LA BELLA AT CLIFTON

1190 E 2900 NORTH ROAD, CLIFTON, IL 60927 (815) 694-2306
For profit - Limited Liability company 99 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#559 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: May 2025

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

Overview

La Bella at Clifton has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #559 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, they are in the bottom half, and their county rank of #4 out of 4 suggests they are the least favorable option available locally. The facility is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 17 in 2024 to 22 in 2025. Staffing is a weakness, with a low rating of 1 out of 5 and a turnover rate of 48%, which is close to the state average. The facility has incurred $197,112 in fines, which is higher than 86% of Illinois facilities, raising red flags about ongoing compliance problems. There are also concerning incidents reported, such as a resident being seriously injured during a vehicle transport due to improper securing, resulting in multiple fractures. Another incident involved a resident being physically abused by another resident, causing emotional distress. Additionally, there were medication administration errors, highlighting significant lapses in care and safety. While the facility has some average ratings in quality measures and a few strengths, the overall picture indicates serious risks that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In Illinois
#559/665
Bottom 16%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
17 → 22 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
48% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$197,112 in fines. Higher than 83% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 15 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
53 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 17 issues
2025: 22 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 Illinois average (2.5)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 48%

Near Illinois avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $197,112

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 53 deficiencies on record

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

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to protect one (R6) resident from verbal and physical abuse out of ni...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to protect one (R6) resident from verbal and physical abuse out of nine residents reviewed for abuse in a sample list of 12 residents. R6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has the following medical diagnoses; Hemiplegia and Hemiparesis following Cerebral Infarction Affecting Left Non-Dominant Side, Sepsis, Inflammatory Disorders of Scrotum, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, Unsteadiness on Feet, Cerebral Infarction, COPD, Muscle Wasting and Atrophy, Lack of Coordination, Type 2 Diabetes, GERD, Heart Failure, Major Depressive Disorder, Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms, Tachycardia, HTN, Gout, Muscle Weakness, Malaise, Acquired Absence of Left Leg Above Knee and Nicotine Dependence. R6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R6's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 14, cognitively intact. R6's Health Note dated 6/7/25 at 8:37pm documents: Chief Complaint: General Notifications: Vitals: Temperature 97.8, Pulse 78, Blood Pressure 147/76, Respirations 18, Oxygen saturation 92% on room air. Summary: R6 reported to staff being choked by stepdaughter. No markings noted. R6 is stable. Local County Sheriff's Department Report #P2506-0012 dated 6/7/25 at 8:39pm documents on Saturday 6/7/25 at 4:59pm, V16 Deputy Sheriff's Department was dispatched to nursing home [NAME], Illinois, in regard to possible assault. V16 arrived on scene at 7:19pm and was met by V1 Administrator. V1 made V16 aware that R6 had complained about being grabbed and choked by V17 R6's Stepdaughter, during an earlier visit that day. V1 stated that shortly after their visit V6 pulled a staff member aside and explained to them what had happened. V1 said that R6 although elderly, was lucid and could speak for R6's self. V1 escorted R6 into an office where R6 could be interviewed. Upon first seeing R6, V16 noticed R6 to be an elderly man with some considerable physical disabilities. R6 left leg was amputated and R6 was wheelchair bound. R6 was able to give me R6's name and stated that R6 has been living here since December and that R6 was previously at a different nursing home for 6 months prior to that. R6 told V16 that V18 (R6's Wife) and V17 had been at the nursing home to visit R6 at around 4:00pm. R6 stated that during the visit V17 asked R6 for R6's bank card. R6 told V17 that R6 had given it to a friend to hold for safe keeping because R6 had recently lost R6's wallet. R6 said, at around 4:15pm is when V17 and V18 accompanied R6 to the parking lot to smoke a cigarette and say goodbye. R6 said, while in the parking lot, V17 again asked R6 for R6's bank card and claimed R6 owed R17 money. R6 stated that when R6 did not produce R6's bank card, V17 grabbed R6 by R6's shirt collar with one hand and grabbed R6 by the neck with the other. R6 said R6 had a hard time moving when V17 had ahold of him. V17 and V18 then exited the nursing home property in their vehicle. Facilities Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program dated March 2025 documents: Policy Statement: Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. The willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual, including caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary to attain physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or physical condition, cause physical harm, pain or mental anguish. It includes verbal abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, and mental abuse facilitated or enabled through the use of technology. Policy Interrogation and Implementation. The resident abuse, neglect and exploitation prevention program consists of a facility-wide commitment and resource to support the following objectives: 1. Protect residents from abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of property by anyone including, f. family members. On 6/24/25 at 12:13pm R6 stated, a couple of weeks ago V17 (R6 Stepdaughter) and V18 (R6's Wife) came to visit R6. R6 stated that during the visit V17 asked R6 for R6's bank card and R6 told V17 that R6 had given it to a friend to hold for safe keeping. R6 stated V17 and V18 went outside to smoke a cigarette and say goodbye. R6 stated, while outside V17 again asked R6 for R6's bank card and said that R6 owed R17 money. R6 stated that when R6 told V17 that R6 didn't have it V17 grabbed R6 by R6's shirt collar with one hand and grabbed R6 by the neck with the other. R6 stated R6 was unable to move and V17 let go and V17 and V18 left in V17's car. On 6/25/25 at 8:45am V20 (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated that on 6/7/25 at 5:50pm V19 (Activities) notified V20 that R6 informed V19 that V17 grabbed R6 by the neck. V20 stated that V20 spoke to R6 and R6 stated that V17 grabbed R6 by the collarbone and then put V17's other hand around R6's neck asking for R6's bank card. V20 stated that V20 assessed R6 for injuries and none were noted. On 6/25/24 at 9:21am V1 (Administrator) said, on 6/7/25 V1 was notified by V19 (Activities) that R6 reported to V19 that V17 R6's Stepdaughter had grabbed him by the neck and shoulder outside while they were smoking. V1 stated, V1 told V19 to inform V20 Licensed Practical Nurse about the incident so that V20 can assess R6. V1 stated that V1 was informed that V17 was no longer at the facility. V1 stated V1 immediately started an investigation. V1 stated that V1 notified the Local Sheriff's Department. V1 stated, V1 interviewed R6 who informed V1 that V17 had brought V18 to visit. V1 stated R6 further informed V1 that when V1 and V18 were leaving, V17 wanted R6's debit card, and R6 told V17 that it was safe, at which time V17 grabbed R6's shirt and necklace saying R6 owed V17 money. V1 stated that V17 let go of R6 and left the grounds by vehicle. On 6/25/25 at 10:30am V19 (Activities) stated on 6/7/25 at 5:50pm R6 told V19 that while V17 was visiting, that V17 wanted R6's bank card, and R6 told V17 that R6 didn't have it. V19 stated, R6 told V19 that while outside smoking V17 got mad and grabbed R6's shirt with one hand and grabbed R6's neck with the other wanting R6's bank card. V19 stated that R6 told V17 that R6 did not have the bank card and V17 let go of R6's neck.
May 2025 2 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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately assessed for wandering fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a Minimum Data Set (MDS) accurately assessed for wandering for one of three residents (R1) reviewed for elopement in the sample list of eight. Findings include: R1's MDS dated [DATE] documents R1 has severe cognitive impairment and did not wander during the look back period. R1's Behavior tracking dated 4/30/25-5/22/25 documents R1 exhibited wandering behavior on 5/2/25 and 5/3/25. R1's Nursing Note dated 5/1/2025 at 4:41 AM documents R1 went into another resident room, turned on the lights, and woke up the unidentified resident. On 5/22/25 at 3:25 PM V29 (MDS Coordinator) stated V14 (Social Services Director) completes the behavior section of the MDS. V29 confirmed V29 signs off on the MDS as being complete and accurate. V29 reviewed R1's MDS and behavior tracking and confirmed R1's MDS does not identify R1's wandering behavior that occurred during the seven day look back period. V29 stated V29 will have to review the number of days R1 wandered and submit a correction of R1's MDS. V29 stated when wandering is entered on the MDS, it prompts for additional questions to answer.
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a severely cognitively impaired resident (R16) d...

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 severely cognitively impaired resident (R16) did not exit the facility unnoticed (elopement), failed to implement post fall interventions (R6), and failed to thoroughly investigate a fall/injury (R7). R1 is three of four residents reviewed for elopement, and R6 and R7 are two of three residents reviewed for falls in the sample list of eight. Findings include: 1.) R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R1 has severe cognitive impairment, R1 has hallucinations/delusions, R1 does not use any mobility devices, and R1 transfers/walks with supervision or touch assistance from staff. R1's admission Social Service assessment dated [DATE]. documents the following: R1 has the physical ability to leave the facility. R1 is not sufficiently alert, oriented and coherent enabling him/her to be considered for independent outside pass privileges with an physician's order and appropriate compliance with any behavior management program/system/interventions. R1 has a history of unauthorized departure from a health care setting and/or verbalizing a serious intent to leave the facility. R1 has been hanging around facility exits and/or stairways or wandering between floors. R1 has been engaging in theme behavior such as a belief of specific responsibilities in another area such as going to work, returning home to take care of children, going to church, preparing dinner, etcetera. R1 is easily agitated, and or disoriented or shows poor judgement, for example would not be able to care for herself outside of the facility. R1 observes environmental or time of year cues, such as staff preparing to leave or putting on coats or approaching holidays, that may indicate a risk for elopement and specific triggers or warning signs to monitor that could suggest increased elopement risk. R1's Behavior Tracking dated 4/30/25-5/22/25 documents R1 was anxious, pacing and wandering on 5/2/25 and 5/3/25. R1's Care Plan with initiated date of 5/1/25 and revised date 5/8/25 documents the following: R1 admitted to the facility on [DATE] and is an elopement risk/wanderer with history of attempts to leave the facility unattended. R1 calls for her mom and asks to go visit her mom because R1 believes her mom is sick. While admitted in the hospital, R1 left to go visit her mom without anyone being aware. R1 sees people in the parking lot and believes they are R1's family or friends. On 5/7/25 R1 walked out of an emergency exit door and Social Services Director will help R1 find something on television that R1 enjoys watching. On 5/7/25 R1 exited through a fire exit during the night. Interventions dated 5/1/25 included monitor R1 for tailgating behaviors when visitors are in the facility, provide direct staff supervision when attending an out-of-facility activity, refer to social services as needed, use discreet identifier so staff are aware of R1's elopement risk, check functioning of the audible alarm system regularly and as needed, offer calling R1's family/friend for reassurance when exit seeking, and use audible monitoring system to alert staff of exit seeking behavior. R1's interventions dated 5/8/25 include one to one monitoring, room change closer to the nurse's station and away from fire exits, and talking with R1's family about sending referrals to memory care units. R1's Social Service Note dated 5/7/2025 at 11:16 AM documents R1's family was notified that R1 wandered out an exit door and R1's family was asked about R1's activity interests to help with R1's anxiety and expecting family. R1's Nursing Note dated 5/7/2025 at 6:45 PM documents the following: V22 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated V22 checked on R1 at 6:30 PM and R1 was in R1's room talking on the telephone. V19 CNA took an unidentified resident out for a smoking break between 6:30 PM and 7:00 PM. While V19 was sitting outside V19 noticed R1 was outside on the phone in the parking lot attempting to leave the facility. Staff assisted R1 back into the facility. R1 was assessed and had no signs of injury. R1's family was notified and enhanced supervision was initiated with 15 minute checks by staff. On 5/22/25 at 12:06 PM V16 CNA stated R1 is generally very confused and R1 wanders/exit seeks making it pretty rough to watch R1. V16 stated R1 got out of the facility around 6:30-7:00 PM about two weeks ago. V16 stated V16 did not observe R1 leave the facility that night. At 1:45 PM V16 stated the night R1 got out, V16 looked out a resident room window on B hall and saw R1 partway between the front parking lot and circle drive with staff. V19 stated V19 last saw R1 after dinner in R1's room around 6:00-6:30 PM. V19 stated R1 paces and wanders so it is hard telling which exit door R1 left from without having eyes on (R1) constantly. On 5/22/25 at 1:06 PM V22 CNA stated when R1 first admitted R1 did not try to leave the facility, but R1's family was here more during that time. V22 stated R1 then started looking for her family, mostly going to the front desk and front door. V22 stated there was only one time that R1 got out of the facility, V22 was working that day, and it was around 7-7:30 PM. V22 stated V22 did not see R1 leave the facility, V22 was R1's assigned CNA that night, V22 last saw R1 around 6:30 PM in R1's room and V22 thought R1's family had visited R1 earlier that day. V22 stated V22 was on B hall when V22 heard a door alarm sound. On 5/22/25 at 1:18 PM in regards to R1's elopement on 5/7/25, V19 CNA stated V19 went outside through the front door that evening, to take another resident outside for a smoke break. V19 stated there were no door alarms sounding at that time. V19 was outside for about 5-10 minutes and as V19 was returning to the facility, V19 saw R1 outside of the facility near the corner of the C Hall exit walking towards the front parking lot and road. V19 confirmed no staff was present with R1. V19 stated this incident occurred around 6:00-7:00 PM. V19 described R1 as being very confused that night and R1 did not want to go back into the facility. V19 stated V19 called V13 CNA to get help and notify the nurses. V19 stated at this time V2 Director of Nursing (DON) pulled into the parking lot, R1 was assisted back into the facility and placed on 15 minute checks. V19 stated prior to the incident V19 last saw R1 during dinner around 5:00 PM. On 5/22/25 at 2:24 PM V13 CNA stated V13 last saw R1 after dinner and received a phone call from V19 who found R1 outside of the facility. On 5/22/25 between 2:27 PM-2:34 PM V14 Social Services Director stated R1 was identified to be at risk for elopement and a departure alert device was initiated the day R1 admitted to the facility. V14 stated R1 wandered out of an exit door on 5/7/25 about 10:30-11:00 AM. V14 stated the C Hall door alarm sounded and either V2 DON or V5 Maintenance Director found R1 outside the facility. V14 stated this prompted V14 to notify R1's family to inquire about R1's activity interests, and R1's room was changed to closer to the nurse's station. V14 confirmed one to one monitoring was not implemented until after R1's elopement on the evening of 5/7/25. V14 stated R1's family had been visiting and taking R1 home which caused R1 increased confusion and anxiety. V14 stated R1 was always watching the parking lot and V14 knew then that R1 needed a memory care unit. On 5/22/25 at 2:06 PM V2 DON stated V14 is responsible for assessing elopement risk and R1's family reported R1 had a history of wandering. V2 stated I don't think we (the staff) were aware of how bad her (R1's) wandering actually was. V2 stated the departure alert bracelet was implemented initially and then we changed R1's room away from the exit doors, closer to the nurses station to be within line of sight from the nurse's station. V2 stated we implemented a one to one sitter after R1's elopement incident on the evening of 5/7/25. V2 stated on 5/7/25 around 6:40 PM V2 pulled into the parking lot and the CNAs were already outside with R1 at that time. V2 stated V19 had been outside with another resident for a smoke break and V19 saw R1 as V19 was going to return back into the facility. V2 stated R1 was found in the vicinity of the outdoor benches located near the C Hall exit after the D Hall door alarm sounded, which alerted staff. V2 stated R1 was last observed at 6:30 PM in R1's room by V22, R1's assigned CNA that night. V2 stated that was the last time staff saw R1 prior to being found outside of the facility by V19. 2.) R6's Nursing Note dated 5/13/2025 at 6:30 PM documents R6 was observed standing at the desk and then fell to the floor hitting R6's head. R6's eyes rolled back and R6 had body twitching lasting approximately three seconds. R6 vomited twice. R6's pulse was 158 beats per minute and blood pressure was 102/74 millimeters of mercury. R6 was transferred to the local hospital. R6's Care Plan dated as revised on 5/14/25 documents the following: R6 is at high risk for falls. On 4/7/25 R6 was found on the floor near the nurse's station and the root cause was R6 became dizzy and lost balance. On 3/1/25 R6 fell at the nurse's station and the root cause was hypotension. On 1/6/25 R6 had a staff assisted fall and the root cause was hypotension, vomiting and diaphoresis (clammy/sweaty). On 12/7/24 R6 had an unwitnessed fall in the dining room and root cause was R6 became dizzy and lost balance. Neurology referral is listed as an intervention dated 5/13/25. As of 5/22/25 there was no documentation in R6's medical record that a neurology appointment had been scheduled for R6. On 5/22/25 at 5:26 PM V9 Licensed Practical Nurse stated V9 was talking with R6 who was standing at the desk prior to R6's fall. V9 stated R6 seemed just fine prior to the fall, R6 then fell suddenly to the floor and vomited. V9 stated R6 has a history of these spells that come on suddenly and without warning. V9 stated V2 DON said cardiology and neurology consults were ordered. On 5/22/25 at 4:57 PM V2 DON stated R6 has a history of these spells and has been sent to the hospital following each of these spells/falls. V2 confirmed the facility had not yet attempted to schedule a neurology consult appointment for R6. V2 confirmed cardiology and neurology consults were the post fall interventions for R6's 5/13/25 fall. 3.) R7's MDS dated [DATE] documents R7 has severe cognitive impairment, uses a walker for mobility, and uses partial/moderate assistance from staff for toileting, transfers, and walking over 150 feet, and requires supervision or touch assistance with walking up to 50 feet. R7's Nursing Note dated 5/12/2025 at 2:44 PM documents R7 had a skin tear to the left elbow and swelling. R7 reported to V30 Business Office Manager that R7 fell out of bed. An x-ray of the left elbow was ordered due to swelling. R7's Practitioner Note dated 5/12/25 at 2:17 PM documents R7 reported left elbow pain that started today. R7 stated R7 fell out of bed and landed on his elbow and R7 was unsure if R7 fell today or yesterday. R7 was unable to give additional information due to dementia with intermittent confusion. R7 reported severe pain with palpation and redness was noted to left elbow. R7's Practitioner Note dated 5/14/25 at 1:12 PM documents R7's left elbow x-ray was completedon 5/12/25 due to fall with new swelling and pain. R7's x-ray showed soft tissue swelling, but no fracture. R7's Care Plan dated as revised 5/15/25 documents R7 is at high risk for falls related to confusion and deconditioning. This care plan includes an intervention dated 4/27/25 for prompted toileting program and intervention dated 5/12/25 for a scoop mattress to help R7 identify safety boundaries of the bed. On 5/22/25 the facility's investigative file of R7's 5/12/25 fall, provided by V2 DON, was reviewed and the file did not include any staff interviews or statements regarding R7's fall/left elbow injury. On 5/22/25 at 4:27 PM R7 was lying in bed and R7 had redness and mild swelling of the left elbow. R7 stated R7 fell out of bed recently. R7 was unable to give any additional information regarding this fall. On 5/22/25 at 4:57 PM V2 stated swelling was noticed on R7's elbow, R7 was asked what happened and R7 stated R7 had fallen out of bed. V2 stated R7 walks independently with a four wheeled walker and it would be possible for R7 to self transfer off of the floor if he had fallen. V2 stated V2 spoke with staff regarding R7's fall/injury, but V2 does not have documentation of this. V2 stated the day prior R7 did not have any elbow swelling and V2 was unable to identify when or if R7 had actually fallen. V2 confirmed R7 had a prior post fall intervention for prompted toileting and there was no documentation of when R7 was toileted the day of R7's reported fall and left elbow injury. The facility's Fall Risk Assessment policy dated March 2018 documents staff will evaluate for functional and psychological factors that may increase a resident's fall risk, staff will identify environmental factors that may contribute to falling., and the staff and physician will collaborate to identify and address modifiable fall risk factors and interventions to try to minimize the consequences.
May 2025 2 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan to include residents smoking status. This failure affects one (R16) of seven residents reviewed for accidents in the sample list of 33. Findings include: The facility Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered Policy (reviewed December 2024) documents the following: A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The comprehensive, person-centered care plan: a. includes measurable objectives and timeframes; b. describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Care plan interventions are chosen only after data gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes, and relevant clinical decision making. When possible, interventions address the underlying source(s) of the problem area(s), not just symptoms or triggers. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change. The interdisciplinary team reviews and updates the care plan: a. when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition. R16's Face Sheet dated 5/6/25 documents R16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The facility Smoker List (undated) documents R16 is an independent smoker who requires supervision. R16's photo sheet that accompanies the Smoker List further documents R16 must wear a smoking apron. On 5/5/25 at 12:58pm, R16 observed out front of the facility smoking a cigarette and supervised by staff. On 5/6/25 at 1:15pm, R16 observed out front of the facility smoking a cigarette and supervised by staff. R16's Safe Smoking Evaluations dated 3/26/25 and 4/8/25 documents R16 is a safe smoker, requires no assistance to smoke, and develop care plan. R16's Care Plan dated 5/5/25 does not document R16 as being a smoker. On 5/6/25 at 11:18am, V1 Administrator stated R16 admitted to the facility as a non-smoker and began smoking a month later. V1 stated R16's Care Plan was updated today (5/6/25) to include smoking and interventions.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure has the potential to affect all 74 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure has the potential to affect all 74 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 5/5/25 and 5/6/25 V7 Dietary Manager was actively supervising dietary operations in the facility kitchen during resident meal preparations. On 5/6/25 at 8:46am V7 Dietary Manager stated that V7 is the full-time manager of the facility food service and not being a clinically qualified Certified Dietary Manager or having the equivalent training. On 5/6/25 at 9:00am V1 Administrator confirmed that V7 Dietary Manager is the full-time Dietary Manager, and is not Certified as a Dietary Manager or have the equivalent training The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report dated 5/4/25 documents 74 residents reside in the facility. Facility Assessment Tool dated 4/2025 documents: Facility Resources Needed to Provide Competent Support and Care for our resident Population Every Day and During Emergencies. Position Dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. Full Time Food Service Manager.
Apr 2025 2 deficiencies
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the right to be free from physical abuse for th...

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 right to be free from physical abuse for three (R1, R2, &R3) of four residents reviewed for abuse from a sample list of four residents. Findings include: 1.) The facility provided incident report dated 4/19/25 documents that an altercation between R1 and R3 occurred in the dining room at approximately 6:00 AM. V14, Dietary Aid's, written statement dated 4/19/25 documents that V14, Dietary Aid, heard R1 and R3 screaming in the dining room at approximately 6:00 AM. R3 had blocked R1 in the dining room and was cursing at her. R1 complained that R3 kicked her. R1's Minimum Data Set, dated dated 3/26/25 documents that R1 is cognitively intact. On 4/21/25 at 11:45 AM, R1 stated that R3 bothers her and that R3 hit her left knee a few days ago and caused her pain. On 4/21/25 at 12:00 PM, V3, R1's Family Member, stated that the facility notified her on 4/19/25 that R3 had hit R1's leg and that R1 confirmed that R3 had kicked her in the knee. 2.) The facility provided incident report dated 4/19/25 documents that at approximately 6:30 PM, R2 and R3 approached the exit door on the B hall and R3 pushed R2, resulting in a right knee skin tear. V7, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated that he observed R3 raise both hands, place them on R2's back and pushed R2 to the ground. R2's minimum data set documents that R2 is severely cognitively impaired. R2's progress notes dated 4/19/25 documents that V7, CNA, observed R3 push R2 to the floor. On 4/23/25 at 11:01 AM, V12( Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) removed R2's right knee dressing where a quarter-sized skin tear was observed. R2 winced in pain as V12 (LPN) moved R2's over the wound and above the knee. On 4/23/25 at 11:05 AM, R2 stated as the bandage was removed, That's my knee that hurts. 3.) R3's care plan dated 2/7/25 documents that R3 has the potential to be physically aggressive toward other residents. R3's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R3 as severely cognitively impaired. R3's progress notes dated 2/9/25 documents that R3 has been very aggressive toward residents and staff with attempts at re-direction unsuccessful. R3's progress notes dated 4/19/25 documents that R3 was removed from the dining room at 6:30 AM while screaming. R3's progress notes dated 4/19/25 documents at 6:30PM that R3 was sitting in her wheel chair and that she and R2 were nearing the exit door on hall B when V4 (CNA) observed R3 push R2 with both hands causing R2 to fall. R3's 4/14/25 psychiatry note documents an increase in aggressive behavior. On 4/21/25 at 1:40 PM, V6 (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) stated that R3 is aggressive toward both residents and staff. I was the evening nurse on 4/19/25 and after R3 pushed R2 onto the floor, we were instructed to send R3 to the emergency room because there had been two incidents with R3 in one day. On 4/21/25 at 1:57 PM, V9 (CNA) stated that when she came into work on 4/19/25, R1 and R3 were already arguing. R3 is hard to deal with. She uses a wheel chair and sometimes pushes it while walking. She curses at both residents and staff and she can also be physically aggressive. R3's local hospital notes dated 4/19/25 document that R3 was evaluated by the emergency room due to aggressive behavior with residents and staff. Out patient psychiatry was recommended. On 4/23/25 at 9:15 AM, V1 Administrator stated that R3 is transferring to a memory care unit to better meet her needs.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement effective interventions to prevent abuse for three (R1, R2...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to implement effective interventions to prevent abuse for three (R1, R2, R3) of four residents reviewed for abuse from a total sample list of four residents. Findings include: The facility provided Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation - Reporting and Investigating Policy dated September 2022 documents that upon receiving any allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property or injury of unknown source, the administrator is responsible for determining what actions are needed for the protection of residents. 1.) The facility provided incident report dated 4/19/25 documents that an altercation between R1 and R3 occurred in the dining room at approximately 6:00 AM. V14 Dietary Aid's written statement dated 4/19/25 documents that V14 Dietary Aid heard R1 and R3 screaming in the dining room at approximately 6:00 AM. R3 had blocked R1 in the dining room and was cursing at her. R1 complained that R3 kicked her. On 4/21/25 at 11:45 AM, R1 stated that R3 bothers her and that R3 hit her left knee a few days ago and caused her pain. R1's Minimum Data Set, dated dated 3/26/25 documents that R1 is cognitively intact. On 4/21/25 at 12:00 PM, V3, R1's Family Member, stated that the facility notified her on 4/19/25 that R3 had hit R1's leg and that R1 confirmed that R3 had kicked her in the knee. 2.) The facility provided incident report dated 4/19/25 documents that at approximately 6:30 PM, R2 and R3 approached the exit door on the B hall and R3 pushed R2, resulting in a right knee skin tear. V7, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), stated that he observed R3 raise both hands, place them on R2's back and pushed R2 to the ground. R2's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents that R2 is severely cognitively impaired. R2's progress notes dated 4/19/25 documents that V7, CNA, observed R3 push R2 to the floor. On 4/21/25 at 1:40 PM, V6 (Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)) stated that R3 is aggressive toward both residents and staff. I was the evening nurse on 4/19/25 and after R3 pushed R2 onto the floor, we were instructed to send R3 to the emergency room because there had been two incidents with R3 and other residents in one day. On 4/21/25 at 1:57 PM, V9 (CNA) stated that when she came into work on 4/19/25, R1 and R3 were already arguing. R3 is hard to deal with. She uses a wheel chair and sometimes pushes it while walking. She curses at both residents and staff and she can also be physically aggressive. 3.) R3's care plan dated 2/7/25 documents that R3 has the potential to be physically aggressive toward other residents with the documented plan for intervention to intervene as needed to protect the rights and safety of others. R3's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R3 as severely cognitively impaired. R3's progress notes dated 2/9/25 documents that R3 has been very aggressive toward residents and staff with attempts at re-direction unsuccessful. R3's progress notes dated 4/19/25 documents that R3 was removed from the dining room at 6:30 AM while screaming. R3's local hospital notes dated 4/19/25 document that R3 was evaluated by the emergency room due to aggressive behavior with residents and staff. Out-patient psychiatry was recommended. R3's progress notes dated 4/19/25 documents at 6:30 PM that R3 was sitting in her wheel chair and that she and R2 were nearing the exit door on hall B when V4 (CNA) observed R3 push R2 with both hands causing R2 to fall. R3's behavior monitoring and interventions report dated 4/17/25, 4/19/25, 4/20/25, and 4/22/25 document physical and verbal abuse toward others with interventional success on only one date, 4/17/25. On 4/23/25 at 9:15 AM, V1 stated that interventions such as moving R3 to a different hall from R1 and 1:1 observations should have been attempted to decrease the incidences of resident altercations.
Apr 2025 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to protect a resident's (R1) right to be free from physic...

