JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC

618 GENNETT DRIVE, JASPER, GA 30143 (706) 692-6323
For profit - Limited Liability company 60 Beds JOURNEY HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
28/100
#289 of 353 in GA
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Jasper Point of Journey LLC has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. With a state rank of #289 out of 353 facilities in Georgia, they are in the bottom half, and they are the second best option in Pickens County, meaning only one facility is rated higher. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 6 in 2022 to 13 in 2024. Staffing is a notable strength, as they have a 0% turnover rate, which is well below the state average of 47%. However, the facility has faced $4,233 in fines and has experienced serious incidents, such as failing to address a resident's severe pain during wound treatment and not ensuring adequate nursing staff on weekends, which could affect care for residents.

Trust Score
F
28/100
In Georgia
#289/353
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 13 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$4,233 in fines. Lower than most Georgia facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 21 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Georgia. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
22 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
2022: 6 issues
2024: 13 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

Federal Fines: $4,233

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: JOURNEY HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Nov 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to complete Fall Risk Assessments during the admission process and pos...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to complete Fall Risk Assessments during the admission process and post falls for two Residents (R) (R3 and R4) of three residents reviewed for falls. Findings include: 1.R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her admitting diagnoses include, but not limited to unspecified fracture of shaft of left femur, Alzheimer's disease, fall on same level, and encounter for other orthopedic aftercare. The Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) was conducted on 9/27/2024 and revealed that R3 was rarely/never understood. Review of care plan revealed that resident had falls on 9/29/2024, 10/8/2024, and 10/9/2024. Review of the medical record revealed falls occurring on 9/29/2024, 10/8/2024, and 10/09/2024. Further review revealed that there was no evidence that a Fall Risk Assessment was completed for date of admission, post fall on 9/29/2024, post fall on 10/8/2024, or post fall 10/9/2024. Further records review revealed that fall risk evaluation was completed on 10/13/2024 with a score of 22.0. The assessment category indicated High Risk. 2.R4 was admitted to the facility under the services of hospice on 10/2/2024. Her admitting diagnoses include, but not limited to chronic congestive heart failure, and osteoarthritis of left shoulder and right knee. The Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) was conducted on 11/25/2024 and revealed that R4 was cognitively intact. Review of Fall Occurrence Note dated 11/24/2024 at 1:15 am revealed: While on runs heard resident screaming out for help. I entered her room and observed resident sitting on the floor next to bed. Her back was against the bed. Call light in reach. Resident sustained a skin tear to right forearm. First aid given. Resident complaining of pain to the left knee. Resident currently on hospice care. Hospice Nurse on called notified. Contacts listed as self. Review of admitting records revealed that there was no evidence that a Fall Risk Assessment was completed for date of admission. Further review of electronic medical record included a Morse Falls Risk Evaluation dated 11/24/2024 with a score of 75. The assessment tool stated that a score higher than 45 indicated a resident was at high risk for falls. An interview was conducted with Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/27/2024 at 11:30 am. She stated that fall risk assessment should be completed during initial assessment. She Confirmed that R3 and R4 did not have fall risk assessments completed during admission. She started working at this facility on 11/01/2024 and she is not aware who was responsible for fall assessment for new admissions prior 11/01/12024. Interview with LPN AA 11/27/2024 at 11:50 am confirmed that fall risk assessments should be completed during admission, even for residents with hospice services. Interview with Administrator on 11/27/2024 at 12:25 pm revealed his expectation for all nurses to complete all required assessments.
Jul 2024 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and a review of the facility policy titled, Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR (preadmission screening and resident review) Program, the facility failed to submit a PASARR Level II for two of four residents (R) (R5 and R19) reviewed after a new mental illness diagnosis was added. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the appropriate level of care and services provided for R5 and R19. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Resident Assessment-Coordination with PASARR Program dated 2/12/2022 revealed the Policy stated, This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receive care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Policy Explanation and Compliance section stated, 6. The Social Services Director shall be responsible for keeping track of each resident's PASARR screening status and referring to the appropriate authority. 9. Any resident who exhibits a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition will be referred promptly to the state mental health or intellectual disability authority for a level II resident review. Examples include: b. A resident whose intellectual disability or related condition was not previously identified and evaluated through PASARR. 1. A review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed that R5 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including but not limited to generalized anxiety disorder, migraine, and major depressive disorder. Further review revealed a diagnosis of bipolar disorder was added on 2/1/2024. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] in section A (Identification Information) documented the resident was not currently considered by the state Level II PASRR process to have serious mental illness and/or intellectual disability or a related condition, section I (Active Diagnoses) documented bipolar disorder, and section O (Special Treatments and Programs) documented R5 did not receive psychological services. A review of the quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed section I (Active Diagnoses) documented bipolar disorder, and section O (Special Treatments and Programs) documented R5 did not receive psychological services. A review of the EMR revealed no documentation of psychological services in the last 12 months. A review of the EMR revealed a PASRR Level I request dated 1/7/2021 without bipolar disorder marked on the form. A further review revealed there was no re-submission for a PASRR Level I after the bipolar diagnosis was added on 2/1/2024. The facility did not have a Social Services Director (SSD). The Director of Nursing (DON) was unavailable for an interview. In an interview on 7/20/2024 at 11:30 am, the Interim Administrator verified R5 had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder dated 2/1/2024 and did not have a PASRR Level II. She stated when a resident received a serious Mental Disorder (MD) or Intellectual Disability (ID) diagnosis, the SSD was responsible for submitting for a PASRR Level II. She stated new diagnoses were discussed in the morning meetings and the SSD typically attended the meetings. The Interim Administrator further stated the facility currently did not have an SSD. In an interview on 7/20/2024 at 2:13 pm, Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) CC stated when a resident was newly diagnosed with a serious MD or ID, the SSD should submit for a PASRR Level II. She stated new diagnoses were discussed in the morning and care plan meetings, and the SSD typically attended the meetings. She further stated the PASRR Level II was used to ensure a resident received the specialized care and services recommended and without the PASRR Level II recommendations, a resident could have adverse effects such as not receiving needed services and medication management by a specialized provider. 2. A review of the Face Sheet revealed that R19 was admitted without a significant mental health diagnosis and a primary diagnosis of fibromyalgia. On 10/19/2023, the resident had a new diagnosis of panic disorder and on 2/1/2024 the resident had a new diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Review of the PASRR Level I dated 5/18/2023 revealed no primary diagnosis of dementia and no primary diagnosis of serious mental illness. Further review of the clinical record revealed no documented evidence that the resident was reevaluated related to a new diagnosis of mental illness. A review of the annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed R19 had a BIMS score of 14, indicating R19 was cognitively intact. Section A (Identification Information) documented the resident had not been evaluated by PASRR Level II. Section I (Active Diagnoses) documented anxiety disorder, depression, and bipolar disorder. Section O (Special Treatments and Programs) documented no psychological therapies or treatments were received. Review of the Physician Orders dated 7/1/2024 revealed R19 had an order for olanzapine (antipsychotic medication) 2.5 milligrams (mg) every morning and at bedtime related to bipolar disorder per psychiatry. Interview on 7/20/2024 at 2:53 pm with Regional Nurse Consultant CC revealed she was unable to locate a PASRR Level II for R19 and was unsure why the resident was not reevaluated with the new diagnosis. She indicated she attempted to contact the Social Worker who was no longer employed at this time and was unsuccessful.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled Comprehensive Care Plan and Oxygen Administration, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan for one of 20 sampled residents (R) (R15). This failure increased the potential for R15 not to receive treatment and/or care according to their needs. Findings include: A review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plans dated 2/12/2022 revealed the Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines stated, 3. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychological well-being. A review of the facility policy titled Oxygen Administration dated 2/12/2022 revealed the Policy stated, Oxygen is administered to residents who need it, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the resident's goals and preferences. The Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines stated, 4. The resident's care plan shall identify the interventions for oxygen therapy, based upon the resident's assessment and orders, such as, but not limited to a. The type of oxygen delivery system. b. When to administer, such as continuous or intermittent, and/or when to discontinue. b. Equipment setting for the prescribed flow rates. d. Monitoring of SpO2 (oxygen saturation) levels and/or vital signs, as ordered. e. Monitoring for complications associated with the use of oxygen. A review of R15's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed section C (Cognitive Patterns) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 (indicating intact cognition), and section O (Special Treatments and Programs) documented the resident received oxygen while a resident. A review of R15's care plan revealed there was no care area, goals, or interventions for the administration of oxygen. A review of the Physician's orders revealed an order dated 6/27/2024 for oxygen via a nasal cannula (NC) at 2 liters per minute (LPM), continuous. A review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) dated 7/2024, 6/2024, and 5/2024 revealed oxygen was documented as administered as ordered. During observation and interview on 7/19/2024 at 8:57 am, R15 was receiving oxygen via a NC at 2 LPM. She stated she wore the oxygen most of the time and only removed it during meals and showers. Observations on 7/20/2024 at 7:40 am and 7/21/2024 at 8:35 am revealed R15 was receiving oxygen via a NC at 2 LPM. The Director of Nursing (DON) was not available for an interview. In an interview on 7/21/2024 at 11:30 am, Regional Director of Clinical Operations (RDCO) AA verified there was no care plan area for oxygen administration on R15's care plan. She stated if a resident received oxygen, it should be addressed in the care plan. She further stated the MDS Coordinator was responsible for ensuring the care plan contained the current services and care provided to the resident, and the omission on the care plan was an oversight.
