APERION CARE DEKALB

1212 SOUTH SECOND STREET, DEKALB, IL 60115 (815) 758-8151
For profit - Corporation 119 Beds APERION CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#320 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: July 2024

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

Overview

Aperion Care DeKalb has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #320 out of 665 nursing homes in Illinois, they are in the top half, but their county rank is #4 out of 7, meaning there are better local options available. The facility has been improving over time, with issues decreasing from 10 in 2024 to 6 in 2025, but staffing remains a concern with a turnover rate of 69%, significantly higher than the state average. While they have good RN coverage, ranking better than 91% of state facilities, there have been serious incidents, including a resident wandering unsupervised and another whose wound treatment was mishandled, requiring hospitalization. Overall, while there are some strengths, families should weigh these against the notable weaknesses and significant compliance issues.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In Illinois
#320/665
Top 48%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
10 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
69% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$45,697 in fines. Lower than most Illinois facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 64 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Illinois nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
42 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 10 issues
2025: 6 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Illinois average (2.5)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 69%

22pts above Illinois avg (46%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $45,697

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: APERION CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is elevated (69%)

21 points above Illinois average of 48%

The Ugly 42 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 5 actual harm
Jun 2025 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow wound treatment orders for 1 of 3 residents (R1...

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 follow wound treatment orders for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for wounds in the sample of 3. This failure resulted in R1's wound deteriorating and requiring R1 to be hospitalized and recieve a surgical intervention. The findings include: On 6/17/25 at 9:00 AM, R1 was in bed with an intravenous antibiotic infusing to a peripherally inserted central catheter in his left arm. R1's left leg was amputated below the knee and was wrapped in a dressing with a wound vacuum attached. R1 said he originally had surgery on his knee back around the Superbowl of this year. R1 said the wound had been infected and he has had pills and shots and surgery and now this. R1 said the wound became infected and he was sent to the hospital and the surgeon did a procedure a couple weeks ago. R1 said he was in the hospital for 6 days where they jabbed him with more needles. R1 said now they have him hooked up to the antibiotics and the wound vac machine. On 6/17/25 at 9:07 AM, V3 Wound Nurse Practitioner said she has been following R1 since 4/29/25. R1's surgical incision started off as covered eschar. V3 said one side of the eschar had tunneling underneath with some slough. V3 said at first there were no signs or symptoms of infection, but then the wound had some drainage. V3 said R1 was started on oral antibiotics which seemed to improve but then the tunneling appeared worse and she did an x-ray to rule out osteomyelitis. V3 said the x-ray came back suspicious for osteomyelitis so she gave orders to send R1 to the hospital. On 6/17/25 at 10:15 AM, V4 Wound Licensed Practical Nurse said R1's wound had an area that was open and had tunneling. V4 said V3's wound treatment orders were packing the wound with iodoform packing on Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. V4 said the wound had increased drainage and the packing would be soaked. V4 said V3 ordered an X-ray to check for osteomyelitis and the x-ray came back suspected osteomyelitis. V4 said V3 had R1 sent to the hospital. V4 said at the hospital, R1 had testing which showed an abscess. V4 said R1 had an incision and drainage procedure with the surgeon to wash out the wound. V4 said R1 returned to the facility with a wound vac and on intravenous antibiotics. On 6/17/25 at 1:12 PM, V3 said R1's treatment orders for the tunneling in his wound was iodoform packing to be done daily. V3 said wound packing is almost always done daily in order to be effective. V3 said she never orders packing a wound only Monday, Wednesday, and Fridays. V3 said wound packing helps the wound heal from the inside out and packing [NAME] the wound drainage out of the wound. V3 said daily packing changes prevents a bacterial bio film from forming in the wound cavity. V3 said the bacterial bio film increases the risk for infection especially someone already colonized with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) like R1. V3 said her expectation is for treatment orders to be completed as ordered. V3 said not doing daily packing wound dressing changes could cause a delay in healing, increase the risk for infection and lead to deterioration of the wound. V3 said she was not aware that R1's wound packing dressing was not being done daily. R1's Wound MD Progress Note Details dated 5/6/25 shows Anterior lower leg full thickness surgical wound measuring 1.5 x 12.0 x 0.2 cm with moderate purulent drainage. Wound Orders: cleanse with wound cleanser/ Dakin's solution, apply Santyl to wound to slough, apply calcium alginate, abd pad, kerlix, secure with tape daily. The facility transcribed the order as; R1's Physician Orders dated 5/8/25 shows Wound care left lower leg suture site. Cleanse with Dakin's wash. Apply Medihoney to wound slough. Apply calcium alginate packing to wound. Cover with abd pad and wrap with kerlix as needed for wound care. Change daily and as needed. R1's Verbal Physician Orders dated 5/13/25 shows Wound care left lower leg suture site. Cleanse with Dakin's wash. Apply dermasyn silver antibacterial wound gel. Cover with abd pad and wrap with kerlix and ace wrap as needed for wound care and every day shift every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for wound care. (There is no calcium alginate packing included in order). R1's Verbal Physician Orders dated 5/16/25 shows Wound care left lower leg suture site. Cleanse with Dakin's wash. Apply dermasyn silver antibacterial wound gel. Cover with abd pad and wrap with kerlix and ace wrap as needed for wound care and every day shift every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for wound care. (There is no calcium alginate packing included in order). R1's Progress Note Details dated 5/20/25 shows Anterior lower leg full thickness surgical wound measuring 2.0 x 11.0 x 0.5 cm with moderate sero-sanguineous drainage. Wound Orders: cleanse with wound cleanser, apply dermasyn silver antibacterial wound gel. Apply calcium alginate packing strip, abd pad, kerlix, daily and as needed. The facility transcribed the order as; R1's Physician Orders dated 5/20/25 shows Wound care left lower leg suture site. Cleanse with wound cleanser. Pack wound to 2 o'clock with iodoform. Apply dermasyn silver antibacterial wound gel to wound bed. Cover with abd pad and wrap with kerlix as needed for wound care and every day shift every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for wound care. R1's Verbal Physician Orders dated 5/27/25 shows Wound care left lower leg suture site. Cleanse with wound cleanser. Pack wound to 2 o'clock, 7 o'clock, and 9 o'clock position with iodoform. Apply dermasyn silver antibacterial wound gel to wound bed. Cover with abd pad and wrap with kerlix as needed for wound care and every day shift every Monday, Wednesday, Friday for wound care. R1's Wound MD Progress Note Details dated 5/28/2025 shows Anterior lower leg full thickness surgical wound measuring 2. 0x10.ox 2.0 cm with large serosanguinous drainage with tunneling at eleven o'clock position of 3.5 cm, seven o'clock position was 3.0 cm and nine o'clock position was 5.5 cm. The wound is deteriorating. Wound orders: Cleanse with wound cleanser, Apply the dermasyn silver antibacterial wound gel. Apply packing strip. Cover with ABD and kerlix apply tape. Change daily and as needed. R1's Hospitalist Progress Note dated 6/3/25 shows Arrival date: 5/29/25, Assessment: Principal Problem: infection of amputation stump/abscess of left lower extremity. Plan: Infection of amputation stump of left lower extremity, Infectious Disease on consult, Cellulitis of left below the knee amputation, 5/30/25 intra operative cultures showed Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Corynebacterium stratum, washout left below-knee amputations site. 5/30/25 Cat Scan left lower extremity shows possible abscess measuring 2.1 x 5.1 x 4.0 cm. Underlying osteomyelitis is possible. Wound vac placed. R1's Care Plan shows Wound Management-Left lower leg suture sites- provide wound care per treatment order. On 6/17/25 at 2:00 PM, V4 said he did not review V3's written treatment orders. The facility's Skin Condition Assessment and Monitoring Pressure and Non-Pressure Policy dated 6/8/18 shows Adherent or semi-permeable membranous dressing used for debriding or healing purposes will be removed at lease weekly or more often in accordance with physician's orders.
Mar 2025 2 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 identify a wound prior to becoming an unstageable woun...

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 a wound prior to becoming an unstageable wound, failed to have pressure ulcer interventions in place, and failed to ensure wound treatment orders were in place for 2 of 3 residents (R1, R2) reviewed for pressure ulcers in the sample of 3. These failures resulted in R1 being at an increased risk of infection and delayed wound healing. The findings include: 1. R1's face sheet printed on 3/6/25 showed diagnoses including but not limited to encephalopathy, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, Alzheimer disease, and chronic kidney disease. R1's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed severe cognitive impairment and total staff assistance required for hygiene, transfers, and bed mobility. The same assessment showed R1 is always incontinent of urine and bowel. R1's pressure ulcer risk assessment dated [DATE] showed a moderate risk for pressure ulcer development. R1's medical record showed an original facility admission on [DATE]. The record showed R1 was sent to the local hospital on 2/25 and returned 2/28. R1's hospital records showed a wound consult on 2/27/25. An unstageable coccyx pressure ulcer (lower back/upper buttocks area) measuring 4.5 cm x 2 cm (centimeters) was present. On 3/6/25 at 8:33 AM, R1 was lying in bed while V5 and V6 (CNAs-Certified Nurse Aides) performed morning cares. R1 was incontinent of urine and bowel. R1 was rolled to her side and a damp dressing was on her coccyx area. V5 removed the dressing, and an egg size open area was observed with a smaller quarter size area next to it. The aides completed peri care and alerted the nurse of the need for a new dressing. V6 stated R1 is completely dependent on staff for all daily cares. V6 stated the CNAs do skin checks during all care and on every shower day. Any skin changes should be found and reported to the nurse immediately. On 3/6/25 at 9:05 AM, V4 (Registered Nurse) provided wound care to R1's coccyx. V4 stated the nurses do weekly skin observations and the CNAs do daily checks on every shift. That way any skin changes can be found early, and treatment can get started. V4 said she was unsure how long the coccyx wound had been there, but it was sometime after she came back from the hospital. R1's progress notes were reviewed from the date of admission to current. There were no weekly skin observations done by a nurse until she returned from the hospital (no observations from 1/28 to 3/1). R1's last 30 days of CNA skin checks were reviewed. The task tab showed no skin issues observed, including every day after the unstageable pressure ulcer was found. On 3/6/25 at 10:37 AM, V3 (WCN-Wound Care Nurse) stated R1 is at high risk for pressure ulcers based on her low cognition, low mobility, and is bed fast most of the time. V3 said all residents are assessed weekly by the floor nurses from head to toe for any skin changes. The skin checks are documented in progress notes. The aides check resident skin during daily cares. It is important the checks are done to ensure they are found at an early stage. All skin changes need care orders and interventions put in place right away. There is the risk of infection and delayed wound healing when open areas are found at more advanced stages. V3 reviewed R1's electronic record and was unable to locate any weekly skin observations done by the floor nurses prior to her going out. V3 said he did not know why the aides' daily skin checks are still being recorded as no skin issues. V3 stated R1's unstageable coccyx wound was not found until she was sent to the hospital. R1's wound assessment done upon return to the facility and dated 3/1/25 (by V3) showed a 2 cm x 4.5 cm unstageable pressure ulcer located on the coccyx. R1's care plan was reviewed and showed no focus areas or interventions in place related to the potential for skin impairment or pressure ulcer development until she returned from the hospital. On 3/6/25 at 11:16 AM, V7 (VP of Clinical Operations) stated R1's daughter notified the facility of the coccyx wound when the hospital discovered it. That was the first time anyone realized R1 had an open area on her coccyx. V7 said R1 was seen by the corporate wound consultant sometime this week, but there is no record of any assessment or that the visit occurred. V7 stated pressure ulcer prevention interventions were in place but the care plan does not reflect that until after she came back from the hospital. On 3/6/25 at 3:21 PM, V2 (DON-Director of Nurses) stated it is important to check residents' skin and find changes early. Skin issues are easier to treat the sooner they are found. V2 said she could not say how long R1's coccyx wound had been there. The lack of weekly observations makes it impossible to know. V2 said it wasn't until R1's daughter called and alerted them to the wound after the hospital found it. V2 said it should have been found by the facility staff prior to becoming an unstageable wound. On 3/7/25 at 1:16 PM, V9 (Wound Physician Assistant) stated R1's coccyx wound absolutely should have been found earlier. There is a huge potential for delayed wound healing or to not heal at all. Wounds that are found at advanced stages could already be infected. R1 is incontinent and given the locale of her wound she is at a high risk of osteomyelitis (bone infection). The facility's Pressure Injury and Skin Condition Assessment policy revision dated 1/17/18 stated: 2. Residents identified (at risk for pressure ulcers) will have a weekly skin assessment by a licensed nurse. 4. Each resident will be observed for skin breakdown daily during care and on the assigned bath day by the CNA . 6. Care givers are responsible for promptly notifying the charge nurse of skin breakdown. 2. On 3/6/25 at 8:56 AM, R2 was lying on her bed while V5 and V6 (CNAs) prepared to do a mechanical lift transfer. V5 removed R2's socks and a dressing was observed on her right heel. The dressing date and signature were both illegible and hard to read. V5 stated R2 did have a black sore on that heel but was unsure if it was still there or had healed. R2's wound assessment dated [DATE] showed a right heel DTI (deep tissue pressure injury) measuring 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm. The assessment showed it was identified on 2/13/25. R2's February 2025 TAR (Treatment Administration Record) was reviewed and showed an order discontinued on 2/27/25 for: Right heel-apply boarder foam dressing to DTI in the morning every Tues, Fri, Sun for prophylaxis. The TAR showed the last treatment was done on Tuesday, 2/25/25. R2's March 2025 physician orders and TAR were reviewed. There were no treatment orders related to the right heel DTI. On 3/6/25 at 10:37 AM, V3 (WCN) reviewed R2's medical record and was unable to locate any wound treatment order for the right heel. V3 said the DTI is still on her heel. V3 said orders are needed so the nurses know how to care for the wound. The orders should include how and when to treat the wound, how to clean and cover the wound. V3 stated he did not know why there were no treatment orders for her DTI. On 3/6/25 at 2:40 PM, V2 (DON) stated R2's wound treatments were discontinued by the wound doctor in February and V2 did not know if that was what was intended. V2 said staff should have followed up with the wound team before today. It needs to be clarified right away. Wounds have a higher risk of infection and delayed healing when treatments do not get done. On 3/6/25 at 3:05 PM, V3 (WCN) stated he just received the correct order for R2's heel wound. It should have continued into March with cleansing and a gauze dressing three times a week and as needed. V3 said there is nothing to show that her heel wound has been treated since 2/25/25 (9 days ago). R2's physician order showed the current wound order for the right heel DTI was just start dated on 3/6/25 (day of survey). The facility's Pressure Injury and Skin Condition Assessment policy last revision dated 1/17/18 states: 18. Physician ordered treatments shall be initialed by the staff on the electronic Treatment Administration Record after each administration.
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 notify a resident representative of an advanced stage wound for 1 o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review the facility failed to notify a resident representative of an advanced stage wound for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notification of changes in the sample of 3. The findings include: R1's face sheet printed on 3/6/25 showed diagnoses including but not limited to encephalopathy, atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus, malnutrition, Alzheimer disease, and chronic kidney disease. R1's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed severe cognitive impairment and total staff assistance required for hygiene, transfers, and bed mobility. The same assessment showed R1 is always incontinent of urine and bowel. R1's medical record showed an original facility admission on [DATE]. The record showed R1 was sent to the local hospital on 2/25 and returned 2/28. R1's hospital records showed a wound consult on 2/27/25. An unstageable coccyx pressure ulcer (lower back/upper buttocks area) measuring 4.5 cm x 2 cm (centimeters) was present. The note showed the wound was present upon admission to the hospital. On 3/5/25 at 1:23 PM, V8 (R1's daughter) stated she was told R1 had an open sore on her buttocks when she was sent there by the facility. V8 said the hospital called her and said the sore was very bad and looked like it had been there while. V8 said she visits R1 almost daily and facility staff never told her of any open skin areas. On 3/6/25 at 10:37 AM, V3 (Wound Care Nurse) stated any new or worsening wound should be reported to the physician and family as soon as possible. Family needs to be kept up to date and educated on resident status, especially anything new. On 3/6/25 at 3:21 PM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated R1's family member was not notified of the coccyx wound by the facility. The hospital notified V8 the day it was assessed. The facility's Physician-Family Notification-Change in Condition policy last revision dated 11/13/18 states: The facility will inform the resident .notify the resident's legal representative or an interested family member when there is: (B) A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e. deterioration in health .).
Feb 2025 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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 identify that a resident who is at risk for developing pressure inj...

