Maluhia

1027 Hala Drive, Honolulu, HI 96817 (808) 832-3000
Government - State 158 Beds HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
83/100
#12 of 41 in HI
Last Inspection: July 2025

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

Overview

Maluhia nursing home in Honolulu has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and recommended for families seeking care. It ranks #12 out of 41 facilities in Hawaii, placing it in the top half, and #9 out of 26 in Honolulu County, indicating that only eight local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from seven in 2024 to four in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a rating of 4 out of 5 and a low turnover rate of 22%, significantly below the state average, which suggests that staff are experienced and familiar with residents. However, the facility was fined $8,278, which is average, and there have been serious concerns, including a resident suffering an anaphylactic reaction due to improperly managed food allergies, and care plans that failed to address specific health needs for two residents, indicating areas that need improvement. Overall, while Maluhia has strengths in staffing and rankings, there are critical areas needing attention to ensure resident safety and well-being.

Trust Score
B+
83/100
In Hawaii
#12/41
Top 29%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below Hawaii's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
$8,278 in fines. Lower than most Hawaii facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 96 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Hawaii nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (22%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (22%)

    26 points below Hawaii average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

Federal Fines: $8,278

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Jul 2025 1 deficiency
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised for two Resident's (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan was revised for two Resident's (R) 27 and 72, of five sampled. 1) R27's care plan did not include interventions to prevent and treat scratches related to non-pressure skin conditions. 2) R72's care plan did not include additional interventions to prevent pulling out the Gastrostomy Tube (GT). As a result of the deficiency, R27 was at increased risk for worsening skin condition and R72 was at increased risk of the GT being pulled out. Findings Include: 1) On 07/07/25 at 08:22 AM, an observation of R27 and interview with Resident Representative (RR) 4 was done. Observed R27 in in her room in bed, her left hand had a blue latex glove on. RR4 spoke in English and in Korean, this surveyor was able to understand both languages, and reported she was wearing the gloves because she had scratches to her buttocks. Her nails get sharp and need to be cut daily. He no longer cuts her nails because of his poor vision but the facility has been cutting her nails. RR4 removed the gloves from R27's hand and her nails were observed to be neatly trimmed with pink nail polish. Review of R27's Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented in the most current skin assessment, dated 07/08/25, R27 had a facility acquired abrasion to sacrum since 05/27/25. Progress note documented on 07/01/25, R27 had self-inflicted scratches on the sacral area noted with slight bleeding. Cleanse the area with NS [Normal Saline], pat dry .Renew Bacitracin 500 units bid [twice a day] for 7 days. Apply Calmoseptine as ordered. Review of the physician's orders documented the following treatment for the abrasion to sacrum, topical bacitracin external ointment 500 unit, apply to sacrum topically every day and evening shift for abrasion for 14 days reordered on 07/08/25, and calmoseptine external ointment 0.44-10.6% (menthol-zinc oxide) apply to sacrum topically every shift for skin protection. Review of R27's care plan found no interventions or treatment to address R27's self-inflicting scratching. On 07/10/25 at 07:32 AM, an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 12 was done. RN12 reported R27 tends to scratch her buttocks with her left hand when no one is around to redirect her. Staff cut her nails about three times a week but even with her nails short, her nails are sharp. RN12 confirmed an incident where RR5 cut R27's nails without staff knowledge and accidently clipped her skin, RR4 was educated not to cut her nails anymore and ask for staff assistance. RN12 reportedly inquired with RR4 to bring loose pajama pants and gloves to attempt to prevent R27 from breaking skin when scratching herself. RN12 confirmed the care plan should have been revised to include interventions or treatment to address R27's self-inflicting scratching. Review of the facility's policy and procedure for care plans dated 04/21/25 documented Each discipline will be develop, revise and ongoing follow up for care plans as related to their area of expertise to address resident's needs, wants, and preferences. Revise care plan anytime changes needed. 2) Review of EHR showed R72 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including Stroke, Gastrostomy Tube, High Blood Pressure, High Cholesterol, Dementia. Review of progress noted dated 04/19/25 revealed that R72 pulled out the GT while waiting for transport back to the nursing facility. On 05/09/25 the GT spontaneously came out and the balloon was deflated. On 06/15/25 at 1725, resident pulled out the GT and was later sent to the hospital for GT re-insertion. A doctor's order was in place to perform the following interventions relating to pulling out the GT: Assess Pain, redirect, 1 on 1, refer to nurse's progress notes; Activity, return to room, toilet, give food, give fluids, change position, adjust room temperature, backrub, apply lotion, re-offer after 10 minutes, call family as needed. Review of the current comprehensive care plan did not include the interventions, from the doctor's order, relating to pulling out the GT. Staff interview on 07/10/25 at 08:30 AM, Charge Nurse (CN)3 acknowledged that the interventions, relating to pulling out the GT, should also be in the comprehensive care plan. CN3 said they will make the necessary changes.
Apr 2025 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility was aware of Resident (R) 7's nut allergy but failed to document severity of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews the facility was aware of Resident (R) 7's nut allergy but failed to document severity of nut allergy, failed to develop and implement a care plan for R7's nut allergy and failed to assure all recipes cooked in the kitchen were on the templates reviewed for food allergies before providing food to residents. The deficient practice resulted in harm to R7 who received food that contained nuts and having an anaphylactic response requiring transport to the emergency room for treatment. Findings Include: According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) A food allergy is a potentially serious response to consuming certain foods or food additives. For those who are sensitive, a reaction can occur within minutes or hours, and symptoms can range from mild to life-threatening. The nine leading causes of food allergies identified in the US are milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, soybeans, and sesame. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) both have laws requiring that all the ingredients in a food product be listed on the food label. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/food-allergies-big-9 Review of facility Event Report dated 03/19/25 for R7 submitted to State Agency (SA) revealed she ate a facility baked and provided dessert at about 01:00 PM and experienced an anaphylactic (severe allergic reaction) response to it. The following information was provided in the Event Report: On 3/19/25 at about 1300 (01:00 PM), resident (R7) called stating that she may have eaten something that she is allergic to. Noted resident's periorbital (refers to the tissues surrounding or lining the orbit of the eye) are slightly reddened. Called MD right away at 1300 (01:00 PM). Received and carried out order for Benadryl 25mg PO Q6 hours PRN (as needed). Called SRN (Nursing Supervisor) to get the Benadryl from the E-kit. VS (vital signs) at 1303 (01:03 PM) are 97.4F (temperature)-87 (pulse)-20 (respiratory rate)-130/67 (blood pressure)-94% (Oxygen saturation) on RA (room air). Noted resident (R7) was anxious and stayed with the resident. Administered the PRN (as needed) Benadryl as ordered upon receipt. Resident (R7) tolerated it. Resident (R7) c/o (complained of) itch to eyes and back. Noted periorbital swelling. Noted desaturation to 84% on RA. Administered oxygen via NC (nasal cannula) at 5L/min. O2 (oxygen) sat (saturation) increased to 94-96%. Updated MD at 1337 (01:37 PM). Received and carried out order to send to ER (emergency room) for anaphylactic shock. Writer called 911 at 1340 (01:40 PM) to give report. SRN (Nursing Supervisor) called the resident's son, at 1341 (01:41 PM) to update him and is agreeable with sending resident to the ER. Fire Department arrived at about 1345 (01:45 PM) followed by ambulance. Per ambulance, not sure what hospital they will go to yet. Resident left via ambulance gurney at 1350 (01:50 PM). On 04/23/25 review of R7's Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and her diagnoses include, but are not limited to, other intervertebral disc degeneration, thoracolumbar region; muscle weakness (generalized); unspecified asthma, uncomplicated; essential tremor; and dysphasia (impairment in the production of speech resulting from brain disease or damage). Review of R7's Minimum Data Set with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 