01/23 was 13, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Section J of the MDS assessment revealed she was a current tobacco user. Review of the resident's care plan revealed the resident must smoke with supervision. Resident #48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Cellulitis of Left Lower Limb, Type 2 Diabetes, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. His BIMS score was 13 on his annual MDS assessment with an ARD of 01/07/24. Section J of the MDS assessment revealed he was a current tobacco user. Review of the resident's care plan revealed the resident must smoke with supervision. On 01/22/24 at 11:20 AM, an observation was made of residents smoking on the smoking patio which is in front of the building. There was no supervision for the smoking residents. A review of the smoking times revealed the next smoking time to be 11:30 AM to 11:45 AM. An observation of the smoking patio revealed cigarette butts all over the stones in the front of the building and in the flower pots. There was no fire extinguisher present. There were 2 self-closing metal trash cans present. One was empty and the other had an empty cigarette box in it (photographic evidence obtained). An interview was conducted with Resident #48 at the time of the observation. Resident #48 was asked how he was able to be smoking before the staff came out to provide the cigarettes. Resident #48 stated there is a dollar store where cigarettes can be bought and we sign ourselves out and go there to buy cigarettes. On 01/22/24 at 11:35 AM, Staff V, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), arrived on the smoking patio with the lock box of cigarettes and lighters. Staff V stated she was unsure if she should stay with the residents. She stated this was her second day on the job and she was not sure if she should give the whole bag of cigarettes to the residents or give them cigarettes one by one. Discussed observation of smoking area and residents smoking without supervision with the Administrator and Social Service Director on 01/22/24 at 4:00 PM. They acknowledged the residents were not supervised while smoking earlier today. They acknowledged all residents who are smoking should be supervised. They were asked if they were aware there are cigarette butts all over the front of the building and they acknowledged that they were aware and housekeeping should be cleaning them up. They were also aware that the residents are buying their own cigarettes and pocketing them. They stated they have been trying to stop this practice but residents are still doing it. The residents were re-educated this morning on the smoking policy. An additional interview was conducted with Staff V on 01/24/24 at 10:28 AM. Staff V stated she was told the residents had set times for smoking and they have to be with them when they smoked. She knew the times but she did not know ahead of time that she would be supervising smoking. She arrived late because she was also doing patient care. She was told here is the box with the cigarettes and she was told she had to supervise them.
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 record and policy review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure of a safe, clean, comfortable, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record and policy review, observations and interviews, the facility failed to ensure of a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 13 of 31 rooms on the 1st floor, 2 of 2 Shower Rooms on the 1st floor, 1 laundry area, and a pillar located in the Memory Care Unit Nursing Station. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Safe and Homelike Environment with a reviewed / revised date of 04/11/23, included: In accordance with residents' rights, the facility will provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment allowing the resident to use his or her personal belongings to the extent possible. This includes ensuring that the resident can receive care and services safely and that the physical layout of the facility maximizes resident independence and does not pose a safety risk. Housekeeping and maintenance services will be provided as necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable environment. The facility will provide and maintain bed and bath linens that are clean and in good condition. General considerations: Minimize odors by disposing of soiled linens promptly and reporting lingering odors and bathrooms needing cleaning to Housekeeping Department. Report any furniture in disrepair to Maintenance promptly. Report any unresolved environmental concerns to the Administrator. During an initial tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 from 7:30 AM to 11:40 AM, the following observations were made: In room [ROOM NUMBER], the door frame had a large area of missing/chipping paint. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the ceiling paint by the window was bubbling / peeling; the ceiling paint by the entry door / privacy curtain track was discolored; the bathroom floor and toilet seat were discolored; both nightstands had broken drawers and chipped/missing/scratched veneer. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the bed near the window had no overbed table for meals. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the bathroom ceiling had large unpainted patches; and the floor near the bed by the door had cracked floor tiles. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the wall by the sink had a large scuff mark and missing paint. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the window screen had large holes. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the light above the bed, closest to the entry door, had a large amount of rust. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the wall by the air-conditioning (A/C) unit had a hole with a metal plate inside; the wall of the entry door was unpainted; the closet door was off-track; and blackish mold like substance was noted on the inside closet of the wall near the floor. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], there was no window covering except the valance, to block the light; and the closet door was missing. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the base of the bed closest to the entry door was rusty; the nightstand closest to the entry door had drawers misaligned; the closet door was bowed and had layers of the wood separated; blackish mold like substance was noted on the inside of the closet, on the wall near the floor; and the windowsill was cracked and uneven. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the ceiling was dark / discolored. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the privacy curtain track above the bed by the door was pulling away from the ceiling; the bed by the door had 2 large gray stains at the foot of the bed; the A/C vents were dirty; there were no chairs in the room; the cold-water handle to the bathroom sink was broken and there was no hot water; and there was an overwhelming smell of urine in the bathroom. Photographic Evidence Obtained. Outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], there was no room number, and just 1 of the 2 residents' names taped to the wall. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the florescent light in the bathroom that extends over the toilet and sink, was uncovered (Photographic Evidence Obtained), and the nightstand near the room window had a broken handle. In the Bath / Shower Room across from room [ROOM NUMBER], there was no paper towel holder and no paper towels at the sink; and 2 open gallon jugs of skin/hair cleaner were on the floor in the shower stall. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In the Bath / Shower Room across from room [ROOM NUMBER], there were 2 treatment carts; and 2 open gallon jugs of skin/hair cleaner on the floor in the shower stall. Photographic Evidence Obtained. The Memory Care Unit Nursing Station had a pillar with no laminate, exposing glue and particle board. During the laundry tour conducted on 01/22/24 from 12:00 PM to 2:50, PM with the Director of Plant Operations, Director of Maintenance, and the Director of Housekeeping, the following observations were made: The washing tub located in the sorting room was dirty / stained. There were 7 (seven) 5-gallon containers of floor stripper, directly on the floor, in the sorting room. There was an empty wet / dry vacuum that was pulled apart, with dried debris on the filter exposed in the sorting area. There were 4 (four) open containers of chemicals attached to the washing machines, placed directly on the floor in the washing room. There were 5 (five) sealed containers of chemicals stored directly on the floor in the washing room. There was an open container of laundry detergent and an open container of fabric softener stored directly on the floor in the washing room. There was a missing ceiling tile above the washing machines in the washing room. There was a portable hot water heater stored behind the dryers in the drying room. There was a box fan covered with dust / debris and a curtain rod in plastic stored in the corner between the dryers and the wall with the window. The florescent ceiling light in the dryer room had no cover. During an environmental tour conducted on 01/24/24 at 1:30 PM with the Director of Plant Operations, the Director of Maintenance (DOM), and the Maintenance Assistant (MA), they acknowledged the identified concerns. During an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:50 PM with the Director of Housekeeping, she stated the Administrator walks through the laundry area periodically and he makes suggestions on things for her to do in the laundry area. The Director of Housekeeping was unable to clarify what the Administrator had suggested for her to do in the laundry area.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the pl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with the plan of care for two (Resident #6 and Resident #9) of three residents sampled for bedrail use and two (Resident #3 and Resident #6) of three residents sampled for unnecessary medication use. Findings included: A review of Resident #6's medical record revealed Resident #6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of vascular dementia, cerebral atherosclerosis, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident #6's physician's orders revealed the following orders: - An order, dated 6/16/2023, for olanzapine 10 mg (milligrams) PO (orally) two times a day for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. - An order, dated 6/16/2023, for clonazepam 0.5 mg PO every 12 hours for anxiety disorder. - An order, dated 6/16/2023, for Eliquis 5 mg PO two times a day for cerebral atherosclerosis. - An order, dated 6/16/2023, for Side Effect Observation: 1-Dystonia, torticollis (stiffness of neck); 2-Anticholinergic symptoms: dry mouth/blurred vision, constipation/urinary retention; 3-Hypotension ; 4-Sedation/drowsiness; 5-Increased falls/dizziness ;6-Cardiac abnormalities; 7-Anxiety/agitation; 8-Blurred Vision; 9-Sweating/rashes; 10-Headache; 11-Urinary retention/hesitancy; 12-Weakness; 13-Hangover effect; 14-Pseudoparkinsonism; 15-Insomnia; 16-New Onset Confusion, every shift for medication side effect monitoring. - An order, dated 6/16/2023, Side Effect Observation: 17-Akathisia--restlessness/pacing/inability to sit still/anxiousness/sleep disturbances; 18-Tardive dyskinesia--lip smacking/chewing/abnormal tongue movement/spasmodic movement of arms/legs-rocking/swaying; 19-Sore throat; 20-Seizures; 21-Photosensitivity; 22-Suicidal ideations; 23-Hepatic or renal abnormalities; 24-Ataxia; 25-Nausea/Vomiting; 26-Diarrhea; 27-Abdominal Discomfort; 28-discolored urine; 29-black tarry stools; 30-bruising; 31-nose bleeds, every shift for medication side effect monitoring. - An order, dated 6/16/2023, for antianxiety medication monitoring. Observe for restlessness every shift. - An order, dated 6/16/2023, for antipsychotic medication monitoring. Observe for delusions, hallucinations, and/or paranoia every shift. - An order, dated 3/11/2024, for 1/4 side rail x (times) 1 for bed mobility. A review of Resident #6's Side Rail Evaluation dated 3/11/2024 revealed Resident #6 demonstrated poor bed mobility or difficulty moving to a sitting position on the side of the bed and required assistance with toileting and a quarter rail on the left side of the bed was implemented to assist with positioning, support, and/or bed mobility. A review of Resident #6's care plan revealed a Focus area, last revised on 3/21/2024, Resident #6 required assistance to perform, improve or maintain Activities of Daily Living (ADL) activities. Interventions included to assist the resident with ADL's as needed, observe for ADL decline, and 1/4 side rail x 1 for bed mobility. Resident #6's care plan also revealed a Focus, last revised on 2/13/2024, Resident #6 uses antipsychotic and anxiolytic medications. Interventions include to administer psychotropic medications as ordered and monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. Resident #6's care plan revealed a Focus area, last revised on 6/8/2023, Resident #6 is on anticoagulant therapy. Interventions include to administer anticoagulant medications as ordered and monitor for side effects and effectiveness every shift. A review of Resident #6's Behavior Monitoring Log for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #6's order for antianxiety medication monitoring: - No documentation of monitoring for the day shift on 3/21/2024. - No documentation of monitoring for the night shift on 3/6 and 3/17/2024. A review of Resident #6's Behavior Monitoring Log for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #6's order for antianxiety medication monitoring: - No documentation of monitoring for the day shift on 3/21/2024. - No documentation of monitoring for the night shift on 3/6 and 3/17/2024. A review of Resident #6's Behavior Monitoring Log for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #6's order for antipsychotic medication monitoring: - No documentation of monitoring for the day shift on 3/21/2024. - No documentation of monitoring for the night shift on 3/6 and 3/17/2024. A review of Resident #9's medical record revealed Resident #9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, muscle weakness, and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident #9's physician's orders revealed an order, dated 3/11/2024 for 1/4 side rail x 1 for bed mobility. A review of Resident #9's Side Rail Evaluation dated 3/11/2024 revealed Resident #9 demonstrated poor bed mobility or difficulty moving to a sitting position on the side of the bed and required assistance with toileting and a quarter rail on the right side of the bed was implemented to assist with positioning, support, and/or bed mobility. A review of Resident #9's care plan revealed a Focus area, last revised on 6/9/2023, Resident #9 was at risk for decreased ability to perform ADL's in bathing, grooming, personal hygiene, dressing, eating, bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and toileting. Interventions included to use a wheelchair for locomotion and side rail x 1 for bed mobility. A review of Resident #3's medical record revealed Resident #3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, cerebral infarction, cognitive communication deficit, and depression. A review of Resident #3's physician's orders revealed the following orders: - An order, dated 2/14/2024, for sertraline hydrochloride (HCl) 50 milligrams (mg) by gastric tube (GT) one time a day for depression. - An order, dated 3/28/2024 for escitalopram oxalate 10 milliliters (ml) GT one time a day for depression. - An order, dated 2/13/2024 for apixaban 5 mg GT two times a day for cerebral infarction. - An order, dated 2/13/2024 for Side Effect Observation: 1-Dystonia, torticollis (stiffness of neck); 2-Anticholinergic symptoms: dry mouth/blurred vision, constipation/urinary retention; 3-Hypotension ; 4-Sedation/drowsiness; 5-Increased falls/dizziness ;6-Cardiac abnormalities; 7-Anxiety/agitation; 8-Blurred Vision; 9-Sweating/rashes; 10-Headache; 11-Urinary retention/hesitancy; 12-Weakness; 13-Hangover effect; 14-Pseudoparkinsonism; 15-Insomnia; 16-New Onset Confusion, every shift for medication side effect monitoring. - An order, dated 2/13/2024 for Side Effect Observation: 17-Akathisia--restlessness/pacing/inability to sit still/anxiousness/sleep disturbances; 18-Tardive dyskinesia--lip smacking/chewing/abnormal tongue movement/spasmodic movement of arms/legs-rocking/swaying; 19-Sore throat; 20-Seizures; 21-Photosensitivity; 22-Suicidal ideations; 23-Hepatic or renal abnormalities; 24-Ataxia; 25-Nausea/Vomiting; 26-Diarrhea; 27-Abdominal Discomfort; 28-discolored urine; 29-black tarry stools; 30-bruising; 31-nose bleeds, every shift for medication side effect monitoring. - An order, dated 2/13/2024 for antidepressant medication monitoring. Observe for sadness, tearfulness, and/or self-isolation every shift. A review of Resident #3's Behavior Monitoring Log for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #3's order for side effect observation: - No documentation of monitoring for the day (7 AM to 3 PM) shift on 3/15, 3/16, and 3/25/2024. - No documentation of monitoring for the evening (3 PM to 11 PM) shift on 3/10, 3/12, 3/20, and 3/26/2024. A review of Resident #3's Behavior Monitoring Log for March 2024 revealed the following related to Resident #3's order for antidepressant medication monitoring: - No documentation of monitoring for the day (7 AM to 3 PM) shift on 3/15, 3/16, and 3/25/2024. - No documentation of monitoring for the evening (3 PM to 11 PM) shift on 3/10, 3/12, 3/20, and 3/26/2024. A review of Resident #3's care plan revealed a Focus, last revised 12/14/2023, Resident #3 used antidepressant medication. Interventions included to administer antidepressant medications as ordered and monitor/document side effects and effectiveness every shift. An observation was conducted on 4/2/2024 at 2:33 PM of Resident #6's bed. Resident #6's bed was observed to have built in side rails, which fold up and down, into the side of the resident's bed. Both side rails were observed zip tied in the down position to Resident #6's bed frame. An observation was conducted on 4/2/2024 at 2:36 PM of Resident #9's bed. No side rails were observed to Resident #9's bed. An interview was conducted on 4/2/2024 at 1:00 PM with Staff N, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). Staff N, LPN stated residents on psychotropic medications should have orders in place for behavioral and side effect monitoring, which is documented every shift. An interview was conducted on 4/3/2024 at 9:34 AM with Staff M, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and Unit Manager (UM). Staff M, LPN UM stated the facility mainly had two types of beds. One of the beds had built in side rails and the other type of bed required the side rails to be attached by the maintenance staff. If a resident is assessed to not have a side rail, the beds with the built in side rails have the side rails zipped tied down by the maintenance staff. If a resident is ordered a side rail and they are in a bed with built in side rails, one side rail remains zip tied to the frame while the other one is released for the resident to use as indicated in the Side Rail Evaluation. If a resident is ordered a side rail and they are in a bed without built in side rails, a request to attach the appropriate side rail is put in and addressed by maintenance staff. Following the interview, observations of Resident #6 and Resident #9's bed were conducted with Staff M, LPN UM. Staff M, LPN UM address Resident #6 and Resident #9 did not have side rails in use. Staff M, LPN UM reviewed Resident #6's and Resident #9's Side Rails Evaluations and addressed the residents should have side rails to their beds. An interview was conducted on 4/3/2024 at 1:34 PM with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she conducted a facility audit and performed side rail assessments for each resident in the facility. The DON also stated she put orders in each resident's medical record who required a side rail and provided the maintenance staff with a list of the resident's requiring side rails so they could be put into place. The DON was not able to state why the side rails were not put into place as ordered. An interview was conducted on 4/3/2024 at 2:20 PM with the facility's Maintenance Director (MD). The MD stated he is directed by the DON to either put side rails on the resident beds of to remove/secure the side rails not in use. The MD also stated Resident #6's bed was supposed to have a side rail in use and both of the side rails should not have been zip tied to the bed frame. An interview was conducted on 4/3/2024 at 2:58 PM with the facility's Regional Director of Operations (RDO), DON, and MD. The RDO stated the MD was informed of the residents who required side rails. The MD stated he assigned the bed rail project to his assistant with specific directions related to which resident's required side rails and which side of the resident's bed required a side rail. The MD also stated his assistant did not carry out the task as directed and they were not able to state why the task was not completed correctly. The DON stated she performed an audit to ensure the appropriate side rails were in place to resident beds, which was spot on, but now the side rails are not in place as they should be. The DON also stated medication monitoring should be conducted in accordance with the physician's order and addressed the missing documentation for Resident's #3, #6, and #7 in the monitoring logs. A review of the facility policy titled Proper Use of Bed Rails, last revised on 7/25/2022, revealed under the section titled Policy it is the policy of the facility to utilize a person-centered approach when determining the use of bed rails. If bed rails are used, the facility ensures correct installation, use, and maintenance of the rails. A review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans, last revised on 7/27/2022, revealed under the section titled Policy it is the policy of the facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment. The policy also revealed under the section titled Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines the comprehensive care plan will describe resident specific interventions that reflect the resident's needs and preferences. Qualified staff responsible for carrying out interventions specified in the care plan will be notified of their roles and responsibilities for carrying out the interventions, initially and when changes are made. Photographic evidence obtained.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update an Advance Directive care plan for 1 of 32 sampled residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update an Advance Directive care plan for 1 of 32 sampled residents reviewed for Advance Directives (Resident #57). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy, titled, Comprehensive Care Plans with a reviewed / revised date of [DATE] that included: The comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each comprehensive and quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment. Review of the facility's policy, titled, Residents' Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives with a reviewed / revised date of [DATE] that included: During the care planning process, the facility will identify, clarify, and review with the resident or legal representative whether they desire to make any changes related to any advance directives. Record review revealed Resident #57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Alzheimer's Disease, Bipolar Disorder, Dementia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #57 dated [DATE] revealed in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #57, dated [DATE], revealed a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #57 dated [DATE] with a focus on the resident has an established CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) (Full Code) order in place. The goal is to make the resident's wishes for code status to be followed through the next review date. The Interventions included: Activate the resident's advanced directives as indicated. Notify the physician of resident's wishes regarding life prolonging procedures. This indicated the Advance Directive care plan regarding code status for Resident #57 was never updated to reflect the DNR status. An interview was conducted on [DATE] at 9:16 AM with the Social Service Director (SSD), who stated she has worked at the facility for 4 years. She further explained for a resident who wants a code status of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate), the resident or the family will sign the yellow DNR form. She then has the physician sign the form and the nurse will obtain the order for the DNR and put it in the resident's EMR (Electronic Medical Record). She stated once there is an order in the computer for the code status, then she would update the care plan with the code status. When asked about Resident #57, she verified the resident had a DNR order dated [DATE], and the resident has a care plan for Full Code.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from unnece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 of 5 residents sampled for unnecessary medications (Resident #20). The findings included: The policy of the facility titled, Medication Regimen Review implemented 5/2021 and revised 6/2023 revealed The drug regimen of each resident is reviewed at least once a month by a licensed pharmacist and includes a review of the resident's medical chart. A record review was conducted for Resident #20. Resident #20 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 03/09/21 per hospital record review, the resident was transferred from the facility to the hospital for acute chest pain and acute urinary tract infection. The resident was treated and discharged back to the facility on [DATE]. A review of the discharge medications list revealed Apixaban (Eliquis) 5 milligrams (mg) 2 tablets (tabs) PO (by mouth) daily until 03/19/21 and then 1 tablet PO twice daily. Resident #20 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status of 3 per the quarterly Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 10/20/23. This indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. An interview was conducted with the resident on 01/24/24 at 10:15 AM which revealed the resident was not able to answer questions without going off topic. An interview was conducted with the Medical Director who is the resident's physician on 01/25/24 at 1:30 PM to discuss the resident's current medication list. The list of medications that were reviewed with the Medical Director were: 1) ELIQUIS (Apixaban) TAB 2.5MG Give 1 tablet orally two times a day for ACUTE EMBOLISM AND THROMBOSIS OF RIGHT POPLITEAL VEIN. The Medical Director stated this should be revisited if greater than 6 months, she may not need it. 2) LACTULOSE SOLUTION 10GM/15 ml Give 45 ml orally three times a day for encephalopathy. The Medical Director stated this diagnosis should say metabolic encephalopathy and should be revisited. 3) VALPROIC ACID CAPSULE 250MG Give 2 capsules orally three times a day for Epilepsy, not intractable, without status epilepticus. The Medical Director stated the diagnosis for Valproic acid should be for behaviors not epilepsy and the diagnoses should be changed. 4) TOPIRAMATE TAB 200MG Give 1 tablet orally two times a day for EPILEPSY. The Medical Director stated this is correct. 5) CALDYPHEN LOTION 1-8% Apply to affected area topically as needed for itching three time daily. The Medical Director stated this should be addressed by the pharmacist with the as needed medications. 6) SODIUM CHLORIDE TAB 1GM (gram) Give 1 tablet orally one time a day for supplement. The Medical Director stated since the resident's sodium level is normal with the 1 tab a day, it is correct. 7) NITROGLYCERN 0.4MG Give 0.4 mg sublingually as needed for Chest Pain ONE TABLET SUBLINGUALLY AS NEEDED EVERY 5MINS IF PAIN CONTINUES CALL MD (Medical Doctor). The Medical Director stated this medicine can stay since it is an as needed medication. The Medical Director was also asked where his notes are located to be reviewed in the medical record and he stated that in the previous electronic health record he could not upload notes but in this current electronic health record he has been able to upload notes for the past 6 months but there are notes that he has not uploaded yet.
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of and maintain garbage and refuse in a sanitary manner. The findings included: In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:04 AM ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to dispose of and maintain garbage and refuse in a sanitary manner. The findings included: In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:04 AM of the outside dumpster area, the following were noted: 2 large dumpster bins, with one open bin and garbage overflowing outside. Closer observation showed debris that consisted of dirty gloves, linens, plastic utensils, and plastic bottles. Three large garbage bags were sealed and placed near the first closed dumpster. The two dumpster bins were located right outside the entrance to the central kitchen. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 8:00 AM, Staff K, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated that the dumpster bins get picked up daily. When asked if they are also picked up on the weekend, she said: Not always. Staff K reported that she usually gets to the facility around 6:15 AM and that by 6:30 AM, they come to empty the dumpsters. Another observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:41 AM, accompanied by the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) revealed two large dumpster bins, one closed and the other opened, with garbage overflowing at the top. Closer observation showed dirty gloves, plastic medicine cups, and other debris behind the two large dumpsters. In this observation, the CDM said the garbage dumpsters get picked up three times a week, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In an observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 4:28 PM, one dumpster was opened with debris and carton boxes overflowing on the top. Other debris and carton boxes were noted all around the dumpster. Continued observation showed three large round bins with garbage inside and no lids. Photographic Evidence Obtained. A further observation on 01/23/24 at 8:12 AM revealed debris of dirty used gloves, plastics, and wood. Further observation showed two large round garbage bins with garbage inside and no lids. In an interview with the facility's Administrator on 01/25/24 at 5:00 PM, he was told of the findings.