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 that a resident who is at risk for developing pressure injuries and who had a pressure injury would be at a higher risk for developing a second pressure injury; and failed to implement preventative measures and adequate skin assessments for 1 of 4 residents (R1) reviewed for wounds in a sample size of 7. This failure resulted in R1 developing two pressure injuries to the back of his ears that were both identified at a stage 3 when found. Findings include: R1's face sheet indicated that resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a past medical history not limited to sepsis, acute respiratory failure, pneumonitis, encephalopathy, scoliosis, dysphagia; and discharged to an acute care hospital on [DATE]. R1's admission pressure ulcer risk assessment dated [DATE] showed R1 is at moderate risk for developing pressure injuries. R1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) Resident Assessment and Care Screening, dated 02/03/2025 documented that R1 was dependent on staff for bathing, personal hygiene, dressing, bed mobilities and transferring in/out of bed. R1's care plan with date initiated 02/10/2024 documented: pressure ulcer to left ear related to immobility with last revision on 02/10/2025; pressure ulcer to right ear related to immobility with last revision on 02/21/2025. Interventions included but not limited to oxygen cannula will have ear protectors to alleviate pressure on the ear and weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown's width, length, depth, type of tissue and exudate. Order summary report with print date of 02/21/2025 showed the following orders for R1: oxygen (O2) inhalation via mask at 3 liters to maintain oxygen saturation above 90%, every shift for oxygen therapy, start date 01/30/2025; left ear pressure ulcer treatment, cleanse then apply [medical-grade honey] sheet in the evening, start date 02/04/2025; left ear pressure ulcer treatment, cleanse then apply [medical-grade honey] to affected area and cover with dressing in the evening, start date 02/18/2025; right ear pressure ulcer treatment, cleanse then apply [medical-grade honey] sheet, start date 02/21/2025. R1's wound round assessment dated [DATE] documented stage 2 pressure ulceration to R1's left ear with measurements in centimeters (cm) of 3.00 x 2.00 x unknown (lengthxwidthxdepth). R1's wound round assessment dated [DATE] documented stage 3 pressure ulceration to R1's left ear with measurements of 3.00cm x 2.00cm x unknown. Wound assessment detail report dated 02/11/2025 documented the same assessment, indicated R1's wound was facility-acquired and that R1 was provided with cushions to alleviate the pressure. Review of nurse's note dated 02/04/2025 documented a fax was received back from V11 (Primary Care Physician/Medical Director) related to wound stating, local wound care. No documentation found that indicated R1 was seen by a wound physician. R1' s wound round assessment dated [DATE] documented stage 3 pressure ulceration to R1's right ear with measurements of 1.00cm x 1.00cm x 0.20cm. Wound assessment detail report dated 02/17/2025 documented the same assessment, indicated R1's wound was facility-acquired and a new wound assessed, new ear protectors added. Review of repeat pressure ulcer risk assessment dated [DATE] continued to show that R1 is at moderate risk for developing pressure injuries. No repeat skin risk assessment was completed after identifying the second pressure injury to the right ear on 02/17/2025. No evidence was found of ongoing assessments to affected skin areas, any effective preventative measures and/or interventions to prevent further development of pressure injuries such as turn/reposition every two hours, pressure relieving mattress, protective dressing to area behind ears, daily skin assessments, etc. Review of nurse's note dated 02/18/2025 documented new pressure ulcer noted to the right ear where the cannula sits. Protectors were already in place although they were changed for new ones. [Medical Doctor] and guardian notified. New wound care orders to include right ear entered. On 02/20/2025 at 01:38 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said R1 did not admit with any skin issues or irritation to his ears upon admission but developed pressure injuries to both ears from the straps of the oxygen mask. V2 added that R1 was at moderate risk for pressure injury upon admission. On 02/21/2025 at 11:02 AM, V8 (Wound Care Nurse) said upon admission on [DATE], R1 did not admit with any skin issues but he was at risk for developing a pressure injury with a [pressure ulcer risk assessment] score was 14. V8 then said on 02/03/2025, he first identified a stage 3 pressure injury to R1's left ear that measured 3cm x 2cm (length x width), was unable to determine any depth and started a treatment for Medi honey then cover with bordered foam. V8 said he provided wound care Monday through Friday, and the floor nurse would provide wound care on the weekends. V8 added that R1 had weekly skin assessments in place. V8 then said on 02/17/2025, he identified a stage 3 pressure ulcer to R1's right ear that measured 1cm x 1cm x 0.2 cm (length x width x depth) and started treatment for Medi honey sheet. V8 (Wound Care Nurse) added that he didn't see an issue or believed that R1 would develop pressure injuries to his ears from the mask straps so when he recognized an issue to the first ear, he applied protectors to both sides of mask straps as a preventative. V8 also said that at times when he would see R1, the mask would be pulled down and the strap would fold his ear downward then indicated moving forward, interventions should be implemented due to mask movement that could cause friction. On 02/21/2025 at 11:49 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said ear protectors were not applied initially to R1 because they did not suspect it was a high area of skin breakdown, but moving forward, any resident who admits in a similar condition and identified as high risk for developing pressure injuries will have ear protectors placed. On 02/21/2025 at 1:19 PM, called the office of R1's physician V11 (Primary Care Physician/Medical Director) and was informed by receptionist that V11 was out for the week, not reachable and will not return until Monday. On 02/21/2025 at 2:23 PM, when asked if R1's pressure injuries should have been recognized sooner than a stage 3, V2 (Director of Nursing) said staff performed weekly skin assessments and should have looked at R1's face and skin every shift, when providing care or readjusting R1's mask, and when they observed his ear folded down from the mask strap. V2 then said a resident who develops a pressure injury would be considered at higher risk for skin breakdown and if a resident is not able to adjust themselves, they also would be at increased risk for developing a pressure injury. When asked if a pressure ulcer risk assessment should have been completed for R1 after the second injury was identified, V2 (DON) said she would need to follow-up with V8 (Wound Care Nurse) because he may have done one that could be within R1's wound documentation. (No additional pressure ulcer risk assessments were provided.) Pressure Injury and Skin Condition Assessment policy last revised 01/17/2028 reads is part: to establish guidelines for assessing, monitoring, and documenting the presence of skin breakdown, pressure injuries and other ulcers and assuring interventions are implemented .a skin condition assessment and pressure ulcer risk assessment (Braden) will be completed at the time of admission/readmission. The pressure ulcer risk assessment will be updated quarterly and as necessary .each resident will be observed for skin breakdown daily during care and on the assigned bath day the CNA (certified nursing assistant) .care givers are responsible for promptly notifying the charge nurse of skin breakdown .at the earliest sign of a pressure injury or other skin problem, the resident, legal representative, and attending physician will be notified.
Jan 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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the physician of an ongoing change in condition in a timely manner. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notification o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the physician of an ongoing change in condition in a timely manner. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for notification of changes in the sample of 5. The findings include: R1's eINTERACT change in condition evaluation dated December 18, 2024, shows, she had a change in condition of weakness that started the morning of December 18, 2024. The same evaluation continues to show, V5 Nurse Practitioner (NP) was notified of the changes, and nothing was ordered or done. On January 8, 2024, at 12:48 PM, V5 NP stated she did not recall if she was notified of R1's change in condition or not. There was nothing documented in R1's chart that showed she was. I get so many messages; I can't remember them all. R1's progress notes continue to show, her condition stays the same with no changes. R1's electronic medical records did not show any other documentation that R1's primary care physician or Nurse Practitioner were notified of any changes in condition from December 18th - December 22, 2024. On January 8, 2024, at 11:42 AM, V6 Registered Nurse (RN) stated, she worked with R1 on December 18th and 21st. R1 was having some weakness. She reported the original change in condition on December 18, 2024, to V5 NP however when she saw R1 again, she was the same as she was on the 18th. There was no improvement. She did not call the doctor on that day to update them on R1's condition. On January 8, 2024, at 12:13 PM, V9 RN stated, he worked with R1 on December 19th and 20th. He did not contact the doctor or let anyone know of her condition. As far as I know, my colleague did. The facility's physician-family notification-change in condition policy dated November 13, 2018, shows, Purpose: To ensure that medical care problems are communicated to the attending physician or authorized designee and family/responsible party in a timely, efficient, and effective manner. Guidelines: The facility will inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician or authorized designee such as Nurse Practitioner; and if known, notify the resident's legal representative or an interested family member when there is: (B) A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e., a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); Life-threatening conditions are such things as heart attack or stroke. Clinical complications are such things as development of a stage II pressure sore, onset of recurrent periods of delirium, recurrent urinary tract infection, or onset of depression .
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify and assess a resident for an ongoing change in condition. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care in the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to identify and assess a resident for an ongoing change in condition. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of 5. The findings include: R1's face sheet lists her diagnoses to include: cerebral infarction, diabetes mellitus II, cerebral aneurysm, hemiplegia, adjustment disorder with anxiety and dementia. R1's eINTERACT change in condition evaluation dated December 18, 2024, shows, she had a change in condition of weakness that started the morning of December 18, 2024. The evaluation shows, she has weakness or hemiparesis, arm or leg: Gradual recent onset not resolving spontaneously. There is nothing else documented in R1's electronic medical record about her change of condition until December 21, 2024 (2 days later). R1's 72 hours charting progress notes dated December 21, 2024, at 2:06 PM and 6:08 PM show, Since the change in condition, the symptoms have remained the same. still weak and unable to feed herself. being assisted in eating. Vitals within normal limits. The physician that was notified was Name and Designation: (left blank). R1's 72 hours charting progress notes dated December 21, 2024, at 9:52 PM shows, Since change in condition, the symptoms have remained the same. assess residents' vitals WNL (within normal limits). The physician that was notified was Name and Designation: (left blank). R1's 72 hours charting progress notes dated December 22, 2024, at 6:50 AM shows, Late entry for 12/21 3am-7pm shift. The resident is still weak since the change in condition on the 18th. Vital signs WNL. was able to tolerate her pills. 50% of the house supplements were consumed for both AM and PM. was fed during breakfast and lunch in room on high fowler's position by the writer and the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant), ate 25-35% for both meals. At dinner this resident was brought to dining room using hoyer to be assisted in feeding. CNA notified the writer; she consumed 25% as well. Plan of care is ongoing. R1's nurses notes dated December 22, 2024, at 6:50 AM shows, Resident was noted to have decreased oxygen saturation @ 86% not on labored breathing. Also looks dehydrated and weaker. PCP (primary care physician) advised that we can do 2 things either send to ER (emergency room) for evaluation and IV fluids or work up at the facility and employ more of a comfort approach. May follow up for hospice eligibility. POA (Power of Attorney) informed and chose to transfer the resident to ER. PCP informed about the POA's decision . R1's nurses notes dated December 22, 2024, shows, Resident admitted to local hospital with dx (diagnosis) of UTI (urinary tract infection) . On January 8, 2025, at 9:15 AM, V10 R1's Power of Attorney/daughter stated, the facility called her and told her that her mom looked off and they would do some labs to find out what was going on. A few days later, she hadn't heard anything from the facility about the laboratory results. She tried calling to find out what they were. No one knew what she was talking about or the results of the labs. Then on December 22, 2024, the nurse called her and said her mom didn't look good and her eyes were sunken in. He asked if she wanted her mom to be sent to the emergency room (ER). She said, yes, bring her to the ER. R1 was admitted to the local hospital with dehydration and a UTI. On January 8, 2024, at 11:42 AM, V6 Registered Nurse (RN) stated, R1 was having some weakness (on December 18th). The CNA reported R1 was having a hard time eating and needed to be fed. She did a change of condition form and notified V5 NP. I can't remember the exact order. Typically, they will order some labs and a urinalysis (UA), but she couldn't remember if she did or not. She didn't work again until December 21, 2024. When she saw R1 again, she was the same as she was on the 18th. There was no improvement. She did not call the doctor on that day to update them on R1's condition. On January 8, 2024, at 12:13 PM, V9 RN stated, he worked with R1 on December 19th and 20th. As far as he knew R1 had a decline by not eating and sleeping more. He did not contact the doctor or let anyone know of her condition. As far as I know, my colleague did. On January 8, 2024, at 11:57 AM, V7 RN stated, he was the nurse that sent R1 to the hospital on December 22, 2024. He checked R1's vitals around 7 AM. Her oxygen saturation was low around 86%. She looked weak and dehydrated. He called the doctor to report his assessment. The doctor told her to either send her out to the hospital or treat her at the facility. He called the POA and the POA wanted her sent out, so he sent her to the local hospital. He did not work with her any other time during her change in condition. The facility did not provide a change in condition policy. The only policy provided was notification of change in condition policy. The facility's physician-family notification-change in condition policy dated November 13, 2018, shows, Purpose: To ensure that medical care problems are communicated to the attending physician or authorized designee and family/responsible party in a timely, efficient, and effective manner. Guidelines: The facility will inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician or authorized designee such as Nurse Practitioner; and if known, notify the resident's legal representative or an interested family member when there is: (B) A significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status (i.e., a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications); Life-threatening conditions are such things as heart attack or stroke. Clinical complications are such things as development of a stage II pressure sore, onset of recurrent periods of delirium, recurrent urinary tract infection, or onset of depression .
Oct 2024 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 medication orders were verified prior to administering medica...

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 medication orders were verified prior to administering medications for 1 of 4 residents (R1) reviewed for pharmacy services in the sample of 8. The findings include: R1's face sheet shows she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including: joint replacement surgery, major depressive disorder and history of falls. A nursing progress note completed on 10/14/24 at 1:56 PM for R1, shows R1 had went out to an appointment with a podiatrist and returned to the facility with new orders for Oxycodone 10-325 milligrams (mg.) every six hours as needed for pain, and to discontinue the current order for Hydrocodone 5-325 mg. R1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 10/1/24-10/31/24 and her current Physicians Order Summary both show the order was carried out and Oxycodone was started, and Hydrocodone was discontinued on 10/14/24. On 10/15/24 at 8:45 AM, R1 said she had gone out to a doctor's appointment yesterday and her medications were changed from Norco (Hydrocodone) to Percocet (Oxycodone) because she was having a lot of pain from a surgery to her foot, and she did not feel the Norco was working well enough. R1 said this morning the nurse gave her Norco, and she was confused if her Percocet was here at the facility or not. On 10/15/24 at 9:50 AM, V6 (Agency Nurse-LPN) said he had administered Norco to R1 at 8:30 AM today. When asked if he had checked the orders first, he stated, she [R1] told me she had an order for it. V6 then checked the MAR and said the order was discontinued. V6 went into the locked narcotic box in the medication cart and there was a full medication card with 30 Oxycodone inside and the medication card containing Hydrocodone was also still in the medication cart. On 10/15/24 at 11:10 AM, V5 (LPN) said R1's current order is for Oxycodone and nurses have to check the orders before giving medications because they cannot give a medication without a current physician's order. The narcotic sign out sheet for R1's Hydrocodone shows V6 signed out 1 tablet and administered it to R1 at 8:30 AM on 10/15/24.
Jul 2024 9 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was provided for a resident dependent on staff for cares. This applies to 1 one 18 residents (R18) rev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure incontinence care was provided for a resident dependent on staff for cares. This applies to 1 one 18 residents (R18) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL's) in the sample of 18. The findings include: R18's ADL care plan initiated on 5/22/24 shows she is totally dependent on staff for toileting and bed mobility. R18's 5/7/24 Minimum Data Set assessment shows she is cognitively intact. On 7/15/24 at 9:48 AM, R18 was lying in bed a faint odor of urine was noted. R18 stated, I haven't been changed since about 5 AM today. I need staff to change me, and they are busy and have not been in. I am incontinent of urine and wear a brief and course I am wet I take a water pill. On 7/15/24 at 10:05 AM, V9 (Certified Nursing Assistant) said R18 had not been changed yet that morning and she would be in to change her. V9 said incontinence care should be done every 2 hours and as needed. The facility provided Incontinence Care Policy revised on 1/16/18 shows the purpose of incontinence care is to prevent skin breakdown and should be done every 2 hours and as needed.
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