02/19/25 revealed her Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was 15 which indicates she is cognitively intact. Review of R7's care plan, initiated 02/13/25, did not include a care plan for R7's allergies and need for a therapeutic diet to exclude the food items R7 is allergic to, and did not include interventions to address what to do if R7 is exposed to allergen (food items). On 04/23/25 at 10:53 AM an interview was conducted in the kitchen with the Kitchen Manager (KM). Inquired of KM if R7 had food allergies on her diet and KM was unsure.KM stated following R7's incident, the facility stopped ordering nut items, they are currently a nut free facility. Tour of the kitchen found all nut items had been disposed of and no nut food items were found in the kitchen. Inquired about food item that had been cooked in the kitchen that had been given to R7. KM stated the facility was using a recipe (Jello Cream Cheese Square dessert), from 2019 that included nuts, but they no longer include nuts in this recipe after R7's allergic reaction. R7 was on transmission-based precautions, therefore, on 04/23/25 at 12:44 PM a phone interview was conducted. Inquired if resident had notified facility staff of her nut allergy, R7 stated she gave the list to the dietician and the dietician took notes. Dietician also asked the resident about her food preferences. R7 reported she ate an ice cream dessert with a cookie on the bottom and that was where the nuts were. R7 stated her nut allergy is her most violent allergy. R7 stated on her meal tray that day there was nothing indicating there was anything with nuts on her tray. R7 believes it was hidden with a very small amount in the cookie. R7 stated she reads all the labels on food before she eats anything because it can be lethal. On 04/23/25 at 02:28 PM met with the Administrator in the conference room and requested a copy of admission documents for R7. On 04/23/25 at 03:00 PM an interview was conducted in the conference room with Head Nurse Registered Nurse (RN)3. Inquired if the resident who has a severe allergy to nuts would have a care plan for this and she said yes. Inquired if R7 had a care plan for her nut allergies prior to her being exposed to nuts and she confirmed R7 did not have a care plan for her nut allergy. On 04/23/25 at 03:15 PM Administrator provided copies of requested admission forms filled out for R7. On 04/23/25 at 03:20 PM an interview was conducted in the conference room with the Day Shift Supervisor, RN4. Inquired of RN4 if she did R7's admission intake. RN4 stated she filled out the Pre-admission Notification form for R7. RN4 stated she had received admitting information from hospice which included R7's allergies but not the reaction to the allergens. Inquired who receives the Pre-admission Notification form and RN4 stated the team which included the DON, Social Worker, Doctor, Dietician, etc. Inquired if RN4 spoke with R7 and asked her reaction to her allergies (medications and foods) and she denied this stating this form is for pre-admission and the resident was not at the facility at that time. On 04/23/25 interviewed Dietician at 03:50 PM in the conference room. She provided a copy of R7's updated care plan that was initiated on 03/20/25. Inquired if dietician would initiate a care plan for resident's diet that included restrictions due to allergies and dietician stated she does not open any care plans for food allergies unless they (the resident) are not eating or are losing weight. Dietician stated normally she does not open the care plan for allergies unless it involves their nutritional intake. Dietician stated she talked to resident on 02/13/25 and resident stated she swells up if she eats nuts. Dietician was unsure if she shared this information in the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) note. Dietician stated she jotted it down on her notes of what resident was stating such as mustard makes her sick, nuts make her swell up. Dietician stated this information was not shared in resident's chart (EHR or hard chart) or with the IDT in her assessment. Dietician explained food item served to R7 that caused the allergic reaction was not on the template used that would show all the ingredients used in the recipe, which would include nuts and that was how the dessert was able to be placed on R7's meal tray. Review of R7's admission documents revealed the Nursing admission Screening History dated and timed 02/13/25 at 14:42 (02:42 PM) did not include any reaction to R7's allergies for prescribed medications and food items resident is allergic to. A review of R7's admission orders dated 02/13/25 included R7's diet but no food restrictions related to her food allergies. R7's allergies were listed and included Famotidine, Penicillin, Phenobarbital, Sulfamethoxazole Trimethoprim, Levaquin, mayonnaise, mustard, nut. The admission orders included R7's allergies but date last reaction and specific reaction was left blank for all the medication and food allergies even though the form states List/circle specific reactions (DO NOT LEAVE BLANK): ______________ or anaphylaxis/rash/hives/wheeze/SOB (shortness of breath)/dizziness/CP/syncope (fainting)/N/V (nausea/vomiting) abdominal pain/diarrhea/bleeding/UNK (unknown). Review of Nutrition Assessment for R7 dated 02/25/25 included R7's diet 2/13/25: Regular diet, chopped texture, Regular thin liquids consistency, for Dysphagia; Dietician may order oral supplements as needed. 2/15/25 Regular diet, chopped texture, Regular thin liquids consistency, May have bread products for Dysphasia, unspecified. R7's Nutrition Assessment listed R7's allergies as Multiple nuts, Mayonnaise, mustard, spices, Curry, all salad dressings. R7's Nutritional Assessment did not include her reactions to her allergies. Review of R7's IDT Conf. Notes -V2 dated and timed for 02/14/25 at 08:58 did not include any mention of R7's allergy reaction to her list of medication and food allergies. A phone interview was conducted with RN5 on 04/24/25 at 09:21 AM. RN5 confirmed she was the nurse who did the admission intake for R7. Inquired if she inputted R7's allergies into the EHR and she denied this. Concurrent record review and interview with RN5 revealed Head Nurse RN6 had inputted R7's allergies in the EHR which included nuts. Inquired if other facility staff or R7's family told her R7's nut allergy is bad to the point the resident swells up and RN5 could not recall. A phone interview was conducted on 04/24/25 at 10:28 AM with R7's attending physician. Inquired if Medical Doctor (MD) was aware of R7's nut allergy and he confirmed he was. Inquired if R7 or her son had told MD of her reaction to nuts and he denied this, stated the allergy information was provided by hospice. Inquired of MD if he would have ordered medications such as Benadryl and an Epi pen prn (as needed) to have on hand if he knew of her allergy reaction to nuts and he confirmed this and stated these are in the e-kit (emergency kit). MD stated he believed R7 was exposed to trace amounts of nuts in the dessert she ate. On 04/24/25 at 03:11 PM an interview was conducted with Head Nurse RN6 in the conference room. Inquired of RN6 if allergies are included in the baseline care plan when residents are admitted . RN6 stated allergies are included in the allergy tab in resident's EHR but never put in the baseline care plan. RN6 confirmed she inputted R7's allergies into the EHR. Inquired if RN6 went over allergies and her reactions with R7 and RN6 denied this. RN6 stated they base it upon the discharge list that comes with the resident, it has a list and sometimes has information like GI upset or unknown response. Inquired about R7's care plan and RN6 stated the nut allergy was added to R7's care plan after she (R7) had the severe allergic response. Concurrent review of R7's baseline care plan revealed there is a diet section which only included R7's diet, not that the R7 has an allergy to nuts. On 04/24/25 at 04:45 PM an interview was done with R7 in her room at the bedside. Inquired if resident had told any facility staff about her reaction to her nut allergy. Resident explained she had met with a lady, believes she was a dietician, could not remember her name but explained she was very professional and knowledgeable and took notes down of her food preferences and resident explained her nut allergy was her most dangerous allergy. Inquired if any of the nurses inquired of her allergy reactions and resident said no. Inquired how long resident has had the allergy to nuts and she stated, since I was a baby, that her mother was afraid she would lose her because of it. On 04/25/25 at 09:20 AM inquired of Kitchen Manager (KM) for a copy of the Jello dessert recipe and received a copy of facility's recipe for Jello Cream Cheese Square. KM stated they use this recipe but no longer add nuts to the recipe since they have gone nut free. Review of the recipe found it contained Walnuts (minced) - 4 cups. On 04/25/25 at 10:09 AM an interview was conducted with the DON in the conference room. Reviewed R7's admission paperwork with DON who confirmed the nurse should have circled or wrote the reaction to R7's allergies on the admission Orders form. Inquired if nurses are expected to interview residents when they are admitted and ask what their allergy reactions are and DON stated the expectation was not to interview residents about their allergies, the facility would avoid it, for example if the resident were allergic to penicillin the resident would not get this medication. DON stated they would use the discharge summary as the communication from the hospital and enter the information into PCC (Point Click Care, electronic health record software). PCC will alert the doctor if they order a medication the resident is allergic