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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Nebulizer Thera...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Nebulizer Therapy and CPAP/BiPAP (continuous/bilevel positive airway pressure machine) Cleaning, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory supplies were stored properly for two of 21 sampled residents (R) (R14 and R27). This deficient practice increased the risks of spreading microorganisms and placed R14 and R27 at risk for respiratory infections and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Nebulizer Therapy, date implemented 2/12/2022, documented under Care of the Equipment: 1. Clean after each use. 2. Wash hands before handling equipment. 3. Disassemble parts after every treatment. 4. Rinse the nebulizer cup and mouthpiece with sterile or distilled water. 6. Air dry on an absorbent towel. 7. Once completely dry, store the nebulizer cup and the mouthpiece in a [brand name] (re-sealable) bag. Review of the facility policy titled CPAP/BiPAP Cleaning revised 2/12/2022 documented under Policy: It is the policy of the facility to clean CPAP/BiPAP equipment in accordance with the current CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) guidelines and manufacturer recommendations in order to prevent the occurrence or spread of infections. Under Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: .6. Clean mask frame daily after use with CPAP cleaning wipe or soap and water. Dry well. Cover with plastic bag or completely enclose in machine storage when not in use. 1. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R14 was admitted to the facility with pertinent diagnoses listed as but not limited to acute chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, pleural effusion, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (lack of oxygen), viral pneumonia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of R14's discharge return expected Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 6/19/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not completed, her short-term memory was documented as ok, and her ability to make decisions regarding tasks of daily life was moderately impaired. Section GG (Functional Abilities and Goals) revealed she required substantial/maximum assistance with personal hygiene. Review of R14's care plan, initiated on 2/4/2024, indicated a focus of a potential risk for altered respiratory status related to her diagnosis of COPD. The goals included but were not limited to maintaining a normal breathing pattern. The interventions included but not limited to giving nebulizer treatments (a machine that turns liquid medicine into a mist that can be inhaled through a mouthpiece or mask) and oxygen as ordered. Review of the EMR revealed physician's orders for R14 included but were not limited to ipratropium-albuterol inhalation solution 0.5 - 2.5 milligrams (mg) per 3 milliliters (ml); inhale three ml's orally every six hours as needed for wheezing (a medication administered through a nebulizing machine used to treat lung diseases). Observations on 7/19/2024 at 10:05 am revealed a nebulizer mouthpiece lying on top of the oxygen concentrator (a machine that makes oxygen out of room air) next to R14's bed was not covered with a protective bag, and a nebulizer on top of R14's nightstand with the tubing in the second drawer of the nightstand, also not covered or in a protective bag. Observations on 7/19/2024 at 2:00 pm and 7/20/2024 at 7:45 am revealed R14's nebulizer on top of the oxygen concentrator with the mouthpiece on top of the nebulizer, uncovered and not in a protective bag, and a second nebulizer on top of R14's nightstand with the tubing in the second drawer, not covered or in a protective bag. During an observation and interview on 7/20/2024 at 1:50 pm, Regional Nurse Consultant CC verified and confirmed the nebulizer on top of the oxygen concentrator had a mouthpiece attached, and it was not covered or placed in a protective bag. She verified and confirmed the second nebulizer on R14's nightstand had tubing connected to a mask located in the second drawer of the nightstand that was not covered or stored inside a protective bag. She stated the charge nurse was responsible for ensuring the mask/mouthpiece was clean and stored inside a protective bag. She further stated the mouthpiece and mask should be cleaned and allowed to air dry and then stored in a bag. She stated the possible potential outcomes of this practice could result in residents developing respiratory and/or skin infections. 2. Review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed R27 had a BIMS score of 13, indicating little or no cognitive decline. Diagnoses included but were not limited to chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, chronic respiratory failure with hypercapnia, morbid obesity with alveolar hypoventilation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Section O (Special Treatment and Services) documented the resident uses a non-invasive mechanical ventilator. Review of the Physician Order for R27 dated 7/8/2024 revealed an order for 'name of manufacturer' BiPAP [bilevel positive airway pressure], VT (Tidal Volume) 450, Rate 20, EPAP [expiratory positive airway pressure] 6, 4L O2 [oxygen] blended at bedtime for elevated CO2 [carbon dioxide] levels. Observation on 7/19/2024 at 8:54 am revealed R27's BiPAP machine on the nightstand with mask laying directly on nightstand unbagged, with no protective covering. Observation and interview on 7/20/2024 at 11:22 am with R27 revealed a BiPAP machine laying on the nightstand with the mask directly on the nightstand, unbagged. R27 stated they assisted her with using it at night, but they never put the mask in a bag or protective covering. She was unsure if they cleaned it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Medications, the facilit...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Use of Psychotropic Medications, the facility failed to ensure that a psychotropic medication, with appropriate diagnoses, including antianxiety medication, was not ordered as needed (PRN) for more than 14 days unless clinically indicated for one of six residents (R) (R19) reviewed for unnecessary medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Use of Psychotropic Medication dated 8/1/2023 documented the following under Policy Explanation and Guidelines: . 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). 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 record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. A review of the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed R19 had diagnoses including but not limited to panic disorder [episodic paroxysmal anxiety] and conversion disorder with seizures or convulsions. Review of the Physician Orders for R19 revealed an order for Ativan Injection Solution 2 milligram (mg)/ milliliter (ml) (antianxiety medication), inject 1 mg intramuscularly (IM) every 4 hours as needed (PRN) for seizure with an original order date of 9/27/2023. An additional order was written for Ativan Injection Solution 2 mg/ml, inject 1 mg intramuscularly every 6 hours PRN for panic attack/seizure with an original order date of 10/18/2023 and was discontinued on 11/13/2023, with no administration. The duplicate order was identified by the pharmacist and discontinued. Review of the medication administration record (MAR) revealed R19 received the Ativan 1 mg every 4 hours as needed for seizures on 10/21/2023, 10/29/2023, 11/21/2023, 11/29/2023, 3/4/2024, 3/10/2024 and 3/12/2024. Review of Nurse's Note dated 3/4/2024 at 11:55 pm revealed resident agitated, yelling out about wanting to call her mother. Jumped out of bed and started to run. Unable to redirect. Ativan IM delivered per orders with good results. In an interview on 7/21/2024 at 2:30 pm with Regional Nurse Consultant CC, she verified R19 had an active physician's order dated 9/27/2023 for Ativan 2 mg/ml injection 1 mg every 4 hours PRN seizures, without an end/stop date for the order. She further stated the Director of Nursing (DON) reviewed resident medications monthly and should have recommended an end date for the Ativan order.
