NANCY HART OPERATION LLC

2117 DR GEORGE WARD ROAD, ELBERTON, GA 30635 (706) 283-3335
For profit - Limited Liability company 67 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 3 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
0/100
#299 of 353 in GA
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Nancy Hart Operation LLC in Elberton, Georgia has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #299 out of 353 facilities in Georgia, placing them in the bottom half, and #2 out of 2 in Elbert County, meaning only one other local option is available. The facility is reportedly improving, with a reduction in issues from 12 to 6 over the past year, but still faces serious challenges. Staffing is a notable weakness, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 stars and a troubling turnover rate of 64%, significantly higher than the state average of 47%. Additionally, the facility has incurred $30,309 in fines, a figure concerning as it exceeds fines from 90% of Georgia facilities, and has critical incidents such as a resident eloping undetected and suffering serious injuries, highlighting severe lapses in care and supervision.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Georgia
#299/353
Bottom 16%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
12 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
64% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$30,309 in fines. Higher than 85% of Georgia facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Georgia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 12 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Georgia average (2.6)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 64%

18pts above Georgia avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $30,309

Below median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Staff turnover is elevated (64%)

16 points above Georgia average of 48%

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

3 life-threatening
Jul 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike environment in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure a safe, clean, and comfortable homelike environment in seven of 26 resident rooms. This deficient practice had the potential to impact the quality of life and safety of all residents occupying the areas. Findings include:Observation on 7/22/2025 at 11:30 am of room [ROOM NUMBER] revealed a two-inch hole in the wall behind the resident's door, and a two-inch hole in the door leading to the bathroom.Observations on 7/22/2025 beginning at 11:23 am revealed Rooms 108, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, and 205 had chipped and peeling paint on the walls near the residents' beds and window areas. Further observations revealed the ceiling ventilation units in Rooms 108, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, and 205 had a buildup of fuzzy material covering the ventilation slats. Continued observations of Rooms 108, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, and 205 revealed jagged closet edges, soiled baseboards, and scuffed walls. During a walk-through observation on 7/24/2025 at 1:12 pm, the Maintenance Director verified all identified concerns.During an interview on 7/24/2025 at 2:00 pm, the Maintenance Director acknowledged that the rooms had ongoing cosmetic and structural issues. He stated that the repairs were pending due to supply delays and the fact that he was the only maintenance staff member at this time. He stated he understands the importance of the environmental concerns, emphasizing peeling paint, holes in walls, and dust accumulation, which are not consistent with creating or sustaining a homelike environment for all residents. He confirmed that the staff put work orders into the computer system, and he sorts them according to priority.
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 staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for one of 36 sampled resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement care plan interventions for one of 36 sampled residents (R) (R33). This deficient practice had the potential to place R33 at increased risk of medical complications and unmet care needs. Findings include:Review of the electronic medical records (EMR) revealed that R33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, but not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and stage 3 chronic kidney disease.Review of R33's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Section I (Active Diagnoses) documented diabetes mellitus as an active diagnosis. Section N (Medications) documented that R33 received insulin. Review of the care plan for R33 revealed a Focus date initiated 7/7/2025, of the resident has diabetes mellitus. The Goal included that the resident will be free from any signs or symptoms of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia through the next review date. Interventions included administering diabetes medication as ordered by the doctor, monitoring and documenting for side effects and effectiveness, monitoring and documenting signs of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Review of the Physician Orders for R33 revealed an order dated 7/3/2025 for insulin glargine subcutaneous solution 100 units/milliliter (ML) (a medication used to manage high blood sugar), inject 16 units subcutaneously at bedtime for DM.Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for R33, dated July 2025, revealed that R33 was scheduled to receive a nightly dose of insulin glargine subcutaneous 16 units at bedtime and was scheduled for 9:00 pm. Further review of the July 2025 MAR revealed that the insulin glargine was not administered on 16 of 19 dates, and there was no documentation of monitoring for signs of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia. In an interview on 7/23/2025 at 12:10 pm, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) HH stated she regularly cared for R33 and was unaware the resident was a diabetic. She confirmed that she had not administered any diabetes medications to him and had not been monitoring for signs or symptoms of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia. She also stated that she had not seen it documented in the care plan.In a telephone interview on 7/23/2025 at 7:53 pm, LPN CC stated she regularly cared for R33. She further stated she was unsure if R33 was a diabetic, and she had not monitored R33 for signs of hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia or administered the insulin as ordered by the physician. In a concurrent interview on 7/24/2025 at 12:10 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), Unit Manager (UM), and MDS Coordinator, the DON stated that her expectation is for nurses to review the care plans developed for each resident and to implement them. The DON further acknowledged that monitoring R33 for signs and symptoms of hypoglycemia was overlooked, despite being included in the care plan, because it was not included on the MAR.Cross-reference F760
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Policy and Proced...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Policy and Procedure Manual: Clinical P&P Respiratory Care, the facility failed to ensure that oxygen therapy was provided as ordered for two of six residents (R) (R69 and R46) with oxygen orders. In addition, the facility failed to ensure respiratory circuits were cleaned as ordered for two of six residents (R46 and R48) with respiratory circuits. This deficient practice had the potential to place R69, R46, and R48 at increased risk of respiratory complications.Findings include: Review of the policy titled, Policy and Procedure Manual: Clinical P&P Respiratory Care, dated 4/1/2022, revealed the “Procedure” section included, 1. Verify that there is a physician’s order for respiratory procedures or oxygen use. Review the physician’s orders for oxygen administration. … 10. Oxygen, trach, and nebulizer tubing is changed weekly and dated as verification that the tubing was changed. … 1. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) for R69 revealed diagnoses including, but not limited to, acute chronic diastolic (congestive) heart failure and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of the “Physician Orders” for R69 revealed an order dated 7/23/2025 for Oxygen at 2 liters per minute via (by way of) NC (nasal canula) PRN (as needed). Observations on 7/22/2025 at 1:21 pm, 7/23/2025 at 11:45 am, 7/24/2025 at 11:00 am, and 1:00 pm revealed R69 was in his bed and receiving oxygen via NC via a concentrator. The flow rate was set at 3 LPM. Observation and interview on 7/24/2025 at 1:30 pm of R69 with Registered Nurse (RN) Unit Manager (UM) BB confirmed the resident was receiving oxygen at 3 LPM. She further confirmed that R69 had a physician order for oxygen at 2 LPM. RN BB stated that she would adjust the oxygen setting. 2. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with pertinent diagnoses, including but not limited to, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with acute exacerbation, hypertension, anemia, and a history of venous thromboembolism. Review of R46's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 6/11/2025, revealed Section C (Cognitive Patterns) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4 (which indicates severe cognitive impairment). Section O (Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs) documented that the resident received oxygen while a resident. Review of the “Physician’s Orders” for R46 revealed an order dated 2/5/2025 for oxygen via NC at 2 LPM continuous. Observation on 7/22/2025 at 10:04 am revealed R46 in her room receiving oxygen via a NC via a concentrator with the flow rate set at 3 LPM. Observation revealed the oxygen tubing was dated 7/7/2025. In a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2025 at 10:10 am with R46 in her room, observation revealed R46 was not receiving oxygen. Further observation revealed the oxygen concentrator was turned off. R46 stated she did not turn the concentrator off. In an interview on 7/22/2025 at 2:00 pm, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) JJ confirmed that R46’s oxygen flow rate was set incorrectly and should be set to 2 LPM. In an interview on 7/23/2025 at 10:16 am, LPN DD confirmed that R46’s oxygen concentrator was turned off and that the resident was not receiving oxygen. LPN DD further confirmed that the oxygen tubing was dated 7/7/2025 and acknowledged it was overdue for replacement. She stated tubing should be changed weekly and confirmed it was two weeks past due. In an interview on 7/23/2025 at 2:10 pm, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was the nurse's responsibility to check oxygen settings each shift and change the oxygen tubing weekly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Insulin, t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Insulin, the facility failed to ensure that one of 15 residents (R) (R33) with physician orders for insulin received the insulin as prescribed by the physician. This deficient practice had the potential to place R33 at risk of medical complications and unmet needs. Findings include:Review of the facility's policy titled, Administration of Insulin, reviewed date 4/29/2025, reveals the Policy section included, It is the purpose of this facility to provide timely administration of insulin in order to meet the needs of each resident and to prevent adverse effects on a resident's condition. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines section included, 1. All insulin will be administered in accordance with physician's orders. 3. For new or emergency orders for insulin, the facility may use medications from the emergency kit.Review of the electronic medical records for R33 revealed an admission date of 7/3/2025 with diagnoses including, but not limited to, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and stage 3 chronic kidney disease.Review of R33's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed Section I (Active Diagnoses) documented diabetes mellitus as an active diagnosis. Section N (Medications) documented that R33 received insulin. Review of the Physician Orders for R33 revealed an order dated 7/3/2025 for insulin glargine subcutaneous solution 100 units/milliliter (ML) (a medication used to manage high blood sugar), inject 16 units subcutaneously at bedtime for DM.Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for R33, dated July 2025, revealed that R33 was scheduled to receive a nightly dose of insulin glargine subcutaneous 16 units at bedtime and was scheduled for 9:00 pm. Further review of the July 2025 MAR revealed that the insulin glargine was not administered on 7/3/2025, 7/4/2025, 7/5/2025, 7/6/2025, 7/9/2025, 7/8/2025, 7/9/2025, 7/10/2025, 7/11/2025, 7/12/2025, 7/13/2025, 7/14/2025, 7/15/2025, 7/16/2025, 7/17/2025, 7/18/2025, 7/19/2025, 7/20/2025, or 7/21/2025. The MAR was marked with the number 9 on 7/3/2025, 7/4/2025, 7/5/2025, 7/6/2025, 7/9/2025, 7/10/2025, 7/11/2025, 7/13/2025, 7/15/2025, 7/16/2025, 7/17/2025, 7/18/2025, 7/19/2025, 7/20/2025, and 7/21/2025. The MAR was marked with the number 2 on 7/12/2025 and the number 3 on 7/14/2025. Review of the Chart Codes, located on the MAR, revealed 2 = Drug refused, 3 = Absent from home with meds, and 9 = other/see progress notes.Review of the Progress Notes for R33 revealed entries dated 7/3/2025, 7/13/2025, 7/14/2024, 7/21/2025, 7/22/2025 documented Awaiting pharmacy. There was no documentation for the other days when the insulin was not administered. In a telephone interview on 7/23/2025 at 7:53 pm, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC stated that she had not administered the insulin because it had not been received from the pharmacy, and she had continued to reorder it. LPN CC stated she had not called the pharmacy or notified the physician for further instructions and stated she assumed the insulin would eventually arrive.In a telephone interview on 7/23/2025 at 8:47 pm, Pharmacist CC stated the pharmacy delivered to the facility one or two times a day. Pharmacist CC stated an order for insulin glargine for R33 had not been ordered, and there was no prescription for it on file. In a concurrent interview on 7/24/2025 at 12:10 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), Unit Manager (UM), and MDS Coordinator, the DON stated that her expectation was for nurses to follow the physician's orders as written. When a new resident is admitted , orders are to be entered immediately, and any issues with medications must be communicated promptly to the pharmacy. She emphasized that medications must be administered on schedule. If medication is not available, staff are expected to contact the physician directly for guidance. The UM stated that if medication was unavailable, staff have access to four emergency kits, and if the medication was still not available from the emergency kit, they will physically go to the pharmacy to obtain it. The DON further acknowledged that she could not explain why the nurse failed to follow through with obtaining the insulin.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene and Infection Prevention and Control Program, the facility f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene and Infection Prevention and Control Program, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene practices were followed, failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), and failed to establish a water management program to address the risk of waterborne pathogens, including Legionella. These failures had the potential to contribute to the transmission of infectious diseases among residents and staff. The census was 65.Findings include:Review of the facility's undated policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revealed section (7.l) revealed, Use of alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: After contact with objects.in the immediate vicinity of the resident.Review of the facility's policy titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, review date May 2022, included, Water Management: A water management program has been established as part of the overall infection prevention and control program. Control measures and testing protocols are in place to address potential hazards associated with the facility's water systems. Additionally, review of the policy revealed there was no content addressing EBP, and the facility was unable to provide an EBP policy.1. Observations on 7/23/2025 at 2:09 pm revealed Laundry Aide MM entered and exited multiple resident rooms while delivering clean clothing and placing items inside residents' closets without performing hand hygiene at any point during the process.Observations on 7/24/2025 at 2:00 pm revealed Laundry Aide MM entered and exited multiple resident rooms while delivering clean clothing and placing items inside residents' closets without performing hand hygiene at any point during the process.In an interview on 7/24/2025 at 5:15 pm, Laundry Aide MM confirmed that she did not perform hand hygiene after entering and exiting each resident's room, and was uncertain about the exact moments when hand hygiene should be performed. Laundry Aide MM reported receiving hand hygiene training during her initial hire in 2020, and stated she had not received any additional or refresher training since.2. Review of the facility-provided MDS [Minimum Data Set] Resident Matrix, dated 7/22/2025, revealed three residents with an indwelling urinary catheter and two residents with a pressure ulcer. Review of a facility-provided document titled Long Term Care CNA Skills Checklist revealed EBP was not on the checklist. In an interview on 7/23/2025 at 2:05 pm, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) NN stated EBP involved applying barrier cream every two hours. She reported that she does not currently wear a gown for any resident and only performs hand hygiene before entering resident rooms, not after. She stated that she had not been required to demonstrate specific Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) competency check-offs, only general CNA skills.In an interview on 7/23/2025 at 1:07 pm, the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that EBP had not been implemented at the facility. The DON described EBP as fairly new and acknowledged that no staff training had been conducted and no procedures, policies, or protocols were in place at the time of the interview.In an interview on 7/24/2025 at 10:03 am, the DON revealed that hand hygiene and PPE competency check-offs had not been conducted since she assumed her role. During the interview, the DON also mentioned that she had identified seven residents who met the criteria for EBP.3. Review of the facility's infection surveillance records revealed no documentation of a water management program or Legionella monitoring.Review of a facility-provided document titled Emergency Management Plan, dated 7/24/2025, revealed Samples are sent to State Lab. Lead, copper, E.coli, and coliform.In an interview on 7/23/2025 at 2:37 pm, the Maintenance Director revealed that the facility had not implemented a formal Water Management Program. He stated he possessed a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) printout on the topic but had not developed a functional plan and admitted not fully understanding the program's requirements. He noted that an external company collected monthly well water samples, but was unsure of the specific contaminants tested. A follow-up with the Environmental Management Services confirmed that the testing is limited to lead, copper, and coliform (E. coli), with no monitoring for Legionella and no risk assessment or control measures in place.