to. Inquired who the pre-administration form is sent to, and DON stated everyone on the team. Review of R7's physician progress note dated and timed for 03/19/25 at 23:20 (11:20 PM) states: Note Text: Progress note: Subjective: Patient was transferred from Name of Nursing Facility to Name of Acute Hospital emergency room for anaphylaxis after she inadvertently consumed nuts that were in her Jell-O pudding dessert. She had periorbital swelling, shortness of breath, and desaturation. Upon transfer by EMS personnel, patient received epinephrine and diphenhydramine IV pushes. She did receive methylprednisolone IV in the emergency department. Allergic reactions completely resolved. Patient to return back to the nursing facility. Objective: Prior to transfer to Name of Acute Hospital emergency room: Vital signs: Temperature 97.4. Pulse 87. Respiratory rate 20. Blood pressure 130/67. Oxygen saturation 94% on room air. Subsequent desaturation to 84% room air. 94% on 5 L/min via nasal cannula. General: Patient appears to be in distress. HEENT: Periorbital edema. Lungs: Diminished. Cardiovascular: Regular rate and rhythm. Abdomen: Nondistended. Bowel sounds present. Extremities: No edema. No clubbing. No cyanosis. Neurologic: Unchanged. Assessment: Anaphylaxis secondary to inadvertent consumption of nuts with her Jell-O pudding dessert. Patient has underlying history of allergies to nuts. Allergic reaction has resolved after interventions which consists of diphenhydramine, epinephrine, and methylprednisolone IV. Patient is medically stable to be transferred back to Name of Nursing Facility. Plan: Patient returning from Name of Acute Hospital emergency room back to Name of Nursing Facility. Avoid administration of nuts in which patient is allergic to.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to report the results of an allegation of staff to resident abuse, involving Resident (R) 5 and a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), within five worki...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to report the results of an allegation of staff to resident abuse, involving Resident (R) 5 and a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA), within five working days of the incident to the State Agency (SA). Findings Include: Review of facility's Initial Event Report submitted to the SA on 02/19/25 for R5 included the following information: Head nurse received call from R5's daughter, very upset and yelling that her dad was not treated properly by the CNA who was assigned to him about 7am this morning. I want to know now the CNA who was assigned to my dad, I want to report and call the social worker. My dad is crying and calling me that he wanted me to pick him up and go home. Head nurse went to talk to R5 and he was able to voiced out his concern. R5 was still very emotional and crying while telling head nurse what happened. I rather go home if you don't like me here. It happened about 7am, I asked the CNA what's her name, she did not tell me, she came to answer my call light but she seems mad and angry. She helped me with my shishi bottle. I told her that I usually have pain in my leg if not positioned properly. It's only her, all of you have been nice and telling me your names. There's always one that differs from the rest, I don't choose who take care of me as long as she don't do it again. On 04/23/25 at 02:28 PM interviewed Administrator in conference room. Inquired about CNA who was named in Event Report submitted to SA on 02/19/25. Administrator stated staff is out on leave, was put on leave the day the incident occurred, 02/19/25. Administrator stated CNA still has to be investigated which is an interview with the law firm the facility has contracted as the third party to perform the abuse/neglect investigations. Administrator stated she always has cases of abuse and neglect investigated by a third party because some of the staff have worked together for a long time with each other. Inquired when the investigation would be conducted as it is already two months since the incident occurred and she stated the law firm is busy but has been notified of the case. Administrator stated if the case is substantiated the facility will do disciplinary action with the staff in question. Administrator confirmed the incident has not been investigated and final report has not been sent to OHCA (Office of Health Care Assurance) within the 5 days per CMS regulation. Review of facility policy titled Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Residents, Participants, and Misappropriation of Property last reviewed 06/23/23 states . E. Reporting of actual, threatened, or alleged abuse or neglect, injuries of unknown origin and serious injuries 1. Office of Health Care Assurance (OHCA) (Attachment A) Report no later than two (2) hours from when a suspicion of crime has been determined to have been committed against a resident and that the resident sustained serious bodily injury as a result. Report within twenty four (24 hours) any of the following: . b. All allegations of or suspected abuse/ neglect of a resident . Submit preliminary report within 24 hours, and the final investigation report within 5 days.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident (R) 7) sampled for food allergies, was not served a food allergy. R7 was served mayonnaise on her l...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident (R) 7) sampled for food allergies, was not served a food allergy. R7 was served mayonnaise on her lunch tray, a documented anaphylactic allergy, after R7's recent anaphylactic incident regarding a nut allergy that happened in the facility. This puts R7 at risk of allergy symptoms or anaphylaxis. Findings Include: On 04/25/25, an abbreviated survey was conducted for a facility reported incident (FRI), ACTs #11581. The facility was found not in compliance with requirements of 42 CFR 483, Subpart B, F684, Quality of Care. The facility was aware of R7's nut allergy but failed to document severity of nut allergy, failed to develop and implement a care plan for R7's nut allergy and failed to assure all recipes cooked in the kitchen were on the templates reviewed for food allergies before providing food to residents. The deficient practice resulted in harm to R7 who received food that contained nuts and having an anaphylactic response requiring transport to the emergency room for treatment on 03/19/25. In response, the facility submitted the following, but not limited to, plan of correction (PoC), ADMIN [Administrator] and FSM [Food Service Manager] re-educated .staff on 03/21/24 on the importance of double checking food allergies on ticket against what they plate during tray line .Completed 05/09/25, and DON [Director of Nursing], SRNs [Nurse Supervisors], HNs [Head Nurses], and EN [Education Nurse] conducted in-services from 03/27/25 to increase awareness/re-educate nursing staff on resident food allergies, importance of double checking allergies on Gerimenu ticket against what is served on meal tray, and yellow/colored tickets when passing meal trays. Completed 05/23/25. On 06/05/25, during the onsite revisit for the 04/24/25 survey, review of R7's Electronic Health Record (EHR) was done. R7's nursing progress note dated 05/21/25, documented a certified nurse aide [CNA] reported R7 called to let her know she was concerned with her meal tray. R7's care plan documented on 05/21/25, R7 was served salad with mayonnaise. Review of R7's list of documented allergies included mayonnaise, salad dressing, mustard, nuts, and teriyaki sauce with prior anaphylactic reactions. On 06/05/25 at 12:10 PM, an interview with R7 was done. R7 reported she has been checking her food due to her anxiety with receiving a food she is allergic to since the nut incident and that there was an incident in May with a salad having mayonnaise in it. R7 confirmed she is allergic to mayonnaise and a kitchen staff came down to apologize and reportedly stated it was their mistake. On 06/05/25 at 12:56 PM, an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 19 was done. RN19 reported CNA11 served R7's lunch on 05/21/25 and answered R7's call light when R7 reportedly had concerns with mayonnaise on her salad in her meal tray. RN19 confirmed staff serving resident meals are to check their meal ticket, especially yellow meal tickets (indicating a resident has a food allergy), prior to bringing the meal tray to the resident. On 05/21/25 during lunch, RN19 confirmed it was not done and the facility started the yellow meal tickets in March. Review of R7's meal ticket on 05/21/25 documented R7 has an allergy to mayonnaise and menu instruction of CUBED PLAIN TOMATO SLD [salad], NO DRSG [dressing] / MAYO [mayonnaise]. On 06/06/25 at 09:40 AM, an interview with FSM was done. FSM reported after R7's anaphylactic incident with nuts, the facility changed their meal tickets to yellow for residents with food allergies. FSM stated the kitchen staff are supposed to check if any food allergies made it to a resident's meal tray during tray line, but on R7's meal tray on 05/21/25 for some reason, we didn't catch that. FSM admitted the meal ticket can be confusing due to it documenting NO DRSG/ MAYO and it would be better if it documented PLAIN because it can confuse staff when looking at the meal ticket briefly. On 06/06/25 at 09:53 AM, an interview with DON was done. DON confirmed the nursing staff are to check the residents with yellow meal tickets prior to going to the resident's room. DON further confirmed CNA11 was trained prior to the incident and should have checked the meal ticket. On 06/06/25 at 10:01 AM, an interview with Registered Dietician (RD) was done. RD stated, whatever is written in the meal ticket should be followed. Review of the facility's policy and procedure regarding allergies effective 05/14/25 documented under section E. Food Allergies, Meal Tickets will be printed on Yellow/colored paper to alert dietary staff when plating meals, so appropriate substitution can be made. Nursing staff will check yellow / colored meal ticket against the plated food before presenting to resident. If any discrepancy - clarify with dietary before serving food to resident.