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 policy titled, Medication Storage, the facility failed to maintain medications in a locked and secure environment when not under dir...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, the facility failed to maintain medications in a locked and secure environment when not under direct supervision of the nurse for one of two medication carts (the 300 Hall cart). This failure placed residents, staff, and visitors at risk of having unauthorized access to residents' medications. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Medication Storage date implemented 2/12/2022 revealed under Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure all medications housed on our premises will be stored in the pharmacy and/or medication rooms according to the manufacturer's recommendations and sufficient to ensure proper sanitation, temperature, light, ventilation, moisture control, segregation, and security. Under the section titled Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines and subsection General Guidelines letter C revealed during medication pass, medications must be under the direct supervision of the person administering the medications or locked in the medication storage area/cart. An observation on 7/20/2024 at 9:17 am revealed Registered Nurse (RN) DD left the medication cart on the 300-hall locked with five medication cards containing medications, on top of the cart unattended while she went to the medication room to retrieve another medication needed. She returned to the medication cart at 9:21 am. An interview on 7/20/2024 at 9:21 am with RN DD, she verified and confirmed she left five medication cards with medications in them on top of the medication cart unattended while she went to the medication room to retrieve another medication needed. She stated she should not have done that. She further revealed that she should have locked the medication up in the cart prior to leaving the cart and she did not have an excuse for what she did because she knew she should not leave medication on a cart unattended for any length of time. An interview on 7/20/2024 at 1:50 pm with Regional Nurse Consultant CC revealed that the expectation was for the nurses to know that medications were to be locked in the cart unless the nurse was in attendance to the medications. She further stated if the nurse must leave the cart to attend to anything else, the expectation was that the medication be locked in the cart. She stated the possible outcome of not locking medication in the cart and leaving it unattended could be that a resident could remove the medication from the cart and possibly take them and have an adverse reaction to the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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 policy titled, Clean Dressing Change, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed during wound care for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Clean Dressing Change, the facility failed to ensure hand hygiene was performed during wound care for one of five residents (R) (R1) with pressure ulcers. The deficient practice had the potential to place the resident at risk for medical complications, unmet needs, and a diminished quality of life. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Clean Dressing Change, date implemented 2/12/2022, revealed the policy of the facility was to provide wound care in a manner to decrease potential for infection and/or cross contamination. The subsection titled Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines revealed number 14 stated, Wash hands and put on clean gloves. A review of the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R1 was admitted to the facility with pertinent diagnoses including but not limited to pressure ulcer of the sacral region, stage IV. Review of R1's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment with an assessment reference date (ARD) of 4/2/2024 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11, which indicates R1 had moderate cognitive impairment. Section GG (functional status) revealed R1 was dependent on staff for dressing, bathing, and toileting. Section H (Bladder and Bowel) revealed R1 was always incontinent of bladder and bowel. Review of R1's care plan initiated on 4/9/2924 indicated a focus of the potential to develop pressure ulcers related to a history of wounds. Goals included but not limited to R1 would be free of preventable skin breakdown. Interventions included but not limited to check frequently for wetness and soiling and provide incontinence care as needed, provide wound care per physician's order, keep dressing clean, dry and intact, and change dressing as needed for soiling. Review of the EMR revealed physician's orders for R1 included but was not limited to clean sacral wound with wound cleanser, fill wound bed with 4x4 gauze soaked with Dakins solution (a topical antiseptic used to treat and prevent infections in wounds, skin, and tissue) with a protective moister absorbent dressing daily and as needed until resolved. Observations made on 7/20/2024 at 10:15 am of wound care performed by Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) HH with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) II assisting revealed LPN HH set up supplies needed for wound care on a table with a barrier after cleaning the table. She performed hand hygiene and donned (put on) gloves, then removed the dressing from R1's sacrum. She removed her gloves and performed hand hygiene, then donned clean gloves. She proceeded to cleanse the wound with gauze soaked with wound cleanser, cleaning from the inside to the outer edges of the wound with a circular motion. Once she completed cleansing the wound she then, without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves, began to pack the wound with gauze soaked in Dakin's solution, and covered the wound with an absorbent foam border dressing. The dressing was dated and initialed by the nurse and all disposable items including the soiled dressing were removed. In an interview on 7/10/2024 at 10:30 am, LPN HH confirmed she did not change her gloves or perform hand hygiene between cleansing the sacral wound and applying Dakin's soaked packing in the wound bed. She stated she should have stopped after cleaning the wound, removed her gloves, performed hand hygiene, donned clean gloves, applied the Dakins-soaked packing in the wound bed, and covered the wound with an absorbent foam border dressing. An interview on 7/20/2024 at 4:05 pm with the Regional Nurse Consultant CC revealed that her expectation was that the nurse who was performing wound care knew when gloves were contaminated and to perform hand hygiene and don clean gloves prior to packing a clean dressing on a wound. She stated this practice could potentially result in a wound infection.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI), the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director or an appoi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled, Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI), the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director or an appointee of the Medical Director's attendance and participation in QAPI committee meetings, at least quarterly. Specifically, the Medical Director or their appointee was not present and did not attend three of the six QAPI committee meetings reviewed. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) date implemented 8/1/2023 revealed under the section titled Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines number two The Quality Assessment and Assurance (QAA) Committee shall be interdisciplinary and shall consist at minimum of the Director of Nursing (DON), Medical Director or his/her designee, and at least three other members of the facility's staff, at least one of which must be the Administrator, Owner, a Board Member or other individual in a leadership role, and the Infection Preventionist. Review of the QAPI committee meeting sign-in sheets, dated 7/18/2023, 8/24/2023, 9/25/2023, 11/2/2023, 1/26/2024 and 4/25/2024 revealed the medical director nor their appointee's signature was not found on the sign in sheets dated 11/2/2023, 1/26/2024 and 4/25/2024. During an interview on 7/21/2024 at 3:56 pm, the Regional Director of Clinical Operations AA revealed that the QAA committee met regularly. She confirmed that neither the Medical Director's signature nor a designee of the Medical Director's signature was on the QAPI meeting sign-in sheets for 11/2/2023, 1/26/2024, or 4/25/2024. She revealed that neither the Medical Director nor their appointee attended the meetings, nor did they have documentation otherwise.
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 F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility documents titled, Facility Assessment Tool and the PBJ (payroll-based journal) Staffing Data Report, the facility failed to ensure that...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of facility documents titled, Facility Assessment Tool and the PBJ (payroll-based journal) Staffing Data Report, the facility failed to ensure that the facility had adequate nursing staff on the weekends. The deficient practice had the potential to affect the care provided to the 51 residents that resided in the facility. Findings include: Review of The Facility Assessment Tool dated 4/17/2024 revealed the average daily census in the facility was 57 residents. The Facility Assessment Tool documented the average hourly staffing needs per day were 36 - 48 hours for licensed nurses providing direct care, and 105 - 120 hours for nurse aides. Review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report FY (fiscal year) Quarter 2 2024 (1/1/2024 through 3/31/2024) revealed based on the data submitted, the facility triggered Excessively Low Weekend Staffing. Review of PBJ Data Hours Log, provided by the facility, for FY Quarter 2, revealed an average of 77 hours per day for nurse's aides for weekends. Interview on 7/21/2024 at 3:00 pm with the Regional Director of Clinical Operations (RDCO) and the Regional Nurse Consultant (RNC) CC revealed they were both aware of PBJ's excessively low weekend staffing received for the second quarter of 2024.
CONCERN (F)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain the walk-in freezer in a manner to prevent ice buildup from forming on the freezer unit. This failure had the potential to c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and staff interviews, the facility failed to maintain the walk-in freezer in a manner to prevent ice buildup from forming on the freezer unit. This failure had the potential to contaminate food items located under the ice and place the 51 residents receiving an oral diet from the kitchen at risk of contracting a foodborne illness. The facility census was 51. Findings include: Observation of the walk-in freezer on 7/19/2024 at 8:00 am revealed ice formations hanging from the freezer unit located to the left side of the door. The ice formations ranged in size from 6 inches in diameter at the top to less than 1 inch in diameter at the floor and were observed on the shelving below the freezer unit and the freezer floor. The Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) verified the ice formation and the buildup of ice on the freezer floor. In an interview on 7/19/2024 at 8:00 am, the CDM stated the walk-in freezer had malfunctioned a while back, and the Maintenance Director and Interim Administrator were aware. She further stated an outside company had inspected the freezer, but it had not been repaired. She stated the dietary staff were aware to avoid storing food items on the shelves under the freezer unit and to use caution when walking in the freezer due to the ice formation on the floor. She further stated she had discarded numerous cases of foods due to ice formation on the foods. In an interview on 7/20/2024 at 10:05 am, the Maintenance Director stated he was aware of the ice formation in the walk-in freezer and that he manually removed the ice periodically. He further stated he thought an outside service provider had inspected the freezer before he was employed at the facility, but he was unsure what the recommendations were. He stated that the Interim Administrator was aware of the concern. In an interview on 7/20/2024 at 10:10 am, the Regional Director of Environmental Services stated he was unaware of a concern with the walk-in freezer prior to this date and that he would address the concern. In an interview on 7/20/2024 at 10:20 am, the Interim Administrator stated she was aware of the ice formation in the walk-in freezer. She stated the concern began before she became the Interim Administrator, and the Regional Director was aware of it. She stated an outside service provider had inspected the freezer, but she was unsure of the date or recommendations. In an interview on 7/20/2024 at 3:05 pm, the Maintenance Director stated he was unable to locate documentation of an outside service provider inspecting or servicing the walk-in freezer. In an interview on 7/21/2024 at 11:40 am, the Interim Administrator stated she was unable to provide documentation of a service visit for the walk-in freezer. Observation on 7/21/2024 at 3:15 pm of the walk-in freezer with the CDM revealed the freezer had ice formation hanging from the freezer unit located to the left side of the door. The ice formation extended onto the shelving and the floor. One case of pie crust located on the lower shelf was covered in ice formation, and there was ice buildup on the floor. The CDM stated staff tried to avoid placing items under the freezer unit, but there was limited space to store frozen foods. She discarded the case of pie crust and stated she had previously discarded numerous cases of foods due to ice forming on them.
