ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE

1001 A JEFFERSON STREET, ELDORADO, IL 62930 (618) 273-3353
For profit - Limited Liability company 99 Beds WLC MANAGEMENT FIRM Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
4/100
#508 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: April 2025

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

Overview

Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and poor quality of care. Ranked #508 out of 665 facilities in Illinois, they are in the bottom half, and #4 out of 4 in Saline County, meaning they are the least favorable option in the area. The facility is showing some improvement, having reduced issues from 25 in 2024 to 4 in 2025, but it remains concerning that staffing is a weakness with a 100% turnover rate, far exceeding the Illinois average of 46%. Additionally, they have incurred $23,989 in fines, which is average but may indicate compliance issues, and RN coverage is below that of 75% of state facilities, meaning there could be less oversight for resident care. Specific incidents include a resident with dementia eloping from the facility without proper assessment and care areas that were found to be unclean and in disrepair, which raises concerns about the overall environment and safety for residents.

Trust Score
F
4/100
In Illinois
#508/665
Bottom 24%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
25 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
100% turnover. Very high, 52 points above average. Constant new faces learning your loved one's needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$23,989 in fines. Higher than 62% of Illinois facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 26 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Illinois. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
32 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 25 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below Illinois average (2.5)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 100%

53pts above Illinois avg (47%)

Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity

Federal Fines: $23,989

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: WLC MANAGEMENT FIRM

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

Staff turnover is very high (100%)

52 points above Illinois average of 48%

The Ugly 32 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Apr 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person centered Care Plan for 1 (R43) of 19 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans in a sample of 33. Fin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive person centered Care Plan for 1 (R43) of 19 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans in a sample of 33. Findings include: R43's admission Record documents an admission date to the facility on 1/18/2025 with diagnoses including dementia, Alzheimer's dementia, acute kidney failure, urinary tract infection, atrial flutter, diverticulosis, diabetes mellitus type 2 and general anxiety disorder. R43's Care Plan in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) documented only two focus areas that included: Advanced directives and long term residency. The Care Plan is undated but lists an admission date of 1/18/2025. On 4/16/2025 at 9:15AM, V31 (Care Plan Coordinator) reviewed R43's EHR and said R43's Care Plan was never developed as far as she could tell. V31 said it only has two focus areas, advance directives and long term residency. V43 said it looks like R43's Care Plan was started but not finished. V43 said she was not the Care Plan Coordinator at the time R43's Care Plan was supposed to be developed. V31 said she might have a Baseline Care Plan for R43 in her desk drawer, but she would have to look. V31 agreed a Baseline Care Plan in her locked office in the drawer was not accessible to the staff for guiding R43's care. On 4/16/2025 at 9:05AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said she did not know why, but R43's Care Plan had not been completed. V2 said R43's Care Plan should have more than advanced directives and long term residency as focus areas on it. V2 agreed R43 did not have a personalized comprehensive care plan developed after she was admitted to this facility. On 4/17/2025 at 10:30am, V21 (Corporate Nurse) said she could not find a Comprehensive Care Plan for R43.
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** 3. R7's admission Record documented R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and include diagnoses of muscle weakness (generali...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. R7's admission Record documented R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and include diagnoses of muscle weakness (generalized), unsteadiness on feet, and other reduced mobility. R7's MDS dated [DATE] documented a BIMS score of 14, indicating R7 was cognitively intact. In the section titled Functional Abilities under Self-Care, the MDS documented R7 requires substantial/maximal assist for showering/bathing, meaning the helper does more than half the effort . On 04/14/25 02:25PM, R7's hair appeared greasy and unkempt/uncombed. R7 stated We don't get our showers on time. We often only get a shower once a week. On 04/16/25 at 10:05 AM, R7 stated that her shower days are scheduled for Mondays and Thursdays. On 04/16/25 09:07AM, R7's Skin Monitoring Comprehensive CNA Shower Review documentation received from V1 from February 1, 2025 through April 12, 2025 documented that R7 received showers on printed shower sheets obtained from V1 documented R7 had showers on the following days: 2/2/25, 2/9/25, 2/14/25, 2/18/25, 2/24/25, 2/28/25, 3/5/25, 3/10/25, 3/13/25, 3/20/25, 3/27/25, 3/31/25, 4/7/25, 4/8/25, and 4/12/25. The facility policy titled Bath, Shower/Tub with a revision date of February 2018, documents the purpose of this procedure is to promote cleanliness, provide comfort to the resident and to observe the condition of the resident's skin. Guideline #5 documents Each resident shall have at least one complete bath and hair wash weekly and as many additional baths and hair washes as necessary for satisfactory personal hygiene. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents who require assistance with bathing receive frequency of showers as scheduled/preferred for 3 (R35, R39, R7) of 4 residents reviewed for Activities of Daily Living assistance in a sample of 33. Findings include: 1. R35's admission Record in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) document R35 was admitted to this facility on 11/22/2021 with diagnoses of cerebral infarction, muscle wasting, muscle atrophy, hemiplegia and hemiparesis. R35's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented R35 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, indicating R35 is cognitively intact. This same MDS documented R35 has impairment of one side of his upper and lower extremities, needs set up/clean-up assistance for showering or bathing and does not reject care. On 4/14/2025 at 1:30PM, R35 said he is supposed to get two showers per week but does not get them. R35 said he wants his showers twice per week, but most of the time he only gets one shower per week and has to go 7 or 8 days in between showers. R35 said he was scheduled for showers on Tuesday and Friday evenings. R35's Skin Monitoring Comprehensive CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Shower Review received from V1 (Administrator) documented R35 received 12 of the 20 scheduled showers from February 1, 2025 through April 9, 2025. R35 received showers on 2/5, 2/11, 2/14, 2/21, 2/28, 3/7, 3/13, 3/18, 3/25, 4/2, 4/8, and 4/9 and refused showers on 2/18 and 3/28. 2. R39's admission Record in the EHR documented R39 was admitted to this facility on 9/1/2024 with diagnoses of dementia and hemiplegia with right dominant side affected. R39's MDS dated [DATE] documented R39's cognitive impairment is too severe to participate in the testing. This same MDS documented R39 has physical impairment to both upper and lower extremities and is dependent on staff for all activities of daily living. On 4/14/2025 at 12:39PM, R39 was observed in the facility's dining room with very dry flaky skin noted to his scalp and face. On 4/15/2025 at 12:30PM, R39 was observed in the facility's dining room with the same dry flaky skin noted to his scalp and face. R39's Skin Monitoring Comprehensive CNA Shower Review documentation received from V1 from February 1, 2025 through April 9, 2025 documented that R39 received showers on 2/2, 2/8, 2/12, 2/19, 3/12, 3/19, 3/26, 3/31, 4/2 and 4/9 and received bed baths on 2/26, 3/5, and 3/15. The facility's shower schedule with revision date of 10/02/2024 documented R39's showers are scheduled on Wednesdays and Saturdays. On 4/16/2025 at 2:05pm, V22 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA) said R39 does not refuse showers and all the residents are supposed to be showered twice per week. On 4/16/2025 at 9:15AM, V9 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) said residents are supposed to get showered twice per week according to the shower schedule which goes by room number. On 4/16/2025 at 9:25AM, V12 (CNA) said residents get two showers per week. If a resident refuses, then they are supposed to document the refusal on the shower sheet and turn it in to the nurse. On 4/16/2025 at 9:35AM, V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) said showers are to be given twice per week according to the shower schedule. V2 said she expects the residents to be showered as scheduled.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

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 bed rails/enablers were installed in accordanc...

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 bed rails/enablers were installed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and specifications for 1 (R7) of 1 resident reviewed for bed rails in the sample of 33. Findings include: R7's admission Record documented R7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and included diagnoses of muscle weakness (generalized), unsteadiness on feet, other reduced mobility, cerebral infarction, unspecified, and hemiplegia, unspecified affecting left nondominant side. R7's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] lists her functional limitation in range of motion impairment as on one side for upper extremity and lower extremity. R7 MDS documented she uses a wheelchair as a mobility device, and requires substantial/maximal assistance in the following areas: upper and lower body dressing, roll left and right: The ability to roll from lying on back to left and right side and return to lying on back on the bed, and for lying to sitting on side of bed: The ability to move from lying on the back to sitting on the side of the bed and with no back support. R7's Care Plan dated 12/26/24 documented a Focus Area of the resident is at risk for falls deconditioning, gait/balance problems, incontinence. Corresponding interventions listed for this focus area are low bed and mobility bar to bed. On 04/14/25 at 10:00 AM, R7's bed was observed to have bed rails/enablers attached to the bed frame via zip ties. R7 stated that she was moved from her usual room, and unable to take her mattress and bed frame with her, but these rails were from her previous bed. R7 said that the staff told her that they could not bolt the bed rails/enablers she used to this specific bed frame in the new room, because it would void the warranty. R7 stated she was told the bed rails were not made for this bed frame, and the facility did not have the correct bed rails for that bed frame. R7 said that the bed rails/enablers are loose and do not assist her bed mobility as much as when they were bolted to the bed. At this time, surveyor grabbed a hold of the bed rails to check for stability and noted them to be wobbly/unstable. The rails were easily moved back and forth and up/down. On 04/15/25 at 01:26 PM, the bedrails/enablers on R7's bed were again observed to be attached to R7's bedframe via zip ties and were not anchored with nut and bolt or otherwise securely attached. On 04/15/25 at 01:32 PM, V10 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) stated R7 does use the enablers to reposition herself. V10 stated that she has seen R7 use them frequently to reposition herself in bed and to pull herself up in bed. V10 further stated, if R7 did not have them, it would be more difficult for her to reposition herself without the assistance of staff. On 04/15/25 01:36 PM, V23 (Certified Nurse Aide/CNA) stated that R7 uses her bedrails/enablers every day to reposition and move herself around in bed. V23 said She (R7) needs them for her bed mobility. She uses it even when we get her up out of bed. She uses them to help her stand even when they are using the gait belt. On 04/15/25 at 01:48 PM, V24 (Maintenance Supervisor) stated that the enablers are attached to the bed using thick/wide zip ties. V24 said these are not the correct rails for this bed, and this was the only way to attach them to the bed until the correct bed rails/enablers come in that the facility has ordered. The facility is currently waiting on the rails designed for that bed. V24 said if he drills holes in the bed, it will void the warranty. V24 said that on R7's old bed, they were bolted on. This surveyor described the observation of R7's bed rails being unstable/loose to V24, and V24 stated he understood that, but this was the best solution the facility could come up with until the correct bed rails/enablers arrived and could be installed. V24 was asked for a user manual or manufacturer's instructions for R7's bed, and V24 stated they did not have one. On 04/16/25 at 10:05 AM, R7's bedrails/enablers were observed to be securely attached to the bed frame using nuts and bolts, two per bed rail/enabler. On 4/16/25 at 10:05 AM, R7 said that her bed rails/enablers had been attached with zip ties about 4 days ago from today and had been attached like that until this morning. The facility's Bed Safety Policy dated December 2007 states, Ensure that bed side rails are properly installed using the manufacturer's instructions and other pertinent safety guidance to ensure proper fit. When using side rails for any reason, the staff shall take measures to reduce related risks.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a plan for appropriate treatment and services for a resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a plan for appropriate treatment and services for a resident with dementia for 1 (R43) of 19 residents reviewed for dementia care in a sample of 33. Findings include: R43's admission Record document she was admitted to this facility on 1/18/2025 and include a diagnosis of Alzheimer's dementia. R43's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented R43 has severe cognitive impairment and could not participate in cognitive testing. This same MDS documented R43 needs maximum to total assistance for all activities of daily living. R43's Care Plan documented two focus areas that included: Advanced directives and long term residency. The Care Plan is undated but lists an admission date of 1/18/2025. R43's Care Plan did not include a plan for R43's Alzheimer's dementia or cognitive decline. On 4/16/2025 at 9:15 AM, V31 (Care Plan Coordinator) reviewed R43's Care Plan in the EHR and said R43's Care Plan was never developed. V43 said it looks like R43's Care Plan was started but not finished and should have more than two focus areas on it. V31 said R43's Care Plan did not include a plan to treat or provide services for R43's dementia or cognitive decline. On 4/16/2025 at 9:05 AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) said she did not know why, but R43's Care Plan had not been completed. V2 said R43's Care Plan should have more than advanced directives and long term residency as focus areas on it. V2 agreed R43 did not have a comprehensive care plan developed after she was admitted to this facility. V2 said R43's Care Plan should have addressed R43's Alzheimer's dementia and included a plan for treatment and services. On 4/17/2025 at 10:30 AM, V21 (Corporate Nurse) said she could not find a comprehensive plan of care for R43's Alzheimer's dementia or cognitive decline.
Aug 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure medications were administered safely for 2 of 5...