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Elopement Protoco...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Elopement Protocols, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision, frequent monitoring, and to ensure one of four exit doors was functioning properly to prevent the elopement for one out of three sampled Residents (R) (R1). Findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled Elopement Protocols under the Policy section revealed, It is the responsibility of all personnel to report any residents attempting to leave the premises, or suspected of being missing, to the Charge Nurse as soon as practical. Elopement and wandering are two separate events and shall not be used interchangeably . Elopement is an event which requires immediate attention of the administrative staff up to and including reporting the event to the stated and obtaining a sheriff report. A resident is considered to have eloped if the boundaries of elopement have been crossed. For this facility, elopement boundaries are off the grounds of the nursing home. Review of R1's admission Record revealed, the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses that included but not limited to: cerebral infarct, altered mental status, other symptoms and signs involving cognitive functions and awareness, generalized anxiety disorder. Review of R1's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Section C (Cognitive Patterns) revealed, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 9 indicating moderate cognitive impairment; Section E (Behaviors) revealed, he had behaviors including daily wandering and Section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) revealed, R1 had no impairment to upper and lower extremities, required supervision with mobility and activities of daily living. Review of R1's care plan initiated on 12/6/2024 and last revised on 4/29/2025 revealed, Focus [R1 Name] is an elopement risk/wanderer related to (r/t) disoriented to place with impaired safety awareness, resident wanders aimlessly. 2/21/2025-continues to try and find a way out of the facility, tries to put in the code on the door pad, find a way out the windows, increase agitation when redirected. 4/19/2025 - resident left facility on foot. Review of the nurse's note dated 4/19/2025 revealed, [R1 Name] left the faciity on foot this morning, Nurse went to give medications a few minutes before 0900 and could not find him in the facility, nurse and nurse supervisor got into their vehicles to go look for him, approximately 0910 nurse found [R1 Name] with a couple of people with him on the side of the road, they had called 911. [R1 Name] had fallen to his knees, no injury noted, and he stated he was going to [Name of Store]. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) transported him to the hospital. [R1 Name] was last seen around 8 am walking in the hallway. Review of the Discharge Summary from the hospital dated 4/19/2025 revealed, R1 arrived by ambulance and was treated for fall. Further review revealed, R1 had good recollection of what happened and reported that he slipped and fell softly on the grass after he left the nursing home because he wanted to go to [Name of store]. R1 had a normal exam and was discharged to nursing home with fall precautions and to follow-up with Primary Care Physician (PCP) in 2 (two) days. Interview on 4/28/2025 at 12:35 pm with R1 while in his room revealed, he did not remember leaving the building about a week ago on a Saturday (4/19/2025). He revealed, he went out the door and pointed toward the end of the 200 Hall and that he didn't use the keypad because the door wasn't locked. He further revealed that he doesn't remember anyone going out the door before him. He stated that he wasn't hurt and that he wasn't going to try that again. In an interview on 4/28/2025 at 1:50 pm with the Maintenance Director (MD) revealed, that staff called him on 4/19/2025 after R1 left the facility to come check the exit doors at the end of the 200 Hall because they didn't think the door was latching all the way. He stated that he probably checked all the exit doors at the facility three to four times a day and changed the door codes at least weekly. He stated that they have residents who watch the staff put in the codes and they will tell other residents what the codes were. He stated that the Administrator had talked to staff about being careful when they put in codes because some of the residents were watching. He stated that R1 wanders all day long checking the doors to see if he could get out. He further stated that the facility's front property extends about 100 yards to the road and from what he was told, R1 was found about 50 yards from the road in front of the church that faces the main highway. He further stated that the doors at the end of the 200 Hall had not had any problems previously with latching when closed and stated that he checked the doors multiple times on 4/19/2025 without any concerns noted. In an interview on 4/28/2025 at 2:00 pm with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) CNA AA revealed that she was working on the 200 Hall on 4/19/2025 when R1 got out of the building. She stated that she had seen him walking in the hallway earlier in the shift at about 7:15 am and when she took his breakfast tray to him around 8:40 am, he wasn't in his bed but wasn't concerned because he liked to walk the halls. She revealed that she asked the nurse if she had seen R1 because he wasn't in his room to eat breakfast, and that was when the nurse and Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor got in their cars and began looking for him while other staff looked inside the facility. In an interview on 4/28/2025 at 2:10 pm with CNA BB revealed that she was working on the 200 Hall on 4/19/2025 when R1 left the facility. She stated she wasn't assigned to him but that she saw him walking in the hallway at around 8:00 am that morning. She stated she went to get the breakfast trays around 8:40 am and while passing out trays to her residents, CNA AA asked her if she had seen R1 because he wasn't in his room. She further stated that when the resident got back to the facility from the hospital, she asked him where he was going when he left the facility, and he told her he wanted to go to the store for hair clippers, but he wouldn't do that again. She stated he told her that he felt 'foolish' because he tried to walk to the store. She further stated that R1 was the only resident who checked the doors to see if they were open and that the other residents who were wanderers just wander in the hallways. In an interview on 4/29/2025 at 10:05 am with Housekeeping Aide CC who stated that she was told by her supervisor to make sure the doors are locked when they take the trash out. She stated that she had seen R1 walking around in the hallways checking the doors to see if they were locked. In an interview on 4/29/2025 at 11:15 am with LPN DD revealed that when she realized R1 was not in the facility around 9:00 am, she and the RN Supervisor got in their vehicles and started looking for him. She stated when she turned off the road onto Highway 17, she saw a truck pulled over on the side of the road with a man and woman standing by R1. She stated that he had evidently tripped in the grass and fell to his knees. She stated that the man and woman had already called 911 to come pick up R1. She further stated that she and the RN Supervisor waited with the R1 until the ambulance arrived. She stated that R1 told them he had left the facility about 30 minutes ago and was going to the store. In an interview on 4/29/2024 at 1:30 pm with the Administrator revealed that after R1 eloped, the MD put alarms on all the exit doors except the front door which had a keypad. He further stated that he had requested a [Name of electronic alarm] system for the facility, but felt R1 was cognitive enough that he would remove it.
Feb 2024 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, the facility failed to assess and obtain a physician order for one of 29 sampled Residents (R) (R56) to safely self-administer and store medication at bedside. Findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled, Storage of Medications under the Policy Statement revealed, The Facility shall store all drugs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. Observation and interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:53 a.m. with R56 revealed the resident pulled a single pill from his pocket and stated he was not sure what the pill was for. Observation and interview on 2/27/2024 at 10:06 a.m. with R56 in the resident's room revealed the following medications: atorvastatin 10 milligrams (mg), trazodone 50 mg, tamsulosin 0.4 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and Voltaren topical gel 1% (one percent) located in the bottom dresser drawer in R56's room. R56 reported his family member brought the medications from home and put them in his drawer. Review of R56's clinical record revealed the following diagnoses but not limited to unspecified injury of head, subsequent encounter, generalized anxiety disorder, unspecified atrial fibrillation, hypertension, insomnia, and muscle weakness. Review of R56's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed for Section C-Cognition, a Brief Interview Mental Status Score of nine, which indicated his cognition was moderately impaired. Review of R56's January 2024 Physician Orders revealed there were no orders for R56 to self-administer or store medications at bedside. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:59 a.m. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC reported another resident told her R56 had medications in his pocket. LPN CC reported she did not verify if R56 had medications in his pocket. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 10:04 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) reported that no resident in the facility had been assessed for self-administration of medications. The DON confirmed that R56 had medications in his pocket. Observation and Interview on 2/27/2024 at 10:16 am with the DON confirmed the medications were in R56's room. The DON revealed that residents are not allowed to keep medications in their room. She reported that R56 's medication incident was an oversight, and that R56 did not have an assessment to self-medicate or store medications in his room.
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 F0567 (Tag F0567)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to assure residents who have authorized the facility i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to assure residents who have authorized the facility in writing to manage any personal funds have ready and reasonable access to those funds for one Resident (R) (R5) of 29 sampled residents. Findings include: Review of the clinical record revealed R5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, schizophrenia unspecified, chronic systolic (congestive) heart failure, generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, schizoaffective disorder depressive type, and gout unspecified. Review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R5 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13 which indicated the resident's cognition was intact. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 10:52 am with R5 revealed she requested $220.00 from the BOM last month (January) to purchase some items she wanted from the store. R5 revealed she had not received the $220.00 she requested nor was it explained why she had not received the funds. Interview on 2/28/2024 at 3:58 pm with the Business office Manager (BOM) reported that R5 requested personal funds in the amount of $200.00 on 1/26/2024. The BOM reported that she gave $70.00 of R5's personal funds to the Activities Director (AD) because she does the shopping for the residents. The BOM reported that the ledger was to be signed by residents when they receive their personal funds. A request for the ledger was made but the BOM indicated she was not able to find it. During the interview, the BOM reported that she did not feel comfortable giving R5 that amount of money because R5 likes to purchase wigs, perfume, and make-up. Interview on 2/29/2024 at 4:30 pm with the Administrator revealed his expectations were for residents who have a personal funds account, should receive their funds when they request them. A request was made to the BOM on 2/28/2024 for the facility's policy on Resident Personal funds and for the money distribution log that the residents would sign when he/she received money. The policy or money distribution ledger were not made available for review.
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 F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled, Standards and Guidelines: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled, Standards and Guidelines: SG Resident Rights, Dignity, and Visitation Rights, and Blood Glucose Monitoring, the facility failed to ensure visual privacy during treatment for two of 29 sampled Residents (R) (R39) and (R21). Findings include: Review of facility's policy titled Standards and Guidelines: SG Resident rights, Dignity, and Visitation Rights dated 9/27/2022 under Guidelines revealed, 3. The facility will make effort to assist each resident in exercising his/her rights to ensure that the resident is always treated with respect, kindness, and dignity; providing care that is comfortable and consistent with his/her normal life habits, observing resident's choices whenever able. Review of the undated facility's policy titled Blood Glucose Monitoring under Policy revealed, It is the policy of the facility to perform blood glucose monitoring to diabetic residents as per physician's orders. Under the section titled Procedure: revealed, 5. Provide privacy. 1. Review of R39's clinical records revealed he had diagnoses that included but not limited to, Type II diabetes mellitus without complications, essential hypertension, generalized anxiety disorder, restlessness and agitation, and unspecified intellectual disabilities. Review of R39's physician orders included but not limited to, Lantus solution 100 unit/ml (milliliters) (Insulin Glargine) inject 35 unit subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes mellitus, Admelog Injection Solution 100 100 unit/ml (Insulin Lispro) inject as per sliding scale, Admelog Injection Solution 100 unit/ml (Insulin Lispro) Inject 15 unit subcutaneously before meals related to Type II diabetes mellitus without complications, and accuchecks AC (before meals) and HS (at bedtime). Review of R39's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Section C-Cognitive Patterns, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 11 which indicated he had moderate cognitive impairment; Section I-Medically complex conditions indicated, hypertension, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus, anxiety disorder, depression; Section N-Medication, indicated he received insulin injections. Review of R39's care plan dated 5/31/2022 revealed a focus for diabetes mellitus with interventions that included but not limited to, diabetes medications as ordered by doctor. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 10:49 am with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA gathered supplies, entered R39's room with supplies in hand. LPN AA conversed with R39 who was sitting on his bed (B Bed/middle). LPN AA performed glucometer check, the result was 287 which required insulin coverage per sliding scale, R39 also had a routine dose of insulin due at this time. LPN AA did not close the door or pull the privacy curtain while performing blood glucose monitoring or insulin administration to right arm. There was another resident in the room by the C bed at this time and other residents were in the hallway during the treatment which was visible from the hallway. 2. Review of R21's clinical records revealed he had diagnoses that included but not limited to, Type II diabetes mellitus without complications, essential hypertension, and dementia unspecified severity without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety. Review of R21's physician orders included but not limited to, Lantus Subcutaneous Solution 100 unit/ml inject 20 units subcutaneous at bedtime for diabetes mellitus type II, Novolog Flex pen Subcutaneous Solution Pen-Injector 100 unit/ml inject as per sliding scale, and accuchecks four times a day for diabetes mellitus. Review of R21's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Section C-Cognitive Patterns, a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 which indicated he had moderate cognitive impairment; Section I-Medically complex conditions indicated, respiratory failure, dementia, diabetes mellitus; Section N-Medication, indicated he received insulin injections. Review of R21's care plan dated 12/16/2022 revealed a focus for diabetes mellitus with interventions that included but not limited to, diabetes medications as ordered by doctor. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 11:00 am revealed LPN AA gathered supplies from the medication cart drawer and entered R21's room. Another resident was in the same room in wheelchair by bed A and a staff member was standing in the doorway of resident's room. LPN AA performed blood glucose check; the result was 340 which required insulin coverage per sliding scale. LPN AA did not close the room door. The privacy curtain was pulled, but the resident was positioned in the wheelchair beyond the point where the privacy curtain stopped. There was a resident present in the hallway during the treatment with R21 who was visible from the doorway during the administration of insulin. Interview on 2/28/2024 at 11:11 am with LPN AA acknowledged and confirmed she did not close the door or ensure privacy was provided during procedures for R39 or R21. LPN AA further stated R21's back was turned, so she thought that was enough privacy for him. Interview on 2/28/2024 at 11:16 am with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the nurse should have asked residents about privacy during the procedure. DON further stated privacy should be provided when providing treatments or care. Cross Reference F880