CONCERN (E)

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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to maintain the medical records for 7 of 32 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to maintain the medical records for 7 of 32 sampled residents, Resident #80, 88, 93, 153, 94, 57, and 34 in a manner that was complete, accurate, and systematically organized. The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled Documentation in Medical Record, dated 09/2023 revealed the following- each resident's medical record shall contain an accurate representation of the actual experiences of the resident and include enough information to provide a picture of the resident's progress through complete, accurate, and timely documentation. Documentation shall be completed at the time of service, but no later than the shift in which the assessment, observation, or care service occurred. 1) Resident #80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a medical history significant for Depression and Schizophrenia. During the initial tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:35 AM, the surveyor noted a paper taped inside the nurse's station, titled Unit Update for 1st Floor Supervision that documented Resident #80 was ordered to have every 30-minute checks. This paper did not specify the reason for the increased supervision. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) done on 12/13/23 documented Resident #80 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1, which indicates she was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #80's Care Plans revealed Resident #80 had a history of aggressive behaviors toward other residents and that she was identified as an elopement risk. Review of Resident #80's physician orders revealed an order was written from 12/05/23 to 01/08/24 for continue Q15 [every 15] minute behavior monitoring every shift and a new order was written on 01/08/24 for continue Q30 minute behavior monitoring every shift. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 8:34 AM with Staff F, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). She explained that the CNAs perform the ordered checks and that they document them on a clipboard that is kept behind the nurse's station. She said every day the forms are collected by the nurse manager and are taken somewhere, but she did not know where. She said she did not know why Resident #80 was on safety checks. She said she was not performing the safety checks that day and was unable to tell the surveyor which staff member was. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:08 AM with Staff G, CNA. Staff G was observed holding a purple clipboard and she confirmed she was tasked with performing the safety checks for the day. She said Resident #80 required safety checks because she falls. She stated she did not know where the safety check sheets were kept after they were removed from the clipboard. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:35 AM with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #80 and that the safety checks were ordered because she gets up on her own a lot. She said the safety check sheets were uploaded into the Documents tab on the electronic health record. Review of the behavior monitoring sheets revealed there was not consistent documentation of these physician ordered behavior monitoring checks. Of the 50 days (from 12/05/23 to 01/24/24) Resident #80 had behavior monitoring checks ordered, there were 28 forms documented. This indicates the documentation of the ordered behavioral checks was not accurate for Resident #80. 2) Resident #88 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a medical history significant for Encephalopathy, Dementia, Anxiety, and Depression. During the initial tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:35 AM, the surveyor noted a paper taped inside the nurse's station, titled Unit Update for 1st Floor Supervision that documented Resident #88 was ordered to have every 1-hour checks, document if there is any inappropriate sexual behavior. A Quarterly MDS done on 12/21/23 documented Resident #88 had a BIMS score of 7, which indicates he was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #88's Care Plans revealed Resident #88 had a history of hypersexual and physically aggressive behaviors toward other residents. Review of Resident #88's physician orders revealed an order was written from 12/05/23 to 12/08/23 for behavior monitoring Q30 minutes every shift, then from 12/08/23 to 01/01/24 for increased supervision every 1 hour checks for safety every shift, then from 12/21/23 to 01/03/24 for 1 on 1 close observation every shift for behavior monitoring, then from 01/03/24 to 01/08/24 for 15 minute check with supervision every shift for behavior monitoring, then from 01/08/24 to 01/18/24 for 30 minute check with supervision every shift for behavior monitoring, and finally 01/18/24 for Q1 hour checks for increased supervision every shift for behavior monitoring. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 8:34 AM with Staff F, CNA. She explained that the CNAs perform the ordered checks and that they document them on a clipboard that is kept behind the nurse's station. She said every day the forms are collected by the nurse manager and are taken somewhere, but she did not know where. She said she did not know why Resident #88 was on safety checks. She said she was not performing the safety checks that day and was unable to tell the surveyor who was. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:08 AM with Staff G, CNA. Staff G was observed holding a purple clipboard and she confirmed she was tasked with performing the safety checks for the day. She said Resident #88 required safety checks because he walks a lot. She then clarified Resident #88 was an elopement risk. She stated she did not know where the safety check sheets were kept after they were removed from the clipboard. She said she was unaware of his hypersexual behaviors. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:39 AM with Staff C, LPN. She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #88 and that the safety checks were ordered because he was at risk of wandering and elopement. She said she was unaware of his hypersexual behaviors. Review of the behavior monitoring sheets revealed there was not consistent documentation of these physician ordered behavior monitoring checks. Of the 50 days (from 12/05/23 to 01/24/24) Resident #88 had behavior monitoring checks ordered, there were 28 forms documented. This indicates the documentation of the ordered behavioral checks was not accurate for Resident #88. 3) Resident #93 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a medical history significant for Encephalopathy, Dementia, Alzheimer's Disease, and Bipolar Disorder. During the initial tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:35 AM, the surveyor noted a paper taped inside the nurse's station, titled Unit Update for 1st Floor Supervision that documented Resident #88 was ordered to have every 15-minute checks. This paper did not specify the reason for the increased supervision. A Quarterly MDS done on 12/18/23 documented Resident #93 had a BIMS score of 3, which indicates he was severely cognitively impaired. Review of Resident #93's Care Plans revealed Resident #93 had a history of attempted facility elopement. Review of Resident #93's physician orders revealed an order was written from 01/10/24 to 01/10/24 for 1:1 check with supervision every shift and then on 01/18/24 for Q15 minute checks for increased supervision every shift for monitoring. An interview was conducted on 01/23/24 at 8:34 AM with Staff F, CNA. She explained that the CNAs perform the ordered checks and that they document them on a clipboard that is kept behind the nurse's station. She said every day the forms are collected by the nurse manager and are taken somewhere, but she did not know where. She said she did not know why Resident #93 was on safety checks. She said she was not performing the safety checks that day and was unable to tell the surveyor who was. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:08 AM with Staff G, CNA. Staff G was observed holding a purple clipboard and she confirmed she was tasked with performing the safety checks for the day. She said Resident #93 required safety checks because he sometimes fights with other residents. She stated she did not know where the safety check sheets were kept after they were removed from the clipboard. She said she was unaware that Resident #93 was an elopement risk but that there was an additional CNA used daily as a hall monitor to ensure residents did not elope. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:39 AM with Staff C, LPN. She confirmed she was assigned to Resident #93 and that the safety checks were ordered because he was at risk of wandering and elopement. Review of the behavior monitoring sheets revealed there was not consistent documentation of these physician ordered behavior monitoring checks. Of the 14 days (from 01/10/24 to 01/24/24) Resident #93 had behavior monitoring checks ordered, there were 11 forms documented. This indicates the documentation of the ordered behavioral checks was not accurate for Resident #93. 4) Record review for Resident #57 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Alzheimer's Disease, Bipolar Disorder, Dementia, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Anxiety. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #57 dated 12/09/23 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impact. Review of the Physician's Orders for Resident #57 dated 07/05/23 for Do Not Resuscitate (DNR). Review of the Care Plan for Resident #57 dated 06/27/23 with a focus on the resident has an established CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) (Full Code) order in place. The goal is to make the resident wishes for code status to be followed through the next review date. The Interventions included: Activate the resident's advanced directives as indicated. Notify the physician of resident's wishes regarding life prolonging procedures. This indicates the advance directive care plan regarding code status for Resident #57 was never updated to reflect the DNR status. Review of the DNR form in the resident's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) was unsigned by the physician. Review of the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) form had no physician signature on the DNR form in the yellow DNR binder located in the medication room. The SSD stated there has been a back log of uploading documents into the EMR from the old system prior to switching to the current EMR system they are using. An interview was conducted on 01/24/24 at 9:16 AM with the Social Service Director (SSD) who stated she has worked at the facility for 4 years. She stated upon the admission of a resident, the code status is addressed, and it is verified with the resident/resident representative. The SSD stated the quarterly care plans will readdress unresolved advance directive concerns/issues. For a resident who want a code status of DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) the resident or the family will sign the yellow DNR form, she then gets the physician to sign it and the nurse will get the order for the DNR and will put that into the resident's EMR (Electronic Medical Record). In the state of Florida to legally be a DNR they have to have the physician order and the yellow form with Florida insignia on it signed by the responsible party and the physician. There was a physician who signed the DNR form dated 07/04/23 (before the resident was admitted to the memory care unit at the facility). On 06/14/23 there was a Certification of Incapacity to Make Informed Healthcare Decision signed by physician (prior to admission to the memory care unit at the facility) and based on this form the facility reached out to the daughter of Resident #57 about the code status for the resident. When the SSD spoke to the daughter, the daughter was adamant the resident was a DNR status. The facility obtained verbal consent from the daughter for the DNR status, and the form needed to be signed by the physician. The SSD verified the DNR form in the resident's EMR was unsigned by the physician. The SSD stated all DNRs are in the yellow binder in the med room. The SSD stated she is the person responsible to make sure the DNR binder is updated at all times. The SSD verified there was no physician signature on the DNR form in the yellow DNR binder located in the medication room. During an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:30 AM with Staff A Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager (LPN/UM) who stated he has been working at the facility since August 2023. When asked where he would look to know the code status of a resident, he stated it is at the top of the computer for each resident. During an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 10:35 AM with Staff C Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked where she would look to know the code status, she said she would look the resident up in the computer and it is at the top of the computer under the resident's name. 5) Record review for Resident #94 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included: Vascular Dementia Mild With Agitation. Review of the MDS for Resident #94 dated 10/23/23 revealed in Section C a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 0, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 11/28/23 for Resident is on 1:1 for 7-3 and 3-11 and 15 mins at night. The order was discontinued on 12/05/23. Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 12/05/23 for Resident is on 1:1 for 7-3 and 3-11 and 30 mins at night shift. The order was discontinued on 12/08/23. Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 12/08/23 for Resident is on 1:1 for 7-3 and 3-11 and every 1 hr. (hours) at night shift. The order was discontinued on 12/11/23 Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 12/11/23 for Resident is on 1:1 for 7-3 and 3-11 until Resident Goes to Bed. The order was discontinued on 12/20/23. Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 12/20/23 for Resident is on 1:1 for 7-3 and 3-11 until Resident Goes to Bed Once resident in bed change to 15min checks. The order was discontinued on 01/03/24. Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 01/03/24 for Resident is on 1:1 for 7-3 and 3-11 until Resident Goes to Bed. The order was discontinued on 01/18/24. Review of the Physician's orders for Resident #94 revealed an order dated 01/18/24 for 7-3 Q 15-minute checks, 1:1 supervision for 3-11 until he goes to bed. Review of the Care Plan for Resident #94 dated 10/24/23 with a focus on the resident is resistive to care, shower, getting changed, and dressed, disrobes throwing BM (Bowel Movement), combative with staff swinging his arms resident has h/o of aggressive behaviors, prior to admission was on hospice for behavior management. Resident attempts to push other residents. Aggressive with his roommate. The goal is for the resident to cooperate with care through the next review date. The interventions included: 15 minute check 7-3, 1:1 3-11 until resident goes to bed. Allow the resident to make decisions about treatment regime, to provide sense of control. If the resident resists with ADLs, reassure the resident, leave, and return 5-10 minutes later and try again. Psych consult with medication adjustments. Redirect resident from pushing others, resident enjoys music and dancing. Review of the Safety Check Logs for Resident #94 from 11/13/23 to 01/22/24 revealed no Safety Check Logs for the following dated: 11/16/23, 11/17/23, 11/23/23, 11/24/23, 12/7/23, 12/08/23, 12/11/23, 12/12/23, 12/13/23, 12/16/23, 12/23/23, 12/28/23, 12/29/23, 12/31/23, 01/02/24, 01/03/24, 01/04/24, 01/05/24, 01/06/24, 01/07/24, 01/08/24, 01/10/24, 01/11/24, 01/20/24, and 1 Safety Check Log had no date. This indicated, not all of the Safety Check Logs are in the EMR for Resident #94. During an interview conducted on 1/25/24 at 11:00 AM With Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 2 months. When asked about residents who are on 1:1 observations or observations every 15 minutes, where is this documented, the LPN stated for resident who are on 1:1 or every 15-minute observations, they are monitored by the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and document on an observation sheet. The CNA will notify the nurse of any issues. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:30 AM with Staff B, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), who stated she has worked at the facility for 1 year. When asked about the documentation for residents who are on 1:1 or every 15-minute observations, she stated the residents who are on 1:1 or every 15 minute checks are done by the CNA or a nurse and it is documented on the observation sheet and if any issue the CNA will report to the nurse. During an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 11:50 AM with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager (LPN/UM), who stated he has been with the facility since August/September. When asked where the Safety Check Logs are located, he stated they should be in the resident's chart under documents. 7) A record review revealed that Resident #34 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Gastrostomy, Psychotic disturbances, and Dementia. The Physician's orders showed the following: clarification order for Resident #34 to begin one meal a day- lunch: puree solids and thin liquids, dated 01/23/24. An order for tube feeding is to be administered with Jevity 1.2 (tube feeding formulary) continuously at 60 milliliters (ml) an hour for 24 hours/day, dated 12/31/23. Start tube feeding at 2:00 PM for 20 hours dated 01/05/24. Another order was noted for Nothing by Mouth, with the exception of the Speech Therapist to introduce food/fluids consistency for enteral feeding, which was started on 12/31/23 and discontinued on 01/23/24. An observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 12:28 PM showed Resident #34 with a lunch tray and the tube feeding on hold. Closer observation showed Staff X, Speech Language Pathologist, at the bedside assisting Resident #34 with her lunch tray. The lunch meal was noted with pureed roast turkey, pureed collard greens, pureed mashed potatoes, and a slice of soft cake. The meal ticket revealed the following: regular pureed with Nothing by Mouth (NPO), do not send tray, on the top and bottom of the meal ticket. In this observation, Staff X stated that Resident #34 was not eating by mouth until last Thursday and that she upgraded Resident #34 ' s diet. The diet was upgraded to a one-a-day, pureed diet with trials of mechanical soft. According to Staff X, they are trying to wean Resident #34 from tube feeding, so they started with one meal a day. When asked by the Surveyor if she was the only one who could assist Resident #34 with her lunch meals, she said no and that any staff members could help her during mealtimes. The Surveyor asked Staff X if she knew why it said NPO/do not send a tray on the meal ticket; she did not know. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 12:30 PM, Resident #34 was noted in the main dining room on the 2nd floor. A closer observation showed Staff X sitting near Resident #34 and assisting her with the lunch meal. The Surveyor asked Staff X if she found out why the meal ticket still says NPO/do not send a tray. She said, You need to ask the main kitchen. They are the ones who print out the meal tickets. A review of the Medication Administration Record for the month of January 2023 showed that the orders to start the tube feeding at 2:00 PM for 20 hours were documented as done daily, and the tube feeding Jevity 1.2 to run for 24 hours at 60 ml an hour was documented as done on a daily basis. In an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 1:42 PM with Staff L, Licensed Practical Nurse, she stated that when she was asked earlier if any staff member could assist Resident #34 during the lunch meal, and she said yes, it was incorrect. When asked by Surveyor as to why she marked both tube feeding orders as above as completed, she stated that it was an oversight on her part and that both tube feeding orders contradict each other. 6) Resident #153 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Type 2 Diabetes, Heart Failure, and Hypertension. He was admitted with a suprapubic catheter. During record review on 01/22/24 at 10:00 AM for Resident #153, there were no physician orders for catheter care. There also was no care plan for catheter care. A review of the order summary report revealed the orders for catheter care were initiated on 01/22/24. Discussed with the Director of Nurses on 01/22/24 at 4:00 PM.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The findings included: A review of the QAPI plan dated 202...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) program. The findings included: A review of the QAPI plan dated 2023 revealed the following: The plan provides a framework for a systematic, organization-wide improvement system specific to identifying aspects of quality needs and gaps in systems of care and management practices in our organization. Ensuring that all quality management initiatives regarding the delivery and management of care are clinically sound, promote consumer safety, and are based on current best practices. Which indicators of quality were evaluated during the quarter, and what were the results of the actions? What actions are planned and have been taken to improve quality and the results of those? Lessons learned from this process. Plan for sustained compliance. A record review of the previous Recertification survey dated 10/08/2021 revealed that the facility was found to be out of compliance under Physical Environment and cited at F925 and F921. The facility was found to be out of compliance under Comprehensive Resident Centered Care Plans and cited at F656. The facility was found to be out of compliance under Resident Rights and cited at F557. A record review of the facility's complaint history revealed a complaint dated 07/23/23 regarding pest control, which was substantiated and cited under Physical Environment. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 1:40 PM with the facility's Medical Director, he stated that he was aware the facility had issues with not promptly completing care plans. He further said that he knew that the hospice contracted companies were not completing care plans regarding hospice care and that they were supposed to start a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan) on the issue. In an interview conducted during the QAPI task review on 01/25/24 at 5:36 PM with the facility's Administrator, he stated that they have been tracking and trending different care areas as needed. He has an open-door policy that enables communication between him and staff members as required. The Administrator reported that QAPI areas are started and continued for 90 days or until they feel the issue has been resolved. Any Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) goal is met at around 90%. They meet once a month with all department heads and the Medical Director. The Administrator stated that they last had a QAPI on pest control around September of 2023. They were cited under Physical Environment, and a QAPI was started, which tracked pest control and ended around September 2023. When asked to see documentation on continuous tracking and trending regarding the Physical Environment since September 2023, the Administrator did not have any. When asked to see if a QAPI was completed regarding incomplete care plans or timing of care plans in the last year, the Administrator could not provide any documents. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 6:04 PM, the Infection Preventionist stated that they started a QAPI on staff not following the Physician's orders, which began on 11/30/23 and is ongoing at this time. When asked if a PIP was started on hospice care plans not completed on time, she said no.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5) During a tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 at 10:51 AM, the surveyor observed numerous residents on the first floor ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5) During a tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 at 10:51 AM, the surveyor observed numerous residents on the first floor of the facility mingling in the milieu. Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse Unit Manager was assisting the staff by passing out snacks to the residents. Resident #86 asked Staff A for a snack. Staff A retrieved a snack package from the nutrition room and attempted to open it for Resident #86. After some difficulty, Staff A used his teeth to open the snack package. He began to hand the opened snack package to Resident #86 when the surveyor intervened, pointing out what he had done and asked if it was appropriate for Resident #86 to receive this snack package. Without responding, Staff A retrieved a new snack from the nutrition room and gave it to Resident #86, who proceeded to walk into the dining room for an activity. Based on observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to provide a safe and sanitary environment for the laundry area, for 2 of 2 shower rooms located on the 1st floor; failed to ensure urinary catheter drainage bag was maintained off the floor for 1 sampled resident for catheter care (Resident #153); failed to utilize appropriate PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) during administration of an injectable for Resident #155; and failed to provide snacks in a sanitary manner for 1 of 36 sampled residents (Resident #86). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program with a reviewed/revised date of 08/15/22 included: This facility has established and maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections as per accepted national standard and guidelines. 4. Standard Precautions: a. All staff shall assume that all residents are potentially infected or colonized with an organism that could be transmitted during the course of providing resident care services. c. All staff shall use personal protective equipment (PPE) according to the established facility policy governing the use of PPE. d. Licensed staff shall adhere to safe injection and medication administration practices, as described in relevant facility policies. e. Environmental cleaning and disinfection shall be performed according to facility policy. All staff have responsibilities related to the cleanliness of the facility and are to report problems outside of their scope to the appropriate department. 11. Linens: a. Laundry and direct care staff shall handle, store, process, and transport linens to prevent the spread of infection. b. Clean linen shall be separated from soiled linen at all times. c. Clean linen shall be delivered to resident care units on covered linen carts with covers down. d. Linen shall be stored on all resident care units on covered carts, shelves, in bins, drawers, or linen closets. Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Injections with a reviewed/revised date of September 2023 included: Injections are administered by licensed nurses as ordered by the physician and in accordance with professional standards of practice. Dispose of sharps in puncture resistant containers near the point of use. Review of the facility's policy titled, Personal Protective Equipment with a reviewed/revised date of May 2022 included: This facility promotes appropriate use of personal protective equipment to prevent the transmission of pathogens to residents, visitors, and other staff. All staff who have contact with residents and/or their environments must wear personal protective equipment as appropriate during resident care activities and at other times in which exposure to blood, body fluids, or potentially infectious material is likely. 1) During an initial tour of the facility conducted on 01/22/24 from 7:30 AM to 11:40 AM the following observations were made in the 2 locked Bath (Shower) Rooms located on the 1st floor: In the Bath (Shower) Room located on the 1st floor across from room [ROOM NUMBER] there were 2 locked treatment carts, uncovered clean hanging resident clothing items, 2 1-gallon jugs of skin/hair cleaner on the shower stall floor, clean linens on a cart with no cover. There were 2 disposable sharps containers, both filled so full several razors were extended out of the sharps container, 1 of the 2 disposable sharps containers was not locked/secured in place, just set inside a bracket that was affixed to the wall and easily removed from the wall as instructed by Staff A Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager who attempted to remove the unsecured sharps container and in doing so spilled several of the razors out onto the floor of the room. Photographic Evidence Obtained. In the Bath (Shower) Room located on the 1st floor across from room [ROOM NUMBER] there were 2 sharps containers, both resting on top of the locked base that was affixed to the wall. There were no paper towels or paper towel holder at the sink area. On the counter next to the sink were 2 unlabeled and uncovered hairbrushes with hair. Also, on the counter next to the sink in a small plastic 3 drawer bin which had an uncovered and unlabeled used toothbrush as well as 3 additional unlabeled used toothbrushes (2 of which were in the same drawer of the bin). There were 2 1-gallon jugs of skin/hair cleaner on the shower stall floor, clean linens on a cart with no cover, clean resident clothing hanging with no cover. Photographic Evidence Obtained. During an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 9:05 AM with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse/Unit Manager, he acknowledged the 2 disposable sharps containers, both filled so full several razors were extended out of the sharp's container, 1 of the 2 disposable sharps containers was not locked/secured in place. He stated the disposable sharps containers should have been replaced. 2) During the laundry tour conducted on 01/22/24 from 12:00 PM to 2:50 PM with the Director of Plant Operations, Director of Maintenance, and the Director of Housekeeping present the following observations were made: In the laundry sorting room, there were 2 white bins with soiled linens uncovered and 2 yellow bins with clean mop heads uncovered. In the washer room there were uncovered resident shoes sitting on the windowsill to dry, there was a missing ceiling tile above the washers. In the dryer room [ROOM NUMBER] out of 3 dryers had drums that were rusty and had melted debris inside. In the folding room, none of the linens were covered. There was a small refrigerator with beverages, containers of food and an orange. During an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 2:50 PM with the Director of Housekeeping who stated the girls who work in the laundry area have a refrigerator so they can have cold beverages to drink because it gets hot, and they can keep their lunch in there as well because when they put their lunch in the employee lounge it gets stolen. During an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 3:45 PM with LPN/Infection Preventionist (LPN/IP) who stated she has worked at the facility for 4 years and has been the IP since 08/01/23. The interview was also conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated she has worked at the facility for 3 years. They both have been in the laundry room several times and routinely go once a week. They said they had never noticed any issues and always thought it was clean. The only issues she had were just in general how things get cleaned. The LPN/IP said she knew they had a refrigerator but did not think it was an infection prevention issue and always thought they just had water in the refrigerator. 3) On 01/22/24 at 7:30 AM, an initial tour was conducted of the residential rooms on the second floor. Resident #153 was observed in bed with the catheter bag on the floor (photographic evidence obtained). Resident #153 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a suprapubic catheter. 4) On 01/22/24 at 9:00 AM, Resident #155 was observed in bed being served breakfast. Staff L, a Licensed Practical Nurse, entered the room and gave Resident #155 an insulin injection into his left arm without wearing gloves.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of offering/acceptance/declination of the pn...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide documentation of offering/acceptance/declination of the pneumococcal vaccine for 4 out of 5 sampled residents reviewed for vaccines (Residents #9, #53, #69, and #94). The findings included: Review of the facility's policy titled, Pneumococcal Vaccine (Series) Policy with a reviewed/revised date of 01/31/22 included: It is our policy to offer our residents, staff, and volunteer workers immunization against pneumococcal disease in accordance with current CDC (Center for Disease Control) guidelines and recommendations. Each resident will be assessed for pneumococcal immunization upon admission. Self-report of immunization shall be accepted. Any additional efforts to obtain information shall be documented, including efforts to determine date of immunization or type of vaccine received. The type of pneumococcal vaccine (PCV15, PCV20, or PPSV23/PPSV) offered will depend upon the recipient's age and susceptibility to pneumonia, in accordance with current CDC guidelines and recommendations. A pneumococcal vaccination is recommended for all adults 65 years and older and based on the following recommendations: a. For adults 65 years' or older who have not previously received any pneumococcal vaccine: Give 1 dose of PCV15 or PCV20. b. For adults 65 years or older who have only received a PPSV23: Give 1 dose PCV15 or PCV20. i. The PCV15 or PCV20 dose should be administered at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination. The resident's medical record shall include documentation that indicates at a minimum, the following: a. The resident or resident's representative was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of pneumococcal immunization b. The resident received the pneumococcal immunization or did not receive due to medical contraindication or refusal. 1) Record review for Resident #9 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident is 65 years or older. Record review for Resident #9 revealed the resident had historically received the Pneumococcal Vaccine (PPSV23) on 12/17/18 and was eligible to receive a pneumococcal vaccine. There was no documentation of the pneumococcal vaccine being offered, accepted, or declined. 2) Record review for Resident #53 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident is 65 years or older. Record review for Resident #53 revealed the resident had historically received the Pneumococcal Vaccine (PPSV23) on 09/22/20 and was eligible to receive a pneumococcal vaccine. There was no documentation of the pneumococcal vaccine being offered, accepted, or declined. 3) Record review for Resident #69 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident is 65 years or older. Record review for Resident #69 revealed the resident had not received the pneumococcal vaccine historically and was eligible to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. There was no documentation of the pneumococcal vaccine being offered, accepted, or declined. 4) Record review for Resident #94 revealed the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident is 65 years or older. Record review for Resident #94 revealed the resident had not received the pneumococcal vaccine historically and was eligible to receive the pneumococcal vaccine. There was no documentation of the pneumococcal vaccine being offered, accepted, or declined. During an interview conducted on 01/24/24 at 3:45 PM with the Licensed Practical Nurse/Infection Preventionist (LPN/IP), who stated she has worked at the facility for 4 years and has been the Infection Preventionist since 08/01/23. The interview was also conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) who stated she has worked at the facility for 3 years. When asked about pneumococcal vaccines for residents, they stated the pneumococcal vaccine is offered annually at the same time as the influenza and it is offered on admission. To determine eligibility, they refer to the CDC guidelines and if it is unknown what previous vaccine the resident may have had, they would discuss with the physician to determine if the resident should have the vaccine. When asked if a resident or residents representative refused a pneumococcal vaccine while in the facility, how was this documented. The LPN/IP and the DON stated, if the resident or residents representative refuses a pneumococcal vaccine while in the facility, they would simply not check that the pneumococcal vaccine was accepted/administrated on the Vaccine Consent and Administration form the facility utilized. The refusal of a vaccine would be documented in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record) under immunization tab that the resident declined the vaccine. The DON stated the facility went back to using a consent/declination form for vaccines that had a separate section for influenza and pneumococcal, for the resident or resident representative to accept or decline each individual vaccine being offered.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program. The findin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to have an effective pest control program. The findings included: A review of the policy titled, Pest Control Program, revised on 01/06/23, revealed the following: It is the policy of this facility to maintain an effective pest control program that eradicates and contains common household pests and rodents. The facility will maintain a written agreement with a qualified outside pest service to provide comprehensive pest control services regularly and regularly. The facility will maintain a reporting system of issues arising between scheduled visits with the external pest service and treat them as indicated. An observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 7:34 AM, in the main kitchen showed pests in all stages of life near the food production area. Continued observation showed pests in all stages of life in the dishwasher room on the floor. In this observation, the Certified Dietary Manager said that the pest control company comes into the kitchen twice a month to treat pests. An observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 3:05 PM, in the 2nd-floor Nourishment room revealed pests in all stages of life. An observation conducted on 01/22/24 at 3:12 PM, in the 1st-floor hallway, near the elevator showed a live pest. In an interview conducted on 01/22/24 at 3:20 PM with Staff A, the Unit Manager stated that he had not seen any sightings of pests on the 1st floor. He further said that if there are any sightings of pests, they will write them in the pest control book that is located on the unit. This is later reviewed by the pest control company when they come into the facility to spray. An observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 10:54 AM, in the 1st-floor unit, near room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed pests in all stages of life. In an observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 11:00 AM, in the elevator with Staff A present, a roach-like insect was seen moving on the elevator floor. Staff A then stomped on the insect and stated, I will have to put this in the pest control sighting book. A record review conducted on 01/24/24 of the insect log sighting book on the first floor revealed that the insect sighting in the elector was not documented by Staff A. An observation conducted on 01/23/24 at 11:01 AM, in the 1st-floor unit, near the fish tank revealed pests in all stages of life. In this observation, an additional sighting of pests in all stages of life was noted near the nurse ' s station. An observation conducted on 01/24/24 at 11:00 AM, on the 1st-floor unit, behind the fish tanks revealed pests in all stages of life. A record review of the Service Log located on the 1st floor revealed that Nursing reported a pest sighting on the 1st floor near room [ROOM NUMBER] on 01/22/24, which did not show that the service was completed. A record review of the Pest Control Sighting Log revealed that eight pest sightings were documented on the type of pests, locations, and the person who reported the sighting. Further review did not show that it was addressed or treated by pest control. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 8:06 AM, the Maintenance Director stated that he started working in this facility about six weeks ago. He noticed they had pest issues, which were mostly on the 1st floor. The Administrator gave him a contact number for a pest control company. He reached out and was told that because of pending invoices, they would not come anymore. The Maintenance Director expressed concern to the Administrator regarding the pending invoices that were not paid and that the pest company would not come to treat the affected areas. According to the Maintenance Director, a new pest control company treated the building this week and last. No current invoices were provided, the last invoice provided was dated 12/22/23. In an interview conducted on 01/25/24 at 5:15 PM, the Administrator stated that he was aware of pests sighting around the facility. When the pest control company comes in for their routine visits, they will first look in the pest control sighting log to spot-treat the specific areas as needed. After the areas are treated, the book is signed and dated as treated.