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 medications were administered safely for 2 of 5 residents (R2 and R3) reviewed for medication administration in sample of 7. The findings include: R2's admission Record documents an admission date of 7/27/2017 and includes diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Atrial Fibrillation, Reduced Mobility, Anxiety, and Major Depressive Disorder. R2's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documents in Section C, Cognitive Patterns, a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating R2 is cognitively intact. The same MDS documents in section E, Behaviors, is coded 0 for behaviors. R2's Order Summary Report dated 8/28/2024 does not include orders for Nystatin Powder. R2's Care Plan with a revision date of 7/27/24 does not include focus area or interventions addressing behaviors or R2's ability for self-administration of medications. On 8/28/2024 at 11:10 AM, R2 was observed sitting in her room. A bottle labeled Nystatin Powder was observed sitting on the bedside table next to R2. The bottle was ½ full and contained powder. The pharmacy label on the bottle documented R2's name and instructions to apply Nystatin powder 4 times a day for 10 days with order date of 4/3/2024. R2 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. R2 stated she applied the medication (Nystatin Powder) herself and she still applies the powder under her breast at times. R2 stated she normally keeps it in her bin, but she has been using it, so she sat it on her bedside table. R3's Face admission Record documents an admission date of 8/19/2023 with diagnoses including Major Depression Disorder, Anxiety, Ulcerative Colitis, and Parkinson's Disease with Dyskinesia. R3's MDS dated [DATE] includes a BIMS score of 9, indicating R3 has moderate cognitive impairment. R3's Order Summary Report Physician dated 8/28/2024 documents current orders for Sulfasalazine 500 mg (milligrams) oral tablet, give 2 tablets by mouth three times a day related to ulcerative colitis, and Carbidopa-Levodopa tablet 25-250mg, give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for Parkinson's disease related to Tremors. On 8/28/2024 at 11:35 AM, R3 was observed in her room lying in bed asleep. A medication cup containing 1 blue pill and 2 orange pills were observed sitting on bedside table in R3's room. At this time, V6 (Registered Nurse) walked by R3's room. V6 was asked about the medication cup that contained the 3 pills and V6 stated this is not my hall so I didn't leave the pills there, those shouldn't be there. V6 identified the resident lying in the bed as R3 and stated that she is confused. On 8/28/2024 at 11:40AM, V2 (Director of Nursing) entered R3's room. R3 was then sitting up on the side of the bed. R3 noted to be confused. R3 was asked if those were her medications sitting on the bedside table and R3 stated I guess they are. V2 stated well (R3) is very slow at taking her medications, it takes a long time, and she won't take her medications until she is ready to take them. V2 was asked if it is their policy to leave medications at bedside and V2 replied no, it isn't. V2 was asked who the medication nurse that was working the hall and she stated V8 (Registered Nurse). V2 then took the medications and left the room. V2 was asked if R3 could make her own decisions, V2 stated No. V2 then took the medications and left the room. On 8/28/2024 at 12:30 PM, V8 (Registered Nurse) was asked if she was the medication nurse for R3 and V8 stated yes, I am. V8 was asked is R3 was confused, V8 stated yes, she is confused most of the time. V8 was asked if she left medications sitting on the bedside table in R3's room, V8 stated (R3) has this funny thing about wanting to keep them in her room, sometimes she refuses to take them until she eats her cereal, so you just have to go along with her because she is confused, I do it all the time. V8 was asked if she leaves medications in R3's room frequently and she stated, yes because she wants us to. V8 was asked if she knows what the facility policy is on medication administration, V8 stated Our policy says we should not do that. We should probably stand there until she takes them. V8 was asked to pull R3's medication cards from the medication cart to identify what medications were in the medicine cup on R3's bedside table. V8 pulled R3's medication cards and identified that the medications were the 12 PM doses Sulfasalazine 500 mg 2 tablets and Carbidopa-Levodopa 25/250 mg one tablet per the pharmacy label on the medication cards. V8 stated yes, these are the medications that were left in R3's room. On 8/28/2024 at 1:15PM, V2 DON (Director of Nursing) stated her expectation is that medications are not left at the bedside unless ordered by the physician. V2 was asked if R2 and R3 had assessments done to be able to self-administer medications, V2 stated I am not sure and I don't know if those type of assessments are in PCC (Point Click Care). V2 stated she recently did education to the nurses on narcotic counts and medications. V2 stated, she can't say she has never seen medications left at bedside, but she hasn't seen any medications at the bedside lately, at lease the last several months except creams and powders. V2 was asked about R2's Nystatin Powder left at bedside. V2 stated (R2) has behaviors and will not let us take the powder. V2 stated R2 is alert and oriented and knows everything going on and she will not let us remove the medicated powder from her room. V2 was asked if she felt Nystatin powder was a prescribed medication, V2 stated yes, it is. V2 was asked if she realized the order was dated for 4/3/2024 and was for 10 days, she stated she would have to check. V2 wasn't sure if the physician was aware R2 was still using the medication. V2 was asked if R2 had an assessment for self-administration of medications and she stated she didn't know because she doesn't know if (name of electronic health record system) has those assessments. Documentation of an assessment to determine R2's ability to self-administer medications were requested at this time for review and none were provided during the survey. The facility policy titled Medication Administration (revision date December 2012) documents a Policy Statement of Medications shall be administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed. The Policy Interpretation and Implementation step #24 documents Residents may self-administer their own medications only if the Attending Physician, in conjunction with the Interdisciplinary Care Planning Team, has determined that they have the decision-making capacity to do so safely. results were observed and the person administering the drug. The facility policy titled Self-Administration of Medications (revision date December 2016) documents a Policy Statement of Residents have the right to self-administer medications if the interdisciplinary team has determined that it is clinically appropriate and safe for the resident to do so. The Policy Interpretation and Implementation documents the following: 1. As part of their overall evaluation, the staff and practitioner will assess each resident's mental and physical abilities to determine whether self-administering medications is clinically appropriate for the resident. 2. In addition to general evaluation of decision-making capacity, the staff and practitioner will perform a more specific skill assessment, including (but not limited to) the resident's: a. Ability to read and understand medication labels; b. Comprehension of the purpose and proper dosage and administration time for his or her medications; c. Ability to remove medications from a container and to ingest and swallow (or otherwise administer) the medication; and d. Ability to recognize risks and major adverse consequences of his or her medications. 3. If the team determines that a resident cannot safely self-administer medications, the nursing staff will administer the resident's medications . 8. Self-administered medications must be stored in a safe and secure place, which is not accessible by other residents. If safe storage is not possible in the resident's room, the medications of residents permitted to self-administer will be stored on a central medication cart or in the medication room. Nursing will transfer the unopened medication to the resident when the resident requests them. 9. Staff shall identify and give to the Charge Nurse any medications found at the bedside that are not authorized for self-administration, for return to the family or responsible party.
Feb 2024 24 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for elopement were acc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents at risk for elopement were accurately assessed and incidents of elopement were appropriately identified and thoroughly investigated for 2 (R59 and R24) of 6 reviewed for accidents and supervision in the sample of 40. This failure resulted in R59, who has a diagnosis of dementia with severe cognitive impairment, eloping from the facility on 12/29/23. Findings Include: 1. R59's Face Sheet documented R59 is a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 5:30 PM. Diagnoses listed on this document in their entirety are: Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Anxiety Disorder, Vitamin D Deficiency, Constipation, Dextrocardia, Essential (primary) Hypertension, Dorsalgia, and other Amnesia. V25 (Physician) is listed as being R59's Primary Care Physician. The only contacts listed for R59 on this document are V21 (Family Member & Power of Attorney/POA) and V22 (Family Member). R59's Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 1/4/24 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section E0900 documents 0, indicating the behavior was not exhibited to the question has the resident wandered. R59's (Name of town) Primary Care record found in R59's Electronic Health Record, documented a visit on 12/7/23 with a chief complaint being to establish care. This document stated, Patient has been here in the past. It has been over 4 years since he was last seen in this clinic. He is here today with his sister to reestablish care. Over the past 2 years, she has noted a decrease in his mental status. He seems to be having problems with short-term memory. There is a family history of dementia in their father. The history of stroke is uncertain. He was hit by a semi several years ago in front of the (Store Name) here in town. He did sustain a significant head injury at that time .He does have some problems with his vision. This seems to be a problem when trying to watch TV as he cannot use his remote. He also likes to walk around town. He reports almost being hit by a semi couple days ago. According to his sister, approximately 18 months ago she became involved with his care when he showed up at her house and was quite disheveled. Since then she has worked on getting him help set up He does tend to sleep from 5 or 6:00 PM until 4:30 in the morning. At that time he does like to get up and walk around town . Local hospital Emergency Department (ED) notes dated 12/28/23 at 10:38 AM, documented R59 was seen for chief complaints of altered mental status and hallucinations. This document stated R59 was brought to the ED by family members and friends who stated R59's complaint symptoms had been going on for the last 18 months but worsened over the last 2 weeks. After workup, the Clinical Impression listed is Thoracic aortic aneurysm, unspecified part, unspecified whether ruptured; and Cardiac arrhythmia, unspecified cardiac arrhythmia type. A case management note documented report included family concerns with R59's current living apartment arrangements which state R59 has been found outside his apartment multiple times, locked out, and ultimately confused how to operate a key fob to get into the apartment. Not eating as he should and suspected hallucinations. Both R59's (Name of Town) Primary Care document and Local hospital ED documents as listed above were observed to be scanned into R59's Electronic Health Record in a folder titled, Referral Documents. R59's Elopement Risk Tool, documented as being completed by V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) on 12/28/23 at 8:14 PM, stated R59's Elopement Risk Summary was determined to be, Resident has not been found to be at risk for elopement at this time. Entries included on this same tool documented: Yes for the question, Has the family communicated that the resident has eloped or attempted to elope from home, or shared concerns that the resident may have wandering/elopement tendencies? Yes, Additional Details: Early onset of dementia for the question, Does the resident display cognitive deficits, disorientation, intermittent confusion, or any other cognitive impairments that contribute to poor decision-making skills? No for the question, Does the resident's wandering behavior affect his/her safety and well-being? R59's Departmental Notes notations include the following entries: -12/28/23 6:03 PM, Resident arrived per private auto with sister (V22). Resident went to dining room for pm meal. Alert and oriented x3 with intermittent confusion. Resident is independent in his care. Denies pain, no home meds. Was in ER today at (local hospital) and DX (diagnosis) of Afib (atrial fibrillation) but no new meds. Resident is cooperative at this time. Signed by V2 (DON) -12/29/23 6:21 AM, Resident awake and alert at 4 AM walking around asking about the exits. Approximately 5:30 during med pass got a phone call from staff stating that resident went out of backhall door. Staff (initials) (V26, Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) stayed beside resident encouraging him to return to facility at this time resident kept walking down the street, 2nd staff (initials) (V27, Certified Nurse Assistant/CNA) ran out and assisted other staff with encouraging resident to return to facility. This point this nurse got into personal vehicle and drove down road to assist and pick up resident and other staff at which time, resident was already to his house and still refusing to return. Son (name of V20 - Family member) came outside and confirmed it was residents' home, this nurse contacted DON and returned to facility to call son (name of V21 - Family Member/POA) and inform him of residents' elopement. Signed by V28 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN). -12/29/23 7:23 AM, Resident returned to facility through side exit. Signed by V33 (LPN). -12/29/23 8:29 AM, Son (Name of V21) and Sister (Name of V22-Family Member) in the facility this am and discussed residents leaving the facility this AM, both agree that if he continues this behavior to leave facility they will need to consider a lock down unit and residents house is only 2 block away from the facility and he is use to walking 6 miles a day in the community. Resident voices remorse for leaving this AM and states he will not leave the facility unless one of his family members is here to sign him out. Signed by V2 (DON). -12/29/23 12:22 PM, Resident frequently up walking. Pleasant and cooperative. Alert to person and place, reorienting often. Family has been visiting and bringing belongings in throughout the day. Vital signs obtained 98% (room air), 166/82 bp (blood pressure), 97.3 F (Fahrenheit), 70 bpm (beats per minute), 19 rr (respirator rate). Resident often goes to bed early and gets up early. The resident can go out on leave with (name of V21) or (name of V22). (Name of V21) requests to be called in the morning to prevent elopements and reorient the resident. No c/o (complaints of) pain or discomfort. Continuing with the plan of care. Signed by V33 (LPN). -12/31/23 2:38 PM, .This morning he did well with adjusting to facility however became slightly restless towards the afternoon. He did not make any attempts to leave the facility but did gesture towards leaving the facility stating he was getting his warm clothes on . Signed by V35 (Registered Nurse/RN). -1/3/24 10:28 AM, Was able to speak with (Name of V21) today for resident's initial care plan meeting. Signed by V7 (LPN/MDS and Care Plan Coordinator/CPC). -1/3/24 10:40 AM, Resident has been pacing in hallways. Asking to go outside did show him the courtyard which he only walked through and returned. Is thinking that the facility is kicking him out and he has to pack his belongings. Was reassured that he is to stay here . Signed by V36 (LPN). -1/3/24 11:56 AM, Resident continues to walk in hallway and go into other residents' room. Is redirected and he states you just don't understand. Signed by V36 (LPN). -1/7/24 3:59 AM, Resident in coat and hat made 1 exit attempt within past hour, out front door facility, approached by staff redirected back into facility with 1 to 1 interaction. Signed by V37 (RN). -1/22/24 2:57 PM, Resident has been up and down hallway looking and entering other resident's room. Did explain that he does not need to be going into others rooms stated I was just looking around. Signed by V36 (LPN). -1/22/24 3:43 PM, Door alarm sounding resident was leaving building staff did approach immediately and resident did agree to re-enter the building. Was given lemonade and did sit with other residents in dining room. Signed by V36 (LPN). -1/23/24 5:30 PM, Resident was seen going out old side door alarm sounding was redirected and assisted to his room where he then watch (sic) tv. Has been pacing up and down hallway looking into other residents' room. Encouraged not to enter these rooms. Did attempt to help another resident stand was asked not to help him due to possible hurting himself or other resident. Signed by V36 (LPN). -1/26/24 11:46 AM, This DON (V2) spoke with (name of V22) residents sister. (Name of V22) and (Name of V21) who is health care POA continue to request all concerns for residents care while here at (facility initials) go through (Name of V21) or (Name of V22). Resident can speak and visit with other family members however (Name of V21) request that his father only leave the facility with (V22 or V21) . Signed by V2 (DON). -1/27/24 11:11 AM, Resident has been on and off exit seeking this morning and has been redirected multiple times by staff. Resident has not found his way outside of building. Signed by V38 (LPN). The National Weather Service documented the temperature on 12/29/23 between 4-8am was 33-34 degrees Fahrenheit with precipitation of snow. On 2/7/24 at 10:11 PM, V29 (Certified Nurse Assistant/CNA) stated that R59's cognition varies. V29 confirmed she was working the night (shift) when R59 eloped. V29 stated that herself and V30 (CNA) were doing bed checks when they heard the door alarm going off. V29 stated both herself and V30 went to the door, and saw R59 outside wearing a heavy coat, beanie, jeans, and shoes. V29 stated it was snowing, cold outside and the time they first viewed R59, he was approximately 15 feet from the facility. V29 stated herself and V30 both were trying to talk R59 into coming back into the facility, but he refused and just kept walking, stating he was going home. V29 stated staff could not get to him as R59 had squeezed through a gap and was on the other side of a fence, which they could not fit through. V29 stated she went back in the building and exited out the door near the staff time clock. V29 stated by that point R59 was halfway across the parking lot, so she ran to catch up with him. V29 stated she just kept trying to convince R59 to come back to the facility, telling him it was cold, and she was out of shape, in which R59 responded by laughing that he wasn't cold and to keep up, he was used to walking 6 miles a day. V29 stated she stayed with R59 who was not combative, but just kept walking and refusing to go back to the facility. V29 stated she had hollered at V30 as they were walking away to call V28 (LPN) and tell her to come help. V29 stated that V27 (CNA) had also ran to help and walked with herself and R59, also trying to convince R59 to return. V29 stated she is familiar with R59's family, as she went to school with them, so knows the home R59 was going to. V29 stated it was R59's home, who V20 (Family Member) now resides at, which is 2-3 blocks from the facility. V29 stated as they were approaching the house, V28 pulled up in her car and R59 walked right in the front door of the home. V29 stated V20 didn't seem upset and tried to convince R59 to return with staff, but finally stated it was fine if he stayed. V29 stated she believed that V28 (LPN) called V2 (DON) who said staff couldn't force him back, so they left R59 with V20, in the home and returned to the facility. V29 stated prior to this, also the morning of 12/29/23 around 5 AM, she witnessed R59 dressed in his coat and hat, exiting out the front door. V29 stated the alarm was sounding and R59 went out the door, stated it was cold, and came right back in the facility without redirection. When questioned about actions taken after, V29 stated she did not go report this occurrence to anyone and continued working. V29 stated R59 made a comment to her about there being all these exit signs and nowhere to go. V29 stated it was probably 10-15 minutes after she had witnessed R59 go out the front door and come back in, when the back door alarm was going off and R59 was out and walking away from the facility. V29 stated also later that morning, following R59's elopement (12/29/23), at approximately 6:15 AM, she was leaving work from her shift and saw R59 walking alone, down the road heading back towards the facility. V29 stated R59 was wearing the same attire he had left the facility in. V29 stated she called the facility and cannot recall who she spoke with but told them it looked like R59 was headed back, and they said they would go out to keep an eye out for him, so she left. On 2/7/24 at 10:29 PM, V30 (CNA) stated that she was working the front hall the night R59 eloped but was helping V29 (CNA) with her bed checks when they heard the back hall door alarm go off. V30 stated that herself and V29 went to check and R59 was observed outside, a few steps away from the door, on the other side of the fence, which staff could not fit through the tight area. V30 stated they were attempting to talk R59 back into the facility but R59 continued walking away stating 'the door says exit .that means someone can exit.' V30 stated R59 was wearing a sock hat, black winter coat, boots, and jeans. V30 stated it was cold outside that day. V30 stated she went back in the