2. R18's 5/7/24 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment shows she is cognitively intact. R18's Active Physician Orders shows an order effective 12/31/2023 to be weighed daily for CKD (Chronic Kidney Diseas...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. R18's 5/7/24 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment shows she is cognitively intact. R18's Active Physician Orders shows an order effective 12/31/2023 to be weighed daily for CKD (Chronic Kidney Disease) and report to NP (Nurse Practitioner)/MD (Physician) any weight changes greater than 3 pounds (lbs.) in 1 day or 5 lbs. in one week. R18's weight summary shows no recorded weights on the following dates 6/1/24, 6/2/24, 6/5/24, 6/7/24, 6/9/24, 6/10/24, 6/11/24, 6/13/24, 6/14/24, 6/15/24, 6/16/24, 6/18/24, 6/20-6/25/24, 6/27/24, 6/28/24, 6/30/24, 7/4/24, 7/5/24, and 7/7/24-7/13/24. There were no documented refusals by R18 to be weighed on the summary report. On 7/16/24 at 1:32 PM, V8 (Registered Nurse/RN) said R18 should be weighed daily due to having congestive heart failure and they should call to report weight changes to her doctor based on the physician's order. On 7/16/24 at 1:36 PM, R18 said she does not refuse to be weighed and, I often have to remind them to weigh me and some will and others won't and say that the hoyer (mechanical lift) scale is broken. I need my weight monitored because of a certain medication and the doctor needs to know if he needs to change my medication. On 7/16/24 at 3:15 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said they have a restorative person who should assist with taking weights every day, and if a resident refuses to be weighed they have to document that each time. The facility provided Weights policy revised on 10/17/19, shows weights should be completed in accordance with Physicians orders or plan of care. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment for a resident's fractured arm. The facility failed to obtain daily weights for a resident with a diagnosis of congestive heart failure. These failures apply to 2 of 18 residents (R34, R18) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of 18. The findings include: 1. R34's fall note and nurses notes dated 7/5/24 showed R34 had an unwitnessed fall in the facility. R34 was sent to a local hospital for an evaluation where she was diagnosed with a fracture of her left ulna (arm). R34's nurses note dated 7/12/24 showed R34 was seen by an orthopedic physician for her fractured arm. The note showed, The paperwork the resident returned with said for her to continue to maintain splint at all times and to cover when showering. Splint may be removed at the sink to wash arm/hand but avoid wrist/forearm motion when splint comes off for cleaning at the sink . A physician order for R34, dated 7/11/24, showed R34 was to continue to maintain her left arm splint at all times and to cover it when showering. On 7/15/24 at 8:35 AM, R34 was lying in bed with V6 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) standing next to her. Bruising was noted to R34's left eyebrow and left shoulder area. Mild swelling was noted to R34's left wrist. No splint, cast, sling or compression wrap was noted to R34's left distal arm/left wrist area. When R34 was asked how she was feeling. R34 stated, Not okay. They can't find my cast. I fell and broke my arm. R34 complained of pain to her left wrist area. R34 stated, I can't move my hand, or it hurts. V6 (CNA) stated, She had a cast on her arm last week. I don't know where it is. V6 (CNA) then proceeded to transfer R34, from her bed to wheelchair, without the use of a gait belt and by holding R34's right arm, with R34's left arm dangling freely next to her side. On 7/15/24 at 12:45 PM, R34 was seated in bed, feeding herself lunch with her right hand. R34's left arm/hand laid her lap. No splint, cast, sling or elastic/compression wrap was noted to R34's left distal arm/wrist. On 7/16/24 at 8:20 AM, V4 (Restorative Nurse) stated R34 had a recent fall in the facility that resulted in R34 fracturing her arm. V4 stated, She came back from the ortho (orthopedic) doctor with an order for her to have a sling and splint to her left lower arm at all times.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to obtain physician prescribed medication and failed to follow physician orders for eye drops for 2 of 18 residents (R2, R32) revi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to obtain physician prescribed medication and failed to follow physician orders for eye drops for 2 of 18 residents (R2, R32) reviewed for physician services in the sample of 18. The findings include: 1. R2's 7/1/24-7/31/24 Medication Administration Summary shows she should receive Farxiga 5 milligrams (mg.) at 9:00 AM and Memantine 10 mg. at 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. R2's active Physician Order Summary shows orders for both Farxiga and Memantine. On 7/16/24 at 8:10 AM, V8 (Registered Nurse/RN) administered medication to R2 and omitted Memantine and Farxiga because he did not have it in the cart and said it looks like it was ordered from the pharmacy on 6/14/24 but has not arrived at the facility. On 7/16/24 at 9:44 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said she was aware that R2 did not receive the 2 morning medications that were prescribed, and she called the pharmacy who told her it was a medication reordered too soon. V2 said she asked pharmacy to check why the medication is considered too soon to fill and was awaiting a return call. The facility provided not dated Pharmacy Requirements procedure from the contracted pharmacy provider shows they are responsible to dispense medication based on prescriber orders. 2. On 7/15/24 at 9:45 AM, R32 was in his room, sitting on the bed. R32's nightstand had a bottle of Systane eye drops and a bottle of Moxifloxacin eye drops. R32 stated I do my own drops. I was on another one but the eye doctor that was here told me to stop taking those and to use these two bottles. On 7/15/24 at 10:30 AM, R32's Physician Orders did not show orders for eye drops. R32's Physician Progress note from the eye doctor dated 7/10/24 shows Current medications: Systane Ultra Ophthalmic solution QID (four times a day), Maxitrol 1mg-3.5mg-10,000 units/g ophthalmic solution in left eye as needed, Moxifloxacin 0.5% ophthalmic solution left eye as needed. Plan: Monitor, Continue drops. R32's Progress Note dated 7/15/24 at 11:19 AM shows Certified Nursing Assistant went into room where she found some eye drops sitting on resident's nightstand. Informed resident he cannot have meds at bedside and provided eye drops to nurse who will figure out where the order came from for these drops to be able to continue giving them. On 7/17/24 at 10:00 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said the nurse should have called the eye doctor to clarify the orders for R32's eye drops from visit on 7/10/24 and then entered orders for the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. R11's Face Sheet showed R11 had the following diagnosis: bipolar, schizoaffective, and anxiety. R11's Order Summary Report showed R11 had an order for Quetiapine Fumarate (antipsychotic medication)...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. R11's Face Sheet showed R11 had the following diagnosis: bipolar, schizoaffective, and anxiety. R11's Order Summary Report showed R11 had an order for Quetiapine Fumarate (antipsychotic medication). The order had a start date of 12/19/22. R11's Consultant Pharmacist Recommendation to Nursing form dated 5/28/24 showed R11 was receiving an antipsychotic medication and the most recent AIMS was done on 5/20/23 (12 months ago). The same form showed AIMS should be completed at least every 6 months. On 7/16/24 at 11:00 AM, R11's AIMS assessments were requested from the facility. The facility provided R11's AIMS- Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale forms that were dated for 5/20/23 and 6/24/24 (13 months apart). R11's Psychiatry Notes dated 4/26/24 and 6/18/24 showed AIMS were done 8/18/23 and 5/7/24 (9 months apart). On 7/16/24 at 12:08 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) is done to monitor for side effects of antipsychotic medications and should be done every 6 months. The faculty's Psychotropic Medication Gradual Dosage Reduction policy with a revision date of 2/1/18 showed residents on anti-psychotic drug therapy will be monitored for tardive dyskinesia side effects every 6 months through the use of the AIMS assessment. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident on a PRN (as needed) antipsychotic medication was evaluated by a physician after 14 days and failed to monitor a resident for antipsychotic side effects by not doing an AIMS (Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale) test every 6 months for 2 of 5 residents (R32, R11) reviewed for psychotropic medications in the sample of 18. The findings include: 1. R32's Physician Order shows an active order dated 5/28/24 for Seroquel Oral Tablet 25 mg (milligrams). Give 25 mg by mouth every 24 hours PRN for anxiety. R32's Consultant Pharmacist Recommendations to MD (physician) dated 6/28/24 shows Resident has an order for the antipsychotic quetiapine (Seroquel) 25 mg 1 tab(let) every 24 hours PRN with no stop date. In accordance with State and Federal Guidelines PRN (as needed) orders for antipsychotic medications are limited to 14 days with no exceptions. To continue use of PRN antipsychotic beyond 14 days, the attending physician or prescribing practitioner must first directly evaluate the resident to determine appropriateness for a PRN antipsychotic before a new order is written. On 7/17/24 at 10:00 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said R32's PRN Seroquel order should have only been for 14 days, and then the doctor should have seen R32 and re-ordered it. The facility's Psychotropic Medication-Gradual Dose Reduction Policy dated 2/1/18 shows PRN antipsychotic medications shall be limited to 14 days. If deemed appropriated 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.
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 physician prescribed medications as ordered. There were 29 opportunities with 3 errors resulting in a 10.34% error r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to administer physician prescribed medications as ordered. There were 29 opportunities with 3 errors resulting in a 10.34% error rate. This applies to 2 of 4 residents (R2, R12) observed during medication pass. The findings include: 1. R2's July 2024 Medication Administration Summary shows she should receive Farxiga 5 milligrams (mg.) at 9:00 AM and Memantine 10 mg. at 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM. R2's active Physician Order Summary shows orders for both Farxiga and Memantine. On 7/16/24 at 8:20 AM, V8 (Registered Nurse/RN) administered medication to R2 and omitted Memantine and Farxiga because he did not have it in the cart. V8 said he could not give those medications because they were not in the medication dispensing system the facility has. On 7/16/24 at 9:44 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said she was aware that R2 did not receive the 2 morning medications that were prescribed. 2. R12's Physician Order Summary dated 12/17/22 and Medication Administration Record dated July 2024 each showed R12 was to receive a delayed-release Aspirin, 325 mg (milligrams), once a day at 9:00 AM. On 7/16/24 at 8:06 AM, V7 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) administered one, enteric-coated tablet of Aspirin, 81 mg, to R12, instead of administering a 325 mg. tablet of Aspirin. The facility provided undated Medication Administration policy shows that medications should be administered according to physician orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

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 explain binding arbitration in a manner the resident understood. Thi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to explain binding arbitration in a manner the resident understood. This applies 1 of 3 (R68) in the sample of 18 reviewed for arbitration. The findings include: On 7/16/24 at 9:08 AM, R68 said she does not recall signing an arbitration agreement. R68 said if she did it was one of those sign here things and wasn't explained. R68 said she does not recall being told about arbitration at all. R68 said she would not have signed a document like that if it was explained to her. R68 said she would not give up her right to litigation. On 7/16/24 at 12:46 PM, V1 (Administrator) said the arbitration agreement is completed upon admission. V1 said residents aren't required to sign it to be admitted , they have 30 days to rescind it, the arbitrator's decision is final, and the resident will not be entitled to attorney fees. R68's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] shows a BIMS score for 15, cognitively intact. R68's admission Record show's an admission date of 12/1/23. R68's Arbitration Agreement Rider to the admission Contract was signed on 12/3/23.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. On 7/15/24 at 8:58 AM, outside of R16's door was a plastic bin containing PPE which included gowns, gloves and masks. There was a sign on the outside of the door showing Enhanced Barrier Precaution...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 7/15/24 at 8:58 AM, outside of R16's door was a plastic bin containing PPE which included gowns, gloves and masks. There was a sign on the outside of the door showing Enhanced Barrier Precautions should be worn when providing care to residents in the room including gloves, gowns and masks. On 7/15/24 at 9:30 AM, V9 (CNA) provided incontinence care (cleaning stool) off of R16 and dressing him. V9 did not apply a gown during the cares she provided to R16. R16's active Physician Order Summary shows an order effective 6/9/24 for him to be on Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) due to having a urinary catheter. On 7/16/24 at 7:55 AM, V8 (Registered Nurse/RN) said staff should wear gowns when providing direct care to residents on EBP. On 7/16/24 at 9:00 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said staff should be following the EBP requirements and wearing gowns when providing direct patient care and handling urinary catheters. The facility provided Enhanced Barrier Precautions policy effective 4/3/24 shows EBP precautions should be followed including gowns and gloves for residents during high contact care activities including dressing, bathing, transferring, showering, changing linen, toileting, changing briefs, wound care, or device care including handling urinary catheters. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure staff wore Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for a resident on Contact Isolation and a resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions for 2 of 18 residents (R6, R16) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 18. The findings include: On 7/15/24 at 9:52 AM, R6 had a contact isolation sign posted outside the room. Two staff where observed walking into R6's room with no PPE on. V12 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) and V14 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) came out of R6's room at 9:54 AM. R6 was observed sitting up in bed. V12 stated We boosted her up, me and the nurse. We should have worn PPE, a gown and gloves because she is on contact isolation for a urinary tract infection and is incontinent. R6's Urine Culture Lab Report dated 7/2/24 shows Positive for ESBL (Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase. ESBL-producing organisms are resistant to common antibiotics). Isolation precautions may be required. Please refer to you Infection Control Policy. On 07/16/24 at 01:27 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said for a resident on contact isolation staff should wear a gown and gloves and should be worn for any care where you could possible touching anything that has been contaminated. The facility's Infection Precaution Guidelines dated 5-15-23 shows It is the policy of this facility to, when necessary, prevent he transmission of infections within the facility through the use of Isolation Precautions. In addition to Standard Precautions, use Contact Precautions for residents with known or suspected to be infected with microorganisms that can be easily transmitted by direct or indirect contact, such as handling environmental surfaces or resident-care items.
CONCERN (E)

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** 4. On 7/15/24 at 9:58 AM, R61's bed (hospital bed that raised up and down) and air mattress pump were plugged into a power strip...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On 7/15/24 at 9:58 AM, R61's bed (hospital bed that raised up and down) and air mattress pump were plugged into a power strip. 5. On 7/15/24 at 10:17 AM, R11 had an air mattress pump hanging on the headboard of the bed. The air mattress pump was plugged into a power strip. 6. On 7/15/24 at 10:03 AM, R53 had an air mattress pump hanging on the headboard of the bed. The air mattress pump was plugged into a power strip. On 7/15/24 at 12:40 PM, V12 (Maintenance Director) said medical equipment should be plugged into wall outlets and not power strips. V12 added power strips are not used because they can be turned off or easily lose power. V12 said medical equipment should be plugged into a wall outlet because a wall outlet provided a more reliable source of electricity. Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to supervise 1 resident (R36) at risk for aspirating foods during meals. The facility failed to ensure 2 residents (R34, R46) were transferred in a safe manner. The facility failed to ensure medical equipment was not connected to a power strip for 3 residents (R61, R11, R53). These failures apply to 6 of 18 residents (R36, R34, R46, R61, R11, R53) reviewed for safety and supervision in the sample of 18. The findings include: 1. R36's care plan dated 10/10/2022 showed R36 was at risk for aspirating foods related to her diagnosis of dysphagia. The care plan showed, Monitor for s/s (signs and symptoms) of aspiration .Utilize individualized interventions as outlined by speech therapy . R36's Speech Therapy and Plan of Treatment dated 7/7/24 showed R36 had impaired tongue and swallowing function related to her dysphagia. R36 required a pureed diet with thin liquids due to her risk of aspiration. The plan showed, Compensatory Strategies/Positions: To facilitate safety and efficiency, it is recommended the patient use the following strategies during oral intake; general swallow techniques/precautions, sit upright for meals, supervision during meals, bolus size modifications, rate modification and alternation of liquids/solids. On 7/15/24 at 8:52 AM, R36 was in bed, lying on her left side. R36 was propped up on her left elbow, eating her pureed breakfast with her right hand, with no staff noted in or immediately outside of R36's room. R36 looked at her breakfast tray and stated, I can't reach it very good. At 9:05 AM, R36 remained in the same position on her bed, eating breakfast, with no staff present. On 7/16/24 at 11:56 AM, V5 (Director of Rehabilitation) stated Looks like we recently evaluated (R36) because she had lost weight and has dysphagia. Her evaluation showed (R36) required a pureed diet with supervision with eating due to her risk (of aspiration). 2. R34's resident assessment dated [DATE] showed R34 required staff assistance to transfer from bed to chair. R34's fall risk assessment form dated 7/5/24 showed R34 was at risk for falls. R34's fall note and nurses notes dated 7/5/24 showed R34 had an unwitnessed fall in the facility. R34 was sent a local hospital for an evaluation where she was diagnosed with a fracture of her left ulna (arm). On 7/15/24 at 8:35 AM, R34 was lying in bed with V6 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) standing next to her. Bruising was noted to R34's left eyebrow and left shoulder area. Mild swelling was noted to R34's left wrist. V6 (CNA) transferred R34, from her bed to wheelchair, without the use of a gait belt and by holding R34's right arm. On 7/16/24 at 8:20 AM V4 (Restorative Nurse) stated R34 had recently fallen in the facility which resulted in R34 fracturing her left arm. V4 stated, (R34) has had a recent decline. She is at risk for falls. She needs one person to assist her with transfers. They must use a gait belt when transferring her, especially since she is not supposed to use her left arm for lifting or moving. 3. R46's fall risk assessment form dated 7/2/24 showed R46 was at risk for falls. R46's care plan dated 12/14/23 showed R46 was dependent on staff for transfers and toileting. On 7/15/24 at 9:21 AM, V3 (CNA) transferred R46 off the toilet, to a standing position, by holding onto R46's right arm. No gait belt was used. V3 told R46 to hang on to the rail by the toilet. V3 then let go of R46's arm, to provide incontinence care to R46. Once completed, V3 then transferred R46 into a wheelchair. No gait belt was used. On 7/16/24 at 8:32 AM, V4 (Restorative Nurse) stated R46 required staff assistance, with the use of a gait belt, for transfers and toileting. The facility's Transfers-Manual Gait Belt and Mechanical Lifts policy dated 1/19/18 showed, The use of gait belt for all physical assist transfers if mandatory.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to prepare and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This applies to 5 of 5 (R3, R26,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to prepare and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. This applies to 5 of 5 (R3, R26, R14, R36, R23) residents reviewed for pureed diets in the sample of 74. The findings include: On 7/15/24 at 11:04 AM, V17 (Cook) was observed at the food prep table making pureed pasta and meat. V17 picked up an oven mitt which had fallen on the floor and placed it back onto the clean food prep table near the blender and did not wash her hands. On 7/17/24 at 8:41 AM, V15 (Food Service Director/FSD) said if things fall on the floor they should be put in a dirty area and not near clean food. V15 said hand washing should be completed after picking something up from the floor. The facility provided pureed diet list dated 7/18/24 shows R3, R26, R14, R36, R23 as being on pureed diets.
Nov 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 ensure a safe transfer for 1 of 3 residents (R1) revie...

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 safe transfer for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for safety in the sample of 3. The findings include: R1's face sheet showed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to include disease of spinal cord, Parkinson's Disease, weakness, repeated falls, ataxia, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorder. R1's physical therapy evaluation dated 9/19/23 showed he was a two person max assist for transfers. R1's Post Fall Assessment form dated 9/21/23 showed R1 fell during a staff assisted transfer. This assessment showed, Resident unable to bear weight during transfer . R1's 9/25/23 Fall IDT (Interdisciplinary team) note showed, . Resident was lowered to the floor during a transfer after [R1's] knees buckled. Root cause of fall: Resident was inappropriately transferred via 2 CNA assist . On 11/17/23 at 1:00 PM, V7 CNA said they are always supposed to use a gait belt for residents who require assistance for transfers to prevent falls. On 11/17/23 at 1:15 PM, V9 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) said she was assisting in R1's transfer on 9/21/23. V9 said R1 was a two assist transfer. V9 said we had to lower him to the floor on his hands and knees. V9 said they did not use a gait belt during R1's transfer. V9 said she should have used a gait belt and doesn't know why she didn't. On 11/17/23 at 3:14 PM, V2 DON (Director of Nursing) said they expect the CNAs to use a gait belt with assisted transfers. V2 said the CNAs are expected to wear their gait belt as part of their uniform. The facility's policy revised 1/19/18 showed, Transfers - Manual gait belt and Mechanical Lifts 5. The transferring needs of residents will be assessed on an ongoing basis and designated into one of the following categories: . 2 = 2 person transfer with gait belt . 9. Use of gait belt for all physical assist transfers is mandatory .
Oct 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 ensure fall interventions were in place for 1 of 3 re...