Aug 2023 4 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with the nursing staff, Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the facility's St...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with the nursing staff, Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the facility's Staff Development Coordinator, the facility's Medical Director, the resident's family member and review of the resident's medical record and facility policies, the facility neglected to ensure one resident (#1), at risk for elopement, was provided with services related to the resident's known cognitive deficits and history of wandering out of 47 residents sampled. The facility nursing staff neglected to ensure the safety of Resident #1; between approximately 9:00 PM on 7/18/2023 and 4:00 AM on 7/19/2023, Resident #1 ambulated from his room on the second floor of the facility, passed the unit nurse's station, and walked approximately 40 feet to the facility elevator. Resident #1 pushed the elevator button to access the rear service hallway of the facility where no staff were present. Resident #1 walked approximately 45 feet unsupervised through the rear service hallway and pushed open a staff entrance door, equipped with an electromagnetic locking device (a magnetic lock that is unlocked when de-energized and requires power to remain locked), which was not locked. Resident #1 exited the facility without staff knowledge and walked appropriately 3.1 miles without shoes, through areas with no sidewalks, and along 4 lane roads, to a private residence. The facility neglected to take action to prevent the resident from accessing the rear service hallway by not providing supervision for the resident, not accounting for the resident for approximately 10 hours, and not ensuring facility doors were secured before the resident eloped. Resident #1 was discovered by police on 7/19/2023 at approximately 7:00 AM in the backyard of a community member, sitting on a trampoline. Resident #1 was returned to the facility by police at approximately 7:30 AM, disheveled with holes in his socks, and was discovered to have multiple insect bites and a blister to his left heel. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and or death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 8/17/2023. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 8/18/2023 and the severity and scope was reduced to a D. Findings included: A review of a law enforcement report dated 7/19/2023 at 5:41 AM revealed law enforcement responded to the facility at approximately 6:11 AM for a report of a missing endangered person, who went missing around 6:00 PM on 7/18/2023. A search of the facility was conducted by law enforcement but Resident #1 was not found on the facility grounds. The report revealed Staff H, CNA, who was the last caretaker to have contact with Resident #1, provided law enforcement with a description of the resident. Law enforcement received a service call at a residence approximately 3.1 miles from the facility involving a suspicious person matching Resident #1's description. Upon arrival at the residence, law enforcement observed Resident #1 in the backyard of the residence sitting on a trampoline. Resident #1 was returned to the facility and interviewed by law enforcement. Resident #1 told law enforcement he exited the facility around 4:30 PM on 7/18/2023 to go for a walk. A review of Resident #1's progress notes dated 7/19/2023 at 11:49 AM and authored by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), revealed the following: Upon arrival to facility, [Resident #1] alert with some confusion. Head to toe assessment performed .[Resident #1] c/o [complained of ] pain to [the] left heel. Tylenol was given for mild pain .Skin assessment was complete and possible mosquito bites on back, [Resident #1] noted scratching areas [to] bilateral arm, abdomen, back of both legs as well as front of legs, left foot heel has a blister MD is aware and ordered scheduled Tylenol for pain r/t [related to] left heel as well as skin prep [a protective wipe which forms a barrier between the patient's skin and adhesives to help preserve skin integrity] to left heel blister and Hydrocortisone cream for itching . A telephone interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 2:24 PM with Resident #1's Responsible Party (RP). The RP stated prior to being admitted to the facility, Resident #1 went missing in December of 2022 after getting lost and was found by law enforcement. The RP stated Resident #1 had gone missing several times and had to be located by law enforcement prior to admission to the facility and was not able to make medical decisions due to his dementia. A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of encephalopathy, unspecified; dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety; cognitive communication deficit; unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility; muscle weakness (generalized); depression, unspecified; and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident #1's physician's orders revealed the following: - An order dated 8/1/2023 to record active exit seeking behaviors and record the following intervention code(s) every shift: 1: N/A, 2. Engage in conversation, 3. Redirect to alternative location in facility, 4. Call family/friend, 5. Activity, 6. Give snacks/food, 7. Give fluids, 8. Toileting. - An order dated 8/1/2023 for behavioral monitoring related to exit-seeking behaviors and record the number of occurrences every shift. A review of Resident #1's baseline care plan, dated 6/23/2023, did not reveal problems or potential concerns related to elopement risk. A review of Resident #1's 5-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/27/2023 revealed under Section C - Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of C - BIMS: 7 which indicated severely impaired cognition. Resident #1's MDS assessment revealed under Section E - Behavior, Resident #1 did not display behaviors of wandering but rejected care 1 to 3 days of the assessment period. Section G - Functional Status revealed Resident #1 required supervision and set up help only with locomotion on the unit and required one-person physical assistance with locomotion off the unit. Resident #1 was unsteady, but able to stabilize without staff assistance while walking and turning around. Resident #1 did not require an assistive device for mobility. Resident #1's MDS assessment revealed under Section I - Active Diagnoses Resident #1 had diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Encephalopathy, unspecified. According to the National Institutes of Health, wandering behavior is one of the most important and challenging management aspects in persons with dementia. Wandering behavior in people with dementia (PwD) is associated with an increased risk of falls, injuries, and fractures, as well as going missing or being lost from a facility. This causes increased distress in caregivers at home and in healthcare facilities. The approach to the comprehensive evaluation of the risk assessment, prevention, and treatment needs more strengthening and effective measures as the prevalence of wandering remains high in the community. Both the caregiver and clinicians need a clear understanding and responsibility of ethical and legal issues while managing and restraining the PwD. The consequences of the wandering can vary from minor injury on the body to severe injury and death. The persistent wandering behavior and weak gait and balance have been shown to increase the risk of falls, fractures, and accidents in PwD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8543604/#:~:text=Outcome%20of%20Wandering%20in%20Dementia,to%20severe%20injury%20and%20death.&text=The%20persistent%20wandering%20behavior%20and,fractures%2C%20and%20accidents%20in%20PwD. An interview was conducted on 8/15/2023 at 12:30 PM with the facility's Social Services Director (SSD), the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The SDC stated on 7/19/2023, Resident #1 was returned to the facility after Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) discovered Resident #1 was not in his room at approximately 4:00 AM. Staff C, CNA reported Resident #1 missing to Staff D, LPN, who reported the finding to Staff B, LPN Supervisor. A code pink was called through the facility, which alerted staff a resident was missing from the facility and a facility search was conducted. After verifying Resident #1 was not in the facility, Staff B, LPN Supervisor notified law enforcement and the NHA. The SDC stated the facility cameras did not capture Resident #1 leaving the facility due to a power surge. Law enforcement located Resident #1 in a community member's backyard on a trampoline. They said Resident #1 was returned to the facility on 7/19/2023 at 7:15 AM but they did not provide an address where Resident #1 was located. The SSD stated law enforcement did not provide an incident report and stated, they said if they had one, they would send it to us. The SDC and NHA stated they conducted an interview with Resident #1 following the elopement. Resident #1 stated he left the facility by accessing the facility elevator, walking through the rear service hallway of the facility, and pushing open a door to exit the facility. Resident #1 explained he wanted to go for a walk. Upon Resident #1's return to the facility, a head-to-toe assessment was completed by Staff A, LPN and the facility's Medical Director was notified. Staff A, LPN discovered several bites on the resident's body during the assessment. The NHA stated following the incident, the facility's former maintenance director conducted an exterior door security audit to ensure all exterior doors were secure. Modifications were made to the facility elevator so the rear service hallway could not be accessed through the elevator. The NHA stated the door Resident #1 exited the facility through was equipped with a magnetic lock, but the lock did not engage. The SDC stated the last time staff confirmed seeing Resident #1 was around 11 PM on 7/18/2023 when Staff E, Agency LPN handed the resident a snack. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 9:48 AM with Staff A, LPN. Staff A, LPN stated she was called into the facility on 7/19/2023 around 4:30 AM by Staff B, LPN Supervisor due to a resident elopement. Staff A, LPN stated she last saw Resident #1 on 7/18/2023 on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift and he did not express desires of leaving the facility. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 usually stayed in his room during the shift and was very pleasant. Staff A, LPN stated she arrived at the facility around 5:00 AM and joined the staff at the facility in searching for Resident #1. Staff A, LPN stated the last staff member to see Resident #1 was Staff F, LPN around 9:00 PM on 7/18/2023 when the LPN provided Resident #1 with a snack. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 was returned to the facility by law enforcement around 8:00 AM on 7/19/2023. Staff A, LPN spoke with Resident #1 upon his return and asked the resident what happened? Resident #1 responded to Staff A, LPN I don't know. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 was wearing a burgundy short sleeved shirt, blue basketball shorts, and non-skid socks with a tear in the left sock. Resident #1 was not observed wearing shoes. Once Resident #1 was back in the facility, Staff A, LPN performed an assessment. Staff A, LPN stated she documented several possible mosquito bites described as red dots throughout Resident #1's body and a blister on Resident #1's left foot. Staff A, LPN stated after the assessment, Resident #1 laid in the fetal position in his bed and appeared very tired. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 was provided fluids because he was very thirsty. Staff A, LPN stated the door Resident #1 exited out of was usually kept locked with a magnetic lock but Resident #1 was able to push the door open. Staff A, LPN stated she completed Resident #1's elopement assessment upon admission to the facility and did not assess the resident as an elopement risk. Staff A, LPN stated she would expect CNA staff to round every 30 minutes to an hour at the latest to check on the resident's needs and to take account of that resident. A review of Resident #1's admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed under the section titled EL. Elopement Risk a question Is resident ambulatory and/or able to self-propel wheelchair? and a documented response No. The section revealed If no, next question will be disabled. The disabled section of the EL. Elopement Risk portion of the admission assessment related to risk factors to indicate the resident was at risk for elopement and contained no information. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 10:16 AM with Staff F, LPN. Staff F, LPN stated she worked a double shift on 7/18/2023 during the 7 AM to 3 PM and the 3 PM to 11 PM shifts. Staff F, LPN stated Resident #1 would usually stay in his room and sometimes go to the nurse's station to ask for coffee. Staff F, LPN last saw Resident #1 on 7/18/2023 at 9:00 PM when the resident walked to the nurse's station and asked for a snack. Staff F, LPN left the facility around 11:15 PM and did not see Resident #1 between 9:00 PM and 11:15 PM. Staff F, LPN received a phone call around 6:00 AM on 7/19/2023 from facility staff telling her she needed to come to the facility. When Staff F, LPN arrived at the facility around 6:45 AM, facility staff were already searching for Resident #1 throughout the facility and the facility grounds. Staff F, LPN was not able to state what time Resident #1 was returned to the facility but stated the resident looked tired. Staff F, LPN stated she was not sure how Resident #1 exited the facility but thinks he might have gone out through the back door leading out to the facility staff parking lot. Staff F, LPN stated before Resident #1's elopement, staff would enter the facility through the rear entrance and the door was usually locked using the magnetic lock and could only be opened by entering a code. Staff F, LPN stated she would expect the CNA staff to check on residents at least every 2 hours to check on the resident's needs and to take account of that resident. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 10:40 AM with Staff G, CNA. Staff G, CNA stated she was familiar with Resident #1 and had transported him to several outside appointments. Staff G, CNA stated Resident #1 was normally quiet and laid back in demeanor but would observe a lot and was very sneaky. Staff G, CNA received a phone call on 7/19/2023 at approximately 4:30 AM from Staff B, LPN because Resident #1 was missing from the facility, and he was not sure what to do. Staff G, CNA told Staff B, LPN to contact the NHA and DON and to notify the police. Staff G, CNA called Staff A, LPN and Staff I, CNA and told them to come to the facility to assist in searching for Resident #1. Staff G, CNA arrived at the facility at approximately 4:45 AM and stated local law enforcement arrived after. After searching the facility grounds for Resident #1, Staff G, CNA stated she spoke with law enforcement around 6 or 7 AM, who told her they found Resident #1 in a lady's yard on a trampoline. Staff G, CNA stated she drove to Resident #1's location in the facility van around 7 AM and witnessed Resident #1 being escorted into a police car by law enforcement. Staff G, CNA drove back to the facility and saw Resident #1. Staff G, CNA observed Resident #1 with a lot of bites on his body and wearing socks with no shoes. Staff G, CNA stated Resident #1 told herself, Staff I, CNA, Staff A, LPN, and the SDC how he was able to exit the facility. Resident #1 told Staff G, CNA he walked through the elevator, accessed the rear service hallway, and exited out of the facility through the back door leading into the facility staff parking lot. A telephone interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 1:20 PM with the facility's Medical Director (MD), who was Resident #1's primary care provider. The MD stated Resident #1 was mildly confused but was able to follow commands and was easy to redirect during previous interactions with the resident. The MD was notified by the facility Resident #1 eloped from the facility by accessing the rear service hallway through the facility elevator and was found by law enforcement several hours later. The MD assessed Resident #1 around 10 or 11 AM after the resident was showered. The MD discovered a couple of abrasions here and there and a couple of bug bites presumed to be mosquito bites. The MD stated Resident #1's feet here mildly edematous but the resident did not sustain any injuries from the elopement. The MD stated Resident #1 was able to explain how he exited the facility and he was trying to go home. A review of a SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) note dated 7/19/2023 and authored by the MD revealed the following: .I was call[ed] to [Resident #1]'s bedside as it was brought to my attention that [Resident #1] had an elopement incident yesterday [7/18/2023]. [Resident #1] was found by the police and [br]ought back to the facility on examination. [Resident #1] appears to be stable and at baseline. [Resident #1] does have multiple mosquito bites. In various places .On questioning, [Resident #1] does not recall the incident. States that he was going for a walk . An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 1:39 PM with Staff H, CNA, Resident #1's assigned CNA for the 7 AM to 3 PM shift on 7/18/2023. Staff H, CNA stated she frequently provided care for Resident #1 and Resident #1 was cooperative with care. Staff H, CNA stated on 7/13/2023, Resident #1 pressed his call light and asked Staff H, CNA how he could transfer out of here. Staff H, CNA stated Resident #1 did not express a desire to exit the facility other than that one incident. Staff H, CNA stated she arrived at the facility on 7/19/2023 around 6:45 AM and witnessed several law enforcement vehicles and personnel upon her arrival. Staff H, CNA provided a description of the clothing Resident #1 was wearing to law enforcement because other staff members gave the wrong description. Staff H, CNA stated about an hour after her arrival at the facility, Resident #1 was returned to the facility by law enforcement. Staff H, CNA stated Resident #1 appeared to be wearing wet clothing and had holes in his socks. Staff H, CNA provided Resident #1 with clean clothing and ice water because the resident stated he was thirsty. Staff H, CNA stated Resident #1 did not state how he exited the facility, but she found out by speaking with other facility staff. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 1:54 PM with Staff I, CNA. Staff I, CNA stated she received a phone call from Staff G, CNA on 7/19/2023 at approximately 4:30 AM who stated Resident #1 was missing from the facility. Staff I, CNA then drove to the facility and assisted staff in attempting to locate Resident #1 by searching inside and outside of the facility and near local businesses. Staff I, CNA stated law enforcement arrived during the search for Resident #1 and assisted in the search. Staff I, CNA stated Resident #1 was returned to the facility sometime before breakfast and appeared tired and walked out his socks, meaning Resident #1 had holes in the bottoms of his socks. Staff I, CNA spoke with Resident #1 following the incident, who stated he accessed the rear service hallway through the facility elevator, walked down the service hallway, pushed open the rear exit door and hit it, meaning he began walking down the street. Resident #1 stated to Staff I, CNA he was just going for a walk. Staff I, CNA stated Resident #1's memory comes and goes. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 2:40 PM with Resident #1 on the facility's dementia care unit. Resident #1 was observed lying in bed in his room. Resident #1 stated be remembered going for a walk and was gone from the facility for a few hours. Resident #1 was not able to recall details of the elopement and only stated he left through one of the exits and came back here. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 2:53 PM with the SSD and the facility's MDS Coordinator (MDS). The SSD stated when a resident is admitted to the facility, a welcome meeting or welcome conference is held with the resident and/or family to go over the resident's history. The MDS Coordinator stated the residents medications, baseline care plan, dietary preferences, allergies, and other care conditions are discussed during the meeting. The SSD stated if the resident is not alert and oriented, the resident's family is called to participate in the meeting. The SSD stated a welcome conference was conducted with Resident #1 upon admission and the RP was contact by phone to participate in the meeting. The SSD stated Resident #1 was his own responsible party upon admission. The RP told the SSD Resident #1 had an incident in December of 2022 where he went to the airport and got lost, but not much else. Telephone interviews were attempted on 8/16/2023 with Staff C, CNA, Resident #1's assigned CNA for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on 7/18/2023, Staff B, LPN, the assigned facility supervisor for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on 7/18/2023, Staff D, LPN, Resident #1's assigned nurse for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on 7/18/2023, Staff J, CNA, Resident #1's assigned CNA for the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 7/18/2023, and Staff E, Agency LPN, Resident #1's assigned nurse for the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 7/18/2023. The staff members could not be reached. A review of Resident #1's preadmission Medical Certification for Medicaid Long Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form, with a Physician Certification date of 6/18/2023 revealed under Section C: Decision Making Capacity (Patient) Resident #1 required a surrogate for medical decision making. The transfer form revealed under Section E: Medical Condition, primary discharge diagnoses of altered mental status (AMS) and incompetence. A review of Resident #1's psychology evaluation notes dated 7/5/2023 revealed under the section titled Patient Consent This provider confirms that the written consent to treat was obtained from the patient Power of Attorney (POA) as patient is not capable of giving the consent. The note revealed under the section titled History of Present Illness Patient has history of depression, anxiety, and dementia. Patient stated, 'my memory is bad'. He reported he feels depressed, sad, and irritable since he was admitted to the facility . An interview and tour were conducted on 8/17/2023 at 11:15 AM with the facility's Maintenance Director and NHA near the facility elevator. The NHA stated modifications were made to the facility elevator to ensure residents of the facility could not access the rear service hallway through the elevator. The NHA stated a keypad would be installed for the elevator and anyone who used the elevator would be required to enter a code, which would not be provided to facility residents. The NHA stated the rear service hallway could be accessed through the 200 unit and required a code to access. An observation of the facility elevator revealed the buttons to access the rear service hallway were not able to be pressed due to being covered with a cap and black tape. The NHA stated the modifications were temporary until the elevator vendor could install the keypad. A tour was conducted of the rear service of the facility. The facility elevator cannot be accessed through the rear service hallway and was observed to be blocked with yellow caution tape. An observation of the rear exit door of the facility revealed signage posted on the door entrance temporarily closed use front entrance!! The rear exit door was locked and secured. A review of the facility policy titled Abuse Prohibition/Investigative Policy, revised in August 2023, revealed under the section titled Policy the facility will prohibit abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. The policy revealed under the section titled Purpose the purpose of the policy is to ensure the facility is doing all that is within its control to prevent occurrences of abuse/neglect. The policy defines neglect as .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. Facility's immediate actions to remove the Immediate Jeopardy included: o Facility egress doors checked for alarming/functioning with no other issues identified. The door that resident exited from noted to not automatically close has been taken out of services. An outside vendor was contacted on 7/19/2023 by the NHA to replace the door. The rear elevator door was taken out of service on 7/19/2023 by blocking the buttons to open them. An outside vendor was contacted on 7/19/2023 by the NHA to service the elevator and put a code box on to prevent it from opening without putting in the code. o Elopement drills initiated on 7/19/2023 starting on 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift then conducted every shift for 3 days then weekly for 4 weeks then monthly. o Staff education was initiated 7/19/2023 on Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy w/ emphasis on neglect to include reporting requirements, elopement standard and guidelines, shift to shift rounds and mid night census by the staff development coordinator, this education included actual visualization of each resident during these rounds this education was completed on 7/20/2023. Newly hired staff and agency staff will be educated during the orientation process. Staff will be educated on every 2-hour rounding on residents to include physical visualization of residents. Licensed nurses will validate that this rounding is being done and document attestation of rounding in the medication administration record. Education will be completed by the SDC, or designee. Residents that are evaluated to be at risk for elopement and not placed on the secured unit will have rounding with physical visualization every 1 hour or as indicated in their plan of care. The licensed nurse will validate that this rounding is being done and document attestation of rounding the medication administration record. o Residents currently residing in the facility were re-evaluated for elopement risk by the DON or Designee on 7/19/2023 to 7/25/2023. No new residents identified at risk for elopement. o An ad-hoc QAPI meeting was held on 7/19/2023 at 3:00 PM. o Elopement risk alert binders reviewed for accuracy and confirmed to have demographics present for all residents at risk for elopement based on Elopement Risk Evaluations on 7/19/2023. The binders were again reviewed on 7/25/2023, no new updates were needed. New admissions or residents with a change in behavior that increases risk for elopement will be reviewed during morning clinical meeting and placed in the elopement risk binders located at each nurses station and at the receptionist desk. o Care plans for residents at risk for elopement confirmed to be present on 7/20/2023. Updates were completed as needed. o Rounds are conducted throughout each shift, at shift change, during AM, PM care, during meal services and during care provision. Mid-night census sheet will be signed by the unit nurse and turned into the Director of Nurses each day. Verification of the facility's removal plan was conducted by the survey team on 8/18/2023. An attestation provided by the facility revealed on 7/19/2023, the former maintenance director ensured the rear service elevator door, and the rear exit door of the facility were taken out of service and outside vendors were contacted to service the elevator door and to replace the rear door of the facility. A sample of five residents at risk for elopement, including Resident #1, were reviewed for verification of new orders related to rounding, care plan including elopement risk, elopement risk evaluation, and presence in the facility elopement book. Review of the five residents revealed all residents had new orders related to rounding, care plan including elopement risk, updated elopement risk evaluation, and presence in the facility elopement book. A review of education conducted by the DON and the SDC revealed education related to resident rounding was conducted on 8/17/2023 for facility nursing staff. Education related to abuse/neglect and elopement procedures was conducted on 7/19/2023 and completed on 7/20/2023 with all staff educated. Post-test and competencies included as part of the facility training. A review of facility elopement drills revealed elopement drills were conducted from 7/19/2023 to 7/22/2023. Elopement drills completed on all shifts with documentation of participating staff. Interviews were conducted with 48 staff members, including 2 Registered Nurses, 7 LPNs, 13 CNAs, 7 dietary staff, 3 therapy staff, 6 housekeeping staff, and 10 other staff members. The staff members were able to state that they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the policies and procedures. Based on verification of the facility's Immediate Jeopardy removal plan the immediate jeopardy was determined to be removed on 8/18/2023 and the non-compliance was reduced to a scope and severity of D.