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 protect a resident's (R1) right to be free from physical abuse by another resident (R2). This failure affects two (R1, R2) of seven residents reviewed for abuse in the sample list of 14. This failure resulted in R2 abusing R1, causing R1 to experience psychosocial harm as evidenced by crying and fear of R2. Findings include: On 4/14/25 at 8:14 AM R1 was in a wheelchair and slowly propelled herself into her room. R1 stated R1 wishes another resident, R2, wasn't here in the facility. R1 stated a couple weeks ago around 5:00 PM, while in the main dining room, R2 hit R1 in the back of the neck. R1 demonstrated this with an open palm. R1 stated this caused R1 to have neck pain for a few days after the incident. R1 stated this incident was witnessed by V4 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). R1 stated R1 is afraid of R2 and every time R2 goes past R1, R1 gets all shaky and nervous. R1 stated R2 has Alzheimer's and R1's mother was the same way. R1 stated R1's mother used to spank R1, pinch R1, and pull R1's hair whenever R1 had an incontinence accident; and this incident brings back those memories. On 4/14/25 at 11:45 AM R2 was walking by herself, pushing a wheelchair out of the activity room. At 11:53 AM R2 was interviewed regarding the incident with R1. R2 did not recall the incident and was confused. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R1 is cognitively intact, requires substantial/maximal assistance from staff for transfers, and does not walk. R2's admission MDS dated [DATE] documents R2 has severe cognitive impairment, physical/verbal/other behaviors noted one to three days during the review period, and these behaviors put others at risk for injury and significantly disrupts care or living environment. R2's Nursing Note dated 3/29/2025 at 5:30 PM documents R2 was near the nurse's station yelling shut the F**** (expletive) up, motherf****** (expletive) and banging on the walls. Attempts at redirection were unsuccessful. R2's Behavior Monitoring and Intervention Report dated 3/17/25-4/15/25 documents R2 had aggression towards others on 10 days. The facility's Daily Nursing Schedules dated 4/1/25 and 4/2/25 document V4 CNA worked the evening shift and was assigned to monitor the main dining room. On 4/14/25 at 9:14 AM V4 CNA stated on an unidentified date within the last month, around 4:30-5:00 PM, R1 and R2 were in the dining room. V4 stated R2 wheeled past R1 in her wheelchair, R2's wheelchair got stuck and couldn't get past R1. V4 stated R2 got upset with R1 and smacked R1 in the back of the neck with R2's hand. V4 stated V4 ran over there as fast as she could to get R1 out of the way. V4 confirmed V4 considered R2's actions as abuse. V4 stated R2 has hit staff during cares, has outburst and swats at people as they walk past her. V4 stated R1 cries now every time R1 sees R2 and tells the staff that R2 had hit R1. On 4/14/25 at 9:28 AM V18 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated it was reported to V18 that R1 does not like R2 around and freaks out. V18 stated V18 did not witness but was told that R2 had hit R1 on the back of the neck in the dining room, and this was reported by an unidentified CNA on an unidentified date. V18 stated when R1 has an experience, R1 doesn't forget it. On 4/14/25 at 9:50 AM V21 Activity Director stated on the morning of 4/4/25, R1 told V21 that R2 had smacked R1 in the back of the head. V21 stated V21 had been off work that week and returned on 4/4/25 and the incident happened sometime that week. V21 stated R1 said R1 did not want to be around R2, and inferred that R1 was afraid of R2. V21 described R1 as being sad when R1 reported this. V21 stated R1's mother had dementia and would spank R1 when R1 was incontinent and R1 is very fearful due to her history with her mother and not having the ability to run away from others. V21 stated R1 does not have any memory problems. On 4/14/25 at 12:44 PM V8 LPN stated there was a day within the last couple weeks that R1 would not go into the activity room because of R2. V8 stated R1 was crying but V8 could not understand R1 or why R1 was upset with R2. V8 stated V8 took R1 to her room to calm down. The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program dated as revised March 2025, documents residents have the right to be free from abuse and abuse includes the willful infliction of injury with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely report an allegation of resident to resident physical abuse t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely report an allegation of resident to resident physical abuse to the administrator and to the state survey agency for two (R1, R2) of seven residents reviewed for abuse in the sample list of 14. Findings include: On 4/14/25 at 8:14 AM R1 stated a couple weeks ago around 5:00 PM, while in the main dining room, R2 hit R1 in the back of the neck. R1 demonstrated this with an open palm. R1 stated this caused R1 to have neck pain for a few days after the incident. R1 stated this incident was witnessed by V4 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). R1 stated R1 is afraid of R2 and every time R2 goes past R1, R1 gets all shaky and nervous. R1 stated R2 has Alzheimer's and R1's mother was the same way. R1 stated R1's mother used to spank R1, pinch R1, and pull R1's hair whenever R1 had an incontinence accident; and this incident brings back those memories. R1 stated R1 reported this incident to V1 Administrator and V7 Former Director of Nursing (DON) the next morning. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R1 is cognitively intact, requires substantial/maximal assistance from staff for transfers, and does not walk. R2's admission MDS dated [DATE] documents R2 has severe cognitive impairment, physical/verbal/other behaviors noted one to three days during the review period, and these behaviors put others at risk for injury and significantly disrupts care or living environment. R2's Nursing Note dated 3/29/2025 at 5:30 PM documents R2 was near the nurse's station yelling shut the F**** (expletive) up, motherf****** (expletive) and banging on the walls. Attempts at redirection were unsuccessful. R2's Behavior Monitoring and Intervention Report dated 3/17/25-4/15/25 documents R2 had aggression towards others on 10 days. V22 Social Service Director's handwritten note dated 4/7/25 documents R1 came to V22's office and reported that R1 did not like R2 because R2 hit R1's head. R1 reported that R1 and R2 were in the dining room eating and R2 reached across and their heads bumped each other. V1 Administrator's written statement dated 4/7/25 documents V22 reported that R1, who was tearful, wanted to speak with V1. R1 reported that the night prior, while in the dining room, R2 reached over R1 and bumped R1 on the front of her head, and R1 did not think R2's actions were done on purpose. R1 told V1 that R1 did not want R2 in the facility anymore. On 4/14/25 the facility's abuse investigative files between December 2024 and April 2025, provided by V1 Administrator, were reviewed. There was no abuse investigative file for any altercations between R1 and R2, and no documentation that the facility reported this altercation to the state survey agency. There is no documentation of this incident in R1's or R2's medical records. On 4/14/25 at 9:14 AM V4 CNA stated on an unidentified date within the last month, around 4:30-5:00 PM, R1 and R2 were in the dining room, R2 wheeled past R1 in her wheelchair, R2's wheelchair got stuck and R2 couldn't get past R1. V4 stated R2 got upset with R1 and smacked R1 in the back of the neck with R2's hand. V4 stated V4 ran over there as fast as she could to get R1 out of the way. V4 confirmed V4 considered R2's actions as abuse. V4 stated V4 reported this incident to V18 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) at an unidentified time on the date of the incident. V4 stated V1 Administrator is the facility's abuse coordinator but V4 did not report this incident to V1. V4 stated V4 followed the chain of command by reporting to the nurse, V18. On 4/14/25 at 9:28 AM V18 LPN stated staff have mentioned that R1 does not like R2 around and freaks out. V18 stated V18 did not witness but was told by an unidentified CNA on an unidentified date that R2 hit R1 on the back of the neck while in the dining room. V18 stated V18 did not report this to V1 since management staff/administration was already aware of the incident. On 4/14/25 at 9:50 AM V21 Activity Director stated on the morning of 4/4/25, R1 told V21 that R2 had smacked R1 in the back of the head. V21 had been off work that week and returned on 4/4/25, and the incident happened sometime that week. V21 stated R1 said R1 did not want to be around R2, and V21 inferred that R1 was afraid of R2. V21 stated administration/management was already aware of R1's allegation because that morning V11 Maintenance Director told V21 it was discussed in the morning meeting that R1 and R2 had to be kept separated. On 4/14/25 at 11:03 AM V11 Maintenance Director stated it was discussed in morning meeting within the last two weeks to keep R1 and R2 away from each other. V11 stated he didn't know any other details. On 4/14/25 at 12:54 PM V7 Former DON stated on an unidentified date an unidentified staff person reported that R2 had touched R1, but V7 was unable to recall any additional details. V7 stated it happened during the evening when management staff weren't at the facility and V7 was unsure if V1 Administrator was aware of the incident. On 4/14/25 at 2:08 PM V10 (R1's Family) stated on 4/11/25 R1 was in the hallway crying and V10 took R1 to her room. V10 stated R1 told V10 that another resident, R2, hit R1 in the back of the neck; and V10 reported this to V7 Former Director of Nursing. On 4/14/25 at 9:31 AM V1 Administrator stated about two weeks ago it was reported that R2 had touched R1, V1 spoke to R1 and determined it was an accidental bumping of heads as R2 leaned across the back of R1's wheelchair. V1 described R1 as being emotional when V1 spoke with her and was unsure that contact was even made. V1 stated it wasn't abuse since it wasn't intentional and V1 did not report this incident to the state survey agency. V1 stated staff are suppose to report abuse immediately to V1 and no staff had reported that R2 smacked R1 on the back of the neck. V1 stated that would have been reported as an abuse allegation. The facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program dated as revised March 2025, documents residents have the right to be free from abuse and abuse includes the willful infliction of injury with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. This policy documents the facility will identify and investigate all possible incidents of abuse and report abuse allegations within the federally required time frames.
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** 2.) R2's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R2 has severe cognitive impairment, requires staff assistance with a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R2's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R2 has severe cognitive impairment, requires staff assistance with activities of daily living, has physical/verbal/other behaviors noted one to three days during the review period, and these behaviors put others at risk for injury and significantly disrupts care or living environment. R2's active Care Plan documents R2 is at risk for falls due to impaired cognition, safety awareness, and balance. This care plan does not document a post fall intervention for R2's fall on 3/26/25. R2's Fall Report dated 2/17/25 at 9:00 PM documents R2 was found on the floor next to her bed. This fall is not documented in R2's medical record. R2's Fall Report dated 3/26/25 at 8:30 PM documents a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) attempted to transfer R2 into a wheelchair to transport to the restroom in the hallway, R2 refused care, R2 hit the CNA, R2 lost her balance and fell hitting her head on the handrail. R2 did not have any injuries.This fall is not documented in R2's medical record. The investigative file for this fall, provided by V2 Director of Nursing (DON) does not document which CNA was involved in R2's fall, or that this fall was investigated to determine a root cause and implement a post fall intervention. On 4/15/25 at 6:15 AM V12 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated staff had just toileted and assisted R2 to bed prior to R2's fall on 2/17/25. V12 stated V12 notified R2's family and physician. V12 confirmed V12 did not document this fall in R2's medical record. On 4/15/25 at 9:37 AM V24 LPN stated R2 was in the hallway with V4 CNA when R2 fell on 3/26/25. V24 stated V24 did not witness the fall and described R2 as being at her baseline, cursing and combative with staff when attempting to redirect or provide cares. V24 stated R2 just gets more agitated so we try to reapproach R2 later. V24 stated staff had not mentioned if R2 was resistive or agitated prior to R2's fall. On 4/15/25 at 10:13 AM V4 confirmed V4 was the CNA assisting R2 during the fall on 3/26/25. V4 stated V4 was pulling R2 in a wheelchair backwards down the hallway, R2 grabbed the handrail and flipped out of the chair. V4 stated V4 pulled R2's wheelchair backwards due to R2 resisting and planting her feet, but R2 had to be changed because it was the end of shift. V4 was asked about any alternative approaches or interventions used during this incident. V4 stated R2 is always combative and resistant to toileting. V4 stated staff usually ask if R2 has to use the bathroom, but due to R2's dementia R2 has difficulty understanding words. V4 denied that any visual cues or aides have been trialed for R2. V4 stated R2 seems to do well for V25 CNA, but V4 did not ask for V25 to assist with R2's toileting cares that day. V4 confirmed no alternative approaches were used. On 4/15/25 at 6:33 AM V2 DON stated R2 fell on 3/26/25 and a post fall intervention had not been developed/implemented. At 6:58 AM V2 stated the initial fall note should be entered in the risk management as a progress note that transfers into the resident's chart. V2 verified there is no initial note documenting the details of R2's fall on 3/26/25. V2 stated V2 was unsure which CNA was assisting R2 during the fall on 3/26/25. At 10:40 AM V2 confirmed R2's fall on 2/17/25 was not documented in R2's medical record and confirmed R2's 3/26/25 fall was not investigated. V2 stated V7 Former DON was responsible for the fall investigations at that time. Based on Observation, Interview and Record Review the facility failed to properly perform a mechanical lift transfer resulting in a fall, failed to document falls in the medical record, investigate falls and develop/implement post fall interventions for two (R2,R3) of three residents reviewed for falls in a sample list of 14. Findings Include: Facility Policy dated August 2024 documents that two nursing assistants are needed to safely move a resident with a full mechanical lift. This policy also documents that the full mechanical lift may be used for tasks that require, transferring a resident from bed to the chair, and lateral transfers. 1.) R3 Minimum Data Set from 2/12/2025 documents R3 has severe cognitive impairment with substantial/maximum assistance. R3's Nursing Note dated 4/1/25 at 8:38 AM R3 had a witnessed fall. R3 was on the floor by his chair with his legs extended out in front of him and the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated R3 unclamped the sling from the lift and was then lowered to floor without hitting his head. On 4/14/2025 at 9:25AM, R3 was sitting in a laid-back wheelchair in his room with his eyes closed. At 12:20PM on 4/14/2025. V6 CNA stated that while transferring R3 to his lying back wheelchair by mechanical lift, R3 grabbed the sling that hooked on the mechanical lift and detached it from the mechanical lift. V6 stated that when she noticed R3 was unhooked she lowered R3 to his reclining chair which was leaning forward and R3 slid out of the wheelchair. V6 stated that V6 transferred R3 by herself. V6 stated , I should have asked for help, but everyone was too busy. On 4/15/2025 at 1:30PM V5 CNA and V9 CNA transferred R3 from the reclining wheelchair into bed using a full mechanical lift. R3 had no behaviors and wasn't reaching for the straps to unlock the sling from the mechanical lift. V9 stated V9 switched out R3's chair on 4/2/2025 due to the wheelchair being broken and it was leaning forward in an upright position, and would not recline. On 4/15/2025 at 3:25PM V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that all CNA's are required to complete transfer training upon hiring. V2 also stated that two-person assist is required with all mechanical lifts when transferring.
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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to identify triggers, develop a care plan and implement in...

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 identify triggers, develop a care plan and implement interventions and services to address a past history of abuse (R1). This failure affects three (R1, R2, R14) of seven residents reviewed for abuse in the sample list of 14. Findings include: The facility's Trauma-Informed and Culturally Competent Care policy dated August 2022 documents traumatic events which may affect residents during their lifetime includes physical and emotional abuse, and trauma survivors who transition to institutional living may experience triggers and re-traumatization. Triggers are individualized, but may include a lack of privacy or confinements in a crowded or small space, exposure to loud noises, exposure to bright or flashing lights, certain sights or objects, or sounds, smells and physical touch. This policy documents to use screening and assessment tools in collaboration with the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement Committee and use community organizations for services, referrals, training and information. Screen residents for exposure to traumatic events, including history of trauma type, severity, and duration; trauma-related or dissociative symptoms; behavioral concerns; protective factors; resources available. This policy documents this screening will identify the need for further assessment and care, assess for symptoms related to trauma, identify triggers, and utilize licensed and trained clinicians to conduct trauma assessments. This policy documents to develop individualized care plans that address past trauma in collaboration with the resident and their family, identify and decrease exposure to triggers that may re-traumatize the resident, develop a plan that embraces strengths and further learning rather than dictating a plan to change the behavior, and avoid a one-size-fits-all approach. On 4/14/25 at 8:14 AM R1 was in a wheelchair and slowly propelled herself into her room. R1 stated R1 wishes another resident, R2, wasn't here in the facility. R1 stated a couple weeks ago around 5:00 PM, while in the main dining room, R2 hit R1 in the back of the neck. R1 demonstrated this with an open palm. R1 stated this caused R1 to have neck pain for a few days after the incident. R1 stated this incident was witnessed by V4 Certified Nursing Assistant. (CNA) R1 stated R1 is afraid of R2 and every time R2 goes past R1, R1 gets all shaky and nervous. R1 stated R2 has Alzheimer's and R1's mother was the same way. R1 stated R1's mother used to spank R1, pinch R1, and pull R1's hair whenever R1 had an incontinence accident; and this incident brought back those memories. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R1 is cognitively intact, requires substantial/maximal assistance from staff for transfers, and does not walk. R1's active care plan documents R1 has episodes of anxiety, anger poor impulse control, crying, and child like tantrums. This care plan documents R1 is at high risk for abuse/ and or neglect due to ineffective coping skills related to cognitive deficit and decreased impulse control. Interventions include to assess for support systems and additional resources, discuss alternative coping strategies, provide a safe environment, provide emotional support, evaluate response to interventions, trauma informed support as needed, and refer for psychiatric evaluation. R1's care plan includes an intervention dated 9/5/24 to keep R1 away from other residents that seem to trigger R1's behaviors. R1's care plan does not include R1's history of abuse, associated triggers related to this past abuse, or interventions. R1's care plan documents R1's diagnoses include paraplegia, anxiety disorder, cerebral palsy, genetic related intellectual disability, and major depressive disorder with sever psychotic symptoms. R1's Social Service Comprehensive assessment dated [DATE] documents R1 has a history of abuse and or neglect, and exposure to trauma. This assessment does not document any additional details regarding this abuse/trauma. R1's Psychiatry Note dated 4/7/25, recorded by V23 Nurse Practitioner, documents R1 has a history of depression and anxiety, R1 reported her mood as good, and the staff reported no maladaptive behaviors. This note documents under family history, R1 did not know if there was any family history or psychiatric issues in her family, R1's chart did not indicate family history and there was no family at the bedside. R1's Nursing Note dated 4/9/2025 at 9:41 AM documents during breakfast R1 was getting agitated about another resident (R14) being in the wrong dining room. The nurse explained that R14 was not bothering anyone and was sitting quietly and R14 would be removed from the dining room later. The nurse left the dining room and later heard R1 yelling and screaming in the hallway about other residents. The nurse attempted to calm R1 and R1 began slapping and ripping the nurse's stethoscope off of her neck. The nurse calmly asked R1 to calm down and told R1 that R1 would have to go to her room until R1 was calm. R1 then began to cry and then calmed down. R1 was then taken to the dining room and explained that this behavior couldn't continue, R1 would need to remain calm if R1 wanted to be in the dining room. R1's Nursing Note dated 4/14/25 at 10:34 AM documents a psychosocial assessment for a resident to resident physical altercation and that R1 had new onset of increased behaviors including crying, tearfulness, fearfulness, anxiety, agitation, yelling and anger. This note documents R1 has a history of physical/emotional trauma and triggers include change in routine and living arrangement. Interventions include one to one with staff. On 4/14/25 at 9:14 AM V4 CNA confirmed R1's and R2's physical altercation as described by R1. V4 stated R1 cries now every time R1 sees R2 and tells the staff that R2 had hit R1. On 4/14/25 at 9:28 AM V18 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated when R1 has an experience, R1 doesn't forget it. V18 stated R2 is very loud/vocal and cusses, which makes R1 anxious. On 4/14/25 at 9:50 AM V21 Activity Director stated on the morning of 4/4/25, R1 told V21 that R2 had smacked R1 in the back of the head. V21 stated R1 said R1 did not want to be around R2, and V21 inferred that R1 was afraid of R2. V21 stated R1's mother had dementia and would spank R1 when R1 was incontinent and R1 is very fearful due to her history with her mother and not having the ability to run away from others. V21 stated V21 has told the CNAs that it's very important to be mindful of their approach with R1, especially with R1's incontinence, due to R1's history of abuse. On 4/14/25 at 11:04 AM V22 Social Services Director stated V22 started working in the facility in January 2025 and per unidentified coworkers, R1 likes to fixate on individual residents. V22 stated V22 thinks R1's mother treated R1 like a child, making R1 feel belittled, and R1 does not like when staff bring up her mother. V22 stated this would be care planned, as well as a history of abuse and included in the social services comprehensive assessment. V22 stated V3 Care Plan Coordinator is responsible for updating this on the care plan. V22 stated R1 would know about R1's history of abuse. On 4/14/25 at 11:33 AM V3 stated R1's mother was verbally abusive when R1 had accidents, and was unsure about physical abuse. V3 stated R1's family has discussed this during care plan meetings and V22 is responsible for obtaining this information. V3 confirmed this information should be care planned. V3 stated V3 did not see anything specific to R1's past history of abuse in R1's care plan. At 12:13 PM V3 stated R1's care plan includes an intervention to keep triggering residents away from R1, but no other new interventions have been implemented. V2 Director of Nursing stated we just try to keep the triggering residents away from R1. On 4/14/25 at 12:44 PM V8 LPN stated there was a day within the last couple weeks that R1 would not go into the activity room because of R2. V8 stated R1 was crying but V8 could not understand R1 or why R1 was upset with R2. V8 stated V8 took R1 to her room to calm down. V8 confirmed V8 documented R1's 4/9/25 nursing note. V8 stated R14 was the other resident mentioned in the note. V8 stated R1 has a history of being upset by other residents, just overall not happy with them. V8 stated R1 gets upset and cries and we take R1 to her room to calm down. On 4/14/25 at 2:08 PM V10, R1's Family, stated R1's/V10's mother spoke harshly to R1. V10 stated R1 later reported that their mother spanked R1 when R1 was incontinent and was rough with R1. V10 stated family started staying with R1 for three months until nursing home placement was found. V10 stated when R1 admitted to the facility several years ago, V10 spoke with the staff about R1's abuse and R1's fear of how staff would react when R1 had incontinence/accidents. On 4/15/25 at 10:33 AM V5 CNA stated R1 has a learning disability and the staff don't know how to care for R1. V5 stated V5 was unsure if R1 has a history of family abuse, R1 has never mentioned that to V5. On 4/15/25 at 11:08 AM V23 Nurse Practitioner stated R1 has been receiving psychiatry services through V23's company since at least 2022 and V23 has been seeing R1 since January 2025. V23 stated R1 has mild intellectual disability, V23 reviewed R1's chart and stated V23 did not see anything documented about a past history of abuse or trauma or a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). V23 stated PTSD would be past trauma or physical/verbal aggression that causes the resident to have anxiety and/or paranoia. PTSD could cause R1 to be reminded of her mother by other residents. V23 stated no one had reported that R1 had a history of abuse by her mother and V23 looks at the resident's medical record to determine past history and staff should also report this. V23 stated R1 had never brought up this history during V23's visits. V23 stated if V23 was made aware, V23 would have recommended Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) psychotherapy sessions, possible medication adjustments, and try to identify R1's triggers. V23 stated it would be helpful for the facility to identify R1's triggers related to R1's past history of abuse. V23 stated V23 will follow up and evaluate R1 for a diagnosis of PTSD. On 4/15/25 at 11:15 AM V2 stated R1 has not had psychotherapy sessions within the last six months. V2 stated the facility recently has a new LCSW providing these services, but R1 has not yet been seen.
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 F0744 (Tag F0744)

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 care plan, identify targeted behaviors and develop/impl...