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 fall interventions were in place for 1 of 3 residents (R2) reviewed for falls in the sample of 8. The finding include: R2's face sheet showed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility 6/22/23 with diagnosis of hydrocephalus, cerebral cysts, cerebral infarction, dementia, metabolic encephalopathy, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This face sheet photograph showed a smiling female with a helmet on. R2 was not provided activities or access to a call light during observations. On 10/11/23 at 8:38 AM, R2 was seated in a recliner near the south nurse's station. There was no call light available for R2's use at that location. At 8:42 AM, R2 was assisted to ambulate from the south hall to the dining room by V8 Certified Nursing Assistant- CNA. R2 had a shuffling gait (walking while dragging feet without lifting the feet fully from the ground). V8 held R2's hand while walking with her and did not use a gait belt. R2 was seated at a table in the dining room. R2 was not wearing shoes and the non-skid sock on the right foot had the treads to the lateral aspect of the foot (not the bottom of the foot). At 9:19 AM, R2 was assisted from the dining room by V8. V8 held R2's hand and did not use a gait belt. Again, R2's gait was shuffled. At 1:38 PM, V8 and V9 CNA assisted R2 to a recliner near the nurse's station and walked away. V8 and V9 were asked if there was a non-slip material underneath R2. V9 said she didn't think so. V8 and V9 assisted R2 to stand, and there was no non-slip material on the recliner. Both V8 and V9 confirmed no non-slip material was present. On 10/11/23 between 1:40 and 2:00 PM, V3 wound nurse said if a resident has a fall the care plan should be updated almost immediately. V3 and V1, Administrator said they would expect fall interventions to be in place to prevent future falls and injuries. V3 said if a resident had non-skid footwear, he would expect the tread to be on the bottom of the foot to provide traction. V1 said R2 only needs to be supervised with ambulation so a gait belt was not needed but this varied. The facility's accident/incident log showed a fall incident on 7/1/23, 8/7/23, 8/9/23, 8/21/23, 9/8/23, and 9/29/23. R2's 9/29/23 fall risk assessment showed she was not at risk for falls. R2's care plan showed she was a moderate risk for falls. Fall prevention interventions included to apply dycem (non-slip material) to recliner, ensure resident call light is within reach and encourage resident to use it, ensure proper footwear is always on when out of bed, provide appropriate activities, and re-educate staff on proper transferring techniques. The last fall intervention was dated 9/8/23 (last fall 9/29/23). R2's care plan showed she required maximal assistance by one staff to move between surfaces. R2's care plan showed she had blindness. R2's 9/20/23 facility assessment showed severely impaired cognition and vision. This assessment showed R2 required limited assistance of one-person physical assistance to dress, walk and move about the facility. And R2 was not steady and only able to stabilize with staff assistance when moving from a seated to standing position and walking. R2's 8/7/23 fall incident showed she was confused, and the floor was slick. R2's 8/9/23 fall incident showed she slid from her chair. R2's 8/21/23 fall incident showed she reached over the arm of the chair and tipped the chair over. R2's 9/8/23 fall incident showed she was in the bathroom with a staff person and missed the toilet and fell to the floor. R2's 9/29/23 fall incident showed R2 was on the floor in the dining room. This report showed R2 stood up, tripped and was assisted back to her chair using a total mechanical lift. No other fall incidents were received. The facility's 11/21/17 Fall Prevention Program Policy showed the program will include implementation of appropriate interventions to provide necessary supervision and assistive devices are utilized as necessary. The fall prevention program includes the following components: care plan addresses each fall; interventions are changed with each fall as appropriate. Safety interventions will be implemented for each resident identified at risk. All assigned nursing personnel are responsible for ensuring ongoing precautions are put in place and consistently maintained. Footwear will be monitored to ensure the resident has proper fitting shoes and/or footwear is non-skid. The facility's 1/19/18 Transfers Policy showed the transferring needs of residents will be assessed on an ongoing basis and designated into one of the following categories: 0=Independent, 1=1 person transfers with gait belt . Resident transferring needs shall be documented in care plans. Use of gait belt for all physical transfers is mandatory. ?
Sept 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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 provide ADL (Activities of Daily Living) assistance f...

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 provide ADL (Activities of Daily Living) assistance for residents' requiring extensive assistance with ADLs for two of three residents (R2, R3) reviewed for ADL assistance in the sample of three. The findings include: 1. R2's Face Sheet shows he was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including primary lateral sclerosis, dysphagia, exposure to Covid-19, osteoarthritis, lack of coordination, urinary tract infection, bipolar, motor neuron disease, urinary incontinence, cognitive communication deficit, and pain. R2's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated August 8, 2023, shows R2 is cognitively intact. R2 has showed no rejection of care behaviors and requires extensive assistance of two staff for toilet use and requires total assistance with personal hygiene. R2 is always incontinent of bowel and bladder. On September 27, 2023, R2 was observed in the same spot in his room and in his wheeled recliner at various times from 9:32 AM-12:18 PM. R2 was taken to the dining room by V3 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) for the lunch meal. R2 was taken back to his room after the lunch meal by V3 and placed in the same spot in his room and still in his wheeled recliner. At 2:09 PM, V4 CNA performed incontinence care to R2. R2's incontinence brief was saturated from front to back with dark urine. V4 said she did not know when R2's incontinence brief was last changed. V4 said R2 was up in his wheeled recliner when she got to the facility at 7:00 AM. R2 said he would have let staff transfer him into bed in order to change his incontinence brief. 2. R3's Face Sheet shows she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of Parkinson disease, osteoporosis, unsteadiness on feet, need for assistance with personal care, exposure to Covid 19, dementia, hypertension, depression, and anxiety. R3 MDS dated [DATE], shows she is not cognitively intact. R3 requires extensive assistance with toilet use and personal hygiene. R3 is always incontinent of bowel and bladder. On September 27, 2023, R3 was observed at various times in the same spot and in the same wheeled reclining chair from 9:49 AM-12:05 PM. R3 was taken to the dining room for lunch at 12:05 PM. R3 was taken to nearby the nurses station at 1:20 PM. R3 was transferred into bed by V3 CNA and V7 RN (Registered Nurse) at 1:44 PM. V3 and V4 CNA provided incontinence care to R3. R3's incontinence brief was saturated of dark urine from front to back. There was stool in R3's incontinence brief. There was creases to R3's buttocks. V3 said that R3 was out of bed before she got to the facility at 7:00 AM. V3 said she has not provided incontinence care to R3. On September 27, 2023, at 3:00 PM, V6 CNA said incontinence care should be provided every two hours or more because the residents can get skin breakdown if it's not done. The residents should be kept clean and dry. The facility's Incontinence Care policy revised on January 16, 2018, shows, The purpose is to prevent excoriation and skin breakdown, discomfort and maintain dignity. Incontinent residents will be checked periodically in accordance with the assessed incontinent episodes or every two hours and provided perineal and genital care after each episode.
Aug 2023 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0660 (Tag F0660)

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 assist a resident with discharge planning. This applies...

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 assist a resident with discharge planning. This applies to 1 of 18 residents (R35) reviewed for discharge planning in the sample of 18. The findings include: R35's electronic medical record (EMR) shows he is a [AGE] year old male that was admitted to the facility on [DATE] (1 year and 1/2 ago) with a fractured hip. His EMR lists his diagnoses to include: discitis lumbar region, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, alcohol dependence with alcohol-induced persisting dementia, hypertension, unspecified dementia, alcoholic polyneuropathy, fracture of right femur, gastro-esophageal reflux disease, alcohol abuse, major depressive disorder and vascular dementia. On August 14, 2023, at 9:48 AM, R35 stated, he wants to leave the facility and doesn't belong there. They aren't helping me get out of here. They tell me to do my homework and won't help me. I am [AGE] years old and don't relate with these people here. They are not doing anything for me. On August 15, 2023, at 11:43 AM, V10 Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW) and V11 Social Service Director (SSD) stated, R35 originally came here with a fractured hip. He was living with his sister prior to coming here to the facility. His sister was his guardian. She passed away while he was at the facility. He was given a state guardian at that time. He was not happy with the state guardian and went to court to have her terminated. The state guardian was terminated in October of 2022. R35 is now his own power of attorney. They can't get him into anywhere because he doesn't have any income. V10 LCSW helped him fill out disability paperwork in October of 2022. They think he was denied however they do not have a copy of the denial letter. They stated, R35 refused to give it to the facility, and they did not document about it. At this point, they are not sure if he has appealed or what he is doing. They stated, he will refuse to do things and they have not followed up with him in regard to what he has done. V11 SSD stated, she has only been here for a couple of months. The only things she has done for his discharge is have a meeting with him and the ombudsman about options for discharge. They applied for a program through RAMP, and he was denied because he has no income. He was also working with a case manager through his Medicaid. They have nothing else planned for R35's discharge. They don't know what to do. V11 SSD has not reached out to V19 R35's niece for any assistance in discharge planning. R35's EMR did not show a Social Security Disability application or denial letter. The facility did not provide either document. R35's EMR did not show any discharge planning assessments. The facility did not provide any documents showing discharge planning. R35's social service progress notes dated from June 28 - August 11, 2023, shows, the meeting with the ombudsman, case manager from Medicaid and the RAMP application. R35's social service progress notes/EMR show, no other discharge planning from November 9, 2022, until June 28, 2023 (7 months). R35's Care plan meeting note dated November 9, 2022, shows, .Social Service: Short tempered and quick to become frustrated at others. R35 has had his guardianship lifted and is now his own responsible party. (Name) continues to wait to see if he has been approved for a social security disability. Currently (Name) has no discharge date . R35's Care plan meeting note dated February 22, 2023, shows, Care Plan Meeting Date: .Discharge options discussed on an ongoing basis. R35 has refused to discharge to all options presented to him . The same statement is shown on his April 19, 2022, care plan meeting progress note. There was nothing documented in R35's EMR of options that were presented to him. On August 15, 2023, at 1:27 PM, V19 R35's niece stated, she only hears what R35 says to her. He has some issues too. He is alert and oriented but there is some cognitive issues. Why is no one helping him? No one has called her and asked for her help or to let her know what is going on. R35's care plan date initiated May 7, 2022, shows, I (R35) wishes to return to the community. Another care plan also date initiated on May 7, 2023, shows, Abuse/Neglect/Trauma Factors, I (R35) present with behavior and factors that may create stress and trauma for me personally. I am a younger adult in a long term care facility. I am living with chronic illness . The facility's discharge planning guidelines policy dated October 27, 2022, shows, Discharge planning is the process of creating an individualized discharge care plan, which is part of the comprehensive care plan. It involves the interdisciplinary team working with the resident and resident representative, if applicable, to develop interventions to meet the resident's discharge goals and needs to ensure a smooth and safe transition from the facility to the post-discharge setting. Discharge planning begins at admission and is based on the resident's assessment and goals for care, desire to be discharged , and the resident's capacity for discharge. It also includes identifying changes in the resident's condition, which may impact the discharge plan, warranting revisions to interventions. Discharge planning process should: .Include regular re-evaluation of residents to identify changes that require modification of the discharge plan. The discharge plan should be updated, as needed, to reflect these changes, Involve the resident and resident representative in the development of the discharge plan and inform the resident and resident representative of the final plan, Inquire about their interest in receiving information regarding returning to the community, If the resident indicates an interest in returning to the community, the facility will document any referrals to local contact agencies or other appropriate entities made for this purpose, update a resident's comprehensive care plan and discharge plan, as appropriate, in response to information received from referrals to local contact agencies or other appropriate entities .
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide ADL (activities of daily living) assistance for...

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 provide ADL (activities of daily living) assistance for residents' requiring staff assistance to complete ADLs for 2 of 18 residents (R54, R32) reviewed for activities of daily living in the sample of 18. The findings include: 1. R54's current care plan showed R54 required the assistance of 1-2 staff for toileting and bathing related to his diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with right arm and right leg deficits. The care plan showed R54 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. On August 14, 2023, at 9:44 AM, R54's call light was on. R54's call light was answered by V4 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) and V5 CNA. R54 stated, I need to get cleaned up. R54 was in bed, dressed in a soiled shirt and soiled incontinence brief. R54's hair was greasy and not combed. V4 and V5 began providing cares to R54. R54's incontinence brief was removed. R54's brief contained a large amount of urine and mushy brown stool. Stool was noted leaking out of R54's brief, by R54's bilateral groin areas. Dried stool was noted on R54's lower back. R54's sacral area was slightly reddened. V4 CNA stated, (R54) is my assignment today. This is the first time I have provided cares to him today. When R54 was asked when his last shower was, R54 shrugged his shoulders. R54's Bathing/Shower record printed August 15, 2023, showed R54 received or was offered only 5 showers between July 18, 2023-August 15, 2023. R54's Bowel/Bladder Elimination (incontinence care) record printed August 15, 2023, showed no documentation R54 was provided with incontinence care on August 14, 2023, from 12:00 AM-7:00 AM. 2. R32's resident assessment dated [DATE], showed R32 required the extensive assistance of two staff for toileting/incontinence care. The assessment showed R32 was incontinence of bowel and bladder. On August 14, 2023, at 9:00 AM, R32 was in bed with her call light on. R32's call light was answered by V6 CNA at 9:12 AM. R32 stated to V6 CNA, I want to get up. V6 CNA replied, I will tell your CNA. V6 CNA exited R32's room. At 9:16 AM, R32 turned her call light on again as she remained in bed. At 9:20 AM, V5 CNA and V6 CNA entered R32's room to begin providing cares to R32. R32's incontinence brief was changed as it was saturated with dark brown urine. R32's buttocks were reddened. When R32's was asked when her incontinence brief was last changed, R32 stated, I have no idea. Maybe last night? On August 14, 2023, at 9:48 AM, V4 CNA stated, I am (R32's) CNA today. I offered to get her up earlier. She didn't want to get up. I did not offer to change her at that time. I haven't done any cares on her yet today. R32's Bowel/Bladder Elimination (incontinence care) record printed August 15, 2023, showed no documentation R32 was provided with incontinence care on August 14, 2023, from 12:00 AM-7:00 AM. On August 15, 2023, at 10:42 AM, V2 Director of Nursing stated residents should be offered 2 showers per week. V2 stated residents should be toileted and/or provided with incontinence care every 2 hours. The facility's Shower and Tub Bath policy dated November 28, 2012, showed, A shower, tub bath or bed/sponge bath will be offered according to resident's preferences two times per week or according to the resident's preferred frequency and as needed or requested . The facility's Incontinence Care policy dated November 28, 2012, showed Incontinent residents will be checked periodically in accordance with the assessed incontinent episodes or every two hours and provided perineal and genital care after each episode .
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 ensure interventions to promote healing were in place t...

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 interventions to promote healing were in place to a non-pressure wound for 1 of 18 residents (R25) reviewed for quality of care in the sample of 18. The findings include: R25's admission Record showed R25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, obesity, lower extremity edema, and a non-pressure, chronic ulcer of her left heel and midfoot, with necrosis of bone. R25's Wound Evaluation Summary dated July 28, 2023, showed R25's left heel (diabetic) wound measured 1.0 cm (centimeters) x 0.3 cm x 0.7 cm. The summary showed R25 was to wear a pressure relieving boot on her left heel with recommendations of off-loading her left heel wound as much as possible. R25's Wound Evaluation Summary dated August 11, 2023, showed R25's left heel wound measured 0.4 cm x 0.4 cm x 2.2 cm. On August 14, 2023, at 10:30 AM, R25 was seated in a wheelchair in her room. An elastic wrap dressing was noted to R25's left lower leg. Black, leather, soled shoes, secured with Velcro, were on R25's feet. R25 stated, I have a wound on my left heel. I am not sure if I am supposed to wear shoes or not, but my feet are cold. No one has told me I can't wear them. On August 14, 2023, 1:00 PM, R25 was seated in her wheelchair, watching television. The black, leather shoes remained on R25's feet. On August 14, 2023, at 2:00 PM, R25 remained seated in her wheelchair with the shoes on her feet. On August 15, 2023, at 8:30 AM, V8 Wound Nurse stated, (R25) came to us with a diabetic wound to her left foot. It was scabbed over when she was admitted . Once we removed the scab, we saw that the wound was actually tunneling into her foot, so we had to start packing it. It's not gotten any worse but not gotten any better. She should not be wearing shoes. A shoe would put her at risk for increased risk for skin breakdown and infection . On August 15, 2023, at 9:00 AM, R25 was seated in a wheelchair in her room. Cloth heel protectors were noted to R25's feet. R25's black shoes were on a chair in her room. R25 stated, I am not sure what the big deal is with my shoes. I try to wear them as much as I can but sometimes my feet swell up, like today, and I can't get them on. I had them on yesterday. On August 16, 2023, at 9:26 AM, V9 Wound Physician stated, (R25) was admitted with a chronic diabetic wound to her left heel. She was recently on antibiotics for an infection to her wound .She should absolutely not be wearing shoes for long periods of time. Shoes will just apply pressure to an area that is already compromised. Wearing shoes could also increase her risk of infection to the wound. I cannot agree with you more. It would be reasonable for her to wear shoes for 20-30 minutes at a time during therapy but not for hours at a time.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility to prevent a decline in range of motion for 1 of 6 (R17) residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility to prevent a decline in range of motion for 1 of 6 (R17) residents reviewed for range of motion in the sample of 18. The findings include: On 8/14/2023 at 11:15AM, R17 was observed lying in bed. R17 had expressive aphagia when interviewed. R17 appeared to have decreased range of motion to her right side as she did not move her right leg or right arm. R17 did move her left arm and leg without difficulty. On 8/15/2023 at 10:20AM, V16 Restorative Registered Nurse said residents not in physical therapy receive restorative services. V16 said all residents receiving restorative services should be getting restorative services three times per day. V16 said R17 was receiving passive and active range of motion as part of her restorative services three times per day. V16 said R17's documentation of active and passive range of motion does not show R17 was receiving range of motion 3 times per day. On 8/15/2023 at 2:56PM, V15 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)/ Restorative said restorative aides are pulled to the floor to work as CNA's and attend doctor's appointments with residents sometimes. On 8/16/2023 at 10:54AM, V14 Physical Therapist said she did an evaluation on R17 on 8/14/2023 for general mobility and possible boot for R17's right foot. V14 said R17 does not move her right side due to having a stroke. V14 said R17 completed physical therapy in February of 2023 and was recommended to restorative services. V14 said the evaluation of R17 showed a decline in bed mobility, decreased range of motion in her right foot and some resistance in her right hand since ending physical therapy in February. V14 said in February R17's right foot could be moved to a neutral position, however, on 8/14/2023 R17's foot could no longer be moved into a neutral position. V14 said R17 had resistance in her right hand that was not present when therapy was ended in February of 2023. V14 said the purpose of restorative services is to maintain range of motion and joint integrity. On 8/16/2023 at 11:38AM, V18 CNA/Restorative said she had just returned from going out of the facility with a resident to their doctor's appointment. V18 said restorative staff are pulled to the floor to work as CNAs instead of restorative and attend doctor's appointments with residents. V18 said at times she is unable to see residents and provide restorative services for residents when she is working on the floor as a CNA. V18 said when she works as a CNA on the floor, she is scheduled on one side of the building and is not able to see the residents on the other side of the building for restorative. R17's admission Record dated 8/15/2023 has a diagnosis of hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affectiing the right dominant side with an onset date of 12/16/2022. R17's Task: Nursing Rehab/Restorative: Passive Range of Motion Program: To prevent further limitation to RUE with PROM (passive range of motion) exercises performed on a TID (3 times per day) basis was reviewed for the last 30 days, 7/17/2023 to 8/14/2023. R17's PROM task charting showed R17 receiving PROM three times per day on two days, 8/1/2023 and 7/29/2023. On multiple days R17 is not documented to have received any PROM services on the following dates 7/19/2023, 7/22/2023, 7/28/2023, 8/6/2023 to 8/9/2023. R17's Restorative Observations assessment dated [DATE] and 6/5/2023 section 3h. Right Hand/Fingers lists R17's range of motion function as 1. normal. R17's Restorative Observations assessment dated [DATE] section 3h Right Hand/Fingers lists R17's range of motion function as 2. Mild 75% of normal. The facility's Restorative Nursing Program policy, revised 1/4/19, states Purpose: To promote each resident's ability to maintain or regain the highest degree of independence as safely as possible.
CONCERN (D)