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with the nursing staff, Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the facility's St...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with the nursing staff, Nursing Home Administrator, the Director of Nursing, the facility's Staff Development Coordinator, the facility's Medical Director, the resident's family member and review of the resident's medical record and facility policies, the facility failed to ensure one resident (#1) of 47 residents at risk for elopement, was provided with supervision and services related to the resident's known cognitive deficits and history of wandering before admission to the facility. The facility nursing staff failed to ensure the safety of Resident #1; between approximately 9:00 PM on 7/18/2023 and 4:00 AM on 7/19/2023, Resident #1 ambulated from his room on the second floor of the facility, passed the unit nurse's station, and walked approximately 40 feet to the facility elevator. Resident #1 pushed the elevator button to access the rear service hallway of the facility where no staff were present. Resident #1 walked approximately 45 feet unsupervised through the rear service hallway and pushed open a staff entrance door, equipped with an electromagnetic locking device (a magnetic lock that is unlocked when de-energized and requires power to remain locked), which was not locked. Resident #1 exited the facility unsupervised and without staff knowledge and walked appropriately 3.1 miles without shoes, through areas with no sidewalks, and along 4 lane roads, to a private residence. The facility failed to take action to prevent the resident from accessing the rear service hallway by not providing supervision for the resident, not accounting for the resident for approximately 10 hours, and not ensuring facility doors were secured before the resident eloped. Resident #1 was discovered by police on 7/19/2023 at approximately 7:00 AM in the backyard of a community member, sitting on a trampoline. Resident #1 was returned to the facility by police at approximately 7:30 AM disheveled and with holes in his socks and was discovered to have multiple insect bites and a blister to his left heel. This failure created a situation that resulted in a worsened condition and the likelihood for serious injury and or death to Resident #1 and resulted in the determination of Immediate Jeopardy on 8/17/2023. The findings of Immediate Jeopardy were determined to be removed on 8/18/2023 and the severity and scope was reduced to a D. Findings included: A review of Resident #1's progress notes dated 7/19/2023 at 11:49 AM and authored by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), revealed the following: Upon arrival to facility, [Resident #1] alert with some confusion. Head to toe assessment performed .[Resident #1] c/o [complained of ] pain to [the] left heel. Tylenol was given for mild pain .Skin assessment was complete and possible mosquito bites on back, [Resident #1] noted scratching areas [to] bilateral arm, abdomen, back of both legs as well as front of legs, left foot heel has a [has a] blister MD is aware and ordered scheduled Tylenol for pain r/t [related to] left heel as well as skin prep [a protective wipe which forms a barrier between the patient's skin and adhesives to help preserve skin integrity] to left heel blister and Hydrocortisone cream for itching . A review of Resident #1's medical record revealed Resident #1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of encephalopathy, unspecified; dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety; cognitive communication deficit; unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility; muscle weakness (generalized); depression, unspecified; and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident #1's physician's orders revealed the following: - An order dated 8/1/2023 to record active exit seeking behaviors and record the following intervention code(s) every shift: 1: N/A, 2. Engage in conversation, 3. Redirect to alternative location in facility, 4. Call family/friend, 5. Activity, 6. Give snacks/food, 7. Give fluids, 8. Toileting. - An order dated 8/1/2023 for behavioral monitoring related to exit-seeking behaviors and record the number of occurrences every shift. According to the National Institutes of Health, wandering behavior is one of the most important and challenging management aspects in persons with dementia. Wandering behavior in people with dementia (PwD) is associated with an increased risk of falls, injuries, and fractures, as well as going missing or being lost from a facility. This causes increased distress in caregivers at home and in healthcare facilities. The approach to the comprehensive evaluation of the risk assessment, prevention, and treatment needs more strengthening and effective measures as the prevalence of wandering remains high in the community. Both the caregiver and clinicians need a clear understanding and responsibility of ethical and legal issues while managing and restraining the PwD. The consequences of the wandering can vary from minor injury on the body to severe injury and death. The persistent wandering behavior and weak gait and balance have been shown to increase the risk of falls, fractures, and accidents in PwD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8543604/#:~:text=Outcome%20of%20Wandering%20in%20Dementia,to%20severe%20injury%20and%20death.&text=The%20persistent%20wandering%20behavior%20and,fractures%2C%20and%20accidents%20in%20PwD. A review of Resident #1's baseline care plan, dated 6/23/2023, did not reveal problems or potential concerns related to elopement risk. A review of Resident #1's 5-Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 6/27/2023 revealed under Section C - Cognitive Patterns a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of C - BIMS: 7 which indicated severely impaired cognition. Resident #1's MDS assessment revealed under Section E - Behavior, Resident #1 did not display behaviors of wandering but rejected care 1 to 3 days of the assessment period. Section G - Functional Status revealed Resident #1 required supervision and set up help only with locomotion on the unit and required one person physical assistance with locomotion off the unit. Resident #1 was unsteady, but able to stabilize without staff assistance while walking and turning around. Resident #1 did not require an assistive device for mobility. Resident #1's MDS assessment revealed under Section I - Active Diagnoses Resident #1 had diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, Depression, and Encephalopathy, unspecified. An interview was conducted on 8/15/2023 at 12:30 PM with the facility's Social Services Director (SSD), the Staff Development Coordinator (SDC) and the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA). The SDC stated on 7/19/2023, Resident #1 was returned to the facility after Staff C, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) discovered Resident #1 was not in his room at approximately 4:00 AM. Staff C, CNA reported Resident #1 missing to Staff D, LPN, who reported the finding to Staff B, LPN Supervisor. A code pink was called through the facility, which alerted staff a resident was missing from the facility and a facility search was conducted. After verifying Resident #1 was not in the facility, Staff B, LPN Supervisor notified law enforcement and the NHA. The SDC stated the facility cameras did not capture Resident #1 leaving the facility due to a power surge. Law enforcement located Resident #1 in a community member's backyard on a trampoline. They said Resident #1 was returned to the facility on 7/19/2023 at 7:15 AM but they did not provide an address where Resident #1 was located. The SSD stated law enforcement did not provide an incident report and stated, they said if they had one they would send it to us. The SDC and NHA stated they conducted an interview with Resident #1 following the elopement. Resident #1 stated he left the facility by accessing the facility elevator, walking through the rear service hallway of the facility, and pushing open a door to exit the facility. Resident #1 explained he wanted to go for a walk. Upon Resident #1's return to the facility, a head to toe assessment was completed by Staff A, LPN and the facility's Medical Director was notified. Staff A, LPN discovered several bites on the resident's body during the assessment. The NHA stated following the incident, the facility's former maintenance director conducted an exterior door security audit to ensure all exterior doors were secure. Modifications were made to the facility elevator so the rear service hallway could not be accessed through the elevator. The NHA stated the door Resident #1 exited the facility through was equipped with a magnetic lock, but the lock did not engage. The SDC stated the last time staff confirmed seeing Resident #1 was around 11 PM on 7/18/2023 when Staff E, Agency LPN handed the resident a snack. A review of the facility policy titled Safety and Supervision of Residents, revised in July of 2017, revealed under the section titled Policy Statement the facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide priorities. The policy revealed under the section titled Individualized, Resident-Centered Approach to Safety the individualized, resident centered approach to safety addresses safety and accident hazards for individual residents. The interdisciplinary care team shall analyze information obtained from assessments and observations to identify any specific accident hazards or risks for individual residents. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 9:48 AM with Staff A, LPN. Staff A, LPN stated she was called into the facility on 7/19/2023 around 4:30 AM by Staff B, LPN Supervisor due to a resident elopement. Staff A, LPN stated she last saw Resident #1 on 7/18/2023 on the 7 AM to 3 PM shift and he did not express desires of leaving the facility. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 usually stayed in his room during the shift and was very pleasant. Staff A, LPN stated she arrived at the facility around 5:00 AM and joined the staff at the facility in searching for Resident #1. Staff A, LPN stated the last staff member to see Resident #1 was Staff F, LPN around 9:00 PM on 7/18/2023 when the LPN provided Resident #1 with a snack. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 was returned to the facility by law enforcement around 8:00 AM on 7/19/2023. Staff A, LPN spoke with Resident #1 upon his return and asked the resident what happened? Resident #1 responded to Staff A, LPN I don't know. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 was wearing a burgundy short sleeved shirt, blue basketball shorts, and non-skid socks with a tear in the left sock. Resident #1 was not observed wearing shoes. Once Resident #1 was back in the facility, Staff A, LPN performed an assessment. Staff A, LPN stated she documented several possible mosquito bites described as red dots throughout Resident #1's body and a blister on Resident #1's left foot. Staff A, LPN stated after the assessment, Resident #1 laid in the fetal position in his bed and appeared very tired. Staff A, LPN stated Resident #1 was provided fluids because he was very thirsty. Staff A, LPN stated the door Resident #1 exited out of was usually kept locked with a magnetic lock but Resident #1 was able to push the door open. Staff A, LPN stated she completed Resident #1's elopement assessment upon admission to the facility and did not assess the resident as an elopement risk. Staff A, LPN stated she would expect CNA staff to round every 30 minutes to an hour at the latest to check on the resident's needs and to take account of that resident. A review of Resident #1's admission assessment dated [DATE] revealed under the section titled EL. Elopement Risk a question Is resident ambulatory and/or able to self-propel wheelchair? and a documented response No. The section revealed If no, next question will be disabled. The disabled section of the EL. Elopement Risk portion of the admission assessment related to risk factors to indicate the resident was at risk for elopement and contained no information. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 10:16 AM with Staff F, LPN. Staff F, LPN stated she worked a double shift on 7/18/2023 during the 7 AM to 3 PM and the 3 PM to 11 PM shifts. Staff F, LPN stated Resident #1 would usually stay in his room and sometimes go to the nurse's station to ask for coffee. Staff F, LPN last saw Resident #1 on 7/18/2023 at 9:00 PM when the resident walked to the nurse's station and asked for a snack. Staff F, LPN left the facility around 11:15 PM and did not see Resident #1 between 9:00 PM and 11:15 PM. Staff F, LPN received a phone call around 6:00 AM on 7/19/2023 from facility staff telling her she needed to come to the facility. When Staff F, LPN arrived at the facility around 6:45 AM, facility staff were already searching for Resident #1 throughout the facility and the facility grounds. Staff F, LPN was not able to state what time Resident #1 was returned to the facility but stated the resident looked tired. Staff F, LPN stated she was not sure how Resident #1 exited the facility but thinks he might have gone out through the back door leading out to the facility staff parking lot. Staff F, LPN stated before Resident #1's elopement, staff would enter the facility through the rear entrance and the door was usually locked using the magnetic lock and could only be opened by entering a code. Staff F, LPN stated she would expect the CNA staff to check on residents at least every 2 hours to check on the resident's needs and to take account of that resident. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 10:40 AM with Staff G, CNA. Staff G, CNA stated she was familiar with Resident #1 and had transported him to several outside appointments. Staff G, CNA stated Resident #1 was normally quiet and laid back in demeanor but would observe a lot and was very sneaky. Staff G, CNA received a phone call on 7/19/2023 at approximately 4:30 AM from Staff B, LPN because Resident #1 was missing from the facility, and he was not sure what to do. Staff G, CNA told Staff B, LPN to contact the NHA and DON and to notify the police. Staff G, CNA called Staff A, LPN and Staff I, CNA and told them to come to the facility to assist in searching for Resident #1. Staff G, CNA arrived at the facility at approximately 4:45 AM and stated local law enforcement arrived after. After searching the facility grounds for Resident #1, Staff G, CNA stated she spoke with law enforcement around 6 or 7 AM, who told her they found Resident #1 in a lady's yard on a trampoline. Staff G, CNA stated she drove to Resident #1's location in the facility van around 7 AM and witnessed Resident #1 being escorted into a police car by law enforcement. Staff G, CNA drove back to the facility and saw Resident #1. Staff G, CNA observed Resident #1 with a lot of bites on his body and wearing socks with no shoes. Staff G, CNA stated Resident #1 told herself, Staff I, CNA, Staff A, LPN, and the SDC how he was able to exit the facility. Resident #1 told Staff G, CNA he walked through the elevator, accessed the rear service hallway, and exited out of the facility through the back door leading into the facility staff parking lot. A telephone interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 1:20 PM with the facility's Medical Director (MD), who was Resident #1's primary care provider. The MD stated Resident #1 was mildly confused but was able to follow commands and was easy to redirect during previous interactions with the resident. The MD was notified by the facility Resident #1 eloped from the facility by accessing the rear service hallway through the facility elevator and was found by law enforcement several hours later. The MD assessed Resident #1 around 10 or 11 AM after the resident was showered. The MD discovered a couple of abrasions here and there and a couple of bug bites presumed to be mosquito bites. The MD stated Resident #1's feet here mildly edematous but the resident did not sustain any injuries from the elopement. The MD stated Resident #1 was able to explain how he exited the facility and he was trying to go home. A review of a SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan) note dated 7/19/2023 and authored by the MD revealed the following: .I was call[ed] to [Resident #1]'s bedside as it was brought to my attention that [Resident #1] had an elopement incident yesterday [7/18/2023]. [Resident #1] was found by the police and [r]ought back to the facility on examination. [Resident #1] appears to be stable and at baseline. [Resident #1] does have multiple mosquito bites. In various places .On questioning, [Resident #1] does not recall the incident. States that he was going for a walk . An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 1:39 PM with Staff H, CNA, Resident #1's assigned CNA for the 7 AM to 3 PM shift on 7/18/2023. Staff H, CNA stated she frequently provided care for Resident #1 and Resident #1 was cooperative with care. Staff H, CNA stated on 7/13/2023, Resident #1 pressed his call light and asked Staff H, CNA how he could transfer out of here. Staff H, CNA stated Resident #1 did not express a desire to exit the facility other than that one incident. Staff H, CNA stated she arrived at the facility on 7/19/2023 around 6:45 AM and witnessed several law enforcement vehicles and personnel upon her arrival. Staff H, CNA provided a description of the clothing Resident #1 was wearing to law enforcement because other staff members gave the wrong description. Staff H, CNA stated about an hour after her arrival at the facility, Resident #1 was returned to the facility by law enforcement. Staff H, CNA stated Resident #1 appeared to be wearing wet clothing and had holes in his socks. Staff H, CNA provided Resident #1 with clean clothing and ice water because the resident stated he was thirsty. Staff H, CNA stated Resident #1 did not state how he exited the facility, but she found out by speaking with other facility staff. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 1:54 PM with Staff I, CNA. Staff I, CNA stated she received a phone call from Staff G, CNA on 7/19/2023 at approximately 4:30 AM who stated Resident #1 was missing from the facility. Staff I, CNA then drove to the facility and assisted staff in attempting to locate Resident #1 by searching inside and outside of the facility and near local businesses. Staff I, CNA stated law enforcement arrived during the search for Resident #1 and assisted in the search. Staff I, CNA stated Resident #1 was returned to the facility sometime before breakfast and appeared tired and walked out his socks, meaning Resident #1 had holes in the bottoms of his socks. Staff I, CNA spoke with Resident #1 following the incident, who stated he accessed the rear service hallway through the facility elevator, walked down the service hallway, pushed open the rear exit door and hit it, meaning he began walking down the street. Resident #1 stated to Staff I, CNA he was just going for a walk. Staff I, CNA stated Resident #1's memory comes and goes. A review of the facility policy titled Emergency Procedure - Missing Resident, revised in August of 2016, revealed under the section titled Policy Statement a resident elopement resulting in a missing resident is considered a facility emergency. The policy revealed under the section titled Policy Interpretation and Implementation residents at risk for wandering and/or elopement will be monitored, and staff will take necessary precautions to ensure their safety. Staff will implement the protocol for missing resident immediately upon discovering that a resident cannot be located. A review of a law enforcement report dated 7/19/2023 at 5:41 AM revealed law enforcement responded to the facility at approximately 6:11 AM for a report of a missing endangered person, who went missing around 6:00 PM on 7/18/2023. A search of the facility was conducted by law enforcement but Resident #1 was confirmed not on the facility grounds. The report revealed Staff H, CNA, who was the last caretaker to contact Resident #1, provided law enforcement with a description of the resident. Law enforcement received a service call at a residence approximately 3.1 miles from the facility involving a suspicious person matching Resident #1's description. Upon arrival at the residence, law enforcement observed Resident #1 in the backyard of the residence sitting on a trampoline. Resident #1 was returned to the facility and interviewed by law enforcement. Resident #1 told law enforcement he exited the facility around 4:30 PM on 7/18/2023 to go for a walk. A telephone interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 2:24 PM with Resident #1's responsible party (RP). The RP stated prior to being admitted to the facility, Resident #1 went missing in December of 2022 after getting lost and was found by law enforcement. The RP stated Resident #1 had gone missing several times and had to be located by law enforcement prior to admission to the facility and was not able to make medical decisions due to his dementia. A review of the facility policy titled Wandering and Elopements, revised in March of 2019, revealed under the section titled Policy Statement the facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering and strive to prevent harm while maintaining the least restrictive environment for residents. The policy revealed under the section titled Policy Interpretation and Implementation if identified as at risk for wandering, elopement, or other safety issues, the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 2:40 PM with Resident #1 on the facility's dementia care unit. Resident #1 was observed lying in bed in his room. Resident #1 stated be remembered going for a walk and was gone from the facility for a few hours. Resident #1 was not able to recall details of the elopement and only stated he left through one of the exits and came back here. An interview was conducted on 8/16/2023 at 2:53 PM with the SSD and the facility's MDS Coordinator (MDS). The SSD stated when a resident is admitted to the facility, a welcome meeting or welcome conference is held with the resident and/or family to go over the resident's history. The MDS Coordinator stated the residents medications, baseline care plan, dietary preferences, allergies, and other care conditions are discussed during the meeting. The SSD stated if the resident is not alert and oriented, the resident's family is called to participate in the meeting. The SSD stated a welcome conference was conducted with Resident #1 upon admission and the RP was contact by phone to participate in the meeting. The SSD stated Resident #1 was his own responsible party upon admission. The RP told the SSD Resident #1 had an incident in December of 2022 where he went to the airport and got lost, but not much else. Telephone interviews were attempted on 8/16/2023 with Staff C, CNA, Resident #1's assigned CNA for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on 7/18/2023, Staff B, LPN, the assigned facility supervisor for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on 7/18/2023, Staff D, LPN, Resident #1's assigned nurse for the 11 PM to 7 AM shift on 7/18/2023, Staff J, CNA, Resident #1's assigned CNA for the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 7/18/2023, and Staff E, Agency LPN, Resident #1's assigned nurse for the 3 PM to 11 PM shift on 7/18/2023. The staff members could not be reached. A review of Resident #1's preadmission Medical Certification for Medicaid Long Term Care Services and Patient Transfer Form, with a Physician Certification date of 6/18/2023 revealed under Section C: Decision Making Capacity (Patient) Resident #1 required a surrogate for medical decision making. The transfer form revealed under Section E: Medical Condition, primary discharge diagnoses of altered mental status (AMS) and incompetence. A review of Resident #1's psychology evaluation notes dated 7/5/2023 revealed under the section titled Patient Consent This provider confirms that the written consent to treat was obtained from the patient Power of Attorney (POA) as patient is not capable of giving the consent. The note revealed under the section titled History of Present Illness Patient has history of depression, anxiety, and dementia. Patient stated, 'my memory is bad'. He reported he feels depressed, sad, and irritable since he was admitted to the facility . A review of Resident #1's care plan meeting minutes, dated 6/23/2023 revealed a Welcome Meeting was conducted with Resident #1 and Resident #1's RP via telephone. The care plan meeting minutes did not reveal documentation under the sections titled Behavioral Health/Activities or Resident/Family Concerns. Resident #1's diagnosis of dementia was not documented on the care plan meeting minutes. An interview and tour was conducted on 8/17/2023 at 11:15 AM with the facility's Maintenance Director and NHA near the facility elevator. The NHA stated modifications were made to the facility elevator to ensure residents of the facility could not access the rear service hallway through the elevator. The NHA stated a keypad would be installed for the elevator and anyone who used the elevator would be required to enter a code, which would not be provided to facility residents. The NHA stated the rear service hallway could be accessed through the 200 unit and required a code to access. An observation of the facility elevator revealed the buttons to access the rear service hallway were not able to be pressed due to being covered with a cap and black tape. The NHA stated the modifications were temporary until the elevator vendor could install the keypad. A tour was conducted of the rear service of the facility. The facility elevator cannot be accessed through the rear service hallway and was observed to be blocked with yellow caution tape. An observation of the rear exit door of the facility revealed signage posted on the door entrance temporarily closed use front entrance!! The rear exit door was locked and secured. Facility's immediate actions to remove the Immediate Jeopardy included: o Facility egress doors checked for alarming/functioning with no other issues identified. The door that resident exited from noted to not automatically close has been taken out of services. An outside vendor was contacted on 7/19/2023 by the NHA to replace the door. The rear elevator door was taken out of service on 7/19/2023 by blocking the buttons to open them. An outside vendor was contacted on 7/19/2023 by the NHA to service the elevator and put a code box on to prevent it from opening without putting in the code. o Elopement drills initiated on 7/19/2023 starting on 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift then conducted every shift for 3 days then weekly for 4 weeks then monthly. o Staff education was initiated 7/19/2023 on Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation Policy w/ emphasis on neglect to include reporting requirements, elopement standard and guidelines, shift to shift rounds and mid night census by the staff development coordinator, this education included actual visualization of each resident during these rounds this education was completed on 7/20/2023. Newly hired staff and agency staff will be educated during the orientation process. Staff will be educated on every 2-hour rounding on residents to include physical visualization of residents. Licensed nurses will validate that this rounding is being done and document attestation of rounding in the medication administration record. Education will be completed by the SDC, or designee. Residents that are evaluated to be at risk for elopement and not placed on the secured unit will have rounding with physical visualization every 1 hour or as indicated in their plan of care. The licensed nurse will validate that this rounding is being done and document attestation of rounding the medication administration record. o Residents currently residing in the facility were re-evaluated for elopement risk by the DON or Designee on 7/19/2023 to 7/25/2023. No new residents identified at risk for elopement. o An ad-hoc QAPI meeting was held on 7/19/2023 at 3:00 PM. o Elopement risk alert binders reviewed for accuracy and confirmed to have demographics present for all residents at risk for elopement based on Elopement Risk Evaluations on 7/19/2023. The binders were again reviewed on 7/25/2023, no new updates were needed. New admissions or residents with a change in behavior that increases risk for elopement will be reviewed during morning clinical meeting and placed in the elopement risk binders located at each nurses station and at the receptionist desk. o Care plans for residents at risk for elopement confirmed to be present on 7/20/2023. Updates were completed as needed. o Rounds are conducted throughout each shift, at shift change, during AM, PM care, during meal services and during care provision. Mid-night census sheet will be signed by the unit nurse and turned into the Director of Nurses each day. Verification of the facility's removal plan was conducted by the survey team on 8/18/2023. An attestation provided by the facility revealed on 7/19/2023, the former maintenance director ensured the rear service elevator door, and the rear exit door of the facility were taken out of service and outside vendors were contacted to service the elevator door and to replace the rear door of the facility. A sample of five residents at risk for elopement, including Resident #1, were reviewed for verification of new orders related to rounding, care plan including elopement risk, elopement risk evaluation, and presence in the facility elopement book. Review of the five residents revealed all residents had new orders related to rounding, care plan including elopement risk, updated elopement risk evaluation, and presence in the facility elopement book. A review of education conducted by the DON and the SDC revealed education related to resident rounding was conducted on 8/17/2023 for facility nursing staff. Education related to abuse/neglect and elopement procedures was conducted on 7/19/2023 and completed on 7/20/2023 with all staff educated. Post-test and competencies included as part of the facility training. A review of facility elopement drills revealed elopement drills were conducted from 7/19/2023 to 7/22/2023. Elopement drills completed on all shifts with documentation of participating staff. Interviews were conducted with 48 staff members, including 2 Registered Nurses, 7 LPNs, 13 CNAs, 7 dietary staff, 3 therapy staff, 6 housekeeping staff, and 10 other staff members. The staff members were able to state that they had been trained and were knowledgeable about the policies and procedures. Based on verification of the facility's Immediate Jeopardy removal plan the immediate jeopardy was determined to be removed on 8/18/2023 and the non-compliance was reduced to a scope and severity of D.