Jul 2024 7 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints imposed for the purpose of convenience that was not required to treat the resident's medical condition for one of one resident sampled (Resident (R) 68). R68's reclined Geri-chair was not assessed as a restraint, although R68 forgets his physical limitations in standing and walking, R68 was observed to move his Geri-chair or attempt to get up and staff expressed they were unable to provide the constant supervision to prevent falls. Findings include: R68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses, not limited to, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, weakness, and hemiplegia affecting right dominate side. On 06/30/24 at 09:34 AM to 10:12 AM, observed R68 in the hallway in a reclined Geri-chair. His upper body and head were tensed up not touching the reclined back of the chair, his left hand was holding the hallway rail, legs were reclined up and positioned toward the left side of the chair. Using his left arm, R68 was observed to swivel his chair back and forth in attempts to move it or sit up, while his left leg was moving off and hanging off the chair. R68 yelled and attempted to signal with his arm for unidentified people but no direct care staff were found in the hallway. At 10:12 AM, after surveyor signaled a staff member for R68, the staff member brought the resident closer to the Nurse's station and then where resident was attempting to signal the staff member where he wanted to go, closer to the activities room. During further observations of R68 on 06/30/24 and 07/01/24, in reclined Geri-chair, observed R68 sitting back comfortably in chair with legs reclined up and positioned toward the left side of the chair, not hanging off the chair. R68 was not attempting to move the chair or position himself upright. On 07/02/24 at 12:33 PM, observed R68 in the hallway in reclined Geri-chair with his right side closest to the hallway rail. R68's back of the chair was slightly reclined from a 90-degree angle and legs were reclined up and positioned toward the left side of the chair. R68 was moving his legs side to side, off the chair to back on the chair with slight forward rocking movement while making moaning noises. On 07/02/24 at 12:37 PM, an interview and concurrent observation with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 12 was done. CNA12 reported R68 can sit in his chair with legs slight reclined down but is more comfortable with his chair reclined up. CNA12 demonstrated by lowering the reclined position, during this R68 was rocking forward in a position to try to get out of chair. CNA12 reclined his legs back up and assisted another resident. On 07/02/24 at 12:43 PM, an interview and concurrent observation with CNA33 was done. CNA33 reported R68 likes to have his legs reclined up and if lowered down he may fall because he wants to walk but is unable to. CNA33 reported that they cannot watch him all the time because they need to help other residents. CNA33 lowered his legs down and R68 was observed to scoot himself towards the edge of the chair with slight rocking movement forward in a position to get out of the chair. CNA33 stayed by his side and redirected and repositioned him so he does not fall. CNA33 requested assistance from other staff members to bring R68 to his room. On 07/02/24 at 12:54 PM, an interview with Head Nurse (HN) 9 was done. Inquired with HN9 if the facility did a restraint assessment for R68's Geri-chair. HN9 reviewed the Electronic Health Record (EHR) and reported a restraint assessment was not done for the Geri-chair. HN9 further reported the Geri-chair would be considered a restraint if the resident is trying to get up on their own and it is restraining their movement. HN9 stated the Geri-chair is not a restraint for R68 because he does not have the ability to walk. HN9 confirmed that although R68 does not have the ability to walk he tries to get up and stand and is not aware of his limitations. On 07/02/24 at 01:56 PM, an interview with R68's resident representative (RR) 52 was done. RR52 reported R68 suffered a stroke and lost control of his right side of his body. R68 thinks he can get up and stand but has fallen from his bed a few times at the facility. The facility now puts him in a Geri-chair when he is restless and to give more social interaction. Review of the facility's event report for R68's falls on 02/21/24 and 05/17/24 was done. On 02/21/24, R68 was found on the floor in room next to his bed, documentation from staff members reports documented resident verbalized wanting to go home as a factor influencing the incident and to prevent the incident from happening again, place resident in recliner in a visible area for close supervision, if attempting to get up from bed. On 05/17/24, R68 was found on the floor next to his bed, documentation from staff members reported resident was restless. On 07/03/24 at 10:12 AM, an interview with Director of Nursing (DON) was done. DON stated she looked at R68 the other day and found him to be restless and uncomfortable. Inquired what is the facility's process in identifying possible physical restraints and devices, DON reported the facility would assess if there were a need for safety then get an order. The facility wanted R68 to get out of bed and use the Geri-chair for comfort and felt it was better to sit on for his safety because they do not want R68 to fall. DON further mentioned in the interview that the facility does not have the staffing for one-on-one supervision. Concurrent review of R68's INFORMED CONSENT FOR USE OF PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS signed and dated 01/14/24 mention Geri-chair as a type of restrained to be used. Review of the facility's policy and procedure PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS AND DEVICES effective 09/08/06, documents Restraints are to be used only when necessary under limited medical conditions or symptoms to prevent injury to resident and/or others .Restraints must not be applied for the purposes of discipline or staff convenience. Restraints must be ordered by the attending physician for a specified and limited period of time .Physical restraints include, but are not limited to .Geri chairs .A THREE-DAY ASSESSMENT PERIOD shall be implemented upon admission or use of new device to determine if the resident required the device to ensure resident's safety, increase function and/or to complete a medical treatment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility staff failed to correctly document Resident (R) 6's facility acquired injury, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility staff failed to correctly document Resident (R) 6's facility acquired injury, progressing from Moisture-Associated Skin Damage (MASD) on his right gluteus to a stage 3 Pressure Ulcer (PU) on his coccyx, in R6's Discharge Assessment that was submitted to Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on 05/27/24. The deficient practice does not accurately reflect R6's injured skin status. The deficient practice could affect all residents who have an injury that has worsened over time. Findings Include: Cross-reference to F842 Resident Records - Identifiable Information. Based on record review and interview the facility failed to update R6's electronic health record (EHR) to accurately stage his facility acquired injury progressing from Moisture-Associated Skin Damage (MASD) to his right gluteus to a stage 3 PU on his coccyx. On 07/01/24 at 01:45 PM interviewed Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator 1 and inquired who stages the resident's skin injuries and she stated the nurses on the unit determine the type or stage of the injury. On 07/03/24 at 11:04 AM interviewed Head Nurse (HN) 9 on second floor. Inquired about R6's MASD and stated that it appears to be a PU. HN9 stated it is a stage 3 PU. HN9 explained R6's Nurse Practitioner, an outside provider, had identified the injury as a stage 3 PU in her documentation which was provided to the facility. HN9 stated the team met on 07/02/24 to discuss R6's injury and agreed the MASD had progressed to a stage 3 PU. At this time requested HN9 provide copies of R6's Care Plan (CP), doctor's orders, skin assessments, progress notes and NP Assessment. On 07/03/24 at 11:16 AM met with and interviewed DON who stated there was a meeting yesterday (07/02/24) and the team discussed R6's injury and concur it is no longer MASD but a stage 3 PU and the change should have been made in R6's EHR. On 07/03/24 review of R6's CP, doctor's orders, weekly skin assessments and weekly progress notes has documentation of R6's injury as MASD. During this review there was no documentation found that facility staff documented R6's PU progressed (got worse) from the MASD to a stage 3 PU on his coccyx with full thickness skin loss as documented by R6's NP on 05/14/24. During this review noted NP assessment had been faxed to the facility on [DATE] at 02:14 PM. NP documented on R6's injury Started as MASD but worsened with pressure. Review of R6's MDS found he had a Discharge Assessment that was submitted to CMS on 05/27/24, section M did not include R6 had an unhealed pressure ulcer (s) at Stage 1 or higher. No was checked off for this question. Other problem checked off included H. Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD).
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