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 interview and record review the facility failed to transfer a resident safely. This applies to 1 of 18 residents (R69) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to transfer a resident safely. This applies to 1 of 18 residents (R69) reviewed for safety in the sample of 18. The findings include: R69's incident report dated January 16, 2023, shows, Witnessed fall: Resident: R69. Incident location: Resident's room. Incident Description: Nursing Description: This RN (V21 Registered Nurse) was notified by CNA (V12 Certified Nursing Assistant) that resident fell while being transferred to her bed. Went to check the resident in her room and found her on the floor lying on her back. According to the CNA, she was transferring her when the resident lost her balance and fell hitting her back and head on the floor. On August 16, 2023, at 12:28 AM, V12 CNA stated, at the time of R69's fall she was transferring with a slide board. V12 was using the slideboard by herself to transfer R69 to bed. She (R69) lost her balance and fell backwards and hit her head. She stated, R69 is a 2 person assist with transfers. I thought I could do it by myself. R69's fall IDT (interdisciplinary team) note dated January 17, 2023, shows, Resident was being transferred to bed via slideboard and slid to floor after losing her balance. Root cause of fall: Resident lost balance while utilizing equipment to transfer with staff. Intervention and care plan updated: CNA staff to be educated on proper slideboard technique. On August 16, 2023, at 8:42 AM, V13 Physical Therapist stated, slide board transfers are 2 person transfers. On August 16, 2023, at 8:44 AM, V2 Director of Nursing stated, V12 CNA should not have transferred R69 by herself. Slideboard transfers are 2 person transfers. R69's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], shows, she requires extensive assist of two people for transfers. The facility did not have a policy for slideboard transfers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with 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 ensure ongoing communication and collaboration with an outpatient dialysis center for 1 of 1 resident (R31) reviewed for dialysis services in the sample of 18. The findings include: R31's admission Record showed R31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including fluid overload and end stage renal disease which required renal dialysis. R31's care plan dated April 8, 2023, showed R31 received hemodialysis every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, at an outpatient dialysis center. On August 14, 2023, at 12:27 PM, R31 was not in her room or anywhere in the facility. V7 Registered Nurse (RN) stated R31 was out of the facility, at dialysis. When V7 RN was asked for any ongoing dialysis communication records or documentation for R31, between the facility and the outpatient dialysis center, R31 stated, We don't have any records. On August 15, 2023, at 7:55 AM, R31 was seated in her room eating breakfast. V7 RN was passing medications to R31. V7 stated, We don't really send any paperwork or give verbal report when (R31) goes to dialysis. We don't get verbal or written report from dialysis unless there is a problem. No one from the dialysis center called me yesterday to give me report on (R31). When V7 RN was asked about R31's recent weight loss, V7 stated, I know she's lost some weight, but I don't know how much. I have no idea how much fluid they pull off from (R31) in dialysis. I don't know what her labs were yesterday or what her post-dialysis weight was. I have no idea what her vital signs were. I am assuming they were normal. We don't have any formal consistent communication with the outpatient dialysis center. There is no communication book. I just assume everything went ok if they don't call me. On August 15, 2023, at 10:14 AM, V2 Director of Nursing (DON) stated, We have no formal communication process with the outpatient dialysis center. Usually, someone from the dialysis center will call if there is a problem. We don't know how much fluid they pull off (R31) in dialysis. We don't get any daily or weekly reports from dialysis on (R31's) labs, weights, or vital signs. The facility's dialysis contract with the outpatient dialysis center, dated December 1, 2004, showed, The Center shall provide to the Facility information on all aspects of the management of the resident's care related to the provision of dialysis services . The Facility shall ensure that all appropriate medical and administrative information accompany all residents at the time of transfer or referral to the Center .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents received food that accommodated their ...

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 residents received food that accommodated their food preferences and intolerances for 2 of 18 residents (R228, R26) reviewed for food preferences/intolerances in the sample of 18. The findings include: 1. R228's admission Record showed R228 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including congestive heart failure, morbid obesity, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. On August 14, 2023, R228 was seated in a wheelchair in her room. R228 stated, I have been here a little over a week. I came from the hospital. I was diagnosed with heart failure. My issue here is the food. I am supposed to have a lower sodium diet. They can't seem to get my diet right. Shortly after I was admitted , I met with (V3 Kitchen Manager). We went over the foods I don't like and the foods I really shouldn't have. They put gravy on everything. I hate gravy. I eat in my room. My breakfast should be here soon. On August 14, 2023, at 9:15 AM, a breakfast tray of scrambled eggs, 2 slices of bacon, a bowl of oatmeal, and a slice of toast was noted in front of R228. R228 stated, See, I told them I can't have bacon because it's high in sodium. I also told them I don't like oatmeal. A breakfast meal ticket dated August 14, 2023, for R228, was noted on the tray. The meal ticket showed, Dislikes/Intolerances: Bacon . Oatmeal . On August 14, 2023, at 12:20 PM, R228 was seated in her room. No lunch tray was noted for R228. R228 stated, I sent my lunch tray back. There was gravy all over the food on the plate. I don't like gravy. They are making me a hamburger. That's about the only thing they usually don't screw up. A lunch meal ticket dated August 14, 2023, for R228, was noted on the tray. The meal ticket showed, Dislikes/Intolerances: .Gravy . On August 14, 2023, at 2:27 PM, V3 Kitchen Manager stated she met with R228, shortly after she was admitted , to complete a dietary assessment and review R228's food preferences. V3 stated, If we know what foods a resident dislikes or can't tolerate, they shouldn't be served those foods. On August 15, 2023, R228 was seated in her room with a breakfast tray in front of her. A bowl of oatmeal and a slice of toast were noted on the tray. V228 stated, I did talk with (V3 Kitchen Manager) yesterday but can't say it did me a lot of good. As you can see, they gave me oatmeal again today. A breakfast meal ticket dated August 15, 2023, for R228, was noted on the tray. The meal ticket showed, Dislikes/Intolerances: Oatmeal . The facility's Food Preferences policy (undated) showed, Resident food preferences are kept on file in the Dining Services Department as a part of the meal card system and used to ensure each resident's needs and desires are met . 2. On August 14, 2023, at 9:58 AM, R26 stated, he talked with the kitchen director and told her what he doesn't like to eat. They have it on my meal ticket clearly showing what I don't like, and they still serve it to me. Lately they give me [NAME] Krispie's everyday, and it says I dislike [NAME] Krispie's. Can they not read? On August 15, 2023, at 8:15 AM, R26 had [NAME] Krispie's on his breakfast tray. His meal ticket shows, Dislikes/Intolerances: Banana; oatmeal; pancakes; [NAME] Krispies; white bread . R26's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], shows, he is cognitively intact. The resident council minutes April 28, 2023, shows, Dietary: Several North resident state they often see items listed in their dislikes section of their meal ticket on their tray. Residents ask that the kitchen staff be re-educated on this section of their meal tickets.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure multidose insulin pens were labeled with an open date for 4 of 4 (R59, R8, R33, R37) residents reviewed for medication ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure multidose insulin pens were labeled with an open date for 4 of 4 (R59, R8, R33, R37) residents reviewed for medication storage in the sample of 18. The findings include: On 8/15/2023 at 1:11PM, the facility's southwest medication cart was checked with V17 Registered Nurse (RN). On 8/15/2023 at 1:11PM, R8's Lispro Insulin pen was not labeled with an opened date. On 8/15/2023 at 1:57PM, the facility's southeast medication cart was checked with V7 RN. On 8/15/2023 at 1:57PM, R37's Lispro Insulin (Lyumjev Kwik) pen was not labeled with an opened date. On 8/15/2023 at 1:57PM, R59's Insulin Glargine pen and Insulin Lispro pen were not labeled with an opened date. On 8/15/2023 at 1:57PM, R33's Humalog Kwik insulin pen was not labeled with an opened date. V17 said R8's insulin pen was in use and should be labeled with an open date. V17 said the insulin pen is good for 28 days after being opened. On 8/15/2023 at 1:57PM, V7 said R37, R59, and R33's insulin pens were in use and did not have an opened date. V7 said it is very important for insulin pens to be labeled with an opened date because they are only good for 28 days after opening. R8's Medication Review Report, dated 8/15/2023, shows an active order for Insulin Lispro sliding scale insulin. R37's Medication Review Report, dated 8/15/2023, shows an active order for Lantus and Lyumjev Kwik pen. R59's Medication Review Report, dated 8/15/2023, shows an active order for Humalog Kwik and Lantus insulin. R33's Medication Review Report, dated 8/15/2023, shows an active order for Humalog Kwik insulin. The facility's Medication Storage policy, revised 7/2/19, states . Facility staff should record the date opened on the medication container when the medication has a shortened expiration date once opened.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow their lunch menu by not serving the pureed bread option for four of four residents (R45, R60, R19, R36) reviewed for fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow their lunch menu by not serving the pureed bread option for four of four residents (R45, R60, R19, R36) reviewed for food menus in the sample of 18. The findings include: The facility's Menu dated August 13-August 19, 2023, shows a dinner roll on the menu for the lunch meal on August 14, 2023. The facility's Diet Spreadsheet dated Spring/Summer 2023 shows residents on pureed diet should receive a pureed dinner roll. 1. R45's Medication Review Report dated August 16, 2023, shows R45 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia and an order for a pureed diet. 2. R60's Order Summary Report dated August 16, 2023, shows R60 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cognitive communication deficit and altered mental status and an order for a pureed diet. 3. R19's Order Summary Report dated August 16, 2023, shows R19 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia and an order for a pureed diet. 4. R36's Order Summary Report dated August 16, 2023, shows R36 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including dementia and an order for a pureed diet. On August 14, 2023, at 10:15 AM, V20 [NAME] was observed pureeing the residents' lunch meal. No bread was observed being pureed by V20. On August 14, 2023, at 12:13 PM, the lunch meal was served. There was no bread option served to residents' on pureed diets nor was there pureed bread available on the serving table. On August 14, 2023, at 2:22 PM, V3 Dietary Manager said that V20 was behind in cooking on August 14, 2023. V3 said that V20 did not puree bread for the lunch meal. The facility's Offer Versus Serve Meal Service policy dated 2020 shows, For those individuals who cannot indicate what beverages they would like with a specific meal being served or whether they would like the bread serving, the menu will automatically be served as planned.
May 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · 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 with dementia and exit seeking behaviors was super...