Jan 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident family and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Falls Prevention Program, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision or intervention to prevent accidents for one of eight sampled residents (R) (R3). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Falls Prevention Program revealed: Policy: Each resident will be assessed for fall risk and will receive care and services in accordance with their individualized level of risk to minimize the likelihood of falls. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: . 3. The nurse will indicate on the (specify location) the resident's fall risk and initiate interventions on the resident's baseline care plan, in accordance with the resident's level of risk. 4. The nurse will refer to the facility's High Risk or Low/Moderate Risk protocols when determining primary interventions. 6. High Risk Protocols: a. The resident will be placed on the facility's Fall Prevention Program. i. Indicate fall risk on care plan. b. Implement interventions from Low/Moderate Risk Protocols. c. Provide interventions that address unique risk factors measured by the risk assessment, including but not limited to: i. Assistive devices, ii. Increased frequency of rounds, iii. Sitter, if indicated, iv. Medication regimen review, v. Low bed, vi. Alternate call system access, vii. Scheduled ambulation or resident education, viii. Family/caregiver or resident education, ix. Therapy services referral. Review of the R3's Face Sheet in the electronic medical record (EMR) revealed R3 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including right femur fracture, adult failure to thrive, dementia, and psychosis mood disturbance without behavior. Review of R3's admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated [DATE] revealed in section C-Cognitive Patterns, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7, indicating R3 was moderately cognitively impaired; section GG-Functional Abilities as substantial/maximal assistance needed for ambulation with use of a walker and diagnosis of a right femur fracture. Review of R3's care plan with an initiation date of [DATE] and revision date of [DATE] for falls revealed resident is at risk for falls upon admission with interventions to encourage to call for assistance, provide verbal ques, and call light in reach. Another care plan dated [DATE] revealed resident has history of falls which resulted in fractures and the interventions were to provide verbal cues, and a physical therapy evaluation. A third care plan dated for [DATE] revealed the same fall interventions as before, no new interventions noted. Review of document titled Grandview Health Care Center Incidents revealed R3 experienced two falls, one dated [DATE] and one dated [DATE] (which resulted in her death on [DATE]). Review of Progress Notes located in the EMR revealed R3 had another fall incident on [DATE] that was not on the facility's Incident Log provided by the facility. A nursing Progress Note entry dated [DATE] states that the resident had an unwitnessed fall with a head injury at 18:20 [6:20 pm] where resident was found on the floor of her room with blood draining from the back of her head and was sent to the emergency room. Another nursing Progress Note entry for [DATE] at 23:37 [11:37 pm] reveals that the resident returned to the facility from the emergency room by wheelchair with abrasions to the scalp and a negative CT [computed tomography] scan. Interview on [DATE] at 2:31 pm with certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) PP revealed that CNA PP does recall working with R3 and recalled that the resident required constant re-directing and was unable to be cued. CNA PP does not recall any specific fall interventions in place like skid-free socks or one-to-one supervision. CNA PP stated R3 did not understand how to use her call bell. Interview on [DATE] at 2:00 pm with Nurse Practitioner (NP) QQ revealed they recall R3 had frequent falls and had difficulty following directions due to her dementia. NP QQ revealed that fall preventive measures like a sitter at the bedside was discussed with the family, but the family declined due to the cost. NP QQ revealed that a sitter and R3 being closely located near the nurse's station would have been beneficial. Interview on [DATE] at 2:45 pm with Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that if a resident is a high risk for falls and medically required one-to-one supervision, the facility would provide additional staffing for that resident. The DON also revealed that if a family desired a sitter, it was allowed at the family's expense. Interview on [DATE] at 1:05 pm with R3's family member (FM) revealed that R3 was admitted to this facility after having a fall and sustaining a right femur fracture. She revealed that R3 was there from [DATE] to [DATE] and had sustained three falls, with the last fall being fatal with a bleed on the brain. R3's FM did not recall ever discussing with the facility having a sitter at R3's bedside due to her high risk of falls. She didn't know that was an option. She also revealed that care during the weekdays was very good and that the falls tended to occur on the weekends. She admitted that R3 needed constant reminders and she added signs in R3's room to help cue the resident to call for help. She revealed the resident wore shoes but there were no fall mats in the resident's room. She further revealed that R3 was mostly independent up until the last six to eight weeks at the facility.
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 F0742 (Tag F0742)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Behavioral Health Services, Suicide Preven...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policies titled, Behavioral Health Services, Suicide Prevention, and Suicide Assessment, the facility failed to provide timely treatment and services for one of eight sampled residents (R) (R5). Specifically, R5 was not provided adequate protection for possible self-harm during a suicide attempt with anxiety and depression. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Behavioral Health Services dated 2/22/2023, under section Policy Explanation and Compliance Guideline, item 2.d., revealed: The facility utilizes the comprehensive assessment . Ongoing monitoring of mood and behavior. Item 10. revealed that the Social Worker Director will provide behavioral services. Review of the facility policy titled Suicide Prevention dated 2/22/2023, revealed that all staff members will immediately report any suicide ideations to the charge nurse and social worker and immediately notify the physician even if the person doesn't have a specific plan or intent. This policy further reveals that the resident will not be left alone, and one on one care will be provided with thoroughly documenting the resident's mood and behavior in the medical record. Review of the facility policy titled Suicide Assessment dated 2/22/2023, item 1. revealed Residents will be assessed for suicide risk upon admission and as indicted, by facility social worker or designee. Policy further revealed the risk factors as being symptoms of hopelessness, helplessness, anxiety/panic they may have been triggered from a life changing event. It also reveals that limited access to objects to commit suicide like blades, sharps, ropes, etc. should be assessed. Page 2 of this same policy revealed that the physician will be notified immediately when a resident presents with suicidal ideation whether they have a specific plan or not. Review of the electronic medical record (EMR) under the Med Diagnosis tab revealed the following diagnoses for R5: osteomyelitis of left ankle and left foot, recent above left knee amputation, anxiety disorder, and blindness. Review of the facility's self-reported incident (FRI) revealed that R5 made a suicide attempt on 9/23/2023 by wrapping a detached call light cord around his neck and stated he wanted to kill himself because he was bored. R5 was sent out to the emergency room (ER). The facility took actions at that time, however the resident expressed significant feelings of depression prior to the suicide attempt, and the facility failed to put appropriate preventive measures in place. Review of the R5's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed in section D- Mood R5's mood was assessed as feeling or appearing down or hopeless. The Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score for R5 from 9/11/2023 revealed a score of 13, indicating little or no cognitive deficit. Review of the facility's assessment for Trauma Informed Care Evaluation-PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] done on 9/11/2023, recorded as a score of 3, indicating no depression. Review of the facility's Patient Health Questionnaire Nine (9) (PHQ9), used to screen for depression, done 9/21/2023 by the facility Social Worker, revealed a score of 15, indicating moderately severe depression. Review of R5's care plan found in the EMR, initiated on 9/21/2023 revealed on page three of seven that resident is assessed as having signs of depression, no interventions noted for one-to-one monitoring. A focused area revealed as Mood that R5 has mood problems and a PHQ9 of 15 exhibiting anger, sadness, and decreased motivation. The goal for this behavior is to monitor for signs and symptoms of depression and then appropriate interventions will be made by 90 days which has an initiated date of 9/21/2023. Interventions were to administer medications, encourage decision making and participate in rehab and activities, initiated date of 9/21/2023. No intervention for suicidal prevention. Review of R5's physical therapy notes dated 9/11/2023, three days after admission to the facility for his admission evaluation, revealed the section labeled as Assessment Summary, that the resident was unmotivated for therapy and further under the section for risk factors revealed a decrease in level of mobility and depression. Another physical therapy session note dated 9/14/2023 states in the comments section, Patient made additional remarks regarding his life ending. Review of a Psychiatric Diagnostic Evaluation dated 9/13/2023 revealed a PHQ9 score of 11 as moderately depressed, no past psychiatric history or suicide attempts. The evaluation diagnosis was adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. R5 was prescribed trazodone 50 milligrams (mg) by mouth every night for insomnia and depression. Interview on 12/21/2023 at 12:38 pm with the Social Worker Director (SWD), the SWD recalled R5 being admitted on [DATE], a Sunday night. The SWD did not see the resident until 9/13/2023. At that time, she assessed the resident as being very sad and wanting to go home. The SWD also revealed that she and the Physical Therapy Director (PTD) perform PHQ9 assessments for all residents. Interview on 12/21/2023 at 2:10 pm revealed that SWD did recall that the PTD did mention that R5 was having suicidal ideations when he was assessed on 9/11/2023 but did not send a referral or advise nursing to implement suicidal precautions be done. Interview on 12/27/2023 at 11:00 am with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed that all residents are assessed by the nursing staff on admission and as needed which should include a depression screening. The DON was unable to provide any documentation of R5 being placed on any suicidal preventive measures such as one-to-one monitoring when R5 initially expressed wanting to harm himself on 9/11/2023. She confirmed that precautions were not put in place until R5 made the suicide attempt, which was on 9/23/2023. Interview on 12/27/2023 at 12:59 pm with the PTD revealed that she or a designee in her department do perform the PHQ9 evaluations and have been doing them as directed per management about a year ago but says that has changed since around 9/28/2023 by management and was now done by the SWD. Interview on 12/27/2023 at 10:44 am with the Facility Nurse Practitioner (FNP) revealed that R5 was seen on 9/13/2023 by herself and her colleague for suicidal ideations without a clear plan, which he did express to the SWD on 9/11/2023. The FNP was not able to confirm that the facility made any attempts to reach out to her prior to 9/13/2023 and that she should have been notified at the time the resident expressed any signs or harm to himself.