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one of 19 residents sampled (Resident (R) 68). R68's care plan did not ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for one of 19 residents sampled (Resident (R) 68). R68's care plan did not include reclined Geri-chair in visible area for close supervision as an intervention to prevent R68 from falls when restless and expressing he wants to go home. Findings include: Cross Reference to F604. The facility failed to ensure a resident was free from physical restraints imposed for the purpose of convenience that was not required to treat the resident's medical condition for one of one resident sampled (Resident (R) 68). R68's reclined Geri-chair was not assessed as a restraint, although R68 forgets his physical limitations in standing and walking, R68 was observed to move his Geri-chair or attempt to get up and staff expressed they were unable to provide the constant supervision to prevent falls. On 07/02/24 at 01:56 PM, an interview with R68's resident representative (RR) 52 was done. RR52 reported R68 suffered a stroke and lost control of his right side of his body. R68 thinks he can get up and stand but has fallen from his bed a few times at the facility. The facility now puts him in a Geri-chair when he is restless and to give more social interaction. Review of the facility's event report for R68's falls on 02/21/24 and 05/17/24 was done. On 02/21/24, R68 was found on the floor in room next to his bed, documentation from staff members reports documented resident verbalized wanting to go home as a factor influencing the incident and to prevent the incident from happening again, place resident in recliner in a visible are for close supervision, if attempting to get up from bed. On 05/17/24, R68 was found on the floor next to his bed, documentation from staff members reported resident was restless. On 07/03/24 at 10:12 AM, an interview and concurrent record review with Director of Nursing (DON) was done. Inquired if R68's care plan included the Geri-chair, DON confirmed the Geri-chair was not care planned.
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to invite one of the sampled residents (Resident (R) 76) to attend an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to invite one of the sampled residents (Resident (R) 76) to attend and participate in her care planning meeting. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all the residents in the facility. Findings Include: R76 is a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of R76's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) with Assessment Reference Date (ARD) 04/17/24 was conducted. R76's BIMS score was a 14, meaning R76 was cognitively intact. Interview with R76 was conducted in her room on 07/01/24 at 09:28 AM. R76 stated that she had not participated in her care planning meeting, and she would have loved to go. R76 stated, I've never heard of them having a meeting about me. If someone told me, I would have remembered and I would go. A review of R76's Electronic Health Record (EHR) was conducted. The record noted a care plan meeting held on 04/24/24. R76's son was listed as an attendee. R76 was not on the list for attendees. Interview was conducted over the phone with the Social Worker (SW) 2 on 07/03/24 at 09:04 AM. SW2 stated that she does not recall inviting R76 to her care planning meeting. A review of the facility document titled, Comprehensive Care Plan Guideline, was conducted. The document noted, The resident and/or representative will be invited to attend the interdisciplinary Care Plan meeting during the Admission, Quarterly, Annual, and/or Significant Change Care Plan review meetings and upon request.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include: On 06/30/24 at 08:42 AM, dur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. Findings include: On 06/30/24 at 08:42 AM, during an initial tour of the kitchen with [NAME] (C) 1, observed an opened and used large container of French salad dressing in the refrigerator. The salad dressing did not have an open/preparation date and a use-by-date. C1 was observed to immediately take the salad dressing out of the refrigerator and confirmed there should be a label for when the dressing was opened and when it should be discarded. Observed in a plastic container bin with a bag of oatmeal, a scooper on the bottom of the bin with oatmeal residue and unidentified debris. C1 confirmed the scooper should be hung and not touching the bottom of the bin. At 09:19 AM, observed C2 answer the phone, hang up the phone, put gloves on, and then his mask, before going back to prepping food, without washing his hands. Inquired with C2 if he washed his hands before putting on his gloves, C2 stated he did not. On 07/02/24 at 03:00 PM, an interview with Dietician (D) 3 was done. D3 reported staff should wash their hands prior to prepping food when touching other items to prevent foodborne illnesses. Review of the facility's policy and procedure Food Preparation and Handling effective 09/01/10, documented All food items, while bring prepared, are protected against contamination from dust, flies, rodents and other vermin unclean utensils and work surfaces, unnecessary handling, coughs, sneezes .and any other source of contamination .Foods will be prepared and served with clean tongs, scoops, forks .plastic gloves or other suitable implements to minimize handling and avoid manual contact of food at all point during preparation and service. Review of the facility's policy and procedure Hand Hygiene effective 02/03/23, documented Indications for Hand Hygiene .Before preparing or serving food .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to update Resident (R) 6's electronic health record (EHR) to accurately...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to update Resident (R) 6's electronic health record (EHR) to accurately stage his facility acquired injury progressing from Moisture-Associated Skin Damage (MASD) on his right gluteus to a stage 3 Pressure Ulcer (PU) on his coccyx. This deficient practice could affect all residents who have skin injuries that are not being documented correctly. Findings Include: On 07/01/24 at 10:09 AM during record review of R6's EHR found he had a newly in-house (facility) acquired MASD injury documented on his skin assessment dated [DATE]. Weekly skin assessments for R6 were filled out from 03/19/24 - 06/19/24 documenting R6 had MASD on his Right Gluteus that at times was deteriorating, stalled or improving. Weekly progress notes for Skin/Wound Notes, written by facility Registered Nurses (RNs), dated from 03/16/24 - 06/26/24 also had documentation that R6 had MASD and not a stage 3 PU to his coccyx. Review of pictures provided in R6's EHR showed R6's injury was deeper than superficial. On 07/01/24 at 01:45 PM interviewed Minimum Data Set (MDS) coordinator 1 and inquired who stages the resident's skin injuries and she stated the nurses on the unit determine the type or stage of the injury. On 07/03/24 at 11:04 AM interviewed Head Nurse (HN) 9 on second floor. Inquired about R6's MASD and stated that it appears to be a PU. HN9 stated it is a stage 3 PU. HN9 explained Point Click Care (EHR software) does not give the facility an option to change the documentation from progression of MASD to a PU. HN9 explained the MASD would have to be resolved and then the PU put into the EHR. HN9 explained R6's NP, an outside provider, had identified the injury as a stage 3PU in her documentation which was provided to the facility. HN9 stated the team met on 07/02/24 to discuss R6's injury and agreed the MASD had progressed to a stage 3 PU. At this time requested HN9 provide copies of R6's Care Plan (CP), doctor's orders, skin assessments, progress notes and NP Assessment. On 07/03/24 at 11:16 AM met with and interviewed DON who stated there was a meeting yesterday (07/02/24) and the team discussed R6's injury and concur it is no longer MASD but a stage 3 PU and the change should have been made in R6's EHR. On 07/03/24 review of R6's CP, doctor's orders, weekly skin assessments and weekly progress notes has documention of R6's injury as MASD. During this review there was no documentation found that facility staff documented R6's PU progressed (got worse) from the MASD to a stage 3 PU on his coccyx with full thickness skin loss as documented by R6's Nurse Practioner (NP) on 05/14/24. During this review noted NP assessment had been faxed to the facility on [DATE] at 02:14 PM. NP documented on R6's injury Started as MASD but worsened with pressure.
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, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene procedures were followed by a staff member during medication administration. This deficient prac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene procedures were followed by a staff member during medication administration. This deficient practice promotes the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The deficient practice has the potential to affect all the residents in the facility. Findings Include: Concurrent observation and interview were conducted on 07/02/24 at 08:16 AM. Registered Nurse (RN) 10 was observed preparing medications for Resident (R) 8. After placing the pills in the cup, RN10 walked to the refrigerator for apple juice. RN10 could not find apple juice so he/she used the telephone to call the facility kitchen. RN10 then walked back to the medication cart and poured laxative powder into a cup. RN10 then walked back to the refrigerator and grabbed cranberry juice to add to the laxative powder. After mixing the laxative and cranberry juice, RN10 entered R8's room. RN10 then proceeded to administer whole pills to R8, followed by the laxative and cranberry drink. RN10 was not observed performing hand hygiene throughout the different tasks. RN10 was asked if he/she should have performed hand hygiene prior to R8's medication administration. RN10 stated hand hygiene should have been done prior to giving R8 her medications. Interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 07/02/24 at 01:50 PM. DON confirmed that RN10 should have performed hand hygiene prior to administering medications to R8. A review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 08/01/10, was conducted. The document noted, Indications for Hand Hygiene (Alcohol Based Hand Rub or Handwashing) .Before administering mediations.