building to watch the halls and V29 ran to go out another door and catch up with R59 telling V30 to call V28 (LPN) and tell her what was going on, which she did. V30 stated she stayed outside the door watching R59 until V29 got out the other door of the facility and could catch up to R59. On 2/7/24 at 9:58 PM, V28 (LPN) described R59 as being confused when admitted , with some intermittent improvement to his cognition since being at the facility. V28 stated she was a nurse on duty when R59 eloped from the facility. V28 stated she believed R59 eloped the first night he was admitted . V28 stated she did not witness R59 leave, but from her understanding, R59 exited through the back hall door. V28 stated there is an alarm on that door and although she wasn't there to witness it sounding herself, assumes it was, since staff were with R59 outside. V28 stated she believed R59 had slept good that night (12/28/23), until he woke up around 4am (12/29/23). V28 stated R59 was walking around the facility saying things like there's a whole lot of exit's and nowhere to go. V28 said she believed it wasn't abnormal for R59 to wake up around 4am though, and that was his normal time to rise for the day. V28 stated she believes R59 was admitted to the facility with a diagnosis of a heart condition and his sister (V22) and son (V21) wanted him in a facility for his health with his diagnoses and history of walking the streets of (town name). V28 stated the night R59 eloped, she believes she received a call from V29 who stated to hurry up and get out here, that R59 had left and they couldn't get him to come back to the facility. V28 stated it was cold, so she got in her car to go try and coax him back. V28 stated V29 and V27 were both with him at the time she caught up to them and described R59 as definitely having some place he wanted to go. V28 stated V20's (Family Member) house was approximately 2 blocks behind the facility and that is where R59 went. On 2/7/24 at 11:23 PM, V28 (LPN) clarified that the V26's initials in her progress note dated 12/29/23 at 6:21 AM should have read V29's initials. V28 also stated that by the time she drove to meet R59 and staff, they were already by the house which sits on a corner. V28 stated that by the time she parked, R59 was already in the house. V28 stated that staff, along with V20 (Family Member), who was present at the time R59 entered the house were unable to coax R59 back to the facility. V28 stated she called V2 (DON) to find out what to do. V28 stated V2 called V32 (Former Administrator). V28 stated she was told they could not force R59 to come back, and it was (family) V20 he was with. V28 stated at that time, she did not reach out to R59's resident representative (V21) and is unsure if V2 or V32 reached out to (V21) to get permission for R59 to stay with V20, as V20 was not the representative for R59. V28 stated she was not present when R59 returned to the facility, but believed he walked back himself before 7 AM the same day that he had eloped. On 2/7/24 at 10:21 PM, V27 (CNA) stated that R59's cognition varies. V27 described R59's normal status as being that he will wander into other resident's rooms, bathrooms, and we will find him sleeping in other's recliners, etc. V27 stated R59 had eloped the first night he was at the facility she believes. V27 does not recall being told that R59 was any sort of elopement risk at that time. V27 stated residents are viewed at least every 2 hours during bed checks, but if (she) is walking down the halls, she looks in rooms while walking by too. V27 stated she was alerted of a resident outside by V31 (Laundry), who was coming in for her shift and saw a man she didn't recognize outside walking and wasn't sure if it was a resident. V27 stated she went to check and saw R59 and V29 halfway up the road, walking away from the facility, so she ran to them to try and help. V27 stated R59 was not being combative, was just saying over and over that he wasn't coming back. V27 stated R59 walked directly to (V20's) house which was a couple blocks from the facility. V27 stated (V20) said it was ok if R59 stayed there with him since he was refusing to return. V27 stated that R59 had been up and down a few times that night prior to eloping but was re-directable until 4am when he was wide awake and got himself dressed. On 02/08/24 at 11:54 AM, V31 (Laundry) stated that she recalls coming into work early one morning in which she observed a man outside the building that she didn't recognize. V31 stated she thought he was a predator, so she came in the facility and was talking to a co-worker about the man when she then saw two staff following behind him, making her realize it was a resident and not a predator. On 02/08/24 at 11:11 AM, V20 (Family Member) stated he believed it was approximately 3 AM when he heard a knock at his front door. V20 stated he answered the door and observed R59 standing there appearing anxious. V20 stated he saw 3 staff also with him. V20 stated he didn't know who the staff were, as he didn't realize R59 had been admitted to the facility. V20 stated that R59 used to live with him, which was originally R59's house. V20 stated that R59 had recently moved to an apartment 2-3 weeks prior to him showing up at his door with staff. V20 stated that R59 had been moved to the apartment due to his increased confusion. V20 stated that he doesn't know if R59 was experiencing any problems while residing at the apartment. V20 stated he had been told by (V22) that R59 was having continued confusion at the apartments as V20 had been told R59 was going into other people's apartments that were not his. V20 stated the morning R59 had left from the facility, R59 stayed with V20, as he was refusing to return to the facility with staff. V20 stated that he talked to R59 and reminded him of past family members who had lived at the facility and coaxed him to return. V20 stated he did not accompany R59 back to the facility or call the facility to let them know R59 was leaving his home. V20 stated that R59 walked out the front door and headed in the direction back toward the facility and he saw or heard nothing further. V20 stated he had called V22 to let her know what had happened and that he had talked R59 into heading back towards the facility. On 02/08/24 at 10:27 AM, V21 (Family Member/POA) stated that he is the Power of Attorney for R59. V21 stated that R59 was admitted to the facility after having a decline in mental status, which causes R59 anxiety. V21 stated that R59 responds to anxiety by walking and walking and walking. V21 stated R59 was continuously walking all over town which causes worry for R59's safety. V21 stated he was notified via phone that R59 had eloped from the facility. V21 cannot recall the time he was notified or by who, he just recalls the facility telling him that R59 had left and staff stayed with him the whole time. V21 stated he was told R59 walked to V20's house. V21 stated he cannot recall if the facility asked him if it was ok that R59 was left with V20 at the home, he just knows that they said they were unable to get him to come back to the facility. V21 stated he wasn't surprised knowing R59's stubbornness and assumes it would have taken physical restraint or a familiar voice to coax him back. V21 stated once he was notified of the elopement, he jumped in his car to head towards the facility, which was about an hour away to try and assist with the situation. V21 stated he believes he was close to the facility when he had received a call that R59 had returned to the facility on his own. V21 stated that he would assume knowing V20 that V20 was probably not aware that R59 had left the house and returned to the facility. V21 stated he considers the elopement an accident since he knows it was R59's first night at the facility, R59's anxiety would have been high and R59 has his normal routine history of walking. On 2/8/24 at 9:47 AM, V33 (LPN) stated that she was the nurse on duty and was also the staff member who witnessed R59 return to the facility. V33 stated R59 entered back into the facility through the side door. V33 stated she was passing medications on the hall near the door he came in. V33 stated she saw R59 walking towards the facility, alone to the door, in which he opened the door and came back in the facility. V33 stated R59 did not appear to be in any physical or emotional distress but was upset apologizing for leaving. V33 stated she believes it was around 7:15 AM, when R59 arrived back. V33 stated she notified the DON (V2) that R59 was back. V33 stated she did not notify the POA of R59's return. V33 confirmed that she is not aware of what the facility's protocol is for elopement returns, as she is newer to nursing. V33 stated that she did not conduct any head-to-toe assessment or notify the physician of R59's elopement return. During this interview, V33 stated she had not received any training or direction following R59's elopement on areas to be trained or improve on. On 2/8/24 at 12:09 PM, V22 (Family member) stated she is involved in R59's care routinely. V22 stated R59 would vent to her as R59 and V20 were fighting and to cope, R59 would take off walking and just walk around town. V22 stated that V20 was struggling with an addiction to meth and ended up incarcerated after having possession of meth with prior felony charges. V22 stated that problems seemed to escalate with V20 as R59's cognition declined. V22 stated that she determined the best option she felt at that point was to reach out to Adult Protective Services in which V24 (Adult Protective Services Caseworker) was the staff member assigned to R59's case. V22 stated that V24 got an apartment set up for R59 to get him out of the environment with V20, but that living situation also didn't work. V22 stated that R59's cognition was too poor and R59 was leaving the apartment, locking himself out, going into wrong apartments, etc. V22 stated that 4 AM seems to be R59's worst time of the day for cognition as he becomes anxious and just wants to walk. V22 stated that she became scared to death that R59 was going to get hit as he would walk around town and across busy roads. V22 stated herself and V21 met with V32, who was the administrator at the facility during that time, which was approximately 1-2 weeks prior to R59's admission to the facility. V22 stated they wanted to meet with the facility to express concerns and a plan for R59 as his cognition varied, he was walking all over and also express the history with R59 and V20. V22 stated that V32 was instructed that R59 was not to leave the facility with V20 as R59 has a history being made upset by V20. V22 stated V21 also expressed that although he is the POA, information may be shared with V22. V22 verified that she was notified of R59's elopement from the facility, in which R59 went to V20's house. V22 stated she cannot recall what time she was notified or who it was that notified her but just remembers it was the morning. V22 stated that since R59's elopement, she has not received any meeting or conference with the facility to discuss any changes in R59's plan of care. V22 stated that she did have a phone conversation with V1 (Administrator) who stated activities such as karaoke were available and maybe an activity R59 would like to participate in. On 2/8/24 at 2:45 PM, V2 (DON) described R59 as being confused intermittently with short term memory loss, easy to redirect, ambulates constantly. V2 stated that prior to R59 admitting to the facility, he walked around town a lot. V2 stated she was also told by V21 and V22 that they were to be R59's only contacts for medical information and the only contacts that R59 could leave the facility with. V2 stated that R59 has another son (V20), who lives close to the facility who they said could visit R59 at the facility or call. V2 stated approximately 1 1/2 months prior to R59 being admitted to the facility, she believes R59 had been removed from living in his home with V20 by Adult Protective Services due to financial exploitation with V20 using R59's money and not paying for utilities. V2 stated that after R59 was admitted to the facility, she slowly found out more from V22 (Family Member) that R59 did not like strangers in his house, which were frequently there with V20. This would cause R59 anxiety, so he would leave the home and just walk around town. V2 stated prior to R59 admitting to the facility, V22 and V21 had come to the facility to talk with V32 and herself about wanting to put R59 in the facility. V2 stated R59's chore girl infrequently was able to provide care services for R59 who was living in an apartment at the time, due to R59 being out walking. V2 described the chore girl as someone who had been set up to provide R59 assistance in the apartment. V2 stated the family was afraid he was not getting meals, being kept clean, and confusion was increasing which caused worry for them of him being out walking. V2 stated the family felt like if he was in the facility, he would be less lonely and respond better to care offered. V2 stated at the time of R59's admission, the family placed signs on R59's door and in his room, telling him not to leave the facility, which they thought would help remind him not to leave. V2 stated the family stated they had also placed signs such as these posted in his apartment where he lived prior to admitting the facility. V2 stated that she had approved R59's admission to the facility off of her prior conversations with R59's family (V21 & V22) along with reviewing the ER (Emergency Room) documents that R59 admitted with. V2 stated that these documents didn't say much and diagnosed R59 with A-fib. V2 stated that she completed the Elopement risk tool upon R59's admission to the facility and deemed him not to be an elopement risk, because it wasn't like he had daily routines of running or hiding. V2 confirmed she was notified of R59's elopement by V28 (LPN), who was R59's nurse that night. V2 stated that R59 had just been admitted to the facility. V2 stated an investigation of the incident was complete with all staff interviewed and stated there was no fence where he left the facility at. V2 stated that she would expect any time a resident was viewed leaving the facility, despite if they immediately returned back in, she would expect the nurse to be notified and the incident documented in the resident's record. V2 stated it would give the staff a heads up that the resident maybe trying to leave. A specific example was given to V2, which included a resident is viewed independently leaving out of the facility, but once through the door, turns around and comes back in due to reported cold temperatures. V2 confirmed the resident should be redirected back inside the facility and the nurse immediately notified. V2 stated in the incident with R59, 2 staff members, a nurse and V20 could all not convince R59 to return to the facility with staff. V2 stated she can't really say she made the call to allow R59 to stay with V20 in the home at that time and have the staff return to the facility, but V20 did say R59 could stay there and we just knew where he was at. V2 stated in reviewing her phone log, she had called V32 (Former Administrator) at 5:54 AM, which she assumes was the call where she informed V32 that R59 was at the house with V20, and again at 7:20 AM, which she assumes was the call she made to V32 that R59 was back in the facility. V2 stated that she cannot say if R59 returned to the facility alone, as she didn't see him come back, a CNA just reported to her that R59 had come back in a side door. V2 stated V33 (LPN) was R59's nurse upon his return to the facility and a head-to-toe assessment should have been conducted and assumes V33 probably did one. V2 stated that R59 came to her right away upon his arrival back to the facility and apologized for leaving. V2 stated that shortly after R59's return to the facility V21 and V22 also arrived at the facility and assumes they had come to the facility that quickly due to R59 being reported at V20's house. V2 described there being poor family dynamics. V2 stated facility staff met with V21 and V22 in which they were apologetic for what had happened. V2 stated at the time R59 returned to the facility, a 1:1 staffing status was implemented, with herself being the 1:1 until the behaviors were determined to have ceased, which would have been about 5:30 PM - 6 PM that night when she left the facility. V2 stated that elopement would have been triggered on R59's baseline care plan at the time of admission due to wandering. V2 also stated that the Minimum Data Set personnel were notified of R59's elopement on 12/29/23 as the facility holds a daily meeting with all department heads to discuss incidents which have occurred or concerns. V2 stated that Section E of R59's MDS would be a section completed by social services. On 2/8/24 at 3:25 PM, V2 (DON) was asked to show the door of the facility in which R59 exited from on 12/29/23. V2 led surveyors to a door at the end of 600 hall, which R59 resides on. The door was observed as opening into a parking lot area, butting up to two roads with no fence in the very immediate vicinity visualized. V2 was asked what door would be described as the back hall door, in which she stated oh and took surveyors to another door which is also near the employee entrance door. V2 stated that some staff refer to a hallway in the facility as the back hall. Upon exiting the back hall door from inside the building, a chain link fence was to the immediate right of the door. The fence ended at an area which adjoins to an area with concrete blocks, broken concrete, trash, down tree debris, lumber and a creek bed. There was a matted down pathway between the end of the fence post and tall weeds with a wire welded fence slanted on its side creating an uneven surface. On the other side of the slanted wire fence was the creek bed. Once on the other side of this fence you could see the employee entrance door, s[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide person-centered care plan meetings for 1 (R11) of 17 residents reviewed for care planning in a sample of 40. Findings Include: On 2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide person-centered care plan meetings for 1 (R11) of 17 residents reviewed for care planning in a sample of 40. Findings Include: On 2/8/2024 at 9:15 AM, R11 was alert and oriented and stated she has never been invited to a care plan meeting, verbally or in writing. R11 stated, being here almost 3 years and have not been to a meeting, and I do not have a primary medical representative. R11's electronic medical record care plan meeting for quarterly and annual conferences documents that care plan letters were mailed to the patient medical representative with no response. On 02/08/24 at 08:49 AM, V7 (Care Plan/ Minimum Data Set Coordinator) stated, R11 was verbally notified of care plan meetings but nothing was given to R11 on paper, but R11 was reminded of the date and time of meetings. V7 states, the care plan letters were mailed to family, but family never responded. R11's MDS (Minimum Data Set) with Assessment Reference Date of 11/3/2023 documents a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 15, indicating R11 has no cognitive impairment. Quarterly care plan conference notes document IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) members in attendance for meetings dated 4/20/23, 7/12/2023, 10/17/2023 and annual care plan conference dated 11/7/2023 with R11 not noted to be in attendance. The facility policy titled Care plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered Policy Statement documents 1. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family or legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident .4. Each resident's comprehensive person-centered care plan will be consistent with the resident's rights to participate in the development and implementation of his or her plan of care, including the right to: a. Participate in the planning process; b. Identify individuals or roles to be included; c. Request meetings;d. Request revisions to the plan of care; e. Participate in establishing the expected goals and outcomes of care f. Participate in determining the type, amount frequency and duration of care; g. Receive the services and/or items included in the plan of care; and h. See the care plan and sign it after significant changes are made.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide unconflicted lunch meal and smoking schedules for one resident (R21) of 17 residents reviewed for accommodation of ne...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide unconflicted lunch meal and smoking schedules for one resident (R21) of 17 residents reviewed for accommodation of need in the sample of 40. Findings include: R21's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 7/27/17, and listed diagnoses including History of Cerebral Infarction, Hypertension, and Nicotine Dependence. The facility's Meal Schedule documented the lunch meal service begins at 12:00pm. On 02/06/24 at 11:15am, R21 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. R21 stated she always eats in her room, and her lunch meal is frequently cold by the time she eats it. R21 stated she gets her tray as late as 1:00pm, which interferes with the 1:00pm scheduled smoking time. On 02/06/24 at 12:52pm, R21 was observed waiting by the exit to go outside to smoke. R21 stated staff had just informed her they probably won't go out until about 1:30pm. On 02/06/24 at 1:03pm, R21's lunch tray was observed sitting on her overbed table. The plate was covered with a metal plate cover. On 02/06/24 at 01:28pm, R21 walked back into her room. R21 tasted her lunch, stated it is still a little warm and she will eat it as is. The Smoking Schedule documented resident smoking times as 9:00am, 1:00pm, and 6:00pm. The facility's Smoking/Tobacco Policy stated,The facility offers a structured smoking program for all residents who smoke. The facility will make all attempts to guard the rights of the smoker and non- smoker. On 02/13/24 at 11:02am, V1, Administrator, stated some of the residents have complained about feeling they need to rush through lunch so as not to miss their 1:00pm smoke break. V1 stated within the past two weeks, the facility had identified the need to re-evaluate the smoking schedule and have not yet done so.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) st...