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, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Environm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, record review, and review of the facility policy titled, Resident Environmental Quality, the facility failed to ensure that it was maintained in a safe, clean and comfortable home-like environment on three of three halls (Unit 100 hallway, Unit 200 hallway, and Unit 300 hallway). Specifically, all three hallways were filled with equipment and clutter, a wall behind a resident's bed was scuffed up, a wall across from the nurses' station was broken and covered with tape, and the shower room was cold with broken and stored clutter and a leaking shower head. Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Resident Environmental Quality dated 2/22/2022 and revised 2/22/2023, item number 12 under General Guidelines revealed that all facility personnel are responsible for reporting broken, defective or malfunctioning equipment or furnishings immediately. Observation on 12/18/2023 at 8:45 am during a general tour of the facility revealed three resident hallways and one nurses' station centrally located between the hallways. All three hallways had a lot of clutter on both sides of all three hallways. On the Unit 100 hallway, five items that consisted of wheelchairs and empty sitting chairs were in the hallway. On the Unit 200 hallway, a total of 14 items that consisted of wheelchairs, medication carts, sitting chairs, mechanical lifts, linen carts, and trash barrels were located along either side of the hallway. On Unit 300 hallway, a total of 12 items were stored along the hallway with the same type of items as hallway 200. The lower portion of the wall across from the nurses' station was broken and covered with tape. Observation on 12/19/2023 at 8:25 am revealed the one shower room for residents as being cold with two shower stalls on one side of the room and the other side of the shower room with various items of equipment like wheelchair parts, other random items, and a large size jet tub, not in working condition, per the Maintenance Director (MD). Observation on 12/20/2023 at 8:00 am revealed the same items on all three hallways, Unit 100 hallway with five items, the Unit 200 hallway with 14 items, and the Unit 300 hallway with 12 items on both sides of the hallway. An unknown resident on the Unit 200 hallway was observed attempting to navigate his wheelchair around some of the items. Observation on 12/20/2023 at 8:52 am revealed Resident (R) (R9) receiving a shower in one shower stall by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) MM. The shower room felt cold. Interview with R9 during that shower revealed her saying, It's freezing in here. CNA MM agreed that the shower room could be warmer for resident comfort but not how the temperature was set for the shower room. Review of Resident Council Meetings Notes dated 4/5/2023 revealed residents having concerns about barrels and cleanliness in the hallways. Other resident council meeting notes dated 5/3/2023 revealed concerns about cleanliness in rooms and hallways. Interview on 12/18/2023 at 11:26 am with the facility's Ombudsman revealed that residents did have complaints of the shower room being too cold and the hallways being cluttered with various items. Interview on 12/20/2023 at 8:56 am with the MD revealed he had been the facility Maintenance Director for over one year and oversaw housekeeping as well. He had four staff persons for laundry and housekeeping. He admitted there had been a couple of heating units in a couple of resident's rooms that had heating issues since [DATE], that were actively being addressed. He was not aware that the shower room was too cold for residents. He also revealed that all maintenance requests were logged into a book and some requests may not have been added to the book by the staff. He also revealed that sometimes maintenance requests were made verbally and not logged. He revealed that call lights were inspected weekly, water temperatures were checked weekly, and general property inspections were done monthly, or as needed. For building repairs like painting, he stated that corporate was working on a restoration plan. He also revealed that the broken jet tub in the shower room had been reported two times with no corporate response. For items stored in the hallways, he revealed that the facility had limited storage areas, and revealed the safety code egress policy stated items should be on only one side of hallway. He further explained that the mechanical lifts were near the resident's doorways that needed them, the empty chairs were for visitors to sit on when visiting residents, and the linen carts were there after removing them from the storage linen room on hallway 100. The MD was not sure when asked if the residents could navigate the cluttered hallways safely and if it was a homelike environment. The temperature regulator thermostat on the shower wall behind a locked box revealed by the MD, a room temperature of 55 degrees F (Fahrenheit) as the setting for the shower room and a temperature of 71 degrees F as the room temperature, which the MD says can be adjusted. Further observation of the linen room revealed enough room for the linen carts, but items like oxygen concentrators were also stored in the linen room. The MD agreed that items in hallways could be placed in this linen room as well as in the shower room. Review of the Maintenance Logbook revealed that the logbook only goes back to June 2022. The MD did not provide any logs prior to June 2022, stating prior to that he was not sure of how the previous MD kept logs. The log did not have any requests for shower/temperature issues. Interview on 12/21/2023 at 11:00 am with Lead CNA FF revealed that the shower rooms heater had not been working for a long time now and a maintenance request was sent to the maintenance department over a year ago, but nothing was done. CNA FF also revealed a leaking shower head in one of the shower stalls that was still leaking. Interview on 12/20/2023 at 11:15 am with the Administrator while doing a walkthrough of the hallways and acknowledging multiple items in the hallways, the Administrator agreed it was not a homelike environment, that it looked institutional-like. He further explained that the building was old, and they were in the process of clearing out some storage space areas. Interview on 12/21/2023 at 10:30 am with R13 revealed that the badly scuffed wall behind her bed was hideous and she does not like it. Ongoing observation on 12/21/2023 at 8:40 am of the three hallways revealed remaining items in the hallways were mostly on one side; however, items near a resident's door blocked the view down the hallway if a resident were to step out of their room at the doorway and need assistance. This observation was made with the MD who agreed that visibility down the hallways was obscured. Interview on 12/21/2023 at 9:40 am with the Administrator revealed that there were no active renovation plans going on right now for the facility and stated, The building needs to make some money, then it is possible that in January 2024 that room-to-room improvements would be made. Interview and observation on 12/28/2023 at 10:45 am with CNA MM and CNA NN revealed/confirmed multiple items remained in the hallways along the handrails and the CNA's stated items like the mechanical lifts, trash barrels, and linen carts are left there for staff convenience and do not see it as a safety hazard for the residents or as a non-homelike environment.