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 care plan, identify targeted behaviors and develop/implement personalized interventions to address dementia related behaviors (R2). This failure affects two (R1, R2) of seven residents reviewed for abuse in the sample list of 14. Findings include: The facility's Dementia - Clinical Protocol dated November 2018 documents residents with dementia will have a resident-centered care plan to maximize remaining function and quality of life and the resident's needs will be communicated to direct care staff through care plan conferences, shift communication, and through written documentation such as nursing notes. This policy documents staff should report progressive or persistent worsening of symptoms and increased staff support to the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), the physician will order appropriate interventions to address significant behavioral or psychiatric symptoms, and the IDT will adjust interventions on the care plan depending on the resident's response to the interventions. On 4/14/25 at 8:14 AM R1 stated a couple weeks ago around 5:00 PM, while in the main dining room, R2 hit R1 in the back of the neck. R1 demonstrated this with an open palm. R1 stated this incident was witnessed by V4 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). On 4/14/25 at 8:30 AM R1's and R2's rooms were located on the same hall of the facility. On 4/14/25 at 11:45 AM R2 was walking by herself, pushing a wheelchair out of the activity room. At 11:53 AM R2 was interviewed regarding an incident with R1. R2 did not recall the incident with R2 and was confused. R2's admission Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R2 has severe cognitive impairment, physical/verbal/other behaviors noted one to three days during the review period, and these behaviors put others at risk for injury and significantly disrupts care or living environment. R2's active Care Plan documents R2 is or has the potential to be physically aggressive related to dementia (2/7/25) and interventions (2/7/25) include assess for resident's needs, monitor behaviors and attempt to determine the underlying cause, report signs of posing a danger to herself or others, provide a non-confrontational environment for care, intervene before agitation escalates, guide away from source of distress, staff to walk calmly away and approach later, explain care in terms the resident can understand, give choices about care and activities as appropriate, intervene as needed to protect the rights and safety of others, approach in a calm manner, divert attention, remove from the situation and take to another location as needed. R2's care plan documents R2 has impaired thought process and interventions include making eye contact when speaking to R2, reduce distractions, use simple/direct sentences, provide necessary cues, segment tasks into one step at a time, and stop and return if R2 is agitated. R2's care plan has not been updated to include R2's physical altercation with R1 or that R2 is resistive with cares. R2's Nursing Notes document the following: On 3/20/25 at 5:44 PM R2 refused wound care and medications, and R2 cursed at the nurse. On 3/29/2025 at 5:30 PM R2 was at the nurses station yelling at other residents, shut the f*** (expletive) up, motherf******! R2 was banging on the walls and staff attempts at redirection was unsuccessful. On 4/9/2025 at 6:36 PM R2 refused evening medications, refused care from staff, and cursed at staff. R2 was exit seeking and making statements as if R2 was working in a factory dictating to staff and other residents that they needed to get on the line and perform tasks. R2 appeared to calm down when allowed to walk around the facility on R2's own, away from staff and residents. R2's Behavior Monitoring and Intervention Report dated 3/17/25-4/15/25 is generic and lists a variety of behaviors and interventions, but does not identify which behaviors are specific to R2 and personalized nonpharmacological interventions or approaches for R2's behaviors. This report documents R2 has behaviors of wandering/exit seeking, refusing cares, and physical and verbal aggression towards others including kicking, hitting, grabbing, pushing, scratching, cursing, screaming, and threatening. R2's Fall Report dated 3/26/25 at 8:30 PM documents a CNA attempted to transfer R2 into a wheelchair to transport to the restroom in the hallway, R2 refused care, R2 hit the CNA, R2 lost her balance and fell hitting her head on the handrail. R2 did not have any injuries. On 4/14/25 at 9:14 AM V4 CNA stated on an unidentified date within the last month, around 4:30-5:00 PM, R1 and R2 were in the dining room. V4 stated R2 wheeled past R1 in her wheelchair, R2's wheelchair got stuck and R2 couldn't get past R1. V4 stated R2 got upset with R1 and smacked R1 in the back of the neck with R2's hand. V4 stated V4 ran over there as fast as she could to get R1 out of the way. V4 confirmed V4 considered R2's actions as abuse. V4 stated R2 has hit staff during cares, has outburst and swats at people as they walk past her. V4 stated staff try to engage R2 in activities or just let R2 roam, and staff try to monitor R2 so that R2 does not go into the dining room when R1 is in there. On 4/15/25 at 10:13 AM V4 confirmed V4 was the CNA assisting during R2's fall on 3/26/25. V4 stated V4 was pulling R2 in a wheelchair backwards down the hallway, R2 grabbed the handrail and flipped out of the chair. V4 stated V4 pulled R2's wheelchair backwards due to R2 resisting and planting her feet, but R2 had to be changed because it was the end of shift. V4 was asked about any alternative approaches or interventions used during this incident. V4 stated R2 is always combative and resistant to toileting. V4 confirmed no alternative approaches were used. V4 stated staff usually ask if R2 has to use the bathroom, but due to R2's dementia R2 has difficulty understanding words. V4 denied that any visual cues or aides have been trialed for R2. V4 stated R2 seems to do well for V25 CNA, but V4 did not ask for V25 to assist with R2's toileting cares that day. On 4/14/25 at 12:44 PM V8 LPN stated R2 yells/screams/cusses in common areas with other residents present and R2 thinks R2 is working in a factory and directs everyone. V8 stated this past Saturday R2 hit V8 in the face while attempting to change R2's incontinence brief. V8 stated R2 calmed down once R2 allowed the staff to change R2, and believes the incontinence is what triggered R2's behavior. On 4/14/25 at 11:33 AM V3 Care Plan Coordinator stated R2 cusses, is resistive to staff, and has dementia. At 12:13 PM V3 stated R2's care plan includes R2 has the potential to be aggressive. V3 confirmed this care plan has not been updated with R2's physical altercation or new interventions to address this behavior. On 4/15/25 at 9:37 AM V24 LPN stated R2 was in the hallway with V4 CNA when R2 fell on 3/26/25. V24 stated V24 did not witness the fall and described R2 as being at her baseline, cursing and combative with staff when attempting to redirect or provide cares. V24 stated R2 just gets more agitated so we just try to reapproach R2 later. V24 stated staff had not mentioned if R2 was resistive or agitated prior to R2's fall. On 4/14/25 at 12:10 PM V2 Director of Nursing reviewed R2's behavior tracking report. V2 stated this is the behavior tracking that is used and is the same for all residents. V2 confirmed this behavior tracking does not identify R2's specific behaviors or personalized nonpharmacological interventions or approaches. V2 stated the nurses also document behaviors on the Medication Administration Record, but R2's specific targeted behaviors are not identified. On 4/15/25 at 10:40 AM V2 stated staff have been instructed when residents are resistive to cares they should try a different approach or try another staff person. V2 confirmed allowing time to vent and reapproach later would also be an appropriate intervention. V2 stated staff should honor the resident's right to refuse care and R2 does better for male staff. V2 confirmed V25 worked on 3/26/25 and confirmed staff should have implemented interventions or alternative approaches during R2's staff assisted fall. V2 confirmed pulling R2's wheelchair backwards would not be considered an acceptable approach. At 11:33 AM V2 confirmed R2's care plan has not been updated to include resistive to cares and nonpharmacological interventions/approaches to address this behavior.
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 F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow physician's orders and manufacturer's instructions for two (R9, R11) of nine residents reviewed for medication administ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow physician's orders and manufacturer's instructions for two (R9, R11) of nine residents reviewed for medication administration in the sample list of 14. This failure resulted in three medication errors out of 26 opportunities, an 11.5% medication error rate. Findings include: 1.) R9's April 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documents to administer Albuterol Sulfate Hydrofluoroalkane Inhalation Aerosol Solution 108 (90 Base) micrograms (mcg) per actuation give two puffs orally twice daily. On 4/14/25 at 3:27 PM V17 Licensed Practical Nurse administered two puffs of Albuterol 108 mcg inhaler to R9. The inhaler box had a label to shake, and V17 did not shake the inhaler prior to administration. At 3:50 PM V17 confirmed R9's Albuterol inhaler box contained a label to shake and confirmed she did not shake the inhaler prior to administration. V17 stated V17 was not aware V17 needed to shake the inhaler prior to administration. The Highlights of Prescribing Information for Albuterol Sulfate 108 mcg dated February 2019 documents to shake the inhaler well prior to each spray. 2.) R11's April 2025 MAR documents to administer Clonidine Hydrochloride 0.1 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth twice daily and hold if systolic blood pressure (SBP) less than 120. This MAR documents to give Insulin Lispro Injection Solution 100 UNIT per milliliter per sliding scale based on blood glucose four times daily at 7:00 AM, 11:00 AM, 3:00 PM, and 7:00 PM. R11's active vital sign report documents the last recorded blood pressure was 140/62 on 4/14/25 at 9:43 AM. On 4/14/25 between 3:38 PM and 3:48 PM V17 administered Clonidine 0.1 mg one tablet to R11. The medication card contained a label to hold the medication if R11's SBP was less than 120. V17 did not obtain R11's blood pressure prior to administering Clonidine. V17 checked R11's blood glucose level, which was 270 mg per deciliter. At 3:48 PM V17 administered Insulin Lispro 6 units, as ordered, into R11's right upper arm. There was no food at R11's bedside. On 4/14/25 at 3:42 PM R11 stated staff have not checked R11's blood pressure and R11 thought it was suppose to be checked twice daily. On 4/14/25 at 3:50 PM V17 confirmed R11's Clonidine physician order and medication card both document to hold for SBP less than 120. V17 stated R11's blood pressure was last checked that morning and V17 should have checked R11's blood pressure prior to administering Clonidine. At 4:48 PM V17 stated V17 thought short acting insulin could be given within 45 minutes of a meal. On 4/14/25 at 4:50 PM R11 was in R11's room. V26 Certified Nursing Assistant was pushing a cart of meal trays down R11's hallway. V26 stated hall trays, including R11's meal tray, had not been delivered yet. On 4/15/25 at 5:50 AM V2 Director of Nursing stated short acting insulin should be given within 15 minutes of a meal. The Highlights of Prescribing Information for Insulin Lispro dated September 2023 documents Lispro is a rapid acting insulin that should be administered within 15 minutes prior to a meal or immediately after a meal. The facility's Administering Medications policy dated April 2019 documents medications are administered according to physician orders.
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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record the facility failed to ensure a wheelchair was in safe operating condition for one (R3) of three residents reviewed for falls on the sample list of 14. Fin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record the facility failed to ensure a wheelchair was in safe operating condition for one (R3) of three residents reviewed for falls on the sample list of 14. Findings include: R3's Nursing Note dated 4/1/25 at 8:38 AM R3 had a witnessed fall. R3 was on the floor by his chair with his legs extended out in front of him and the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated R3 unclamped the sling from the lift and was then lowered to floor without hitting his head. At 12:20PM on 4/14/2025 V6 CNA stated when V6 lowered R3 into his reclining chair, the wheelchair was broken and tilted forward, causing R3 to slide out of the wheelchair. V6 stated R3's wheelchair had been broken for awhile prior to this fall. On 4/15/2025 at 1:30PM V9 CNA stated that she switched out R3's chair on 4/2/2025 due to the wheelchair being broken and tilted in an upright position. V9 stated she felt that R3 couldn't be comfortable sitting in the forward tilted position of the broken wheelchair. V9 stated R3's reclining wheelchair had been broken for awhile. On 4/15/2025 at 140PM, V11 (Maintenance Director) stated that the facility uses a logbook that he checks every 30 minutes to see if there are any repairs that need to be completed by the facility. V11 was observed going through the log and no date was given for R3's broken chair. V11 stated V11 was never notified that R3's reclining wheelchair was broken. Policy Dated April 2010 documents Maintenance work orders shall be completed in order to establish a priotrity of maintenance service which incudes work orers must be filled out and forwarded to the maintenance director. This documents also states that work orer requests should be placed in the Work Order Binder and are to picked up daily and emergency requests will be given priority in making necessary repairs.
Mar 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a plan of care to reduce resident intrusion of privacy and resulting in aggression. This failure has the potential ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a plan of care to reduce resident intrusion of privacy and resulting in aggression. This failure has the potential to affect two residents (R1 and R2) out of three reviewed for allegations of abuse on the sample list of three. Findings include: On 3/25/25 at 11:05 AM, V1, Administrator, stated there had been an incident between R1 and R2 on 3/21/25 when R2 wandered into R1's room, R1 had gotten out of bed to redirect R2 out of his room, and both residents ended up falling to the floor with R2 landing on top of R1. R2's Nursing Progress Note dated 3/20/25 documents R2 had exited his bathroom in the wrong direction on this date, entering the adjoining room of R1 and upsetting R1. This same note documents an interdisciplinary team review of this incident and formulated a plan of care to place a sign in the bathroom to indicate to R2 which bathroom door to exit to go into his own room. On 3/25/25 at 2:30 PM, there was not any sign in the adjoining bathroom between R1's and R2's room to indicate to R2 which bathroom door to exit to return to his own room rather than R1's room. On 3/26/25 at 1:45 PM, V2, Director of Nursing, stated she had participated in the interdisciplinary team review and the team did decide to place a sign in the bathroom between R1's and R2's rooms to indicate which direction R2's room was from the bathroom. V2 stated the sign did not get placed and then this other incident happened between R1 and R2 when R2 wandered into R1's room during the night. V2 continued to state the facility did install a locking doorknob cover on the bathroom door leading to R1's room so that bathroom door could not be opened from inside the bathroom. V2 stated when R1 uses the bathroom he has to leave the door open so he can return to his own room when he is finished. On 3/25/25 at 1:50 PM, V6, [NAME] President of Clinical Operations, was instructing V2 to resolve off R2's care plan for the doorknob cover and implement placement of the sign according to the interdisciplinary team decision. V2 then stated there wasn't any reason the facility couldn't do both the sign and the doorknob.
MINOR (C) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop their abuse prevention policy to include a definition of abuse to include abuse facilitated or enabled by the use of technology. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop their abuse prevention policy to include a definition of abuse to include abuse facilitated or enabled by the use of technology. This failure has the potential to affect all seventy residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The facility's policy Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation Prevention Program dated August 2024, does not include a prohibition of abuse facilitated or enabled by the use of technology. On 3/26/25 at 12:59 PM, V1, Administrator, acknowledged and confirmed the abuse prevention policy dated August 2024 was the most recent revision and did not include the prohibition of abuse utilizing technology such as video recording of residents in compromising situations. On 3/26/25 at 4:15 PM, V6, [NAME] President of Clinical Operations, stated she could put the prohibition against the use of technology into the facility policy right now. The facility's Resident Roster dated 3/25/25 documents 70 residents residing in the facility.
Jan 2025 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to sufficiently staff housekeepers to maintain a clean an...

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 sufficiently staff housekeepers to maintain a clean and homelike environment for five of seven residents (R1, R2, R5, R6, R7) reviewed for housekeeping in the sample list of seven. Findings include: On 1/22/25 at 5:15 AM there was a white dusty substance on the floor outside of the B Hall Shower Room door. From 6:17 AM to 6:35 AM V8 (Housekeeper) cleaned the front entrance of the facility. V8 did not sweep prior to mopping the floor. At 6:41 AM V8 emptied the garbage cans at the nurses' station and mopped the floor. V8 did not sweep the floor prior to mopping. At 8:30 AM V8 cleaned and mopped resident rooms and bathrooms at the beginning of the C Hall. V8 used a broom to sweep up a pile of debris after V8 had finished mopping. V8 did not take a toilet brush into the bathroom to clean the toilet. At 8:43 AM V8 stated if there is only one housekeeper scheduled V8 only has time to clean V8's assigned two halls and then rotates and cleans the other remaining two halls the next day. V8 stated there has been days when only one housekeeper was scheduled, especially on the weekends. V8 stated V8 only uses a toilet brush to clean the inside of the toilets when they are visibly dirty and not every day. V8 stated V8 does not sweep prior to mopping to save time. On 1/22/25 between 9:08 AM and 9:19 AM V10 (Housekeeper) and V9 (Housekeeper orientee) were cleaning rooms at the end of A Hall. V9 and V10 did not sweep the entire room floor prior to mopping. At 9:28 AM V10 stated resident rooms, bathrooms, and toilets are supposed to be cleaned daily. V10 stated there should be two housekeepers divided up between the four halls, but on the weekends, there has only been one which makes it difficult so only two of the four halls are cleaned, and the other halls are cleaned the next day. V10 stated V10 only sweeps the floors prior to mopping if they are bad. 1.) On 1/22/25 at 8:06 AM R2 stated the housekeepers don't come into clean R2's room every day, it's usually every other day. R2 stated not all the housekeepers sweep prior to mopping or clean the toilets. On 8:17 AM R1, R2's roommate, stated housekeeping doesn't do a thorough job of sweeping and cleaning R1's room. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R2 as cognitively intact. R1's MDS dated [DATE] documents R1 as cognitively intact. R1's Concern/Compliment Form dated 1/15/25 documents R1 had concerns with housekeeping not cleaning the bathroom, not emptying the trashcan, and not thoroughly mopping and cleaning R1's room. 2.) On 1/22/25 at 9:38 AM R7 stated housekeeping does not clean R7's room daily and they only sweep/mop as one. R7 stated R7's room has not been cleaned today. There was a dried brown substance on R7's toilet. At 12:10PM there was debris on R7's room floor and R7's toilet remained dirty. R7 stated no housekeeping staff had been in to clean R7's room today. R7 stated the housekeepers should sweep prior to mopping, but they don't. R7 stated R7 records on a calendar when R7's room is cleaned. This calendar did not document R7's room was cleaned on 1/2/25-1/7/25, 1/9/25, 1/10/25, 1/12/25, 1/14/25, 1/15/25, 1/18/25, 1/19/25-1/22/25. R7's MDS is dated 12/12/24. R7's Concern/Compliment Form dated 12/17/24 documents R7's room was not being swept or mopped and the bathroom wasn't being cleaned. R7's Concern/Compliment Form dated 1/7/25 documents R7 had concerns that R7's room was not cleaned appropriately and there was debris on the floor. On 1/22/25 at 12:18 PM V10 stated they had not been down to clean B Hall (where R5 and R7 reside) yet today and was unsure if V10 would have time to clean that hall prior 2:00 PM when V10's shift ends. 3.) On 1/22/25 at 11:46 AM R5's toilet seat had a brown dried substance and there was a dark area on the inside bottom of the toilet bowl. 4.) On 1/22/25 at 7:46 AM the inside of R6's toilet bowl had rust colored stains. On 1/22/25 at 10:07 AM V17 (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated the housekeepers haven't been sweeping the floors prior to mopping and the toilets don't get cleaned every day unless you tell them there's a problem. On 1/22/25 at 10:37 AM V19 (Housekeeping/Maintenance Supervisor) stated daily cleaning schedule includes resident rooms, bathrooms, shower rooms, and dining rooms. V19 stated the housekeepers should be sweeping the floors prior to mopping and bathrooms should be cleaned daily from top to bottom, including the toilets. V19 confirmed there have been problems with this not getting done. V19 stated we had been short staffed in housekeeping and just recently hired V9 who started on 1/20/25. V19 stated every couple of days we only had one housekeeper scheduled so not all the resident rooms were getting cleaned daily and we had to alternate between the halls. V19 stated we are supposed to have two housekeepers scheduled each day. The facility's housekeeping schedule dated 1/5/25-2/1/25 document only one housekeeper was scheduled on 11 days between 1/5/25 and 1/19/25. The facility's undated Cleaning Process documents to disinfect or clean housekeeping surfaces such as floors on a regular basis and when visibly soiled and toilets should be cleaned at least daily. The facility's undated Detailed Cleaning Check Off List documents to clean/vacuum under all the beds and dressers and sanitize and disinfect the commodes thoroughly.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure substitutes were available and failed to honor ...

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 substitutes were available and failed to honor residents' food preferences for six of seven residents (R1, R2, R3, R5, R6, R7) reviewed for dietary services in the sample list of seven. Findings include: On 1/22/25 from 6:50 AM until 7:38 AM V32 (Dietary Manager) and V23 (Dietary Aide) served the breakfast meal on individual trays for each hall cart. V32 stated last week the facility was without yogurt for three days while they waited for the food order delivery. V32 stated peanut butter and toast was served in place of the yogurt while the facility was without. Yogurt was not served on R3's and R6's meal trays. On 1/22/25 at 12:20 PM there was no prepared egg salad readily available in the kitchen coolers. V32 stated there are hard boiled eggs that can quickly be made into egg salad if requested. V32 confirmed residents do not preselect meals. V32 stated the residents just let us know if they want something else once their meal is served. 1.) On 1/22/25 at 7:25 AM R6 was in R6's room eating breakfast and R6's meal tray did not contain yogurt as specified on R6's meal ticket. At 11:25 AM R6 was in R6's room eating lunch and R6's meal did not include yogurt as specified on R6's meal ticket. R6's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R6 has severe cognitive impairment. 2.) On 1/22/25 at 7:55 AM R3 was eating breakfast in R3's room. R3 stated R3 likes yogurt and R3 is supposed to have it with breakfast but that doesn't happen. R3's meal ticket documents yogurt with breakfast, but there was no yogurt served with R3's breakfast. R3's MDS dated [DATE] documents R3 as cognitively intact. 3.) On 1/22/25 at 8:06 AM R2 was eating breakfast in R2's room which consisted of O shaped wheat cereal with milk, yogurt, and toast. R2 stated the dietary staff don't listen and don't follow the meal tickets. R2 stated R2 doesn't always get yogurt and yesterday R2 was served broccoli which is listed as a dislike on R2's meal ticket. R2 stated R2 prefers the fruit flavored cold cereal but was served the wheat cereal. R2 stated the facility runs out of food and doesn't always have substitutes available. R2's meal ticket documents yogurt and fruit flavored cold cereal with breakfast and R2 dislikes broccoli. R2's MDS dated [DATE] documents R2 as cognitively intact. The facility's Week at A Glance Menu Week 4 documents spaghetti with meat sauce, broccoli, garlic bread, fruit crisp and beverage as the noon meal for Tuesday Day 24 (1/21/25). 4.) On 1/22/25 at 8:17 AM R1 was in R1's room and was finished eating breakfast. R1's meal tray included a bowl of hot cereal that R1 did not eat. R1 stated R1 does not like hot cereal and is supposed to have the fruit flavored cereal. R1's meal ticket documents fruit flavored cereal every morning. R1's MDS dated [DATE] documents R1 as cognitively intact. 5.) On 1/22/25 at 9:38 AM R7 was in bed in R7's room. R7's breakfast tray included cheesy eggs, pancakes, fruit flavored cold cereal, peach yogurt, and chocolate milk. R7's meal ticket documents yogurt for breakfast. R7 stated the dietary staff are not very good about giving R7 yogurt at breakfast. R7 stated there are no substitutes offered at supper other than peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, which are hard. 6.) On 1/22/25 at 11:46 AM R5 was in bed. R5's noon meal included yogurt and R5's noon meal ticket documents yogurt to be served with lunch. R5 stated the facility has run out of certain foods and R5 is not always served yogurt with her meal. On 1/22/25 at 10:07 AM V17 (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and egg salad sandwiches are the only alternative meal options offered. V17 stated there is an always available menu, but they don't always have those items available. V17 stated the kitchen staff don't always serve the yogurt when listed on the meal tickets. On 1/22/25 at 12:20 PM V32 (Dietary Manager) confirmed preferences listed on the meal tickets should be followed and confirmed the above listed meal tickets. V32 stated hot cereal should not have been served for R1 as R1 is supposed to have the fruit flavored cold cereal. On 1/22/25 at 12:57 PM V20 (Cook) stated sometimes there are no hard-boiled eggs to make the egg salad listed on the always available menu. V20 stated the egg salad should be made up ahead of time to be readily available since we don't have time to make it once we are serving. The facility's Always Available Menu dated 5/20/24 lists cereal, milk/juice, scrambled egg, deli meat and cheese sandwich, egg salad, applesauce, green beans, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and chef salad. The facility's undated [NAME] and Kitchen Staff Orientation documents to use this as a guide to train cooks, resident's preferences are listed on the meal cards and should be served accordingly, and the always available meals are offered, executed, have diversity, and meet the proper nutritional value.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to sufficiently staff Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs)...