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 Practitioner Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) status reflected resident wishes as desired throughout the Electronic Health Record for one (R58) of one residents reviewed for advanced directives in the sample of 40. Findings Include: R58's Face Sheet documented an admission date to the facility as [DATE]. This document also listed R58's diagnoses including, but not limited to: Acute kidney failure, Dysphagia, Parkinson's disorder without dyskinesia. R58's POLST form, scanned into R58's Electronic Health Record, with a [DATE] signature date by R58, documented a Do Not Resuscitate status. Review of the Advanced Directive tab, as well as the informational screen heading listed in R58's Electronic Record documented R58's status as being attempt CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation). On [DATE] at 2:59 PM, V1 (Administrator) verified that the Advanced Directive status listed for R58 do not correlate. V1 confirmed that the code status should match and consistently reflect the resident's POLST wishes throughout the Electronic Health Record. The Advance Directives policy with a revision date of [DATE] documented, Advanced directives will be respected in accordance with state law and facility policy 7. Information about whether or not the resident has executed an advanced directive shall be displayed prominently in the medical record .10. The plan of care for each resident will be consistent with his or her documented treatment preferences and/or advance directive.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0604 (Tag F0604)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and assess adaptive equipment in order to ensure safety and freedom for normal movement for one (R24) of one residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and assess adaptive equipment in order to ensure safety and freedom for normal movement for one (R24) of one residents reviewed for physical restraints in the sample of 40. The Findings Include: Review of R24's Face Sheet documents an admission date to the facility as 6/1/22 and includes the diagnosis other reduced mobility, major depressive disorder, spinal stenosis, sciatica, and anxiety disorder. R24's current month of February 2024 Physician Orders does not have an order for the use of a self-releasing seatbelt. R24's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) with assessment reference date as 1/12/2024 documents a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3, indicating significant cognitive impairment. This same assessment documents R24 is dependent on staff for chair/bed transfer, sit to stand, and sit to lying position. Review of section GG0115 documents no range of motion impairment in her upper or lower extremities. R24's current care plan has a category for fall with the interventions as follows all with a start date of 6/2/22: introduce to call light, keep adaptive devices within reach, keep personal items in reach (call light, remote, water glasses, etc.), observe for unsafe actions and intervene, wheelchair for locomotion, bed in lowest position, ensure room is clutter free, remind resident not to ambulate without assistance, physical and occupational therapy to evaluate and assist with transfers. R24's current Care Plan does not include any reference to a self-releasing seat belt used as an intervention for falls On 2/6/24 at 9:05 AM, R24's wheelchair was observed to have a cord coming out of the back of the wheelchair not connected to anything. On 2/07/24 at 1:50 PM, V10 (Certified Nurse Assistant/CNA) stated that she is familiar with R24. V10 described R24 as being confused, which is her normal status. V10 went on to state that R24 utilizes a seatbelt as a fall prevention. V10 stated that R24 is able to release her seatbelt herself and that is usually connected to a box on the back of her chair, which alarms when undone. V10 stated that R24's box is broken, and she believes a new one has been ordered, so the seatbelt does not currently sound. On 2/8/24 at 12:15 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated that the seatbelt for R24 is a fall prevention and not a restraint and that a little black bag should be on the wheelchair with an alarm box in it. V2 stated at this time that R24 has intermittent times of confusion, but she wouldn't call her confused all the time. On 2/8/24 at 12:30 PM in the dining room, R24 was observed sitting at a table with her lunch tray in front of her. R24 did not have a black bag with an alarm box in it, nor was it observed anywhere else on her chair. At this time, V2 confirmed there was not an alarm box, but that since it is not a restraint she does not need an alarm box and that R24 is able to remove the seatbelt at any time and on command. At this time, R24 was prompted by V2 (Director of Nursing) to release her seatbelt and she was unable to do so on her own accord. V2 attempted to assist her with removal of the seatbelt and then stated this is not adjusted properly on her. V2 confirmed at the time that R24 was unable to release her seatbelt. On 2/8/24 at 12:30 PM, V15 (Family Member) stated that R24 has not had an alarm box to her seatbelt for quite some time now, so she doesn't know why they have the seatbelt on her when up in the wheelchair. V15 went on to state that R24 can release it and they won't know when she is getting up, so if it is to help prevent falls it is useless. V15 stated that when they started using the seatbelt it was attached to an alarm. On 2/9/24 at 2:00 PM, V7 (Minimum Data Set Coordinator/Care Plan Coordinator) stated that the self-releasing seat belt is not on the care plan. A facility pre-restraining evaluation dated and completed on 9/26/22 by V19 (Director of Clinical Operations) documents under the recommendations that: 'the IDT (Interdisciplinary team) has reviewed with the input of the family and primary care physician and V45 (Power of Attorney) approved the use of a seat belt after discussion of risk/benefit and he approved and expressed wish for her to use. It was explained to his (sic) that she was able to demonstrate removal of seat belt at this time so it was not considered a restraint. He verbalized understanding.' The facility's physical restraint assessment for R24 has a start date of 2/7/24, a complete date of 2/7/24 and a print date of 2/8/24. This assessment documents that a device used is a self-releasing seat belt as a fall intervention. This assessment documents that R24 is confused all the time and that the resident is able to open the seat belt with no assistance from staff at this time. This assessment documents that the device is not a restraint. Review of the facility policy Resident Rights with a revision date of December 2016 documents in part .d. be free from corporal punishment or involuntary seclusion, and physical or chemical restraints not required to treat the resident's symptoms. Review of the facility policy titled Use of Restraint with a revision date of February 2017 states, Restraints shall only be used for the safety and well-being of the resident(s) and only after other alternatives have been tried unsuccessfully. Restraints shall only be used to treat the resident's medical symptom(s) and never for discipline or staff convenience, or for the prevention of falls. When the use of restraints is indicated, the least restrictive alternative will be used for the least amount of time necessary, and the ongoing re-evaluation for the need for restraints will be documented. 1. Physical Restraints are defined as any manual method or physical or mechanical device, material or equipment attached or adjacent to the resident's body that the individual cannot remove easily, which restricts freedom of movement or restricts normal access to one's body. 2. The definition of a restraint is based on the functional status of the resident and not the device. If the resident cannot remove a device in the same manner in which the staff applied it given that resident's physical condition (i.e., side rails are put back down, rather than climbed over), and this restricts his/her typical ability to change position or place, that device is considered a restraint. 3. Examples of devices that are/may be considered physical restraints include leg restraints, arm restraints, hand mitts, soft ties or vest, wheelchair safety bars, geri-chairs, and lap cushions and trays that the resident cannot remove. Review of an article titled, Use of physical restraint in nursing homes: clinical-ethical considerations dated March 2006 and found at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564468/ states, Physical restraint can be defined as any device, material or equipment attached to or near a person's body and which cannot be controlled or easily removed by the person and which deliberately prevents or is deliberately intended to prevent a person's free body movement to a position of choice and/or a person's normal access to their body. Examples of physical restraint include vests, straps/belts, limb ties, wheelchair bars and brakes, chairs that tip backwards, tucking in sheets too tightly, and bedside rails. V1 (Administrator) when asked for the self-releasing seat belt guidelines provided the TL-2109 and TL 2109V Chair belt manufacturer guidelines on 2/8/24 at 3:00 PM. These guidelines document under the 'Quick Start Instructions' to 1. Install batteries, 2. Seat belt installation, 3. Mount the Fall Monitor, 4. Connect the seat belt to the fall monitor, and 5. Test the system.
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) coding for one (R59) of 17 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS) coding for one (R59) of 17 reviewed for Minimum Data Sets in the sample of 40. Findings Include: R59's Face Sheet documented R59 is a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 5:30 PM. Diagnoses listed on this document in their entirety are: Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Anxiety Disorder, Vitamin D Deficiency, Constipation, Dextrocardia, Essential (primary) Hypertension, Dorsalgia, and other Amnesia. V25 (Physician) is listed as being R59's Primary Care Physician. The only contacts listed for R59 on this document are V21 (Family member/Power of Attorney/POA) and V22 (Family member). R59's (Name of town) Primary Care record found in R59's Electronic Health Record, documented a visit on 12/7/23 with a chief complaint being to establish care. This document stated, Patient has been here in the past. It has been over 4 years since he was last seen in this clinic. He is here today with his sister to reestablish care. Over the past 2 years, she has noted a decrease in his mental status. He seems to be having problems with short-term memory. There is a family history of dementia in their father. The history of stroke is uncertain. He was hit by a semi several years ago in front of the (Store Name) here in town. He did sustain a significant head injury at that time .He does have some problems with his vision. This seems to be a problem when trying to watch TV as he cannot use his remote. He also likes to walk around town. He reports almost being hit by a semi couple days ago. According to his sister, approximately 18 months ago she became involved with his care when he showed up at her house and was quite disheveled. Since then she has worked on getting him help set up He does tend to sleep from 5 or 6:00 PM until 4:30 in the morning. At that time he does like to get up and walk around town . Local hospital Emergency Department (ED) notes dated 12/28/23 at 10:38 AM, documented R59 was seen for chief complaints of altered mental status and hallucinations. This document stated R59 was brought to the ED by family members and friends who stated R59's complaint symptoms had been going on for the last 18 months but worsened over the last 2 weeks. After workup, the Clinical Impression listed is Thoracic aortic aneurysm, unspecified part, unspecified whether ruptured; and Cardiac arrhythmia, unspecified cardiac arrhythmia type. A case management note documented report included family concerns with R59's current living apartment arrangements which state R59 has been found outside his apartment multiple times, locked out, and ultimately confused how to operate a key fob to get into the apartment. Not eating as he should and suspected hallucinations. R59's Resident Incident Report dated 12/29/23 at 5:31 AM documented the incident type as, Wander from grounds. This report documented a narrative of incident and description of injuries: Resident left building out the Exit door on back hall to walk 2 blocks down the road to his house. Resident was full dressed with shoes and a heavy coat on. 2 CNA's escorted resident to his house on foot and a nurse followed in the car. Resident went to his home where his son (name of V20) also lived and (name of V20) agreed that resident could stay there at that time and he would try to get him to come back. V2 (DON) is documented as being notified on 12/29/23 at 5:30 AM, V21 (POA) on 12/29/23 at 5:45 AM, and V25 (Physician) at 8:00 AM. This report documented exam by physician as no. Immediate action taken is listed as, Escorted by staff to home. Alarm were checked on facility doors and the (sic) were working properly. frequent visual checks by all staff attempts will put 1:1 sitter with him until behavior ceases. The following Medical risk factors possibly related to incident are documented on this incident report as Confusion/Disorientation, and Other: Afib (atrial fibrillation). This form includes no printed names, signatures, or dates of completion for this report. The Incident Investigation, Narrative of investigation completed by V2 stated, IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) investigation resident left building escorted by staff to home 2 blocks down the street. Temp was 39 outside and he had on a heavy coat on. Alarms were checked on facility doors and they were working properly. Frequent visual checks by all staff. If resident attempts will put 1:1 sitter with him until the behavior ceases as resident did Returned (sic) to facility that same AM and apologized to DON and stated he would stay in the building and only leave with someone with him. Family also spoke with DON and Admin they also spoke with resident about leaving the building alone. Review of R59's Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 1/4/24 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section E0900 documents 0, indicating the behavior was not exhibited to the question has the resident wandered. On 02/09/24 at 09:56 AM, V34 (Social Services Director) stated that she did complete Section E of R59's Minimum Data Set care plan with the reference date of 1/4/24. V34 stated that she was not aware that R59 wandered or had exited the building when she completed the assessment, which is why she marked section E0900 as wandering behavior not exhibited. V34 stated due to her entry of 0 in this section, the system automatically disables further question entries in this section. V34 stated she is new to this job and acknowledges the coding error. V34 stated she would be notified of incidents with residents that have occurred in morning meeting or if she's just randomly looking in the charts.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0642 (Tag F0642)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide individualized plan of care revisions to meet the needs for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide individualized plan of care revisions to meet the needs for one (R59) of 17 residents reviewed for care plans in the sample of 40. Findings Include: R59's Face Sheet documented R59 is a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 5:30 PM. Diagnoses listed on this document in their entirety are: Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Anxiety Disorder, Vitamin D Deficiency, Constipation, Dextrocardia, Essential (primary) Hypertension, Dorsalgia, and other Amnesia. V25 (Physician) is listed as being R59's Primary Care Physician. The only contacts listed for R59 on this document are V21 (Family Member/Power of Attorney/POA) and V22 (Family Member). R59's Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 1/4/24 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. R59's (Name of town) Primary Care record found in R59's Electronic Health Record, documented a visit on 12/7/23 with a chief complaint being to establish care. This document stated, Patient has been here in the past. It has been over 4 years since he was last seen in this clinic. He is here today with his sister to reestablish care. Over the past 2 years, she has noted a decrease in his mental status. He seems to be having problems with short-term memory. There is a family history of dementia in their father. The history of stroke is uncertain. He was hit by a semi several years ago in front of the (Store Name) here in town. He did sustain a significant head injury at that time .He does have some problems with his vision. This seems to be a problem when trying to watch TV as he cannot use his remote. He also likes to walk around town. He reports almost being hit by a semi couple days ago. According to his sister, approximately 18 months ago she became involved with his care when he showed up at her house and was quite disheveled. Since then she has worked on getting him help set up He does tend to sleep from 5 or 6:00 PM until 4:30 in the morning. At that time he does like to get up and walk around town . Local hospital Emergency Department (ED) notes dated 12/28/23 at 10:38 AM, documented R59 was seen for chief complaints of altered mental status and hallucinations. This document stated R59 was brought to the ED by family members and friends who stated R59's complaint symptoms had been going on for the last 18 months but worsened over the last 2 weeks. After workup, the Clinical Impression listed is Thoracic aortic aneurysm, unspecified part, unspecified whether ruptured; and Cardiac arrhythmia, unspecified cardiac arrhythmia type. A case management note documented report included family concerns with R59's current living apartment arrangements which state R59 has been found outside his apartment multiple times, locked out, and ultimately confused how to operate a key fob to get into the apartment. Not eating as he should and suspected hallucinations. R59's Resident Incident Report dated 12/29/23 at 5:31 AM documented the incident type as, Wander from grounds. This report documented a narrative of incident and description of injuries: Resident left building out the Exit door on back hall to walk 2 blocks down the road to his house. Resident was full dressed with shoes and a heavy coat on. 2 CNA's escorted resident to his house on foot and a nurse followed in the car. Resident went to his home where his son (name of V20) also lived and (name of V20) agreed that resident could stay there at that time and he would try to get him to come back. V2 (DON) is documented as being notified on 12/29/23 at 5:30 AM, V21 (POA) on 12/29/23 at 5:45 AM, and V25 (Physician) at 8:00 AM. This report documented exam by physician as no. Immediate action taken is listed as, Escorted by staff to home. Alarm were checked on facility doors and the (sic) were working properly. frequent visual checks by all staff attempts will put 1:1 sitter with him until behavior ceases. The following Medical risk factors possibly related to incident are documented on this incident report as Confusion/Disorientation, and Other: Afib (atrial fibrillation). This form includes no printed names, signatures, or dates of completion for this report. The Incident Investigation, Narrative of investigation completed by V2 stated, IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) investigation resident left building escorted by staff to home 2 blocks down the street. Temp was 39 outside and he had on a heavy coat on. Alarms were checked on facility doors and they were working properly. Frequent visual checks by all staff. If resident attempts will put 1:1 sitter with him until the behavior ceases as resident did Returned (sic) to facility that same AM and apologized to DON and stated he would stay in the building and only leave with someone with him. Family also spoke with DON and Admin they also spoke with resident about leaving the building alone. On 02/09/24 at 09:37 AM, R59's care plan as V7 (Care Plan Coordinator) confirmed was in its entirety, was reviewed with V7. V7 confirmed that although the care plan category stated Baseline CP (Care Plan) Elopement this is also the comprehensive care plan for R59's elopement too. V7 stated the baseline wording is just there to let staff know that this area was also part of his baseline plan. V7 confirmed that no new interventions for elopement have been added to his Care Plan since the plan start date of 12/28/23. Each intervention listed includes the start date of 12/28/23. Interventions listed on this plan of care for the category of elopement are as follows in the plan's entirety, Ask family about elopement history; Observed for wandering behaviors and intervene as needed; Photo taken and added to elopement book; Social Services notified for behavior management; Inform staff of elopement risk. The policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered with a revision date of December 2016 documented, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident. The policy stated, 1. The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT), in conjunction with the resident and his/her family of legal representative, develops and implements a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident .13. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' condition change. Review of the not dated document titled MDS/Care Plan Coordinator Job Description documents the General Purpose of the position is, To oversee and facilitate the completion and management of resident assessments and resident care plans in accordance with current federal, state and local standards governing the facility and as may be directed by the Administrator or Director of Nursing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide services to improve or maintain Range of Motion status and functioning for one (R11) of 17 residents reviewed for Rang...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide services to improve or maintain Range of Motion status and functioning for one (R11) of 17 residents reviewed for Range of Motion in the sample of 40. Findings Include: The Resident Profile section of R11's Electronic Record documents an admission date to the facility of 8/20/21 with diagnoses listed but not limited to type 2 diabetes mellitus, cerebral infraction, unspecified, Hemiplegia, unspecified affecting left nondominant side, hyperkalemia, history of falls, weakness. On 2/06/24 09:26, R11 was observed with a brace to the left lower extremity. R11 stated she had a stroke in 2011. R11 stated, aides do not do any range of motion program, other than 2 times a week when in the shower. The certified nursing assistants will move left hand fingers to clean hand. R11 stated after being discharged from therapy she was told she would be put in a restorative program, but never was and she would like to be. R11's Physical Therapy Plan of Care dated 2/13/2023 documents a referral for skilled physical therapy orders for decline in strength, balance, transfers, and safety requiring an increased in care. R11's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated 11/3/23 documents in Section GG that R11 has Functional Limitation in Range of Motion to the upper and lower extremity with impairment on one side, uses a wheelchair for mobility devices, requires setup or clean up assistance with eating, and is dependent on staff for assistance with lying to sitting on bed side, sit to stand, and chair/bed-to-chair transfers. On 2/07/24 at 01:25 PM, V10 (Certified Nurse's Aide) stated that she has worked at the facility since the Fall of 2020. V10 stated, she is very familiar with the residents at the facility. V10 stated, that she works both 8- and 12-hour shifts, almost always on the 100 hall. V10 stated, that she has not witnessed any residents receiving any restorative program therapy recently. V10, stated that she knows V16 (Certified Nursing Assistant/Transportation Aide) used to do restorative nursing, but got pulled to be the transportation aide, and she's not aware of anyone who took over the restorative duties. On 2/08/24 at 10:09am, V16 (Certified Nurse's Aide/CNA) acknowledges being the prior restorative aide but has not been for a long time. V16 states, the restorative aide would walk residents per restorative plan and Certified Nurse's Aide would complete the range of motion plans. V16 said that documentation of the restorative activities would be logged in the restorative book. V16 stated, she has been the transportation aide and has not seen a restorative aide for 3-4 months in the facility. On 2/08/24 at 10:29 AM, V14 (therapy manager) stated, the process for the therapy department is to screen residents to see if they need therapy. V14 stated, once resident is on therapy and meets goals, the resident will be discharged back to facility for restorative therapy, and that is managed by the facility. V14 stated, the restorative aide position for this facility is vacant at this time and has been for 1-2 months. V14 stated, in his opinion, R11 would need range of motion interventions based on her discharge summary from 4/26/2023. R11's Therapist Progress and Discharge Summary dated 4/26/2023 documents on Page 3 End of Goal Status as of 4/26/2023 The patient will improve AAROM (Active Assisted Range of Motion) left knee extension to -10 degrees in order to return to prior level function. **Goal Not Met- on 4/26/2023 ** The patient demonstrates P/AAROM (Passive/ Active assisted Range of Motion) of L LE (Left Lower Extremity) Knee extension to -15 degrees. Strength: General - The patient will improve muscle strength to 3+/5 fair plus (full ROM against gravity and takes minimal resistance but then breaks suddenly) of L LE grossly in order to return to prior level of function. End of Goal Status as of 4/26/2023. **GOAL NOT MET- **The patient demonstrates muscle strength of 3-/5 fair minus (less than full ROM (more than 50%) against gravity) of L LE grossly. Discharge Plans and Instructions: discharge to RNP (Restorative Nursing Plan). The Managed Care Resident Task Menu in R11's electronic record documents a current task list of Restorative AROM (Active Range of Motion) and Special Needs: AROM R UE/LE (Right Upper Extremity/ Lower Extremity) x 20 reps x 2 sets. PROM (Passive Range of Motion) LUE/LE (Left Upper Extremity/ Lower Extremity) x 20 reps x 1 set. On 2/08/2024 at 11:49am, V2 (Director of Nursing) stated the therapy department manages the restorative aide position, but at this time the CNA's are responsible for restorative care. On 2/09/2024 8:42am, R11's Restorative Plan in the electronic record was reviewed with V7 (Care Plan/ MDS Coordinator) and V6 (Director of Nursing). V7 acknowledged and attempts to run a report to review restorative task being completed. There was no report generated. On 2/09/2024 at 8:46am, V7 stated and acknowledged that R11 had restorative interventions listed under Special Needs with AROM R UE/LE x 20 reps x 2 sets. PROM LUE/LE x 20 reps x 1 set. listed under completed care with no documentation that range of motion interventions were being completed. The facility policy titled Restorative Nursing Services (revision date of July 2017) documents 1. Restorative nursing care consists of nursing interventions that may or may not be accompanied by formalized rehabilitative services (e.g., physical, occupational, or speech therapies) 3. Restorative goals and objectives are individualized and resident-centered, and are outlined in the resident's plan of care .
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide aseptic catheter care for one resident with a history of Urinary Tract Infections (R9) of three residents reviewed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide aseptic catheter care for one resident with a history of Urinary Tract Infections (R9) of three residents reviewed for catheters in the sample of 40. The findings include: R9's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 11/23/22 and listed diagnoses including Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH) with Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and History of Urinary Tract Infection. R9's Care Plan dated 12/22/23 documented a problem area, readmission to the facility following hospitalization following diagnoses of Sepsis, Pneumonia, (and) UTI (Urinary Tract Infection). An 8/31/23 Urinalysis with Reflex Culture documented, Culture result: Organism identification: Enterococcus Faecium. On 02/08/24 at 09:25am, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated R9 has an indwelling catheter due to BPH with urinary retention. V2 stated R9 has a history of UTIs. On 02/08/24 at 11:41am, staff were observed providing catheter care for R9. R9 was alert to himself only. A clean field with clean linens and clean trash bags had been set up on the residents overbed table. The trash bags fell off the table and onto the floor, and V13 (Registered Nurse/Infection Control Preventionist) picked the bags up and placed them back onto the clean field. V17 (Certified Nursing Assistant/CNA), while wearing gloves, placed the bags onto the bed to receive trash and dirty linens, thereby contaminating her gloves. V17 then provided catheter care while wearing the contaminated gloves, additionally contaminating a bottle of perineal spray cleanser. During the procedure, V17 did not retract the foreskin of the penis to clean under it. After the procedure, V10 (CNA) while wearing gloves, picked up the contaminated perineal spray bottle and placed it onto the clean linen cart in the hall. On 02/13/24 at 11:14am, V13 acknowledged the above referenced breaches in infection control. A Catheter Care, Urinary Policy dated 9/14 documented, The purpose of this procedure is to prevent catheter associated urinary tract infections. Infection control: 2. Maintain clean technique when handling or manipulating the catheter, tubing, or drainage bag. Steps in the procedure: 7.Wash the residents genitalia and perineum thoroughly with soap and water. Rinse the area well and towel dry.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 a residents protein of choice for one residen...