May 2022 6 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Comprehensive Care Plan, the facility failed to follow the person-centered care plan to ensure pain interventions were implemented during wound care for one resident (R) (#43), resulting in harm to the resident, of 30 sampled residents. Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, implemented 2/1/22, revealed the facility would implement a comprehensive person-centered for each resident, consistent with resident rights, to meet each resident medical and nursing needs. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly assessment dated [DATE], Section - C -Cognition, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognition intact. Section M-Skin Conditions revealed R#43 had a surgical wound and received surgical wound care. Section O-Special Treatments and Programs revealed R#43 received Hospice care. Section J-Health Conditions revealed R#43 was on a scheduled pain regimen and pain was reported her pain as frequent in nature. Section N-Medications revealed R#43 received opioids for the last seven days of the assessment period. A review of R#43's care plan entitled, Hospice Services, initiated 11/11/21, revealed pain medications would be administered as ordered and observed for effectiveness. A review of R#43's care plan entitled, Pain, initiated 1/29/22, revealed analgesics should be administered prior to treatment or care as indicated. Staff should anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. Further review revealed an evaluation of the pain intervention's effectiveness should be reported to the MD (Medical Doctor) if observed ineffective. Additionally, staff would plan pain management before treatments to ensure maximum comfort and provide unhurried care. During an observation on 5/21/22 at 6:07 p.m. of the 200 hall, groans were heard coming from R#43's room. Upon entry to the room, R#43 was positioned on her right side. Registered Nurse (RN) DD was behind the resident, and the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) FF assisted in positioning the resident on her side. R#43 was screaming, it hurts, please stop. RN DD stated she was done and only needed to apply the bandage to the wound. During an interview with R#43 on 5/21/22 at 6:07 p.m., she stated her pain was a 12 out of 10. RN DD did not pre-medicate or assess her pain before the wound treatment. R#43 explained that she told RN DD that she was in pain, but RN DD did not stop the treatment or ask her if she wanted her to stop. During an interview with RN DD on 5/21/22 at 6:08 p.m., she stated she had worked at the facility since September 2021. RN DD stated that R#43 was on routine pain medications, but she was unsure when R#43 had received her pain medication. RN DD acknowledged she did not know what pain medication or dosage R#43 received before she began her treatment. RN DD explained she did not stop the wound care when R#43 told her to stop because it was towards the end of her shift, and she wanted to ensure the treatment was done before leaving for the day. She added it was important for R#43 to have the wound treatment due to the nature of the wound. RN DD confirmed that R#43 was screaming in pain and stated she should have stopped the treatment and addressed her pain before continuing with the treatment. A review of the Nursing Progress Notes dated 5/21/22 at 7:00 p.m. revealed that while performing wound care, R#43 was yelling out in pain at the onset of positioning and wound care. R#43 continued to vocalize her pain until the completion of the treatment. Per the note, R#43 was not offered or administered additional pain medication during the treatment. Cross refer to F697.
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff and resident interviews, and review of facility policy titled Pain Management, the facility failed to stop and address one resident's expression of severe pain during a wound treatment, resulting in harm for resident #43, of 30 sampled residents. Findings include: A review of the facility policy, Pain Management, implemented 2/2/22, revealed the facility would recognize circumstances and situations when a resident's pain could be anticipated. Per the policy, the facility would manage or prevent pain with the comprehensive plan of care, professional standards of practice, and the resident's preferences. Continued review revealed interventions for pain management would be incorporated into the comprehensive care plan and would address specific pain management needs or goals. Pharmacological interventions included reviewing clinical conditions which might require several analgesics and/or adjuvant medications, and facility staff would notify the practitioner if the resident's pain was not controlled with the ordered medications. A medical record review revealed that R#43 was admitted on [DATE] with a past medical history of right humeral fracture, falls, dizziness, hypokalemia, hyponatremia, surgical wound, and lumbar pain. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly assessment dated [DATE], Section - C -Cognition, revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating cognition intact. Section M-Skin Conditions revealed R#43 had a surgical wound and received surgical wound care. Section O-Special Treatments and Programs revealed R#43 received Hospice care. Section J-Health Conditions revealed R#43 was on a scheduled pain regimen and pain was reported her pain as frequent in nature. Section N-Medications revealed R#43 received opioids for the last seven days of the assessment period. A review of R#43's comprehensive person-centered care plan entitled, Pain, initiated 1/29/22, revealed analgesics should be administered prior to treatment or care as indicated. Staff should anticipate the resident's need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. Further review revealed an evaluation of the pain intervention's effectiveness should be reported to the MD (Medical Doctor) if observed ineffective. Additionally, staff would plan pain management before treatments to ensure maximum comfort and provide unhurried care. A review of the Physician Orders for R#43 revealed the following: 3/27/22 - admitted to Hospice. 3/28/22 - acetaminophen 650 milligrams (mg) to be inserted rectally every six hours for pain or fever as needed. 5/12/22 - Naproxen 250 mg to be given by mouth every 12 hours for pain for 14 days. 5/19/22 - Dilaudid 8 mg to be taken by mouth every six hours for pain. A review of the facility, Administrative History Report, dated 5/21/22, revealed that Registered Nurse (RN) DD administered R#43's wound care. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed that R#43 received her scheduled Dilaudid 8 mg by mouth on 5/21/22 at 5:45 p.m. During an observation on 5/21/22 at 6:07 p.m. of the 200 hall, groans were heard coming from R#43's room. Upon entry to the room, R#43 was positioned on her right side. RN DD was behind the resident, and the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) FF assisted in positioning the resident on her side. R#43 was screaming, it hurts, please stop. RN DD stated she was done and only needed to apply the bandage to the wound. During an interview with R#43 on 5/21/22 at 6:07 p.m., she stated her pain was a 12 out of 10. RN DD did not pre-medicate or assess her pain before the wound treatment. R#43 explained that she told RN DD that she was in pain, but RN DD did not stop the treatment or ask her if she wanted her to stop. During an interview with RN DD on 5/21/22 at 6:08 p.m., she stated she had worked at the facility since September 2021. RN DD stated that R#43 was on routine pain medications, but she was unsure when R#43 had received her pain medication. RN DD acknowledged she did not know what pain medication or dosage R#43 received before she began her treatment. RN DD explained she did not stop the wound care when R#43 told her to stop because it was towards the end of her shift, and she wanted to ensure the treatment was done before leaving for the day. She added it was important for R#43 to have the wound treatment due to the nature of the wound. RN DD confirmed that R#43 was screaming in pain and stated she should have stopped the treatment and addressed her pain before continuing with the treatment. During an interview with LPN FF on 5/21/22 at 6:09 p.m., she acknowledged she heard R#43 moaning and crying due to pain during the treatment. LPN FF stated she encouraged R#43 to hold and squeeze her hand during the treatment. LPN FF acknowledged she did not check to see if there was a medication they could give R#43. During an interview with Charge Nurse (RN) EE on 5/21/22 at 6:14 p.m., he stated his expectation of RN DD would have been to stop the treatment and check for a PRN pain medication. RN EE explained that after a resident is medicated, his expectation is for the nurse to wait an appropriate time for the pain medications to work and reassess the resident's pain before proceeding with treatment. RN EE explained that R#47 is in Hospice. If no PRN medication were available for R#47, he would expect the nurse to call the Hospice nurse to explain the resident is in pain during the treatment and get an order for something for pain. An observation of RN EE on 5/21/22 at 6:13 p.m. revealed the nurse evaluating R#43's pain. She stated her pain rating was an 8 out of 10. RN EE told R#43 he would call about getting her something for her pain. During a follow-up interview with R#43 on 5/21/22 at 6:30 p.m., she reported her pain level was 8 out of 10. She indicated she was in pain but stated it lessened since the wound treatment stopped. R#43 explained that she told RN DD that she was in pain as soon the wound treatment began, and she asked her to stop. She could not remember what RN DD said in response to asking her to stop because she was in too much pain to recall the conversation. She only remembered that RN DD did not stop. She explained that there had been times she had asked a nurse to stop during the treatments, and they would stop and give her something for pain and come back later. She stated it helped when she was given something for pain, and the treatment wouldn't hurt as badly. She said that sometimes the nurses don't stop when she asks them to. A review of the Nursing Progress Notes dated 5/21/22 at 7:00 p.m. revealed that while performing wound care, R#43 was yelling out in pain at the onset of positioning and wound care. R#43 continued to vocalize her pain until the completion of the treatment. Per the note, R#43 was not offered or administered additional pain medication during the treatment. During a telephone interview with Hospice nurse (RN) GG on 5/22/22 at 2:34 p.m., she stated it is her expectation for facility nursing staff to call the on-call Hospice nurse if a resident is experiencing pain and requires a PRN pain medication. RN GG explained that it is not uncommon to have facility nurses call the on-call Hospice nurse for residents' needs. She added that Hospice nurses are available 24 hours a day and seven days a week to provide support to their Hospice clients. During an interview with the DON on 5/22/22 at 3:47 p.m. she stated it was her expectation of the nursing staff to properly medicate residents for pain prior to any treatments. She added that if there is no PRN medication for pain, she expected the nurse to call the MD. If a patient is on Hospice, the nurse could also call Hospice for a PRN medication. She explained that if a resident told a nurse to stop a treatment for any reason, she expected the nurse to stop. She said that nurses should be assessing for pain before, during, and after all treatments. She stated any changes in condition should be reported to her in case a resident's plan of care needed to be adjusted.