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 with the Administrator and staff, and review of maintenance requests and submitted grievances...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview with the Administrator and staff, and review of maintenance requests and submitted grievances, the facility failed to maintain a clean and comfortable environment for residents who lived on the first floor of the facility. Findings included: During a tour of the first floor of the facility, on 08/14/23 beginning at 9:30 a.m. upon stepping out of the elevator, a strong urine odor was apparent. Few wall decorations were evident through out the unit. In the Solarium, above the wall mounted television were three air vents that were discolored with black spots and lines of black that followed the louvers. Above the vents one of the ceiling tiles had an approximate 2 inch circle of black and gray with a encircling discoloration of a lighter tan. (Photographic evidence obtained) At 10:00 a.m. on 08/14/23, an observation of the first floor nourishment pantry was conducted. The cabinet in the pantry was noted to be constructed of particle board with many sides exposed, due to no laminate covering. The cold water tap situated to the right of the faucet was noted not to work, as it would spin when turned without activating the water. Inside of the bottom left cabinet, under the sink, on the floor of the cabinet was a stain of a reddish grainy looking material next to a squashed bug, with a can of insect spray half covered by plastic bags and other trash. To the right of the sink, a large trash can was noted abutting the refrigerator. The wall behind the trash can was broken with an area of approximately 18 x 4 at its widest part, which exposed the construction of the wall behind. It looked like the trash can had been jammed against the wall due to the trash can fitting into the broken wall space. Above the trash can were multiple holes where something had been hung on the wall. There was no towel dispenser in the pantry. Behind the trash can was a ceiling tile, and sheets of paper. On the other side of the refrigerator, against the wall, was a narrow space where various items had accumulated, including a long fluorescent light bulb, a long cord, and various other paper items. The wall at the floor junction, adjacent to the refrigerator, was noted to have no baseboard attached. The wall -floor junction, where the floor tile met the wall, was noted to have black debris in the crevice. A second visit to the first floor nourishment pantry was made on 08/15/23 beginning at 10:00 a.m. The nurse unit manager was in the pantry and when asked about the broken wall behind the trash can, she explained that staff are to tell maintenance when something needs to be fixed. The door to the bottom cupboard, to the left of the sink, was opened and the reddish grainy material on the floor of the cabinet and dead bug were still there. A staff member had placed a drink container on part of the bug. (Multiple photographs were obtained.) An interview with the housekeeper on the first floor, on 08/17/23 beginning at 10:35 a.m. revealed that the housekeepers were to sweep and mop the floor in the pantry and empty the trash daily. The floor was noted, at 10:40 a.m. on 08/17/2023, to have a spilled pink liquid in several spots. The corners and edges of the floor were noted to be stained a dark brown. At approximately 9:40 a.m. on 08/14/2023, a rattling noise was heard from inside room [ROOM NUMBER]. The door was mostly shut and after knocking, the surveyor entered the room. The rattling noise was coming from the air conditioning unit located under the window. There were no residents living in this room. A grievance had been filed, dated 8/08/23, asking for someone to look at the air conditioner. The grievance form indicated the resident would be temporarily moved from the room. Observation of the room on 08/14/2023 revealed one bed frame without a mattress, trash in the trash can and two medication cups on the floor where the second bed would be placed. The floor was soiled. To the left of the air conditioning unit, the wall was noted to be broken with a semi circle gap of approximately two inches above the baseboard. On the floor, next to this area was a dead bug. (Photographic evidence obtained.) On 08/14/2023 at 9:45 a.m. the baseboard behind the first bed in room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted not to be attached to the wall. There was a strong urine smell in the room. (Photographic evidence obtained.) In room [ROOM NUMBER], in the shared bathroom, the ceiling above the toilet was noted to be ripped open in a circular form approximately 5 across. (Photographic evidence obtained.) On 8/15/2023 beginning at 10:14 AM the following concerns were noted during an environmental tour of the first floor. In room [ROOM NUMBER], the nightstand handle was missing to the bottom drawer for bed B. The sink handle was missing. There was a strong urine smell in the bathroom. Ceiling tiles were sagging above bed A and there was no privacy curtain for bed A. In room [ROOM NUMBER] there was an unpainted drywall repair noted by bed A and in the bathroom. There was no pull cord for the overbed light for bed A. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the sink in the room was heavily patched with spackle, which was cracking and moldy in appearance as it was unpainted. The lightbulb above the sink was out. The sink in the bathroom was clogged. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the bulb was out above the sink. There had been a large repair above the toilet with the drywall compound remaining unsanded and unpainted. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the light bulb was out above the sink in the room. The trim at the air conditioning unit was peeling and the wall was broken above the baseboard, which was peeling away from the wall. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the air conditioner filter appeared dirty. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the sink handles were broken, the air conditioner filter was dirty and the wardrobe was missing a handle. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the air conditioner filter was dirty, the soap dispenser had been removed from the wall leaving an unpainted area where it had been attached, and there were multiple holes in the wall next to the toilet. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the lightbulb was out over the sink. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the hot water tap in the sink did not work, the wardrobe was missing a handle and the paint in the bathroom had an off color and appeared moldy. In room [ROOM NUMBER] the cold water tap did not work, the lightbulb above the sink was out and there were gnats through out the room.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident, family member and staff interviews, review of logs, pest service reports, grievance logs, and observations of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident, family member and staff interviews, review of logs, pest service reports, grievance logs, and observations of two dead and two live pests on the first floor of the facility, in resident rooms and in the nourishment pantry, the facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program. Findings included: During a tour of the first-floor resident rooms, common areas, and nourishment pantry, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on 08/14/2023, two dead bugs and one live bug were observed. (Photographic evidence obtained) Interviews with residents and one family member on 08/14/2023 from 9:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. confirmed they see bugs in their rooms and in the dining room. Resident # 10 was observed lying in bed with the television on. When asked about bug sightings she said yes, but mostly at night when you turn the lights on. She reported that she thought the bugs were why she felt so itchy. On 08/16/2023 at 11:00 a.m., Resident #11 was observed lying in her bed, on her left side facing the hall. As the resident was answering questions about herself, the surveyor asked about the missing baseboards in the room. When asked if she ever saw bugs, the resident answered yes, because there are no baseboards. An interview was conducted with a family member on 08/14/23 beginning at 12:30 p.m. who reported she visits her spouse three days a week. When asked if she ever sees bugs in the room, she pulled out a can of bug spray from her tote bag and said yes, and she brings her own spray. Resident # 12 was observed sitting up in bed on 08/15/2023 at 10:20 a.m. He confirmed that yes, he has seen bugs in his room. He reported that a guy came in to spray for bugs and told him that he might notice that the bugs start to move slower, which meant they had been exposed to his spray, and they were dying. Resident # 13, was questioned on 08/18/23 at 11:00 a.m. He confirmed he had submitted grievances about bugs in his room and yes, he still saw them. He denied noticing a guy spraying in his room for bugs. A review of the Grievance log revealed on 6/13/2023 Resident #13 reported Concern re: showers, pests, bed not working, w/c (wheelchair) broken. The Record of the resident grievance included the desired outcome as shower room sprayed - bed to work. Staff noted on the grievance form that pest control scheduled with the follow up dated 6/19/23. A review of the Pest Service log revealed on 6/14/23 the concern of roaches in the resident's room had been logged. A review of the Pest Prevention Service Report dated 6/14/2023 revealed a roach gel bait had been applied in another residents' room to get rid of roaches. Also, a dust was applied to reach areas to eliminate pest activity. A Pest Prevention Service Report dated 06/23/2023 was reviewed and noted to not include the repeat occurrence and sighting of pests in Resident #13's room. A review of a grievance filed for the resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/18/2023 revealed: I have been asking for 3 weeks for someone to spray his room for roaches and as I see nothing has been done. A note on the grievance form indicated the pest service had been contacted. The pest service log included an entry dated 6/24/23 for roaches - entire room. A review of the pest company's service log for the first-floor revealed roaches had been observed in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 6/11/23 and 6/24/23. On 06/23/2023 the Pest Prevention Service Report indicated the specific resident room had been treated with a roach gel bait and dust to eliminate any pest activity found within. The log also included a sighting of roaches in Resident # 13's room on 7/23/2023. There were no Pest Prevention Service Reports indicating a visit by the pest company had been provided after 06/23/2023. A review of the Service Logs provided by the Pest Control Company revealed a column to document whether the service had been completed. The log for the second floor included entries from 5/1/23 to 08/03/2023. Initials marked three entries as having service completed dated 5/1/23 for roaches in the nourishment room and in resident dressers in resident rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. A fourth entry was marked as having service completed on 6/14/23 indicated roaches were found in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Entries were not initialed as service completed on 7/23/2023 for rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] for roaches, 7/27/23 for black ants in the medical records office, 7/31/23 for ants in the bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER], for 8/2/23 for roaches in the elevator and on 8/3/23 for roaches in the nourishment room. The service log for the first floor included twelve entries dated 03/07/23 to 06/24/23. None of the entries were initialed as having had service completed. All twelve entries were for roaches and specific locations included the nurses' station, the shower room, the soiled utility room, and room [ROOM NUMBER]. A review of the visit reports revealed the Pest Company made three visits in January, two visits in February, March, April, and June and one visit in May and July. The report for 03/21/23 indicated logbooks were provided for both floors, but visit reports did not reflect that the logbooks were reviewed with service completed for those specific locations where bugs were sighted. At 10:00 a.m. on 08/14/23, an observation of the first-floor nourishment pantry was conducted. The cabinet in the pantry was noted to be constructed of particle board with many sides exposed, due to missing laminate covering. Inside of the bottom left cabinet, on the floor of the cabinet was the residual of a grainy, reddish substance noted next to a squashed bug. A second visit was made to the first-floor nourishment pantry on 08/15/23 beginning at 10:00 a.m. with the Unit Manager. The door to the bottom cupboard, to the left of the sink, was opened and the reddish grainy spill and dead bug were still there. A staff member had placed a drink container on part of the bug. The pest company's service log had no entries for pest sightings in the nourishment pantry on the first floor. At approximately 9:40 a.m. on 08/14/2023, room [ROOM NUMBER] was noted to have a dead bug next to the air conditioning unit. Next to the dead bug and wheels of the over bed table was a live bug scuttling around, disappearing under the loose baseboard and out again. During a tour of the first floor with the Administrator and Maintenance Staff on 08/17/23 beginning at 12:00 p.m. a small bug was noted to be crawling around near the baseboard of the hallway leading away from the elevator. The Administrator confirmed he was aware that the pest control was ineffective but reported the problem had gotten much better. In an interview with the Administrator on 08/15/2023 beginning at 1:20 p.m., he reported that the pest control company made visits monthly with visits more often if sightings were reported. He reported that the company began service in January with a full building sweep of both resident floors and the kitchen. When asked if the company was supposed to check the pest sighting logs and address the entered concerns, he reported he wasn't sure of their process.
Oct 2021 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 10/07/2021 at 12:27 p.m., dining was observed on the 100 unit. Resident #28 and Resident #33 were observed seated in their...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. On 10/07/2021 at 12:27 p.m., dining was observed on the 100 unit. Resident #28 and Resident #33 were observed seated in their wheelchairs near the nurses' station facing the dining room and had a clear view of other residents eating in the dining room through a glass window. There were seven residents in the dining room at that time eating lunch. Resident #28 was overheard asking staff how long she had to wait to eat. She then asked the surveyor how long she had to wait to eat because she had been waiting for hours. Staff L, CNA stated [Resident #28] eats in the dining room and must wait until the group that are in the dining room finishes their lunch. Resident #28 asked why she could not eat in her room. She again asked the surveyor how long she had to wait to eat. Staff O, CNA at 12:30 p.m. stated there were two seatings for dining. The residents that were not vaccinated sit by themselves. Staff L, CNA, at 12:31 p.m., stated she could take them (Residents #28 and #33) to their room to eat but did not escort them to their room at that time. Resident #28 stated to Staff l, CNA, I thought you were my friend. Where is my food? She (Resident #28) then stated, Are they finished? We are going to starve. Resident #28 asked Staff K, Activity Aide, at 12:32 p.m., if she could have lunch now. Staff K replied, Give me five minutes. Staff L, CNA then escorted both residents to their rooms. She immediately brought them back and stated maintenance was working on their room so they couldn't eat in the room. Resident #28 asked, Can I go outside to eat? She then asked if she could go to another room to eat. Staff L did not respond. There was one empty table near the entry/exit door of the dining room. Only one resident was eating at the table in the corner in the dining room at that time. Resident #28 stated she never had to wait that long to eat. She asked was there something going on that they had to make them wait. Resident #28 said the food was going to be ice cold and no good. Resident #28 asked at 12:37 p.m., Now can we go? They are making me so mad and I'm going to push the door in stated Resident #28. She then stated, I haven't gotten anything not even a drink. They keep coming out with trays and I don't have anything, stated Resident #28. By the time we get it, it is going to be cold. Then at 12:41 p.m., she stated we can't even get a drink. They are going to pay for this stated Resident #28. The resident asked a staff member walking by if they could go eat and the staff member walked by the resident and didn't say anything. The resident said they were going to make them die and they were doing that for spite. Resident #28 said when she got her food, she was going to throw it on the floor. Is it time now, asked Resident #28. at 12:44 p.m. and Staff I, CNA, stated it's coming. The resident stated she was angry, and she was going to get up and go in the dining room. Staff M, Patient Care Assistant (PCA), stated you are about to eat in two minutes my goodness. The resident kept asking was it their turn now. She stated she had a headache and really doesn't get headaches. Then at 12:47 p.m., Staff N, Registered Nurse (RN), escorted both residents into the dining room to a table and stated we can go in now. Then at 12:51 p.m., staff started bringing in the lunch trays. Resident #28, at 12:55 p.m., received her tray and at 12:56 p.m., Resident #33 received his tray. Both residents were observed eating their meal independently. A review of the list of vaccinated residents showed both Resident #33 and Resident #28 were vaccinated. A record review of the Resident Face Sheet for Resident #28 indicated she was admitted into the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of hypothyroidism. Section C Cognitive Patterns of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 05 out of 15 indicating severe impairment. Section G Functional Status of the MDS indicated the resident was independent with eating and needed set up help only. The care plan related to nutritional status with a start date of 07/21/21 included but was not limited to the following interventions: assist as needed with setup, positioning, encouragement, cueing and feeding as needed and honor any food requests as available. A record review of the Resident Face Sheet for Resident #33 indicated he was admitted into the facility on [DATE] with an admitting diagnosis of unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance. Section C Cognitive Patterns of the MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 06 out of 15 indicating severe impairment. Section G Functional Status of the MDS indicated the resident was independent with eating and needed set up help only. The care plan related to nutritional status with a start date of 07/21/21 included but was not limited to the following intervention: assist with setup, positioning, encouragement, cueing and feeding as needed. In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 10/8/21 at 5:32 p.m. she stated they (Staff) could have offered her (#28) a snack or redirected her. Based on observations, record review and staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to maintain and promote resident dignity for six residents (#150, #19, #94, #32, #33 and #28) related to: 1. Resident #150 was left with a large wrist band on his wrist that read, FALL RISK, 2. Staff ( A, D, and F) were observed talking on their electronic phone devices while providing care and services to four residents (#19, #94, #150, and #37), and 3. The facility failed to assist two residents (#33 and #28) timely during meal service for lunch, of a total of forty-four sampled residents during four of four days observed (10/5/2021, 10/6/2021, 10/7/2021, and 10/8/2021). Findings included: 1. On 10/5/2021 at 10:00 a.m. Resident #150 was observed in his room grimacing with a wash basin lined with paper towels at his side. The resident said he didn't feel well and that he was sick. He said he was admitted to the facility for about five days now. Resident #150 was observed with a yellow wrist band on his right wrist that read, FALL RISK. He did not know what the band was for. On 10/6/2021 at 7:45 a.m. and 8:20 a.m. Resident #150 was observed in his room lying in bed and observed with the FALL RISK wrist band on. He was observed watching television and was not presenting with any behaviors, pain or discomfort. On 10/6/2021 at 1:10 p.m. Resident #150 was observed in his room lying upright in bed was observed with the yellow FALL RISK band on his right wrist. He again indicated he did not know why he has that band on his wrist and does not like it. He said he believed he told a nurse or an aide a few days about it but they did not remove it. On 10/7/2021 during observations in Resident #150's room at 7:30 a.m., 10:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and at 2:00 p.m. he was observed with the same yellow FALL RISK band on his right wrist. On 10/8/2021 at 7:20 a.m., 8:40 a.m. Resident #150 was observed lying in bed and either eating his breakfast meal or watching television. He was again observed with the yellow wrist band that read, FALL RISK. He revealed he was not sure why he has this (wrist band) on and he has not had any falls and believes he is not at risk. He has tried to take it off but indicated it won't come off. He has asked staff repeatedly since his admission to have it removed and nobody has attempted to remove it. Review of Resident #150's medical record revealed he had been recently admitted from the hospital on 9/30/2021. Review of the current diagnosis sheet did not indicate Resident #150 was admitted with risk for falls or with recent falls. On 10/8/2021 at 10:18 a.m. an interview with Staff G, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) revealed she had Resident #150 on her assignment today and has had him once before since his admission. She revealed she was from agency staffing and floats all over the facility. She was unaware of why Resident #150 still had his FALL RISK yellow band on his wrist and indicated those usually come with the resident when they are discharged from the hospital. She revealed he has been here about a week and perhaps the band should have been cut off when admitted . On 10/8/2021 at 10:24 a.m. an interview with Staff F, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) confirmed that usually when returning or admitted from the hospital, if a resident has that band on, it was usually removed upon their admission. On 10/8/2021 at 1:45 p.m. an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed when a resident is admitted to the facility from the hospital and is wearing a wrist band, to include a FALL RISK band, it should be removed the day of their admission to the facility. She confirmed they have facility assessments and care plans that would identify the resident as fall risk and would not need to wear a band to identify that. She confirmed the resident's dignity should be maintained by not wearing signage like that on their person. 2. On 10/5/2021 at 10:10 a.m. Staff A, CNA was observed wearing a white plastic electronic phone ear bud device in her right ear. She was observed walking up and down the 200 hallway and going into various rooms providing care and services to residents. She was observed talking to someone on her electronic phone ear bud device. She was then observed at the nurses' station, charting and still talking to someone on this device. On 10/6/2021 at 9:45 a.m. Staff A, CNA was observed in the 200 hallway walking by herself and going in and out of resident rooms. During that time, she was observed talking with no one around her to communicate with. Further observations revealed she was again wearing an electronic phone ear bud device in her right ear and was talking and communicating with it. At 10:20 a.m. she was again observed pushing a resident (#19) while in her wheelchair and talking using the same device. Further observation revealed she was not talking to the resident, but rather talking and communicating with the device. In an interview at this time Resident #19 revealed she was not aware the staff member (A) was talking to her and she knew she was talking to someone, but there was no one around. Resident #19 also confirmed that staff talk on phones to other people all the time. On 10/6/2021 at 12:50 p.m. Staff F, LPN was observed in the 100 unit going in and out of resident rooms and assisting with care. He was further observed wearing an electronic phone device in his right ear. He was observed wearing this device throughout the entire shift. Also, he was observed speaking and communicating with this device while preparing medications. On 10/6/2021 from 7:20 a.m. through to 2:00 p.m. Staff A, CNA, and Staff D, Restorative Aide were observed on their respective halls/units, providing care and services to residents and walking up and down hallways and going in and out of resident rooms and all with wearing their electronic phone ear bud devices in their ears. Staff A, CNA and D, Restorative Aide were observed talking on their devices several times while out in the hallways and going and out of resident rooms. On 10/8/2021 Staff A, CNA at 10:40 a.m. was observed assisting a resident down the hallway, through the main dining room and to the porch area. Staff A was observed wearing the electronic phone ear bud device in her right ear. She was also observed utilizing it and communicating with someone other than the resident who she was with. On 10/8/2021 at 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. random interviews with Residents #19, #94, #150, and #37, all confirmed staff have phones with them at all times and they have been observed talking on them during all times of the day and night including when they are in resident rooms assisting with care and services. The residents further confirmed that staff are sneaky and have ear plugs, ear devices that are hidden, but they can see them and have seen staff use them all the time. Residents #150 and #37 both indicated that they have recently (date unknown) told staff, to include Staff A, CNA and Staff C, Restorative Aide that it was rude to talk on the phone when assisting them while in their room. They have spoken to supervisors but there has not been any change. The following record review was obtained for Residents #19, #94, and #37. Review of Resident #19's medical record revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the current Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly assessment, dated 7/8/2021, revealed in Section C Cognitive Patterns a BIMS score of 15 of 15, which indicated the resident was able to answer questions related to her care and services. Review of Resident #94's medical record revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the current MDS Quarterly assessment, dated 9/17/2021 revealed in Section C Cognitive Patterns a BIMS score of 13 of 15, which indicated the resident was able to answer questions related to his care and services. Review of Resident #37's medical record revealed she admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of the current MDS admission assessment, dated 7/27/2021, revealed in Section C Cognitive Patterns a BIMS score of 14 of 15, which indicated the resident was able to answer questions related to her care and services. On 10/8/20221 at 1:15 p.m. an interview was conducted with the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) with regards to staff and their personal phone devices. The Nursing Home Administrator revealed they have a no use of personal phone devices policy when in the building and certainly when on the floor and providing care and services. He was not sure what type of education was provided to Agency staff, but he believes they receive the same education as their own in house staff. The Nursing Home Administrator at 1:32 p.m. provided their personnel/employee guide, which is provided to their staff upon orientation for review. The guide was not dated, but current as per interview with the NHA. The section titled, Cell Phones revealed: The use of cellular telephone on the premises is permitted only in your parked car in the parking lot or in the event of an emergency. While on duty, cell phones may be carried on your person in the off position and used for emergency medical aid only. Employees may use cell phones or walkie-talkies on the course when necessary to perform their duties but not for personal reasons. It is expressly prohibited to use your phone or any type of electronic device to record (audio or video) at any time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to implement the care plan for one (#43) out of twenty...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to implement the care plan for one (#43) out of twenty-two sampled residents that resided on the secured unit related to assessing the skin condition on a weekly basis. Findings included: Resident #43 was observed on 10/6/21 at 8:51 a.m. in the facility's secured unit's dining room. The resident was sitting in a wheelchair with a dirty surgical mask hanging from its handle. Resident #43 was observed on 10/8/21 at 8:20 a.m., sitting in the secured unit's dining room. The resident's hair was bushy and the resident's general appearance was unkept. The Resident Face Sheet for Resident #43 indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE] and included diagnoses not limited to Type 2 diabetes mellitus with ketoacidosis without coma, age-related cognitive decline, and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting left non-dominant side. The care plan, initiated on 9/18/19, for Resident #43 indicated the resident was at risk for skin breakdown related to impaired mobility, episode of bowel/bladder incontinence, diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus (DM). Stage 3 pressure ulcer to left heel, arterial ulcer to right heel. The staff approaches for this problem included: weekly skin checks by licensed nurse and to notify MD (medical doctor) if indicated for new skin breakdown issues. The care plan, initiated on 10/27/18, identified that Resident #43 required extensive to total assistance with mobility, transfer, locomotion, toileting, personal hygiene/grooming r/t (related to) weakness, complex diagnosis. The approach instructed staff to offer and encourage assistance with bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, dressing, eating, toileting, personal hygiene, and bathing as needed, encourage to participate in task. A long-term goal was that Resident #43 would have no s/s (signs/symptoms) of urinary tract infection and be free of skin breakdown r/t incontinence through the NRD (next review date) as the resident had episodes of bowel and bladder incontinence and ADL (Activities of Daily Living) deficits. The Physician Order Report from 9/8/21 to 10/8/21, provided by the facility, did not include an order for weekly skin assessment. A review of the September and October 2021 Treatment Administration Records (TAR) indicated staff were to assess Resident #43's skin once a day on Monday and to document under weekly skin inspections under Observations. This treatment began on 8/10/21 and was without a stop date. The September TAR indicated a skin assessment was completed on 9/6, 9/13, 9/20, and 9/27. The October TAR identified that a skin assessment was completed on 10/4/21. A review of the most recent 8 observations for Resident #43 indicated that the last Weekly Skin Inspection was completed on 8/12/21. The Weekly Skin Inspection completed on 8/12/21 was the last observation, of any type. A review of the 20 most recent progress notes indicated Resident #43 was seen by wound MD weekly regarding bilateral arterial heel wounds. The progress notes indicated on 9/16/21 the resident continued on an antibiotic for skin rash, on 9/3/21 Dermatology was in the facility to visit the resident, and on 8/24/21 the resident was noted to have left great toenail peeled back. The progress notes did not describe the skin rash that was being treated. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated Resident #43 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00 indicative of severe cognition impairment. The MDS indicated Resident #43 required extensive physical assistance from two persons for bathing, personal hygiene, toilet use, and transferring. A review of Resident #43's September Behavior Monitoring indicated the resident had rejected care on 9/11/21. A review of the resident's October Behavior Monitoring did not indicate that the resident had rejected care. The review of the resident's 20 most recent progress notes, dated 8/21/21 to 10/1/21, indicated that on 9/30/21 a Social Services note revealed the resident could be resistive with care at times, on 8/24/21 a Social Services note indicated the resident had increased verbal outbursts, and a Registered Nurse, on 8/24/21, identified the resident was seen by psych Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. During an interview, on 10/8/21 at 5:05 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that all residents get a skin assessment weekly. She confirmed the last skin assessment for Resident #43 was completed on 8/12/21. She reviewed the TAR and confirmed that staff had documented that a skin assessment was completed then stated, maybe they did a progress note. She reviewed the progress notes and stated it should be documented if the resident refused. The DON stated her expectation was the refusal to be documented and for the nurse to reapproach the resident. The facility's Supporting Activities of Daily Living (ADL) policy, revised March 2018, identified that, Residents will be provided with care, treatment, and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs). The policy identified that Appropriate care and services will be provided for residents who are unable to carry out ADLS 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, and oral care). The policy instructed, If residents with cognitive impairment or dementia resist care, staff will attempt to identify the underlying cause of the problem and not just assume the resident is refusing or declining care. Approaching the resident in a different way or at a different time, of having another staff member speak with the resident may be appropriate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to provide adequate supervision of three residents (#21, #29 and #45) with a mechanically-altered diet and who have behavioral...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record reviews, and interviews the facility failed to provide adequate supervision of three residents (#21, #29 and #45) with a mechanically-altered diet and who have behavioral and/or cognition issues out of 22 residents residing a secured unit. Findings included: 1. An observation was conducted, at 8:32 a.m. on 10/8/21, of Resident #21 sitting next to her bed with an over-the-bed table near the door, on the table was a meal tray with a covered cup of orange-colored liquid and a covered plate. Staff I, Certified Nursing Assistant (CAN) entered the room next to Resident #21's, and removed Resident #29 from the room, and placed the resident in the hallway. Resident #29 propelled himself to the doorway of Resident #21's room and moments later was observed drinking a cup of orange-colored liquid, which was not observed in his possession when the staff member removed him from the other room. The cup, previously observed on Resident #21's tray, was not on the tray and the lid was lying next to the covered plate. Staff I removed Resident #29 from the doorway, into the hallway, then began to walk away. The staff member confirmed Resident #29 probably shouldn't have the juice. As the staff member removed the cup from Resident #29's grasp it was observed to be a thin consistency. A review of Resident #21's diet orders indicated the resident was to receive a mechanically-altered diet with thin liquids in addition to liquid nutrition through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube. A review of Resident #29's physician orders for September 8, 2021 to October 8, 2021 indicated the resident was to receive a mechanical soft diet with honey thick liquids, with pureed meats and pureed rice. Staff Q, CNA was observed, on 10/8/21 at 12:35 p.m., with a hydration cart in the hallway of the secured unit. She stated there were no drinks on the meal trays and it was a new process the facility was trying. She stated she was passing liquids after the meals because if the residents see the liquids on the tray, they tend to leave it and this way she can make sure they're getting their drinks. The Nursing Home Administrator stated, at 1:03 p.m. on 10/8/21, the staff member had removed the liquid from Resident #29. He stated the facility will lock all beverages in the hydration cart and residents with mechanically altered diets would now be brought upstairs to the dining room and would not have access to each other liquids. 2. On 10/8/21 at 12:40 p.m., Resident #45 was observed sitting on the edge of his bed, in a room at the far end of the secured unit, drinking a cup of liquid, no other items were observed on the over-the-bed table in front of the resident. Resident #45 was observed, at 12:48 p.m. on 10/8/21, ambulating from the opposite end of the unit to his room eating a bread roll. Resident #45 and the bread roll were brought to the attention of the Risk Manager, which she removed from the resident's possession. The Director of Nursing stated, at 5:30 p.m. on 10/8/2021, that she felt the issue regarding dining was that it was a dementia unit and the residents wander. The facility assessment indicated that recruitment and retention of licensed and non-licensed nursing staff is an on-going concern and is frequently cited by staff and leadership as a major obstacle to providing consistent, top quality care, and the biggest barrier to meeting resident needs in a timely way. Examples include length of time to answer call lights, meal pass and assistance to eat, and medication pass.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% related...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5% related to four errors in twenty five opportunities for one resident (#17) out of seven residents sampled, resulting in a 16% medication error rate. Findings included: On 10/07/21 at 10:42 a.m. during a medication administration observation with Staff Q, Registered Nurse (RN) the following medication Resident #17 was given at 10:42 a.m., but due at 8:00 a.m.: Midodrine 5 mg (milligram) In addition the following medications were given at 10:42 a.m., but due at 9:00 a.m.: Memantine 10 mg and Iron 325 mg. The following medication on the Resident #17's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October 2021 was due at 9:00 a.m., but not given to the resident: MVI with MIN (Multivitamin with Minerals). Review of Resident #17's medical record revealed no documentation in the resident's progress notes about the medications being late. The only notation documented was found in the October 2021 MAR about the MVI with MIN not being available, and not being given. There was no order from the physician indicating that it was ok not to give the medication, or ok to give the other medications late. A review of the Resident Face Sheet revealed Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for a diagnosis of dementia. The resident had physician orders from September 8, 2021, to October 8, 2021, that included: *MVI with MIN 1 tab by mouth daily once a day 09:00AM *Memantine tablet 10 mg by mouth twice daily for dementia without behavioral disturbance twice a day 09:00 AM, 05:00 PM *Iron (Ferrous sulfate) tablet 325 mg (65 mg iron) once a day 09:00AM *Midodrine tablet 5 mg give 5 mg by mouth daily three times a day 08:00AM 01:00PM, 06:00PM. Review of a policy titled, Administering Medications, with a revised date of April 2019, showed under the Policy Interpretation and Implementation section, #4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame . #7. Medications are administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified (for example, before and after meal orders). In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/08/21 at 6:00 p.m., she said it was her expectation that medications are to be given on time, which is one hour before and one hour after their scheduled time. If a nurse is running behind, she expects them to speak up, communicate, and ask for assistance. If a medication is given late or not at all, the physician should be notified, and it should be documented in the chart. If a medication is an over the counter (OTC) medication, then it should be available in either one of the two medication storage rooms (one on each floor of the facility). If it is not available in either medication storage room, staff is to look and see if central supply has them. If the medication is not available in the building, then we can go to the local pharmacy and get it, there is no reason an OTC medication shouldn't be given.
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement an effective ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, record reviews, and review of facility policy, the facility failed to implement an effective Quality Assurance/Performance Improvement plan of action to correct a deficiency cited during the annual recertification survey on 10/08/2021. The facility failed to ensure a medication administration error rate below 5%. A total of 12 administration opportunities were observed with 2 errors for 2 (Resident #4 and Resident #5) of 4 residents observed for medication administration, resulting in a medications administration error rate of 16.7%. Findings included: A review of the facility policy titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program - Analysis and Action, dated March 2020, revealed under the section titled Policy Interpretation and Implementation that the QAPI committee is responsible for analyzing identified problems, establishing corrective actions, measuring progress against the established goals and benchmarks, communicating information to staff and residents, and reporting findings to the Administrator and governing board. A review of Resident #4's Medical Record revealed that Resident #4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. A review of Resident #4's Physician's Orders revealed the following order: - Insulin Aspart solution 100 units per milliliter (ml) to be administered subcutaneously three times a day before meals per sliding scale: If Blood Sugar is 181 to 220, give 5 units. A review of Resident #4's Care Plan revealed a problem, dated 12/06/2021, that Resident #4 had a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and was at risk for complications. Interventions included to administer medications as ordered and to evaluate, record, and report for any adverse side effects and effectiveness. An observation of medication administration was conducted on 12/09/2021 at 11:27 AM with Staff A, Agency Registered Nurse (RN). Staff A, RN prepared 5 units of Insulin Aspart solution 100 units per ml to be administered subcutaneously by FlexPen based on Resident #4's blood glucose reading of 220. Staff A, RN gathered Resident #4's Insulin Aspart FlexPen, a disposable needle, and an alcohol pad from the medication cart. Staff A, RN cleaned the tip of the Insulin Aspart FlexPen with the alcohol pad before attaching the disposable needle to the tip of the FlexPen. Staff A, RN then dialed 5 units on the dosage selector of the FlexPen and brought the FlexPen and an additional alcohol pad into Resident #4's room for administration. Staff A, RN did not prime the disposable needle of the FlexPen with insulin before dialing 5 units on the dosage selector. Staff A, RN cleaned Resident #4's lower left quadrant with the alcohol pad and administered the Insulin Aspart subcutaneously without difficulty. A follow up interview was conducted with Staff A, RN following the observation. Staff A, RN stated that she was not aware that FlexPens needed to be primed with insulin before administration. Staff A, RN also stated that she did not receive education related to insulin pens and addressed that if the needle was not primed prior to administration then the resident may not receive the proper dose of insulin. A review of Resident #5's Medical Record revealed that Resident #5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. A review of Resident #5's Physician's Orders revealed the following order: - Insulin Aspart solution 100 units per ml to be administered subcutaneously four times a day (06:30 AM, 11:30 AM, 04:30 PM, and 09:00 PM) by sliding scale: If Blood Sugar is 201 to 250, give 4 units. An observation of medication administration was conducted on 12/09/2021 at 11:45 AM with Staff B, Agency RN. Staff B, RN prepared 4 units of Insulin Aspart solution 100 units per ml to be administered subcutaneously by FlexPen based on Resident #5's blood glucose reading of 210. Staff B, RN gathered Resident #5's Insulin Aspart FlexPen, a disposable needle, and an alcohol pad from the medication cart. Staff B, RN cleaned the tip of the Insulin Aspart FlexPen with the alcohol pad before attaching the disposable needle to the tip of the FlexPen. Staff B, RN then dialed 4 units on the dosage selector of the FlexPen and brought the FlexPen and an additional alcohol pad into Resident #5's room for administration. Staff B, RN did not prime the disposable needle of the FlexPen with insulin before dialing 4 units on the dosage selector. Staff B, RN cleaned Resident #5's right upper extremity with the alcohol pad and administered the Insulin Aspart subcutaneously without difficulty. A follow up interview was conducted with Staff B, RN following the observation. Staff B, RN stated that she was not aware that FlexPens needed to be primed with insulin before administration. Staff B, RN also stated that she did not receive education related to insulin pens and the necessity of priming the needle before administration. An telephone interview was conducted on 12/09/2021 at 03:18 PM with the facility's Consultant Pharmacist. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that she provided documents to the facility to assist the facility in conducting medication administration audits and had worked with the facility's Director of Nursing (DON) things to watch for during the audits, such as timeliness of the administration and proper documentation. The Consultant Pharmacist also stated that she did not recall discussing use of insulin pens as part of the plan of corrections. The Consultant Pharmacist stated that nursing staff should be priming insulin pens by applying the needle to the pen, adjusting the dosage selector to 2 units, and injecting 2 units of insulin into the needle before dialing up the dosage needed for administration. The Consultant Pharmacist also stated that a resident could potentially not receive the correct dose if the needle was not primed prior to administration. An interview was conducted on 12/09/2021 at 04:09 PM with the facility's DON and Risk Manager (RM). The RM stated that the initial issue that the facility was correcting was related to documentation and medications being administered late. Medication administration times were adjusted in order to give the nursing staff a larger window to administer them. The DON stated that education related to medication errors was provided to facility staff by a third party and that all agency staff were educated as part of their orientation. The DON and RM stated that facility Agency staff were not educated specifically on the use of insulin pens and the need to prime the insulin pen needle before administering insulin. The DON stated that insulin pens required priming of the needle with 2 units of insulin prior to administration to ensure that there was no air in the needle of the pen. The RM stated that the facility may need to conduct more education with their staff to ensure that staff knows how to properly use the insulin pens. A review of the facility policy titled Insulin Administration, last revised in September 2014, revealed under the section titled Preparation, that the nursing staff will have access to specific instructions (from the manufacturer if appropriate) on all forms of insulin delivery system(s) prior to their use. A review of facility pharmacy guidelines titled Guidance for Using Insulin Products, dated August 2018, revealed under the section titled Preparation of Product, to minimize air bubbles in pen-like devices prime the pen prior to each and every injection by pushing 2 units into the air until a drop of insulin is seen at the top of the needle. If this does not happen after 4 attempts, change needles. The guidelines also revealed that air bubbles themselves are not considered dangerous but could result in a decrease in the dose administered. A review of the manufacturers instructions for the Novolog (insulin aspart) FlexPen indicated the following steps under the section titled Priming your Novolog FlexTouch Pen: - Turn the dose selector to select 2 units. - Hold the Pen with the needle pointing up. Tap the top of the Pen gently a few times to let any air bubbles rise to the top. - Hold the Pen with the needle pointing up. Press and hold in the dose button until the dose counter shows 0. The 0 must line up with the dose pointer. - A drop of insulin should be seen at the needle tip. If you do not see a drop of insulin, repeat the steps no more than 6 times. If you still do not see a drop, change the needle.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain and effective pest control program control pests for one un...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews the facility failed to maintain and effective pest control program control pests for one unit (secured) of two units where vulnerable residents resided. Findings included: A tour of the secured unit of the facility was conducted, on 10/5/21 at 11:14 a.m., a small legged insect was observed scurrying along the baseboard in room [ROOM NUMBER]. The insect was able to disappear in a space between the baseboard and the tiled floor. (Photographic Evidence was Obtained) On 10/5/21 at 12:30 p.m., a flying insect was observed crawling on a sock of a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. During a tour of the facility's secured unit with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Risk Manager (RM), which began at 9:41 a.m. on 10/7/21, a large legged insect lying on its back with legs waving in the air was observed next to a decayed wardrobe in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident #84 stated, while lying in the bed closest to the wardrobe, Oh we have roaches in here. The management staff acknowledged the insect and the DON removed it. Multiple requests were made to the Maintenance Director and the DON for the maintenance work orders, these orders were not received by the exit date (10/8/21) of the survey team. The Maintenance Director did provide Pest Control Vendor statements. The vendor statements included the following findings: - 9/28/21: Treated rooms 204, 208, 213, 115, and 113 and Activity - Live, American roaches. The statement read, If you experience pest issues between scheduled visits, we will come back and address the problem at no additional charge. - 8/30/21: Activity seen on second floor. The policy titled, Pest Control, with a revised date of 5/2008, identified the Facility shall maintain an effective pest control program, and the pest control program was to ensure the building was kept free of insects and rodents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 10/05/21 at 9:45 a.m., the baseboard was observed missing throughout the room in room [ROOM NUMBER] (Photographic Evidence...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. On 10/05/21 at 9:45 a.m., the baseboard was observed missing throughout the room in room [ROOM NUMBER] (Photographic Evidence Obtained). On 10/07/21 at 10:18 a.m., the baseboard was observed missing in room [ROOM NUMBER] near the hand washing sink (Photographic Evidence Obtained). The policy titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Environmental Surfaces, revised August 2019, indicated that Environmental surfaces will be cleaned and disinfected according to current CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations for disinfection of healthcare facilities and the OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The policy identified furniture as non-critical items and would be disinfected with an EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]-registered intermediate or low-level hospital disinfectant. Housekeeping surfaces would be cleaned on a regular basis, when spills occur, and when these surfaces were visibly soiled. The policy indicated environmental surfaces would be disinfected (or cleaned) on a regular basis and when the surfaces were visibly soiled and walls, blinds, and window curtains in resident areas would be cleaned when those surfaces were visibly contaminated or soiled. The Maintenance Service policy, revised December 2009, identified Maintenance service shall be provided to all areas of the building, grounds, and equipment. The policy indicated the Maintenance Department was responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times. The functions of the maintenance personnel included maintaining the building in good repair and free from hazards. Based on observations, policy reviews, and interviews the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment on one unit (first secured floor) out of two units affecting eight resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], #104, #106, #101, #111, #109, #108, #113, and #121) and three common areas (hallway, dining room and activity porch) for four of four days. Findings included. 1. During tours of the facility's secured unit located on the first floor the following observations were identified: - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/5/21 at 10:01 a.m., an observation indicated the top of the wardrobe leaned towards the back with a television on top of it and below the towel dispenser next to the room's sink was an unpainted area with holes. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - Hallway between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER]: The observation on 10/5/21 at 10:13 a.m., revealed a missing baseboard in the hallway between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. The area contained unprotected paper-backed wallboard. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/5/21 at 10:18 a.m., an observation indicated a coaxial cable stored in between the wall and the dresser (there was no television in the area), in the corner next to the wardrobe was an unconnected coaxial cable hanging from the ceiling onto the floor, both of the air conditioning filters were filled with lint and dust, five holes were observed next to the sink in the resident room below the towel dispenser, and a hole was observed in the wall next to the bathroom door with an attached baseboard. The hole extended through the wall and into the bathroom. The observation indicated that in the bathroom shared by rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] revealed water damage in the ceiling over the toilet.(Photographic Evidence Obtained) - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/5/21 at 10:10 a.m., an unpainted area with five holes was observed under the towel dispenser next to the room's sink. A continued observation of room [ROOM NUMBER], at 10:36 a.m., identified brown discoloration of white tiles around the tile in the bathroom with a urinal and graduated container, a hole in the plaster and paint next to the sink in the bathroom, and the front of the air condition (AC) unit was splattered with a brownish-black substance. An observation on 10/6/21 at 9:51 a.m., revealed the front of the AC unit continued to be splattered with a substance, and holes in the bathroom wall. - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/5/21 at 10:44 a.m., during a tour revealed a hole in the bedroom wall next to the bathroom door with chipped paint and wallboard, five screw holes below the towel dispenser and next to the rooms sink, the air conditioning unit electrical cord was not plugged in and lying in front of the wardrobe, and the cleanable plastic trim of both beds was not intact and completely missing from the footboard of the bed next to the window, and partially missing from the bed next to the door. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - Dining Room of secured unit: On 10/5/21 at 10:51 a.m., an observation revealed one of four air vent coverings was missing leaving a whole in the wall. On 10/7/21, at approximately 9:30 a.m., an observation indicated three of four of the dining tables indicated the four tubular metal legs on each did not have end caps leaving exposed edges and black paint had been worn off leaving the gold colored metal exposed. - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/5/21 at 11:14 a.m., an observation indicated that a plastic drawer system was next to the single wardrobe. The drawer system was missing the top drawer with the posts intact, the air conditioning unit was missing its control knobs and had a broken vent, the air filters of the unit were dirty with lint and ripped, the framing of the one window in the room had a hole, which showed building materials underneath, and in the bathroom shared with another room the soap dispenser was sitting on top of the towel dispenser and an area next to the sink was unpainted with holes. - On 10/5/21 at 11:55 a.m., an observation revealed that seven air vents in the hallways of the unit were white with a black biofilm growth in various degrees and a vent near the floor in the area near the elevator was rusty and dusty with a bit of plastic trash attached to it. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/5/21 at 12:00 p.m., an observation indicated the top of the resident's wardrobe was leaning backwards and the bottom of the wardrobe was decayed leaving wood particles on the floor. On 10/07/21 at 8:54 a.m., an observation indicated the wardrobe in room [ROOM NUMBER] continued to be leaning backwards. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - Shower room: On 10/5/21 at 1:34 p.m., an observation of the first floor shower room indicated a shower chair in the shower area had a safety belt that was dirty-looking with a black substance near the buckles. The joints of the chair were colored with a yellow substance. The drain in an area of the shower room used to store mechanical lifts and housekeeping equipment had dried hair and litter collected on it. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/6/21 at 8:55 a.m., one of two wardrobes was noted to have a discolored particle board bottom and the bottom of the second wardrobe was splitting away from the bottom, leaving wood particles on the floor. In the shared bathroom of room [ROOM NUMBER] was a gouge in the wall next to the toilet revealing the paper backing of the wall. On 10/8/21 at 8:30 a.m. the wardrobe in room [ROOM NUMBER] with the decayed bottom continued to be in the resident room. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - room [ROOM NUMBER]: On 10/6/21 at 9:02 a.m., an observation of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a window frame with cracks, holes, and discoloration. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) - Activity Porch: On 10/7/21 at 9:11 a.m., an observation indicated a wooden glider chair holding the door into the dining room entry door open. The chair had a ripped cream cushion with a black dried substance on the corner of the seat cushion and other stains of unknown substances on it. The observation indicated the ceiling above the entry door appeared to be cracked and bubbled and the metal door frame, behind the door if opened, had two holes which were peeled back and rusty. - Hallway: On 10/7/21 at 1:56 p.m., the corner handrail across from the shower room of the secured unit was observed to be broken with a hole. In addition the following observations were made on the secured unit: - On 10/5/21 at 11:00 a.m., an observation of the first floor unit revealed ten out of ten mesh stop sign door barriers in various stages of disrepair and dirty: room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was stained and visually dirty, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was stained, with a hole, and stuffed behind the handrail, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was ripped with stains and shoved behind the handrail, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was stained and wrapped around the handrail, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was dirty and hung behind the handrail, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was ripped with holes and stained, room [ROOM NUMBER]'s was stained and visually dirty, Rooms 121's and 125's barriers were stained, and room [ROOM NUMBER]'s barrier was seen stuffed behind the handrail with the edging hanging from it. (Photographic Evidence Obtained) The Housekeeping Director was observed on 10/6/21 at 8:32 a.m., standing on a ladder across from the secured unit's elevator, cleaning the ceiling air vent. She stated that this one sweats due to a nearby entrance door, which caused the black biofilm growth. She stated the air vents get cleaned every week or eight days. The Housekeeping Director stated she did not know when the top of the vents were cleaned and did not know why the other vents were dirty (bio growth). On 10/6/21 at 9:00 a.m., the Risk Manager (RM) was observed cutting away the mesh STOP signs. She stated she thought that staff wiped them down and the reason for taking them down was that they were no longer necessary for the residents residing in the room. The RM confirmed the signs did appear dirty and the ripped one in front of room [ROOM NUMBER] had been ripped for a while. She stated the residents who wandered destroyed them as they pulled the signs from the brackets. The Housekeeping Director stated, at 9:22 a.m. on 10/6/21, that her team wiped the STOP signs down but they only got laundered if they were brought to the laundry area. On 10/7/21 at 9:18 a.m., Staff K, Activity Aide, stated maintenance cleaned the chairs (on the activity porch) but did not know how often they were cleaned. She watched as Resident #45 sat down in the glider chair on the activity porch and confirmed the chair was not cleaned. She stated she was going to have the chair removed from the porch. Staff P, Housekeeper came out to the activity porch and began cleaning the glider chair, she stated the chairs were cleaned every day and the problem was the mildew. A tour of the secured unit was conducted, on 10/7/21 at 9:41 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the shower room needed to be cleaned by the aides after each use and during Angel Rounds she looked into each resident room on the unit. The Risk Manager (RM) joined, at 9:44 a.m., during the tour of the unit. The RM observed the wardrobe in room [ROOM NUMBER] and stated the wardrobe bottom was not cleanable. The DON and RM agreed the unused coaxial cable hanging from the resident room walls could be hazards. The DON viewed all resident rooms with concerns and stated the Maintenance Director was only one person and he was working on replacing the baseboards. She admitted to a sour smell in rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. The RM explained the holes under the towel dispensers were made as the dispensers were moved to their current spaces. The DON stated she had informed housekeeping to wipe down the stop signs when they were cleaning high touch areas and confirmed the signs were torn prior to be taken down. The DON confirmed the exposed particle board on the residents' beds was not cleanable and could be an issue with residents going in and out of other rooms. She confirmed the legs of three out of four tables in the dining room were opened and uncapped and the residents fragile skin could be torn by the table legs. During a tour of the activity porch with the DON, she made note of the water damage above the door and confirmed the door frame was rusty metal. The DON stated the Maintenance Director was the only one at the facility and was trying to do what he could. She stated that some of the issues had been identified during the last Quality Assurance meeting and admitted that the decayed wardrobes were a hazard and should have been replaced when they were identified. On 10/7/21 at 4:14 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (who had viewed the leaning wardrobe in room [ROOM NUMBER] during the tour with the DON) confirmed the facility had issues with the wardrobes. On 10/8/21 at 12:24 p.m., a sour and musty smell was noted in the hallway of the secured unit. The facility provided copies of a calendar that indicated when air vents were cleaned but it did not indicate if all vents were cleaned. The September 2021 calendar was not provided and the August 2021 calendar indicated the last cleaning of the air vents was done on August 31st. The DON provided the Guardian Angel Visit tool. The tool identified that staff were to make environmental observations that included if the closets were clean and orderly, equipment was clean and labeled, if furniture was in good repair, and if handrails were in good repair.