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 sufficiently staff Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). This failure affects five of seven residents (R1, R2, R3, R5, R7) reviewed for staffing in the sample list of seven. This failure has the potential to affect all 71 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 1/22/25 between 2:44 PM and 3:03 PM V18, V28, V29, V30, and V31 were the only CNAs working in the facility. 1.) On 1/22/25 at 7:55 AM R3 stated the facility doesn't have enough staff as the staff are constantly running. R3 stated if the CNAs are on their lunch break, then you must wait about 30 minutes for someone to answer your call light. R3 stated R3 is incontinent, uses the call light to be changed, and must wait for staff assistance. R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R3 as cognitively intact and requires substantial/maximal staff assistance for toileting. 2.) On 1/22/25 at 8:06 AM R2 stated the facility is short staffed and it takes about 20-30 minutes for staff to answer R2's call light. R2's MDS dated [DATE] documents R2 as cognitively intact and requires partial/moderate staff assistance for most Activities of Daily Living. 3.) On 1/22/25 at 8:17 AM R1 stated the facility does not have enough CNAs they cut down to having one CNA per hall and a float for days and evenings. R1 stated R1 has waited for over an hour for R1's call light to be answered when R1 needed incontinence care. R1 stated R1 must wait when the CNAs are on their lunch break as well. R1's MDS dated [DATE] documents R1 as cognitively intact and R1 is dependent on staff for toileting assistance. 4.) On 1/22/25 at 9:38 AM R7 stated the facility doesn't have enough CNAs they are always running in and out and in a hurry when providing cares. R7 stated R7 waits up to an hour for R7's call light to be answered on day shift when R7 is waiting for incontinence care. R7's MDS dated [DATE] documents R7 is dependent on staff for toileting assistance. 5.) On 1/22/25 at 11:46 AM R5 stated there aren't enough staff, when R5 asks the CNAs to do things they tell R5 that they don't have time. R5 stated sometimes R5 waits an hour for R5's call light to be answered, and R5 pointed to the clock in R5's room and stated there's a clock right there for me to see. R5 stated sometimes R5 must wait for incontinence cares. R5's MDS dated [DATE] documents R5 requires substantial/maximal staff assistance for toileting. The facility's Facility assessment dated [DATE] documents the facility's staffing needs are six CNAs on day shift, five CNAs on evening shift, and three CNAs on night shift. The facility's Weekly Schedule dated 1/5/25-1/25/25 documents the following: there were five CNAs for evening shift on 1/11/25, 1/14/25, 1/19/25 and 1/20/25 and there were five CNAs for day shift on 1/19/25. The facility's Daily Census dated 1/9/25 documents a census of 77 residents. The facility's Daily Census dated 1/21/25 documents a census of 71 residents. On 1/22/25 at 5:03 AM V3 (CNA) stated there have been times where night shift had three CNAs within the last few weeks, which is a lot for 70 residents. On 1/22/25 at 8:40 AM V14 (CNA) stated we are supposed to have six CNAs on dayshift, but there are times we have worked with less than that and it's hard. V14 stated call light response times are affected which could affect timely toileting requests. On 1/22/25 at 10:07 AM V17 (CNA) stated V17 feels rushed and short cuts, such as not applying lotion after showers and quick morning care, are taken when there are five CNAs working. V17 stated call light response times are affected when there are only five CNAs working. On 1/22/25 between 2:44 PM and 3:03 PM the following interviews were conducted: V28 (CNA) stated there should be six CNAs working tonight, but we have worked with four and five CNAs within the last few weeks. V28 stated that isn't enough, showers don't get done and call lights are affected. V28 stated we don't even get to take our breaks, but we do the best that we can. V29 (CNA) sated we usually work with six CNAs, but there has been five or less recently. V29 stated we do the best we can but call lights might not be answered as quickly. V30 (CNA) stated we usually work with five or six CNAs, which is not enough based on the acuity of the residents not just the census. V30 stated care falls behind, showers don't get done, toileting and incontinence cares are delayed, and call lights are affected. V30 stated there was one weekend when only four CNAs worked, and the same care was affected. V30 confirmed there were only five CNAs working second shift tonight. V30 stated V30 is the B and D Hall float and will try to float to the other halls as well, but most of her time will be spent on B Hall since that is the heaviest hall. V31 (CNA) stated second shift is supposed to have six CNAs but V31 just found out there are five working tonight. V31 stated we have worked with five and V31 feels rushed and not enough time to give the residents that they deserve. V31 stated showers don't get done and it is difficult to keep up with the call lights. V31 stated some residents are incontinent because they had to wait too long for assistance. V31 stated our charting doesn't get done and we don't get our breaks. V31 stated there are a lot of residents that require two assist and mechanical lift transfers. On 1/22/25 at 3:11 PM V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) stated the facility likes to staff six CNAs on day and evening shifts, but sometimes evenings has five. V2 stated the facility staffs four CNAs on night shift. V2 stated V25 (Scheduler) determines the staffing and does the schedules. V26 (Assistant DON) stated staffing is based on the census and the census was up to 76 within the last two weeks. V2 and V26 confirmed five CNAs were currently working the evening shift today. V26 provided a copy of residents' transfer status and stated the facility requires two persons to operate the mechanical lifts. This list documents 28 of the 71 residents require two person assist for transfers. On 1/22/25 at 3:26 PM V25 stated V25 uses a staffing ladder to determine the number of CNA hours to provide based on acuity needs, which is not resident acuity needs but more so the activities that are scheduled for the CNAs each shift such as dayshift is responsible for getting residents up verses night shift is just doing rounding and a list of residents assigned for get ups. V25 stated the CNA staffing based on census of 71 residents is 126 hours of CNA coverage which is 16 CNAs per day. V25 stated a census of 75 residents is 133 CNA hours and 17 CNAs per day. V25 confirmed this staffing calculator is based on resident census and does not factor in the acuity needs of the residents. V25 stated the 16-17 CNAs needed per day is scheduled as six on days, six on evenings, and four on nights. V25 stated V15 (Restorative CNA) is pulled to work the floor any time there is less than six CNAs Monday through Friday. V25 stated 77 residents was the highest census on 1/8/25. V25 verified the weekly CNA staffing reports provided were accurate. On 1/22/25 at 4:48 PM V1 (Administrator) confirmed the Facility Assessment has not been updated since August 2024 and V1 stated it needed to be updated.
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 F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to sufficiently staff dietary support personnel resulting...