Jul 2023 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide the right to reside and receive services in the facility wi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to provide the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodations to one of 18 residents sampled (Resident (R) 57). As evidence by, not ensuring R57's call light was within reach and assessable. This deficient practice has the potential to negatively contribute to resident outcome. Findings Include: R57 is an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He is Cantonese speaking but understands a small amount of the English language. Observation was conducted on 07/24/23 at 08:46 AM. R57 was in his room, awake, and sitting at the edge of his bed having breakfast. He greeted this surveyor with a wave. R57's call light was wrapped up and hanging on the wall. The placement of the call light was not within reach for R57. Observation was conducted on 07/24/23 at 01:30 PM. R57 was asleep in his room and his call light was still hanging on the wall. Observation was conducted on 07/25/23 at 07:37 AM and 01:11 PM. R57 was lying in bed and his call light was still hanging on the wall, not within reach for the resident. Observation was conducted on 07/26/23 at 10:18 AM. R57 was up in bed finishing his meal. His call light remained hanging on the wall. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 53 was conducted on 07/26/23 at 10:20 AM in the nurse's station. RN53 was asked if the call lights should be near residents and be accessible to the residents. RN53 stated that the call light should be near and accessible to all the residents. Informed RN53 that R57's call light has been hanging on the wall and has been inaccessible to the resident for the past 3 days. RN53 stated that the call light should be accessible to R57 even though he probably wouldn't use it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean environment as evidenced by a supply shelf, in the second-floor storage room, found covered with spider webs. As a res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain a clean environment as evidenced by a supply shelf, in the second-floor storage room, found covered with spider webs. As a result of this deficiency, the facility increased the risk for infestation. Findings include: Observation on 07/25/23 at 08:30 AM of the supply storage room on the second floor revealed a shelf covered with spider webs. The shelf contained a seat cushion and a splint. The shelf below contained boxes of disposable gloves. During staff interview on 07/25/23 at 08:35 AM, Registered Professional Nurse (RN)29 acknowledged that the shelf was covered with spider webs. RN29 said that they would have housekeeping immediately remove the spider webs and have the room cleaned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions in a care plan to provide e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions in a care plan to provide effective and person-centered care that meet professional standards of quality care for two of the 18 residents sampled (Resident (R) 22 and R30). This deficient practice has the potential to negatively impact the resident's quality of life. Findings Include: R22 has a medical history that includes but not limited to cerebrovascular disease with hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (one sided muscle weakness), and dementia. R22 has also been receiving hospice care since 06/14/23. Observation and interview were conducted on 07/26/23 at 07:53 AM in R22's room. R22 just finished having her breakfast and was lying in bed. This surveyor asked R22 how she did in bingo yesterday. R22 responded that she didn't win anything but was happy to be out of her room since she has been in isolation for the past 10 days. R22 was informed by this surveyor that there was another bingo activity scheduled for 10:00 AM that morning. R22 became excited and expressed interest in wanting to go. Observation and interview were conducted on 07/25/23 at 10:15 AM in R22's room. R22's curtains were drawn, and she was receiving personal care from Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 32. This surveyor asked through the curtain why R22 was missing bingo. CNA32 responded, She already went yesterday. Interview was conducted on 07/27/23 at 07:45 AM with R22 in her room. R22 explained that she had missed bingo the day prior because she was told by staff that it was not her turn to go and that it was her roommates turn. R22 stated she wanted to go because she likes playing bingo. Interview was conducted with CNA32 on 07/27/23 at 08:20 AM on the third-floor hallway. CNA32 explained that residents are assisted to get up every other day. R22 was assisted to get up into a recliner to attend bingo on 07/25/23. On 07/26/23 it was another resident turn to get up into the recliner. Therefore, R22 missed bingo on 7/26/23. Interview was conducted on 07/27/23 at 08:20 AM with Recreational Aide (RA) 12. RA12 explained that there is usually a list of residents that request to attend bingo. RA12 indicated that R22 was not on the list. RA12 also explained that one of her tasks is to go around and let the residents know bingo was an activity for the day. RA12 stated she did not go into R22's room on 07/26/23 to invite her to bingo. RA12 also added that any resident that wants to come to bingo are accommodated and are not denied participation. Interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 53 was conducted on 07/27/23 at 08:47 AM. RN53 stated that RA12 usually does the inviting of the residents for facility activities. She also added that there is no limit to the number of resident participants because everyone should be accommodated. RN53 stated that R22 should have been able to attend bingo on 07/26/23, especially since it's on R22's care plan. A review of R22's Electronic Health Record (EHR) indicated, I [R22] make daily decision, just invite and escort me when I am available to any group activities for meeting my emotional, intellectual, physical, and social r/t CVA with right sided weakness. These activities are my favorite and very important to me i.e. bingo, Catholic mass/service, keeping up with the news, music, and being with group of people. On 07/24/23 observations of R30 were made. At 08:45 AM, R30 was observed lying in bed on her right side, a pillow propped under the left side of her back. R30 was very thin and frail and slowly responded to her name by nodding. At 10:00 AM, R30 laid on her back in bed with her eyes closed. At 11:38 AM, R30 was observed still lying on her back, sitting up with the head of bed raised. R30 was grimacing. On 07/25/23 at 07:30 AM, R30 was observed to be sitting up in bed eating breakfast. No verbal response was made when state agency (SA) greeted her. On 07/25/23 at 09:48 AM, interviewed R30's family member (FM) via phone. FM stated that R30 needed to exercise her upper extremities because of her limited mobility. Record review of R30's electronic health record (EHR) revealed a Transfer/Discharge Report documenting that R30 was an [AGE] year old resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R30's diagnoses included Adult Failure to Thrive, Mild Cognitive [brain] impairment of Uncertain or Unknown Etiology, and Traumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage [bleeding in the brain] . Review of the Progress Notes documented on 06/22/23 by the respective therapists, revealed that R30 was not appropriate for physical therapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) interventions due to her . frail condition, and limited activity tolerance . and recommended a maintenance program for upper and lower extremity range of motion (ROM) exercises. Care plan problem, I am at risk for further falls and fall related injury associated with my medical condition, impaired mobility and cognition and history of falls prior to admission, had the intervention of maintenance OT/PT for upper and lower extremity ROM . Tasks revealed that active ROM and passive ROM were to be done by the Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) on every shift. Active ROM flowsheet for 06/28/23 to 07/21/23 showed exercises were done with R30 on three days and R30 refused one day out of the 24 days documented. Not Applicable was marked for the rest of the 20 days. Passive ROM flowsheet for 06/28/23 to 07/21/23 indicated that it was done on seven days, refused by R30 for eight days, and marked Not Applicable for 15 days. On 07/27/23 at 10:54 AM, a concurrent review of the task flowsheets for active and passive ROM and interview were done with Registered Nurse (RN)19. RN19 stated that the expectation is for R30 to have these exercises done with her every day on every shift and documenting an entry Not Applicable was unacceptable.