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 a residents protein of choice for one resident with weight loss (R7) of four residents reviewed for weight loss in the sample of 40. Findings include: R7's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 12/3/16 and listed diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease, and Diabetes Type 2. R7's Physicians Orders documented an order for a carbohydrate controlled diet of regular consistency and thin liquids, fortified milk at breakfast, butter to hot vegetables at lunch and supper, fortified juice at lunch, and double protein at breakfast. R7's Weight Record documented the following weights: 02/04/2024 153 lbs(pounds) 01/14/2024 153 lbs 01/03/2024 156 lbs 12/03/2023 154.7 lbs 11/12/2023 153 lbs 11/07/2023 149.2 lbs 10/29/2023 149 lbs 10/22/2023 142.2 lbs 10/01/2023 149 lbs 09/22/2023 157.2 lbs 09/03/2023 159.4 lbs A Registered Dietician Note for Annual (Assessment) dated 1/22/24 stated,Resident is a [AGE] year old female. PMH(Pertinent Medical History) includes Hypothyroidism, HLD(Hyperlipidemia) GERD(Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease), T2DM(Type 2 Diabetes), HTN(Hypertension), HF(Heart Failure), Depression, Anxiety, (and)Parkinson's Disease. Medications and labs reviewed. No open wounds or pressure ulcers noted. She is on a controlled carbohydrate diet with regular textures and thin liquids. Receives double protein with breakfast, fortified milk with breakfast, fortified juice with lunch, extra butter with hot (vegetables at) lunch and dinner, and is allowed to have hot cocoa as desired. No indications of poor oral intake. Weight over the past 6 months trending between 142-159lb., suspect changes may be related to fluid status. Current weight is 153 lbs, BMI (Body Mass Index) 25.5 overweight but appropriate for age. Estimated needs for weight maintenance: 1739 kcals(kilocalories), 70 grams protein, and 2086 milliliters fluids. Recommend continue controlled carbohydrate diet. Will monitor weight and by mouth intakes, may be able to discontinue some of the fortified foods if weight remains stable and intakes (are) 75 percent or more. On 02/06/24 at10:07 AM, R7 was alert to person and place but not time. R7 stated she has lost some weight because she has a diminished appetite. On 02/06/24 at 12:32 PM, R7 was observed eating lunch in the dining room. R7's intake was poor, and R7 stated she is just not hungry. On 02/08/24 at 07:46 AM, R7 was observed eating breakfast in the dining room. R7's diet card read, Double protein at breakfast. R7's tray contained cold cereal, fortified milk, apple juice, and a double portion of scrambled eggs. R7 ate 100 percent of the cereal with the milk and all the juice. R7's eggs were untouched, and R7 stated, I do not like scrambled eggs. They (staff) all know this but they keep serving them to me. I like fried eggs over easy. On 02/08/24 at 08:08 AM, V3, Dietary Manager, stated R7 at times does not have a very good appetite. V3 stated R7 has had some weight loss, but her weight has been picking back up recently. V3 stated R7 likes soft cooked eggs but the facility cannot provide them due to the possibility of food borne illness. When asked, V3 stated the facility uses pasteurized eggs. V3 asked the Surveyor if that meant V3 could serve soft cooked eggs. On 02/08/24 at 8:45 AM, R7 was observed in the dining room eating two fried eggs with good appetite. On .02/08/24 at 10:06 AM, V40, Regional Director of Culinary Services, stated V3 had approached her about serving soft cooked eggs, and V40 clarified R7 can have them. V40 stated she updated R7's diet card to reflect this. A Therapeutic Diet Policy dated 10/17 stated, Therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending Physician to support the resident's treatment and plan of care, and in accordance with his or her goals and preferences. 1. Diet will be determined in accordance with the resident's informed choices, preferences, treatment goals, and wishes. An undated Weight Assessment and Intervention Policy stated,The multidisciplinary team will strive to prevent, monitor, and intervene for undesirable weight loss for our residents. Interventions: 1. Interventions for undesirable weight loss shall be based on careful consideration of the following: A. Resident choice and preferences. A Use of Shell Eggs and Pasteurized Egg Products Policy dated 2016 documented, 5. Pasteurized eggs or egg products shall be used when eggs are served undercooked and for fried eggs. Waivers to allow undercooked unpasteurized eggs for resident preference are not acceptable since pasteurized eggs are available and allow for safe consumption.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