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 sufficiently staff dietary support personnel resulting in delayed timeliness of meals for four of seven residents (R1, R2, R3, R4) reviewed for dietary services in the sample list of seven. This failure has the potential to affect all 71 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 1/22/25 between 6:50 AM and 12:20 PM V32 (Dietary Manager) worked as the dayshift cook during the breakfast and noon meals. V22 and V23 (Dietary Aides) were the only other kitchen staff working in the morning. All resident meals were served to resident rooms due to the facility experiencing gastrointestinal illnesses. On 1/22/25 at 10:55 AM V32 (Dietary Manager) was setting up the steam table to begin serving the noon meal. At 12:00 PM the A, B, and C Hall meal trays were delivered. At this time staff began delivering the D Hall trays to resident rooms, including R1 and R2. 1.) On 1/22/25 at 7:46 AM R4 stated there was a day about a week ago that breakfast wasn't served until 9:00 AM due to something happening in the kitchen. R4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R4 as cognitively intact. 2.) On 1/22/25 at 7:55 Am R3 stated there was one day that breakfast wasn't served until 9:00 AM. R3's MDS dated [DATE] documents R3 as cognitively intact. 3.) On 1/22/25 at 8:06 AM R2 was eating breakfast in R2's room. R2 stated breakfast was served late today and R2's meal tray was delivered at 7:50 AM. R2 stated there was one day that the noon meal wasn't served until 12:00 PM. R2's MDS dated [DATE] documents R2 as cognitively intact. The facility's Mealtimes dated 4/29/24 documents room trays are served at 7:00 AM for breakfast, 11:00 AM for lunch, and 4:45 PM for supper. V24's (Cook) Timecard dated 12/22/24-1/8/25 documents V24 clocked in at 5:14 AM on 12/22/24, 5:16 AM on 12/24/24, 6:09 AM on 12/26/24, 5:20 AM on 1/5/25, 5:31 AM on 1/6/25, 5:29 AM on 1/7/25, and 5:25 AM on 1/8/25. The facility's dietary schedules dated 12/22/24-2/1/25 document the following: The morning cook hours are 5:00 AM to 1:30 PM and V24 was scheduled as the facility's morning cook for the dates listed above on V24's timecard. On 1/22/25 at 9:58 AM V12 (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated there was one day about two weeks ago that breakfast wasn't served until 9:00 AM due to an issue in the kitchen. V12 stated blood glucose was checked for diabetic residents and nutritional shakes were given prior to breakfast being served that day. On 1/22/25 at 10:07 AM V17 (Certified Nursing Assistant) stated there was one day that the cook didn't show up on time, so breakfast wasn't served until close to 9:00 AM. On 1/22/25 at 12:57 PM V20 (Cook) stated we had a cook, V24, who would always show up late for work or sit in his car for an hour at a time, so breakfast and lunch were served 30 minutes and up to an hour late, which happened two or three times. V20 stated one time lunch was not served until 1:30PM-2:00PM due to breakfast being served late at 9:00 AM. V20 stated the dietary department has been short staffed recently and V20 is the only dayshift cook and only works part time. On 1/22/25 at 12:20 PM V32 (Dietary Manager) stated V24 (Cook) was hit and miss with reporting to work on time and V24 recently quit on 1/8/25. At 1:15 PM V32 stated 45 minutes past the scheduled mealtime is not considered timely. V32 stated today the D Hall meal trays did not leave the kitchen until 11:45 AM because staff kept coming back to ask for things. At 2:11 AM V32 stated V24's shift was 5:00 AM to 1:30 PM and verified V24's late clock ins on V24's timecard. At 4:56 AM V32 stated V32 works Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM until 4:30 PM, but V32 worked as the dayshift cook on 1/9/25, 1/10/25, 1/13-1/19/25. V32 stated V32 worked as the dishwasher on 1/6/26 and 1/7/25 since there was no one else scheduled. V32 stated V32 was off work from 12/25/24-12/28/24, 1/1/25, 1/3/25, 1/5/25 and 1/8/25. The facility's Daily Census dated 1/21/25 documents 71 residents reside in the facility.
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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain food ordering and supply to ensure the menus are followed and to log substitutes. This failure affects three of seven residents (R1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain food ordering and supply to ensure the menus are followed and to log substitutes. This failure affects three of seven residents (R1, R2, R5) reviewed for dietary services in the sample list of seven and has the potential to affect all 71 residents in the facility. Findings include: On 1/22/25 at 8:06 AM R2 stated the facility runs out of food and doesn't always have substitutes available. On 1/22/25 at 8:17 AM R1 stated the facility has run out of milk, orange juice, and dinner rolls. On 1/22/25 at 11:46 Am R5 stated the facility has run out of certain foods and R5 is not always served yogurt with her meal. The facility's Week at A Glance Menu Week 2 documents cheeseburger on a bun as the main entree for the evening meal on Sunday (1/5/25) and sweet and sour pork as the main entree on Thursday (1/9/25) as sweet and sour pork. The facility's food order invoices dated 12/2/24, 12/23/24 and 12/30/24 document three boxes of 40 beef patties were ordered for each invoice. The facility's food order invoice dated 1/20/25 documents four boxes of 40 beef patties were ordered. There is no documentation that beef patties were ordered after 12/30/24 until 1/20/25. On 1/22/25 at 12:34 PM V21 (Cook) stated we run out of hamburgers, and we were without hamburgers for a month prior to this weeks' food order delivery. V21 stated we run out of meat because only half of the amount needed is ordered and therefore smaller portions are served rather than the correct serving size. On 1/22/25 at 12:57 PM V20 (Cook) stated the facility runs out of food a lot and often doesn't have the food listed on the menu to serve. V20 stated the facility has been without hamburger patties for a month, occasionally runs out of chicken breasts, and smaller portions/ounces of food and meat have been served due to not having enough supply to meet the serving requirement. V20 stated V20 must improvise and come up with something else to serve. V20 stated sometimes the kitchen staff doesn't have the food prepped or set out for thawing prior for the following morning. V20 stated V20 must get the food out to thaw first thing in the morning in hopes that it will be thawed to cook for the noon meal or V20 must find something else to serve. V20 stated for example V20 has had to serve fish sticks instead of fish and recently sweet and sour pork was served in smaller portions due to not having enough. V20 stated V20 asks V32 what foods to use in place of the foods that aren't available. V20 was unsure if the substitutions are logged anywhere and thought this was done by V32 (Dietary Manager). On 1/22/25 at 10:55 AM V32 stated the main entree was bratwurst burger patties with sauteed peppers and onions, and fajita chicken or hamburger on a bun were the main entree substitutes that were available for the noon meal. On 1/22/25 at 12:20 PM V32 and V20 (Cook) stated hamburgers is something that is offered as an always available substitute. At 1:15 PM V32 removed a binder from her door that contained a substitution log. The Menu Substitution Form indicates to log scheduled food item, substitution item, the reason for the substitution and the employee and dietitian's signature. This last recorded entry prior to 1/22/25 was 9/4/24, and this was confirmed with V32. V32 stated the staff should be logging substitutions on the log so that the dietitian can sign off and approve the changes. V32 stated chicken was used a substitute for the sweet and sour pork to have enough servings. V32 stated V32 uses the recipes as a guide to determine the quantity of food to be ordered and always rounds up. V32 stated hamburger patties were not ordered this month due to not being in the budget. V32 stated food orders are placed every Friday and delivered on Tuesdays. On 1/22/25 at 1:34 PM V27 (Registered Dietitian) stated V27 is in the facility one day per week and substitutions should be logged for V27 to review and approve. V27 stated V27 would have concerns if the staff weren't providing substitutes of equal amounts of an equivalent food to prevent weight loss. V27 stated V27 was not aware that the facility had been running out of foods or that smaller portions were being served. The facility's Daily Census dated 1/21/25 documents 71 residents reside in the facility. The facility's undated [NAME] and Kitchen Staff Orientation documents to use this guide to train the cooks, the menus/recipes must be followed, and any changes must be signed off by the dietitian and kept.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility repeatedly failed to provide showers as scheduled for three of three dependent...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility repeatedly failed to provide showers as scheduled for three of three dependent residents (R2, R3, R4) reviewed for showers in the sample list of five. Findings include: 1. R2's Facility Census documents R2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has the following medical diagnoses; Atrial Fibrillation, Chronic Pulmonary Embolism, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, Unsteadiness on Feet, Weakness and Presence of Orthopedic Joint Implants. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R2's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 15, cognitively intact, needs substantial assistance with shower/bathe self, and Activities of Daily Living (ADL). R2's Care Plan dated 9/12/24 documents R2 will receive scheduled showers. Interventions: Staff will encourage resident to take showers per shower schedule. R2 has an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related too decreased strength and mobility. R2's Shower Schedule documents R2 to receive showers on Tuesday and Fridays during the day shift. R2's Bath and Skin Report Sheet dated December 2024 and January 2025 documents R2 received a shower on 12/31/24. On 1/9/24 at 9:38am R2 stated that R2 rarely gets a shower and had only one or two last month. R2 stated R2 is supposed to get them on Tuesday and Fridays. R2 stated staff will come and tell R2 that it's R2's shower day and then never come back. R2 stated that R2 does needs staff assistance when taking a shower. R2 stated R2 usually just washes up at the sink in R2's room, which doesn't really get R2 clean all over. 2. R3's Facility Census documents R3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has the following medical diagnoses; Acute Respiratory Failure, Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure, Morbid (Severe) Obesity Due to Excess Calories, Unsteadiness on Feet, Pulmonary Hypertension, Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia, Muscle Wasting and Atrophy, Right Heart Failure, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, Shortness of Breath, Personal History of Transient Ischemic (TIA) Attack and Lack of Coordination. R3's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R3's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 13 cognitively intact, needs substantial assistance with shower/bathe self, and Activities of Daily Living (ADL). R3's Care Plan dated 10/29/24 documents R3 has an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit needs and participation may very related too activity intolerance, fatigue, impaired balance, and limited mobility. Intervention: Bathing: R3 needs assist of 1-2 based on fatigue, weightbearing, weakness. R3's Shower Schedule documents R3 to receive showers on Sunday and Thursdays during the day shift. R3's Bath and Skin Report Sheet dated December 2024 and January 2025 documents R3 received a shower on 12/12/24, 12/21/24 and 1/2/25. On 1/9/24 at 10:04am R3 said, that R3 does not get two showers a week. R3 said, that R3 might get one shower a week. R3 said, that R3 is scheduled to get a shower on Sunday and Thursdays and doesn't understand why staff doesn't give R3 a shower. R3 said, R3 is dependent on staff's assistance when getting a shower, R3 is unable to shower R3's self. 3. R4's Facility Census documents R4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and has the following medical diagnoses; Fracture of Sternum, Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure, Unsteadiness on Feet, Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility, Muscle Wasting and Atrophy, Chronic Venous Hypertension (Idiopathic) with Inflammation of Bilateral Lower Extremities, Obesity and Anxiety Disorder. R4's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R4's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score 14 cognitively intact, needs substantial assistance with shower/bathe self, and Activities of Daily Living (ADL). R4's Care Plan dated 10/25/24 documents R4 has an Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-performance deficit related too sternum fracture, impaired mobility, and weakness. Intervention: Bathing/Showering: R4 requires assist of 1 staff member with bathing/showering. R4's Shower Schedule documents R4 to receive showers on Monday and Thursdays during the day shift. R4's Bath and Skin Report Sheet dated December 2024 and January 2025 documents R4 received a shower on 12/6/24, 12/30/24 and 1/6/25. On 1/9/24 at 10:20am R4 said, R4 is dependent on staff to get a shower, R4 is not able to self-shower. R4 said, that R4 has only been living in the facility a couple of months and does not every get two showers a week. R4 stated that R4 is supposed to get showers on Monday and Thursdays and is lucky to get one shower every other week. On 1/9/25 at 1:45pm V2 (Director of Nursing) said all residents are scheduled 2 showers a week and should be getting them. V2 said, after a shower is given, the Certified Nursing Assistant should be documenting it on the resident's bath and skin report sheet. V2 said, if a resident refuses a shower, it should be documented that they refused. V2 acknowledged that R2, R3 and R4 did not receive their 2 scheduled showers as ordered. Facilities Bath, Shower/Tub Policy no date documents: The purpose of this procedure to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin. Documentation: 1. The date and time the shower/bath was performed. 2. The name and title of the individual (s) who assisted the resident with the shower/bath. 5. If the resident refused the shower/bath, the reason (s) why and the intervention taken. 6. The signature and title of the person recording the data.
Aug 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain informed consent prior to administering an antipsychotic medication to one of three residents (R5) reviewed for chemical restraints i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to obtain informed consent prior to administering an antipsychotic medication to one of three residents (R5) reviewed for chemical restraints in the sample list of 12. Findings include: The facility's Behavioral Health Services Program policy with an effective date of February 2024 documents, The behavioral interventions outlined below are intended to be used only as suggested guidelines for behavior management. Each resident and situation should be considered on an individual basis depending on the nature of the behavior and risk of harm to self or others. Notify the family/resident representative of the change in condition and interventions implemented. Obtain consent for any new psychotropic medications prior to administration. R5's Order Summary dated 8/20/24 documents diagnoses including Anxiety Disorder Unspecified, Altered Mental Status Unspecified and Unspecified Dementia Unspecified Severity with Psychotic Disturbance. This Order Summary documents an order for Quetiapine Fumarate (antipsychotic) oral tablet 25 mg (milligrams) give half a tablet two times a day for Psychosis with a start date of 6/17/24. R5's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 6/1/24 through 6/30/24 documents the order for the Quetiapine Fumarate 25 mg oral tablet, give half a tablet by mouth twice a day with a start date of 6/17/24. This MAR documents the first dose was given on 6/19/24. R5's Consent for Psychotropic Medications for Seroquel (Quetiapine Fumarate) 12.5 mg twice a day for a diagnosis of Dementia with Psychosis documents telephone consent was given on 7/9/24 by R5's Power of Attorney (POA) which was after 39 doses of the Seroquel had been administered over 20 days. On 8/20/24 at 2:48 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) provided a Psychotropic Medication Observation form for R5 dated 6/22/24. V2 stated that this document indicates consent was obtained from the POA on 6/22/24. This form documents a question of who consent was obtained from and has a mark by POA. There is no name documented as to whom gave consent and no Nurse's Note documented regarding who gave consent. This form is dated six days after the Physician's Order for Quetiapine Fumarate 12.5 mg twice a day was obtained and four days after the medication had been administered.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R3's wound physician visit notes dated 7/26/24 document R3 having diagnosis including incontinence, deconditioned muscles re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) R3's wound physician visit notes dated 7/26/24 document R3 having diagnosis including incontinence, deconditioned muscles related to immobility from dislocated right hip and trochanteric bursitis of left hip. R3's care plan with an initiation date of 4/11/24 documents R3 requires assistance with all activities of daily living (ADL's) including all hygiene and bathing tasks. R3's shower sheets provided with shower completion dates of 7/30/24, 8/6/24, and 8/18/24. On 8/20/24 at 1:00 PM R3 states she would like to have more showers. R3 states she has a painful wound on her bottom and feels that more showers would help the wound heal. R3 states she doesn't know what her scheduled shower days are. R3 states she gets a shower once every couple of weeks. On 8/20/24 at 2:00 PM on 8/20/24, V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing) confirms that there are no other documented shower dates for R3 within the last 30 days. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide showers to two of three dependent residents (R2, R3) reviewed for showers in the sample list of 12. Findings include: The facility's Bathing - Shower and Tub Bath policy with an effective date of March 2024 documents, Purpose: To ensure resident's cleanliness to maintain proper hygiene and dignity. Guidelines: a shower, tub bath or bed/sponge bath will be offered according to resident's preference, no less than once per week or according to the resident's preferred frequency and as needed or requested. 1.) R2's Order Summary Report dated 8/20/24 documents diagnoses including Unsteadiness on Feet, Unspecified Abnormalities of Gait and Mobility and Weakness. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R2 is cognitively intact and documents R2 requires partial to moderate assistance to shower/bathe. On 8/19/24 at 10:31 AM, R2 stated that she does not always get her showers. R2's ADL (Activities of Daily Living) bathing task dated 7/19/24 through 8/19/24 documents R2 has been given one shower on 8/9/24 and R2 is documented as being totally dependent on staff for that shower. On 8/19/24 at 2:04 PM, V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing) stated she cannot locate any other shower documentation for R2. On 8/20/24 at 1:38 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated their policy states they will give one shower a week and if the resident's preference is more often, they will accommodate when possible.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to timely administer a resident's oral and intravenous antibiotic medication for an infected j-tube (jejunostomy tube) as prescri...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to timely administer a resident's oral and intravenous antibiotic medication for an infected j-tube (jejunostomy tube) as prescribed to avoid a significant medication error. R2 received the first dose of IV antibiotics 10 days after it was ordered for the multi drug resistant organism in the J-tube site. This failure affects one of three residents (R2) reviewed for medications in the sample list of 12. Findings include: The facility's Medication Administration Policy with an effective date of March 2024 documents, Medications must be administered in accordance with a physician's order, e.g. (for example), the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right route and right time. The facility's Physician Orders -Entering and Processing policy with an effective date of November 2023 documents, Fax or call the orders to the appropriate pharmacy as needed. R2's Order Summary Report dated 8/20/24 documents diagnosis of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Resistance, Gastrostomy Infection and Resistance to Vancomycin Related Antibiotics. R2's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 8/1/24 through 8/31/24 documents orders to assess PICC (peripherally inserted central catheter)/midline for complications every shift with a start date of 8/16/24. This MAR documents an order for Colistimethate Sodium (Colistin) (antibiotic) Injection Solution Reconstituted 150 mg (milligrams). Use one dose IV (intravenous) every 12 hours for VRE (Vancomycin Resistant Enterococci) for 21 days with a start date of 8/17/24. R2's MAR dated 8/1/24 through 8/31/24 documents an order to observe Contact Isolation Precautions for MDRO (multi drug resistant organism)/VRE to J-Tube site with a start date of 7/25/24, an order for Polymyxin B Sulfate (antibiotic) Injection Solution Reconstituted use one dose intravenously every 12 hours related to Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Resistance administer 2.5 mg/kg (kilograms) with a start date of 8/9/24, an order for Zyvox (antibiotic) oral tablet 600 mg (Linezolid) one tablet by mouth every 12 hours for J-tube infection for 21 days with a start date of 8/12/24. R2's MAR dated 8/1/24 through 8/31/24 documents an order for a wound panel/wound culture for gastrostomy infection with a start date of 7/25/24, and order to insert PICC line for IV antibiotics one time related to ESBL resistance to Vancomycin related antibiotics with a start date of 8/8/24, an order for a wound culture dated 7/22/24 and an order for a wound culture dated 8/5/24. R2's Nurse's Notes dated 7/25/24 at 10:06 AM documents a culture and sensitivity was obtained from R2's J-tube site with results reported to V11 (R2's Physician) and awaiting a response. Nurse's Notes dated 7/25/24 at 12:06 PM documents V11 responded and said that the organism is susceptible to Piperacillin (antibiotic) but R2 is allergic to this antibiotic so V11 referred R2 to V10 or V12 (Infectious Disease Physicians) and ordered to continue to treat the site with Gentamicin 0.1% (percent) ointment and zinc. R2's Nurse's Notes dated 7/26/24 at 1:32 PM documents that R2 has a telehealth appointment with Infectious Disease on 7/30/24 at 4:00 PM. There are no further Nurse's Notes documented regarding the J-tube site antibiotics/infection until 8/5/24 at 4:47 PM that another wound culture was obtained from the J-tube site. R2's Laboratory Report dated 8/8/24 at 9:48 AM documents the wound culture results of Pseudomonas Aeruginosa and Enterococcus Faecalis. R2's Nurse's Notes dated 8/8/24 at 2:34 PM documents that the telehealth visit with V10 (Infectious Disease Physician) was completed and orders were received for oral and IV antibiotic for R2. At 5:40 PM, R2's Nurse's Notes document that clarification was needed for the antibiotic order. The IV order was initiated, and the pharmacy called and were unable to provide the medication. They attempted to page V10 (Infectious Disease Physician) and V10 was not on call. They document that they will contact him in the morning. R2's Nurse's Notes dated 8/9/24 at 12:37 PM document that they attempted to contact V10 again and he was not in the office so they documented they would attempt to get updated orders on Monday, 8/12/24. On 8/12/24 at 8:50 AM, V13 (Advanced Practice Nurse) placed an order in the electronic system for R2 for Zyvox (antibiotic) 600 mg every 12 hours for 21 days. R2 finally received an oral antibiotic for the J-tube infection on 8/13/24 but still had not received the IV antibiotics. R2's Nurse's Notes dated 8/17/24 at 1:02 AM documents the laboratory was there to place the PICC line in the right upper arm and requested an x-ray to confirm placement prior to use. R2 received the first dose of IV antibiotics on 8/18/24 at 7:53 AM, 10 days after it was ordered for the multi drug resistant organism in the J-tube site. On 8/19/24 at 10:31 AM, R2 stated that she is on two antibiotics for the infection in her J-tube. R2 has a PICC line placed in the right upper arm and has contact isolation signs posted on her door. There is an IV pole in her room with an empty bag of Colistimethate Sodium 150 mg hanging on it. On 8/19/24 at 12:38 PM, V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing) confirmed R2's antibiotic did not get started right away due to a lot of back and forth with the doctor and the pharmacy. On 8/20/24 at 8:50 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated at one point they had to get prior authorization for the medication from the pharmacy which caused delay. V2 confirmed the antibiotics were not started for several days after they have been ordered by V10 (Infectious Disease Physician).
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) On 8/20/24 at 8:45 AM V7 (Housekeeper) was observed entering R3's isolation room without any personal protective equipment. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2.) On 8/20/24 at 8:45 AM V7 (Housekeeper) was observed entering R3's isolation room without any personal protective equipment. There was a Contact Isolation sign on door and isolation cart noted outside room. V7 was observed collecting trash and taking to her cart for disposal. No hand hygiene was observed. On 8/20/24 at 9:15 AM V2 (Director of Nursing) states that she identified a possible resident that was most likely the source of the infection, but that said resident was currently hospitalized . V2 states that an (state surveying agency) Infection Control Consultant had been present during initial outbreak and had provided recommendations including proper disinfection of shared shower rooms. V2 provided copy of letter sent to facility from said consultant identified as outbreak document that is undated. V2 stated that they had been using bleach wipes for cleaning instead of recommended bleach solution. Facility was also using shared supplies in shower room for all residents. V2 stated that halls A and B share the shower room on the 200-hall and that halls C and D share the shower room on the 300-hall. On 8/20/24 at 10:00 AM the shower room on the 200-hall observed to be free of debris and dirty linens. Bathing products in closed cabinet. No cleaning products seen within shower room. 300-hall shower room also had general bathing products in open cabinet, one towel hung over half wall in shower stall and next to shower room door, a pair of slip-on sandals were visualized. On 8/20/24 at 10:17 AM V6 (Housekeeping and Maintenance Manager) and V7 (Housekeeper) stated that a bleach solution is now being used to clean instead of bleach wipes. V6 states he mixes the solution every morning for one day use only. V7 confirmed that she also saw the slides in the 300-hall shower room and stated that the certified nursing assistants (CNAs) take off their shoes and put the sandals on when showering residents. On 8/20/24 at 10:30 AM V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing/ADON), confirmed the use of the sandals and stated she was going to immediately dispose of said sandals. The facility's Isolation Room Cleaning-Housekeeping policy with an effective date of February 2024 documents Follow facility's requirements for donning personal protective equipment before entering room, . wash hands with soap and water Policy also states, use germicidal solution containing 1ml (milliliter) or 5-6% sodium hypochlorite solution (household bleach) and 9ml of water to achieve a 1:10 dilution final concentration of 0.5-0.6% sodium hypochlorite. 3.) R2's nursing notes dated 7/28/24 at 1:49 PM documents gastrointestinal symptoms and physician order to obtain stool for clostridium difficile (C-Diff) and parasite laboratory testing. Nursing notes dated 7/29/24 document a stool sample was obtained and sent to lab at 3:05 AM. Medical record fails to document results of lab testing. On 8/19/24, V3 (ADON) confirmed through interview that R2's lab report was not available and no follow up of lab had been done. 4.) R7's laboratory report dated 7/29/24 documents positive result of C-Diff test. R8's laboratory report dated 8/2/24 documents positive result of C-Diff test. 5.) R9's nursing notes dated 7/31/24 at 3:05 AM, documents gastrointestinal symptoms and physician order to obtain stool for clostridium difficile (C-Diff) and parasite laboratory testing. R9's physician order sheet (POS) dated 8/1/24 at 7:36 PM documents order for lab test and that lab sample was obtained and sent to laboratory. R9's lab results report log dated 8/20/24 fails to document that sample was tested. Medical record failed to document follow up with laboratory. 6.) R10's nursing notes dated 7/28/24 at 4:41 PM, documents gastrointestinal symptoms and physician order to obtain stool for clostridium difficile (C-Diff) and parasite laboratory testing. R10's physician order sheet (POS) dated 7/28/24 at 3:21 PM documents order for lab test and that lab sample was obtained and sent to laboratory. R10's lab results report log dated 8/20/24 fails to document that sample was tested. Medical record failed to document follow up with laboratory. 7.) R11's nursing notes dated 7/28/24 at 4:31 PM, documents gastrointestinal symptoms and physician order to obtain stool for clostridium difficile (C-Diff) and parasite laboratory testing. R11's physician order sheet (POS) dated 7/28/24 at 3:11 PM documents order for lab test and that lab sample was obtained and sent to laboratory. R11's lab results report log dated 8/20/24 fails to document that sample was tested. Medical record failed to document follow up with laboratory. 8.) R12's nursing notes dated 7/28/24 at 1:44PM, documents gastrointestinal symptoms and physician order to obtain stool for clostridium difficile (C-Diff) and parasite laboratory testing. R12's physician order sheet (POS) dated 8/20/24 fails to document order for lab test or that lab sample was obtained and sent to laboratory. R12's lab results report log dated 8/20/24 fails to document that sample was tested. Medical record failed to document follow up with laboratory. On 8/20/24 at 9:15 AM V2 confirmed there were no lab results for R9 and R10. V2 states that after initial symptoms, both residents' symptoms had resolved, and no sample was ever received. V2 states that the laboratory stated they threw out all samples that had a date older than 4 days. Lab stated that any samples not tested would have a result entered labeled rejected. V2 does not provide any information regarding the status of labs for R11 and R12. Facility 802 document dated 8/20/24 lists 69 total residents with 68 currently in house and 1 in hospital. Based upon observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to prevent the transmission of clostridium difficile (C-Diff) infections, failed to ensure shower rooms were disinfected to prevent the spread of infection, failed to obtain lab results, and failed to follow hand hygiene guidelines. This affected 8 (R1, R2, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12) of 12 residents reviewed for infection with the potential to affect all 68 residents residing at facility. Findings include: Document identified as outbreak letter that is undated was provided by V2 (Director of Nursing) which documents facility is a 99-bed facility with a current census of 86 patients. 3 patient clostridium difficile (c-diff) positives identified on 7/30/2024. 20 symptomatic patients overall. All have been tested. 3 additional positives identified on 8/2/2024 for a total of 6 confirmed cases. Review of labs documented indicate that no two-step c-diff testing had been performed. Observation documents facility has 2 sets of jack and [NAME] style shower rooms with doors on both hall ways. Halls A and B share a shower room. Halls C and D share a shower room. Shower rooms need to be terminally, deep cleaned, and maintained moving forward. No shared products. Keep products in cabinet and use dispenser cups or med cups to take only the amount needed into the shower area with the patient. Ensure shower rooms are being cleaned thoroughly and in between each use. Ensure chemicals are available and in a locked cabinet. Document details recommendations for facility as in service all housekeeping staff on how to use bleach cleaning product properly and safely. Implement bleach cleaning until outbreak is resolved. Outbreak can be considered resolved 4-weeks after last positive. Moving forward, implement Bleach Mondays to continue to keep the bioburden down. Remember that re-infection can occur. The average time to resolution of diarrhea with treatment is about 3 days, but diarrhea may not resolve for 6 to 7 days. 45 Recurrences of diarrhea occur in 15 to 25 percent of patients treated for c. diff. Implement Environmental Marking program immediately to check competencies and to audit staff cleaning moving forward. Isolation: perform in service on staff on the proper use of PPE. Ensure you also reach ancillary staff, such as physical therapy for compliance. Ensure there are visual reminders to use soap and water and not hand sanitizer for C. Diff rooms. The facility's Infection Precaution Guidelines with an effective date of February 2024 documents, Transmission-Based precautions. Use the CDC Guidelines for Isolation precautions. Handwashing is the single most important precaution to prevent the transmission of infection, gather all equipment and supplies needed before going into room, . when use of common equipment is unavoidable, then adequately clean and disinfect them before use for another resident. The facility's Hand Hygiene/Handwashing policy with an effective date of March 2024 documents, Hand hygiene means cleaning your hands by using either handwashing (washing hands with soap and water), antiseptic hand wash, or antiseptic hand rub. Examples of When to Perform Hand Hygiene (Either Alcohol Based Hand Sanitizer of Handwashing): before glove placement, after glove removal. 1.) R1's Order Summary Report dated 8/20/24 documents diagnoses including Colostomy Status, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Infection as the Cause of Diseases Classified Elsewhere, Urinary Tract Infection, Pressure Ulcer of Sacral Region Stage 4 and Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL) Resistance. This Order Summary documents an order for Enhanced Barrier Precautions for (Indwelling Urinary Catheter), Colostomy and history of ESBL. On 8/19/24 at 10:28 AM, R1 had a Contact Isolation sign posted on the door to her room. On 8/19/24 at 10:48 AM, R1 stated that she has finished the IV (intravenous) medications that she had been receiving. On 8/19/24 at 1:28 PM, V4 (Registered Nurse/RN) and V5 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) donned a gown and gloves and entered R1's room. V5 opened R1's incontinent brief and V4 and V5 assisted R1 to roll onto her right side. There was a wound vacuum attached to the wound on her coccyx. They assisted R1 to roll back and closed her brief, repositioned her and covered her back up with her blanket. V5 quickly removed the gown and gloves and exited the room without performing any hand hygiene. There was still a Contact Isolation sign posted on R1's door. On 8/20/24 at 8:50 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated PPE (personal protective equipment) should be removed in the room and hand hygiene should be perform prior to leaving the contact isolation room.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident's opioid pain medication was administered as presc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident's opioid pain medication was administered as prescribed to avoid a potential lethal dosage for one of three residents (R1) reviewed for significant medication errors in the sample list of three. This failure resulted in R1 receiving a dose of Narcan (opioid reversal medication) and being transported by ambulance to the emergency room for evaluation. Findings include: The facility's Medication Administration Policy with a Revised date of [DATE] documents, Medications must be administered in accordance with a physician's order, e.g. (example), the right resident, right medication, right dosage, right route and right time. Do not administer a medication if you note a change in its color, consistency, and/or odor. If a medication and/or treatment error occurs, the licensed nurse will: a. Immediately notify the attending physician, b. Describe the error and the resident's response in the Nurse's notes, c. Complete an Incident Report, d. Identify the error on the 24-Hour Report, and e. Monitor the resident's status. The facility's Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Reaction policy with a Revised date of [DATE] documents, 1. All medication, treatment errors, and drug reactions must be reported promptly. 2. The charge nurse will be responsible for generating the Medication Error report, describing the action taken. 3. A detailed account of the incident must be recorded in the resident's medical record. Documentation should be factual. R1's Medication Administration Record dated [DATE] through [DATE] documents diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Dyspnea, Anxiety Disorder, Anorexia, Delirium due to known Physiological Condition, Dysphagia Oropharyngeal Phase and Dependence on Supplemental Oxygen. R1's 60-day Physician Recertification of Terminal Illness report dated [DATE] documents R1 had terminal diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Chronic Respiratory Failure. This report documents R1 had worsening Dyspnea and progressing decline. This report documents R1 was certified for another six months of hospice care valid until [DATE]. The facility's Medication Error Report dated [DATE] and completed by V4 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) documents on [DATE] at 4:45 AM, R1 was given 4 ml (milliliters) of Hydromorphone (Narcotic pain medication) 10 mg (milligrams)/ml instead of the 0.4 ml Hydromorphone that was ordered. As a result, R1 received 40 mg of Hydromorphone instead of 4 mg as prescribed. R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated [DATE] through [DATE] documents an order for Hydromorphone HCL (Hydrochloride) oral tablet 2 mg. Give 8 mg by mouth every 8 hours for pain/Dyspnea (shortness of breath) with a start date of [DATE] scheduled to be given at 12:00 AM, 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM. This MAR also documents an order for Hydromorphone HCL oral liquid 1 mg/ml, give 4 ml by mouth every four hours as needed for pain with a start date of [DATE]. R1's medical record contained a Physician's Order Form written by V12 (Hospice Registered Nurse/RN) dated [DATE] for Hydromorphone 10 mg/ml, 4 mg (0.4 ml) every four hours as needed for pain/Dyspnea. On [DATE] at 9:05 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed there was a medication error on [DATE] for R1. V2 stated that R1 had been declining and had been receiving a large amount of Hydromorphone daily between the scheduled amount and the as needed amount. V2 stated that hospice increased the concentration of the Hydromorphone and that the night nurse was not aware that it had increased. V2 stated that they wanted to finish the previous bottle before starting the new bottle with new dose. V2 confirmed that the nurse did not look at the bottle and gave 4 mls of the 10 mg/ml Hydromorphone. V2 stated that she completed an investigation due to the medication error. V2 stated that R1 was in the hospital several days and was going to come back when he declined and passed away in the hospital. V2 stated that she completed several in-services with all of the nurses regarding the medication error and V4 received a one-day suspension. On [DATE] at 12:14 PM, V4 (LPN) stated that on [DATE] R1 had asked for a dose of his pain medication around 4:30-4:45 AM. V4 stated that she had already given him the last dose from a bottle of Hydromorphone 1 mg/ml earlier that evening. V4 stated that she gave him 4 mls at that time and opened the new bottle this time and pulled the order up on the Electronic Medication Administration Record and it said to give 4 ml, so she automatically drew up 4 ml out of the new bottle of Hydromorphone and gave it to R1. V4 stated that when she administered it to R1 she noticed the color and mentioned that it was pink to R1 and V4 stated that R1 said that there was a change in the medication. V4 stated that V4 immediately went to look up the medication order and checked the medication bottle. V4 stated that the strength was not updated in the Electronic Medication Administration Record, but the bottle was 10 mg/ml. V4 stated she immediately notified hospice and the Physician (V5). V4 stated that hospice wanted her to monitor him. V4 stated that they started monitoring his vital signs. V4 stated that when she contacted V5 that he wanted her to give a dose of Narcan now and another in 30 minutes if needed and continue to monitor. V4 stated that V5 then decided he wanted R1 sent to the hospital to be evaluated. V4 stated that she gave R1 the Narcan and the ambulance was there before the next dose was due to be given. V4 stated that R1 remained conscious the entire time. V4 stated when the ambulance arrived R1's speech became slightly slurred but otherwise he was the same as he had been. V4 stated that she notified the Director of Nursing (V2) and then completed the Medication Error Report as directed. R1's Narcotic count sheet for the Hydromorphone 1 mg/ml is dated received on [DATE] and documents 120 mls received. The last dose documented as given was on [DATE] at 7:45 PM by V4 in the amount of 4 ml with zero doses left in the bottle. R1's Narcotic count sheet for the Hydromorphone 10 mg/ml is dated received on [DATE] and documents 30 mls was received. There is note written, New dose - give 0.4 mg (sic) to = (equal) 4 mg. The first and only dose given from this bottle is dated [DATE] at 4:45 AM with the amount given documented as 4 mls and 26 mls remaining in the bottle. This was signed by V4 (LPN). This resulted in R1 receiving 40 mg of Hydromorphone instead of 4 mg. On [DATE] at 10:22 AM, V13 (Hospice Director of Nursing) confirmed there was a change in the concentration of the Hydromorphone so that he did not have to take as much medication at one time. V13 stated that the hospice nurse wrote a new order for the Hydromorphone 10 mg/ml give 0.4 ml on [DATE] and stated that V12 (Hospice RN) gave the new order to the facility but did not document whom she gave the order to. V13 stated that R1 was alert and oriented at the hospital after the incident and the hospital had been working on getting him discharged back to the facility but then he declined. V13 confirmed that R1 was terminally ill, and death was an expected outcome. On [DATE] at 12:37 PM, V5 (On call Physician) on [DATE], stated that the facility nurse (V4) called hospice first and then called him. V5 stated he instructed the nurse to give R1 Narcan and to monitor his vital signs. V5 stated that he then decided they should send R1 to the emergency room for evaluation since it was such a high dose of Hydromorphone. V5 stated that R1 was stable when he spoke to the nurse the first time. V5 stated when he called the nurse back, he only told her to send R1 to the hospital, he did not get R1's condition report at that time. V5 stated that he did not have any immediate concerns with R1's condition but stated that could change rapidly. V5 stated that he could not say if the overdose of Hydromorphone contributed to R1's death. V5 stated that it was several days after the overdose before he passed away so he could not say that was the cause. On [DATE] at 2:03 PM, V10 (Hospice Pharmacist) stated that the concentration change was probably due to a condition change in the resident and with the increased concentration he would have to take less medication. V10 stated that he was probably closer to the end of life. V10 stated that as far as she could tell there was not alert placed on the bottle indicating the concentration change. V10 stated that it is up to the person preparing the medication and it is at their discretion to place an alert on the bottle. V10 stated that Hydromorphone has a fast half-life so if R1 would have died from the overdose it would have had to happen a lot sooner than it did. V10 stated that an overdose death is soon after the overdose. R1's hospital progress note dated [DATE] documents diagnosis of Acute on Chronic Hypoxic Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure Secondary to Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Exacerbation and documented R1 was currently on hospice. The hospital referral information documented possible discharge on [DATE]. R1's Death Certificate dated [DATE] documents the cause of death was Acute Hypoxic Respiratory Failure, COPD Exacerbation and Pneumonia.
May 2024 12 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain and monitor adaptive devices to ensure proper functioning ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain and monitor adaptive devices to ensure proper functioning to prevent a fall for one of one resident (R53) reviewed for falls on the sample of 36. This failure resulted in R53's unsecured toilet seat riser sliding off the toilet when R53 was sitting and/or transferring onto the toilet, causing R53 to fall. R53 sustained a fractured finger and laceration requiring three sutures. Findings Include: R53's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] documents R53 is at risk for falls. R53's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 3/1/24 documents R53 has severe cognitive impairments. R53's Progress Notes document the following: 2/18/24 - CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) heard R53 yelling. When CNA entered the room, R53 was sitting on the bathroom floor with dislodged toilet riser wedged between R53's torso and the toilet. R53 was bleeding from a laceration on the 5th finger. A hematoma was also noted on R53's left side of the forehead. R53 sent to the hospital. 2/18/24 - Hospital RN (Registered Nurse) called with report and states R53's pinky finger did show a fracture and the laceration required three sutures and glue for closure. 2/18/24 - returned to the facility with a splint to the left 5th finger and sutures. 2/22/24 - Laceration to the distal left 5th finger measuring 2.0 cm (centimeters) by 0.2 cm by 0.1 cm. Sutures intact. R53's Fall Investigation included a Falls Statement and Checklist dated 2/18/26 at by V12 (CNA) that documents it appears (R53) attempted to sit down and riser fell along with (R53). R53's Hospital ED (Emergency Department) Provider Note dated 2/18/24 documents R53 presented to the ED for evaluation after a fall. R53 is alert and oriented x 1 and does not follow commands. R53 has a partial avulsion to the skin and fat distal tuft of the left 5th finger {laceration} with exposure of muscle. Final Diagnoses: fall, initial encounter & open fracture of tuft of distal phalanx of finger. R53's X-ray dated 2/18/24 documents a displaced distal tuft fracture of the 5th digit with displacement measuring 2 mm (millimeters). On 5/21/24 at 9:07 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated R53 self-transferred to the toilet which had a riser on it. The riser must not have been secured because R53 and riser both ended up on the floor. The riser was one that generally screwed onto the toilet. Our intervention was to remove those types of risers because that is how R53 got so banged up, due to being pinned between toilet and wall, and was trapped from the riser. On 5/21/24 at 9:24 AM, V11 (Maintenance Director) stated V11 never did checks on the facilities toilet seat risers to ensure they were secure. V11 explained R53's toilet seat riser was one with a front screw to secure it to the toilet itself and I (V11) just don't think it was screwed in all the way which allowed it to move and caused R53 to fall. The facility's Fall Prevention Program dated May 2022 documents the program will include measures which determine the individual needs of each resident by assessing the risk of falls and implementation of appropriate interventions to provide necessary supervision and assistive devices are utilized as necessary. Malfunctioning equipment will be immediately reported to maintenance for repair or removed from service.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete R15 and R54's comprehensive assessment. This fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete R15 and R54's comprehensive assessment. This failure affects two (R15, R54) of three residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments on the sample list of 36. Findings include: 1. R54's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], documents Section O0110 Special Treatments, Procedures and Programs. H1. Intravenous (IV) Medications R54 received while a resident. R54's Physician Order Sheet (POS) dated March, April, and May 2024 documents R54 has not been prescribed any Intravenous (IV) Medications. On 5/21/24 at 9:19AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed R54 has never received any Intravenous (IV) medications. V2 confirmed that the facility follows the Minimum Data Set (MDS) 3.0 User Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual for Long Term Care. 2. R15's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 3/13/24 documents R15 is receiving hospice services. R15's Physician Orders Sheet dated March 2024 documents an order for Palliative Care, not hospice. R15's untitled document dated 3/15/24 from an outside care company documents R15 is receiving palliative care. On 5/20/2 at 8:30 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated R15 is not on hospice but instead receiving palliative care and confirmed that R15's MDS is coded incorrectly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 implement physician orders for laboratory results and ...

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 implement physician orders for laboratory results and withholding medication, and failed to assess, measure, and implement treatments for diabetic wounds for one (R31) of two residents reviewed for skin conditions in the sample list of 36. Findings include: On 5/19/24 at 9:37 AM, V7 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) and V20 (LPN) administered treatments to R31's toe wounds. R31 had some toes that were previously amputated and there were dark black wounds to the left fourth toe and right second and third toes. On 5/19/24 at 9:55 AM, R31 stated R31 admitted with the toe wounds. R31's Care Plan dated 5/19/24 documents R31's diagnoses include Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Atherosclerosis of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Left Tibia Shaft Fracture. This care plan documents R31 has wounds to the left third and right fourth toes, and includes interventions to monitor for infection, administer treatments, and wound physician to follow as needed. R31's admission Skin assessment dated [DATE] documents R31 admitted with casts to both legs/feet and does not document that R31 admitted with toe wounds. There are no documented assessments/measurements of R31's toe wounds until 4/19/24. R31's Wound Evaluation & Management Summary dated 4/19/24 and recorded by V23 (Wound Physician) documents R31's diabetic wounds of the left, proximal, dorsal second toe; left distal, dorsal second toe; and left, distal, dorsal fourth toe were resolved/healed. R31's Progress Notes dated 3/20/2024 at 8:21 AM and 4/22/24 at 8:45 AM, recorded by V25 (Nurse Practitioner) document R31 has areas of chronic necrosis on R31's toes. R31's Progress Note dated 4/26/24 at 8:50 AM and recorded by V25 documents R31 recently lost a toenail. R31's Progress Note dated 5/10/2024 at 8:50 AM recorded by V25 documents R31 has left and right tibia fractures with full length casts from mid-thigh to toes, R31's toes are necrotic, and R31 has a history of prior toe amputations. This note documents R31 has a history of hyperkalemia (high potassium level) secondary to chronic kidney disease and R31's potassium level was 5.4 (elevated) today. This note documents R31's Hemoglobin and Hematocrit was 9.7/30.5 (low), which is down from 10.7/34.1. This note documents orders for Complete Blood Count and Basic Metabolic Panel on 5/16/24 and to hold Lisinopril for five days. There is no documentation that these laboratory orders were implemented. R31's May 2024 Medication Administration Record documents R31's Lisinopril was only held for two days and not five days as ordered. R31's March and April 2024 Treatment Administration Records (TARs) do not document treatment orders for R31's diabetic wounds, besides an order dated 4/23/24-4/26/24 to cleanse the right fourth toe wound, apply triple antibiotic ointment, and cover with a dressing daily and as needed. R31's Skin assessment dated [DATE] documents there was an open area to R31's right second toe and orders were initiated to cleanse the wound and cover with a dry dressing daily. R31's May 2024 TAR documents administrations of this treatment order 5/7/24-5/20/24. There are no descriptions of the wound bed/tissue or measurements of this wound in R31's medical record. R31's Wound Evaluation & Management Summary dated 5/17/24 and recorded by V23 (Wound Physician) documents R31's left fourth toe full thickness diabetic wound measured 0.3 centimeters (cm) long by 0.6 cm wide by no measurable depth. This summary documents R31's right third full thickness diabetic wound measured 1.5 cm by 1.5 cm by 0.1 cm. This summary documents these wounds were necrotic (dead tissue) and a treatment order for an oil emulsion dressing covered with an abdominal pad and gauze roll daily. R31's May TAR does not document that these treatment orders were implemented until 5/19/24, indicating R31's treatment was not administered on 5/18/24. This TAR does not document treatments for these wounds prior to 5/19/24. There are no other documented assessments or measurements of these wounds besides the resolution note by V23 on 4/19/24. On 5/19/24 at 9:35 AM V7 (LPN) stated R31 admitted with the wounds to the left and right toes, the wounds were scabbed and recently reopened. On 5/20/24 at 9:17 AM V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) stated V2 has been without an Assistant DON (ADON) for three months and without a wound nurse, so V2 has been handling things by herself. On 5/21/24 at 9:26 AM V2 stated R31 admitted with all of R31's toe wounds and they did not resolve/heal. V2 stated V23 documented the wounds were healed because V23 did not want to oversee R31's wound care anymore. V2 stated V23 has canceled some of V23's previously scheduled visits. V2 stated wound assessments should be documented weekly as skin assessments in the assessments section of the resident's electronic medical record (EMR). V2 stated V2 was responsible for documenting wound assessments prior to V3 (ADON who was hired late April 2024). V2 stated the floor nurses were administering wound treatments but were not doing the wound assessments. V2 stated V23 (Wound Physician) does not give V23's orders verbally when rounding and does not enter V23's progress notes into the resident's EMR until the day after V23's visit. V3 stated V3 entered V23's orders from 5/17/24 on 5/19/24 and confirmed R31's treatment was then missed on 5/18/24. V2 (DON) stated V25 (Nurse Practitioner) enters V25's orders into the resident's EMR and then usually notifies the nurses who then notify V2. V2 verified R31's laboratory orders were not completed as ordered on 5/16/24 and Lisinopril was not held for five days as ordered. On 5/21/24 at 11:10 AM V2 stated R31's physician was overseeing R31's wound care prior to V23, but V2 does not have any documentation to provide that the physician was aware or that treatment orders were not necessary. The facility's Pressure Injury and Skin Condition Assessment policy dated November 2023 documents Pressure Ulcers and other wounds such as diabetic, venous, and arterial, will have documented assessments and measurements at least weekly in the resident's medical record, including size, location, drainage, odor, stage, and wound description. This policy documents skin will be assessed upon admission/readmission, complete a wound assessment when there are wounds identified, and notify the physician when there are signs of skin problems. This policy documents physician notification will be documented in the resident's medical record and treatment orders will be initiated and recorded on the Treatment Administration Record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 complete a wound assessment for a pressure ulcer, foll...