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to communicate necessary discharge information to the resident, resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to communicate necessary discharge information to the resident, resident representative and/or family member (FM), and provider(s) for one resident (R), R74, out of a sample of two residents. Inadequate information was documented by R74's physician detailing R74's course of stay at the facility and incomplete information was noted in the nursing discharge instructions and discharge care plan. Finding includes: Record review of R74's electronic health record (EHR) revealed a Social History And Assessment document that stated that R74 was a [AGE] year-old resident. R74 did not want to prolong her life and a discussion was made with the FM regarding hospice care. R74 has lived in a foster home for one and a half years and wants to return there. Transfer/Discharge Report noted that she was admitted on [DATE] and discharged on 05/18/23 to a foster home. Read Skilled Charting - V2 document dated 05/18/23. R74 needed total care with her activities of daily living (ADL) and had impaired balance and was weak. R74 was not eating well due to difficulty swallowing, was incontinent of bowel and bladder, and used oxygen delivered through tubing to her nose. R74 was referred to hospice care. Reviewed Discharge Summary Report, written by R74's physician. A handwritten word next to Diagnoses, three handwritten lines after Physician Summary, and a handwritten date of documentation were all difficult to decipher. Discharge Instructions had no notation under Treatments, Last Meal, Last BM [bowel movement], Follow-up Visits, Physician Name, Phone Number, Appointment Date/Needed, Ambulation Status, Transfers, Other, and entries listed under Social Services (Community referrals, Social/Emotional/Behavior Status, and Coping Mechanisms/Reaction to Discharge. There were only the discharge medications noted on the document and not the medication regimen R74 was admitted with, indicating changes made in R74's medication during her course of stay at the facility. The discharge care plan did not state that R74 was referred to hospice services and did not describe the care to be received at her foster home. On 07/27/23 at 10:23 AM, a concurrent review of R74's EHR and interview were done with Registered Nurse (RN)19 at the unit's nursing station. RN19 stated that the physician describes the resident's course of stay at the facility in their discharge summary. Reviewed Discharge Summary Report with RN19 and she could not decipher the physician's handwriting and confirmed that it was also incomplete because it did not summarize R74's course of care received at the facility. During the concurrent review of the nursing Discharge Instructions, RN19 stated that residents are discharged with instructions reviewed with the resident and/or resident representative containing any follow-up appointment(s) with the provider(s), therapy to be received and with instructions on how to perform them (as appropriate) and the resident's current medications with instructions. RN19 stated that the document was not complete because all blank spaces pertinent to R74 should have been completed and they were not. As a result of both incomplete documents, the foster home care operator, R74 and FM, will not know the regression of R19's health in the facility and the needed care that R74 is to receive. On 07/27/23 at 11:14 AM, interviewed Social Worker (SW)2 via phone. SW2 confirmed that R74's discharge care plan was incomplete because it did not state that R74 was referred to hospice care and any needed treatments or care. Record review of Transfer/Discharge Requirements and Documentation policy and procedure with effective date 01/07/18. It stated, . IV. Procedure . C. A comprehensive discharge care plan must be developed by the social worker as appropriate based on the resident and/or resident representative preferences, goals, and needs . H. Staff will provide sufficient preparation and orientation to the resident to ensure a safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility including providing discharge instructions that outline post-discharge care (prescribed and over the counter medications and treatments) and summary of arrangements made for follow up and post discharge services as applicable and agreeable by resident and/or representative.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview with staff member the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs for two of five residents sampled (Resident (R) 27...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview with staff member the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs for two of five residents sampled (Resident (R) 27 and R32). The facility failed to monitor R32's and R27's behaviors and use the appropriate diagnoses related to psychotropic medications. Findings include: 1) Review of the facility's policy and procedure Psychotropic Drug Use effective 09/01/18, documented a .physician's order must be obtained for use of any psychotropic medication and the order must include Indication and clinical need on measurable diagnosis or condition for the medication and specific .behavior targeted. The policy and procedure further documented There must be documented monitoring of episodes of symptoms or behaviors . 2) During review of R32's Electronic Health Record (EHR) on 07/26/23 at 09:12 AM, R32's physician's orders include an antipsychotic medication, Seroquel, 6.25 milligrams (mg) once a day effective 06/09/23, and an antidepressant medication, Sertraline, 50 mg in the evening effective 02/11/22. Both for Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance. Documentation of the monitoring of the behaviors related to the use of the psychotropic medications were not found. Review of R32's nursing notes documented on 07/05/22 Resident's behavior such as asking for enema at all times, fixated on going to the ER [Emergency Room] and fixated on not having a bowel movement has not been observed for the past 5 months of her behavior monitoring review. We will reactivate behavior monitoring as we observed such behavior. On 12/19/23, Verbalizing wanting to die behavior has not been observed for the past several months of her behavior monitoring review. We will reactivate behavior monitoring as we observed such behaviors. R32 continued to be administered the psychotropic medications after behavior monitoring was discontinued. Further review of R32's nursing notes documented on 06/09/23, Resident was seen by .[the physician] .on 6/8/23 for follow up via telehealth. Received telehealth notes today. APRN .[Advanced Nurse Practitioner], covering for MD .[Medical Director] .and was updated of the recommendation. Signed consent for the use of psychoactive medication. We will continue to monitor resident's behavior. On 07/26/23 at 02:23 PM interview and concurrent record review with Registered Nurse (RN) 53 was done. RN53 confirmed R32 was prescribed Seroquel, an antipsychotic, and Sertraline, an antidepressant. RN53 reported the behaviors that were monitored for Seroquel were not having a bowel movement and accusing daughters of bulling her. RN53 confirmed behavior monitoring was discontinued because she no longer exhibited the behaviors for several months. RN53 reported due to R32 not exhibiting behaviors related to the Seroquel the dose had gradually decreased from 50 mg to currently 6.25 mg. RN53 further reported for Sertraline, R32 was admitted with a dose of 25 mg but was increased to 50 mg on 02/11/22 due to expressing she is better off dead and did not want to be a burden to her family. RN53 reported R32 has not expressed negative statements of wanting to die since the dose change and the behavior monitoring was discontinued. 2) On 07/24/23 at 11:33 AM, interviewed R27 in his room. R27 laid in bed and responded appropriately to inquiries. R27 stated that he takes an antidepressant and would like to see a psychiatrist because he stated, This is not the best living situation. Record review of R27's electronic health record (EHR) revealed under Orders, directives for Escitalopram (medication to treat depression) 20 mg (milligrams) one tablet daily, Mirtazapine (medication to treat depression) 7.5 mg one tablet at bedtime, and Trazodone (medication to treat depression) 50 mg one tablet at bedtime for insomnia. There were no behavior monitoring documentation by the licensed nurses found in R27's EHR which indicated if R27's depression improved or if his depression continued or became worse with the use of the three antidepressant medications. There was also no documentation noting any follow up on the effectiveness to treat R27's insomnia with the administration of Trazadone. There also was no consent signed by the resident for the use of Trazodone. Care Plan stated an intervention under R27's depression, . Administer Lexapro, Trazodone, Mirtazapine . as ordered. Monitor for . effectiveness . On 07/27/23 at 11:33 AM, concurrent review of R27's EHR and interview were done with Registered Nurse (RN)19 at the unit's nursing station. RN19 confirmed that there was no behavior monitoring notation done by the licensed nurses to indicate the effectiveness of the antidepressants for R27's depression and insomnia (Trazodone). RN19 also stated that the diagnosis of insomnia for Trazadone was unacceptable and that the diagnosis should be for the usage of Trazadone as an antidepressant. RN19 searched in R27's EHR and paper chart for the consent to use Trazodone and none was found.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with staff member the facility failed to evaluate one of five residents sampled (Resident (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview with staff member the facility failed to evaluate one of five residents sampled (Resident (R) 32) for gradual dose reduction (GDR) for a psychotropic medication prescribed to treat behaviors that are no longer monitored and exhibited. Findings include: Cross Reference to F757, the facility failed to ensure each R32's drug regimen was free from unnecessary drugs due to not monitoring R32's behaviors related to psychotropic medications. On 07/26/23 at 09:12 AM review of R32's Electronic Health Record (EHR) was done. R32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a physician's order of Sertraline 25 milligrams (mg), one tablet in the evening. On 02/11/22, R32's Sertraline dose was increased to 50 mg, one tablet in the evening. Behaviors that were monitored related to the antidepressant but discontinued were fixated on not having a bowel movement, asking for enema, and fixated on going to the emergency room were discontinued on 07/05/22. Making up stories/accusatory, crying, feeling unhappy and getting mad/throws tantrums were discontinued on 09/05/22. Verbalizing wanting to die was discontinued on 12/19/22. Review of a consent form for the antidepressant dated 02/11/23 documented increase Zoloft [Sertraline] to 50 mg in the evening for target behavior feeling unhappy verbalizing wanting to die. Review of a nursing note on 12/19/23 documented Verbalizing wanting to die behavior has not been observed for the past several months of her behavior monitoring review. We will reactivate behavior monitoring as we observed such behaviors. On 07/26/23 at 02:23 PM interview and concurrent record review with Registered Nurse (RN) 53 was done. RN53 confirmed R32 is currently prescribed Sertraline 50 mg in the evening. RN53 reported R32 was admitted with a dose of 25 mg but was increased to 50 mg on 02/11/22 due to expressing she is better off dead and did not want to be a burden to her family. RN53 reported R32 has not expressed negative statements of wanting to die since the dose change and the behavior monitoring was discontinued. RN53 confirmed it has been more than 6 months since the facility discontinued the behavior monitoring and the facility has not attempted or evaluated for a GDR for the antidepressant during R32's stay in the facility and after increasing the dose more than a year ago. Review of the facility's policy and procedure Psychotropic Drug Use effective 09/01/18 documented Within the first year in which a resident is admitted on a psychotropic medication .or after the facility initiated an psychotropic medication, the facility must attempt a GDR in two separate quarters (with at least one month between the attempts), unless clinical contraindicated.