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 F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of facility's policy titled ''P&P Restraints,'' the facility failed to ensure one of one Resident (R) (R49) reviewed for physical res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of facility's policy titled ''P&P Restraints,'' the facility failed to ensure one of one Resident (R) (R49) reviewed for physical restraints was free from an unnecessary physical restraint. Specifically, R49 did not have the necessary consent, physician's order, or a completed assessment in place for lap tray to be applied and used with a Geri chair. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled ''P&P Restraints'' dated 4/1/2022 under the section titled Policy revealed, ''It will be the policy of this facility that restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s) and only after other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully. Restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptoms and never for discipline or staff convenience. Definition of a Restraint: Physical Restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one's body. Under the section titled Procedure revealed, 5. Other in emergency situations, prior to placing a resident in restraints, there shall be a pre-restraining assessment/evaluation and review to determine the need for the restraints. 6. Should a resident not be capable of making a decision, the surrogate or responsible party may exercise the right of the use of non-use of a restraint. 7. Restrained individuals shall be reviewed regularly to determine whether they are candidates for restraint reduction, less restrictive methods of restraints, or total restraint elimination. 8. The resident's plan of care should include the use of restraint. Review of R49's ''Face Sheet'' found in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) under the Profile tab revealed R49 admitted with diagnoses that included dementia unspecified severity with agitation, altered mental status, history of falling, Alzheimer's disease, restlessness, and agitation. Review of R49's Quarterly ''Minimum Data Set (MDS)'' assessment with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 12/1/2023, found in the EMR under the ''MDS'' tab, indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 (the assessment was not able to be conducted due to the resident's poor cognition). The assessment indicated R49 was dependent upon staff for transfers. The assessment indicated physical restraints of any kind were Not Used. Review of R49's current physician orders located under the Orders tab in the EMR revealed there was not an order for use of the Lap tray while out of bed to Geri chair. Review of R49's Restraint Evaluation/Reduction Assessment dated 5/28/2023 located under the 'assessment tab in the EMR indicated there was not a medical symptom for the use of a restraint. The assessment did not indicate a type of restraint/device. Restraint Outcome - indicated there had not been any decline in condition negative response to restraint use. The following sections on the assessment were all blank: Restraint Alternative Attempts, Summary /Recommendations/Plan, Care Plan Initiation, Family notified, Physician notified, Staff notified. Review of R49's medical records revealed there was no documentation that an assessment had been completed for the use of the lap tray, for alternative interventions to the lap tray, or ongoing application of the lap tray. No documentation was found in R49's record to indicate informed consent had been obtained by the resident's representative for the use of the lap tray. No documentation was found in the record to indicate R49's lap tray was being monitored every 30 minutes or released every two hours. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 9:10 am, 11:38 am, and 12:23 pm revealed, R49 sitting in Geri chair with a lap tray affixed to it. The lap tray was observed to be secured in a locked position to the chair during each observation. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 1:01 pm revealed R49 sitting in Geri chair with lap tray attached during mealtime. A staff member was feeding the resident with the meal tray positioned on the dining room table. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 1:41 pm revealed R49 sitting in Geri chair with lap tray attached, in front of the nurses' station. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 1:16 pm with the Therapy manager revealed, R49 was on Hospice Services and had not been evaluated by therapy for positioning while out of bed. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 2:05 pm with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) EE revealed she fed R49 in the dining room today. CNA EE further stated the lap tray was intact during mealtime. She stated she moved the food from the lap tray and placed it on the regular dining table because R49 would play in the food if the tray was within her reach. CNA EE stated R49 had the lap tray because she would get up out the Geri chair unassisted and fall. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 2:16 pm with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA revealed R49 should not have had the lap tray intact at all times, just during mealtimes. LPN AA stated that she had not seen any orders related to when the lap tray was to be used but knew what it was used for. LPN AA stated she had not noticed R49 with the lap tray intact until a few minutes ago. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 2:29 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed R49 used the lap tray for safety. She stated she would not call it a restraint. DON further stated that if the lap trap was not used, R49 would get up unassisted and be on the floor. DON also stated the resident had been on Hospice Services since admission to the facility and the Hospice company supplied the Geri chair with the lap tray attached at the time of admission. DON further stated the Hospice company was responsible for giving them an order and obtaining consent for use of the lap tray. DON verified the record did not have an order or consent on the record related to the use of the lap tray. DON also verified the Restraint Evaluation/Reduction assessment completed upon admission was incomplete and there was no other information in the chair related to use of a restraint. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 2:46 pm with the Administrator revealed if a resident had restraint, it was his expectation that the facility staff obtain a consent and order for the device. He stated that Hospice would typically obtain the order, but it was the facility's responsibility to ensure that orders and consents are in place for the device being used.
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 F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled P& P Hemodialysis, the facility failed to have ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled P& P Hemodialysis, the facility failed to have ongoing communication and collaboration with the dialysis center for one out of 29 sampled Residents (R) (R20) reviewed for dialysis. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled P & P Hemodialysis, dated 4/1/2022 under Procedure revealed, 9. The facility and the dialysis center should maintain regular communication and should a change in condition occur before or during the dialysis treatment, the sending facility should communicate the changes in needs to the receiving facility. Review of R20's admission Record under the Profile tab in the Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed R20 was admitted with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease, dependence on renal dialysis, Type 2 diabetes Mellitus without complications, and unspecified sequelae of other cerebrovascular disease. Review of R20's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 2/8/2024 revealed a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of R20's EMR revealed there were no pre/post dialysis weights documented. There was no communication documented in the EMR of verbal/written reports from the dialysis center to the facility after each dialysis treatment. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 3:02 pm, the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) CC provided surveyor with a green binder labeled R20 Hemodialysis Communication sheets. Review of the communication sheets in the binder revealed that the latest communication sheet was dated 7/14/2023 which was verified at this time by LPN CC During a telephone interview on 2/28/2024 at 3:38 pm with the dialysis center Administrator DD, revealed the facility would call the dialysis center to obtain R20's weights once a month. Administrator DD further stated the facility did not provide the dialysis center with communication sheets relevant to R20's care as they once did. During a follow up interview on 2/28/2024 at 3:52 pm with LPN CC revealed R20 attend dialysis three days every week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. LPN CC stated that she would check the resident's vital signs before she went to dialysis. LPN CC further stated she was supposed to send a communication form to the dialysis center, but she had not been doing it. She stated that she started completing the pre dialysis assessment in the electronic record today, and it was the first day she had done it. LPN CC further stated that the dialysis center would call her if anything went on with R20 while at the dialysis center, but the communications between the two centers were not routine. LPN CC stated she did not have any knowledge of resident's pre and post dialysis weights. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 3:58 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that the facility recently switched to the new electronic system and started utilizing the pre-dialysis assessment in the electronic record this week. In addition, the DON stated the facility did not complete communication sheets. DON further stated that the nurses at the facility are required to call the dialysis center if anything was going on with the resident but there wasn't any routine communication. She stated the pre-dialysis assessments started today were not sent to the dialysis center with R20 and the dialysis center did not send a report back.
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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication, the facility failed to ensure one of five Residents (R) (R30) was eva...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication, the facility failed to ensure one of five Residents (R) (R30) was evaluated for use of as needed (PRN) psychiatric medications beyond 14 days. Findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication, revealed under Policy: Residents are not given psychotropic drugs unless the medication is necessary to treat a specific condition, as diagnosed and documented in the clinical record, and the medication is beneficial to the resident as demonstrated by monitoring and documentation of the resident's response to the medication(s). Under the subheading titled Policy explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, 9. PRN orders for all psychotropic drugs shall be used only when the medication is necessary to treat a diagnosed specific condition that is documented in the clinical record, and for a limited duration (i.e. 14 days). 9(a). If the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she shall document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. Review of R30's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) revealed the resident was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included but not limited to Alzheimer's disease, dementia unspecified severity with agitation, restlessness, generalized anxiety disorder, and repeated falls. Review of R30's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 1/22/2024 revealed for Section C (Cognitive Patterns) a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 99 which indicated the assessment was not able to be conducted due to the resident's poor cognition; Section N (Medications) revealed she was receiving antipsychotics and antianxiety. Review of R30's care plan dated 12/29/2023 indicated a focus for use of anti-anxiety medications due to anxiety disorder and agitation. The goals included but not limited to residents will be free from discomfort or adverse reactions related to anti-anxiety therapy through the review dates with interventions that included but were not limited to administering anti-anxiety medications as ordered by physician. Review of R30's Physician orders revealed a Medical Doctor's (MD) order for lorazepam 0.5 milligram (mg) one tablet by mouth every eight hours as needed (PRN) for increased agitation with start date of 12/19/2023 but did not include a stop date. Review of the Controlled Drug Record sheet located in a notebook on the medication cart revealed R30's lorazepam 0.5 mg was signed out as administered on 2/13/2024, 2/16/2024, 2/18/2024, 2/22/2024, 2/27/2024, and 2/28/2024. Review of R30's Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed lorazepam 0.5 mg was documented as administered after the 14 days on 1/5/2024, 1/18/2024, 2/13/2024, 2/16/2024, 2/18/2024, 2/22/2024 and 2/27/2024. Review of R30's EMR revealed no documentation related to a rationale or a documented duration for continuation of the PRN antianxiety medication beyond 14 days. Interview 2/29/2024 at 11:43 am with the Nurse Practitioner revealed she had recently adjusted R30's Buspar due to behaviors, but she had not addressed the lorazepam (PRN medication) since the medication was initiated. Interview on 2/29/2024 at 11:45 am with the Director of Nursing (DON), she confirmed and verified the order dated 12/19/2023 for lorazepam 0.5 mg every eight hours as needed was started on 12/29/2023 without a stop date. She reviewed the record and verified there was no documentation in the EMR related to a rationale and duration for continued use of the medication. DON stated she was aware all PRN antipsychotics had to be re-evaluated for continued use after 14 days.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, the facility staff failed to store physician ordered medications in a locked compartment whe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled Storage of Medications, the facility staff failed to store physician ordered medications in a locked compartment when unattended for one of three medication carts in the facility. The facility census was 59. Findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled Storage of Medication under the Policy Statement revealed, The facility shall store all drubs and biologicals in a safe, secure, and orderly manner. Under the section, Policy Interpretation and Implementation revealed, 7. Compartments (including, but not limited to, drawers, cabinets, rooms, refrigerators, carts, and boxes) containing drugs and biologicals shall be locked when not in use, and trays or carts used to transport items shall not be left unattended if open or otherwise potentially available to others. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 8:04 am revealed a medication cart in front of the nurse's station. The cart was out of sight of a nurse. The medication cart was unlocked. There were three residents around the unlocked medication cart. Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA returned to a medication cart directly alongside the unlocked medication cart at 8:15 am. LPN AA confirmed the medication cart was left unlocked while unattended. LPN AA opened the drawers of the unlocked med cart to verify there were blister packs of medications inside the first, second, and third drawers of the medication cart. LPN AA stated the unlocked medication cart was used for storage of medications delivered from the pharmacy. The drawers to the medication cart were easily accessible to anyone passing by the nurse's station. Observation on 2/28/2024 at 4:09 pm revealed the medication cart in front of the nurse's station to be unlocked again. There was not a nurse in the area at the time of the observation. Further observation revealed a resident in a wheelchair positioned on the right side and two residents positioned in front of the unlocked medication cart. After six minutes, the nurse did not return to the unlocked medication cart. The surveyor, while still observing the medication cart informed the Director of Nursing (DON) of the cart being unlocked. DON verified the medication was unlocked while not attended by a nurse. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 4:27 pm with the DON revealed that the medication cart should be locked after each used. She further stated that medication carts were not used to administer medication during the med pass but used to store the medications delivered from the pharmacy. She stated that the medication cart should only be accessible by the nurses and the certified medication aides.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, and Blood Glucose Monitoring, the facility failed to help prevent the dev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policies titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, and Blood Glucose Monitoring, the facility failed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two of 29 sampled Residents (R) (R39 and R21). Specifically, the facility failed to follow proper procedures for hand hygiene, donning and removing gloves while performing a blood glucose test. In addition, the facility failed to clean and disinfect the glucometer per the manufacturer's instructions. Findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, under Policy Interpretation and Implementation revealed, 7. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively, soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: (d). before performing any non-surgical invasive procedures; (e). before and after handling an invasive device; g. before handling clean or soiled dressing, gauze pads, etc.; (i). after contact with a resident's intact skin; (j). after contact with blood or bloody fluids, (k). after handling used dressings, contaminated equipment, etc.; m. after removing gloves; 9. The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is recognized as the best practice for preventing healthcare-associated infections. Review of the undated facility's policy titled Blood Glucose Monitoring under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, 3. The nurse will abide by the infection control practices of cleaning and disinfection of the glucometer as per the manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with the facility's glucometer disinfection policy. Under Procedure revealed, 3. Perform hand hygiene and donn gloves. 17. Remove and discard gloves and perform hand hygiene. 1. Review of R39's clinical records revealed he had diagnoses that included but not limited to, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus without complications. Review of R39's physician orders included but not limited to, Lantus solution 100 unit/ml (milliliters) (Insulin Glargine) inject 35 unit subcutaneously two times a day for diabetes mellitus, Admelog Injection Solution 100 100 unit/ml (Insulin Lispro) inject as per sliding scale, Admelog Injection Solution 100 unit/ml (Insulin Lispro) Inject 15 unit subcutaneously before meals related to Type II diabetes mellitus without complications, and accuchecks AC (before meals) and HS (at bedtime). During observation of medication administration task on 2/28/2024 at 10:49 am, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA entered R39's room, donned gloves while in the resident's room. LPN AA preformed fingerstick blood sugar, exited the room with contaminated supplies wearing the gloves used to perform the procedure, returned to medication cart, and disposed of the supplies. LPN AA then placed the contaminated glucometer directly on top of the medication cart, removed gloves, applied another pair of gloves, and proceeded to disinfect the glucometer with a sanitizing wipe. LPN AA placed the glucometer back on the med cart in the same area, obtained another sanitizing wipe and wrapped the glucometer with the wipe and then placed it on the medication cart. LPN AA then removed gloves and gathered insulin for administration (no hand hygiene or glove change observed). LPN AA returned to R39's room to administer insulin, applied gloves, used an alcohol wipe to clean the injection site, removed the cap from the needle and injected the medication into the right arm (no hand hygiene of glove change observed). LPN AA exited the room and returned to the medication cart wearing the gloves used for the procedure, disposed of the used supplies and sharps, removed gloves, and performed hand hygiene using a hand sanitizer on the medication cart. 2. Review of R21's clinical records revealed he had diagnoses that included but not limited to, Type II diabetes mellitus without complications. Review of R21's physician orders included but not limited to, Lantus Subcutaneous Solution 100 unit/ml inject 20 units subcutaneous at bedtime for diabetes mellitus type II, Novolog Flex pen Subcutaneous Solution Pen-Injector 100 unit/ml inject as per sliding scale, and accuchecks four times a day for diabetes mellitus. During observation of medication administration task on 2/28/2024 at 11:00 am, LPN AA entered R 21's room, upon entry into resident's room LPN AA placed the glucometer and other supplies onto residents' bed, applied gloves, cleansed residents finger using an alcohol wipe then pricked residents finger wearing gloves. LPN AA exited the room and returned to the medication cart wearing the gloves used during the procedure and disposed of the supplies. LPN AA then placed the contaminated glucometer directly onto the medication cart, removed gloves, applied another pair of gloves, and cleaned glucometer. LPN AA then removed gloves, obtained the insulin for administration, and returned to R21's room. LPN AA applied gloves and administered insulin. LPN AA returned to the medication cart, disposed of the sharps but never removed the gloves and/or performed hand hygiene during the observation. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 11:11 am LPN AA acknowledged that glove change and hand hygiene should have been conducted before and after blood glucose checks and for administration of the insulin injections. She also agreed the glucometer and supplies should not have been placed on R21's bed and the contaminated glucometer should have not been placed on the medication cart. During an interview on 2/4/2024 at 2:28 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON) she stated she expected staff to follow the hand hygiene policy when performing injections and blood glucose monitoring. DON further stated she was not familiar with the process/procedure for disinfecting the glucometer. Cross Reference F583
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 F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled P&P Resident Council Meeting, the facility failed to provide documented responses to res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff and resident interviews, record review, and review of the facility's policy titled P&P Resident Council Meeting, the facility failed to provide documented responses to residents' grievances and concerns regarding resident care and life expressed during Resident Council meetings in six of eight meetings. The facility census was 58. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled P&P Resident Council Meeting dated 4/1/2022 under the section titled Procedure revealed, The purpose of the Resident Council is to provide a forum for residents: a. To discuss and offer suggestions about facility policies and procedures affecting residents' care, treatment, and quality of life; 4. The facility will provide a designated staff person who is approved by the resident group who is approved by the resident group and the facility and who is responsible for providing assistance and responding to written requests that result from group meetings. 5. The facility will consider the views of a resident group and act promptly upon the grievances and recommendations of such groups concerning issues of resident care and life in the facility. a. The facility will demonstrate their response and rationale for such responses. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 7/27/2023 revealed the following resident concerns: aides should check rooms more often; aides should be more respectful; and staff congregates in hallways on their phones. The minutes indicated that the Social Services Director (SSD) was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible as blank. There were no entries under Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were blank. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days indicated No. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review was blank. The sign-in sheet indicated 14 residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 8/31/2023 revealed the following resident concerns: not getting showers often; resident at window when food is being served; and aides being too loud at night. The minutes indicated that the SSD was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible as blank. There were no entries under Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were blank. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days indicated No. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review was blank. The sign-in sheet indicated 13 residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 9/28/2023 revealed the following resident concerns: need satellite dish/cable; very loud roommates; need better smoking area; aides on nights are loud and residents can't sleep; and aides need to be more attentive and check on residents. The minutes indicated that the SSD was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken as blank and Person Responsible indicated in first two issues with no Outcome indicated. There were no entries under Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were blank. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days indicated No. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review was blank. The sign-in sheet indicated seven residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 10/26/2023 revealed the following resident concerns: need more aides on weekends; takes too long to answer call lights; and staff too loud in hallway at night. The minutes indicated that the SSD was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible as blank. There were no entries under Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were blank. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days indicated No. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review was blank. The sign-in sheet indicated 13 residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 11/30/2023 revealed the following resident concerns: hard time getting smokers out on weekends; need a van; and need to stop residents from wandering in and out of rooms. The minutes indicated that the SSD was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible as blank. There were no entries under Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were blank. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days indicated No. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review was blank. The sign-in sheet indicated nine residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 12/28/2023 revealed the following resident concerns: need shower beds and shower team in place; need van; need extension over smoking area; and need more aides on weekends. The minutes indicated that the SSD was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible as blank. There were entries under Old Business Review and two issues were listed as ongoing and one resolved. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days indicated No. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review was blank. The sign-in sheet indicated six residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 1/29/2024 revealed the following resident concerns: more Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA's) needed; takes long time to answer call lights; need more menu changes. The minutes indicated that the SSD and Administrator were present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible was complete. The Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were complete. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days was blank. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review indicated review of Right to Privacy. The sign-in sheet indicated 15 residents present at the meeting. Review of the Resident Council minutes dated 2/27/2024 revealed the following resident concerns: smoking on weekends; call lights not being answered timely; and mold in shower room. The minutes indicated that the SSD was present at the meeting. The section marked New Business Review/Action Plan revealed Actions Taken and Person Responsible was complete. The Old Business Review and the fields of Issue, Status Update, and Person Responsible were complete. The section Facility Policies and Procedures Developed/Revised/Updates in the last 30 days was blank. The section Resident [NAME] of Rights review indicated review of right to refuse medication and showers. The sign-in sheet indicated 10 residents present at the meeting. Observation and interview on 2/28/2024 at 11:00 am revealed a meeting held with six members of the resident council including the resident council president. The newly appointed resident council president said she would like the Administrator to attend more future meetings and to address individual and collective grievances. She added that she would appreciate any response to their ongoing concerns. The residents verbalized an understanding of the grievance process, but they were concerned about the lack of facility response to their concerns. Interview on 2/28/2024 at 11:57 am with the Administrator indicated that he does not respond in writing to any of the council's concerns. The Administrator voiced an understanding that the lack of documented follow-up to concerns presented by the resident council gave an indication that their complaints had not been resolved. A follow up interview on 2/28/2024 at 2:21 pm with the Administrator confirmed that he was aware he was to respond to resident council concerns, be he didn't.
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, staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, staff interviews, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for nine of 23 rooms (Rooms 100, 101, 107, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206) and two of three hallways (Hallways 200 and 300). Specifically, the bathrooms in rooms 100, 201, 203, 204, and 206 contained unstable floors, cracked and broken tile, soiled toilets and sinks, and broken lights. Additionally, the residents' rooms and hallways contained loose tiles, holes in the walls, chipped and peeling paint, missing cabinet faces, and sticky hallway floors. The facility census was 58 residents. Findings include: Observations on 2/27/2024 from 9:15 am to 9:35 am revealed the following: The 200 and 300 hallway floors were noted to be sticky while walking the entirety of both floors. There were brown substances found stuck to the floor and paint chipping throughout both hallways; room [ROOM NUMBER]- bathroom light not working; room [ROOM NUMBER]-cracked tile and floor dug out in front of the bathroom door; room [ROOM NUMBER]- missing floor in front of the door leading to the bathroom; room [ROOM NUMBER]- soft floor at the bathroom entry and beside the sink; 201B- resident night stand missing cabinet face with no handle; room [ROOM NUMBER]A- tile missing under residents' bed; 202B- loose tile under resident's bed; room [ROOM NUMBER]-hole in the wall by A bed, soft floor at the bathroom entry, bedside the sink and at the foot of Bed A; room [ROOM NUMBER]- paint peeling on door; feces on the bathroom toilet and brown substance on the sink; room [ROOM NUMBER]- soft, unstable floor, sink clogged up repeatedly; room [ROOM NUMBER]-paint peeling on the outside of the door; 206 (bathroom)-leaking toilet, soft floor and broken tile. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 1:00 pm with the Maintenance Director (MD) revealed he has been employed with the facility for about six months and has not received any training related to maintenance. The MD stated he has no prior history in the maintenance field. The MD further revealed a contractor was coming into the building next week to begin repairs on the bathrooms that were not functional. He stated the floors are sticky from fogging during COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019). An observational tour of the facility was conducted on 2/27/2024 at 1:30 pm with the MD, who confirmed the above findings. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 2:00 pm with the Administrator revealed the MD was unstopping the toilet in the bathroom for resident rooms 202-204 and noticed the floor felt soft when standing in the bathroom. The Administrator stated the MD notified him of the bathroom floor three weeks ago. The Administrator further stated the facility was awaiting a contractor to repair the flooring scheduled for 3/4/2024. Interview on 2/28/2024 at 9:00 am with the Administrator revealed the 200 hall with the severe sticky floor were stripped this morning around 5:00 am. There was little improvement when surveyors arrived that day (2/28/2024) in which the MD had gone to obtain more supplies to strip the floor again. The Administrator revealed that the 300 hall would not be stripped at this time and would be scheduled later since the 200 hall was worse. Policy requested from facility but not received.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, staff Interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, the facility failed label and date food items stored in the refrigerator. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff Interviews, record review and review of the facility's policy titled Food Receiving and Storage, the facility failed label and date food items stored in the refrigerator. In addition, the facility failed to maintain the appropriate concentration of sanitizing solution in the three-compartment sink. The facility census was 58 residents. Findings include: Review of the undated facility's policy titled Food Receiving and Storage under the Policy Statement revealed, Food shall be received and stored in a manner that complied with food and safety handling practices. Under the section titled Policy Interpretation and Implementation revealed, 7. All foods store in the refrigerator or freezer will be covered, labeled, and dated (used by date). Observation of the kitchen on 2/27/2024 at 9:15 am revealed the following: All food items in the refrigerator were not labeled or dated which included sausage, fish, turkey, and hot dogs; The sanitize strip test conducted for the three-compartment sink was negative and revealed the sanitizing solution was not at the appropriate concentration according to the manufacturer's instructions. Interview on 2/27/2024 at 9:15 am with Certified Food Manager (CFM), FF revealed that staff did not label the food as instructed and that there was a problem with labeling falling off on frozen foods. CFM, FF also confirmed that there was no chemical sanitizing solution added to the water. Interview on 2/28/2024 at 11:25 am with Cook, II revealed that the frozen foods identified from the freezer during the kitchen tour was thrown away.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interview, record review and review of the facility's policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program, the facility failed to establish an Antibiotic Stewardship Program that included anti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interview, record review and review of the facility's policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program, the facility failed to establish an Antibiotic Stewardship Program that included antibiotic use protocols and a monitoring system to track and trend antibiotic use. The facility census was 59. Findings include: Review of the facility's policy titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program dated May 2022 under the section titled Policy revealed, It is the policy of the facility to implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program as part of the facility's overall infection prevention and control program. The purpose of the program is to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use. Under the section titled Policy and Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed, 4(b). Monitoring antibiotic use: (iv). Antibiotic use shall be measured by (monthly prevalence, antibiotic starts, and/or antibiotic days of therapy). Review of the Infection Control Monthly/Yearly Report from 1/2023 to 12/2023 revealed there was a lack of documentation of surveillance data collected for seven out of 12 months. Interview on 2/29/2024 at 4:41 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), the Infection Control Preventionist (ICP) reported she had not been tracking, trending, or mapping the infections and use of antibiotics per the McGreers criteria. The DON/ICP revealed she had only been in the position for a short time and the previous DON had stopped monitoring the use of antibiotics and infections.