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 complete a wound assessment for a pressure ulcer, follow physician orders for wound treatments, and monitor dressing to ensure they were intact for two of two residents (R15, R69) reviewed for pressure ulcers on the sample list of 36. Findings Include: 1. R69's Progress Notes dated 4/13/24 documents R69 was admitted to the facility from the hospital and has a stage 2 (pressure) wound to the coccyx. R69's medical record did not contain any wound assessments until 4/19/24, 6 days after admission. This wound assessment documents a stage 2 pressure ulcer to the sacrum measuring 2 cm (centimeters) by 0.5 cm by 0.1 cm. R69's May 2024 Physician Orders document the following Sacral Wound Treatment: apply a non-bordered foam dressing, cutting a donut out over wound, and secure it with tape twice a week. On 5/20/24 at 1:06 PM, V8 (Registered Nurse/RN) with V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing/ADON) entered R69's room to complete the wound treatment. V3 assisted R69 in pulling pants down to reveal a reddened sacrum that was not open and did not have the ordered foam dressing covering it. At this time, V3 stated that V23 (Wound Physician) had healed the wound out on 5/17/24 however still wanted the treatment completed for protection to the area. V8 applied the foam dressing to sacrum, without cutting a donut out over the wound/reddened area. V8 confirmed R69's dressing was not in place and stated I (V8) guess we need to check it daily to make sure it is in place. On 5/20/24 at 3:00 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) stated nurses should be assessing the wounds as soon as a wound is identified and then weekly thereafter. 2. R15's Progress Notes dated 5/11/24 documents a request for treatment was sent to V26 (Physician) for R15's stage one pressure ulcer on the coccyx. The only wound assessment form in R15's medical record is dated 5/17/24, 6 days after R15 acquired the pressure ulcer, and is blank. R15's May 2024 Physician Orders document the following orders: 5/19/24 - Sacral wound: Peri Wound Treatment: apply skin prep twice a week on shower days and PRN (as needed) for 30 days. 5/19/24 - Sacral Wound: Primary Dressing(s): non bordered foam, apply twice a week on shower days (Thursday and Sunday) and PRN for 30 days and secure with tape. 3/26/24 - Silver Sulfadiazine External Cream 1 %; Apply to sacrum topically one time a day. On 5/20/24 at 3:18 PM, V14 (RN) and V16 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) entered R15's room to perform wound treatment. After performing hand hygiene and donning gloves, V16 pulled down R15's pant to reveal a stage 1 pressure ulcer to the sacrum, approximately 2 cm (centimeters) by 2 cm, that did not have the ordered foam dressing covering it. V14 cleansed the wound with wound cleanser and then applied Silver Sulfadiazine over the wound. After the treatment was completed, V14 stated V14 is not sure why the treatment order for skin prep and foam dressing did not show on the TAR (Treatment Administration Record) as needing completed and explained the Silver Sulfadiazine Cream is the only treatment that showed as needing completed. On 5/20/24 at 3:29 PM, V2 (DON) stated the Silver Sulfadiazine should have been discontinued on 5/17/24 when V3 (ADON) put the new treatment orders from V23 (Wound Physician) into the computer and it wasn't. On 5/20/24 at 3:43 PM, V10 (RN) confirmed V10 was R15's nurse on 5/19/24 when R15 was ordered to have the skin prep and foam dressing applied to the sacrum. V10 stated V10 did not apply the skin prep and foam but instead applied the silver Sulfadiazine cream. The facility's Pressure Injury and Skin Condition assessment dated [DATE] documents a wound assessment will be initiated and documented in the resident's chart when pressure and/or other ulcers are identified by the licensed nurse. A wound assessment for each identified open area will be completed and will include: site location, size, stage of pressure ulcer, odor, drainage, description, and date and initials of the individual performing the assessment. Dressings will be checked daily for placement, cleanliness, and signs and symptoms of infection.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to initial and date oxygen, nebulizer, and humidification bottles, and failed to cover nebulizer for two (R41 and R70) of two res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to initial and date oxygen, nebulizer, and humidification bottles, and failed to cover nebulizer for two (R41 and R70) of two residents reviewed for respiratory care on the sample list of 36. Findings Include: The facilities Oxygen and Respiratory Equipment-Changing/Cleaning Policy dated 3/2024 documents; Purpose: 1. Provide guidelines to employees for changing all disposable respiratory supplies. 2. To ensure the safety of residents by providing maintenance of all disposable respiratory supplies. 3. To minimize the risk of infection transmission. Procedure: 1. Handheld Nebulizer (HHN) and Mask, if applicable. A. The handheld nebulizer should be changed weekly and as needed (PRN). b. A clean plastic bag with zip loc or draw string, etc. will be provided with each new set up, and will be marked with the date the set up was changed. C. The aerosol machine will be cleaned monthly on the second shift using facility disinfectant and following manufacturer's directions. 2. Nasal Cannula. a. Nasal cannulas are to be changed once a week and as needed (PRN). b. Whenever possible, residents using a portable oxygen tank, will be switched to room oxygen concentrator while in their room. C. A clean plastic bag with a zip loc or draw string, etc. will be provided to store the cannula when it is not in use. It will be dated with the date the tubing was changed. 4. Oxygen humidifiers should be changed weekly or as needed and will be dated when changed. 1.) On 5/19/24 at 8:48AM, R70's oxygen was running at 3.0 liters per nasal cannula with an attached humidification bottle. Neither the tubing or humidification bottle were signed or dated. On 5/19/24 at 1:30pm, V2 (Director of Nursing) said R70's humidifier bottle and tubing should be dated, all oxygen tubing and humidifier bottles should be dated when changed. V2 confirmed that R70's humidifier bottle and tubing were not dated. R70's undated Face Sheet documents R70's diagnoses as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Combined Systolic (Congestive) and Diastolic (Congestive) Heart Failure, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypercapnia and Anxiety Disorder. R70's Physicians Order Sheet (POS) dated 4/24/24 documents an order for Oxygen at 2-5 liters/minute per nasal cannula to keep oxygen saturation above 90%, every shift related to Acute and Chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypercapnia, Change oxygen and humidifier bottle weekly and as needed, every shift Sunday. R70's Care Plan dated 5/13/24 documents R70 has altered respiratory status/difficulty breathing relate to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). 2.) On 5/19/24 at 8:36 AM, R41's undated nebulizer mask, chamber, and tubing were uncovered and on the seat of R41's recliner. There was a plastic bag dated 4/21/24 on the recliner that contained the nebulizer tubing. R41 stated R41's nebulizer treatments are scheduled to be given as needed and R41's last nebulizer treatment was given three days ago. On 5/19/24 at 3:31 PM, V7 (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated usually night shift changes and dates the nebulizer mask and tubing weekly. V7 stated nebulizer mask/tubing should be stored in a bag when not in use. R41's Physician Order dated 12/31/23 documents to change oxygen and nebulizer tubing weekly and as needed. R41's May 2024 Medication Administration Record documents Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML (milligrams per milliliters) inhale one application every six hours as needed for shortness of breath and this medication was last given on 5/15/24. On 5/20/24 at 2:30 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated nebulizer mask/tubing should be stored in a plastic bag when clean and not in use, changed weekly, and the date should be labeled on the plastic bag.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to identify and care plan specific targeted behaviors and nonpharmacolo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify and care plan specific targeted behaviors and nonpharmacological interventions, and complete psychotropic medication assessments for one (R31) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in the sample list of 36. Findings include: 1.) R31's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R31 has severe cognitive impairment. R31's Care Plan revised 5/17/24 documents R31 admitted on [DATE] and is resistive to cares due to nursing home adjustment. This care plan does not identify what specific cares R31 is resistive to and does not identify any other behaviors. This care plan documents R31 takes antipsychotic medication for psychotic disorder, antianxiety medication for antianxiety, and an antidepressant for depression, but does not identify specific targeted behaviors for the use of these medications. R31's Physician Order dated 5/17/24-5/31/24 documents to give Lorazepam (antianxiety) 0.5 milligrams (mg) by mouth every eight hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety/agitation. R31's Physician Order dated 3/26/24-4/4/24 document Olanzapine (antipsychotic) 5 mg give one tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for agitation and psychosis. R31's March 2024 Medication Administration Record (MAR) documents Olanzapine (antipsychotic) 5 mg was given on 3/28 and 3/31. R31's April and May 2024 MARs document Lorazepam (antianxiety) 0.5 mg PRN was given on 4/16, 4/18, 4/19, 4/20, 4/22, 5/17 and 5/19. These MARs document R31 received Lexapro (antidepressant) 5 mg daily from 4/11-5/2/24 and 10 mg daily starting 5/3/24, Mirtazapine (antidepressant) 15 mg daily for mood beginning on 3/27/24. R31's Behavior Monitoring and Interventions Report dated 2/29/24-5/20/24 document R31 has physical behaviors of grabbing/hitting/pushing others, verbal behaviors of accusing/cursing/screaming/anger/frustrated at others, making disruptive sounds, disrobing in public, repetitive movements, rummaging, throwing/smearing bodily waste, agitation, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, and neglecting/refusing care. This behavior tracking is not personalized to identify R31's specific targeted behaviors and what nonpharmacological intervention to use to respond to each specific behavior. This tracking sheet lists generic interventions to remove from situation, provide calm environment, offer meaningful activity, reapproach, provide one to one, offer food, offer toileting, and provide comfort. R31's Behavior Monitoring and Intervention Report and nursing notes do not document specific behaviors and nonpharmacological interventions that were attempted prior to Lorazepam administrations on 4/19, 4/20, 4/22, 5/17, 5/19/24; and Olanzapine administrations on 3/28 and 3/31/24. R31's Psychotropic Medication Observation dated 5/19/24 documents this is a quarterly evaluation, and R31 has delusions, hallucinations, impaired social skills, memory impairment with abnormal thinking, and paranoia. This assessment documents R31's behaviors of noncompliance, anger, agitation, mood swings, restlessness, hostility, combative, and physically/verbally abusive or threatening; and does not document nonpharmacological interventions for R31's behaviors. There are no other documented psychotropic medication assessments in R31's medical record. On 5/20/24 at 9:08 AM, V21 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) stated R31 cusses at the CNAs and has attitude towards the CNAs, but R31 has never been that way towards V21. V21 was asked what behavioral interventions are used to respond to R31's behaviors, and V21 stated R31 likes snacks. On 5/20/24 at 10:01 AM, V22 (CNA) stated R31's behaviors include yelling out help hello I need help, and R31 threatens to hit staff. V22 stated R31 plays in R31's feces and intentionally dumps R31's urinal. V22 stated R31 refuses to allow changing of clothing and incontinence briefs. V22 stated today R31 thought R31 was going to a wedding. V22 stated we try to just sit and talk with R31 when R31 is having behaviors, and R31 likes to go to therapy and enjoys drinking coffee. On 5/20/24 at 9:17 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) stated psychotropic medications are overseen by the Assistant DON (ADON), but V2 has not had an ADON for three months. V2 stated V2 has been doing audits to get caught up on quarterly psychotropic medication assessments. On 5/20/24 at 1:15 PM, V2 stated R31's behaviors include hallucinations, delusions, hitting staff, and refusing cares. V2 stated for a while we had staff going in pairs to provide R31's care. V2 confirmed R31's behavior tracking record is generic and does not identify R31's specific targeted behaviors and personalized nonpharmacological interventions to respond to R31's behaviors. V2 stated R31 likes basketball, so staff should offer to turn basketball on R31's television as a behavioral intervention. V2 stated psychotropic medication assessments should be done on admission and quarterly, and confirmed R31 did not have a psychotropic medication assessment prior to 5/19/24. V2 stated the nurses should document behaviors and interventions in the nursing notes when giving PRN (as needed) psychotropic medications. V2 confirmed behaviors and nonpharmacological interventions should be included in the resident's care plan. The Behavioral Health Services Program dated February 2024 documents behaviors, behavioral triggers, specific individualized behavioral interventions, and psychotropic medications including the specific targeted behavior for use should be included in the resident's care plan. This program documents to utilize the least restrictive interventions to respond to behaviors, document the interventions attempted, and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention prior to using more restrictive/intrusive interventions including PRN ordered psychotropic medication administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer insulin per manufacturer's instructions and facility policy. There were 3 medication errors out of 33 opportunities...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer insulin per manufacturer's instructions and facility policy. There were 3 medication errors out of 33 opportunities, resulting in a 9.09% medication error rate. This failure affects three (R16, R32, R1) of six residents reviewed for medication administration in the sample list of 36. Findings include: The facility's Insulin Pen procedure dated March 2024 documents to apply a pen needle and prime the pen prior to each injection to remove air bubbles and ensure the needle is working. This procedure documents to prime the pen, turn the dial to 2 units and push the knob so that a drop of insulin appears, and this may need to be done more than once until a drop of insulin appears. 1.) The Fiasp (insulin) Highlights of Prescribing Information dated September 2017 documents Fiasp is a rapid acting insulin, to be given at the start of a meal or within 20 minutes of starting a meal, and it can cause hypoglycemia (low blood glucose). R16's Physician Order dated 4/18/24 documents to administer Fiasp FlexPen (insulin Aspart with Niacinamide) 100 units/milliliter (U/ML) subcutaneous four times daily based on the following sliding scale: 141 - 180 = 6U (units); 181 - 220 = 8U; 221 - 260 = 10U; 261 - 300 = 12U; 301 - 350 = 14U. On 5/20/24 at 10:40 AM, V8 (Registered Nurse) obtained R16's blood glucose level of 246. V8 administered Fiasp FlexPen 10 units into R16's right arm. V8 did not prime the insulin pen prior to administration and there was no food at R16's bedside. On 5/20/24 at 11:16 AM R16 was sitting in the dining room and R16's noon meal was not served until 11:23 AM (over 30 minutes after insulin administration). 2.) Humalog (Lispro) manufacturer's insert dated 6/15/2006 documents this insulin is rapid acting, it should be given within 15 minutes before a meal or immediately after a meal, and it can cause hypoglycemia. R32's Physician Order dated 4/26/24 documents Insulin Lispro peninjector 100 U/ML give 10 units subcutaneous before meals. R32's Physician Order dated 4/26/24 documents to administer Insulin Lispro peninjector four times daily based on the following sliding scale: 0 - 150 = 0; 151 - 200 = 2; 201 - 250 = 4; 251 - 300 = 6; 301 - 350 = 8; 351 - 400 = 10; 401 - 999 = 10 and call physician. On 5/20/24 at 10:53 AM, V8 obtained R32's blood glucose level of 267. V8 administered Lispro 16 units to R32's left arm. V8 did not prime the insulin pen prior to administration and there was no food at R32's bedside. The meal tray cart was brought to R32's hallway at 11:40 AM and R32's meal was served at 11:43 AM (50 minutes after insulin administration). 3.) On 5/20/24 at 11:01 AM, V8 obtained R1's blood glucose level of 256 and administered Lispro 6 units into R1's abdomen. V8 did not prime the insulin pen prior to administration and there was no food at R1's bedside. The meal tray cart was brought to R1's hallway at 11:40 AM and R1's meal was served at 11:43 AM (42 minutes after insulin administration). On 5/20/24 at 2:30 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed insulin pens should be primed prior to each administration. V2 stated residents should eat within 30 minutes of short acting insulin administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure intravenous medications were accurately labeled for two (R22, R42) of six residents reviewed for medication administrat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure intravenous medications were accurately labeled for two (R22, R42) of six residents reviewed for medication administration in the sample list of 36. Findings include: The facility's Medication Administration Policy dated March 2024 documents medications must be administered as ordered including the right medication dosage, and labels that do not contain the correct order, resident name, or physician name need to be returned to the pharmacy for relabeling. The facility's Medication Storage policy dated March 2024 documents the medication name and quantity of additives should be included as part of the intravenous (IV) therapy label. 1.) R42's Physician Order dated 5/20/24 documents to administer a one-time IV micronutrient/hydration therapy of 500 milliliters (ml) 0.9% Normal Saline with vitamin/antioxidant additives (79 ml) including Glutamine 600 milligrams (mg), Arginine 300 mg, Lysine 150 mg, and Citrulline 250 mg to be given at a rate of 250 ml/hour (hr). On 5/20/24 at 11:51 AM, V24 (Registered Nurse) from (infusion company), started a peripheral IV line in R42's right arm and initiated R42's IV therapy medication at a rate of 250 ml/hour. The IV bag was premixed in 500 milliliter (ml) 0.9% Normal Saline and the IV bag label included Glutamine 150 mg, Arginine 500 mg, Lysine 250 mg, and Citrulline 250 mg, which did not match R42's IV therapy order. On 5/20/24 at 12:57 PM, V24 checked R42's IV which was still infusing. 2.) R22's Physician Order dated 5/20/24 documents to administer a one-time IV micronutrient/hydration therapy of 250 ml 0.9% Normal Saline with vitamin/antioxidant additives (79 ml) including Biotin 10 mg, Arginine 300 mg, Lysine 150 mg, and Citrulline 250 mg to be given at a rate of 250 ml/hr. On 5/20/24 at 12:06 PM, V24 started R22's peripheral IV line in R22's right arm and initiated R22's IV therapy medication at a rate of 250 ml/hr. The IV bag was premixed in 250 ml of 0.9% Normal Saline and the IV bag label included B7 (Biotin) 20 mg, Glutamine 150 mg, Arginine 500 mg, Lysine 250 mg and Citrulline 250 mg, which did not match R22's IV therapy order. On 5/20/24 at 2:00 PM, R22's IV bag was empty and V24 disconnected R22's IV. On 5/20/24 at 12:49 PM, V24 stated the infusion company provides an order form for each resident and the facility obtains the physician order. V24 stated the resident's Medication Administration Record is used to verify the IV therapy ordered. V24 confirmed R22's and R42's IV bag labels did not match the physician orders. V24 stated the infusion company recently changed the IV formulations and the old labels were used on R22's and R42's IV bags. V24 stated V24 mixed the IV bag at the infusion company and the dosages of the additives listed on the labels were based on the new formulary as listed in R22's and R42's orders.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assess for the use of side rails, obtain consent for 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 assess for the use of side rails, obtain consent for side rail use, and care plan side rail use for four (R7, R38, R41, R55) of four residents reviewed for side rails in the sample list of 36. Findings include: The facility's Side Rails/Bed Rails policy dated November 2023 documents bed rails are adjustable metal or plastic bars that range in a variety of types, shapes, and sizes. This policy documents the resident will be assessed for risk of entrapment and benefits of bed rails. This policy documents the assessment may consider the resident's medical diagnosis/conditions/symptoms/behaviors, size/weight, sleeping habits, medications, medical/surgical interventions, underlying medical conditions, existing delirium, self-toileting ability, cognition, communication, mobility, and risk for falls. This policies documents provide information such as the medical needs addressed, alternative interventions previously, and associated risk and benefits to obtain consent for side rail use from the resident or the resident's representative if applicable policy documents bed rails will be included as part of the resident's plan of care. 1.) On 5/19/24 at 1:05 PM, R7 was lying in bed and there was an upright side rail on the left side of R7's bed. On 5/20/24 at 9:40 AM, V22 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) entered R7's room and transferred R7 from the bed to the wheelchair. R7 used the side rail to sit up on the side of the bed. V22 stated R7 uses the side rail to assist with turning and transfers, and it has been there for at least three months. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R7 has severe cognitive impairment and requires substantial/maximal staff assistance for turning in bed and transferring. R7's Care Plan revised 3/5/24 does not document side rail use. R7's Side Rail assessment dated [DATE] documents this is a quarterly review, side rails are not indicated at this time, and the risks and benefits of siderail use was verbally reviewed with R7. There are no side rail assessments after 7/6/23 documented in R7's electronic medical record (EMR). 2.) On 5/19/24 at 9:01 AM, R38 was lying in bed on an air mattress, and there were upright siderails on each side of R38's bed. On 5/20/24 at 11:35 AM, V22 (CNA) stated R38 uses the side rails to turn to the right side when in bed and the side rails are only upright when assisting with cares, otherwise the side rails are down (not engaged). R38's MDS dated [DATE] documents R38 has severe cognitive impairment and is dependent on staff for turning in bed, when moving from lying to sitting, and for transfers. R38's Care Plan revised on 3/7/24 does not document side rail use. R38's Side Rail assessment dated [DATE] documents this is a quarterly review, side rails are not indicated at this time, and the risks and benefits of siderail use was verbally reviewed with R38. There are no side rail assessments after 7/13/23 documented in R38's EMR. 3.) On 5/19/24 at 8:43 AM, R41's bed had an upright side rail on each side. R41 stated the side rails are used to keep R41 from falling out of bed and are used when turning in bed. On 5/20/24 at 10:01 AM, V22 (CNA) stated R41 uses the side rails to turn in bed. R41's ongoing census report documents R41 admitted on [DATE]. R41's MDS dated [DATE] documents R41 is cognitively intact. There are no documented side rail assessments or consent for use in R41's EMR. R41's Care Plan revised 5/19/24 does not document side rail use. 4.) On 5/19/24 at 8:59 AM, R55 was lying in bed and R55's bed had an upright side rail on each side. R55 stated R55 uses the side rails to get in and out of bed. R55's MDS dated [DATE] documents R55 has severe cognitive impairment and requires substantial/maximal staff assistance for turning in bed and transferring. R55's Care Plan revised on 5/17/24 does not document side rail use. R55's Side Rail assessment dated [DATE] documents this is a quarterly review, side rails are not indicated at this time, and the risks and benefits of siderail use was verbally reviewed with R55. There are no side rail assessments after 7/7/23 documented in R38's EMR. On 5/20/24 at 1:15 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated side rail assessments are completed quarterly and documented in the assessments section of the resident's EMR. V2 confirmed the assessments should document if side rails are used and appropriate. On 5/20/24 at 2:30 PM, V2 confirmed July 2023 was the last time side rail assessments were completed for R7, R38, and R55. V2 stated it is an EMR issue where the system is prompting the assessments as due in August (annually). On 5/21/24 at 9:45 AM, V2 stated the consent for side rail use is documented on the side rail assessments and confirmed R7's, R38's and R55's assessments document side rails are not indicated. V2 stated side rail assessments were completed quarterly regardless of if side rails are used and V2 is going to update the resident care plans to include side rails.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain resident influenza and pneumococcal vaccination information...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to maintain resident influenza and pneumococcal vaccination information and offer pneumococcal vaccines for four (R31, R7, R14, R54) of five residents reviewed for immunizations in the sample list of 36. Findings include: The facility's Influenza and Pneumococcal Immunization policy dated August 2023 documents education on the influenza will be given to the resident and resident representatives on admission and the vaccine will be administered once the consent for vaccination is signed. This policy documents residents and resident representatives will be given education on the pneumococcal vaccine and the vaccine will be offered in accordance with the CDC (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) guidelines. This policy documents the influenza vaccine is offered October 1 through March 31. This policy documents influenza and pneumococcal vaccination refusals, education provided, and whether or not the vaccines were given will be documented in the resident's medical record. The CDC's Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults dated 3/15/23 documents the following for people age [AGE] or older: Give PCV20 (pneumococcal conjugate vaccine) or PCV15 followed by PPSV23 (pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine) a year or more later for those who have not received any pneumococcal vaccines. For those who have only had the PPSV23, give PCV20 or PCV15 at least a year later. For those who have only had PCV13, give PCV20 or PPSV23 at least a year later. If both PCV13 and PPSV23 have been given, then give PCV20 at least 5 years after the last pneumococcal vaccine was given. 1.) R31's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R31's pneumococcal vaccination is not up to date and R31 was not offered the vaccine. The immunization section of R31's electronic medical record (EMR) does not document influenza and pneumococcal vaccine information/history, and documents R31 is over age [AGE]. There is no documentation in R31's medical record that R31 was offered the pneumococcal or influenza vaccines after admitting to the facility on 3/18/24. 2.) R7's MDS dated [DATE] documents R7's pneumococcal vaccination is not up to date and R7 was offered and declined the vaccine. The immunization section of R7's EMR does not document pneumococcal vaccine history or that R7 refused the vaccine, and documents R7 is over age [AGE]. There is no documentation in R7's EMR that R7 was offered the pneumococcal vaccine. 3.) R14's MDS dated [DATE] documents R14's pneumococcal vaccination status is not up to date and R14 was not offered the pneumococcal vaccine. The immunization section of R14's EMR does not document pneumococcal vaccination history, and documents R14 is over age [AGE]. There is no documentation in R14's medical record that R14 was offered the pneumococcal vaccine. 4.) R54's MDS dated [DATE] documents R54's pneumococcal vaccination is not up to date and R54 was not offered since R54 is ineligible. The immunization section of R54's EMR does not document pneumococcal vaccine history or information. On 5/21/24 at 10:00 AM V2 (Director of Nursing/Infection Preventionist) stated resident vaccine information is received in the referral packet and is documented in the immunization section of the resident's EMR. V2 stated the facility has a pneumococcal vaccine clinic yearly, but one has not been offered recently. V2 reviewed R31's immunization information and confirmed there is no documentation of R31's influenza and pneumococcal vaccination status. V2 stated attempts were made to obtain R31's vaccine information from the assisted living facility where R31 previously resided, but no information was provided. V2 stated V2 was unsure of R31's influenza and pneumococcal vaccination status/history and confirmed R31 was not offered the pneumococcal vaccine. V2 stated R31 refused the influenza vaccine. V2 stated R7, R14, and R54 were not offered the pneumococcal vaccine and V2 was unsure of their pneumococcal vaccination status/history.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assess side rails for risk of entrapment for four (R7,...