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 with dementia and exit seeking behaviors was supervised and failed to ensure a service door was alarmed or monitored. These failures resulted in R1exiting the building through the non supervised and non alarmed door and was found approximately 0.3 miles from the facility by staff at a local school. This applies to 1 of 5 residents (R1) reviewed for safety/supervision in the sample of 5. These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 4/26/23, when the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to R1 during a vendor supply delivery. The service door alarm was turned off during the delivery and R1 and the delivery door were left unsupervised. R1 was able to exit through the door and walk approximately 0.3 miles to a nearby school. R1's where abouts were unknown to the facility for approximately 15 minutes. The Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 5/1/23. V1 (Administrator) was notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 5/2/23 at 9:08 AM. This surveyor confirmed by observation, interview and record review that the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 5/2/23 however, noncompliance, remains at a level 2 because additional time is needed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the in-service training. The findings include: R1's face sheet shows she is a [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R1 has diagnoses including: Alzheimer's Disease, unspecified dementia, altered mental status, and adult failure to thrive. R1's active fall risk care plan initiated on 12/7/22 shows she is at risk for falls and requires the use of a wheelchair. R1's activity of daily living (ADL) care plan initiated 12/7/22 shows she requires staff assistance and a gait belt for all ADL activities. R1's impaired cognition care plan initiated on 12/7/22 shows she has short term and long term memory impairments and her decision making is impaired. R1's elopement risk/wanderer risk care plan initiated on 1/31/23 shows she is at risk for elopement due to dementia, she is disoriented to place, and exit seeking with an impaired safety awareness. R1's facility assessment completed on 1/31/23 shows her cognition is severely impaired, her gait is unsteady, and she requires the use of a wheelchair and 1 staff assistance with transfers. R1's Progress notes from her electronic medical record shows the following: 4/4/23- 1:08 PM, a social service note states, Spoke with health surrogate pertaining to {R1's} need of a secure unit due to increased wandering and exit seeking. 4/7/23- 4:00 PM, a nursing note states, This RN saw the resident from the nurses' station trying to get up from her wheelchair and walk by herself when she lost her balance and ended up falling. Resident reminded on the importance of using her wheelchair and not to walk alone without assistance. 4/10/23- 4:53 PM, a behavior note states, The resident keeps standing from her chair, going out through the alarmed door, refusing and fighting back when asked to sit back on her chair. This resident needs a 1:1 care. 4/10/23- 10:22 PM, a nursing note states, Resident wandered, walked without assistance and went from one resident's room to another. A CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) has been assigned to monitor the resident. 4/11/23 1:00 PM, a behavior note states, Resident had an episode of restlessness and agitation, upon entering other resident's room, trying to stand up on her chair and putting her at risk to fall. 4/19/22 at 6:15 PM, a nursing note states, This writer notes resident restless, anxious showing signs of aggression and elopement behaviors, she is at risk for hurting herself or harming other residents. 4/20/23 at 3:04 PM, care plan meeting note shows a care plan was held and states, Also discussed elopement risk due to recent nicer weather and resident desire to exit facility. 4/21/23 at 10:33 PM, a behavior note states, Resident started roaming around after dinner and tried to go out the exit doors twice. 4/22/23 at 12:36 PM, a psychiatric note states, Patient appears mostly confused. 4/23/23 at 5:28 AM, a behavior note states, She {R1} wanted to go out with her mum, she attempted going out twice. 4/24/23 at 5:21 AM, a nursing note states, Resident has made requests to go out and smoke, go out for breakfast and believes the call light ringing is a phone. A Wandering Risk Scale assessment was completed for R1 on 4/24/23 at 10:19 AM and shows she is at risk for wandering. The facility's 15 minute monitoring sheets show R1 was started on 15 minute checks on 4/19/23. On 4/26/23 the 11:45 and 12:00 checks show R1 as Missing. An Elopement incident report was completed by V5 (Registered Nurse/RN) on 4/26/23 and shows at 11:50AM, V5 was alerted by a CNA {V10} that she could not find R1. The incident report states, CNA notified this writer that {R1} is not at the nurses station. This writer went with CNA to check the resident's room and common bathroom where this resident usually also (go), but resident is nowhere to be found. Call the receptionists to initiate code pink to alarm all staff that the above mentioned resident is missing. All rooms were checked, and several staff went out to search for the resident. The resident was found at a park next to the facility. On 4/28/23 at 1:10 PM, V8 (local school employee) said she was outside of the school on 4/26/23 (at around 11:56 AM), during a student recess period and noticed an elderly woman (later identified as R1) pushing a wheelchair on school grounds. V8 said at first, she thought the woman was a student's grandparent because a class field trip had just returned to the school. V8 said the woman was walking around by the door to the school, she saw another staff person go up and talk to her. A few minutes later the principle then came out and spoke to the woman and then went back inside the school. V8 said the woman (R1) then began walking again pushing her wheelchair down the sidewalk along the building. V8 said she started thinking something is not right, she went up to the woman and started talking with her and realized that the woman was very confused mentally and kept asking to go inside because she was cold and shivering. She said the woman also appeared unsteady while she was trying to walk. V8 said the woman was wearing a short sleeved shirt, no jacket, and it was a chilly day that day. V8 could not recall what footwear if any that the woman had on. V8 said she contacted inside the building to the principle and recommended that they call the nursing facility down the street to make sure they were not missing anyone. V8 said shortly after that (around 12:08 PM), 2 staff from the nursing facility came running towards them and confirmed the woman was a resident of the facility. Google maps show from the middle of the facility to the main entrance of the local school that R1 walked to is approximately 0.3 miles and a 5 minute walk. On 5/1/23 the surveyor observed the route from the facility to the school. The school is on the same side of the street as the facility and there is a concrete sidewalk with several uneven (raised) areas. The school had multiple entrance doors and a playground in front of and to the side of the school. Wunderground,com a weather history website shows the weather in [NAME], Illinois on 4/26/23 at 11:55 AM, was 48 degrees and cloudy skies. The facility's elopement risk resident binder show R1 is at active risk for elopement. On 5/1/23 at 8:20 AM, V4 (Receptionist) said on 4/26/23 she was asked by several CNA's at the facility if she had seen R1 and she had not. The facility staff were not able to find R1, so a Code Pink was paged over head to alert all staff of a missing resident. V4 said R1 is a wanderer, and everyone knows you have to watch her close. She said it is presumed that R1 got out of the building through a service door that was not alarmed. V4 said she did not hear any door alarms go off around the time R1 left the facility. V4 said staff were all looking for R1 and then the local school called her to ask if they were missing a resident, so staff were alerted and went immediately to get R1. On 5/1/23 at 8:50 AM, V6 (CNA) said on 4/26/23 at around lunch time she was getting another resident up and when she came out of that residents room the nurse was looking for R1 and asked if she had seen her. V6 said the nurse had been in the hallway passing medications so no one was directly observing R1. V6 said the last time she had seen R1 was approximately 11:45-11:50 AM sitting in a wheelchair by the nurses station. V6 said the staff checked the north side of the building in resident rooms and bathrooms and they couldn't find her, so a Code Pink was called. V6 said she heard that R1 went out a service door that was not alarmed. V6 confirmed that no alarm went off around the time R1 exited the building. On 5/1/23 at 8:35 AM, V7 (CNA) said on 4/26/23 she was assigned to resident showers, after giving a shower she observed the franticness between a nurse and a CNA looking for R1. She said the staff searched the north unit resident rooms and bathrooms and realized she was not there so they searched the south unit and could not find R1, so a Code Pink was called. V7 said staff went outside and began looking for R1. She was alerted that R1 was found at the school, and she ran as fast as she could towards the school where she found R1 walking and pushing her wheelchair. V7 said R1 is extremely confused and requires more frequent monitoring. V7 should not be walking without staff assistance she is not steady. On 5/1/23 at 9:10 AM, V5 (RN) said on 4/26/23 he was doing his noon medication pass around 11:50 AM and was alerted by a agency CNA (V10) that she could not find R1. V5 said R1 was on 15 minute checks due to her behaviors and wandering. V5 said R1 had been seen by exit doors attempting to get out but this is the first time he is aware of that R1 successfully got out of the facility. V5 said the Code Pink was called around 12:00 PM after staff had searched both sides of the building without locating R1. He said V5 exited the building through a security door on the north side of the building that was not alarmed. R1 was found at the school and returned sometime around 12:05. On 5/1/23 at 9:30 AM, V3 (Maintenance Director) said all deliveries from vendors are made through either the front door or the service door which is down the hallway where the north dining area is. V3 said sometimes the door alarm to the service door is turned off while they carry in the deliveries, but a staff member should stay and monitor the door. V3 said after R1 exited the door it was found that the alarm to that door was turned off. He said only 4 facility personnel had a key to deactivate the alarm to that service door. V3 took the surveyor to the service door which is down the hallway towards the north nursing station and across from the dining area. The entry way consists of 2 sets of double doors. The interior doors are not alarmed but the second set of doors which lead outside had an alarm with a key code and box on the wall for a key to turn off or disable the alarm. V3 said he could not recall exactly what company had delivered supplies that day, but the alarm would have sounded if it was turned on. On 5/1/23 at 9:45 AM, V2 (DON) said she was alerted on 4/26/23 that R1 was missing from the facility. V2 said after R1 was found at the local school, V1 (Administrator) called an all staff meeting. It is believed R1 went through the service door that was not monitored or alarmed. V2 said R1 was on 15 minute checks due to behaviors and the facility believes R1 needs to be at a facility with a locked memory care unit. V2 said the service door should be monitored if the alarm is turned off. At 11:45 AM, V2 said that R1 had been having exit seeking behaviors for the past few weeks prior to her elopement from the facility. On 5/1/23 at 11:45 AM, V10 (Agency CNA) said she was assigned to R1 on 4/26/23 and it was the first time she had worked with her. V10 was unable to recall times but said she check on R1 right before her lunch break and R1 was in her room. After her lunch break, she went to get R1 up and ready for lunch and she knew something was wrong because R1's shoes were there but R1 was not. V10 said she remained at the facility while staff were searching for R1. When R1 was brought back to the facility she did not have shoes on her feet. V10 said she was unaware of the service door alarm being turned off, but she did see a delivery truck outside at the time R1 was missing. On 5/1/23 at 12:02 PM, V11 (Medical Director) said R1 is very confused and is not safe to be out of the facility alone in her current condition, especially if she was not appropriately dressed. V11 asked the surveyor why the service door would be open and the alarm not on. On 5/1/23 at 10:26 AM, V9 (local school employee) said she had seen R1 on the cameras they have at the school, and she was on grounds for about 10 minutes or so. V9 said R1 was trying to enter the school because she was cold, and it was chilly out. V9 said a couple staff from the facility all spoke with R1 and then she called over to the nursing facility down the street from them to see if they were missing someone. She said the facility staff answered the phone and said, oh my god you have her {R1}, we will send someone right over. On 5/1/23 at 1:33 PM, V1 (Administrator) said after R1 got out it was identified that a mattress company had been there delivering mattresses and the service door alarm they used to unload the supplies was turned off. V1 said the alarm requires a barrel key to disable it and only certain staff have access to that key. V1 said the facility cameras do not record so the exact time R1 exited through the door is not certain. The facility's undated Elopement Risk Assessment policy states, A Social Service Department will conduct the elopement assessment during the admission process, when there is a significant change in mood or behavior(s), and quarterly. 3. Should an elopement risk be determined; interventions will be immediately initiated to protect the resident in a reasonable manner and as approved by the physician. 6. The Social Service Department will notify facility staff and initiate interventions to protect the resident. Interventions include, however, are not limited to the following: relocation to secure unit, bed alarm and /or chair alarm, use sign in/out record, psychological consultation, personal alarm arm or ankle bracelet, 15 minute to 1 hour observations, one-on-one observation, behavior management. The Immediate Jeopardy that began on 4/26/2023 was removed on 5/2/2023, when the facility took the following actions to remove the immediacy: 1. All staff were in-serviced on elopement and how to know residents who are at risk for elopement along with their elopement interventions. Training was initiated on 5/1/23 by the Administrator and anyone on leave or not available will be educated via phone before their next scheduled shift. 2. All residents were assessed for elopement risk and residents that are at high risk were care planned on 5/1/23 and will continue for all newly admitted residents. 3. A lock box was placed at the service door over the barrel key access that only the Administrator and maintenance will have access to on 5/1/23. Preventing the service door alarm from being disabled by other staff during deliveries. 4. During any vendor delivery staff will always stand guard at the service door. Staff educated on 5/2/23 and ongoing. 5. Elopement binders at the nursing stations and front desk were updated on 5/1/23 and will be updated on an ongoing basis. 6. Audits will be conducted daily by nursing management for 6 months to ensure doors are alarmed after any vendor delivery and will be discussed in IDT meetings starting 5/1/23 and ongoing. 7. All door secured alarms with alarm system were checked on 5/1/23 for functionality and are in working order. 8. Nursing management assessed current residents for elopement precautions and ensured they are in place on 5/1/23 and will continue as ongoing residents are admitted . 9. A Code Pink drill was done on all shifts on 5/2/23. 10. R1 was re-assessed for any injuries on 5/1/23. 11. Emergency QAPI plan has been implemented with all required parties. Any member unavailable was contacted by phone. Including the Medical Director on 5/2/23. 12. All staff had comprehensive elopement quizzes on 5/1/23. 13. All managers were in serviced on monitoring service doors during delivery and at all times on 5/2/23. 14. On weekends the MOD (Manager on Duty) will monitor the service door effective 5/2/23.
Feb 2023 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were completed as ordered for 1 of 5 residents (R4) reviewed for wounds in the sample of 5. The findi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure wound treatments were completed as ordered for 1 of 5 residents (R4) reviewed for wounds in the sample of 5. The findings include: On 2/27/23 at 11:13 AM, R4 was in bed and had a bordered gauze dressing to her left elbow dated 2/25/23 and a bordered gauze dressing to her left middle finger dated 2/26/23. There was no tubigrip over R4's left arm. V4 Wound Registered Nurse said R4's elbow and finger are skin tears, and the dressing should be changed daily. V4 stated R4's dressing to the left elbow is late, it should have been changed yesterday. That is unfortunate to see. R4's Physician Orders for February 2023 shows an order wound care for left posterior upper arm skin tear and left middle finger skin tear: cleanse with normal saline/wound cleanser; apply mupirocin to site; cover with border gauze bandage; cover left arm with tubigrip for protection; complete twice daily and PRN if soiled/dislodged. R4's Treatment Administration Record for February 2023 shows R4's wound care was not signed off as completed on 2/25/23. On 2/28/23 at 11:57 AM, V2 Director of Nursing said resident treatments should be carried out as ordered and the facility does not have a wound care policy.
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

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were in place for a resident with history of falls for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure fall prevention interventions were in place for a resident with history of falls for 1 of 3 residents (R4) reviewed for falls in the sample of 5. The findings include: On 2/27/23 at 11:13 AM, R4 was in bed and had a large purple hematoma on her left forehead and a laceration with steri strips on the side of her left eyebrow. R4 was on a flat regular mattress (no raised edges), low to the ground, with fall mats next to the bed. V4 Wound Registered Nurse said R4 fell out of the bed a few days ago and sustained the injuries to her forehead and eye. V4 said R4 was sent out to the hospital and treated there. R4's Fall-Initial Occurrence Note dated 2/22/23 shows R4 was found sitting on the floor, just beside her bed, there's a lump noted on the resident's forehead and lacerated wound above the left eyebrow new pain to head sent to ER. R4's Progress Note dated 2/22/23 at 1:30 PM shows R4 returned from ER with diagnosis of minor head injury and contusion, the lacerated wound was treated with skin glue and steri-strips. R4's Fall Interdisciplinary Team Note dated 2/23/23 shows Root cause of fall: poor safety awareness, hx of glaucoma; Intervention and care plan updated: Care Plan reviewed, bolster/lip mattress to be provided to offer R4 a border to follow due to poor vision. On 2/28/23 at 11:57 AM, V2 Director of Nursing said after a resident falls the fall Interdisciplinary team meets and discusses what happened and interventions needed to be implemented. V2 said the residents Care Plan is reviewed and updated with new interventions for the residents. V2 said R4 has had several falls lately, the most recent one was 2/22/23. V2 stated I noticed yesterday that the scoop mattress was not in place for R4 and had one put on. The purpose is to provide an edge for R4 to feel, to know where the edge of the bed is, since her vision is poor. R4's Care Plan reflects current interventions that should be in place for R4. R4's Care Plan shows R4 is a high risk for falls and shows Fall Intervention 2/22/23: Lipped bolstered mattress to help prevent rolling out of bed due to visual impairment problems. Date initiated 2/23/23 The facility's Fall Prevention Program Policy dated 11-21-17 shows to assure the safety of all residents in the facility, when possible .program will include measure which determine the individual needs of each resident by assessing the risk of falls and implementation of appropriate intervention to provide necessary supervision.
Jan 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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had comfortable water temperatures in their room to be used for incontinence care for 2 of 8 residents (R4 and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had comfortable water temperatures in their room to be used for incontinence care for 2 of 8 residents (R4 and R5) reviewed for a clean, comfortable, and homelike environment in the sample of 8. The findings include: On 1/31/23 at 1:02 PM, R4 and R5's sink water temperature was checked by V1 (Administrator). V1 turned the hot knob on, and no water came out. V2 then turned the cold water knob on and water started flowing out. The temperature of the water was 74 degrees Fahrenheit. On 1/31/23 at 1:02 PM, R4 said that they use the sink water to provide incontinence care and it feels, brrr cold, it's like being outside. R4 said that it has been like that since she has been in that room. R4's Census Report shows that she admitted to that room on 11/8/22. On 1/31/23 at 1:33 PM, R5 said that the water has been cold since she arrived in the room. R5 said that she knows that the staff are aware of the cold water because they have to go get a tub of warm water from somewhere else to do her bath, but they use the cold sink water to perform incontinence care and it's cold! How do you think it feels? R5's Census Report shows that she was admitted to that room on 10/1/21. On 1/31/23 at 10:22 AM, V6 (Certified Nursing Assistant) said R5's room does not have hot water at all. V6 said that she uses the sink water to provide incontinence care. V6 said that she always reminds her that it's going to be cold. V6 said that the room has not had hot water for over one year. On 1/31/23 at 2:47 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said that she does random temperature checks on the water in resident rooms, and they should be between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit. V2 said that if a resident did not have hot water in their room, she would expect the staff to notify her or V1 right away so it could get fixed. V2 said that she was not aware that R4 and R5's room did not have hot water. V2 said that it would be very uncomfortable to the resident to have incontinence care provided with cold water. V2 stated, I wouldn't want to clean up using cold water. V1 said that they do not have a policy regarding water temperatures.
Jan 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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a call light was in reach for 2 of 3 residents ...