Jul 2023 3 deficiencies 3 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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person- Centered, the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person- Centered, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan that focused on wandering and exit seeking behaviors for one resident (R) (R#1) with a known history of elopement from a sample of 14 residents. On 7/18/2023, it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Administrator and Regional Nurse Consultant were informed of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for F656, F689, and F835 on 7/18/2023 at 3:15 p.m. The noncompliance related to the IJ was identified to have existed on 7/7/2023. An Acceptable IJ Removal Plan was received on 7/21/2023 related to 483.21(b)(1), Development/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan (F656), 483.25(d)(2), Accidents and Hazards (F689), and 483.70, Administration (F835). Based on observations, record reviews, review of facility policies as outlined in the Removal Plan, and staff interviews, it was validated that the corrective plans and the immediacy of the deficient practice was removed on 7/12/2023. It was determined that the facility had completed implementation of the Removal Plan prior to the start of survey, and therefore, the IJ was considered past noncompliance. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person- Centered updated 12/2022, revealed 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: number 2. The care plan interventions are derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment. Number 8. The comprehensive person-centered care plan: g. incorporates identified problem areas. h. incorporates risks factors associated with identified problems. Review of the clinical record revealed R#1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including encephalopathy, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, dementia, hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and agitation. He was admitted post hospital stay after being found unresponsive on the side of the road after eloping from his home. The resident had a five-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) Assessment completed on 7/2/2023 indicating a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of four, indicating the resident had severely impaired cognition. Section E revealed the resident exhibited wandering behaviors one to three days. Section G revealed resident required supervision with ambulation. Review of R#1's comprehensive care plan initiated 6/26/2023 revealed there was no indication that nursing staff had developed a care plan with specific goals with interventions to address resident's history of wandering and recent elopement from his home prior to admission. Review of the Nurse's Note dated 6/27/2023 at 7:08 a.m. written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) FF, revealed resident up wandering throughout the shift. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an Elopement Risk Assessment was completed on 7/8/2023, the day after the resident eloped from the facility. The assessment revealed resident was at high risk for elopement with a score of 23.0. Interview on 7/17/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Administrator stated the door R#1 exited the building from was not secured and was not considered to be an exit door. Interview on 7/18/2023 at 10:00 a.m., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she would expect charge nurses who admit residents to complete an elopement assessment as part of the admission paperwork. During further interview, she stated she would expect the care plan to include the resident was an elopement risk or a wanderer with interventions put in place. Interview on 7/18/2023 at 10:50 a.m., Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator stated she is responsible for collecting MDS data for the development of care plans. She stated when the charge nurses admit new residents, they should complete an Elopement Assessment at that time and make sure it is care planned. Telephone interview on 7/19/2023 at 10:40 a.m., LPN EE stated information for the MDS is obtained from resident's previous history, hospital records, and observations of the resident. She stated the night of R#1's elopement, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) GG informed her around 11:15 p.m. that R#1 was missing. LPN EE stated she instructed staff members to search for R#1 inside and outside of the building. During further interview, she stated that CNA GG got in his car and drove around and located the resident on the highway and had been hit by a car. LPN EE confirmed that nurses are supposed to complete an Elopement Assessment when a new resident is admitted to the facility. If the resident is at risk for elopement the care plan should include elopement interventions. Telephone interview on 7/19/2023 at 11:42 a.m. CNA GG stated he works at the facility through a staffing agency. He stated on the night of 7/7/2023 around 11:00 p.m., he realized that he had not seen R#1 for a few hours, so he started looking for him. He stated when he couldn't find R#1, he told one of the charge nurses, who instructed the other staff to start a search for the resident inside and outside of the building. During further interview, he stated he got in his car and started looking for the resident. He stated about three miles from the facility, he came upon a motor vehicle accident where the resident had been hit by a car. He stated the people who had hit the resident were at the scene and had already called 911. Cross Refer F689 The following IJ Removal Plan was provided by the facility and accepted on 7/21/2023. 1. R#1 no longer resides at the facility. 2. On July 10, 2023, the Regional Director of Operations, Regional Director of Clinical Services and Medical Director reviewed the center policy Care Plan. No policy changes or recommendations were made as a result of this review. 3. On July 8, 2023, Center Director of Nursing identified 11 residents at risk for elopement out of the 54 residents on the center resident roster. Resident plans of care were reviewed and updated as needed, and physician and responsible parties were notified. 4. Licensed nurses to include MDS and nurse managers (Center RNs 3 of 3 -100%; Center LPNs 7 of7 -100% and Agency LPNs 8) were educated by Director of Nursing on the importance of completing care plans with interventions on residents identified through their assessments as being at risk for elopement on July 8, 2023. Employees on leave of absence FMLA- vacation or agency staff will be re-educated prior to returning to duty and will not be given an assignment until they are given additional on-site education. 5. The Director of Reimbursement provided additional education to center Nurse Managers and MDS team on Person-Centered Care Plan to include development, implementation, and revision of care plans on July 10, 2023. 6. The Director of Nursing will review incidents and accident reports from the previous day during daily clinical meeting and will verify care plans are developed and revised as needed, to address interventions to prevent elopement risk. 7. Administrator will review the results of the audits in the weekly Quality Assurance Performance Improvement meeting weekly for four weeks then monthly to ensure compliance is achieved and sustained. Administrator will sign and communicate results of the audit review with the physician and the members of the committee. Subsequent plans of corrections will be implemented as necessary. Date corrective action will be completed is 7/11/2023 and IJ to be removed on 7/12/2023. Onsite Verification of Removal Plan: 1. Review of the document on facility letterhead revealed R#1 no longer resides at the center. Review of the progress note on 7/7/2023 at 11:40 p.m. staff was unable to locate R#1 while doing rounds. A search of the facility was conducted by staff inside and outside the facility with no results. 911 was called, the sheriff reported the resident was located and transported to the hospital. Surveyor verified R#1 was still inpatient at the hospital via phone on 7/18/2023 at 9:50 a.m. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:25 p.m. verified R#1 is no longer in the center. 2. Review of a document entitled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered and Care Plans - Baseline with a reviewed date of 7/8/2023 with three unidentifiable initials. Interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m. verified the initials of the above-named staff as having reviewed the policies. 3. Review of a checklist utilized for elopement risk re-evaluation completed by ADON identified 11 residents highlighted in yellow with risk scores ranging from 13 - 27. Also verified each of the 11 residents had completed Elopement Risk Assessments and care plans. Review of three residents was selected for review (the surveyor had already verified all 11 residents R#'s 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) had an Elopement Risk Assessment and care plan completed. In an interview with Regional Director of Clinical Operations on 7/21/2023 at 12:55 p.m. stated the 11th resident was R#1 for a total of 11 residents identified to be at risk for elopement. 4. Review of the document entitled [facility name] IJ Education that 7 out of 7 Dietary staff were educated; 12 of 12 CNA/CMA were educated; 7 of 7 LPN's were educated; 3 of 3 RN's were educated; 1 of 1 NP was educated; 2 contract rehab staff were educated, 8 of 8 Agency LPN's; 24 of 24 Agency CNA's received education. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:33 p.m., verified that she educated all staff as described above. Also verified via the following staff interviews on 7/20/2023 at 11:34 a.m. with LPN EE, 11:46 a.m. CNA PP, 11:49 a.m. CNA QQ, 11:50 a.m. LPN FF, 11:55 a.m. LPN RR. On 7/21/2023 at 11:57 a.m. CNA SS, 11:59 a.m. CNA TT, 4:23 p.m. Staffing Coordinator/Scheduler VV, 4:25 p.m. CNA MM, 4:37 p.m. CNA NN, and 4:41 p.m. CNA OO, the staff confirmed that they received the in-service information and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the education information provided. 5. Review of the facility in-service titled Elopement Care Plans dated 7/10/2023 with the MDS Coordinator, Social Services Director and the ADON in attendance. Overview: The MDS Coordinator was educated on the importance of care planning residents who are an elopement risk determined by review of the Elopement Risk Assessment completed on admission and as needed. An interview on 7/21/2023 at 3:55 p.m. with (LPN MDS) Coordinator UU stated she has been in-serviced on making sure the care plans are updated and ensuring that the nurses know how to go in and look at the care plans and update the care plan if needed, as well as making sure the elopement risk assessments are completed. She stated a score of 24 or higher on the Elopement Assessment indicated resident is at risk for elopement. Record Review of the following sample residents (R#7, R#8, R#9, R#10, R#11, R#12, R#13, and R#14) revealed all residents had an Elopement Assessment completed and were care planned as an elopement risk with appropriate interventions. Review of the nurse's notes May 2023 until present day did not reveal any of the residents listed above had made any attempt to elope. 6. Review of the Incident/Accident List dated June 1 - July 16, 2023, identified 19 falls, 8 skin issues, 2 alleged abuse, 1 elopement (R#1). In an interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:33 p.m. confirmed the DON had identified the incidences from June 1 through July 16, 2023. 7. Review of the QAPI Meeting Minutes dated 7/10/2023 with subject matter - QAPI Monthly Meeting. Began at 12:30 p.m. and lasted 10 minutes. In attendance were the Administrator, Maintenance Director, DON, ADON, Social Services Director, MDS Coordinator, Medical Director, and Nurse Practitioner. Discussed the incident and timeline. Planned to meet again in four weeks. In an interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:34 p.m. verified the members of the QAPI meeting on 7/10/2023 and items discussed. An interview on 7/21/2023 at 3:35 p.m. Social Services Director stated she was involved in the QAPI meeting. The team discussed what happened, how it happened, and what could be implemented to prevent any other residents from eloping. Also, the QAPI team discussed the residents in the facility that were assessed as high risk for elopement. The SSD was able to name R#9 and R#13 as residents that are high risk for elopement. She stated R#9 must be redirected often from the door. Administrative oversight of the above measures was reviewed and verified. All corrective action was completed on 7/11/2023. The IJ was removed on 7/12/2023.
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 record review, interviews, document review, and review of the facility policy titled Elopement and Wandering Residents,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, document review, and review of the facility policy titled Elopement and Wandering Residents, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and monitoring for one of 14 sampled residents (R) (R#1) and failed to ensure magnetic locking exit doors were functioning properly to prevent the elopement of R#1. Specifically, R#1 exited the facility on 7/7/2023, undetected through an unlocked door, walked approximately 3.5 miles away from the facility, was struck by a motor vehicle. Resident #1 sustained a fractured right hip, fractured right humerus, and fractured right scapula. On 7/18/2023, it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Administrator and Regional Nurse Consultant were informed of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for F656, F689, and F835 on 7/18/2023 at 3:15 p.m. The noncompliance related to the IJ was identified to have existed on 7/7/2023. An Acceptable IJ Removal Plan was received on 7/21/2023 related to 483.21(b)(1), Development/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan (F656), 483.25(d)(2), Accidents and Hazards (F689), and 483.70, Administration (F835). Based on observations, record reviews, review of facility policies as outlined in the Removal Plan, and staff interviews, it was validated that the corrective plans and the immediacy of the deficient practice was removed on 7/12/2023. It was determined that the facility had completed implementation of the Removal Plan prior to the start of survey, and therefore, the IJ was considered past noncompliance. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Elopement and Wandering Residents revised June 2022, policy statement indicated residents who exhibit wandering behavior and/or are at risk for elopement receive adequate supervision to prevent accidents and receive care in accordance with their person-centered plan of care addressing the unique factors contributing to wandering or elopement risk. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: Number 1. The facility is equipped with door locks/alarms to help avoid elopements. Number 3. The facility shall establish and utilize a systematic approach to monitoring and managing residents at risk for elopement or unsafe wandering, including identification and assessment of risk, evaluation and analysis of hazards and risks, implementing interventions to reduce hazards and risks, and monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary. Number 4. Monitoring and managing residents at risk for elopement or unsafe wandering: a. Residents will be assessed for risk of elopement and unsafe wandering upon admission; d. Adequate supervision will be provided to help prevent accidents or elopements. Review of the clinical record revealed R#1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including encephalopathy, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, dementia, hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and agitation. He was admitted post hospital stay after being found unresponsive on the side of the road after eloping from his home. The resident had a five-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) Assessment completed on 7/2/2023 indicating a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of four, indicating the resident had severely impaired cognition. Section E revealed the resident exhibited wandering behaviors one to three days. Section G revealed resident required supervision with ambulation. Review of the comprehensive care plan initiated 6/26/2023 revealed there was no indication that nursing staff had developed a care plan with specific goals with interventions to address resident's history of wandering and recent elopement from his home prior to admission. Review of the Nurse's Note dated 6/27/2023 at 7:08 a.m. written by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) FF, revealed resident up wandering throughout the shift. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed an Elopement Risk Assessment was completed on 7/8/2023, the day after the resident eloped from the facility. The assessment revealed resident was at high risk for elopement with a score of 23.0. Review of a document provided by facility titled Elopement Timeline indicated: Friday 7/7/2023: 9:30 p.m. - last time R#1 was seen in facility by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) FF 11:00 p.m. - Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) GG started to look for resident 11:15 p.m. - LPN EE was notified by CNA GG that he could not find R#1 11:20 p.m. - LPN FF was notified by LPN EE that R#1 was missing. All staff continue searching 11:40 p.m. - Daughter of R#1 was notified by LPN FF of resident elopement from the facility 11:55 p.m. - LPN FF called 911 and notified Director of Nursing (DON). DON notified Administrator. Staff continue to search Saturday 7/8/2023: 12:10 a.m. - staff notified that R#1 had been involved in accident and transported to hospital for evaluation 12:15 a.m. - DON on sight as well as police 1:15 a.m. - Administrator on sight as well as additional police. Scheduled CNAs to monitor door until repair was complete 10:00 a.m. - Maintenance placed lock on non-egress door Review of the sheriff's report dated 7/8/2023 at 4:37 a.m. revealed on 7/7/2023 the deputy was dispatched to [name of facility] in reference to a missing person. On 7/7/2023 at approximately 11:54 p.m. Central Dispatch received a 911 call stating that a male patient was missing. The deputy was advised by dispatch that according to the caller, the male patient had been missing 20 minutes prior to them calling. Upon arriving at the scene at approximately 12:09 a.m. the deputy was advised by the nursing home staff that they had received a call stating the resident had been hit by a car on the highway. The deputy left the nursing home and began looking for the resident. The Deputy was able to locate the resident just across the county line, laying on the side of the road. The resident advised the deputy that he had been gone from the nursing home for about two hours and was walking to get cigarettes, when he was hit by a car. The deputy documented that according to Google Maps the location of the scene was approximately 3.5 miles and was roughly an hour and 13-minute walk from the facility. The resident was transported to hospital. Review of the Facility Incident Report dated 7/8/2023 at 11:53 p.m. revealed R#1 eloped from the facility and was discovered on the road with apparent injury. Resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation. Review of the five-day follow-up revealed the following steps were taken to prevent further elopement: all exits were examined to determine how R#1 had exited the building, the door was identified and secured temporarily. Staff were assigned to the door to assure that no other residents in the facility could exit through the door. The facility completed an Elopement Risk Assessment on all residents to ensure appropriate interventions were in place for residents identified at risk. All staff were educated on the Elopement Policy and the Elopement Notebooks. A root cause analysis was completed on 7/10/2023 by the Administrator, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the DON, the Maintenance Director/Safety Coordinator and The Regional Director of Clinical Operations. Interview on 7/17/2023 at 10:40 a.m., Administrator revealed prior to the elopement, the door which R#1 exited was not secured and was not considered to be an exit door. Interview on 7/18/2023 at 10:00 a.m., Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated her expectation is for the charge nurses to complete elopement assessments on admission. She stated there is an elopement book at the nurses' station that should be kept up to date with the resident's information. During further interview, she stated she expects the residents care plan to include if the resident was an elopement risk or a wanderer with interventions listed. Interview on 7/18/2023 at 10:40 a.m., the facility Administrator and the Maintenance Director revealed they had no idea about how long the door had been unlocked that R#1exited from when he eloped from the facility. Interview on 7/18/2023 at 11:00 a.m. with Dietary Aide CC revealed she has not used the back door in the corner of the dining room, nor had she seen anyone else use that door. Telephone interview on 7/19/2023 at 10:40 a.m., with LPN EE, stated the night of R#1's elopement, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) GG informed her around 11:15 p.m. that R#1 was missing. LPN EE stated she instructed the staff members to search for R#1 inside and outside of the building. During further interview, she stated that CNA GG got in his car and drove around and located the resident on the highway and informed her he had been hit by a car. LPN EE confirmed that nurses are supposed to complete an Elopement Assessment when a new resident is admitted to the facility. Telephone interview on 7/19/2023 at 11:42 a.m. with CNA GG, stated he works at the facility through a staffing agency. He stated on the night of 7/7/2023 around 11:00 p.m., he realized that he had not seen R#1 for a few hours, so he started looking for him. He stated when he couldn't find R#1, he told one of the charge nurses, who instructed the other staff to start a search for the resident inside and outside of the building. During further interview, he stated he got in his car and started driving around looking for the resident. He stated about three miles from the facility, he came upon an accident where the resident had been hit by a car. He stated the people who had hit the resident were at the scene and had already called 911. The following IJ Removal Plan was provided by the facility and accepted on 7/21/2023. 1. R#1 no longer resides at the center. 2. On July 7, 2023, at approximately 2300, it was noted that R#l was discovered to be missing by his assigned CNA who alerted her charge nurse. Staff were notified to start a search for R#1. The CNA and another charge nurse got in their vehicles and started driving around looking for R#l. At approx. 00:10 on July 8, 2023, the CNA came upon an accident scene approximately 3miles from the facility and discovered R#l was involved in a pedestrian vs. MVA accident and 911 had been called. On July 8, 2023, an initial state reportable was filed with the state at 1:45 a.m. 3. On July 7, 2023, at approx. 2300, staff at the center used a midnight census report to conduct an in-house head count to determine if other residents were missing from the center. All residents were accounted for except R#l. 4. On July 8, 2023, at approx. 00:00. it was determined that R#l exited the facility by means of the door in the dining room in the far-right corner that was not locked. 5. On July 8, 2023, at 00:15 a staff member was assigned by the DON to be stationed at the door where R#1 exited the center until repaired by maintenance personnel. 1:1 attendant stationed at the door until lock installed. 6. On July 8, 2023, the Regional Director of Operations and Regional Director of Clinical Operations reviewed and the center Elopement Policy and Incidents and Accidents Policy to include the frequency of elopement assessments (upon admission, re-admission, quarterly and change in condition). No changes were made. 7. Only July 8, 2023, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations completed education with the Administrator, DON, ADON, Social Services, MDS and Maintenance Director regarding the Elopement Policy and Incidents and Accidents Policy. 8. On July 8, 2023, at approximately 10:00 the door where R#l exited the center was repaired and a temporal padlock was placed by the center Maintenance Director while waiting for a permanent mag-loc to be installed. The Administrator assigned a CNA to be stationed at the door to monitor until placement of permanent mag-loc. 9. On July 8, the center implemented an hourly door check audit to ensure all doors are secure. This tool (the door check audit tool) was utilized for 72 hours until the mag-loc was installed. 10. On July 11, 2023, the permanent mag -loc was placed on the door and secured by the center Maintenance Director. 11. On July 8, 2023, the Assistant Director of Nursing completed new elopement risk assessments on all residents residing at the center to identify any residents at risks for elopement using the daily census roster to document completion. 12. On July 8, 2023, the MDS Coordinator reviewed the 11 identified at risk for elopement residents to validate elopement assessments and ensured identified risks were addressed in the care plans for all residents in the center. Any concerns identified were addressed according by the MDS Coordinator. 13. On July 8, 2023, the Director of Nursing confirmed that the elopement identification books at the nursing station and receptionist were accurate and up to date. 14. On July 8, 2023, and July 9, 2023, the center ADON completed education with all staff in the center regarding the center elopement policy. Center CNAs (l2 of 12- 100%); Center LPNs (7 of 7-100%); Center RNs (3 of 3-100%); Center Dietary staff (7 of 7-100%); Center EVS/Laundry (7 of 7-100%); Center non-clinical staff (5 of 5-100%); Contract NP (1 of 1-100%); Contract Rehab (2); Agency LPNs (8); Agency CNAs (24) were all educated. 15. On July 9, 2023, the center DON completed an audit of all incidents and accidents log for the last 30 days and no other elopements occurred. Findings of this log will be held in the ADHOC QAPI minutes. 16. On July 10, 2023, a root cause analysis was conducted by the Administrator, the Regional Director of Operations, and the Regional Director of Clinical Operations. The RCA indicated the root cause was related to one unsecured door and lack of individualized care plan for elopement risks on R#l. 17. On July 10, 2023, the center completed an ADHOC QAPI Meeting to review the incident that occurred and root cause analysis results. Members of the QAPI meeting were Administrator, Medical Director, Director of Nursing, and ADON. Date corrective action will be completed is 7/11/2023 and IJ to be removed on 7/12/2023. Onsite Verification of Removal Plan: 1. Review of the removal plan document - a letterhead for the facility revealed R#1 no longer resides at the center. Review of the progress note on 7/7/2023 at 11:40 p.m. staff was unable to locate R#1 while doing rounds. A search of the facility was conducted by staff inside and outside the facility with no results. 911 was called, the sheriff reported the resident was located and transported to the hospital. Surveyor verified R#1 was still inpatient at the hospital via phone on 7/18/2023 at 9:50 a.m. prior to receiving the plan. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:25 p.m. verified R#1 is no longer in the center. 2. Review of the removal plan documents revealed that a reportable was filed on 7/8/2023 at 1:46 a.m. by the Administrator. He identified R#1 in the facility reportable which stated the resident eloped from the facility and was discovered on the road with apparent injury and the door that is assumed to be the exit was secured. Interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m. stated he reported the incident to the state on 7/8/2023. 3. Further review of the removal plan documents revealed [facility name] daily census dated 7/7/2023 - handwritten on the census was Midnight Census Head Count revealed checkmarks next to the residents' names with a total of 56 residents accounted for. Two residents were identified as being in the hospital and there was no checkmark beside R#1's name on the census. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:25 p.m. stated she completed the Elopement Risk on the residents utilizing the census lists. 4. Review of the facility map with a section highlighted in orange and circled which was identified as a fire door. Interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m. verified that he had highlighted the door on the facility map to indicate this was the door R#1 exited out of. 5. Review of an unidentified document with a written statement indicating after incident occurred on July 7th, 2023, Charge Nurses EE and FF monitored the dining room door continuously throughout the shift. The document was signed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) FF and an unidentified signature. Interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 7/21/2023 at 2:25 p.m. verified she obtained written statements from the LPN Charge Nurses. 6. Review of a document titled Elopement and Wandering Residents dated 7/8/2023 with three unidentifiable initials. Interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m. verified the initials of the above-named staff as having reviewed the policies. 7. Review of the Employee Education [facility name] dated 7/10/2023 presenter Registered Nurse (RN) WW with subject matter: elopement/incidents and accidents and overview: elopement policy and prevention to include assessments and care plan interventions and the elopement process. In attendance at the meeting were the Administrator, DON, ADON, Maintenance/Environmental Services Director, MDS Coordinator, and Social Services Director. Interview with the ADON and the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:31 p.m. verified they attended the education provided by RN WW on 7/10/2023. 8. Review of the document titled Log for Door Checks initiated on 7/11/2023 with date/time, signature of staff and comments with hourly checks with no issues identified. The facility provided additional information with staff assigned to door checks beginning 7/7/2023 for 12-hour shifts. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:31 p.m. stated she initiated the door checks and assigned staff to monitor the door. 9. Review of the removal plan revealed no documents to indicate evidence of a door check audit. 10. Review of the removal plan revealed there were no documents to indicate purchase of the mag-loc or a date and time of placement. In an interview with the [NAME] President of Clinical Services on 7/21/2023 at 12:30 p.m. provided an invoice entitled [name of provider] revealed invoice #41856 dated 7/14/2023 with total amount $1,042.47. 11. Review of the removal plan revealed completed Elopement Risk Assessments for the residents with the Census dated 7/8/2023 used to identify the high-risk residents. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:31 p.m. verified she used the facility census to ensure she had completed Elopement Risk Assessments on all current residents. 12. Review of a checklist utilized for elopement risk re-evaluation completed by ADON identified 11 residents highlighted in yellow with risk scores ranging from 13 - 27. Verified each of the 11 residents had completed Elopement Risk Assessments and care plans. Review of three residents selected for review (the surveyor had already verified all 11 residents had an 'Elopement Risk Assessment and care plan prior to the IJR plan - R#'s 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14). Interview with Regional Director of Clinical Operations on 7/21/2023 at 12:55 p.m. stated the 11th resident was R#1 for a total of 11 residents. 13. Review of the removal plan revealed pictures and physical descriptions, face sheet for each resident at risk for elopement, with allergies, diagnoses, date of birth , sex, weight, height, and urgent medications for all 10 current residents. There were binders located at the nursing station and receptionist desk. These were verified by surveyor. Interview with the Regional Director of Clinical Operations on 7/21/2023 at 12:55 p.m. verified both books were up to date with information on high-risk elopement residents. 14. Review of the document entitled [facility name] IJ Education that 7 out of 7 Dietary staff were educated; 12 of 12 CNA/CMA were educated; 7 of 7 LPN's were educated; 3 of 3 RN's were educated; 1 of 1 NP was educated; 2 contract rehab staff were educated, 8 of 8 Agency LPN's; 24 of 24 Agency CNA's received education. Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:33 pm who verified that she educated all staff as described above. Also verified via the following staff interviews on 7/20/2023 at 11:34 a.m. with LPN EE, 11:46 a.m. CNA PP, 11:49 a.m. CNA QQ, 11:50 a.m. LPN FF, 11:55 a.m. LPN RR. On 7/21/2023 at 11:57 a.m. CNA SS, 11:59 a.m. CNA TT, 4:23 p.m. Staffing Coordinator/Scheduler VV, 4:25 p.m. CNA MM, 4:37 p.m. CNA NN, and 4:41 p.m. CNA OO, the staff confirmed that they received the in-service information and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the education information provided. 15. Review of the Incident/Accident List dated June 1 - July 16, 2023, identified 19 falls, 8 skin issues, 2 alleged abuse, 1 elopement (R#1). Interview with the ADON on 7/21/2023 at 2:33 p.m. confirmed the DON had identified the incidences from June 1 through July 16, 2023. 16. Review of the Root Cause Analysis for the Center's concern - the facilitators were the DON and the Administrator with team members the ADON and the Maintenance Director and The Regional Director of Clinical Operations. Concern - to ensure residents receive the necessary required supervision to maintain safety. Listed the 5 why's - the resident exited the facility through an unlocked door without staff's knowledge or supervision sometime around 9:30 p.m. - staff were unaware resident had left. The facility timeline was attached for review. Interview with the ADON and the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:34 p.m. confirmed they participated in the root cause analysis regarding the elopement. 17. Review of the QAPI Meeting Minutes dated 7/10/2023 with subject matter - QAPI Monthly Meeting. Began at 12:30 p.m. and lasted 10 minutes. In attendance was the Administrator, Maintenance Director, DON, ADON, Social Services Director, MDS Coordinator, Medical Director, and Nurse Practitioner. Discussed the incident and timeline. Planned to meet again in four weeks. Interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:34 p.m. confirmed the members of the QAPI meeting on 7/10/2023 and items discussed. Administrative oversight of the above measures was reviewed and verified. All corrective action was completed on 7/11/2023. The IJ was removed on 7/12/2023.
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