3. Review of R24's Face Sheet documents an admission date to the facility as 6/1/22 and includes the diagnoses of other reduced mobility, major depressive disorder, spinal stenosis, sciatica, and anxi...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. Review of R24's Face Sheet documents an admission date to the facility as 6/1/22 and includes the diagnoses of other reduced mobility, major depressive disorder, spinal stenosis, sciatica, and anxiety disorder. R24's most recent annual Minimum Data Assessment with an assessment reference date of 1/12/2024 Section C documents a Brief Interview of Mental Status score of 3, indicating she is cognitively impaired. R24's current care plan has a category of behaviors with the following interventions listed all with the start date of 6/28/2022: do not argue with resident, talk in calm voice, refer to social services for evaluation, reinforce unacceptability of verbal cues, remove from public area when behavior is disruptive and unacceptable, praise for demonstrating desire behavior, monitor and document target behaviors, identify causes for behavior and reduce factors that may provoke aggressive behaviors, discuss options for channeling anger, assist in selection of appropriate coping mechanisms, administer behavior medications as ordered by physician, provide diversional activities. A category for medication is listed as of 6/2/22 with the following interventions listed with the same start date as 6/2/22: administer box medications as ordered by physician, medication list reviewed routinely with resident/resident representative/power of attorney, residents's medications are reviewed routinely by pharmacist and physician and pharmacy consultant review of medication use and potential side effects. Observations of R24 are as follows: on 2/6/24 at 10:00 AM in her room resting in bed quietly, on 2/8/23 at 12:15 PM in the dining room eating lunch quietly in the dining room, and on 2/9/23 at 1:32 PM resident was napping in her bed. On 2/8/24 at 9:24 AM, V17 (Certified Nurse Assistant)(CNA) and V24 (CNA) stated that R24 really only gets verbally aggressive on bath day because she gets hot/cold and wet. They both stated that R24 is not verbally aggressive towards anyone other than staff and that is rare (typically shower days only.) V17 and V24 stated that R24 only gets up for meals and activities and remains in bed most other times. R24's current physician orders include an order for Seroquel 50mg daily with a start date of 7/6/2022 and no indication of use. On 2/8/24 at 2:30 PM, V19 (Director of Clinical Operations) stated that R24 is on Seroquel due to major depression disorder. On 2/9/24 at 1:32 PM, R24's roommate R212, who is alert to person, place, and time, stated that R24 is not verbally aggressive or have any problematic behaviors other than occasionally calling for help and not really needing anything, or sometimes she called the staff bad names when they need her to do something she doesn't want to. During the survey, there were no pharmacist recommendations with gradual dose reduction recommendations/ physician signature to agree/disagree were provided after several requests. Review of R24's behavior tracking for Seroquel for the last 3 months documents the problem as: resident is attention seeking when she doesn't get her way. Resident climbs out of her recliner/bed. The November 2023-January 2024 behavior tracking documents that this behavior has not occurred. A facility document titled (Facility Name) Psychoactive Medication Quarterly Evaluation was provided for R24. The date listed on this evaluation as being completed was 7/3/23. The drug reviewed was Seroquel 50mg daily regarding major depressive disorder diagnosis. The targeted behavior for this drug is listed as tearfulness with agitation/combative. The comments/recommendation section states the following: the primary care provider has reviewed medication regimen and the pharmacy consultant with no changes at this time as resident is stable with symptoms and changes could be detrimental to residents mental health which would decrease her quality of life. The power of attorney is aware and approves after discussion of risk/benefits. This document was completed by V19 (Director of Clinical Operations) on 7/3/23 at 8:59 PM. Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents medication regimens were free from unnecessary medication for three (R18, R50 R24) of five residents reviewed for unnecessary medications in the sample of 40. Findings include: 1. R50's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 10/27/22 and listed diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, and Bipolar Disorder. R50's Physicians Orders documented orders for Citalopram 20 mg (milligrams) one tablet daily with a start date of 10/28/22, Risperdal 0.5mg one tablet twice daily with a start date of 11/15/22, Benztropine 0.5mg one tablet twice daily with a start date of 7/25/23,and Lorazepam 1mg one tablet three times daily with a start date of 11/15/22. R50's Behavior Tracking for February 2024 documented that R50 is being monitored for the behaviors of daily exit seeking and wandering, being sad about her family not visiting, and being resistive to personal care. A Consultant Pharmacists Medication Regimen Review Communication dated 6/23/23 documented Route to (Physician): Please assess risk versus benefit and if your patient would benefit from a dose reduction of the following psychiatric medications: Citalopram 20mg daily, Lorazepam 0.5mg every 8 hours, and Risperdal 0.5mg twice daily. The Physician Response portion of the form was blank. A Consultant Pharmacists Medication Regimen Review Communication dated 11/27/23 documented,Route to (Physician): Please assess risk versus benefit and if your patient would benefit from a dose reduction of the following psychiatric medications: Citalopram 20mg daily, Loazepam 0.5mg every 8 hours, and Risperdal 0.5mg twice daily. The handwritten statement in the Physician Response portion stated, I disagree. GDR (Gradual Dose Reduction) would be detrimental to patient well being. There was no rationale documented as to the nature of potential adverse effects, or risk versus benefit analysis of continued therapy. On 02/06/24 at 09:45am, R50 was lying in bed, alert only to self. R50 was observed to have involuntary side to side jaw movement and tongue tremor. According to the Physicians Desk Reference, https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/?drugLabelId=977, Risperdal and other atypical antipsychotics, Are not approved for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis in geriatric adults and use of Risperidone should be avoided if possible due to an increase in morbidity and mortality in elderly adults with dementia receiving antipsychotics. The Beers Criteria consider antipsychotics to be potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in elderly patients except for treating schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and nausea/vomiting during chemotherapy. The Beers panel recommends avoiding antipsychotics in geriatric patients with delirium, dementia, or Parkinson's disease. Non-pharmacological strategies are first-line options for treating delirium- or dementia-related behavioral problems unless they have failed or are not possible and the patient is a substantial threat to self or others. According to the federal Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) regulations in residents of long-term care facilities, antipsychotic therapy should only be initiated in a patient with behavioral or psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) when the patient is a danger to self or others or has symptoms due to mania or psychosis. For acute conditions persisting beyond 7 days, appropriate non-pharmacologic interventions must be attempted, unless clinically contraindicated and documented. OBRA provides general dosing guidance for antipsychotic treatment of BPSD. Antipsychotics are subject to periodic review for effectiveness, medical necessity, gradual dose reduction (GDR), or rationale for continued use. Refer to the OBRA guidelines for complete information. Further guidance at https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/?drugLabelId=1940, indicates Benztropine is prescribed, For the treatment of drug-induced extrapyramidal symptoms, with potential side effects including constipation, confusion, hallucinations, dizziness, drowsiness, and weakness. 2. R18's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 3/10/22 and listed diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia without Behavior Disturbance, Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Difficulty in Walking, Unsteadiness on Feet, and Diabetes Type 2. R18's Physicians Orders documented orders for Amitripyline 10mg one tablet at bedtime with a start date of 3/10/22, Mirtazepine 7.5mg one tablet daily with a start date of 10/14/23, representing a decrease from 15mg one tablet daily, and Olanzapine 2.5mg one tablet at bedtime with a start date of 3/10/22. R18's Behavior Tracking for 2/24 indicated R18 is being monitored for wandering around the facility asking where she is, showing little or no pleasure in life or activities, and self isolating in her room for days at a time. A Consultant Pharmacists Medication Regimen Review Communication dated 3/26/23 documented, Route to (Physician): Please assess risk versus benefit and if your patient would benefit from a dose reduction of the following psychiatric medications: Olanzapine 2.5mg at bedtime, Mirtazepine 15mg one tablet daily, and Amitriptyline 10mg one tablet at bedtime. The Physician Response portion of the form was blank. A Consultant Pharmacists Medication Regimen Review Communication dated 9/26/23 documented, Route to (Physician): Please assess risk versus benefit and if your patient would benefit from a dose reduction of the following psychiatric medications: Olanzapine 2.5mg at bedtime, Mirtazepine 15mg one tablet daily, and Amitriptyline 10mg one tablet at bedtime. The Physician Response portion of the form was blank. Guidance at https://www.pdr.net/drug-summary/?drugLabelId=2269, documented, Antipsychotics are not approved for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis in geriatric patients and use of olanzapine in this population should be avoided if possible due to an increase in morbidity and mortality in geriatric patients with dementia receiving atypical antipsychotics. Deaths have typically resulted from heart failure, sudden death, or infections (primarily pneumonia). An increased incidence of cerebrovascular adverse events (e.g., stroke, transient ischemic attack), including fatal events, has also been reported. The Beers Criteria consider antipsychotics to be potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in elderly patients except for treating schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and nausea/vomiting during chemotherapy. On 02/09/24 at 10:54am, V2, Director of Nurses, stated she is not sure how often psychotropic medications should be reviewed for gradual dose reductions, but she thinks it might be twice a year. V2 stated most of their Physicians don't respond to gradual dose reduction requests. V2 stated residents on psychotropic medications are managed by their primary care physicians, and the facility does not utilize the services of a psychiatrist or mid level provider specializing in psychiatry. An Antipsychotic Medication Use Policy dated 12/16 documented, Antipsychotic medications will be prescribed at the lowest possible dosage for the shortest period of time and are subject to gradual dose reduction and re-review. 8. Diagnoses alone do not warrant the use of antipsychotic medication. 11. Antipsychotic medications will not be used if the only symptoms are one or more of the following: Wandering, poor self-care, restlessness, impaired memory, mild anxiety, insomnia, inattention or indifference to surroundings, sadness or crying alone that is not related to depression or other psychiatric disorders, fidgeting, nervousness, or uncooperativeness. 19. The facility will follow CMS (Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services) regulations in regard to gradual dose reductions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