Nov 2019 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of policy and procedures the facility failed to investigate the grievance for one (#...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and review of policy and procedures the facility failed to investigate the grievance for one (#94) of one resident reviewed for personal property in regards to a set of missing dental implants. Findings included: During an interview, on 11/13/19 at 8:43 a.m., Resident #94 and a family member reported the resident was missing a set of dental implants, and another resident had been observed in Resident #94's bed. The resident and family member stated that they had requested a velcro stop sign for the doorway. Observation of Resident #94 at the time of the interview revealed the resident was edentulous on the front bottom of oral cavity with two (2) metal poles on either side of the edentulous area. The observation indicated no stop sign banner was present in the doorway of Resident #94's room. The family member reported they had not heard anything from the facility regarding the grievance. Follow-up interview with Resident #94 on 11/14/19 at 9:29 a.m. revealed the resident did not recall who the missing implant was reported to. Review of Resident #94's clinical record revealed she was admitted near the end of October 2019. The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. A review of the grievance log revealed no grievance was filed in regards to Resident #94's missing implants. A review of the resident's progress notes revealed no mention of missing dental implants. During an interview, on 11/15/19 at 10:17 a.m., the Social Service Director (SSD)/Grievance Officer stated Resident #94's family member spoke to her, on 11/6/19, regarding the missing teeth. The SSD stated the staff informed her that the missing implant was found in a dental cup in the resident's nightstand. According to the Director, staff had notified her that the resident had informed them that the found implants were not the original missing ones. The SSD reviewed the grievance log and investigation and stated I didn't log it. The SSD was unaware the second pair were missing also. The investigation portion of the grievance did not indicate the SSD had spoken with the resident or family member regarding the grievance. The SSD stated staff had told her they had informed the sister that the dental implants were located. When informed that the family member and resident reported missing implants, the SSD questioned, so the extra ones are missing too? A continuation of the interview with the SSD on 11/15/19 revealed she had spoken with the Director of Nursing regarding the missing implant and was told the second pair did not fit the resident so they were taken home. Resident #94 continued to be missing a set of lower dental implants. At 10:40 a.m. on 11/15/19, the SSD confirmed that she should have spoken with the family prior to resolving the grievance. The policy titled Filing Grievances/Complaints, revised April 2017, identified the Administrator and staff will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances to the satisfaction of the resident and/or representative. The policy indicated the Grievance Officer will review and investigate the allegations and submit a written report of such findings to the Administrator within five (5) working days of receiving the grievance and /or complaint. The policy revealed the Grievance Officer, Administrator and staff would take immediate action to prevent further potential violations of resident rights while the alleged violation was being investigated. The implementation of the policy indicated the resident, or person filing the grievance and/or complaint on behalf of the resident would be informed (verbally or in writing) of the findings and the actions that would be taken to correct the problems, and a written summary of the investigation will also be provided to the resident and a copy will be filed in the business office.
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment was coded accurately for one resident (#296) of two residents reviewed for Communication-Sensory Deficits. Resident #296's MDS did not accurately reflect his vision status. Findings Included: Review of Resident #296's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed the section for vision: ability to see in adequate light was marked 0 as adequate. Review of Resident #296's admission Record revealed diagnoses that included: Open angle Glaucoma. His physician orders included Latanoprost eye drops; 1 drop each eye in the evening. Azopt eye drops: 1 drop twice a day in both eyes. Initiate fall prevention program (started 11/4/19). Review of Resident #296's Care plan, dated 10/14/19, revealed: Falls: at risk for falls related to impaired vision, impaired cognition, and poor safety awareness. Approach: start 11/4/19: assist/guide to chair when observing resident sitting in chair. No additional interventions for impaired vision could be found in the plan of care. An observation of Resident #296 was conducted on 11/14/19 at 12:30 p.m. Resident was ambulating by himself in the hall with frequent stops. The resident had to be guided by staff. An observation was conducted on 11/14/19 at 12: 40 p.m.: Resident #296 was observed in the dining room. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) set up his meal, then oriented him to the location of items on his plate. Resident was able to eat without further help. During an interview with Staff I, CNA, on 11/14/19 at 2 p.m., she said I've known this resident since he came here. I think his vision is much worse now than when he was admitted . He can see things right in front of him, but he has difficulty with his peripheral vision, his sides. That's why he fell, I think. He was trying to sit down on the chair and missed it so we make sure to orient him to his surroundings. An interview was conducted with Staff P, also a CNA, on 11/14/19 at 2:15 p.m. Staff P said Yes, he does have trouble seeing. But he knows how to feel his way down the hall, you know, he walks and runs his hands along the wall to feel his way, but we must watch when he tries to sit. He misses sometimes. He goes to Restorative for dining, and they help him with his meals by cutting it up and telling him where everything is on his plate. When asked if he is care planned for impaired vision, Staff P said No, it's not on our kiosk, our CNA tasks. It just talks about his low vision in terms of falls, but not for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's.). Let me show you my kiosk. There were no specific tasks related to impaired vision, or assistance with ADL's due to impaired vision noted in the kiosk system. An interview was conducted with two MDS Coordinators on 11/14/19 at 3 p.m., Staff Q and Staff E, confirmed that the MDS section B: Vision: was marked incorrectly as Adequate. They confirmed that the MDS assessment related to vision was not accurate. Staff Q stated we share the responsibilities of the MDS Assessment and Care plan with Social Services. We are all present at the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) meetings, and we should have caught it then and included it in his care plan. We missed it. An interview was conducted with Staff R, the Director of Social Services, on 11/14/19 at 3:20 p.m. She said Yes, we did have an interdisciplinary team meeting on 10/15/19 and on 11/4/19, but we did not talk about his impaired vision or put it on the care plan. Yes, I would expect his assessment to reflect impaired vision, and it should be on the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan for impaired vision was dev...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan for impaired vision was developed and implemented for one resident (#296) of two residents reviewed for care plan interventions applicable for Communication-Sensory Deficits. Findings Included: Review of Resident #296's admission Record revealed that he was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Open angle Glaucoma, and Cognitive Communication Deficit. His physician orders included Latanoprost eye drops; 1 drop each eye in the evening. Azopt eye drops: 1 drop twice a day in both eyes. Initiate fall prevention program (started 11/4/19). Review of Resident #296's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed: Brief Interview for Mental Status: Score 99 unable to complete. Hearing/Speech/Vision: vision: ability to see in adequate light (marked 0 = adequate). Functional status: Limited to extensive assist most activities of daily living. (Walking/transfers: limited one person assist). Review of Resident #296's Care plan, dated 10/14/19, revealed: Falls: at risk for falls related to impaired vision, impaired cognition, and poor safety awareness. Approach: start 11/4/19: assist/guide to chair when observing resident sitting in chair. No interventions for impaired vision. Review of Progress notes revealed: 9/4/19: Resident was going to sit but there was no chair and he went back and hit his head and landed his buttocks on the floor. 10/3/19: Patient was in the dining hall when he missed his chair. Patient went to have a seat and fell to the floor. 11/5/19: Resident had a fall on 11/4/19 when he missed the chair, he attempted to sit in. Resident has low vision. Staff to guide/direct to chair. An observation was conducted on 11/13/19 at 1 p.m.: Resident #296 was sitting out in the patio area listening to music. An observation of Resident #296 was conducted on 11/14/19 at 12:30 p.m. Resident was ambulating by himself in the hall with frequent stops; had to be guided the rest of the way. An observation was conducted on 11/14/19 at 12: 40 p.m.: Resident #296 was observed in the dining room. CNA set up his meal, then oriented him to the location of items on his plate. Resident was able to eat without further help. During an interview with Staff I, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), on 11/14/19 at 2 p.m., she said I've known this resident since he came here. I think his vision is much worse now than when he was admitted . He can see things right in front of him, but he has difficulty with his peripheral vision, his sides. That's why he fell, I think. He was trying to sit down on the chair and missed it so we make sure to orient him to his surroundings. An interview was conducted with Staff P, also a CNA, on 11/14/19 at 2:15 p.m. Staff P said Yes, he does have trouble seeing. But he knows how to feel his way down the hall, you know, he walks and runs his hands along the wall to feel his way, but we must watch when he tries to sit. He misses sometimes. He goes to Restorative for dining, and they help him with his meals by cutting it up and telling him where everything is on his plate. When asked if he is care planned for impaired vision, Staff P said No, it's not on our kiosk, our CNA tasks. It just talks about his low vison in terms of falls, but not for assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's.). Let me show you my kiosk. There were no specific tasks related to impaired vision, or assistance with ADL's due to impaired vision noted in the kiosk system. An interview was conducted with two MDS Coordinators on 11/14/19 at 3 p.m., Staff Q and Staff E, confirmed that the MDS section B: Vision: was marked incorrectly as Adequate. Both Staff Q and Staff E confirmed that Impaired Vision was not listed on the care plan as a target area and therefore no interventions were developed or implemented. They confirmed that the MDS assessment related to vision was not accurate. Staff Q stated we share the responsibilities of the MDS Assessment and Care plan with Social Services. We are all present at the IDT meetings, and we should have caught it then and included it in his care plan. We missed it. An interview was conducted with Staff R, the Director of Social Services, on 11/14/19 at 3:20 p.m. She said Yes, we did have an interdisciplinary team meeting on 10/15/19 and on 11/4/19, but we did not talk about his impaired vision or put it on the care plan. Yes, I would expect his assessment to reflect impaired vision, and it should be on the care plan. Review of the facility's policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive, revised in December 2016, revealed: Policy Statement: A comprehensive person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial, and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 2) The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. 8) The comprehensive person-centered care plan will b) describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. g) incorporate identified problem areas. 9) areas of concern that are identified during the resident assessment will be evaluated before interventions are added to the care plan. Review of the facility's policy titled Goals and Objectives, Care plans, revised in April 2009, revealed: Policy interpretation and implementation: 4) Goals and objectives are entered into the resident's care plan so that all disciplines have access to such information and are able to report whether or not the desired outcomes are being achieved.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations were reviewed and acted upon ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that pharmacy recommendations were reviewed and acted upon in a timely manner for 2 (#10, and #14) of 4 residents reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. Findings Included: 1. Review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: psychotic disorder with delusions, dementia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Her physician's orders included: Do Not Resuscitate, Buspirone tablet 7.5 milligrams (mg); oral; one tab twice a day for anxiety. Celexa tablet 10 mg; oral, give 10 mg tab every day for depression. Review of Resident #10's care plan revealed: 5/4/2019: Psychotropic Drug Use: anti-anxiety medication related to anxiety. Approach: monitor for drug use and effectiveness and adverse consequences. Pharmacy consultant review every month. Resident receives anti-depressant medication related to depression. Approach: Monitor mood and response to medication. Pharmacy consultant review monthly. Resident receives antipsychotic medication related to aggressive behavior. Approach: pharmacist consult review monthly. Review of Pharmacy Consultation Reports revealed: 3/1/19 -3/31/19: Comment: received celexa 10 mg daily for depression since 11/12/18, when the dose was reduced from 20 mg. 4/1/19-4/30/19: Comment: prescriber accepted a pharmacy recommendation on 4/23/19 to decrease celexa to 5 mg once daily for 30 days, then discontinue, but the order has not been processed. recommendation: process the accepted pharmacy recommendation and update the medical record accordingly. Not signed, just states completed 5/23/19. 8/1/19 -9/1/19: repeated recommendation from 7/31/19, and from 5/2/19. prescriber accepted a pharmacy recommendation on 4/23/19 to decrease celexa to 5 mg daily for 30 days, then d/c, but the order has not yet been processed. Not signed. (Photographic evidence obtained). Review of Medication Administration Record for #10 for the month of 10/1/2019 through 10/31/2019 and for 11/1/2019 through 11/14/2019 revealed: Celexa 10 mg tablet was given every day for depression (start date: 5/28/2019). A phone interview was conducted with the Consultant Pharmacist, Staff L, on 11/15/2019 at 11:39 a.m. She stated: The Celexa recommendations were faxed and re-faxed to the Director of Nursing (DON). From there, the DON is expected to communicate with the physician and get his order. I am not sure of why it wasn't done, but I have not received a response on it. Review of the facility's policy titled Medication Regimen Reviews, revised in April 2007, revealed: Policy Statement: The Consultant Pharmacist shall review the medication regimen of each resident at least monthly. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1) The Consultant Pharmacist will perform a medication regimen review (MRR) for every resident in the facility. 5) The primary purpose of this review is to help the facility maintain each resident's highest practicable level of functioning by helping them utilize medications appropriately and prevent or minimize adverse consequences related to medication therapy to the extent possible. 9) The consultant pharmacist will provide the Director of Nursing and Medical Director with a written, signed, and dated copy of the report, listing the irregularities found, and recommendations for their solutions. 10) Copies of drug/medication regimen review reports, including physician responses, will be maintained as part of the permanent medical record. 2. Resident #14 was admitted [DATE] and 5/4/19. The clinical record included medical diagnoses not limited to Type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications. At 9:26 a.m. on 11/14/19, Resident #14 was observed in a wheelchair, being propelled in the hallway towards the units' shower room. On 11/15/19 at 2:10 p.m., Resident #14 was observed lying in bed, alert and spoke in a repetitive manner. A review of Resident #14's Physician Order Report identified the following current medication order: - Novolin 70/30 (insulin nph and regular human) suspension; 100 unit/milliliter (mL) (70-30); amount: 20 unit subcutaneous. Special instructions: Inject 20 units sub-q (subcutaneous) twice daily. Diagnosis (dx): Diabetes Mellitus (DM) if accucheck below or above 400 call MD (medical doctor). Dx: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications. Twice daily: 6:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., start date 4/1/19 - open ended. Resident #14's clinical record included a Pharmacy Consultation Report, dated 3/31/2019, with a recommendation to please increase Novolin 70/30 insulin from 20 to 22 units twice daily with meals and consider increasing the twice daily dose by 2 units/dose every 4 days until fasting glucose targets were achieved. The comment, included with the recommendation, indicated Resident #14 had experienced episodes of morning hyperglycemia with fasting glucose levels being frequently elevated to greater than 200- 300 milligram/deciliter (mg/dL) in March. The recommendation did not identify a response from the physician or a physician signature. A Pharmacy Consultation Report, dated 5/22/19, indicated a repeat recommendation to increase Resident #14's Novolin 70/30 insulin from 20 units to 22 units due to an increase in blood glucose levels. The report did not indicate a physician response or signature regarding the recommendation to increase the residents' insulin. The report asked for a prompt response to assure the facility compliance with Federal regulations. The Pharmacy Consultation Report, dated 7/31/19, indicated a repeat recommendation from 3/31 and 5/22/19 to increase Resident #14's Novolin 70/30 insulin to 22 units twice daily and to consider increasing the twice daily dose by 2 units every 4 days until fasting glucose targets were achieved due to elevated glucose level in March 2019 which persisted in May 2019. The recommendation did not indicate a physician response or signature. During an interview, on 11/15/19 at 11:38 a.m., the Consulting Pharmacist stated a recommendation regarding Resident #14's Novolin 70/30 was made in March, May, and July. A repeat recommendation was scheduled to occur in September but Resident #14's blood glucose levels were below 200 so it was no longer a concern and a repeat recommendation was not made at that time. On 11/15/19 at 11:38 a.m., the Regional Director of Clinical Services provided the Consulting Pharmacists' July recommendation regarding Resident #14's Novolin 70/30 and stated she could not find one that had been followed up with the physician. The policy titled, Medication Regimen Reviews, revised April 2007, identified the primary purpose of this review is to help the facility maintain each resident's highest practicable level of functioning by helping them utilize medications appropriately and prevent or minimize adverse consequences related to medication therapy to the extent possible. The policy indicated if the physician does not provide a pertinent response, or the Consultant Pharmacist identifies that no action has been taken, he/she will then contact the Medical Director, or if the Medical Director is the Physician of Record, the Administrator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms. Findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain drugs and biologicals in accordance with accepted professional standards in 1 of 2 medication storage rooms. Findings included: On 11/14/19 at 12:42 p.m., an observation of the medication room located on the 1st floor was conducted. On the far-left corner of the room, against the wall, was a blue toolbox. Staff M, a Licensed Practical Nurse, identified the toolbox as an EDK (Emergency Drug Kit). There were no red or green tags on the outside of the box. A label on the top of the box provided the following information: item description, units of measure, quantity, product identification, expiration date, and tray description. The item description indicated that antibiotics were stored inside. Staff M was able to freely open the box, and inside, several drawers of antibiotics were observed. There was no pharmacy reconciliation slip inside to indicate if any medications had been removed. On the far-right corner of the room, on an open shelf, was a plastic see-through drawer, containing antibiotic medications. Again, there were no red or green tags on the outside to indicate if the drawer had been opened and contents removed. Several rows in the drawer were empty. There was no pharmacy reconciliation slip in the drawer. During an interview with Staff M on 11/14/19 at 1 p.m., Staff M stated Since there are no red or green tags on either of these kits, and there is no pharmacy slip, there is no way to know if any of the medications were removed from either box. It looks like they are all antibiotics. But I don't know when these boxes were put in here, they weren't here earlier. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON)on 11/14/19 at 1:15 p.m., the DON confirmed that neither of the boxes had green or red tags, nor did they have pharmacy reconciliation slips. The DON said I don't know why these kits are not tagged. Pharmacy usually brings it with labels and tags. I don't know how these got here. I have no idea if anyone took any medications from either box. I will have to recount them all. An interview was conducted with the Consultant pharmacist, Staff L, on 11/15/19 at 11 a.m. She said Pharmacy packs the medication into the EDK toolbox, puts a label on the top, and places a green tag on it; meaning that medications have not been removed from it yet. The clear drawer belongs inside the blue EDK kit, and it should not be outside by itself on a shelf. Review of the facility's policy titled Pharmacy Services, Role of the Provider Pharmacy, revised in April 2010, revealed: Policy Statement: The facility shall have a written agreement with a provider pharmacy to provide regular and reliable pharmacy services to residents, including medications and supplies. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 3) The provider pharmacy shall agree to provide services that comply with applicable facility policies and procedures; accepted professional standards of practice, laws and regulations, including the following: b) Help the facility identify needed supplies and services related to medications. I) Provide and maintain the facility's emergency medication supply. J) Deliver medications to the facility and help the facility ensure that all deliveries are correct and proper documentation related to delivery is provided. Review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, revised in April of 2007, revealed: Policy Statement: The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. 1) Drugs and biologicals shall be stored in the packaging, containers, or other dispensing systems in which they are received. 2) The nursing staff shall be responsible for maintaining medication storage.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

3. On 11/12/19 at 11:56 a.m., during the initial dining observation in the first-floor dining room, the following was observed: Three residents were seated at a table. Staff O, a Certified Nursing Ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. On 11/12/19 at 11:56 a.m., during the initial dining observation in the first-floor dining room, the following was observed: Three residents were seated at a table. Staff O, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), opened the utensil package and used a knife to cut up food for one of the residents. She then removed one of the other resident's used food tray from the table, walked over to the center table, emptied the food waste on the plates into the garbage can, and stacked the soiled tray/plates on the center table. She did not have gloves on. She then walked over to the food cart, pulled out a new tray, and delivered it to the resident. Hand hygiene was not observed. At 11:59 a.m., Staff N, also a CNA, was observed emptying food waste into the garbage can and storing the used tray. She did not perform hand hygiene. She then went over to a resident and proceeded to cut up her food. At 12: 11 p.m., Staff O emptied food waste into the garbage can, and stacked the trays. Without performing hand hygiene, Staff O obtained a new tray from the food cart and served it to a resident. Review of the facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised in August 2015, revealed: Policy Statement: The facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 2) All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. 7) Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol, or alternatively, soap and water for the following situations: O) Before and after eating or handling food. P) before and after assisting a resident with meals. Based on dining observations, interviews and record review the facility failed to serve food in a safe and sanitary manner related to 1) food being prepared in close proximity to a hand hygiene sink/soap; 2) uncovered desserts transported to unit and 3) lack of hand hygiene between residents in one of four dining observations. Findings included: 1. On 11/12/19 at 11:47 a.m., an observation of the afternoon meal service was conducted in the main dining room on the second floor of the facility. Residents were seated at sixteen different tables around the dining area. Six staff members where present in the dining room to assist with the afternoon meal. Soup, salad and beverage service had begun in the dining room for the residents. A counter top area with cabinetry was observed along the back area of the dining room which included a sink with a soap dispenser attached to the wall behind the sink. A large black electric soup kettle was observed on the counter, set up on the right side of the sink, and a large metal bowl of salad was observed on the counter, set up on the left side of the sink. A staff member was observed dispensing salad from the large metal bowl into small individual bowls for the residents. A staff member was observed dispensing soup from the electric kettle into small individual bowls for the residents. During the preparation of soup and salad, multiple staff members were observed accessing the sink area and using soap and water to wash their hands. Water and soap were observed splashing around the sink area as staff members performed hand hygiene in close proximity to the soup and salad that was being served to the residents. Staff C, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), was brought into the dining room to observe the service of salad and soup to the residents at the request of the surveyor. Staff C, CDM stated that the food should not have been set up on the counter area near the hand hygiene sink. Staff C, stated the soup and salad was sent out to the dining room on a metal serving table and should have been served from there. Staff C, CDM instructed the staff to move the soup and salad off of the counter and away from the hand washing sink for service to the residents. A review of the facility policy entitled Food Preparation and Service (revised October 2017) indicated the following: Policy Statement: Food and nutrition services employees shall prepare and serve food in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. Food preparation area 2 Equipment will be arranged to facilitate food preparation, based on input from appropriate individuals including food and nutrition services staff. A review of the facility policy entitled Food Receiving and Storage (revised October 2017) indicated the following: Policy Statement: Food shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. Policy Interpretation and Implementation 1 Food services, or other designated staff, will maintain clean food storage areas at all times. 16 Soaps, detergents, cleaning compounds or similar substances will be stored in separate storage area from food storage and labeled clearly. 2. An observation was made on 11/12/19 at 11:58 a.m., of one of two metal tray carts on the secured unit of the facility. The tray cart contained meal trays for the residents eating in their rooms. The meal trays contained a covered plate and an uncovered tart-sized cheesecake. Photographic evidence obtained. At 12:07 p.m. on 11/12/19, Staff Member J, CNA, confirmed the cheesecakes were not covered and stated the kitchen sent them to the unit uncovered. On 11/14/19 at 12:44 p.m., the Dietary Manager stated dessert on the meal trays are to be covered. He stated even though the carts are covered, the food should also be covered and felt the kitchen staff was trying to preserve the presentation.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on resident and staff interviews, review of facility policies and procedures, and review of Resident Council Meeting minutes the facility failed to act on grievances related to outside activitie...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident and staff interviews, review of facility policies and procedures, and review of Resident Council Meeting minutes the facility failed to act on grievances related to outside activities. Findings included: On 11/13/19 at 10:30 a.m., a meeting was conducted with regular members of the Resident Council. During the meeting Resident #8 reported that residents had not been on an outside trip for almost a year. Resident #8 stated that some residents wanted to visit the local bingo hall or go out in the community to look at Christmas lights. Resident #53 reported that the facility's van was broken for over a year but was recently registered and tagged. A review of the previous Resident Council meeting minutes revealed the following: - 1/11/18: Discussion of New Business - Van broken when will it be fixed. The Administration response, dated 1/15/18, indicated the van was not repairable and the facility was waiting to determine the cost of installing an upgraded generator mandated by the state agency before making a decision on repairing the van. - 8/8/19: Request to go to the bingo hall away from the facility. - 9/19/19: Old Business - Going to bingo hall away from the facility. The response documented to resolve this issue was corporation aware of the van situation with no additional information or plan towards resolution to the resident council's request to attend outside activities. - 10/3/19: Residents asked about transportation van for outings to local retail store. On 11/13/19 at 12:29 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator (NHA) confirmed that the facility van had not worked for two years. She reported that she wanted to rent a bus or van for the resident outings but had not done so. The NHA stated that the van parked in the parking lot was registered and insured, but there was no money to fix it. On 11/14/19 at 11:08 a.m., the Activity Director stated residents had asked to go out and were asking questions about the repairs on the van. She stated that she offered alternative activities and shops for the residents. Review of the facility policy titled Resident Council, revised April 2017, indicated the purpose of the resident council was to provide a forum for residents, families, and resident representatives to have input in the operation of the facility and discussion of concerns and suggestions of improvement. The policy identified that a Resident Council Response Form would be utilized to track issues and their resolution. The facility department related to any issues would be responsible for addressing the item(s) of concern. Review of the facility policy titled Activity Programs, revised August 2006, revealed a policy statement of activity programs were designed to meet the needs of each resident and were available on a daily basis. The policy interpretation and implementation of the policy revealed: 1. Our activity programs are designed to encourage maximum individual participation and geared to the individual resident's needs. 3 .c. Weather permitting, as least one activity a month is held away from the facility.