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 call light was in reach for 2 of 3 residents (R1 and R3) reviewed for call lights in a sample of 10. The findings include: 1. R1's face sheet printed on 1/12/23 showed she was admitted [DATE] with diagnoses to include but not limited to hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infraction affecting the right dominant side, aphasia, expressive language disorder, seizures, diabetes mellitus. On 1/12/23 at 12:00 PM, R1 was sitting in the middle of her room in the reclining chair looking out the window and watching television. The call light was not in reach. It was hanging on the bed about 6-7 steps away from R1. R1's physicians order dated 1/12/23 showed please check resident and make sure her call light is within reach every hour. R1's minimum data set (MDS) showed R1 is moderately cognitively impaired and requires total dependence with two person assist with bed mobility, transfers, and toileting. R1's progress note dated 10/13/22 at 4:44 PM, showed V13 (R1's) daughter stopped in to speak to DON and offer her concern about her mother not having her call light within reach . Order placed on medication administration record for nurses to check for call light placement . R1's emails from R1's son V14 dated 09/28/22 at 4:43 PM, showed I ' m sorry there has been call light issues twice in the last week .V1 (Director of Nurses.) R1's email from R1's son V14 dated 09/28/22 at 1:42 PM, showed .Last Wednesday my sister (V13) visited and upon arrival noted that my mom ' s call light was under her bed . On Saturday I visited around 3 PM. I was surprised to see my mom in her chair as she has been spending so much time in bed . I noticed that her call light was clipped to her bed. Mom is hemiplegic and barely speaks. There was no physical way for her to get to her call light which was at least 4-5 from her . R1's email from R1's son V14 dated 11/04/22 at 3:31 PM, showed my sibling visited our mom. Her call light was on the floor, and she was in her chair again and had been up since she was brought back from lunch . This is very neglectful of the facility. She is a prisoner of her chair .Whatever methods and chart notes you deployed are not working. Angel Rounds are not working. R1's email from R1's son V14 dated 01/07/23 at 3:44 PM, showed it happened again. She was in her chair, wheels locked in a chair that needs a pusher, for at least 3.5 hours without her call light. Her position was as far from her bed (and the double call lights) as possible. Your solutions do not work, and the facility is neglecting my mother. I will be filing a complaint with [state agency]. On 1/12/23 at 1:39 PM, V12 (Social Service Director) said I received a grievance form from (R1's) family on 01/08/23. All I did was fill out the form. (V14) has informed staff that when he visited his mother, did not have her call light. On 1/12/23 at 1:53 PM, V1 (Director of Nursing) said (V2) (Assistant Director of Nursing) received an email over the weekend that the (R1) did not have her call light . (V14) had concerns with the call lights a few months ago. On 1/12/23 at 3:05 PM, V2 said I am familiar with (R1) I am aware of the call light issues. The family is upset regarding the call light not being in reach. On 1/12/23 at 11:45 AM, V4 (Registered Nurse) said there are times when the call light is not in reach, and I put it back so they can reach it. The call light cord should be long enough to reach the bed or the side of the wheelchair, but not long enough to reach across the room. On 1/12/23 at 12:05 PM, V5 (Registered Nurse) said the call light is not in reach because she is sitting to far from the call cord. They (CNA's) should have moved the hard chair and put her reclining chair in place next to the bed, so the call light is in reach. On 1/12/23 at 1:53 PM, V1 said The nurses should be checking on her hourly. We put a bell on the good side of her so she could have the bell if the call light was out of reach. 2. R3's face sheet printed on 1/12/23 showed diagnoses to include, but not limited to unspecified fracture of left calcaneus, wedge compression fracture of second lumbar vertebra, abnormalities of gait and mobility. R3's physicians order sheet printed 1/12/23 showed R3 had a cast to the left lower extremity. R3's minimum data set (MDS) printed 1/12/23 showed moderately impaired, and required assistance with bed mobility, toileting, and transfers. R3's Care Plan printed 1/12/23 showed be sure the call light is in reach and encourage to use it for assistance as needed. Needs prompt response to all request for assistance. On 1/12/23 R3 was lying in bed; the call light was not in reach. Call light was hanging on the wall next to a recliner chair away from R3 and the bed. On 1/12/23 at 10:32 AM, R3 said my call light is not here now, and I don't know where it is. It has not been here for a while (weeks.) On 1/12/23 at 11:50 AM, V4 (Registered Nurse) RN said, the call light is not in reach, and he might fall if he needs help and if he try to transfer himself. On 1/12/23 at 4:59 PM, V2 (Assistant Director of Nursing) said yes I am familiar with (R3) some days he will use the call light. On 1/12/23 at 4:55 PM, V1 (Director of Nurses) DON, V4 (Registered Nurse) RN and V10 (Certified Nurse Assistant) CNA said yes (R3) is able to use the call light if it is in place. The facility's policy and procedure titled Call Light showed residents call lights will be answered in timely manner. 1. All residents that have the ability to use a call light shall have the nurse call light system available at all times and within easy accessibility to the resident at the bedside or other reasonable accessible location. 5. Hand bells will be provided for alert dependent residents when positioned out of reach of permanent call light when needed.
Dec 2022 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
Aug 2022 8 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 identify areas of pressure, assess areas of pressure 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 identify areas of pressure, assess areas of pressure and implement interventions for pressure prevention. These failures resulted in deterioration of the pressure area for R22. These failures resulted in R43's pressure deteriorating into an unstageable pressure injury. These failures resulted in R178 developing a deep tissue injury. This applies to 3 of 8 residents (R22, R43, R178) in the sample of 19 reviewed for pressure. The findings include: 1. The facility face sheet for R22 shows diagnosis to include dementia, hypertension, schizoaffective disorder. R22's facility assessment dated [DATE] shows R22 has severe cognitive impairment and requires extensive assistance of 2 for bed mobility and is always incontinent of urine. The facility wound report printed on 8/3/2022 shows R22 had a stage 4 pressure injury to her coccyx on 3/23/2022. The initial wound report dated 3/23/2022 by the facility shows a stage 4 facility acquired pressure injury measuring 1.8 x 1.5 x .6 centimeters with no tunneling. The wound report for R22 on 7/26/2022 shows the coccyx pressure injury is measuring 2.3 x 1.5 x .30 centimeters with tunneling of 4 centimeters present. The facility skin checks dated 4/5/2022 to 5/22/2022 shows no mention of a pressure injury to R22's coccyx. Starting 6/22/2022 the weekly skin observation sheets show a pressure injury to R22's coccyx. On 8/03/22 at 3:25 PM, V3 Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and wound nurse said R22 was admitted to hospice in February and the hospice nurse said they were doing the weekly skin assessments. V3 said the hospice staff did not let the facility know she had a pressure wound to her coccyx. On 8/04/22 at 8:30 AM, V7 Hospice Registered Nurse (RN) said the pressure injury was first observed to R22's coccyx on 3/1/22. V7 said an order for wound care was obtained from the doctor and written in the facility's records for the facility nurses to do. V7 said when new orders are written at the facility, the facility nurses are always informed of changes. 8/04/22 at 9:00 AM, V8 Hospice Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said she cares for R22 2-3 times a week and she first noticed a black looking area to R22's coccyx the beginning of March. V8 said she informed the hospice staff as well as the facility staff. The hospice caring for R22 was notified and sent this surveyor copies of their wound assessments for the month of March 2022. The records were not available at the facility. The hospice first wound assessment shows on 3/1/2022 a 1x1 centimeter unstageable pressure injury with hard black/brown scab to R22's coccyx. The hospice wound assessment dated [DATE] for R22 shows the wound is now a stage 3 pressure injury and R22 is grimacing and moaning while wound care is provided. The facility Physician Order Sheet for R22 shows a new order for wound care to the coccyx. The treatment Administration record for the Month of March for R22 shows a treatment in place for the wound to the coccyx and was being completed by the facility staff. The facility care plan for R22 shows new interventions were not put into place until 3/24/2022 (24 days after initially being found by the hospice staff). On 8/04/22 at 10:15 AM, V2 Director of Nursing (DON) said the nursing staff should be assessing the wound weekly for sure and doing measurements even though hospice is involved. If the treatment was started by hospice, we should still be assessing the wound. The facility should have had better communication with hospice and obtained the records from them and put interventions in place sooner. The facility policy with a revision date of 1/17/2018 for pressure injury and skin condition assessment shows to establish guidelines for assessing, monitoring, and documenting the presence of skin breakdown, pressure injuries and other ulcers and assuring interventions are implemented. Pressure and other ulcers will be assessed and measured at least every 7 days by a licensed nurse and documented in the resident's clinical record. 3. On 8/2/22 at 1:00 PM, R178 was lying in bed. R178 was not wearing any heel protectors and his heels were not being floated. On 8/2/22 at 1:31 PM, R178 was observed on the floor, face down on a fall matt. R178 was not wearing a sock on his left foot. R178 had a purplish-black, egg size area to his left heel. On 8/3/22 at 1:38 PM, V3 (WCN-Wound Care Nurse) stated she was not following or treating R178 for any skin issues. V3 said she was unaware of any skin problems with R178. V3 said R178's heels should be offloaded when he is in bed to prevent any break down. On 8/3/22 at 4:19 PM, R178's was lying in bed and his heels were directly on the mattress. R178's heels were observed with V3 present. V3 stated she did not know anything about the dark area on his left heel. V3 said, That is new to me. I was not aware of this until now. V3 said that looks like a pressure issue to me. It could be a DTI (deep tissue injury). His heels should be offloaded to take off the pressure. V3 said the aides should be inspecting resident skin daily during all cares. Any changes should be reported to the nurse right away. V3 said the nurses also do weekly skin assessments and should be inspecting the skin from head to toe. V3 said this should have been reported immediately. It is important to treat pressure ulcers right away to prevent worsening of the issue. R178's progress note dated 7/28/2022 (last weekly skin assessment) showed no skin concerns and FOOT OBSERVATIONS/CARE: No foot concerns noted. R178's wound round documentation dated 8/2/22 at 12:40 PM by V3 (WCN) showed no wound or skin concerns. R178's wound round documentation dated 8/3/22 at 5:36 PM (after the observation with surveyor) by V3 (WCN) showed a facility-acquired left heel deep tissue pressure injury. The measurements were 6.00 cm long by 5.00 cm wide by 0.01 cm deep. On 8/4/22 at 9:40 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated skin checks should be done daily by the aides with all ADLs (activities of daily living) and cares. Any changes should be reported immediately. Resident's skin is checked weekly by the floor nurses too and special attention is needed for high pressure areas like the backside and heels. It is important to catch changes right away to stop rapid deterioration. It is important to start interventions right away to prevent further breakdown. Staff should be finding skin changes before reaching a DTI level. Finding pressure problems at an advanced level takes it longer to heal. The facility Pressure Injury and Skin Condition Assessment policy revision dated 1/17/18 states: 4. Each resident will be observed for skin breakdown daily during care and on the assigned bath day by the CNA. Changes shall be promptly reported to the charge nurse who will perform the detailed assessment. 6. Care givers are responsible for promptly notifying the charge nurse of skin breakdown. 2. R43's admission Record, provided by the facility on 8/4/22, showed diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), cognitive communication deficit, hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or the inability to move on one side of the body that can affect the arms, legs and facial muscles) following cerebral infarction, dementia and peripheral vascular disease. R43's Physician's Orders showed monitor DTI (deep tissue injury) to tip of right great toe. The orders showed cleanse right great toe with wound cleanser, paint area with betadine and leave open to air daily. R43' Wound Assessment Details Report dated 6/27/22 showed, on that date, a facility-acquired, unstageable pressure injury was identified on R43's right big toe measuring 1.10 cm (centimeter) x 1.20 cm. R43's Braden assessment (a tool used to determine a resident's risk for pressure injury) dated 11/5/21 showed R43 was a high risk for the development of pressure injuries. The facility assessment dated [DATE] showed R43 had moderately impaired cognitive skills and required extensive assist of two staff members for bed mobility. R43's Pressure Ulcer care plan, initiated on 1/5/22, with a revision date of 1/7/22, showed at that time she had a pressure ulcer to her right lateral ankle, right lateral heel, and gluteal (area located below the pelvic girdle that extends into the upper leg) related to immobility. The care plan was not updated to show the pressure area to R43's right great toe. The care plan showed interventions in place were to follow facility's policies/protocols for the prevention/treatment of skin breakdown and to off load pressure from R43's bilateral heels. R43's potential for skin impairment care plan initiated on 1/5/22, showed interventions in place were to assess and record changes in skin status and to minimize pressure over bony prominences. R43's Progress Note dated 6/25/22 showed a 1 centimeter pressure area was identified on R43's right big toe. The note showed it seemed to be caused by a constrictive sock worn consistently by R43. The Progress Note dated 6/27/22 at 10:00 AM, showed Resident was found to have a 1 cm dark spot on right great toe post shower. Resident has been wearing compression type stockings, noted this has put increased pressure on (the) tip of (her) toes. Stockings left off post shower. Will monitor DTI (deep tissue injury). The progress note dated 6/27/22 at 1:21 PM, showed V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing) assessed the pressure injury to R43's right great toe. V3 noted a deep maroon area to R43's right great toe measuring 1.10 cm x 1.20 cm. On 8/3/22 at 1:06 PM, V3 (Assistant Director of Nursing) went into R43's room with this surveyor to look at the pressure area on R43's right great toe. R43 had a dark scab on the tip of her right great toe. V3 said R43 had recently had a pressure area to her right heel that has healed. At 1:32 PM, V3 said she would expect staff to identify areas of pressure prior to them becoming unstageable. V3 said the facility was using agency nurses at the time. V3 said a lot of things did not get done and it was hard to keep track of things. V3 said now the facility has more nurses hired and are training them. On 8/3/22 at 2:03 PM, and again at 3:15 PM, R43 was lying in bed with nothing under her heels. R43's heels were directly flat on the bed. On 8/04/22 at 12:05 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing- DON) said R43 needs staff assist for dressing. Staff should perform skin checks and look for any changes off of R43's baseline. V2 said staff should report any changes to the nurse on duty, so they can assess the area. V2 said the facility may have been able to identify any subtle skin changes and put something in place before it got to that point with R43's great toe. V2 said staff should follow the interventions in place and offload R43's heels to prevent a reoccurrence of pressure areas. R43's Wound Assessment Details Report dated 8/1/22, showed R43 recently had a deep tissue injury to her right heel, that was identified on 7/22/22. A Wound Assessment Details report dated 3/31/22 showed R43 had previously had an unstageable pressure injury to her right heel that was identified on 10/15/21. A Wound Assessment Details Report dated 3/4/22 showed R43 had a previous deep tissue injury to her right lateral heel that had been present on admission. The facility's policy and procedure titled Pressure Injury and Skin Condition Assessment, with a revision date of 1/17/18, showed the purpose of the policy was to establish guidelines for assessing, monitoring and documenting the presence of skin breakdown, pressure injuries and other ulcers and assuring interventions are implemented. The policy showed 1. A skin condition assessment and pressure ulcer risk assessment (Braden) will be completed at the time of admission/readmission. The pressure ulcer risk assessment will be updated quarterly and as necessary. 2. Residents identified will have a weekly skin assessment by a licensed nurse .4. Each resident will be observed for skin breakdown daily during care and on the assigned bath day by the CNA. Changes shall be promptly reported to the charge nurse who will perform the detailed assessment .6. Care givers are responsible for promptly notifying the charge nurse of skin breakdown .17. The resident's care plan will be revised as appropriate, to reflect alteration of skin integrity, approaches and goals for care.
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 ensure a resident was treated in a dignified manner fo...

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 treated in a dignified manner for one of one resident (R178) reviewed for dignity in the sample of 19. The findings include: R178's face sheet printed 8/4/22 showed diagnoses including but not limited to diabetes mellitus, alcohol use unspecified with alcohol induced persisting amnestic disorder, alcohol dependence in remission, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, and repeated falls. R178's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed severe cognitive impairment and memory problems. The same assessment showed extensive staff assistance needed for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and hygiene. On 8/2/22 at 1:00 PM, R178 was lying in bed wearing a night gown. The gown was pulled up to his chest and his bare groin area was completely exposed. R178 was fully visible from the room doorway. R178 was calling for help and his right leg was hanging out of the bed. At 1:02 PM, V17 (CNA-Certified Nurse Aide) walked down the hallway past R178's room and did not offer help. At 1:03 PM, V20 (RN-Registered Nurse) walked down the hallway past R178's room and did not offer help. At 1:09 PM, R178 was observed lying on the floor mattress, completely naked, and fully exposed from the doorway. R178 was yelling, Anybody out there? Is there someone at the door? Staff members V2, V14, and V20 (RNs) walked back and forth past his room and did not respond. The surveyor could hear R178 yelling out for help three doors down the hallway. At 1:19 PM, V16 and V17 (CNAs) entered the room and found R178 on the floor. V14 (RN) was notified and the three staff members transferred R178 back to bed while completely naked and with the room door open. At 1:37 PM, V20 (RN) entered the room and finally closed the door. R178 was naked and visible from the doorway for over 35 minutes. On 8/4/22 at 9:40 AM, V15 (Regional Nurse Consultant) stated residents should be covered over the private areas at all times or at least attempt to remained covered. Someone calling out should be responded to quickly. The resident could be in pain, fallen, or need to use the bathroom. It is rude and disrespectful not to respond. V15 said room curtains should be drawn and the door closed during care. It is important not to expose the private areas of the body. It is a dignity issue. Privacy is important in order to maintain dignity. Residents should be treated as if they are a member for your own family. There are no exceptions, including residents that are confused or displaying behaviors. Exposed private body parts is a dignity issue to the individual as well as other residents in the area. The facility Dignity Policy revision dated 4/23/18 states: Refraining from practices demeaning to resident's . The facility Resident Rights Policy review dated 1/4/19 states: .rights include the resident's rights to privacy and confidentiality.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to shower a resident two times a week. This applies to one...

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 shower a resident two times a week. This applies to one of three residents (R228) reviewed for activity of daily living (ADL)'s in the sample of 19. The findings include: The facility face sheet shows R228 has diagnosis to include Type 2 diabetes, chronic pulmonary disease, and schizoaffective disorder. The facility assessment dated [DATE] for R228 shows moderate cognitive impairment and extensive assist of 2 staff for ADL care. On 8/3/2022 at 3:10 PM V11 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said R228 takes a shower just fine for her. On 8/3/2022 at 3:16 PM, V13 CNA said she had never showered R228 before but never heard of her refusing one. On 8/04/22 at 10:15 AM, V2 Director of Nursing (DON) said with R228 behaviors giving showers may be difficult, but I expect the staff to try numerous times, try different approaches and always document if a shower cannot be completed and why. The facility shower sheets for the month of July 2022 shows 2 showers were given. The shower schedule for R228 is set for 2 times a week on Tuesday and Saturday evening. The facility policy with a revision date of 1/31/2018 for showers shows; to ensure resident's cleanliness to maintain proper hygiene and dignity. A shower will be offered to the resident's preference two times a week .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to put interventions in place for a resident (R4) with he...