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 therapeutic diets per physician's orders 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 therapeutic diets per physician's orders for two (R18, R48) residents of four residents reviewed for therapeutic diets in the sample of 40. Findings include: R18's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 3/10/22 and listed diagnoses including Dementia, Hypertension, and Type 2 Diabetes. R18's Physicians Orders documented a diet order for a regular diet with regular consistency and thin liquids. R48's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 10/27/23 and listed diagnoses including Dementia, Hypertension, and Multiple Sclerosis. R48's Physicians Orders documented a diet order for regular diet with mechanical soft texture with extra gravy/sauce and thin liquids. R48's Speech Therapy Plan of Care dated 10/30/23 documented, Reason for referral: Patient is a [AGE] year old female admitted to this facility post hospitalization for Covid-19, Pneumonia, and Acute on Chronic Respiratory Failure. Patient has a history of Dementia and is a poor historian. Requires skilled services to focus on: 92526 (procedure billing code), treatment of swallowing dysfunction and/or oral function for feeding, (and) 92610, evaluation of oral and pharyngeal swallowing function. A Week at a Glance Dietary Spreadsheet for Tuesday day 17 specified the regular diet lunch menu for 2/6/24 called for fiesta spiced chicken, Mexican rice, elote corn, breadstick, snickerdoodle cookie, and milk/beverage. The mechanical soft diet called for ground fiesta spiced chicken with sauce, Mexican rice with sauce or gravy, creamed corn, bread with margarine, soft snickerdoodle cookies, and milk/beverage. On 2/6/24 at 12:40pm, lunch service was observed in the facility's dining room. V39 (Housekeeping Staff Member) was observed passing resident trays. R18 and R48 were sitting at the same table, along with V41 and V42, (Family Members of R18) R48 was alert and oriented to person and place but not time, and R18 was alert only to self. V39 brought R18's tray and then within a minute, brought R48's tray. The diet card on R18's tray specified regular diet with regular consistency and R48's diet card specified regular mechanical soft diet with extra sauce/gravy. The chicken on R48's tray was ground and had red sauce on the chicken and the rice, and the tray also held creamed corn. R18's tray contained a boneless chicken breast and whole kernel corn. V41 cut R18's chicken breast into chunks. R48 looked at R18's tray and said R18 had sauce on her chicken, and R48 wanted sauce on her chicken. R18 offered to trade R48 trays, and V41 asked V39 if it was ok. V39 stated, I guess so, so V41 swapped the trays, and R18 began eating . R48 picked up her fork and put a piece of chicken on it and began to raise it to her mouth. The Surveyor asked V39 if it was acceptable for R18 and R39 to swap trays since the residents were on to different diets. V39 did not respond to the question. V39 started to remove R48's tray, and R48 began arguing that it was ok for R48 to have a regular texture tray. V39 then took the tray and the fork with chicken from R48 and returned at 12:55pm with another mechanical soft tray for R48. V39 did not replace R18's tray nor check R18's diet card. On 02/08/24 at 09:30 AM, V2 (Director of Nurses) stated R48 is on a mechanical soft diet due to issues with Dysphagia. V2 stated physicians diet orders should be followed at all times. A Therapeutic Diet Policy dated 19/17 documented, Therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician to support the resident's treatment and plan of care and in accordance with his or her goals and preferences . 4. A therapeutic diet is considered a diet ordered by a physician, practitioner, or dietician as part treatment for a disease or clinical condition, to modify specific nutrients in the diet, or to alter the texture of a diet, for example: D. Altered consistency diet.
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, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that residents had alternative meal options simi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview the facility failed to ensure that residents had alternative meal options similar or equivalent nutritive value of the main meal selection for three of three residents (R10, R11 and R46) reviewed for meal alternatives in a sample of 40. The Findings Include: On 2/6/24 at 11:00 AM, V3 (Cook/Dietary Manger) stated that he did not have an alternate made today, but that he usually just makes a grilled cheese, peanut butter sandwich or turkey sandwich if the residents do not like what they have on the menu. V3 stated there is not a planned alternate meal option and he just uses what is quick and available. V3 stated that the steam table today for lunch would have the following: Fiesta chicken (regular, mechanical soft, and pureed), Mexican rice (regular and pureed), elote corn and creamed corn, breadstick/bread, and snickerdoodle cookie. The only items observed on 2/6/24 at 12:00 PM during [NAME] meal observation were of the main meal selection while lunch was being served. On 2/7/24 at 12:45 PM, R46 and R11 were sitting together at at table in the dining room. Both residents stated that they asked for a hamburger for lunch today because they do not like the spices they put on the pulled pork. R11 received her tray and did not receive a hamburger. She received the pulled pork but stated the pork was ok because they did not put the sauce on it they usually do. R46 stated at this time that she did not get the hamburger wither, but was ok with the pulled pork because it did not have the sauce on it and she could put her own on. On 2/7/24 at 2:00PM, The Always Available List of foods was provided by V19 (Director of Culinary Services) and these were the foods listed were as follows: Chicken Strips, Hamburger, Peanut Butter, Grilled Cheese, Deli Sandwich, [NAME], Soups, Bananas, Applesauce, and Chips. On 02/07/2024 at 2:34 P.M., R46 stated that staff pass out the menu ahead of time usually in the morning time. R46 stated that you tell the staff you want something different and they will tell the kitchen. R46 replied that if the meal is already in front of you and you want something different, you may have to wait until they are completely finished serving all trays to get a substitute. R46 stated that she has never seen the Always Available Menu. On 02/07/2024 at 02:50 P.M., R11 stated that the facility staff pass out a menu in the morning time or they will write on the board in the dining room what the meal will be for the day. R11 did state that she will have staff tell the kitchen if she wants something different for a meal, then they will relay the message to the kitchen staff. R11 did state that if you do not tell the kitchen staff that you want something different before the meal time, you will have to wait till they are done serving to receive a substitute. R11 was shown the Always Available List and has never seen it before. R11 did say that she heard that they are suppose to get the Always Available List today. On 02/07/2024 at 02:39 P.M., V8 (CNA) (Certified Nurse Assistant) stated that each morning the menu comes out and is handed out to the residents. The residents then let the staff know if they want a substitute. V8 had never seen the Always Available List, although the items on the list can be asked for as a substitute. V8 said if the resident does not get the substitute request in before the meal starts, they do have to wait until everyone has been served. On 02/07/2024 at 02:54 P.M., V9 (CNA) stated that the residents usually have the menu by 10:00 A.M. or 10:30 A.M. The staff then usually tell the kitchen staff the resident and what they change is. V9 had never seen the Always Available List. V9 also stated that the substitutes sometimes take longer than someday's, that it all depends on who is working in the kitchen that day. On 2/7/2024 at 3:30 PM, R10 stated that she has never been told nor seen a list of always available food. R10 stated that she eats in her room by choice and that when she gets her food if she doesn't like it, she just doesn't eat it.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and systematically investigate an adverse event as part of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify and systematically investigate an adverse event as part of their Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) meetings/plan for 1 (R59) of 17 residents reviewed for QAPI in the sample of 40. Findings Include: R59's Face Sheet documented R59 is a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE] at 5:30 PM. Diagnoses listed on this document in their entirety are: Unspecified Dementia, Unspecified Atrial Fibrillation, Anxiety Disorder, Vitamin D Deficiency, Constipation, Dextrocardia, Essential (primary) Hypertension, Dorsalgia, and other Amnesia. V25 (Physician) is listed as being R59's Primary Care Physician. The only contacts listed for R59 on this document are V21 (Family Member & Power of Attorney/POA) and V22 (Family Member). R59's Minimum Data Set with an assessment reference date of 1/4/24 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Section E0900 documents 0, indicating the behavior was not exhibited to the question has the resident wandered. R59's Resident Incident Report dated 12/29/23 at 5:31 AM documented the incident type as, Wander from grounds. This report documented a narrative of incident and description of injuries: Resident left building out the Exit door on back hall to walk 2 blocks down the road to his house. Resident was full dressed with shoes and a heavy coat on. 2 CNA's (Certified Nursing Assistants) escorted resident to his house on foot and a nurse followed in the car. Resident went to his home where his son (name of V20) also lived and (name of V20) agreed that resident could stay there at that time and he would try to get him to come back. V2 (DON) is documented as being notified on 12/29/23 at 5:30 AM, V21 (POA) on 12/29/23 at 5:45 AM, and V25 (Physician) at 8:00 AM. This report documented exam by physician as no. Immediate action taken is listed as, Escorted by staff to home. Alarm were checked on facility doors and the (sic) were working properly. frequent visual checks by all staff attempts will put 1:1 sitter with him until behavior ceases. The following Medical risk factors possibly related to incident are documented on this incident report as Confusion/Disorientation, and Other: Afib (atrial fibrillation). This form includes no printed names, signatures, or dates of completion for this report. The Incident Investigation, Narrative of investigation completed by V2 stated, IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) investigation resident left building escorted by staff to home 2 blocks down the street. Temp was 39 outside and he had on a heavy coat on. Alarms were checked on facility doors and they were working properly. Frequent visual checks by all staff. If resident attempts will put 1:1 sitter with him until the behavior ceases as resident did Returned (sic) to facility that same AM and apologized to DON and stated he would stay in the building and only leave with someone with him. Family also spoke with DON and Admin they also spoke with resident about leaving the building alone. On 2/08/24 at 07:51 PM, V32 (Former Facility Administrator) stated that her last day at the facility was 1/3/24. V32 stated she recalls R59 and the night he got out of the facility. When asked if she considered the incident where R59 got out to be an elopement, V32 stated, I made sure to ask the girls if they stayed with him, and they said they did. V32 stated that V22 (R59's family member) had met with V32 a week or two before R59 admitted to the facility to convey concerns and ensure he would be a good fit. V32 stated she believed it sounded like R59 was having a drastic decline in cognition and was driving the family nuts calling them. V32 stated that V22 expressed they had attempted to place R59 in an apartment, but he couldn't clean or cook for himself, was forgetful of where he was, walking all around, and even hesitant and confused to let his assistant the family had set up for him come in to help. V32 stated she was notified by V2 (DON) on 12/29/23 via phone that R59 had walked out of the facility, was at the home where he raised his kids and his son currently lived and was refusing to come back. V32 stated the staff had attempted to get R59 to come back to the facility multiple times. V32 stated she believed V28 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) had called R59's POA while at R59's home to make sure it was ok that R59 stay with V20 for now. V32 stated that V20 was saying it was ok for him to stay there and he could probably talk R59 into coming back to the facility. V32 stated that V28 probably got R59's POA's phone number by having one of the staff back at the facility send her the number. V32 stated that V21 (Family Member/POA) does not get along with V20. V32 stated that V21 responded to the call notifying him that R59 was at V20's house by saying he would be right there and lived about an hour away. V32 said that R59 ended up bringing himself back to the facility by walking and believes he came back alone. V32 stated it was cold that day she remembers because he was teasing one of the girls walking with him about not having a coat. V32 stated that V21 and V22 arrived at the facility shortly after R59 had returned. V32 stated that in meeting with V21 and V22, they spoke about how R59 had become routine to going to bed early and waking up about 4 AM. V32 stated she was at the facility at 6:30 AM that morning as they already had a meeting scheduled, not related to R59, but ended up talking about him. V32 stated that R59 was placed on 1:1 or visual observation, she cannot recall exactly, for staff to keep an eye on him and make sure he didn't leave again. V32 stated that she encouraged staff to try to get R59 to stay up later in the evenings after supper so he wouldn't get up so early. V32 stated she also set her own alarm at home too for 4 AM and would call the facility and remind them to go look at R59 and make sure he was sleeping or in the facility. V32 described R59's normal status as being confused. On 2/9/24 at 8:10 AM, V1 (Administrator) stated he has worked at the facility since 1/3/24. V1 stated his first day at the facility was V32's last day. V1 stated V32 relayed no problems occurring in the facility that had been QA'd (Quality Assurance) or PIP'ed (Performance Improvement Plan). The only thing V1 stated he recalls is V32 was finishing a reportable report that he is unsure what the nature of that report was. V1 stated V32 relayed no information of a recent elopement or any high-risk elopement residents. V1 stated he figured out by himself that a resident, R59, was potentially high risk by viewing the sign on V59's door reminding him to stay in the facility. V1 stated that he met R59 and R59 expressed to him his back story and how he enjoyed walking, even significant lengths of 6 miles a day. V1 stated he would consider R59 to be confused. V1 stated that he considers elopement to be if a resident leaves the facility property without staff intervention. V1 stated in reviewing R59's 12/29/23 incident, he does not consider that an elopement. V1 stated it is the expectation for staff to follow facility policy for elopement. V1 stated since the 12/29/23 incident, R59 has had no further actual or attempts of elopement that he is aware of. V1 stated there was a day where R59 was observed as being more active than normal and kept speaking about needing to go to the bank. V1 stated redirection was implemented with success when R59 was observed heading towards the door with intent but did not even reach the door before being redirected to stay inside the facility. V1 stated had any further occurrences or attempts of elopement occurred with R59, a meeting would have been set up with the family to discuss possible concerns and need for placement on a locked unit, elopement risk assessment to be completed, physician and family notification and review of the case. V1 stated an incident investigation is completed after an incident occurs. V1 defined an incident as an out of normal facility function occurrence. V1 stated that the incident with R59 on 12/29/23 fits these criteria and is why an incident investigation was completed. V1 stated that the nurse on duty at the time of the incident should be the staff member who initiates the investigation immediately in the computer system and along with initiating new interventions if applicable. V1 stated once the nurse completes their portion, the IDT (Interdisciplinary) team which consists of the Administrator, DON, Social Services, and depending on the scenario any other pertinent department heads. V1 stated that he would expect the incident to be investigated thoroughly and would expect the investigation to include interviews of all staff involved in the situation, as well as determining which door a resident would have gone out, if exiting the facility was involved in the incident. V1 stated that staff refer to a hallway which houses 400 room number halls in in the facility as back hallway. V1 stated staff refer to the hallway that houses 600 room numbers as old side. V1 stated since the 12/29/23 incident, he has not been involved in any quality assurance (QA) meetings regarding R59. V1 stated he would be a key component to the QA meeting and would be involved in that meeting should one have taken place during his employment at the facility. On 2/9/24 at 2:30 PM, V1 stated that he is not able to find any documentation of Quality Assurance meeting minutes or attendance sheets prior to January 2024. On 2/09/24 at 11:15 AM, V1 provided hard copies of the complete investigation documents that were not initially provided to survey staff and that could not be viewed by survey staff in the resident's electronic record. These documents were provided in a purple folder and included a policy titled Elopements with a revision date of December 2007 and Incident Witness Statements from V28 (LPN), and V27, V29, and V30 (all CNA's) regarding R59's 12/29/23 incident. V27's Incident Witness Statement was dated 12/29/23. The space where the time