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Communication of Code Status, the facility failed t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Communication of Code Status, the facility failed to communicate and ensure family preference for the change in code status from full code to do not resuscitate (DNR) was updated in the medical record for one of 30 sampled residents (R) (R#59). Findings include: Review of the facility policy titled Communication of Code Status dated 2021, revealed it is the policy to adhere to residents' rights to formulate advance directives. In accordance to these rights, the facility will implement procedures to communicate a resident's code status to those individuals who need to know this information. Compliance Guidelines: 7. The resident's code status will be reviewed at least quarterly and documented in the medical record. Review of the clinical record for R#59 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including but not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), hemiplegia, hypertension (HTN), dysphagia, overactive bladder, dry eye syndrome, benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH), depression, hyperlipidemia, chronic kidney disease (stage 3), need for assistance with personal care, and diabetes. The resident's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was coded as 6, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. Review of R#59 Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST), dated [DATE], revealed to attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Review of [DATE] Physician Orders for R#59 revealed an order for Full Code status revised [DATE]. Review of R#59 care plan for advance directives revised [DATE], revealed Full Code; facility will be aware of resident's wishes regarding Full Code status. Interventions to care include complete necessary paperwork and document in medical record. Review of the Care Conference Review for R#59 dated [DATE], revealed Social Services Director (SSD), Activity Director (AD) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) attended the meeting, and R#59 spouse attended via phone. The document revealed that residents current code status was listed as Full Code. Notated on the document under section identified as Continue revealed that NO was circled with a hand written comment that spouse (name) wishes to change to DNR. Interview on [DATE] at 7:59 a.m. with SSD revealed that he marks on the conference review sheet if family members attend in person or via phone. He stated that each department will complete the section of the care Plan Conference Review pertaining to their department. He then calls the family/responsible party to discuss the Care Plan Review. He stated that each department takes their own notes during the conference and is responsible for following up with the recommendations or changes that are made during the care plan conference. Interview on [DATE] at 8:41 a.m. with Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) BB, stated that she would look for a residents code status in the electronic medical record (EMR). She verified that R#59 code status listed in EMR was Full Code. Interview on [DATE] at 1:45 p.m. with Minimum Data Set (MDS) LPN CC, stated that decisions made during the quarterly care plan conference is the responsibility of the MDS nurse to update the care plans. She stated that when R#59 spouse indicated her wish to change his code status from full code to DNR, the MDS nurse should have initiated a new POLST and sent it to the Physician to sign. Interview on [DATE] at 4:59 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), stated the SSD informed her that after he saw the notation from R#59 spouse regarding changing code status from full code to DNR, he called the spouse on the same day, to clarify her wishes. He stated she told him that she still wanted R#59 to be a Full Code. During further interview, she stated that the SSD just forgot to document the phone conversation on the Care Conference Review form, and that is why the code status for R#59 was still listed as full code. Interview on [DATE] at 4:59 p.m. with the Administrator, stated that her expectation is that the SSD document conversations and phone calls that he has with family members/responsible party of residents, including invites to care plan conference meetings. She stated that the members of the interdisciplinary team (IDT) should be documented on the Care Conference Review form, along with family members, if they attend. Phone interview on [DATE] at 5:12 p.m. with family of R#59, confirmed that she has not spoken with anyone at the facility related to changing her husband to a do not resuscitate (DNR) since the care conference on [DATE] and assumed his status was changed as she requested. She stated that she informed the facility that she would like for them to breath for him but she does not want anything done that will break his ribs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, the facility failed to re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy, Comprehensive Care Plans, the facility failed to revise and update the care plan to include appropriate interventions for restorative care for one of 30 sampled residents (R) (#14). Findings include: A review of the facility policy entitled Comprehensive Care Plans, implemented on 2/1/22, revealed the comprehensive care plan would include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's needs. The objectives would be utilized to monitor the resident's progress, and alternative interventions would be documented as needed. A further review revealed that staff responsible for carrying out the interventions specified in the care plan would be notified of their roles and responsibilities for implementing the interventions initially and when changes were made. A medical record review revealed that R#14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R#14 had diagnoses including but not limited to hypertensions (HTN), Cerebrovascular Disease, and dementia. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Quarterly Assessment, Section G - Functional Status, dated 4/10/22, revealed R#14 was totally dependent for ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care and required a two person assist. Resident had limited range of motion on one side of upper and lower extremities. The resident received occupational therapy during the assessment period. A review of R#14's care plan, ADL-Self Care Deficit, initiated 11/19/20, revealed the resident would receive restorative nursing services to maximize her participation in ADLs. On 5/21/22, during survey, a revision was made to include hand splint placement as scheduled. A review of the facility Restorative Nursing Progress Note dated 2/4/22 revealed staff was to place left palm protector on P#14 for six hours daily. Staff would perform a skin assessment after doffing splint. A review of the Restorative Plan of Care Communication Form dated 4/11/22 revealed to don a left elbow splint and continued palm protector for R#14's. During an interview with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), on 5/21/22 at 12:45 p.m., she explained that R#14 had wear times for a left elbow splint and a left palm guard. The PTA stated that R#14 wore her splints for 4-6 hours daily, and Restorative Nursing or herself applied them. The PTA noted that R#14 was discharged from Occupational Therapy (OT) on 4/8/22 and moved directly into the Restorative Nursing Program. She added that R#14 demonstrated a new onset of left elbow contracture on re-assessment. As a result, she ordered a splint for R#14's elbow to prevent further degeneration and contracture. She added that R#14 would wear the splint and guard for more extended periods as her tolerance grew. Finally, she reported any changes in condition to the Director of Nursing, Physician, and family. She stated she would communicate with MDS for modifications to a resident's care plans, and communication was through a form she submitted to MDS. She indicated she had notified MDS through a communication form about the updated care for R#14. During an interview with MDS CC on 5/22/22 at 5:36 p.m., she stated that when a discipline changes a resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan, it should take no more than one week to update the care plan. MDS CC explained it was essential to update a resident's care plan as soon as possible to ensure all clinical staff was aware of the resident's most current care needs. MDS CC confirmed the facility's Restorative Plan of Care Communication Form had a completed date of 4/11/22, and the facility did not update R#14's care plan until 5/21/22. MDS CC acknowledged the facility should have updated the care plan earlier.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure one staff implemented infection control standard precaution...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, staff interviews, and review of the facility policy titled Catheter Care, the facility failed to ensure one staff implemented infection control standard precautions by not washing/sanitizing hands before and after glove removal and not double gloving during and after catheter care was performed for one resident (R) (R #11) reviewed of three residents with indwelling urinary catheter. Findings include: Review of the policy titled Catheter Care dated 2/1/22, revealed the policy is to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use. Compliance guidelines: 7. perform hand hygiene. 8. don gloves. Observation on 5/22/22 at 8:30 a.m. revealed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA, in R#11's room, wearing gloves when surveyor entered room. She was not observed to have washed her hands prior to gathering supplies to perform catheter care for R#11. She explained procedure to resident. Without changing gloves, CNA AA pulled back the covers and unfastened the incontinence brief. She retrieved two perineal cleansing clothes from the pouch. She wiped the catheter tubing from insertion site in a downward motion towards the bag reservoir. She performed this action three times. Continued observation revealed that after the catheter care was complete, CNA AA removed the gloves and retrieved an incontinence brief from the resident's closet. She did not wash her hands or use hand sanitizer but donned two pair of gloves. She removed the soiled incontinence brief and placed the clean brief on resident. She doffed one pair of gloves, and still wearing the second pair of gloves, she put her hands under R#11's armpits and repositioned him. She then adjusted his bed linens, removed her gloves and never washed her hands or used hand sanitizer before exiting resident's room. Interview on 5/22/22 at 8:36 a.m. with CNA AA, verified that she wears two pair of gloves during care because she knows that she cannot go from a dirty body part to a clean body part, so she removes the dirty gloves to a clean pair of gloves, and completes the care. She confirmed that she did not wash her hands or use hand sanitizer before or after providing catheter care for R#11. Interview on 5/22/22 at 5:21 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), stated it is her expectation that staff perform hand hygiene before and after providing care to residents. She further stated that it is not acceptable to wear more than one pair of gloves as a means to avoid handwashing.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days after completion for seven residents (R) (R#1, R#2, R#3, R#5, R#7, R#8, and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and staff interview the facility failed to transmit Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments within 14 days after completion for seven residents (R) (R#1, R#2, R#3, R#5, R#7, R#8, and R#33) triggered for past due MDS assessment, of 30 sampled residents. Findings include: During an interview on 5/21/22 at 3:45 p.m. with the Corporate Nurse she confirmed the MDS assessments for R#1 Entry Record dated 1/25/20, R#2 Entry Record dated 1/25/19, R#3 Entry Record dated 6/1/17, R#5 Entry Record dated 1/18/22 , R#7 Entry Record dated 9/17/22, R#8, Entry Record dated 6/25/20 and R#33 Entry Record dated 5/18/20 had not been transmitted within the 14 days after completion and she revealed she transmitted all 7 assessments at this time. During an interview, and review of the MDS Assessments for R#1, R#2, R#3, R#5, R#7, R#8, and R#33, on 5/21/22 at 3:47 p.m. with the MDS Coordinator revealed she is the MDS Coordinator for a sister facility and is filling in today for MDS Coordinator for the facility. She stated she can go over the MDS assessments for the residents who triggered as being late but cannot explain, nor does she know why, these assessments were not transmitted within the 14 days of completion. During this time the assessments were reviewed and the MDS Coordinator confirmed that the MDS assessments for R#1, R#2, R#3, R#5, R#7, R#8, and R#33 were greater than 90 days past due. She stated in the sister facility where she works as the MDS Coordinator she keeps up with all assessments and sends an email out to the departments who are responsible for certain MDS sections as a reminder they are due to ensure transmissions are done in the appropriate time frames but again stated she cannot speak for how the MDS Coordinator for the facility ensures transmissions are completed timely. The MDS Coordinator for the facility was not available for interview.