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly store medications in a manner that facilitates considerations of precautions and safe administration in on...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to properly store medications in a manner that facilitates considerations of precautions and safe administration in one out of two medication carts sampled. This deficient practice has the potential to promote medication administration error to one resident in the facility. Findings Include: Observation and interview were conducted on the third-floor hallway near the nurse's station on 07/25/23 at 01:52 PM. A medication cart contained a resident's medication blister pack labeled, Senna 8.6 mg tablets. On the blister pack was a handwritten note indicating, Discard after 5/23. Registered Nurse (RN) 6 was questioned about the medication blister pack. RN6 confirmed that the medication should not have been in the cart and should have been discarded. Record review was conducted on the facility's document titled, Medication Storage, dated 01/23. The document indicated, Outdated, contaminated, discontinued, or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal .
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident (R) 55) menu met her p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, record review, and interviews the facility failed to ensure a resident's (Resident (R) 55) menu met her preferences. Findings include: R55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R55's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 06/24/23 documented R55 scored a 15 (cognitively intact) during the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS). On 07/24/23 at 09:18 AM interview with R55 was done. R55 stated she prefers to have lots of fresh vegetables with her meals. R55 reported she likes to have a bite of fresh vegetable after eating a piece of meat because she does not feel good when she eats too much meat. R55 reported she did not get any vegetables with her breakfast and during lunch and dinner her salad is very small. On 07/24/23 at 01:32 PM observed a small salad with R55's lunch. Observed R55 to eat all her salad. R55 stated she got lettuce, but it was not enough, and she wanted more lettuce. R55 further reported during her dinners she receives only a little bit of fresh vegetables. On 07/25/23 at 08:11 AM observed no vegetables with R55's breakfast. R55 stated she did not get any vegetables with her breakfast. On 07/25/23 at 12:07 PM observed R55 eat all her small salad but did not touch her chicken or cooked carrots and ate a small portion of her rice. Inquired why R55 did not eat the other food, R55 stated she does not really like the food and reported she ate all her salad. On 07/26/23 at 12:05 PM observed R55 eat all her small salad, fruit, a portion of her rice and soup but did not touch her chicken with gravy and cooked vegetables. Observed Staff Member (SM) 3 ask R55 if she is done with her meal and inform R55 she will take her back to her room. Inquired with SM3 if she is usually in the dining room providing supervision, SM3 stated she rotates with other staff members. Inquired if R55 does not eat much of her meals, SM3 stated she usually does not. Further inquired if SM3 knew the reason why, SM3 stated she was not sure. On 07/26/23 at 12:27 interview and concurrent record review with Registered Dietician (RD) 1 was done. RD1 explained the admission process to ensure the facility gathers information on residents' preferences. RD1 reported during admission and annually her assistant will use the worksheet Assistant to Dietitian New Admission/Annual Worksheet to help determine preferences. Inquired if a form was done with R55, RD1 stated it was not done with R55 and it was not documented that her assistant attempted to meet with R55 and if R55 refused. RD1 reported she spoke with her son about the resident's preference because R55 may speak another language which may have been challenging for her assistant. Inquired if the facility uses interpretor services, RD1 confirmed they do, and it was not documented interpreter services was attempted to be used with R55 to ensure her preferences were considered.
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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper infection control during lunch service on a nursing unit and did not do hand hygiene after removing used glov...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper infection control during lunch service on a nursing unit and did not do hand hygiene after removing used gloves and putting on clean gloves during one resident's (R)43 care. This deficient practice encourages the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections and has the potential to affect all residents in the facility. Findings include: 1) On 07/24/23 at 11:50 AM, observed the delivery of lunch trays on a nursing unit. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 49 went into a room labeled with an Enhanced Barrier Precaution poster. CNA49 raised the head of bed for resident (R)46 by pressing a button located on the panel at the foot of R46's bed. CNA49 did not perform hand hygiene upon exiting from the room. CNA49 retrieved a paper place mat at the nursing station, walked to the dining cart located in the hallway between R46's and the next room, opened the dining cart, and obtained R46's lunch tray. CNA49 entered R46's room, placed the paper place mat on his table, took the dining items off the tray, and placed it on the paper place mat. CNA49 performed hand hygiene upon exiting the room. On 07/24/23 at 12:10 PM, observed CNA39 enter R45's room. CNA39 assisted R45 to sit up for lunch. CNA39 did not hand hygiene upon exiting from the room. On 07/26/23 at 09:48 AM, interviewed CNA48 in the hallway of the nursing unit. CNA48 stated that hand hygiene should be performed before serving the resident's dining tray. On 07/26/23 at 12:31 PM, interviewed the Infection Preventionist (IP) in the unit's large dining room. IP stated that staff should perform hand hygiene after touching the resident or resident's environment. 2) On 07/26/23 at 09:48 AM, observed CNA48 perform R43's perineal care. CNA48 wore gloves and wiped R43's perineal area clean of stool. CNA48 removed her used gloves and did not perform hand hygiene before putting on clean gloves. CNA48 confirmed she did not perform hand hygiene after removing her gloves because it was inaccessible (alcohol hand-rub stations are located outside of the resident's rooms). On 07/26/23 at 12:31 PM, interviewed IP in the unit's dining room. IP stated that hand hygiene should be performed after the removal of used gloves and before putting on clean gloves. Record review of Hand Hygiene policy and procedure with effective date of 02/03/23. It stated, II. POLICY: . 2. Indications for Antiseptic Hand Rubbing or Antiseptic Handwashing . 4. Before preparing or serving food . 6. Before and after touching a resident . 7. Before putting on and after removing gloves (wearing gloves is not a substitute for hand hygiene) . 13. Upon entry to a resident's room . 14. Before exiting a resident's room .
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
  • • Grade B+ (83/100). Above average facility, better than most options in Hawaii.
  • • 22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below Hawaii's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 20 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Maluhia's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Maluhia an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Hawaii, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Maluhia Staffed?

CMS rates Maluhia's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 22%, compared to the Hawaii average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Maluhia?

State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at Maluhia during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 19 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Maluhia?

Maluhia is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility is operated by HAWAII HEALTH SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 158 certified beds and approximately 87 residents (about 55% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Honolulu, Hawaii.

How Does Maluhia Compare to Other Hawaii Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Hawaii, Maluhia's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.5, staff turnover (22%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Maluhia?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Maluhia Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Maluhia 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Hawaii. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Maluhia Stick Around?

Staff at Maluhia tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 22%, the facility is 24 percentage points below the Hawaii average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 15%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Maluhia Ever Fined?

Maluhia has been fined $8,278 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Hawaii average of $33,162. 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 Maluhia on Any Federal Watch List?

Maluhia 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.