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 observations, interviews with staff, and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 2 residential floors was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews with staff, and record review the facility failed to ensure that 1 of 2 residential floors was maintained in a safe and clean manner for residents related to soiled dining room vents, a patio doorway in ill repair, loose molding/baseboards, exposed strand board, sharp jagged edges on dining tables, rusted dining table with uncapped legs, miscellaneous items stored in the dining room, cable hanging from the ceiling and hole in the baseboard in room [ROOM NUMBER], and pillows with no coverings on top of a wardrobe closet in room [ROOM NUMBER]. Findings included: 1. On 11/12/19 at 11:30 a.m., on 11/13/19 at 1 p.m., and on 11/14/19 at 3:15 p.m., the following observations were made: A) 1st floor dining room vents. Three vents were observed with black bio growth specks all over them (photographic evidence obtained). Several residents were observed in the dining room during meal times. B) 1st floor doorway to patio used for Activities. A piece of loose metal in the doorframe was observed. (Photographic evidence obtained). When stepped on by staff, the metal piece lifted in another location. There was also a significant amount of dirt/debris in the door joint. This was observed to be a high traffic area with many residents observed going in and out of the patio area. C) Loose molding/baseboard by the 1st floor nursing station, and in the main hall. (Photographic evidence obtained). D) The first floor nursing station desk was observed to have a large area of exposed strand board with jagged surfaces facing the main dining room. This desk could easily be accessed by residents walking past the nursing station or dining room. (Photographic evidence obtained). An observation of the first-floor dining room was conducted on 11/12/19 at 9:30 a.m. Three dining tables had no dining cloth on them. One of the three tables had sharp, jagged edges. When meal times were over, Residents used this room to watch television. This table was easily accessible to any residents walking between the dining room and the patio. (Photographic evidence obtained). Review of the Facility's Maintenance Log, located at the 1st floor Nursing station, revealed that from 9/29/19 through 11/11/19, none of the above-named concerns were listed. Only one call bell was identified with a problem and had to be repaired. An interview was conducted with Staff K, the Maintenance Director, on 11/14/19 at 2 p.m. Staff K said On the floors, we have maintenance logs where the staff lets us know that something needs to be fixed, and then we repair it. Those logs are kept at the nursing station on each floor. I also have a 5-page list of things that need to be fixed, and it is truly a work in progress, and there are budget constraints. The items highlighted in yellow have been fixed. Maintenance makes rounds on the floors daily and inspects the halls and common areas for safety issues. I just had a guy come over last week to clean the vents. Some of those discolorations are rust and are hard to come off. Staff K then confirmed the presence of observations B- D on the above list. He shook his head, and stated yes, those are areas of concern. We will take care of it. When asked if he adheres to a certain schedule for fixing items on the list, he stated No, we just mark it off as we get it done, unless it's an emergency. Review of the Maintenance Report furnished by the Maintenance Director revealed that none of the observed concerns were listed on his 5-page log. There was mention of a corner guard across from the elevator and across from the Nurse's station. It was not highlighted in yellow, indicating it was not fixed yet. There were numerous items on all 5 pages which were still pending repair. A good percentage of those items that were highlighted and fixed included changing light bulbs and replacing pull strings. Review of the Facility's policy titled Maintenance Service, revised in December 2009, revealed Policy Statement: Maintenance service shall be provided to all areas of the building, grounds, and equipment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1) The Maintenance Department is responsible for maintaining buildings, grounds, and equipment in safe and operable manner at all times. 2) Functions of maintenance personnel include: b) maintaining the building in good repair and free from hazards. 3) The Maintenance Director is responsible for developing and maintaining a schedule of maintenance service to assure that the buildings, grounds, and equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner. 8) The Maintenance Director is responsible for maintaining the following records: m) Maintenance schedules. 2. During an initial tour of the first floor unit dining room, on 11/12/19 at 10:23 a.m., an unused blue incontinence brief, cotton-batting stained with brown and red substances, and a used cup was observed on top of a bureau. In addition, the chrome pedestal of a dining room table in the first-floor dining room was observed to be rusted and the outstretched legs were uncapped. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 11/12/19 at 10:41 a.m., room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with a co-axial cable hanging from a hole near the ceiling and resting on the floor. In addition, a hole was observed above the baseboard in the same corner of the coaxial. Photographic evidence was obtained. On 11/12/19 at 11:01 a.m., an observation was made in room [ROOM NUMBER], where two residents resided, of 4 uncovered pillows lying on top of the wardrobe closet. Photographic evidence was obtained.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that includ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of Resident #10's admission Record revealed that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: psychotic disorder with delusions, dementia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Her physician's orders included: Do Not Resuscitate, Buspirone tablet 7.5 milligrams (mg); oral; one tab twice a day for anxiety. Celexa tablet 10 mg; oral, give 10 mg tab every day for depression. Seroquel tablet (1/2 tablet: 12.5 mg) daily at hour of sleep for psychotic disorder. Review of Resident #10's care plan revealed: 5/4/2019: Psychotropic Drug Use: anti-anxiety medication related to anxiety. Approach: monitor for drug use and effectiveness and adverse consequences. Pharmacy consultant review every month. Resident receives anti-depressant medication related to depression. Approach: Monitor mood and response to medication. Pharmacy consultant review monthly. Resident receives antipsychotic medication related to aggressive behavior. Approach: pharmacist consult review monthly. Review of Medication Administration Record (MAR) for #10 for the month of 10/1/2019 through 10/31/2019 and for 11/1/2019 through 11/14/2019 revealed: Celexa 10 mg tablet was given every day for depression (start date: 5/28/2019). Buspirone 7.5 tablet was given twice a day for anxiety (start date: 1/23/19). Seroquel 25 mg tablet; was given ½ tablet (12.5 mg) daily at hour of sleep for psychotic disorder. Review of progress notes written in the month of November 2019 revealed that the presence or absence of target behaviors and the presence or absence of adverse consequences (as listed in the care plan) were not documented. According to the Director of Nursing, documentation of behaviors would be in the progress notes if not in the MAR/TAR. Review of the Treatment Administration Record (TAR) for October and November 2019 confirmed that the presence or absence of adverse consequences and target behaviors specific to psychotropic medication use were not documented. Review of the facility's policy titled Behavioral Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring, revised in December 2016, revealed: Policy Statement: 1) Behavioral symptoms will be identified using facility approved behavioral screening tools and the comprehensive assessment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: Assessment: 3) The nursing staff will identify, document, and inform the physician about specific details regarding changes in an individual's mental status, behavior, and cognition, including: a) Onset, duration, intensity, and frequency of behavioral symptoms. 4) New onset or changes in behavior will be documented regardless of the degree of risk to the resident or others. Management: 10) When medications are prescribed for behavioral symptoms, documentation will include: a) rationale for use, e) specific target behaviors and outcomes, h) monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences. Monitoring: 4) the nursing staff will monitor for side effects and complications related to psychoactive medications. Based on interviews, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the effectiveness of the medication as well as behavior and side effects monitoring which are all essential for evaluating the use of psychotropic medications, was accurately recorded for four (# 10, # 14, # 52, and # 84,) of five sampled residents who were reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings included: 1. Resident # 52 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] after a short stay at an acute care facility with the primary diagnosis of Huntington's Disease. Other pertinent diagnoses included but were not limited to chronic pain, migraine, major depressive disorder, unspecified convulsions, and anxiety disorder. A review of the minimum data set (MDS) dated [DATE] reflected that Resident # 52 was mildly impaired with a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) of 12 and had no behaviors of delirium; mood was documented as depressed and tired/little energy at a severity of 2, the behaviors section documented rejection of care. A review of the active physician orders dated 11/14/19 for Resident # 52 included the psychotropic medications paroxetine HCl 40mg at bedtime for depression, carbamazepine 800mg twice daily for seizures, doxepin 100mg at bedtime for anxiety, risperidone 3mg twice daily for Huntington's, quetiapine 50mg twice daily with meals for Huntington's and quetiapine 100mg at bedtime for insomnia. There was no physician order for the monitoring of behaviors or for the monitoring of side effects related to psychotropic medications. The physician orders also included the medication meclizine 12.5mg twice daily as needed for dizziness with a start date of 01/27/17. A review of the plan of care dated from the last care conference on 10/10/19 for Resident # 52 included a focus on Psychotropic Drug Use, with a goal that stated: Resident will be prescribed the lowest effective dose of medication. The approach to attain this goal was Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS) every 3 months and Pharmacy consultant review monthly. A review of the medication administration record (MAR) for the period of 10/01/19 to 11/14/19 revealed that the psychotropic medications were administered as ordered and no documentation for the effectiveness, side effects, or behavior monitoring was provided. A review of the monthly medication review (MMR) for the month of March 2019 included the following recommendation: Please attempt a gradual dose reduction (GDR) to Doxepin 75mg at bedtime, while concurrently monitoring for the reemergence of target behaviors and/or withdrawal symptoms. An interview on 11/14/19 with the pharmacy consultant revealed that although the primary physician agreed with the recommendation, it was not implemented because the Primary Physician deferred to the Neurologist treating Resident # 52's primary diagnosis, an order was written in response on 05/14/19 it read: No GDR for Doxepin; continue with current dose. A nursing progress note dated 05/14/19 documented a GDR for Doxepin was declined by psych services .would recommend discussion with neurologist prior to med changes .follow up in July. A review of the Physician progress note reflecting the service date of 10/23/19 for a Medication check follow-up the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (ARNP) wrote in the assessment of Resident # 52 Sad, disheveled, .stated feeling depressed ., and in the care plan recommendation: .continue to monitor for change in mood and behavior. An interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) revealed that her expectation was for the nurses to monitor the behaviors in the nurse progress notes. Review of the nurse progress notes dated 08/01/19 to 10/31/19 revealed conflicting documentation such as on 10/30/19 at 10:19 PM No complaint of behavior at this time despite Resident # 52 refusing care for a shower for the past two days, and suffering multiple falls related to not wanting to follow instructions to call for assistance in order to transfer to the bedside commode. 2. Resident #14 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. The clinical record included diagnoses not limited to unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, unspecified anxiety disorder, unspecified single episode major depressive disorder, and psychotic disorder with hallucinations due to known physiological condition. Resident #14 was observed, on 11/14/19 at 9:26 a.m., in a wheelchair being propelled by a staff member towards the shower room, the residents' eyes were closed. On 11/15/19 at 2:10 p.m., Resident #14 was observed lying in bed, the resident responded to questions inappropriately and with repetitive speech. The Physician Order Report indicated Resident #14 received the following medications: - Depakote Delayed Release 125 milligram (mg) tablet twice daily for behavioral disturbance. - Paxil 30 mg tablet, 1/2 tablet daily for depression disorder. - Ativan 0.5 mg tablet, 1/2 tablet twice daily for severe anxiety. - Quetiapine 25 mg, 1/2 tablet at bedtime for psychotic disorder. The Physician Order Report did not include an order for staff to monitor the number of times a behavior occurred, the type of behavior that Resident #14 exhibited, if any side effects of the medications were observed, or the efficiency of the received medications. The October and November 2019 Medication Administration Records (MAR) indicated staff did document as the target behavior for Ativan anxiety, mood, 0, +, and calm. The MAR's did not direct staff as to what the target behavior was, the number of times the behavior occurred, or if any non-pharmacological interventions were attempted. The effectiveness of the Ativan was documented less than daily and not for each administration. The October and November 2019 MAR's indicated nursing staff were documenting a target behavior for Resident #14's Depakote as behavior, mood, 0, behavior disturbance ukn, and anxiety. The MAR did not direct staff as to document the type of behavior, the number of times a behavior was exhibited, or the side effects that can occur with receiving Depakote. The effectiveness of the medication was documented less than daily. The October and November 2019 MAR's for Resident #14 indicated staff did not document the targeted behavior, episodes of the behavior, or if side effects occurred with the administration of Paxil. Effectiveness (+) of the medication, Paxil, was documented less than daily. Resident #14's October and November 2019 MAR's indicated the resident received the antipsychotic medication, Quetiapine, daily. The MAR's did not identify a target behavior, the number of episodes of the behavior, or if side effects of the medication had occurred. The October MAR did not include documentation if the medication was effective and the November MAR indicated + on 11/3 and . on 11/9/19. The care plan for Resident #14 included the following problems and approaches: - Resident received antidepressant medication r/t (related to) depression. The approaches instructed staff to administer medication as ordered and to monitor resident's mood and response to medication. - Resident resists care, refuses to leave O2 (oxygen) on at times, refuses ADL (activities of daily living) care, and flails and grabs onto things when transported in wheelchair. The approaches included to allow resident to choose options. - Resident makes verbal expressions of distress, and verbalizes frustration at times, anxiety. The approaches included to observe for signs and symptoms of depression (withdrawal, isolation, loss of appetite, and etc.). - Resident #14 received antianxiety medication r/t (related to) anxiety. The approaches instructed staff to attempt non-pharmacological interventions. - Resident #14 received antipsychotic medication r/t paranoid behavior. The approaches indicated an AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) every six months. 3. Resident #84 was admitted on [DATE]. The clinical record included diagnoses not limited to other specified depressive episodes, unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, disorganized schizophrenia, and unspecified anxiety disorder. The Physician Order Report indicated the following medications were ordered for Resident #84: - Risperidone 0.5 milligram (mg), 1/2 tab (0.25 mg) daily for disorganized schizophrenia. - Sertraline 100 mg daily for other specified depressive episodes. - Lorazepam 1 mg twice daily for unspecified anxiety disorder. - Risperdal 0.5 mg every evening for disorganized schizophrenia. - Depakote 125 mg, twice daily for aggressive behavior. - Ativan 1 mg every 6 hours as needed for anxiety/agitation. - Aggressive/Combative Behavior: Move resident to quiet room until episode resolved, remove potentially harmful objects from immediate environment, protect other residents in immediate area from harm. As needed. The October 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated the following: - Depakote 125 mg twice daily. The documentation did not include if behaviors or side effects occurred, or if any non-pharmacological interventions were used. The effectiveness of the medication was documented eight (8) times from 10/1 - 10/30/19. - Risperdal 0.5 mg every evening. The documentation did not indicate behaviors or side effects were monitored, or if any non-pharmacological interventions were used. The effectiveness of the medication was documented eight (8) times from 10/1 - 10/30/19. - Risperidone 0.25 mg daily (9:00 a.m.). The documentation did not indicate if behaviors had occurred. The nursing staff documented the target behavior as schizophrenia, mood, repetitive movement/speech, and 0. - Sertraline 100 mg daily. The MAR indicated a target behavior as depression, mood, and 0. The documentation did not indicate the number of behavioral episodes, if side effects had occurred, and effectiveness was monitored four (4) times from 10/1 - 10/30/19. - Aggressive/Combative Behavior did not indicate any behavior had occurred. The November 2019 MAR indicated the following: - Depakote 125 mg twice daily. The MAR did not indicate the number of behavioral episodes occurred, if side effects occurred, or if any non-pharmacological interventions were attempted. The effectiveness of medication was documented at 9:00 a.m. on 11/1, 11/11, and 11/13/19. Effectiveness was not documented for the 5:30 p.m. dosage. - Risperdal 0.5 mg once an evening. The MAR did not indicate a target behavior, number of times the behavior occurred (if any), the effectiveness of the medication, or if side effects were observed. - Risperidone 0.25 mg daily (scheduled at 9:00 a.m.). The MAR identified the target behavior as schizophrenia and 0. - Sertraline 100 mg daily. The MAR indicated the targeted behavior was depression and 0. The documentation did not indicate if side effects occurred or if any non-pharmacological interventions were attempted. The effectiveness was documented on 11/1, 11/11, and 11/13/19. - Aggressive/Combative Behavior as needed was not documented. The care plan for Resident #84 indicated the resident has physical behavioral symptoms toward others and staff such as striking out propels w/c (wheelchair) without avoiding personal space of others and undresses self in inappropriate areas. Resident #84 propels self in corners and in different rooms, able to lock and unlock brakes, will refuse meals, and may become agitated when tired. The approaches instructed nursing to administer medication for aggression as ordered, monitor for effectiveness, and adverse reactions. Resident #84's care plan indicated the resident received antidepressant medication r/t (related to) depression and antiquity medication r/t anxiety. The approaches indicated staff were to attempt non-pharmacological interventions. Resident #84 received antipsychotic medication r/t schizophrenia. The approaches included AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) every three months.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and review of maintenance records, the facility did not ensure that a preventative maintenance...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and review of maintenance records, the facility did not ensure that a preventative maintenance schedule was in place to maintain the call light system for 1 of 2 floors in the building. Seven resident rooms and/or bathrooms (105, 107, 111, 113, 115, 124 and 125) out of 31 total resident rooms on the first floor of the building had call lights that were not functional and needed repair. Findings Included: Direct observation of call light function on 11/12/19 at 11 a.m. and 11/13/19 at 1 p.m. confirmed that the call lights for room [ROOM NUMBER] were not functioning. An observation was conducted on 11/12/19 at 1:30 p.m. The resident was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hall, and she was observed going into room [ROOM NUMBER]. She pressed the call bell laying on the bed near the door. The call light did not light up (activate). The resident left the room and went down the hall. She called out to one of the nursing assistants at the end of the hall and expressed her need for assistance to the bathroom. The nursing assistant asked the resident why she didn't use her call bell, and the resident responded, I did, it didn't work. The nursing assistant escorted the resident to her room and assisted her with toileting. Afterward, they exited the room. After 2 hours, the surveyor tested the call light for the resident residing in room [ROOM NUMBER], and it remained non-functional. During an interview with the Director of Nursing on 11/13/19 at 11:40 a.m., she confirmed that the call lights were not working for room [ROOM NUMBER] and 125. Results of a call light audit done by the facility on 11/13/19 at 12:15 p.m., revealed that there were 7 rooms on the first floor with identified nonfunctional call lights and/or nonfunctional bathroom call lights. (Rooms: 105-107 plus bathroom, 111, 113 bathroom, 124, and 125) During an interview with the Maintenance Director on 11/14/19 at 2 p.m., he said that he had a very long list of repairs that were pending and referred to the repair work as a work in progress. He said, Maintenance makes rounds on the floors daily and inspects the halls and common areas for safety issues. When asked if he adhered to a certain schedule for fixing items on the list, he stated No, we just mark it off as we get it done, unless it's an emergency. Review of invoice statements from 8/14/19, 10/17/19, and 10/22/19 revealed that the facility had the call lights tested and repaired on those dates. However, the facility was not able to produce documents of regular inspections and maintenance of the call light system. Review of the facility policy titled Maintenance Service, revised in December 2009, revealed Policy Statement: Maintenance service shall be provided in all areas of the buildings, grounds and equipment. Policy Interpretation and Implementation: 1) The Maintenance Department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times. 2) Functions of maintenance personnel include: g) maintaining the paging system in good working order. I) providing routinely scheduled maintenance service to all areas, including the call light system for resident rooms, shower rooms and bathrooms. 3) The Maintenance Director is responsible for developing and maintaining a schedule of maintenance service to assure that the buildings, grounds, and equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner. 2. An observation, on 11/12/19 at 11:10 a.m., revealed the emergency call light in the bathroom between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] was not operational. The call light was tested and no light or sound was observed or audible from the hallway. On 11/13/19 at 3:19 p.m., Staff Member G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and another nurse, confirmed the light in the hallway for the shared bathroom, of rooms 113-115, flickered when the string was pulled then stopped, even though the light was not shut off in the bathroom. On 11/12/19 at 11:21 p.m., the emergency light in the bathroom shared by rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] was tested and found to be not working. During the testing of the light, neither the light in the hallway turned on or was audible. At 3:24 p.m. on 11/13/19, the Director of Nursing (DON) tested the emergency light in the bathroom of rooms [ROOM NUMBERS], it was found if the string was pulled and wiggled the light would work but if it was just pulled it did not. The DON confirmed the bathroom lights for rooms 113 - 115 and 105 - 107 were not operational. She confirmed that during the facility-wide testing of the call lights, on 11/13/19, she had checked the lights on the unit and found that they had worked. The DON notified the Maintenance Director of the issues with the emergency lights. On 11/13/19 at 3:47 p.m., the Nursing Home Administrator stated the lights were not operational if residents and/or staff had to shake it to work. She stated she was going to review the handwritten list, done by staff, to see who said the lights in the bathrooms between rooms 105 -107 and 113 - 115 worked.
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: 4 life-threatening violation(s), Special Focus Facility, 1 harm violation(s), $353,123 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 61 deficiencies on record, including 4 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $353,123 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 is on CMS's Special Focus list for poor performance. Consider alternatives strongly.

About This Facility

What is Lake Mariam Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LAKE MARIAM 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 Lake Mariam Center Staffed?

CMS rates LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 61%, which is 15 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 55%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Mariam Center?

State health inspectors documented 61 deficiencies at LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2019 to 2024. These included: 4 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 56 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Lake Mariam Center?

LAKE MARIAM 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 is operated by ROBERT SCHOENFELD, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 120 certified beds and approximately 90 residents (about 75% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in WINTER HAVEN, Florida.

How Does Lake Mariam Center Compare to Other Florida Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Florida, LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (61%) 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 Lake Mariam 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 I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the facility's high staff turnover rate.

Is Lake Mariam Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 4 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility is currently on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes nationwide). 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 Lake Mariam Center Stick Around?

Staff turnover at LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is high. At 61%, the facility is 15 percentage points above the Florida average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 55%. 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 Lake Mariam Center Ever Fined?

LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $353,123 across 4 penalty actions. This is 9.6x the Florida average of $36,610. 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 Lake Mariam Center on Any Federal Watch List?

LAKE MARIAM HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER is currently an SFF Candidate, meaning CMS has identified it as potentially qualifying for the Special Focus Facility watch list. SFF Candidates have a history of serious deficiencies but haven't yet reached the threshold for full SFF designation. The facility is being monitored more closely — if problems continue, it may be added to the official watch list. Families should ask what the facility is doing to address the issues that led to this status.