Mar 2019 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, review of the facility policy titled Restraint Program-Restraint Reduction and staff inter...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, review of the facility policy titled Restraint Program-Restraint Reduction and staff interviews, the facility failed to indicate the purpose for the use of a restraint (bed alarm) and failed to document ongoing re-evaluation of the need for this restraint for one resident (R) (R#20) out of a total sample of 57. Findings include: Review of the medical record for R#20 revealed the following diagnosis; essential tremor, unspecified mood (affective) disorder, unspecified dementia without behavior disturbance, and history of falling. On 3/19/19 at 11:10 a.m. an observation is made while the R#20 is out of bed. There is a bed alarm noted hanging from the side of the resident's bed. During an observation on 3/19/19 at 3:05 p.m., R#20 is observed in bed with eyes open, and bed alarm flashing with the light on. Continued observation revealed that the resident has not attempted to get out of the bed. During observation on 3/21/19 at 8:23 a.m., the resident is observed in her bed, eyes closed, with bed in low position and mat at bed side, bed alarm noted hanging from the side of the resident's bed. Review of the March 2019 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed no evidence for the use of a bed alarm. Review of R#20's Physician orders Form dated March 2019 revealed no documentation for a bed alarm. Review of the Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] and the Annual (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed for Section P: Physical Restraints, that there was no bed alarm in use, nor any other restraints was being used. Review of the Progress Note dated 3/4/19 from the Physician, revealed that the resident's behavior is stable. During further review, of another progress note dated 2/4/19 revealed, no behavior issues. On 3/20/19 at 8:53 a.m., an interview with the resident's family member, revealed that the white thing hanging off the resident's bed is a bed alarm, and that it goes off when she tries to get out of bed. He stated that when she first came to the facility, she would try to get out of bed a lot, but she does really good now, and has not tried to get up by herself in a long time. On 3/20/19 at 10:05 a.m., an interview with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) AA, revealed that R#20 has a bed alarm, and that it alerts staff when she is trying to get out of bed. Continued interview revealed that when the resident first got here, she tried to get out of bed a lot, and now she will throw her legs over the bed. States that when her husband is not here the resident gets fidgety, and the alarm lets us know. Stated that the alarm last went off yesterday 3/19/19. On 3/20/19 at 10:20 a.m., an interview with the Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) BB, revealed that the bed alarm is on R#20's bed because she tries to get out of bed. Also, stated that when the resident's husband is here, she does not try to get out of bed; however, thinks the last time the bed alarm sounded was two or three months ago. On 3/20/19 at 10:35 a.m., an interview with the Regional Nurse Consultant, revealed that the bed alarm is to alert staff of unassisted transfer by the resident. She stated it is an enabler for staff. She stated that she will find the care plan with the re-assessment of the bed alarm. She then stated that there is no care plan for the bed alarm. She stated that she will try to find a Physicians order for the bed alarm, and if she cannot find one, she will get an order from the Physician and then will add a care plan for the bed alarm today. During a further interview at 12:05 p.m., she revealed that she could not find a Physician order for the resident's bed alarm. She stated that she is going to get a Physician Order, and that she re-evaluated the use of the resident's bed alarm by interviewing staff, and they feel that the residents bed alarm can be discontinued, and that she will discuss this with the Physician. Review of the Restraint Program-Restraint Reduction policy and procedure document from CMS dated 2006, and revised date of June 2013, revealed the following: The facility will evaluate each resident's restraint usage quarterly. The procedure states the resident will have a Restraint Reduction Log, the facility will assess the resident, the facility will review the residents Plan of Care, the facility will determine with input from the ID team and using a decision tree for elimination of the restraint and the facility will discuss risks, benefits and alternatives of reduced restraint with resident or responsible party.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a discharge Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment for on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and staff interview, the facility failed to complete a discharge Minimum Date Set (MDS) assessment for one resident (#2) of two residents reviewed for missing MDS assessments. The sample size was 34 Findings include: Review of the list of transmitted MDS records for Resident (R)#2 revealed an Entry Tracking Record dated 10/8/18, an admission MDS dated [DATE], and a PPS 14-day scheduled assessment of 10/20/18. No other MDS records were transmitted for the resident while at the facility. During an interview with the MDS Coordinator on 3/20/19 at 9:31 a.m., it was revealed that R#2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 11/7/18. MDS staff had neglected to complete a discharge, return not anticipated report for the resident. There was a system in place to alert the MDS staff when an assessment was missed. However, she had not been alerted to the oversight on these missing MDS reports. Her plan was to immediately complete and submit the missing assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to conduct and document a facility wide assessment to determine patient population and prevalent diagnoses, staffing needs, competencies requir...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to conduct and document a facility wide assessment to determine patient population and prevalent diagnoses, staffing needs, competencies required, and training provided, and resources necessary to provide care for residents during day to day operations and emergencies. Total sample was 34 Findings include: On 3/18/19 at 10:00 a.m., during the entrance conference with the Administrator in the Administrator's office, surveyor requested a copy of the Facility Assessment. On 3/20/19 at 9:00 a.m., the review of the Facility Assessment revealed a four-page document, dated 2/27/19. Page one had missing data specific for specialty care and number of beds. No service model is identified. No specific detail is included to define or describe the resident population, types of diseases and conditions, staffing competencies and training, facility resources and services provided, or ethic, cultural, and religious considerations. On 3/20/19 at 9:30 a.m., the Administrator was asked for any additional information available for the assessment. The Administrator provided a copy of the Hazard Analysis, dated November 19th, 2018, from the emergency manual, which supports the response to question number 12 on page 4. On 3/21/19 at 11:20 a.m., the Administrator reported the facility did not have any information related to patient population, diagnoses, staffing needs, competencies required, or resources necessary to provide care for residents during day to day operations and emergencies. He reported the four-page document, dated 2/27/19, is all the facility has for the facility assessment.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • $4,233 in fines. Lower than most Georgia facilities. Relatively clean record.
Concerns
  • • 22 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade F (28/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 28/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Jasper Point Of Journey Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY 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 Jasper Point Of Journey Llc Staffed?

CMS rates JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Jasper Point Of Journey Llc?

State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 19 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Jasper Point Of Journey Llc?

JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by JOURNEY HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 60 certified beds and approximately 55 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in JASPER, Georgia.

How Does Jasper Point Of Journey Llc Compare to Other Georgia Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Georgia, JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.6 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jasper Point Of Journey Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Jasper Point Of Journey Llc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Georgia. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Jasper Point Of Journey Llc Stick Around?

JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Jasper Point Of Journey Llc Ever Fined?

JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY LLC has been fined $4,233 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Georgia average of $33,121. 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 Jasper Point Of Journey Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

JASPER POINT OF JOURNEY 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.