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 assess side rails for risk of entrapment for four (R7, R38, R41, R55) of four residents reviewed for side rails in the sample list of 36. Findings include: 1.) On 5/19/24 at 1:05 PM, R7 was lying in bed and there was an upright side rail on the left side of R7's bed. On 5/20/24 at 9:40 AM, V22 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) entered R7's room and transferred R7 from the bed to the wheelchair. R7 used the side rail to sit up on the side of the bed. V22 stated R7 uses the side rail to assist with turning and transfers, and it has been there for at least three months. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R7 has severe cognitive impairment and requires substantial/maximal staff assistance for turning in bed and transferring. 2.) On 5/19/24 at 9:01 AM, R38 was lying in bed on an air mattress, and there were upright siderails on each side of R38's bed. R38's MDS dated [DATE] documents R38 has severe cognitive impairment and is dependent on staff for turning in bed, when moving from lying to sitting, and for transfers. 3.) On 5/19/24 at 8:43 AM, R41's bed had an upright side rail (same type/size as R38's) on each side. R41 stated the side rails are used to keep R41 from falling out of bed and are used when turning in bed. R41's ongoing census report documents R41 admitted on [DATE]. R41's MDS dated [DATE] documents R41 is cognitively intact. 4.) On 5/19/24 at 8:59 AM, R55 was lying in bed and R55's bed had an upright side rail on each side. R55 stated R55 uses the side rails to get in and out of bed. R55's MDS dated [DATE] documents R55 has severe cognitive impairment and requires substantial/maximal staff assistance for turning in bed and transferring. There are no documented bed and rail assessments that assess/measure gaps for risk of entrapment for R7's, R38's, R41's and R55's side rails. On 5/20/24 at 2:30 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated nursing and therapy staff do the bed rail assessments for risk of entrapment. V2 stated this is done by visually observing the resident's ability to utilize the side rail. V2 denied that any measurements are obtained to assess gaps for risk for entrapment and V2 stated V2 was unsure if this is done by therapy or maintenance staff. On 5/20/24 at 2:48 PM, V11 (Maintenance Director) stated maintenance staff do not assess side rail and bed gaps for risk of entrapment. On 5/21/24 at 8:10 AM, V19 Physical Therapy Assistant stated V19 installs side rails when V11 is busy, but V19 does not do any kind of assessment or measurement of bed and rail gaps to assess the risk for entrapment. The facility's Side Rails/Bed Rails policy dated November 2023 documents bed rails are adjustable metal or plastic bars that range in a variety of types, shapes, and sizes. This policy documents the resident will be assessed for risk of entrapment (getting caught/trapped/entangled within spaces in or about the bed rail) and ensure that bed rails are properly installed and maintained. This policy lists potential risks associated with bed rail use, including that a resident or body part could get caught between rails, within the rail, or between the bed rail and mattress; and potential risks can be exacerbated by improperly matching bed rails to bed frames and improper installation and maintenance. This policy documents to follow manufacturer's instructions to ensure the bed rail, bed frame and mattress are compatible, inspect and regularly check the mattress and bed rails for possible areas of entrapment, and ensure the rails are installed correctly. This policy documents the bed frame, rail, and mattress should not have gaps wide enough to entrap a resident's head or body. This policy documents gaps can be created from mattress compression/shifting and when using specialty mattresses such as an air mattress. The Guidance for Industry and FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Staff Hospital Bed System Dimensional and Assessment Guidance to Reduce Entrapment dated 3/10/06 documents there are three body parts that are most at risk for entrapment, the head, the neck, and chest. This guidance documents 4 and 3/4 inches as the basis for dimensional limit for openings in the bed system to avoid head entrapment, 2 and 3/8 inches as the basis for dimensional limit to avoid neck entrapment, and dimensions of greater than 12 and 1/2 inches to avoid chest entrapment. This guidance documents there are seven zones where entrapment can occur, which includes within the rail, under the rail, between the rail and mattress, and between the rail and head or foot boards of the bed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure has the potential to affect all 69 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure has the potential to affect all 69 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 5/20/24 at 8:23am, V9 (Dietary Manager) was actively supervising dietary operations in the facility kitchen during resident meal preparations. V9 reported being the full-time manager of the facility food service and reported not being a clinically qualified Certified Dietary Manager or having the equivalent training. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report dated 5/19/24 documents 69 residents reside in the facility. Facility Assessment Tool dated 12/13/2022 documents: Part 3: Facility Resources Needed to Provide Competent Support and Care for our resident Population Every Day and During Emergencies. Position Dietitian or other clinically qualified nutrition professional to serve as the director of food and nutrition services. 1 Full Time Food Service Manager.
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement fall interventions, thoroughly investigate a...

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 implement fall interventions, thoroughly investigate and document fall investigations, and monitor vital signs as part of post fall neurological assessments. These failures affect two residents (R2, R3) reviewed for falls in the sample list of five. Findings include: 1.) R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R2 has severe cognitive impairment and requires extensive assistance of one staff person for transfers, walking, and toileting. R2's Care Plan revised on 5/5/23 documents R2 is at risk for falls related to confusion and immobility. Interventions include a scoop mattress, keeping the bed in the lowest position, and the use of floor mats beside R2's bed. R2's Fall Investigations document the following: On 4/21/23 at 2:00 PM R2 was brought to the nurse's station by R2's spouse who had allowed R2 to get up and walk by R2's self. R2 fell and had an abrasion to the right side of R2's forehead. On 5/1/23 at 1:25 PM R2 was sitting in R2's wheelchair at the nurse's station, attempted to stand, and fell onto R2's left hip. V15 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) witnessed R2 stand and while rushing to R2, R2 fell to the floor. There is no documentation of the last time R2 was toileted prior to the fall, if what R2 was doing prior to the fall such as if R2 was restless and had prior attempts to self-transfer, or if R2 was wearing footwear. On 5/2/23 the interdisciplinary team reviewed R2's fall. R2 continues to attempt to self-transfer and walk, and a trial use of weighted blanket was the post fall intervention. On 6/19/23 at 10:33 PM R2 was found during shift change rounds sitting on the floor of R2's room near R2's bed. R2 had a laceration to R2's head. R2 was transferred to the local emergency room and received 7 staples to close the laceration. R2 was checked on a few minutes prior to by the CNAs. R2 was lying in bed with call light in reach, and R2 was clean/dry. When R2 returned from the hospital R2 stated R2 hit R2's head on the bedside table when R2 fell while attempting to self-toilet and R2 lost R2's balance. There is no documentation if R2's fall mats or scoop mattress were in place at the time of R2's fall on 6/19/23. On 6/20/23 R2's fall was reviewed. R2 had attempted to get out of bed to self-toilet and R2 was confused. While at the hospital R2 was identified to have a Urinary Tract Infection and antibiotics were initiated. R2's Post Fall Neurological Assessments dated 4/21/23 1:00 PM through 4/24/23 at 7:45 AM do not consistently document R2's vital signs were obtained and monitored as part of the assessment as indicated at the designated time frames. On 7/27/23 at 12:22 PM V7 (Registered Nurse) stated post fall neurological assessments are initiated immediately following an unwitnessed fall or for falls where the resident hits their head. On 7/27/23 at 3:16 PM V14 (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated R2's bed was in low position and R2 had fall mats in place, and V14 generally documents fall interventions in place at the time a fall occurs. On 7/27/23 at 3:20 PM V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed vital signs should be obtained and monitored as part of each post fall neurological assessment at the indicated time frames. V2 confirmed R1's and R2's post fall neurological assessments do not document vital signs are consistently obtained and documented at the indicated time for each assessment. V2 stated V2 uses an interview form/checklist that asks staff questions such as when the resident was last toileted, last checked on, what the resident was doing prior to the fall, footwear, and use of fall mats. V2 stated V2 transcribes this information into the fall investigation and confirmed V2 had no additional documentation to provide for R2's fall investigations. V2 reviewed R2's fall investigations and confirmed they are not thorough and do not include last time toileted, footwear, what R2 was doing prior to the falls, and use of floor mats. 2.) R3's MDS dated [DATE] documents R3 has moderate cognitive impairment and requires extensive assistance of two staff for transfers. R3's Care Plan dated as revised 5/24/23 documents R3 is at risk for falls related to a history of falls, confusion, and gait/balance problems. Fall mats on floor beside R3's bed is listed as an intervention initiated on 5/17/23. R3's Fall Investigation documents the following: On 5/16/23 at 1:25 AM R3 was found on the floor of R3's room and R3's wheeled walker was near R3's bathroom door. R3 complained of right hip pain, was transferred to the local hospital, and diagnosed with a right hip fracture. On 7/27/23 at 11:50 AM and 2:48 PM R3 was lying in bed. There was only one floor mat beside R3's bed. The other floor mat was behind R3's bed and not on the floor between R3's bed and air conditioning unit. On 7/27/23 at 2:48 PM V2 confirmed R3's fall mat should be on the floor between R3's bed and air conditioner. The facility's Fall Prevention Program dated as revised May 2022 documents nursing staff are responsible for ensuring fall precautions are implemented consistently. The interdisciplinary team is responsible for reviewing falls and determining safety interventions and ensuring appropriate care and services were provided. Fall interventions are listed on the resident's plan of care. The undated Falls Statement Checklist includes questions such as when the resident was last provided care and seen and what were they last observed doing. The undated Unwitnessed Fall Neurological Time Check Off list identifies post fall neurological assessments are to be completed initially, then every 15 minutes for 4 times, then every 30 minutes for 4 times, then every 4 hours for six times, and then every 8 hours for six times.
Apr 2023 12 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was properly secured during a vehic...

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 properly secured during a vehicle transport while sitting in a wheelchair, failed to ensure a resident had a properly fitting wheelchair for safe positioning, failed to assess a resident with potential for injury after sliding off the wheelchair prior to moving them, and failed to immediately report the accident to facility administration for one of three residents (R14) reviewed for accident hazards on the sample list of 26. This failure resulted in R14 sliding forward, halfway falling out of the wheelchair and hitting R14's leg on the elevated van stoop/ledge and back of the driver's seat, resulting in a right sided fractured patella and femur, a suspected lateral clavicular fracture, and a suggested comminuted proximal fracture of the fibula. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 3/15/23 at 2:10 pm when R14 slid out of R14's wheelchair during transportation in the van due to not being properly secured with safety belts. V1 (Administrator) was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy situation on 4/6/23 at 2:25 pm. The surveyor confirmed by observation, interview and record review that the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 4/10/23, but noncompliance remains at Level 2 while the facility continues to educate all staff on the facility's Transportation for Resident Policy and Securement Process, obtain a return demonstration and knowledge quiz from all staff regarding the Transportation for Resident Policy and Securement Process, and complete audits to ensure a safety belt and the facility procedure for transportation accidents is followed. Findings Include: On 4/02/23 at 8:11 AM, R14 was lying in bed with a full leg cast on the right leg, and a wheelchair in the corner of R14's room with two four-inch cushions and one one-inch cushion on the wheelchair seat with a sign on the back of the wheelchair that read, Do not use this wheelchair or cushions. R14 stated R14 broke R14's kneecap and leg after having an accident in the facility van. R14 stated a vehicle in front of the facility van was backing up in front of them so V7 (Maintenance/Transportation) had to hit the brakes and swerve to avoid hitting the vehicle but in the process of that, R14 was thrown forward. R14 stated R14 never fully left/fell out of R14's wheelchair because R14 was secured in the wheelchair with the belt around R14's waist, but the force pushed R14 forward in the chair. R14 stated V7 and V5 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA), who was also in the van, immediately unlocked R14's breaks to scoot R14 back into the wheelchair. R14 stated that after arriving back to the facility, R14 was sent to the hospital and ended up being there a few days due to R14 having the fractures. The facility Report to IDPH (Illinois Department of Public Health) dated 3/22/23 documents an accident occurred on 3/15/23 at 2:10 pm where R14 was in a motor vehicle accident and slid forward in the wheelchair and sustained a questionable right leg injury. R14 was transported to the hospital for evaluation and treatment. While hospitalized , R14 was diagnosed with an acute traumatic mildly displaced distal right femoral metaphysis fracture, distracted avulsion fracture inferior right patella, and a suspected lateral right clavicular fracture. Based on the comprehensive investigation, the facility determined on 3/15/23, R14 was transported in the facility van from a medical appointment back to the facility when the van driver was forced to brake suddenly to avoid an accident. R14 complained of pain to the right leg when R14 returned to the facility. The facility's investigation into R14's 3/15/23 accident contained witness statements from V5 (CNA) and V7 (Maintenance/Transportation), both who were present and in the van with R14 at the time of the accident. V5's witness statement documents at approximately 2:10 pm V5, V7 and R14 were driving southbound when a black pickup truck pulled out in front of them and V7, the van driver, braked extremely hard and swerved left to avoid hitting the truck while V5 put V5's left hand back to try to pretty much hold R14 back. The statement documents V5 was able to touch R14's knees but was unable to hold R14 completely back {in R14's wheelchair}and R14 slid onto the floor of the van resting on R14's right side with R14's knees bent. The statement documents V5 and V7 pulled over right away, opened both doors, sat R14 up and assisted R14 back into the wheelchair and at that time, V5 looked R14 over and noticed R14 had a small abrasion and bruise on R14's right shin and R14 complained of pain to both knees, the right hip, and shoulders. The statement documents V5 and V7 came to facility and V5 notified V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) of the incident who then completed an assessment of R14 and sent R14 to the hospital. V7's witness statement documents at approximately 2:10 pm, V7 was headed southbound {in the van} when a black pickup truck pulled left into V7's lane and immediately stopped causing V7 to have to brake hard to avoid a collision, stopping approximately 2-3 inches from the pickup's bumper. The statement documents R14 was secured as usual, the floor anchors were secured, and the wheelchair was secured. The statement documents the seatbelt was across the lap of the resident and secured to the pin on the floor of the van. The statement documents the shoulder strap hooks to the lap seat belt but became unhooked from the lap seat belt. The statement documents V7 and V5 placed R14 back into the wheelchair, secured it, and returned to the facility and notified the DON immediately. This investigation also contained diagnostic imaging results dated 3/15/23 that document the following: 1.) suggested comminuted proximal diaphyseal fracture of the fibula. 2.) appears to be an acute fracture through the inferior 3rd patella with 6 mm (millimeter) distraction. There is additionally irregularity of the superior patellar margin possible avulsion injury. There is intra-articular fracture through the distal femoral metaphysis and epiphysis, possibly comminuted. Also, possibly chronic appearing deformity of the proximal shaft of the fibula. 3.) suspected lateral clavicular fracture with severe underlying shoulder internal derangement. R14's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 1/28/23 documents R14 is able to understand others and make R14's self-understood. R14's ongoing personal information documents R14 is 63 inches tall and weighs 104 pounds as of March 2023. R14's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] documents R14 is at risk for falls. R14's Progress Notes document the following: 3/15/23 - does not document R14's near vehicle accident and sliding forward partially out of the wheelchair but does document R14 was sent to the hospital with complaints of pain and new skin concerns: bruising/abrasion/scratch to the right knee, bruising to the right lower leg with a small abrasion, bruising to the left leg. 3/16/23 - called hospital to get an update on R14, the nurse reported R14 has a broken right femur, kneecap, and clavicle. 3/19/23 - Report from {hospital} nurse received and R14 is alert and oriented x 4, had a closed reduction of the leg, and is to use a Lidocaine patch to the fractured clavicle. R14 returned to facility via ambulance. On 4/02/23 at 2:57 PM, V1 (Administrator) stated when V5, V7, and R14 returned to the facility, V7 was so upset, V7 was in tears. V1 stated V1 had V7 re-enact the situation with V1 and come to find out, whenever R14 travels, R14 sits on three cushions so R14 can sit up tall and see, due to being so petite. When V7 hit the brakes, the shoulder strap came undone, R14 then went under the lap belt due to the three cushions sliding out from under R14. Therapy evaluated R14 for the cushions and type of wheelchair and R14 no longer uses those cushions or that wheelchair. V1 stated the root cause of R14 coming out of R14's wheelchair was the unsecured cushions. On 4/03/23 at 1:15 PM, R14 was lying in bed with V16 (CNA) and V8 (Licensed Practical Nurse/Wound Nurse) in the room. At this time, R14 stated, I (R14) have a good memory and I (R14) did not fall out of the wheelchair. I (R14) was sitting in the middle of the van, between the driver and CNA and when the truck pulled in front of us and we pulled over to the side of the road, I (R14) slid to the front of the wheelchair, but I (R14) was still buckled. That was part of the problem, my legs were up against the back of the seats, and I (R14) couldn't go anywhere because it {wheelchair} was tied down and my legs had nowhere to go other than up and that is how it broke. R14 again stated R14 was buckled around R14's waist only. R14 also confirmed the wheelchair in the corner with the do not use sign on it is the wheelchair R14 was in during the accident and that R14 was sitting on the three cushions in the wheelchair at the time of accident. R14 explained that R14's legs are so long, sitting on the three cushions is the only way R14 can sit comfortably in the wheelchair. R14 stated R14 use to have a different wheelchair but it kept breaking and needing repaired so after R173 passed away, the facility gave R14, R173's wheelchair to use. R14 stated the facility knew R14 needed a taller wheelchair but they didn't have any. R14 explained some of the CNAs check to make sure the cushions are all the way back in the wheelchair seat but R14 doesn't know if V5 did that day or not. R173's medical record documents R173 passed away on 1/3/23. On 4/03/23 at 2:54 PM, V2 (DON) stated R14 was coming home from a doctor's appointment and a car pulled out in front of them so V7 swerved and slammed on the breaks. V2 is not sure if R14 came out of the wheelchair or not but V2 knows there was talk of the wheelchair moving when V7 had to slam on brakes and swerve and wondering if during that process of the wheelchair moving forward and back again that the safety belt came unhooked but V2 don't really know. I know (R14) injured (R14's) knee, femur and shoulder due to the impact but again, don't know what the impact was on. V2 explained V2 was not aware that R14 used all 3 cushions when in the wheelchair until the incident. V2 does not know if R14 was evaluated for proper seating/positioning in the wheelchair when R14 was originally given it, sometime after 1/3/23, but stated since the accident, R14 was evaluated by OT (Occupational Therapy) and no longer uses that same wheelchair or cushions. On 4/03/23 at 3:13 PM, V5 (CNA) confirmed V5's written statement was accurate. V5 stated on the way back from R14's physician appointment, a black pickup pulled in front of the van R14, V5, and V7 were riding in. V7 braked and swerved to prevent from hitting the truck. V5 stated V5, who was in the passenger seat, immediately put V5's hand back {to where R14 was sitting in the wheelchair} to try and prevent R14 from moving forward and was able to touch R14's knees but V5 wasn't able to hold R14 back. V5 explained R14 had been secured in the wheelchair by the wheelchair brakes being locked, the wheelchair being secured to the van floor with the hooks and R14 being buckled in, with a lap belt only, but R14 still moved. V5 stated V5 had been instructed by V22 (Maintenance) that R14 was only to use the lap belt, and not the shoulder strap because it can choke R14. V5 stated the seat buckle, came loose somehow and R14 slid down out of the wheelchair explaining R14's buttocks was half on the wheelchair seat and half on the little step/ledge that the wheelchair pedals go over, slightly on R14's right side with R14's legs bent and facing to the left. V5 stated R14's right knee was touching the back of the driver's side seat and R14's upper body was behind the passenger seat. V5 stated the sheep skin cushion that R14 had been sitting on came out of the wheelchair and was on the ground and the two four-inch cushions stayed in the wheelchair but moved to behind R14 due to them not being secured or tied to the wheelchair. V5 stated V7 immediately pulled over and they got R14 up, back into the wheelchair, due to R14 complaining of R14's knee hurting. V5 explained, R14's knees don't normally bend the way they were so V5 thought the discomfort was just from the way they were bent so we wanted to get R14 up and situated. After getting R14 resecured in the wheelchair, we headed back to the facility, and a couple of miles down the road, R14 started to complain of R14's right knee hurting again and wanting to put R14's leg on the ground and off of the foot pedal. V5 stated V5 moved R14's leg for R14 and that relieved some of the pressure in the knee, so they continued to travel back to the facility, approximately 20 minutes away. V5 stated by the time R14 was almost back to the facility, R14 started saying that R14 couldn't move R14's right leg at all and wasn't able to feel R14's right leg. V5 stated when R14 returned to the facility, V2 (DON) was the nurse working the unit so V2 assessed R14 and sent R14 to the hospital. V5 stated V1 (Administrator) then in-serviced V5 and V7 to call 911 in a scenario like this, where a resident might be hurt, instead of moving the resident like V5 did. On 4/04/23 at 8:50 AM, the facility transport van was observed with V7 and V1 present. The van has a back ramp that the wheelchair rolls into with a 9-inch ledge/stoop that surrounds the wheelchair. Securement straps/hooks are in the van floor. V7 stated that after pushing R14's wheelchair into the van, V7 attached all 4 hooks to each corner of the wheelchair frame and then tightened them down so that the wheelchair could not move, then locked both wheelchair brakes, and then place the seat belt, which is also attached to the floor around R14. The seat belt consists of a lap belt with a shoulder strap that attaches to it with a hook and pin buckle (a piece of metal that goes into a hole in the other end of the buckle and slides into place). V7 stated the shoulder strap is always attached to the lap belt. V7 stated the day of R14's accident, R14 was secured in the wheelchair as described and V7 is pretty sure the shoulder strap was attached to the lap belt as V7 never undid it but that after V7 had to slam on the brakes and swerve, the shoulder strap was no longer on R14 and R14 buttocks were off of the wheelchair seat, knees resting on the 9 inch ledge and the 3 cushions R14 had been sitting on were up behind R14's back. R14 was complaining of knee pain at that time so V5 got R14 back into the wheelchair seat, and once R14 was secured again, we returned to the facility, which is approximately 12 miles away from the accident site. At this time, V1 stated R14 is alert and oriented and that with the differences in V5 and V7's details of the accident, R14 would be able to recall the accident. On 4/6/23 at 2:11 pm, V30 (Registered Nurse/RN) stated R14 does not have good hand dexterity. V30 stated R14 is not able to manipulate small objects and would not be able to unhook the transport seat belt. On 4/04/23 at 9:15 AM, R14 was lying in bed and again stated at the time of the accident the wheelchair was secured to the floor in the front and back of the wheelchair, the brakes were locked and that R14 had a belt around R14 but did not have a shoulder strap on. When asked if R14 knew what a shoulder strap was, R14 stated, I (R14) know what you are talking about because I (R14) remember seeing other people with a strap over their shoulder when in the van and I (R14) thought there must be something wrong with their upper body that they needed it because I (R14) had never used it. On 4/04/23 at 9:30 AM, V21 (Certified Occupational Therapy Assistant/COTA) with V11 (Therapy Director) present stated V21 has never evaluated R14 for a wheelchair, before or after R14's accident on 3/15/23. At this time, V11 stated that an actual evaluation was not completed, however after the accident R14 was given a different wheelchair to use, one with elevating leg rests and one cushion instead of three. V11 stated V11 then instructed the CNAs that if R14 was not positioned good in the new wheelchair to let therapy know and they would get an evaluation completed by the OTR (Occupational Therapist - Registered). V21 stated using three cushions is not good for positioning and safety. I (V21) would not recommend stacking the cushions but then again, (R14) isn't on my case load so I (V21) can't tell the nursing staff not to do that if that is what (R14) wanted. On 4/04/23 at 9:45 AM V22 (Maintenance) with V20 (Maintenance Director) present confirmed V22 provided education to V5 (CNA) a month or two ago on how to secure residents in the van for transportation and instructed V5 to push the resident into the van, lock the wheel brakes, hook all 4 corners of the wheelchair to the straps in the floor and secure the lap/shoulder strap, which is an all-in-one safety belt. V22 stated V22 doesn't remember ever telling V5 to not use the shoulder strap due to the risk of choking a resident but might have said make sure you aren't choking them but I (V22) never said not to use it. At this time, V20 stated V20 doesn't know how the shoulder belt could have come unhooked and confirmed when the inspector checked the van and securement devices out, they didn't find anything wrong/malfunctioning on the strap. On 4/04/23 at 11:49 AM, V25 (Van Inspector) stated V25 inspected all the straps and locking components in the van after the incident and did not see a problem with any of them. V25 also stated if the facility is claiming the chest strap came unsecured from the lap strap, it was probably because it was not hooked up correctly, because all the securement straps passed the pull test. On 4/04/23 at 12:01 PM, V27 (Nurse Practitioner) stated if R14 was complaining the wheelchair that the facility provided to R14 did not fit R14 correctly, and R14 was needing to sit on three pillows to be comfortable, R14 should have been evaluated for a different wheelchair. V27 reported that R14 told V27 that R14 was secured with a belt so V27 assumed it was like in a car, with a lap and shoulder belt and explained if it wasn't on, that would make more sense as to how R14 was able to move forward in the wheelchair. V27 explained, the safety belt would no longer be tight after the three pillows (measuring 9 inches tall) were no longer under R14, and that would have allowed enough space for R14 to slide out of the wheelchair, under the waist strap because R14 is so tiny, and the strap would no longer be tight then. V27 stated V5 and V7 should have never moved R14 with R14 complaining of pain, they should have called EMS (Emergency Medical Services) at that point instead of bringing R14 back to the facility. The undated User Instructions for securing a resident in the transportation van documents to first secure the wheelchair by placing the wheelchair facing forward, apply wheel locks, attach the tie downs to the floor anchors, attach the four tie down hooks to the solid frame of the wheelchair, and ensure all tie downs are locked and properly tensioned. After the wheelchair is secured, then you secure the passenger by attaching the lap belts between the seat back and bottom and/or armrest to ensure proper fit around the occupant then attach the shoulder belt by extending the shoulder belt over the passenger's shoulder and across the upper torso and fasten the pin connector onto the lap belt. Ensure belts are adjusted as firmly as possible, but consistent with user comfort. The facility Fall Prevention Program dated May 2022 documents this program will include measures which determine the individual needs of each resident by assessing the risk of falls and implementation of appropriate interventions to provide necessary supervision and assistive devices are utilized, as necessary. The fall prevention program includes the following components: methods to identify risk factors, methods to identify residents at risk, educate resident and resident representative to fall prevention program at time of admission/throughout residents stay/and when changes occur, use and implementation of professional standards of practice, adherence to manufacturer's recommendation in use of alarm/medical devices/special care equipment. Safety interventions will be implemented for each resident identified at risk. The Director of Nursing or Designee is responsible for monitoring the Fall Prevention Program, including further staff education programs, purchase of additional equipment, or other appropriate environmental alterations. Each resident will be screened by a specialist therapist at the time of admission, quarterly, and after each fall, as appropriate, and with significant change in the resident's mental and functional abilities. The Immediate Jeopardy that began on 3/15/23 was removed on 4/10/23 when the facility took the following actions to remove the Immediacy. 1. R14 was evaluated by V24 (Occupational Therapist) on 4/5/23 for appropriate wheelchair placement. 2. V7 (Transportation), V17 (Activities Director), and V22 (Maintenance), all who are also transportation drivers, were all in-service on 3/16/23 by V20 (Maintenance Director) on appropriately loading and securing residents into the transportation van, including the use of all vehicle seatbelts and wheelchair belts. 3. On 4/6/23, the facility started educating all staff on the facility's Transportation for Residents Policy and Securement Process and having staff complete the securement process with a return demonstration and knowledge quiz. This education will continue until 100% of facility staff have been in-serviced. 4. Audits were initiated on 4/7/23 to ensure facility staff are using the appropriate safety belts on residents during transportation and the facility's procedure for transportation accidents is being followed. These audits will continue five times weekly for 12 weeks under the direction of QAPI (Quality Assurance Performance Improvement).
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to promote resident's dignity by failing to ensure staff ...