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 put interventions in place for a resident (R4) with hemiplegia and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or the inability to move on one side of the body that can affect the arms, legs and facial muscles) for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for range of motion in the sample of 19. The findings include: R4's admission Record provided by the facility on 8/4/22 showed diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction (stroke) affecting right dominant side, aphasia (loss or ability to understand or express speech, caused by brain damage), dementia, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing foods or liquids), cognitive communication deficit and weakness. R4's Nursing Rehab/Restorative program reviewed from July 5, 2022, through August 2, 2022, showing one dressing/grooming program. The program showed (R4) will maintain hygiene and dressing with set up, verbal cues, and extensive 1 assist on right side. The facility assessment dated [DATE] showed R4 to have severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The assessment showed R4 had impairment to her range of motion on one side of her upper and lower extremities. On 8/02/22 at 10:13 AM, R4 was sitting in her room, in her wheelchair. R4's Right hand was in a clenched rolled up position like she was making a fist. When asked if she could open her hand, R4 took her left hand and slowly, partially extended the second and third digits of her right hand. No intervention was in place at that time to keep R4's right hand open. On 8/3/22 at 3:13 PM, R4 was in her room lying in bed. R4's Right hand was still in the clenched fist position. No hand roll or any other device was in her right hand to keep her hand open and prevent contracture. On 8/03/22 at 3:10 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing-DON) said she cannot remember if R4 was the resident that the facility just ordered a hand brace for or not. V2 said they could place a washcloth inside R4's right hand until a hand brace was available for her. V2 said she would look and see if she could find any care plan or range of motion program for R4's right hand. On 8/3/22 at 3:18 PM, V21 (Certified Nursing Assistant-CNA) said she has worked at the facility for four years. V21 said she was not aware of any ROM (range of motion) program in place for R4. V21 said she does not do any range of motion with R4's right hand. On 8/04/22 at 9:42 AM, V16 (CNA) said he gets R4 cleaned up and dressed in the mornings. V16 said he was not sure if R4 is on any kind of restorative program. V16 said there used to be care plans in the resident's rooms where staff could find all of that information, but they have been removed. V16 said the computer is usually just for the CNAs to put in input. V16 said he had not seen any of the care plans in a long time. V16 brought up R4's point of care program. R4's point of care information did not mention any range of motion or interventions in place for her right hand. On 8/04/22 at 9:38 AM, R4 was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. R4's right hand was in the clenched position. Nothing was in R4's right hand to keep it open and prevent contraction. On 8/04/22 at 11:54 AM, V2 (DON) said prior to 8/3/22 R4 did not have any ROM program in place for her right hand. V2 said she created the care plan for ROM to R4's right hand on 8/3/22. All of R4's care plans were reviewed on 8/3/22, with no care plan in place addressing range of motion for R4's right hand. R4's care plans provided by the facility on 8/4/22 showed a care plan initiated on 8/3/22 for range of motion to R4's right hand. The facility's policy and procedure titled Restorative Nursing Program, with a review/revision date of 1/4/19 showed the purpose of the policy was to promote each resident's ability to maintain or regain the highest degree of independence as safely as possible. Includes, but is not limited to, programs in walking/mobility, dressing and grooming, eating and swallowing, transferring, bed mobility, communication, splint or brace assistance, amputation care and continence programs. The policy showed to determine a restorative need for a new admission .identify residents who currently have splints/braces or previous range of motion programs or those that have actual or potential limitations with ROM and/or pain. Develop an individualized program based on the resident's restorative needs and include the restorative program on the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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 prevent a resident fall, failed to assess a resident 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 prevent a resident fall, failed to assess a resident after a fall, and failed to transfer residents in a safe manner for two of ten residents (R178, R70) reviewed for safety in the sample of 19. The findings include: 1. R178's face sheet printed 8/4/22 showed diagnoses including but not limited to diabetes mellitus, alcohol use unspecified with alcohol induced persisting amnestic disorder, alcohol dependence in remission, schizoaffective disorder, anxiety, and repeated falls. R178's facility assessment dated [DATE] showed severe cognitive impairment and memory problems. The same assessment showed extensive staff assistance needed for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and hygiene. R178's fall risk assessment dated [DATE] showed at risk for falls. R178's care plan showed a focus area initiated 7/8/22 related to activities of daily living and an intervention for: TRANSFER-The resident requires mechanical lift hoyer and 2 staff assistance for transfers. On 8/2/22 at 11:31 AM, R178 was in bed with his right leg hanging out of bed and part of his upper body leaning over the edge of the bed. The surveyor alerted V3 (Registered Nurse) of the situation and V3 assisted R178 back into the bed. V3 said R178 has alcohol related dementia and is confused to his surroundings. On 8/2/22 at 1:00 PM, R178 was calling out for help and again his legs were hanging out of the bed. V17 (CNA-Certified Nurse Aide) walked down the hallway past R178's room and did not offer help. At 1:03 PM, V20 (RN-Registered Nurse) walked down the hallway past R178's room and did not offer help. At 1:09 PM, R178 was observed lying on the floor mattress and was still yelling out, Anybody out there? Is there someone at the door? Staff members V2, V14, and V20 (RNs) walked back and forth past his room and did not respond. The surveyor could hear R178 yelling out for help three doors down the hallway. At 1:19 PM, V16 and V17 (CNAs) entered the room and found R178 on the floor. V14 (RN) was notified and entered R178's room. V14 stood or knelt near R178 for over 20 minutes while V16 and V17 entered and exited the room repeatedly while attempting to locate a mechanical lift in the facility. R178 continued lying face down on the floor and moaned in a confused manner. V14 did not perform any assessments or check R178 for any injuries whatsoever. During that time, V14 and V16 decided to lift R178 onto the bed without waiting for the mechanical lift and sat him upright. V14 and V16 pulled up hard and suddenly under R178's arms. R178's legs would not bear the weight and slide out from underneath him. R178 groaned loudly and landed hard on his buttocks. (A gait belt was not used either.) A mechanical lift was finally brought into the room and the staff members found a blue, plastic sheet with side loops that was balled up under R178's fall mat. V14, V16 and V17 began to attach the loops to the hooks on the mechanical lift. At 1:37 PM, V20 (RN) entered the room with a mechanical lift sling in her hand and immediately stopped the transfer. V20 asked the staff members if that was a mechanical lift sling, they were going to use to lift R178. V17 replied, I think so. It is what we have been using to transfer him. We used it all last weekend to transfer him. V20 stated it was NOT a mechanical lift sling and was a slide sheet. V20 said it should only be used to slide R178 around in the bed and from one level plane to another level plane. R178 was finally transferred off the floor and back into his bed using the mechanical lift. V14 (RN) exited the room without performing any further care or assessments. On 8/4/22 at 9:40 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated R178 has a history of falls and current interventions to prevent more included a referral to therapy, call light within reach, and floor mats. V2 said additional interventions were still needed due to his confusion and cognition problems. V2 said he should be at the nurse's station for increased observation and one to one supervision or activities. V2 said the interventions should already be in place to reduce his risk of falling again. V2 said any resident found on the floor should be assessed for injury from head to toe before they are moved. It is important to ensure no further harm or injury is caused when being moved. Residents should be monitoring for 72 hours after an unwitnessed fall. Assessments include neurological checks, vital signs, and to watch for changes in the level of consciousness. V2 said R178 is a difficult transfer and requires a two person assist using a mechanical lift. V2 said residents should never be grabbed under the armpits. It is a safety and injury issue. It is unsafe because a resident could be dropped or cause a shoulder dislocation. At 9:50 AM, V20 (RN) entered the interview and said the staff were attempting to use a slide sheet. It is used to make it easier to move in bed or slide onto a stretcher. It is a transfer-type sheet from a bed to another flat surface. It came here from the hospital. It is not appropriate for use here with a mechanical lift. V2 (DON) said, NO! It is not made to be used with a mechanical lift. The stitching is not appropriate. It could rip and drop the resident. R178's care plan was reviewed on 8/4/22 and did not show any new fall interventions to address the 8/2/22 fall. The facility Falls Policy review dated 1/1/15 states: Licensed nurse should conduct assessment immediately . 2. R70's admission Record provided by the facility on 8/4/22 showed diagnoses including altered mental status, repeated falls, cognitive communication deficit, weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility and lack of coordination. The facility assessment dated [DATE] showed R70 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and required extensive assistance of two staff members for transfers. On 8/02/22 at 12:27 PM, V14 (Registered Nurse) and V16 (Certified Nursing Assistant-CNA) transferred R70 from her geriatric chair to her bed without a gait belt. V14 and V16 put their arms under R70's underarms and grabbed the back of R70's pants to pick her up and transfer her to bed. On 8/03/22 at 10:45 AM, V16 and V10 (Scheduler/CNA) were getting R70 ready to transfer her from her geriatric chair to her bed to perform incontinent care. V10 was repositioning R70's chair to prepare for the transfer. V10 put the geriatric chair in the upright position and R70 flung forward in the chair. R70 was heading toward the footboard of her roommate's bed. This surveyor stepped forward with arms out to stop R70 in case she was going to fall out of the chair. R70 was able to stop herself just before falling. V10 leaned R70 back against the geriatric chair. V10 and V16 then transferred R70 from the geriatric chair to her bed by placing their arms under R70's underarms and grabbing the back of her pants. No gait belt was used during the transfer. On 8/03/22 at 1:16 PM, V16 said the resident should always have a gait belt on during transfers because they could slip and fall. V16 said there should have been a gait belt on R70 when they transferred her. When asked how staff find out what a resident's transfer needs are V16 said there used to be something in the residents' rooms, but they took them out. V16 was asked if the residents' care plans in the electronic charting would have their transfer needs on them. V16 said he had not seen any resident's care plans in a long time. On 8/04/22 at 9:52 AM, V10 said if she had the chair in the position that she needed it to be in, she could have had more control over it and sat R70 up slower. V10 said that is no excuse, adding she was not familiar with R70. V10 said when she and V16 transferred R70, she should have had a gait belt on. V10 said residents should have a gait belt on during all transfers by staff. On 8/04/22 at 11:48 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said staff should have transferred R70 with a gait belt. V2 said it is not safe to pull on a resident and put pressure under their arms during a transfer. V2 said the geriatric chair should be placed in the upright position slowly, or the staff should put a hand on the resident's shoulder to help guide them. The facility's policy and procedure titled Transfers-Manual Gait Belt and Mechanical Lifts, with a revision date of 1/19/18 showed 9. Use of gait belt for all physical assist transfers is mandatory.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure appropriate incontinence care was given and fai...

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 appropriate incontinence care was given and failed to give incontinence care in a manner to prevent cross contamination for a resident with a history of urinary tract infection for 1 of 1 resident (R51) reviewed for incontinence care in a sample of 19. The findings include: R51's electronic face sheet showed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R51 has diagnoses including but not limited to Alzheimer's disease, urinary tract infection, dementia without behaviors, dementia with behavior, hypertension, and need for assistance with personal care. R51's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 6/30/22, shows she is severely cognitively impaired. She requires extensive assist of two person with bed mobility, total dependence of two person with transfers, total dependence with toileting with two persons assist, and R51 is always incontinent of bowel and bladder. R51's Care Plan printed on 8/4/22 showed R51 is incontinent of bowel, and bladder and requires two staff to assist with toileting use. On 08/02/22 at 12:02 PM, V10 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) provided incontinence care for R51. V10 wiped the perineal area from the bottom of the vaginal area to the top of the vaginal area. While using the same washcloth V10 wiped multiple times from back to front without changing the washcloth or folding the cloth to prevent cross contamination. V10 did not change the dirty area of the washcloth to a clean area of the cloth. On 08/03/22 at 03:58 PM, V6 LPN (License Practical Nurse) said it should be done with two towels, cleaning from front to back. It could cause infection if you clean from back to front due to a dirty area to a semi clean area in the vaginal area. On 08/03/22 at 04:02 PM, V11 CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) said when doing perineal care for a woman you would wipe from front to back because they can get a urinary tract infection or any other infection. On 08/04/22 at 12:19 PM, V3 RN/IP (Registered Nurse/ Infection Preventionist) said after incontinent episode you would clean from front to back which is the way the staff are expected and trained to clean a resident. The resident could develop and infection of E-Coli, Bacterial vaginitis, and/or other types of infections. The facility's revised 1/16/18 incontinence care policy for incontinence care shows,4. Soap one cloth at a time to wash genitalia using a clean part of the cloth for each swipe. (a) Wash the labia first and then the groin areas. In a female, separate the labia and wash with strokes from top downward . washing each side separately with a clean cloth or clean area of the cloth keeping the labia separated with one hand. (b) Rinse with remaining cloth .
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to check placement and residuals of a feeding tube prior to starting liquid nutrition for one of two residents (R15) reviewed for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to check placement and residuals of a feeding tube prior to starting liquid nutrition for one of two residents (R15) reviewed for feeding tubes in the sample of 19. The findings include: R15's face sheet printed 8/4/22 showed diagnoses including but not limited to cerebral infarction, dysphagia, dementia, encephalopathy, and heart disease. R15's August 2022 physician orders showed an order for enteral feedings (liquid nutrition via gastrostomy tube) one time a day to start at 9 am and run at 60 ml/hr for 21 hours. Orders also included: Check residuals before beginning a feeding and before medication administration. If greater than 100 cc, hold feedings and recheck in one hour. If not resolved, call MD. On 8/3/22 at 8:59 AM, V18 (Registered Nurse) gathered supplies to begin running R15's feeding tube. V18 used a stethoscope and listened to the pushing of water through R15's feeding tube before starting the liquid nutrition. V18 was questioned about what he was doing and stated he was checking the tube for patency. V18 said he listens for the sound of water running into the stomach to ensure the line is clear. V18 hung a new bottle of liquid nutrition and began running the liquid nutrition via a feeding pump. V18 did not check for the placement of the feeding tube or check for residuals prior to starting the liquid nutrition. On 8/4/22 at 8:53 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) said feeding tube placement should be checked before anything is given. It is important to know if the tube has been dislodged or in the wrong place. There is an increased risk for infection if the tube is in the wrong place. V2 said listening for a water gurgle is not reliable. The tube could be in the wrong place and the water would enter the abdominal cavity. The tube may have punctured into another area and water would enter that area. V2 said tube placement should be performed as stated on the facility policy. The facility Gastrostomy Tube-Feeding and Care policy last revision dated 8/3/20 states under the procedure section: 7. Observe for tube placement before- a. Starting feeding. The policy states under the checking for tube placement section: a. Aspirate to visually verify stomach contents. The policy states: Note: Auscultation is no longer recommended for checking placement of the feeding tube .
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility face sheet for R22 shows diagnosis to include dementia, hypertension, schizoaffective disorder. R22's facility a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The facility face sheet for R22 shows diagnosis to include dementia, hypertension, schizoaffective disorder. R22's facility assessment dated [DATE] shows R22 has severe cognitive impairment and requires extensive assistance of 2 for bed mobility and is always incontinent of urine. On 8/02/22 at 11:13 AM, R22 was being assisted with incontinence care by V5 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). V5 completed the incontinence care, then V5 pulled up R22 pants, adjusted her pillow, raised the head of the bed using the bed remote and then left the room while still wearing the soiled gloves she wears while doing incontinence care. V5 walked down the hall and using the doorknob entered the soiled utility room. On 8/3/22 at 3:10 PM, V11 CNA said gloves should be changed after getting soiled and before touching anything else. On 8/3/22 at 3:15PM, V6 Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said gloves should be changed after touching something dirty and before touching anything else. On 8/04/22 at 10:15 AM, V2 Director of Nursing (DON) said gloves should be changed after touching something dirty to prevent cross contamination. The facility policy with a revision date of 1/16/18 for incontinence care shows gloves are to be removed and hand hygiene performed. Do not touch any clean surfaces while wearing soiled gloves Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to remove gloves after providing incontinence care and failed to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as recommended. This applies to 3 of 4 residents (R22, R70, R56) reviewed for infection control in the sample of 19. The findings include: 1. R70's admission Record provided by the facility on 8/4/22 showed diagnoses including altered mental status, cognitive communication deficit, weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility and lack of coordination. The facility assessment dated [DATE] showed R70 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making and required assistance of staff members for bed mobility and toileting. On 8/02/22 at 12:09 PM, R70 was sitting in a geriatric chair in the hallway. R70 said she needs to lay down. V16 (Certified Nursing Assistant-CNA) pulled his surgical mask down to his chin and leaned in towards R70 telling her that she needs to eat first. V16 stood up, saw this surveyor and pulled the surgical mask back over his nose and mouth. On 8/03/22 at 10:51 AM, V16 and V10 (Certified Nursing Assistants-CNAs) provided incontinence care for R70. A small amount of stool was in R70's brief. V16 did not remove the soiled gloves used to provide incontinence care for R70. V16 picked up a blanket from a chair in R70's room, folded the blanket several times and handed the blanket to V10, who placed the blanket between R70's legs. V16 touched R70's sheet and blanket to cover her up, then touched R70's pillow and remote for her bed. 2. R56's electronic diagnoses tab showed he had diagnoses including Parkinson's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, schizoaffective disorder, Alzheimer's, depression and anxiety. The facility assessment dated [DATE] showed R56 requires extensive assist of two staff members for bed mobility and toileting. The facility assessment dated [DATE] showed R56 had severely impaired cognition. On 8/03/22 at 11:04 AM, V22 and V23 (CNAs) were providing incontinence care for R56, who was incontinent of stool. V22 did not remove the soiled gloves used during incontinence care. V22 placed one gloved hand on R56's right arm and the other soiled glove on R56's right upper leg to roll him onto his left side. At 11:16 AM, V22 said she should have removed the gloves used to clean the stool from R56, cleaned her hands and put on clean gloves before touching his arm and leg to prevent cross-contamination. At 11:30 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing-DON), who had been present during the incontinence care, said she noticed that V22 did not remove the soiled gloves and touched R56. V2 said V22 should have removed the gloves after cleaning the stool, cleaned her hands and put on new gloves before touching R56. On 8/03/22 at 1:16 PM, V16 (CNA) said he should not have pulled his face mask down when he was talking with R70. V16 said he could have passed germs to her. V16 said with Covid-19 positive cases in the facility, it is important to make sure that we are wearing the masks and other PPE (personal protective equipment) as required. At 2:08 PM, V16 said he should have removed the dirty gloves after providing incontinence care for R70. V16 said he should have cleaned his hands and put on clean gloves before touching anything, to prevent cross-contamination. On 8/04/22 at 11:44 AM, V2 said the CNAs should have removed the soiled gloves after providing incontinence care, adding, by not removing the gloves, they are spreading germs all over. At 11:48 AM, V2 said V16 should keep his surgical mask on at all times. V2 said the transmission rate is high in the community and we do not want to spread any germs. V2 said they (the facility) do not want to risk staff being asymptomatic and passing something on to a resident. The facility's policy and procedure titled Infection Control-Interim Covid-19 policy, with a revision date of 7/29/22, showed Core Principles of Covid Infection Control .Masks: All facility employees in all departments will be required to wear a surgical mask during their shift . Page 20 of the policy showed Surgical Face Masks: Masking is required at all times by all employees and visitors . The facility's policy and procedure titled Incontinence Care, with a revision date of 1/16/18, showed 11. Remove gloves and perform hand hygiene. Do not touch any clean surfaces while wearing soiled gloves.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 5 harm violation(s), $45,697 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 42 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $45,697 in fines. Higher than 94% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 3/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Aperion Care Dekalb's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns APERION CARE DEKALB an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Aperion Care Dekalb Staffed?

CMS rates APERION CARE DEKALB's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 69%, which is 22 percentage points above the Illinois average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs.

What Have Inspectors Found at Aperion Care Dekalb?

State health inspectors documented 42 deficiencies at APERION CARE DEKALB during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 5 that caused actual resident harm, and 36 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Aperion Care Dekalb?

APERION CARE DEKALB is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by APERION CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 119 certified beds and approximately 74 residents (about 62% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DEKALB, Illinois.

How Does Aperion Care Dekalb Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, APERION CARE DEKALB's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (69%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Aperion Care Dekalb?

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

Is Aperion Care Dekalb Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, APERION CARE DEKALB has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-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 Aperion Care Dekalb Stick Around?

Staff turnover at APERION CARE DEKALB is high. At 69%, the facility is 22 percentage points above the Illinois average of 46%. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?

Was Aperion Care Dekalb Ever Fined?

APERION CARE DEKALB has been fined $45,697 across 3 penalty actions. The Illinois average is $33,536. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Aperion Care Dekalb on Any Federal Watch List?

APERION CARE DEKALB 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.