Administration (Tag F0835)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of the Administrator Job Description, Administration failed to provide protective...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of the Administrator Job Description, Administration failed to provide protective oversight of the facility environment to prevent the elopement for one of eleven residents (R) (R#1) reviewed for elopement. Specifically, facility failed to ensure that exit doors were equipped with functioning locking systems, failed to complete elopement assessment for R#1 with a documented history of elopement, and failed to develop a person-centered care plan with interventions for elopement for R#1. R#1 eloped from the facility on 7/7/2023 and was found 3.5 miles away from the facility, had been hit by a car and sustained a fractured right hip, right arm, and right shoulder. On 7/18/2023, it was determined that a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had the likelihood to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents. The facility's Administrator and Regional Nurse Consultant were informed of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) for F656, F689, and F835 on 7/18/2023 at 3:15 p.m. The noncompliance related to the IJ was identified to have existed on 7/7/2023. An Acceptable IJ Removal Plan was received on 7/21/2023 related to 483.21(b)(1), Development/Implement Comprehensive Care Plan (F656), 483.25(d)(2), Accidents and Hazards (F689), and 483.70, Administration (F835). Based on observations, record reviews, review of facility policies as outlined in the Removal Plan, and staff interviews, it was validated that the corrective plans and the immediacy of the deficient practice was removed on 7/12/2023. It was determined that the facility had completed implementation of the Removal Plan prior to the start of survey, and therefore, the IJ was considered past noncompliance. Findings include: Review of the undated document titled Administrator-Job Description revealed position purpose is leads, guides, and directs the operations of the healthcare facility in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, standards and established facility policies and procedures to provide appropriate care and services to residents. The Administrator performs rounds to observe residents and ensure overall needs are being met, knows residents by name and sight, practices management by walking around, and makes himself/herself available to employees. Additional tasks include follow appropriate safety measures at all times to protect residents and themselves. Review of the clinical record revealed R#1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including encephalopathy, traumatic subdural hemorrhage, dementia, hypertension (HTN), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and agitation. He was admitted post hospital stay after being found unresponsive on the side of the road after eloping from his home. The resident had a five-day Prospective Payment System (PPS) Assessment completed on 7/2/2023 indicating a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS) score of four, indicating the resident had severely impaired cognition. Section E revealed the resident exhibited wandering behaviors one to three days. Section G revealed resident required supervision with ambulation. Review of the Facility Incident Report dated 7/8/2023 at 11:53 p.m. revealed R#1 eloped from the facility and was discovered on the road with apparent injury. Resident was sent to the hospital for evaluation. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that an Elopement Risk Assessment wasn't completed until 7/8/2023, the day after R#1 eloped from the facility. The assessment revealed a score of 23.0, which indicated high risk for elopement. Review of the Police Report dated 7/8/2023 at 4:37 a.m. revealed during the investigation into R#1 elopement, deputies discovered a door that led to the outside of the facility unlocked. Deputies believe this is the door that R#1 used to leave the facility. According to staff this door stays unlocked, but while examining the door, deputies found the doors locking system to be broken and unrepaired. Deputies also discovered a shelf in front of the door that looked as if it was placed there to block the door. Deputy spoke with staff member about the shelf and staff stated the shelf had been moved, but admitted to moving it back after they noticed resident was missing. Review of the communications invoice #41856 revealed a service dated 7/11/2023 for a door off the dining room area not working. Lock is missing pieces, and the keypad is not working. Replaced a maglock and keypad. Reset all keypads to default and then reprogrammed the codes and tested the door release and function. Interview on 7/18/2023 at 10:40 a.m., the Administrator revealed he was not sure how long the door R#1 exited from had been unlocked. Interview on 7/20/2023 at 10:12 a.m., the Administrator revealed R#1 was admitted to the facility because he climbed out of a window at home and was not found until the next day. He revealed that on 7/7/2023 R#1 left the facility through a door in the dining room that was not locked. The Administrator stated although the door was not used as an exit it leads to the outside of the facility and the door should have had a working lock. During further interview, the Administrator stated the nursing staff failed to complete an admission elopement risk assessment for R#1 and failed to develop a care plan with interventions for elopement for R#1 with a known history of elopement. Cross Refer to F689 and F656 The facility implemented the following actions to remove the IJ: 1. An AD-HOC meeting was held on July 10, 2023- with the Administrator, Director of Nursing, Regional Director of Clinical Operations, and Medical Director to address the concerns identified related to the incident of July 7, 2023, with Resident #1. 2. Resident #1 was discharged from the facility on July 7, 2023. 3. On July 10, 2023, the Center Regional Director of Clinical Operations, Regional Director of Operations, Medical Director, and Administrator reviewed the policies on Care Plans and Incident and Accidents. No changes or recommendations were made or given. 4. On July 10, 2023, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations re-educated the center's administration to include Administrator, Director of Nursing, MDS, ADON, Social Worker, and Maintenance on the importance of implementing effective interventions for Care Plans and properly assessing potential access areas/exits throughout the center. 5. On July 10, 2023, a root cause analysis was conducted by the Administrator, the Regional Director of Operations, and the Regional Director of Clinical Operations. The RCA indicated the root cause was related to one unsecured door and lack of individualized care plan for elopement risks on R#l. 6. On July 10, 2023, the Regional Director of Operations reviewed the job descriptions for the Administrator and Director of Nursing to ensure they understand their duties and responsibilities. No changes were made to the job descriptions and both acknowledged understanding of their responsibilities. Review shows that the Administrator and the DON can carry out their job duties. 7. The Regional Director of Operations reviewed the RCA results and Center's audits and shared the findings with the AD HOC Assurance Performance Improvement Committee on July 10, 2023. Onsite Verification of Removal Plan: 1. Review of the Immediate Jeopardy Removal Plan (IJRP) revealed the document titled QAPI Meeting Minutes. The document revealed ADHOC meeting was conducted on 7/10/2023. The subject matter Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Monthly Meeting, the duration of the meeting was ten minutes. The document attendance at meeting included: Administrator, Maintenance/Environmental Service/Safety, Director of Nursing (DON), Nurse Practitioner (NP), Medical Director (MD), Social Service Director (SSD), Minimum Data Set (MDS), and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The facility discussed how R#1 eloped from the facility, a timeline of the elopement, and the plan of correction. The facility conducted an elopement assessment on the residents in the facility. Interview on 7/20/2023 at 10:12 a.m. with Administrator stated he became aware of R#1 elopement on 7/7/2023 at 11:55 p.m. when he received a phone call from the Maintenance Director (MD). The MD informed him that the resident (R#1) eloped from the facility. He stated the door was secured and the DON conducted a head count to ensure that the other residents were in the facility. 2. Review of the Immediate Jeopardy Removal Plan under F689 two physician progress notes dated 7/8/2023 revealed: A. on 7/7/2023 at 11:40 p.m., staff unable to locate resident during rounds. A search of facility was conducted by staff inside and outside with no results. 911 called. DON and Administrator notified. Responsible Party notified. B. on 7/8/2023 at 00:15 a.m., Sheriff here at facility to investigate and conduct interview about missing resident. Sheriff, DON, Administrator in the building. Sheriff reported resident located and sent to hospital. 3. Review of the document titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered and Accidents and Supervision. Both documents in handwriting reviewed to unidentifiable letters /DON. Interview with the Administrator on 7/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m. verified the initials of the above-named staff as having reviewed the policies. 4. Review of the document titled Employe Education/In-Service [facility name]. Subject Matter: Elopement Incidents/Accident. The presenter Regional Nurse Consultant. Overview: Elopement policy and prevention to include assessments and care plan interventions and elopement process. The document attendance at meeting included: the Administrator, DON, ADON, Maintenance/Environmental Service/Safety, MDS-Coordinator and SSD. Interview on 7/20/2023 at 11:55 a.m. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) RR stated the ADON went over the elopement policy and procedures. She stated residents that are high risk for elopement information is in a book located behind the nurse's desk and receptionist desk. The ADON talked about what to do in the case of the eloping happening. The staff should notify the supervisor, look for the resident, call the police, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Administrator, and responsible party. In the event the resident is not located, staff would provide the elopement book to the police upon arrival. The LPN was able to name R#7 and R#8 as residents that are high risk for elopement. Interview on 7/20/2023 at 11:49 a.m. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) QQ stated it was brought to her attention that one of the residents was able to have access outside of the facility and was injured. Moving forward we must have an elopement risk assessment for all residents and follow the protocol for elopement. In the event the resident is not able to be found we notify the supervisor/charge nurse, and we gather around and make sure we know who is responsible for what part of the protocol. The staff should look for the residents, contact the police, and the Administrator. When the police arrive provide them the elopement book. The CNA was able to name R#7, R#8, and R#11 as residents that are high risk for elopement. Interview on 7/21/2023 at 11:57 a.m. with CNA SS stated the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) in-serviced the staff to notify the supervisor immediately when a resident cannot be located. Search inside and outside of the facility. The elopement books are at the nursing station and receptionist area that should be provided to the police. 5. Review of the document titled Root Causes and Contributing Factors revealed the cause, corrective actions, the responsible individual, and correction date. Signed by the Administrator and DON. 6. Review of the removal plan revealed the Administrator and DON job descriptions attached. A post survey interview on 7/22/2023 at 9:50 a.m. with Regional Director of Clinical Operations stated the facility will review the baseline care plan document and make some changes that will include a section to include interventions. 7. Review of the document titled QAPI Meeting Minutes revealed a handwritten on the document was reviewed by the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) on 7/10/2023. Attached to the removal plan was a document titled Logbook Documentation [facility name] Emergency Preparedness Drills and Exercises: Conduct elopement drill marked done on-time by Maintenance Director (MD) on July 18, 2023. This drill was conducted on 7/17/2023 with 13 staff and 54 residents. Remarks of the person holding the drill revealed: Very good drill staff patient was hidden in the laundry area with staff supervision. Charge nurse was asked to go get patient and immediately realized patient was missing. Charge Nurse began to verbally communicate the notification. Staff began internal and external search of premises located patient within 4 minutes of notification. 911 notified at beginning and end of drill. The Surveyor also reviewed three residents that were not listed as risk for wander or elopement risk assessment: a. R#15 elopement risk assessment completed on 7/8/2023 score 0. b. R#16 elopement risk assessment completed on 7/8/2023 score 0. c. R#17 elopement risk assessment completed on 7/8/2023 score 0. Administrative oversight of the above measures was reviewed and verified. All corrective action was completed on 7/11/2023. The IJ was removed on 7/12/2023.
Jan 2023 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge (includi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Transfer and Discharge (including AMA [Against Medical Advice]), the facility failed to ensure one of four residents (R) (R#23) reviewed for discharge was allowed to remain in the facility. Specifically, the facility failed to ensure the resident's condition was fully evaluated before the resident was immediately discharged from the facility. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, titled, Transfer and Discharge (including AMA [Against Medical Advice]), reviewed/revised 9/12/2022, indicated, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not initiate transfer or discharge for the resident from the facility, except in limited circumstances. The policy further indicated, 2. Once admitted , the resident has the right to remain at the facility unless their transfer or discharge meets one of the following specified exemptions: a. The transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in the facility. b. The transfer or discharge is appropriate because the resident's health has improved sufficiently so that the resident no longer needs the services provided by the facility. c. The safety of individuals in the facility is endangered due to the clinical or behavioral status of the resident. d. The health of individuals in the facility would otherwise be endangered. Review of R#23's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polyneuropathy, acquired absence of right leg above knee, acquired absence of left leg below knee, muscle weakness, depression, and peripheral vascular disease. According to the admission record, R#23 was discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE]. Review of R#23's care plan initiated 8/25/2022, indicated R#23 had a behavior problem related to refusing to go to physician's appointments and being verbally abusive to staff members. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed R#23 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Per the MDS, R#23 exhibited no behaviors during this assessment period. The resident required limited assistance with bed mobility and locomotion on and off unit; required extensive assistance with transfers, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and bathing; and supervision with eating. According to the MDS, R#23 had functional limitation range of motion on both sides in their lower extremities and used a wheelchair for mobility. The MDS further indicated, R#23 expected to remain in the facility and there was no active discharge plan for the resident to return to the community. Review of a Facility Incident Report Form, dated 12/27/2022, revealed R#40 stated R#23 had made sexual comments and advances toward R#40. According to the form, the date and time of the incident was listed as 12/27/2022 at 12:30 p.m Review of a Facility Incident Report Form, dated 12/27/2022, revealed R#40 reported R#23 had made inappropriate comments and actions toward R#57. According to the form, the date and time of the incident was listed as 12/27/2022 at 12:30 p.m Review of R#40's quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment with a BIMS of 11. Review of R#57's admission MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment with a BIMS of four. Review of the Follow-up Facility Investigation Report Form revealed the facility interviewed residents and staff following the incident on 12/27/2022 as part of their investigation. The facility's investigation records regarding the reported incident on 12/27/2022 were requested from the Administrator during the survey on 1/5/2023. The Administrator refused to provide the documents, which included the resident and staff interviews. Review of R#23's Physician Encounter progress note, dated 12/28/2022 at 4:48 p.m. and completed by the Medical Director (MD), revealed R#23 was seen by way of telemedicine access after staff reported the resident had been combative and sexually inappropriate with other residents. According to the note, R#23 stated, I am angry and I don't want to talk to you. Per the note, the resident was at risk to harm others, needed a psychiatric (psych) evaluation, and a 1013(the purpose of the 1013 form is to initiate transportation to an emergency receiving facility and is completed by an authorized licensed clinician, with a goal to help those who need to receive mental health treatment during an emergency.) was appropriate and needed. Review of R#23's Order Details indicated on 12/28/2022, there was an order to send R#23 to the emergency department for a 1013. Review of R#23's Progress Notes revealed a note written by the Director of Nursing (DON) and dated 12/28/2022 at 6:11 p.m The note revealed that due to the resident's overt sexual behaviors and other residents being fearful of the resident, R#23 was issued an immediate discharge notice along with a 1013 due to the risk of the resident harming others. Per the note, the DON spoke with the emergency room nurse, Chief Nursing Officer (CNO), and the social worker at the hospital about the situation and informed them that the resident had been discharged from the facility and would under no circumstances be allowed back. Review of R#23's medical record, which included progress notes, revealed there was no documented instances of R#23 being sexually inappropriate or having other inappropriate behaviors prior to 12/27/2022. Review of the discharge notice addressed to R#23, dated 12/28/2022, indicated the resident was immediately discharged from the facility, effective 12/28/2022, due to a risk of harm to self or others. Interview on 1/4/2023 at 11:58 a.m., the CNO at the local hospital stated the chief reason R#23 was sent to the emergency room was for an evaluation because the facility had a signed 1013. Per the CNO, when the resident arrived, the resident was assessed and found to be alert and oriented, kind, personable and not a danger to self or others. The CNO stated she called the DON at the facility and informed her that the hospital physician did not feel this met the criteria of a 1013 and the resident would be discharged back to the facility. The CNO also informed the DON that a sexually inappropriate behavior was just that, a behavior, and the behavior needed to be addressed. According to the CNO, the DON stated she did not care what the hospital found, the facility was not taking the resident back and would take the hit. The CNO stated R#23 was transported back to the facility by ambulance the following day and sat in an ambulance for four hours until placement was found by the hospital at another location, after the facility refused to take the resident back. Interview on 1/4/2023 at 2:32 p.m., R#40 was very scattered with their thoughts and the surveyor was unable to provide a clear story of what happened on 12/27/2022. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 8:49 a.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA, stated the day R#23 was sent to the hospital, the resident was very outspoken and stated, I would never touch anybody. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 9:28 a.m., LPN HH stated she had never seen R#23 act out any verbalizations or witnessed the resident have any behaviors. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 1:31 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) GG stated she worked with Resident #57 on 12/28/2022, and the resident exhibited no signs of being abused and the resident never told her that anyone did anything inappropriate to them. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 1:53 p.m., the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she assessed R#57 on 12/28/2022. Per the NP, R#57 was fine, talkative, not sad, and stated no one had ever done anything inappropriate to them. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 2:00 p.m., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) AA stated she worked with R#57, and the resident never showed any signs of crying, tearfulness, or fear and was pleasant. Per LPN AA, R#57 never mentioned to her that anyone approached them with inappropriate behaviors. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 2:06 p.m., R#57 was alert and spoke clearly. The resident reported no one had ever touched them or said anything inappropriate. Per R#57, Someone here in the facility told a lie about that. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 2:11 p.m., the DON stated on 12/27/2022, R#40 reported they went down the hall with their walker and R#23 said something to the resident. Per the DON, R#40 arrived in her office and stated the resident could not take it anymore; that R#23 was inappropriate and touched R#40's buttocks. The DON stated after she, the Administrator, and the SSD spoke with R#40, R#40 brought up their roommate, R#57. The DON stated an investigation was started and a one-to-one sitter was obtained for R#23. A police officer came to the facility to interview R#23, as well as other residents. According to the DON, a 1013 was done because R#23 admitted to inappropriate comments and touched the resident in their pants. The DON acknowledged the hospital's CNO did call her, and she informed the CNO that she would rather take a hit than have a resident in their facility who was sexually harassing residents and face a possible lawsuit. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 2:33 p.m., the Administrator stated R#40 reported to the facility that R#23 was inappropriate towards the resident and that R#40 had seen R#23 touch R#57. According to the Administrator, R#23 was interviewed and stated they were just friends. The Administrator stated when he asked R#23 if they had touched R#57 inappropriately, R#23 stated again we are just friends then acknowledged that they touched R#57 and R#57 touched R#23. Per the Administrator, the Sheriff's Department was called, R#23 was placed on one-to-one watch, and a 1013 was obtained. The basis of R#23's discharge was that the resident admitted to touching R#57. The Administrator further stated R#40 never stated R#23 had touched them, only their roommate. The Administrator explained that the hospital notified him that R#23 was being returned to the facility, but he informed the hospital staff that the facility had done an immediate discharge of the resident. Per the Administrator, an attempt to return R#23 back to the facility was made by two hospital representatives and the Sheriff's Department, but after hours of back and forth, the hospital staff found another facility for R#23, due to the fact that the facility refused to accept the resident. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 8:52 a.m., the MD stated he was called as the on-call physician on 12/28/2022 due to R#23 being sexually aggressive with residents. Per the MD, a telehealth visit was conducted with the resident and R#23 was aggressive, appeared angry, did not want to talk to the MD, and pushed the telephone away. According to the MD, he felt R#23 needed stabilization, and with the sexual overtones the resident had made, he felt R#23 could do harm to a resident or residents in the facility. The MD reported it was best to do a 1013, so that an evaluation could be made to determine if the resident was appropriate to return to the facility. The MD stated the 1013 did not reflect a discharge from the facility and he never signed an order for the resident's immediate discharge from the facility. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 8:59 a.m., the Social Services Director (SSD) stated on 12/28/2022, R#23 came to her office because the resident had heard about the allegation against them. The SSD stated R#23 made comments that they had grabbed R#57's breast and if they had done anything else, it was wanted by the resident. Per the SSD, R#23 then stated they were joking. According to the SSD, the Administrator informed R#23 that this type of behavior would not be tolerated in the facility, a 1013 was done and the resident was sent to the emergency room. Follow-up interview on 1/6/2023 at 9:52 a.m., the DON stated there was never a physician's order to discharge R#23 from the facility. Per the DON, the first time the facility ever heard any allegations of inappropriate behaviors from R#23 was on 12/27/2022. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:30 a.m., the hospital's Social Worker/Case Manager (SW/CM) stated she received a telephone call from the CNO that the facility sent R#23 to the hospital and dumped the resident at the hospital because the facility was not taking the resident back. According to the SW/CM, the DON stated the resident was discharged immediately from the facility and she did not care what the hospital did with the resident, but the facility was not taking the resident back. The SW/CM stated when she informed the DON this event would be reported to the State, the DON stated she did not care and was willing to take the hit. The SW/CM stated the hospital discharged the resident back to the facility and she, the CNO, and the sheriff accompanied the resident back on 12/29/2022; however, the resident sat in the transport van for four hours due to going back and forth with the facility. The SW/CM stated, the facility refused to take the resident. Follow-up interview on 1/6/2023 at 12:33 p.m., the Administrator stated he expected the facility to follow the regulation when there was a facility-initiated discharge. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 12:48 p.m., the Lieutenant Sheriff stated R#23 was one of the nicest persons he had met. Per the Lieutenant Sheriff, the resident had no behaviors that were observed at the hospital or the facility. He stated the allegations were brought up to R#23, and the resident denied everything. According to the Lieutenant Sheriff, the sheriff's office subpoenaed the resident records, and there were no employees that had negative statements about the resident and there was nothing in the record related to allegations of abuse or inappropriate behaviors.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Transfer (Tag F0626)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Transfer and Dischrge(includi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Transfer and Dischrge(including AMA[Against Medical Advice], the facility failed to allow one resident of four residents (R) (R#23) reviewed for discharges to return to the facility after it was determined by the hospital staff that the resident did not pose a danger to self or others. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the care and services R#23 received. Findings included: A review of the facility's policy, titled, Transfer and Discharge (including AMA [Against Medical Advice]), reviewed/revised 09/12/2022, indicated, Once admitted , the resident has the right to remain at the facility unless their transfer or discharge meets one of the following specified exemptions: a. The transfer or discharge is necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs cannot be met in the facility. b. The transfer or discharge is appropriate because the resident's health has improved sufficiently so that the resident no longer needs the services provided by the facility. c. The safety of individuals in the facility is endangered due to the clinical or behavioral status of the resident. d. The health of individuals in the facility would otherwise be endangered Review of R#23's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident with diagnoses that included myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, polyneuropathy, acquired absence of right leg above knee, acquired absence of left leg below knee, muscle weakness, depression, and peripheral vascular disease. According to the admission record, R#23 was discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE]. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], revealed R#23 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Per the MDS, R#23 exhibited no behaviors during this assessment period. The MDS further indicated, R#23 expected to remain in the facility and there was no active discharge plan for the resident to return to the community. Review of R#23's Physician Encounter progress note, dated 12/28/2022 at 4:48 p.m. and completed by the Medical Director (MD), revealed R#23 was seen by way of telemedicine access after staff reported the resident had been combative and sexually inappropriate with other residents. Per the note, the resident was at risk to harm others, needed a psychiatric (psych) evaluation, and a 1013. Review of R#23's Order Details indicated on 12/28/2022 there was an order to send R#23 to the emergency department for a 1013. Review of R#23's Progress Notes revealed a note written by the Director of Nursing (DON) and dated 12/28/2022 at 6:11 p.m The note revealed that due to the resident's overt sexual behaviors and other residents being fearful of the resident, R#23 was issued an immediate discharge notice along with a 1013 due to the risk of the resident harming others. Per the note, the DON spoke with the emergency room nurse, Chief Nursing Officer (CNO), and the social worker at the hospital about the situation and informed them that the resident had been discharged from the facility and would under no circumstances be allowed back. Review of the discharge notice addressed to Resident #23 and dated 12/28/2022 indicated the resident was immediately discharged from the facility, effective 12/28/2022, due to a risk of harm to self or others. Interview on 1/4/2023 at 11:58 a.m., the CNO at the local hospital stated the chief reason R#23 was sent to the emergency room was for an evaluation because the facility had a signed 1013. Per the CNO, the resident was assessed and found to be alert and oriented, and not a danger to self or others. The CNO stated she informed the DON the resident would be discharged back to the facility. According to the CNO, the DON stated the facility was not taking the resident back. The CNO stated R#23 was transported back to the facility by ambulance the following day and sat in an ambulance for four hours until placement was found by the hospital at another location, after the facility refused to take the resident back. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 2:33 p.m., the Administrator stated that the hospital notified him that Resident #23 was being returned to the facility, but he informed the hospital staff that R#23 was immediately discharged . Interview on 1/6/2023 at 8:52 a.m., the MD stated a telehealth visit was conducted with the resident and R#23 was aggressive, appeared angry, did not want to talk, and pushed the telephone away. The MD stated that R#23 needed stabilization and could do harm to a resident or residents in the facility and ordered a 1013 so that an evaluation could be made to determine if the resident was appropriate to return to the facility. The MD stated he never signed an order for the resident's immediate discharge from the facility. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 9:52 a.m., the DON stated there was not a physician's order (PO) to discharge R#23 from the facility. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:30 a.m., the hospital's Social Worker/Case Manager (SW/CM) stated she received a telephone call from the CNO that the facility was not taking the resident back. According to the SW/CM, the DON stated the resident was discharged immediately from the facility and refused to accept R#23 back into the facility. The SW/CM stated the hospital discharged the resident back to the facility and she, the CNO, and the sheriff accompanied the resident back on 12/29/2022; however, the resident sat in the transport van for four hours because the facility would not allow R#23 to return. Follow-up interview on 1/6/2023 at 12:33 p.m., the Administrator stated he expected the facility to follow the regulations when there was a facility-initiated discharge.
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 F0569 (Tag F0569)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of a facility document titled, Resident Trust Fund Notification and Authorization,, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of a facility document titled, Resident Trust Fund Notification and Authorization,, the facility failed to ensure the resident and/or the resident's representative received notification when their personal fund balance approached the supplemental security income (SSI) resource limit for three of three residents ((R) R#21, R#33, and R#34) reviewed for personal funds. This had the potential to affect all residents who received Medicaid benefits and had a personal funds account with the facility. Findings included: Review of an undated document titled, Resident Trust Fund Notification and Authorization, indicated, The facility will notify each resident who receives Medicaid benefits when the amount in the resident's account reaches $200 less that the SSI (supplemental security income) resource limit for one person. If the amount in the trust fund account, in addition to the resident's other nonexempt resources, reaches the SSI resource limit for one person, the resident may lose eligibility for Medicaid or SSI. Review of R#21's admission Record indicated the resident's primary payer was Medicaid. A review of R#21's Resident Statement Landscape report, dated 1/4/2023, revealed a current balance of $5,000.84. Review of R#34's admission Record indicated the resident's primary payer was Medicaid. A review of R#33's Resident Statement Landscape report, dated 1/4/2023, revealed a current balance of $3,143.34. A review of R#34's admission Record indicated the resident's primary payer was Medicaid. A review of R#34's Resident Statement Landscape report, dated 1/4/2023, revealed a current balance of $6,231.24. Interview on 1/3/2023 at 3:35 p.m., R#34's Resident Representative stated the facility took care of R#34's personal funds. The Resident Representative reported being concerned about R#34's personal fund balance going over the resource limit since they had not received a statement in a long time. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:07 a.m., the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) said the Business Office Manager (BOM) was supposed to be notifying residents and/or the resident's representative when the resident was reaching the SSI resource limit. Per the RDO, the facility had no proof that notification had been done. The RDO was shown the current balance in R#21, R#33, and R#34's account and he stated all residents were at risk of losing their Medicaid benefits as the result of the residents being over the SSI resource limit. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:19 a.m., the BOM stated she was responsible for notifying the resident that their account balance was reaching the SSI resource limit. Per the BOM, she had been verbally talking to some residents but had no evidence that notification was being done. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 12:26 p.m., the Administrator stated he expected the BOM to notify the resident or the resident's representative when the resident's account balance was reaching the SSI resource limit. According to the Administrator, the negative outcome of not notifying the resident or their representative could put the resident at risk of losing their benefits.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a safe, comfortable, and sanitary envir...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain a safe, comfortable, and sanitary environment in resident rooms and facility communal areas. Specifically, the flooring system on two halls of three halls (A Hall and B Hall) in the facility were observed to be cracked, uneven, and had bare wood exposed. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the residents' ability to ambulate safely throughout the A and B Halls. Findings included: During the initial tour of the facility on 1/3/2023 from 8:45 a.m. until 10:00 a.m., the flooring was observed to be cracked in many places throughout the building. In Rooms 100, 201, 203, and 204, the vinyl tile was observed to be missing and bare wood was exposed. Residents were observed to be ambulating and self-propelling in their wheelchairs on the floor. In the shared bathroom between room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER], an indentation was observed in the floor in front of the commode. In the therapy room, where residents participated in rehabilitation therapy services, the floor was observed to be cracked across the room with a slope that extended from the crack to the door. Interview on 1/3/2023 at 11:59 a.m., the Maintenance Director (MD) stated he had worked at the facility approximately six to eight weeks and was responsible for general repairs to the floor tiles and preventative maintenance. He further stated that he was unaware of any areas that required immediate attention. Interview on 1/3/2023 at 12:35 p.m., R#17 stated the damage observed in his room had been that way for months. Per R#17, the concern had been reported to the maintenance staff, but nothing had been done. Interview on 1/3/2023 at 12:45 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) BB stated the tile damage had been a problem for six or seven months and had become worse over time. CAN BB stated she had reported different flooring issues to the MD, but nothing had been done. Interview and observation on 1/3/2023 at 1:38 p.m., during a follow up tour with the MD, he stated he had done some floor repair and there were repairs that still needed to be done. The MD further stated that he was not a floor specialist. Interview and observation on 1/3/2023 at 1:51 p.m., during a tour of the affected rooms, the Administrator stated there was a project underway to repair the flooring throughout the entire building but was unable to provide a date the repairs would be made. He confirmed there was significant damage that needed to be repaired. The Administrator further stated the areas in the rooms of concern were not desirable, and it was his expectation the repairs to the floor be completed.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0568 (Tag F0568)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Commingling of Resident Funds, the facility failed to ensure quarterly statements were provided to th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident and staff interviews, and review of the facility's policy titled, Commingling of Resident Funds, the facility failed to ensure quarterly statements were provided to the resident or the resident's representative within 30 days after the end of the quarter for three of three residents ((R) R#21, R#33, and R#34) reviewed for personal funds. This had the potential to affect all residents who had a personal funds account with the facility. Findings included: Review of the facility's undated policy titled, Commingling of Resident Funds, specified, 3. The resident is provided with a quarterly accounting report of his or her funds on deposit with the facility. Review of the facility's Resident Statement Landscape report, dated 1/4/2023, indicated the facility managed the personal fund accounts of R#21, R#33, and R#34. Interview on 1/3/2023 at 3:35 p.m., R#34's Resident Representative stated the facility took care of R#34's personal funds. Per the Resident Representative, the facility used to send quarterly statements right after the resident was admitted a little over two years ago, but the Resident Representative had not received a quarterly statement in a long time. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:07 a.m., the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) stated the facility had no proof that quarterly statements were sent for any of the residents whose personal funds were managed by the facility. According to the RDO, the Business Office Manager (BOM) was supposed to send out quarterly statements. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:19 a.m., the BOM stated she was responsible for sending out quarterly statements to all the residents or the resident's representative whose personal funds were managed by the facility. The BOM indicated she had not been sending quarterly statements but was informed today (1/6/2023) that she needed to start. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 12:26 p.m., the Administrator stated he expected the BOM to send out personal fund statements quarterly.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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 F0570 (Tag F0570)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure their surety bond provided financial security of all the residents' personal funds deposited with the facility. This deficien...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure their surety bond provided financial security of all the residents' personal funds deposited with the facility. This deficient practice affected all 34 residents whose funds were managed by the facility. Findings included: A review of the facility's surety bond, dated 3/23/2022, revealed the bond covered the amount of $15,000 for patient funds. The bond was effective 7/1/2022 through 7/1/2023. A review of the facility's Resident Statement Landscape report, dated 1/4/2023, indicated the facility managed the personal fund accounts of 34 residents and the balance of all residents' personal accounts totaled $43,458.63. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 11:07 a.m., the Regional Director of Operations (RDO) stated the facility's current surety bond was for $15,000 and would not cover the total current resident fund balance, which was currently more than $39,000. Interview on 1/6/2023 at 12:26 p.m., the Administrator stated the surety bond should cover at least the current balance of the resident personal funds. The Administrator confirmed that the current surety bond amount was only for $15,000 and did not cover the current balance of the residents' personal fund account. According to the Administrator, because the surety bond was not sufficient to cover the current balance of the residents' personal fund account, it could put the residents at risk of losing their money if something happened.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety Requirements, the facility failed to store foods under sanitary conditions. Specifically, the facility fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Food Safety Requirements, the facility failed to store foods under sanitary conditions. Specifically, the facility failed to put food away upon receipt from the delivery company, which included refrigerated and frozen foods, and the food sat in a shed for several hours. This deficient practice had the potential to affect all residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Food Safety Requirements, implemented 10/1/2022, specified, Food safety practices shall be followed throughout the facility's entire food handling process. This process begins when food is received from the vendor and ends with delivery of the food to the resident. The policy further specified, Refrigerated storage - foods that require refrigeration shall be refrigerated immediately upon receipt or placed in freezer, whichever is applicable. Observation on 1/4/2023 at 11:17 a.m., the surveyor toured the shed with the Dietary Manager (DM). The door of the shed was opened and there were numerous boxes of food products noted. Just inside the doorway, on the wet, plywood floor was a 25-pound paper bag of self-rising corn meal mix, a box of barbecue and wing sauce, a box of Mandarin orange pieces, a box of dinner napkins, a box of pasteurized eggs, an opened bag of cut cabbage, a box of Frito Lay chips, a box of croissants, a box of egg noodles, a box of fresh cucumbers, and many other items that could not be reached due to the number of boxes on the floor. According to the DM, the food vendor delivered food on Wednesdays between 1:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m The DM indicated this delivery process had been in place since June 2022. The DM stated the only food she had put away was a box of chicken breasts and chicken patties around 10:30 a.m. The interior room temperature of the shed was 64 degrees Fahrenheit. Interview on 1/4/2023 at 10:45 a.m., the DM stated there was another food storage area in the shed outside, behind the main kitchen. According to the DM, when food was delivered from the vendor during the middle of the night, it was left on the floor of the shed until the dietary staff put the food items away when they returned for their shift the next day. Telephone interview on 1/5/2023 at 12:05 p.m., a customer service representative (CSR) of the facility's food vendor company confirmed that on 1/4/2023 at 1:08 a.m., 63 cases were delivered to the facility. According to the CSR, the 63 cases included: 21 cases of grocery items, eight cases of frozen food items, 10 cases of meat, two cases of seafood, four cases of poultry food items, seven cases of dairy items, one case of disposables, two cases of beverages, and eight cases of produce. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 12:20 p.m., the Administrator stated that when food was delivered it should be immediately put away, and it was the responsibility of all the staff to ensure this was done. Interview on 1/5/2023 at 1:04 p.m., the Registered Dietician (RD) stated she and the DM were responsible for the overall function of the kitchen. The RD stated she was aware the facility received a food delivery on 1/04/2023 around 1:10 a.m.; however, if the food items had not been put away by 10:30 a.m., the food items should be discarded. The RD stated she could not speak about what occurred but was told that food was put away by the delivery person.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 life-threatening violation(s), $30,309 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 3 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $30,309 in fines. Higher than 94% of Georgia facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has 3 Immediate Jeopardy findings. Serious concerns require careful evaluation.

About This Facility

What is Nancy Hart Operation Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns NANCY HART OPERATION LLC an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Georgia, 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 Nancy Hart Operation Llc Staffed?

CMS rates NANCY HART OPERATION LLC's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 64%, which is 18 percentage points above the Georgia average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Nancy Hart Operation Llc?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at NANCY HART OPERATION LLC during 2023 to 2025. These included: 3 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 25 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 Nancy Hart Operation Llc?

NANCY HART OPERATION LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 67 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ELBERTON, Georgia.

How Does Nancy Hart Operation Llc Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, NANCY HART OPERATION LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6, staff turnover (64%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Nancy Hart Operation Llc?

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

Is Nancy Hart Operation Llc Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Nancy Hart Operation Llc Stick Around?

Staff turnover at NANCY HART OPERATION LLC is high. At 64%, the facility is 18 percentage points above the Georgia average of 46%. 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 Nancy Hart Operation Llc Ever Fined?

NANCY HART OPERATION LLC has been fined $30,309 across 5 penalty actions. This is below the Georgia average of $33,382. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Nancy Hart Operation Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

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