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 promote resident's dignity by failing to ensure staff did not stand over residents while providing feeding assistance and ensuring a resident's incontinence brief was not completely exposed in a public area for 2 of 18 residents (R8, R60) reviewed for dignity in the sample list of 26. Findings include: The facility's Dignity policy with a revised date of April 2018 documents, The facility shall promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each resident's dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality. Maintaining a resident's dignity should include but is not limited to the following: Promoting resident independence and dignity while dining, such as avoiding: Daily use of disposable cutlery and dishware; Bibs or clothing protectors instead of napkins (except by resident choice); Staff standing over residents while assisting them to eat; 1.) R60's Order Summary Report dated 4/4/23 documents diagnoses including Dementia in Other diseases Classified Elsewhere, Moderate, with other Behavioral Disturbance, Unsteadiness on Feet, Need for Assistance with Personal Care, Dysphagia, Glaucoma Bilateral Severe Stage, Bilateral Hearing Loss, Unspecified Protein Calorie Malnutrition and Alzheimer's Disease. R60's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R60 is severely cognitively impaired and requires extensive assistance of two or more persons for dressing and extensive assistance of one person for eating. R60's Care Plan dated 3/19/23 documents R60 has urinary incontinence. On 4/2/23 at 8:00 AM, R60 was sitting across from the nurse's station near the front hall entrance to the building. R60 was in R60's geriatric reclining wheelchair with R60's slacks only pulled up to the mid-thigh and there was a blanket laying on the floor beside R60's wheelchair. R60's entire incontinence brief was exposed. On 4/2/23 at 8:40 AM R60 remained sitting in the same place with R60's incontinence brief visible. On 4/2/23 at 8:42 AM V30 (Registered Nurse) confirmed that R60's incontinence brief was exposed and stated, oh my and proceeded to take R60 back to R60's room and fix R60's slacks. On 4/3/23 at 10:29 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that V2 would expect the Certified Nursing Assistants (CNA) to pull R60's slacks all the way up before placing R60 into the geriatric reclining wheelchair. V2 stated that if any staff had seen R60's slacks pulled down they should have addressed it and situated R60's clothing. On 4/3/23 at 11:25 AM, V15 (CNA) was in the dining room feeding R60 lunch while standing over R60. V15 never sat down next to R60 to assist with R60's lunch. 2.) R8's Order Summary Report dated 4/4/23 documents diagnoses including Protein Calorie Malnutrition, Iron Deficiency Anemia, Encounter for Palliative Care and Alzheimer's Disease. R8's MDS dated [DATE] documents R8 is severely cognitively impaired and requires extensive assistance of one staff member for eating. R8's Care Plan dated 4/14/21 documents R8 is to eat in the assisted dining room, provide assistance 1 to 1 for mealtimes. On 4/3/23 at 11:33 AM, V14 (CNA) was standing over R8 feeding R8 lunch. V14 never sat down next to R8 while feeding R8. On 4/4/23 at 9:25 AM, V2 stated that V2 would have to refer to the policy regarding feeding assistance but confirmed that it is a dignity issue with staff standing over resident's assisting or feeding them meals.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold policy to one of one resident (R49) reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold policy to one of one resident (R49) reviewed for hospitalizations on the sample list of 26. Findings Include: R49's ongoing census documents R49 was hospitalized from [DATE] - 12/23/22. On 4/02/23 at 8:41 AM, R49 stated R49 got sick pretty quick a few months back and with all R49's breathing issues, the facility sent R49 to the hospital but that R49 never received any paperwork about saving the bed. R49 also stated R49 has had previous hospitalization and didn't receive any bed hold policy then either. R49's medical record does not contain a bed hold policy for R49's 12/19/22 - 12/23/22 hospitalization. On 4/03/23 at 10:24 AM, V12 (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated when a resident goes out to the hospital, the standard of practice is for us to send the resident's face sheet, orders, the order to send to hospital, the transfer form, POLST (Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment) and bed hold policy with the EMT's (Emergency Medical Technicians). V12 stated the facility does not make a copy of bed hold policy but that they do document in the progress notes that it was sent. R49's Progress Notes dated 12/19/23 document R49 was sent to the hospital but there is no documentation that a bed hold policy was provided. On 4/03/23 at 10:38 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed the bed hold policy is to be sent to the hospital with EMT's with the intent for the hospital then to provide it to the resident and/or family. The facility Bed Hold and Return to the Facility Policy dated 10/2021 documents the purpose of this policy is to ensure that residents and/or resident representatives are notified of the facility bed-hold policy and conditions for return to the facility upon admission and at the time of a transfer from the facility. The bed-hold policies apply to all residents and will be given to the resident and/or representative at the time of a transfer from the facility.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to transmit a resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to transmit a resident's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment within 14 days of the completion date for one (R63) resident reviewed for discharge MDS assessments on the sample list of 26. Findings include: R63's Electronic Medical Record documents R63 discharged from the facility to home at R63's request on 12/5/22. R63's Census List documents and confirms R63 was discharged from the facility on 12/5/22. R63's discharge MDS dated [DATE], Section Z documents R63's discharge MDS was completed on 12/8/22. R63's MDS Summary dated 4/3/23 documents R63's discharge MDS was not transmitted until 4/3/23. On 4/3/23 at 9:45am, V10 (MDS Coordinator) stated there was no alert in R63's EMR stating R63's MDS was past due. V10 stated R63's discharge MDS was completed on 12/8/22. On 4/3/23 at 9:48am, V13 (Regional MDS Coordinator) stated R63's MDS should have been transmitted after it was completed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan to address pain and risk ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan to address pain and risk of pressure ulcers for one of 26 residents (R172) reviewed for care plans on the sample list of 26. Findings Include: R172's ongoing census documents R172 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On 4/02/23 at 8:56 AM, R172 was heard yelling out, ouch from behind doors. Upon entering room, V33 (Certified Nursing Assistant) was in R172's room repositioning R172 onto R172's left side. R172 was lying in bed on a regular mattress. R172 stated R172's right leg hurts when being moved due to a fall at home, but nothing is broken. R172 explained the facility gives R172 pain medicine but they don't always help and it really only hurts when I move though so I stay in bed a lot. I did get up into the chair yesterday and it felt good though. Two disposable Hot packs were sitting in the windowsill. On 4/02/23 at 9:00 AM, V33 confirmed R172 has pain to the hip, likes to stay in bed because of the pain and has developed a small open area to R172's back side. R172's Baseline Care plan dated 3/28/23 documents that R172 requires two staff assist for bed mobility and transfers, has pain but does not document the location of pain, intensity of pain or what to do about the pain, and does not document that R172 is at risk for pressure ulcers. On 4/04/23 at 2:23 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that baseline care plans are pretty much an assessment that is built into the computer where the facility staff check off what the resident's problems/concerns are, and it should include interventions for such concern areas.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to revise and update a resident's care plan for one of two residents (R...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to revise and update a resident's care plan for one of two residents (R32) reviewed for care plans in a sample list of 26. Findings include: R32's Physician's Order Sheet (POS) dated [DATE] documents R32's code status as Full Code-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). R32's Illinois Department of Public Health Uniform Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Form dated [DATE] documents R32 selected Yes Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR). Utilize all indicated modalities per standard medical protocols. Full treatment: Primary goals is attempting to prevent cardiac arrest by using all indicated treatments. Utilize Intubation mechanical ventilation, cardioversion, and all other treatments as indicated. R32's Social Service Note dated [DATE] at 10:13am documents the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) met with V23 (R32's Power of Attorney/POA) and spoke about the care plan. The note documents R32 spoke about all R32's upcoming appointments and V24 Social Service also explained R32 has decided to change to a Full Code Status from DNR (Do Not Resuscitate). The Note states V24 spoke to R32 and explain all options, then R32 signed the new POLST. R32's current Care Plan dated [DATE] documents R32's code status as Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) and states R32 has a signed and valid DNR. Do Not resuscitate should R32 stop breathing, display no pulse as a result of failure of the heart to contract effectively or at all per R32. On [DATE] at 11:57am V2 (Director of Nursing) confirmed (R32's) care plan was not updated and should reflect the correct Advance Directive information. On [DATE] at 1:30pm R32 said, R32 had a meeting with V24 (Social Service Director) and facility staff and informed them that R32 wanted to be a full code now. R32 said, staff had me sign a paper saying that I'm now a full code. The Facility's Comprehensive Care Plan Policy dated 3/2023 documents a comprehensive care plan must be-reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment, including both comprehensive and quarterly assessments. The Care Area Assessments (CAA) provide a link between the MDS and care planning. The care plan should be revised on an ongoing basis to reflect changes in the resident and the care that the resident is receiving.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0659 (Tag F0659)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility provided hot packs for pain relief without a physician order for one of one resident (R172) reviewed for pain on the sample list of 26. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility provided hot packs for pain relief without a physician order for one of one resident (R172) reviewed for pain on the sample list of 26. Findings Include: On 4/02/23 at 8:56 AM, R172 was heard yelling out, ouch from behind doors. Upon entering R172's room, V33 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) was in the room repositioning R172 onto R172's left side. R172 stated R172's right leg hurts when being moved due to a fall at home. R172 stated the facility gives R172 pain medications but they don't always help. Two used disposable Hot Packs were sitting in R172's windowsill. At 8:58 AM, V33 stated V33 had been putting hot packs on R172's groin area for the past three days for the pain as well as R172 is getting pain medications. R172's March and April 2023 Physician Orders do not contain an order for hot packs to the groin. On 4/03/23 at 9:50 AM, V12 (Licensed Practical Nurse) stated R172 has been asking for a hot pack but that R172 does not have an order for one. V12 stated V12 would need to call the physician to obtain an order. At this time, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated the facility does have hot packs that are locked up in the medication room and storage rooms but that a hot pack should not be used without a physician's order. Both V12 and V2 stated they were not aware that V33 had been giving R172 a hot pack without an order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pressure ulcer treatment was administered according to physician orders for one of three residents (R14) reviewed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pressure ulcer treatment was administered according to physician orders for one of three residents (R14) reviewed for pressure ulcers on the sample list of 26. Findings Include: R14's Wound Physician Notes dated 3/30/23 documents R14 has full thickness wounds to the left proximal medial foot and left medial first toe, full thickness caused by a cast on the opposite leg/foot rubbing on the foot. The left proximal medial wound measures 1.5 cm (centimeters) by 1 cm by 0 cm and the left medial first toe wound measures 1 cm by 1 cm by 0 cm. R14's April 2023 POS (Physician Order Sheet) documents an order to cleanse both the left medial first toe and left proximal medial foot with wound cleanser, apply honey to each wound and cover with a bordered gauze dressing three times a week on Monday, Thursday, and Saturday. R14's Care Plan dated 3/28/23 documents R14 is at risk for skin impairment of the left foot due to the cast on the right foot rubbing on it with an intervention to administer/monitor the effectiveness of medications as ordered. On 4/03/23 at 1:15 PM, R14 was lying in bed on a regular mattress. V16 (Certified Nursing Assistant) and V8 (Licensed Practical Nurse/Wound Nurse) entered R14's room to perform the ordered pressure ulcer dressing changes. V16 removed R14's sock on the left foot to reveal the two pressure ulcers on the left foot, neither with a dressing in place. At this time, V8 stated the dressing might have come off in R14's sock. V16 checked R14's sock and there was no dressing in the sock. V16 was not sure when R14's foot wounds were last covered with a dressing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received the correct oxygen flow rate as ordered by the physician for one of one resident (R11) reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident received the correct oxygen flow rate as ordered by the physician for one of one resident (R11) reviewed for oxygen administration in the sample list of 26. Findings Include: The facility's Oxygen Concentrator policy with a revised date of January 2013 documents, Purpose. To provide Oxygen for therapeutic use by utilizing a concentrator that converts ambient air to a high concentration level of oxygen. It is commonly used to provide oxygen therapy. Procedure. 1. Verify and understand the physician's order. 2. Know the flow rate and duration of use. 9. Adjust the flow meter control knob to the flow setting prescribed by the physician. The graduated line of the meter should be aligned with the center of the floating ball. R11's Order Summary dated 4/2/23 documents diagnoses including Essential Hypertension, Atherosclerotic Heart Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Diabetes. R11's Order Listing Report dated 4/4/23 documents an order for Oxygen at 3 LPM (Liters Per Minute) via NC (Nasal Cannula) continuous every shift related to Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. On 4/02/23 at 8:07 AM, R11's oxygen concentrator is in R11's room and is set on 6 liters. R11 is not in R11's room. R11 is in the hall with an oxygen tank on the back of the geriatric reclining chair. On 4/3/23 at 10:23 AM, R11 was in R11's room and R11 had R11's oxygen on via a nasal cannula and the oxygen concentrator. R11's oxygen concentrator was set at 6 liters per minute. On 4/3/23 at 11:20 AM, R11 is in R11's room with oxygen on via the nasal cannula and the oxygen concentrator and R11's oxygen concentrator is set at 6 liters per minute. On 4/3/23 at 11:23 AM, V12 (Licensed Practical Nurse) confirmed that R11's oxygen concentrator is supposed to be set at 3 liters per minute according R11's Physician's Orders. At this time, V12 confirmed that R11's oxygen concentrator was set at 6 liters per minute and was not supposed to be set at 6 liters. V12 immediately dialed the concentrator down to 3 liters per minute and stated that V12 had no idea why it would have been set at 6 liters. On 4/4/23 at 9:35 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that V2 would expect the nurses to follow the physician's orders regarding the oxygen concentrator settings and would expect the nurses to monitor the resident's oxygen concentrator settings.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the use of an as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication was no...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the use of an as needed (PRN) antipsychotic medication was not administered beyond 14 days without clinical justification and evaluation for its use and failed to provide clinically pertinent explanation for concomitant use of two antipsychotic medications for one of five residents (R11) reviewed for unnecessary medications in the sample list of 26. Findings include: The facility's Psychotropic Medication - Gradual Dosage Reduction policy with a revised date of February 2018 documents, Purpose: To ensure that residents are not given psychotropic drugs unless psychotropic drug therapy is necessary to treat a specific or suspected condition as per current standards of practice and are prescribed at the lowest therapeutic dose to treat such conditions. Residents on anti-psychotic drug therapy will be monitored for tardive dyskinesia side effects every 6 months through the use of the AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) scale. PRN (as needed) antipsychotic medications shall be limited to 14 days. If deemed appropriate to continue for greater than 14 days, the attending physician or prescribing practitioner will evaluate the resident and enter a new order for PRN administration as indicated, not to exceed 14 days. R11's Order Summary dated 4/2/23 documents diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease, Dementia in Other Diseases Classified Elsewhere, Moderate, With Other Behavioral Disturbance and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. This Order Summary documents an order for Haloperidol Lactate (antipsychotic) Oral Concentrate 2 mg (milligrams/milliliter) Give 1 mg by mouth every 1 hour as needed for agitation max (maximum) dose 5 mg in (a) 4-hour period with a start date of 2/08/2023. This Order Summary documents an order for Prochlorperazine Maleate (antipsychotic/antimanic) Oral Tablet 10 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for antipsychotics/antimanic agents with a start date of 1/25/23. This Order Summary also documents an order for Risperidone (antipsychotic) Oral Tablet 0.5 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day related to Dementia in Other Disease Classified Elsewhere, Moderate, With Other Behavioral Disturbance with a start date of 2/1/23. R11's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 4/1/23 through 4/30/23 documents that R11 has not received any PRN Haldol or Prochlorperazine Maleate and that R11 received the Risperidone 0.5 mg twice a day every day to date. R11's MAR dated 3/1/23 through 3/31/23 documents that R11 received Haldol 1 mg on 3/16/23 at 8:55 AM, on 3/20/23 at 11:27 PM and on 3/30/23 at 7:30 PM and R11 did not receive any PRN Prochlorperazine Maleate. R11's MAR dated 3/1/23 through 3/31/23 documents R11 received the Risperidone 0.5 mg twice a day every day as ordered. R11's MAR dated 2/1/23 through 2/28/23 documents R11 received Haldol 1 mg on 2/14/23 at 1:25 PM, 2/16/23 at 10:02 AM, 2/17/23 at 5:54 AM and on 2/22/23 at 5:59 AM. This MAR documents that R11 received the Risperidone as scheduled twice a day every day except on 2/1/23, 2/8/23 and 2/13/23 as R11 refused the medication. R11's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents R11 is moderately cognitively impaired. This MDS documents R11 has behaviors of inattention and disorganized thinking that fluctuates. R11 experiences hallucinations and delusions. R11 has physical and verbal behaviors daily and rejection of care 4-6 days a week. R11's Physician Progress Notes documents that R11 has been seen by Psychiatry 1/10/23, 1/30/23 and 2/27/23. R11 has not been evaluated every 14 days prior to writing a new prescription for the PRN antipsychotic medications. On 4/04/23 at 10:14 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) that the facility's Psychiatric provider sees R11 once a month. V2 confirmed R11 receives more than one antipsychotic medication and receives a prn antipsychotic medication. V2 confirmed that the Psychiatric provider only sees R11 once a month not every 14 days.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure has the potential to affect all 72 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to employ a clinically qualified Director of Food and Nutrition Services. This failure has the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: On 4/2/23 at 8:23am, V3 (Dietary Manager) was actively supervising dietary operations in the facility kitchen during resident meal preparations. V3 reported being the full-time manager of the facility food service and reported not being a clinically qualified Certified Dietary Manager or having the equivalent training. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents report dated 4/2/23 documents 72 residents reside in the facility.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0868 (Tag F0868)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have the required members attend the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. This failure has the potential to affect all...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to have the required members attend the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings. This failure has the potential to affect all 72 residents residing in the facility. Findings include: The facility's Quarterly QAPI Meeting policy with a revised date of March 2022 documents, Purpose: The meeting is to review the results of the Quality Data the committee has reviewed for the previous quarter. When: quarterly meetings will be held 1 month after the end of the quarter. For example: The 1st quarter meeting will be held in April. Data to be reviewed will be from January, February & (and) March. Ideally the meeting is held on a designated same day to better facilitate attendance. Who Attends: Administrator, DON (Director of Nursing), Medical Director, Infection Preventionist, Social Services, Food Service Director, Activities Director, Maintenance Director, Human resources Director, Pharmacy Consultant, Dietary Consultant, Social Services Consultant, lab and Radiology support (call in to meeting if needed). On 4/2/23 at 3:00 PM, the QAPI Quarterly Meeting sign in sheets provided by V1 (Administrator) documents the June 2022 QAPI meeting sign in sheet did not have a Medical Director in attendance, the October 2022 QAPI meeting sign in sheet did not have a Medical Director in attendance, the QAPI meeting sign in sheet dated 3/29/23 did not have a Medical Director in attendance. On 4/4/23 at 11:30 AM, V1 confirmed that the Medical Director did not attend the meeting dated 3/29/23. V1 stated that the Medical Director attended the meeting in January but V1 cannot attest to any meetings before January as V1 was not working in the facility at that time. The Resident Census and Conditions of Residents dated 4/2/23 documents 72 residents reside in the facility.
Nov 2022 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely implement a physician's recommendation for a specialized low ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to timely implement a physician's recommendation for a specialized low air loss mattress to promote pressure ulcer healing for one of three residents (R1) reviewed for pressure ulcers in the sample of three. Findings include: R1's October 2022 Physician Order Sheet (POS) documents diagnosis of Morbid Obesity, Difficulty Walking, Heart Failure, Type II Diabetes, Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, and Covid-19. The same POS documents an order for an air mattress, started on 9/29/22. R1's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE] documents R1 requires extensive assistance of two staff persons for bed mobility. R1's Braden Observation (skin risk assessment tool) dated 8/23/22 documents R1 is at risk for skin breakdown due to moisture, limited activity, and very limited mobility by which R1 is unable to make frequent or significant changes in body position independently. R1's Care Plan dated 8/19/22 documents an actual skin impairment of pressure injury to R1's sacrum. Interventions include to minimize pressure over bony prominences and wound doctor to assess and treat as needed. R1's Initial Wound Evaluation and Management Summary dated 8/25/22 documents R1 had an unstageable pressure ulcer to her sacrum. V4's (Wound Doctor) recommendation for treatment includes an air mattress. R1's Progress Notes dated 10/2/22 documents an air mattress was ordered for R1 and will be delivered on 10/3/22. On 11/4/22 at 11:45 AM V4 (Wound Doctor) stated she works as a consultant for the facility and makes recommendations for what she believes will be best for the residents in order to promote wound healing. V4 stated she did recommend a low air loss mattress for R1 when she first saw her for a sacral wound on 8/25/22. V4 stated R1 was obese and had a difficult time moving herself from side to side in bed. The low air loss mattress would have been beneficial to the healing of R1's wound because it provides off-loading by pumping air through the mattress. On 11/3/22 at 3:52 PM V2 (Director of Nurses) confirmed the facility should do all they can to prevent pressure ulcers, promote healing of pressure ulcers, and prevent infection or further decline of pressure ulcers. If V2 would have known that V4 recommended an air mattress on 8/25/22, she (V2) would have put in the order for one and made sure R1 received it. V2 confirmed V4's recommendations are interventions to promote healing and further decline and the facility should follow them for the benefit of the resident. V4 confirmed R1 did not receive an air mattress until 10/3/22.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $197,112 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 53 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $197,112 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in Illinois. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is La Bella At Clifton's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns LA BELLA AT CLIFTON an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Illinois, 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 La Bella At Clifton Staffed?

CMS rates LA BELLA AT CLIFTON's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 48%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at La Bella At Clifton?

State health inspectors documented 53 deficiencies at LA BELLA AT CLIFTON during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, 48 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates La Bella At Clifton?

LA BELLA AT CLIFTON is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 99 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in CLIFTON, Illinois.

How Does La Bella At Clifton Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, LA BELLA AT CLIFTON's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (48%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting La Bella At Clifton?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations, the substantiated abuse finding on record, and the below-average staffing rating.

Is La Bella At Clifton Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, LA BELLA AT CLIFTON has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Illinois. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at La Bella At Clifton Stick Around?

LA BELLA AT CLIFTON has a staff turnover rate of 48%, which is about average for Illinois nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was La Bella At Clifton Ever Fined?

LA BELLA AT CLIFTON has been fined $197,112 across 5 penalty actions. This is 5.6x the Illinois average of $35,050. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is La Bella At Clifton on Any Federal Watch List?

LA BELLA AT CLIFTON 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.