would be entered was blank and the Witness line at the bottom of the page that appears to be where a signature would go, was left blank. This statement was not signed by V27 and the only signature on this statement was V2's at the very bottom of the page. V28's Incident Witness statement was dated 1/29/23 with the time and Witness line also blank and not signed by V28. V28's statement was only signed by V2. Both V29 and V30's Incident Witness Statements were dated 12/29/23, with the time and Witness lines left blank and was also signed only by V2. The folder also contained a Skin Observation: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review with R59's name written in and a date/time of 12/29/23 at 7:50 AM. The CNA signature line on this form was blank, but the Charge Nurse Signature was signed by V33 (LPN) and dated 12/29/23. The DON signature line was signed by V2 and also dated 12/29/23 at 7:50. Another document in the folder with no title has R59's name at the top with a date of 12/29/24 and is a 1 ½ page typed questionnaire regarding the incident but has no staff name listed as to who completed the questionnaire. On 2/9/24 at 11:30 AM, V29 (CNA) stated that she cannot recall what time but was contacted by phone on 2/8/24 by V2 and the regional lady for a statement of what occurred with R59 on 12/29/23. V29 stated that this was the first time she had been asked to provide a statement of the occurrences. V29 confirmed the door R59 exited on 12/29/23 was at the end of the 400 hall. On 2/09/24 at 11:53 AM, V33 (LPN) was shown the document titled Skin Observation: Comprehensive CNA Shower Review, noted to be signed by V33 and dated 12/29/23. V33 stated that she was asked to sign this document today. When questioned as to who asked her to sign the document, she stated she wasn't sure of her name but it starts with an A. V33 was asked if it was V19 (Director of Clinical Operations) and V33 responded yes. V33 confirmed that she did not do a head-to-toe assessment upon R59's return to the facility. V33 was questioned if she was asked to make a statement on 12/29/23 regarding R59's elopement and V33 stated no, she was asked today to make a statement for the first time but was not asked to sign it. On 2/09/24 at 12:08 PM, V1 stated that he and V19 have now initiated their own investigation and have been calling people to figure out what is going on and why this is such a big deal. When asked why the incident witness statements are dated 12/29/23 (while showing V1 the purple folder he provided), V1 stated he has nothing to do with that and was not working at the facility on that date. V1 also asked, my name is not in there, is it? On 2/09/24 at 12:27 PM, V19 stated that she began getting statements from staff regarding the incident that occurred with R59 last night because she wanted to find out what was going on and why we were looking at it so hard. V19 stated that the statements that she obtained are all dated for the time she obtained them. V19 stated that V2 got the staff interviews provided with the investigation (purple folder) as V2 was there that night. V2 was also present at this time and stated that she had gotten interviews from the staff at the time of the occurrence. V2 stated that herself and V32 (Former Administrator) had done the head-to-toe assessment on R59 when he returned to the facility. When asked why V33 (LPN) had been asked to sign the head-to-toe assessment, V2 stated because V33 was the charge nurse on the hall that day. When asked why V32 did not sign if she was present for the assessment, V2 could give no answer and again just repeated V33 was the charge nurse. V2 confirmed that V33 was asked to sign the skin observation assessment despite, not conducting the assessment. On 2/9/24 at 12:30 PM, V19 stated she would provide the investigation of events she has been working on. A document titled Follow up investigation dated 2/8/24 includes the following entries regarding R59: 12/29/23: Resident exited door @ (at) 5:30 AM. Interview with (V29): 2/8/24. (V29) stated that she was providing care to another resident when the door alarm sounded. She stated she immediately went to the door and saw (R59) walking around the fence . Interview with (V30): 2/8/24. (V30) said that her and (V29) were providing care to another resident when the door alarm sounded. She said that (V29) left to check the door and saw that (R59) had walked out the door and was walking around the fence. Interview with (V33). (V33) stated that at approximately 7:30 AM on 12/29/24, the resident entered the facility through the side door on 600 hall. She said she reported it to (V2) who arrived at the facility about 7:40 AM. She stated that she did not see anyone with him such as family. Behavior Tracking Record for R59 documented a start date of Dec. (December) 29 2023 for (R59) will exit seek. Entries for the December 2023 log documented from 6 AM - 2 PM, 1 entry of exit seeking behavior on 12/29/23. Entries for the January 2024 log document tracking of the same behavior (R59) will exit seek from 6 AM - 2 PM: frequency of 2 on 1/3/24, frequency of 1 on 1/8/24, and frequency of 1 on 1/27/24. From 2 PM - 10 PM: 1/5/24- blank, 1/7/24- blank, 1/8/24- blank, 1/13/24- blank, 1/19/24- blank, 1/21/24- blank, frequency of 3 on 1/22/24, frequency of 1 on 1/23/24, 1/24/24- blank, 1/25/24- blank, 1/30/24- blank. From 10 PM - 6 AM: 1/6/24- blank, frequency of 1 on 1/7/24, 1/11/24- blank, 1/13/24- blank, 1/18/24- blank, 1/25/24- blank, 1/27/24- blank. The February Behavior Tracking Record is blank except for one entry on 2/12/24 10P-6A shift and handwritten in at the bottom of the page is per discussion w/ (with) staff no issues and 2nd copy, first copy misplaced. On 2/09/24 at 09:37 AM, V7 (Care plan coordinator) confirmed R59's care plan provided to survey staff was in its entirety. V7 confirmed that although the care plan category stated Baseline CP (Care Plan) Elopement this is also the comprehensive care plan for R59's elopement too. V7 stated the baseline wording is just there to let staff know that this area was also part of his baseline plan. V7 confirmed that no new interventions for Elopement have been added to his Care Plan since the plan start date of 12/28/23. Each intervention listed includes the start date of 12/28/23. Interventions listed on this plan of care for the category of elopement are as follows in the plan's entirety, Ask family about elopement history; Observed for wandering behaviors and intervene as needed; Photo taken and added to elopement book; Social Services notified for behavior management; Inform staff of elopement risk. Review of the Qapi (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) Plan (town) Design & Scope) is documented as being reviewed by V19 (Director of Clinical Operations) on November 20, 2023. The plan stated, Our organization's mission is to provide resident-centered healthcare services, excellence in clinical care, and to promote caregiver engagement and empowerment to better serve the resident, family, and the community. Guiding Principles included: In our organization, the outcome of QAPI is the quality of care and the quality of life of our resident; Our organization uses QAPI to make decisions and guide our day-to-day operations; Our QAPI program focuses on our organization's systems and processes rather than on the performance of individuals, and we strive to identify and improve system gaps rather than to place blame; Our organization makes QAPI decisions based on data gathered from the input and experience of caregivers, residents, health care practitioners, families, and other stakeholders.; Our organization supports performance improvement by encouraging our employees to support each other as well as to be accountable for their own professional performance and practice; Our organization maintains a culture that encourages, rather than punishes, employees who identify errors or system breakdowns. The undated Administrator / Assistant Administrator Job Description documented the General Purpose of the position is To direct the day-to-day functions of the facility in accordance with current federal, state and local standards governing long-term care facilities to ensure that the highest degree of quality care can be provided to the residents at all times; ability to remain calm; ability to evaluate and interpret information and make independent decisions . The undated Director of Nursing Services Job Description documented the General Purpose of the position is To plan, organize, develop and direct the overall operation of the Nursing Services Department in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards governing the facility, and as may be directed by the Administrator, to ensure that the highest degree of quality care is maintained at all times. The undated Regional Nurse Consultant Job Description documented the General Purpose of this position is To support, audit, train and assist the Director of Nursing & Nursing Services Department, in accordance with current federal, state, and local standards governing the facility, and as may be directed by the (Company Name) Support Team, to assist in ensuring that the highest degree of quality care is maintained at all times.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain infection control professional standards when completing wound care for one (R45) of seven residents reviewed for inf...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to maintain infection control professional standards when completing wound care for one (R45) of seven residents reviewed for infection control out of a sample of 40. Findings include: 1. R45's face sheet documented an admission date of 5/5/22 with diagnoses including: unspecified dementia without behavioral disturbance, dysphagia, anxiety disorder, vitamin B12 deficiency, hemiplegia, atrial fibrillation. R45's Physician Orders List documented a 2/2/24 order . Cleanse area left 5th toe with normal saline (then) paint with betadine apply (calcium alginate) to wound bed cover with (absorbent bandage) do not use adhesive dressing wrap first with kerlix and then with coban for protection . On 2/9/24 at 9:49 AM V33 (Licensed Practical Nurse/ LPN) provided wound care for R45. V33 completed hand hygiene and donned gloves. V33 removed R45's left foot dressing. V33 changed her gloves but did not perform hand hygiene. V33 cleaned R45's wound with normal saline and painted with betadine. V33 changed her gloves but did not perform hand hygiene. V33 covered R45's wound with calcium alginate and covered with absorbent dressing and wrapped R45's left foot with kerlix and coban. V33 tied up the trash bag and picked up the roll of coban, package of 4x4 gauze, and scissors placed on bedside table. V33 doffed a gown, mask, and gloves and used hand sanitizer for hand hygiene, donned gloves and picked up the roll of coban, package of 4x4 gauze, scissors, and bottle of normal saline. V33 placed the roll of coban, package of 4x4 gauze, scissors, and bottle of normal saline on the treatment cart. V33 verified she did not perform hand hygiene during R45's wound treatment. On 2/13/24 at 1:05 PM, V2 (Director of Nursing/ DON) said she expected staff to complete hand hygiene as written in the facility's Treatment/ Wound Care policy. The facility's revised October 2010 Treatment/ Wound Care policy documented in part . Steps in the Procedure . 4. Put on exam glove. Loosen tape and remove dressing if applicable. 5. Pull gloves over dressing and discard into appropriate receptacle. Wash and dry haves thoroughly or use hand sanitizer. 6. Put on gloves . 11. Wash tissue around wound that is usually covered by the dressing, tape or gauze with antiseptic or soap and water. Remove gloves, preform hand hygiene, and replace gloves . 16. Discard disposable items into the designated container. Discard all soiled laundry, linen, towels and washcloths into the laundry container. Remove gloves and discard into designated container. Wash and dry hands thoroughly .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide activities that met resident goals and preferences for five (R7, R13, R14, R26, and R27) of five residents reviewed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide activities that met resident goals and preferences for five (R7, R13, R14, R26, and R27) of five residents reviewed for activities out of a sample of 40. Findings include: 1. The facility's February 2024 activities calendar documented 2/8/24 10:00 AM sensory, 10:30 AM Valentine's Day crafting, and 11:00 AM social gathering. On 2/8/24 at 10:16 AM, V5 (Activities Director) was in the main dining room directing the sensory activity. 3 residents were in their wheelchairs around the table. 1 of the residents was asleep, 1 of the residents did not have an activity device but was scrolling on her phone, and 1 was using a fidget board. On 2/8/24 at 10:19 AM, another resident was wheeled into the dining room to participate in the activity and fell asleep in her wheelchair. On 2/8/24 at 10:22 AM, 5 residents were sitting around the table in the dining room with 3 of them asleep in their wheelchairs, 1 blankly staring at nothing, and 1 was with a fidget board in front of her. On 2/8/24 at 10:30 AM, V5 placed a plastic container of dry macaroni noodles with plastic ducks in it in front of R26. On 2/8/24 at 10:28 AM V5 (Activities Director) asked a resident if she would like to decorate a Valentine's Day box. 1 Valentine's Day box was presented and only 1 resident participated in decorating it. On 2/8/24 at 10:38 AM, R14 was sitting in his wheelchair in the dining room in front of the television and was asleep in his wheelchair. R13 was asleep in her wheelchair with a plastic football on the table in front of her. V5 gave R26 some paint on a paper plate, a paint brush, and piece of paper. R26 had difficulty holding the paint brush and attempted to put paint on the paper. On 2/8/24 at 10:55 AM, R14 was sitting in his wheelchair in the dining room watching television. 4 residents were sitting around a table in the dining room asleep in their wheelchairs and 2 were staring out the windows with no activity materials in front of them. On 2/8/24 at 11:04 AM V5 told the residents sitting in the dining room she was going to start putting any activity materials back in the closet because lunch would be coming soon. On 2/8/24 at 11:13 AM, V5 wheeled the sleeping residents to different tables in the dining room where they usually sat for meals. Several of the residents were asleep in their wheelchairs. 2. The facility's February 2024 activities calendar documented 2/9/24 10:00 AM sensory, 10:30 AM music circle, 11:00 AM daily delights. On 2/9/24 at 10:07 AM, V5 placed a container with dry macaroni noodles in it and plastic football on the table in the dining room with several residents sitting around it asleep in their wheelchairs. On 2/9/24 at 10:11 AM, V5 attempted to wake R13 by repeatedly asking if R13 could hear V5. V5 asked R13 if R13 would like to touch the macaroni or the football and R13 said no and closed her eyes. R7 was asleep in her wheelchair. On 2/9/24 at 10:15 AM, V5 turned the television in the dining room off and got out a purple speaker to play music. Several of the residents were asleep in their wheelchairs. On 2/9/24 at 11:08 AM, several residents were asleep in their wheelchairs in the dining room while V5 sorted through shirts preparing to iron on vinyl designs. V5 had very little interaction with the residents in the dining room. On 2/9/24 at 11:24 AM, three residents in the dining room were asleep in their wheelchairs. On 2/9/24 at 11:43 AM, V43 (Activity Aide) said the daily sensory activity was designed for residents who are wheelchair bound and can't get up to participate in activities. V43 said for this activity staff would have a fidget board or things with different textures for the residents to touch. V43 said Valentine's Day crafting was supposed to be for residents to paint Valentine's Day boxes if they wanted. V43 said social gathering was supposed to be residents gathering in the dining room to talk and listen to music. V43 said daily delights was a packet of papers contain news and puzzles. V43 said the facility was not able to print the daily delight packets because the activity's computer was not functioning. On 2/9/24 at 12:22 PM, V26 (Licensed Practical Nurse/ LPN) said bingo was the most attended activity with usually 10 to 13 residents attending. 3. R27's face sheet documented an admission date of 7/23/22 with diagnoses including anxiety disorder, spinal stenosis, insomnia, anemia, gout. R27's 11/24/23 Minimum Data Set (MDS) documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating R27 was moderately cognitively impaired. R27's 5/26/23 annual MDS section F Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities documented it was very important to listen to music, be around animals, and do things with groups of people. R27's full care plan printed 2/13/24 documented no activity care plan. On 2/6/24 at 11:25 AM, R27 said the facility did not have activities every day. R27 said she thought the facility had an activity every other day. R27 said she was not sure if there was an activity calendar posted in the facility because she had never seen one. The facility's February 2024 activities calendar documented: 2/8/24 10:00 AM sensory, 10:30 AM Valentine's Day crafting, 11:00 AM social gathering. 2/9/24 10:00 AM sensory, 10:30 AM music circle, 11:00 AM daily delights. R27 was not seen participating in any activities on 2/8/24 or 2/9/24. 4. R7's face sheet documented an admission date of 12/3/16 with diagnoses including: heart failure, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, Parkinson's disease. R7's full care plan printed 2/13/24 documented no activity care plan. R7's 1/12/24 MDS documented a BIMS score of 12, indicating R7 was moderately cognitively impaired. This same MDS documented it was very important to listen to music, keep up with the news, and do thing with groups of people. 5. R13's face sheet documented an admission date of 9/5/12 with diagnoses including: malaise, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, Alzheimer's disease, mutism, dementia, dysphagia. R13's 12/1/23 MDS documented a BIMS score of 00, indicating R13 was not cognitively intact. R13's full care plan printed 2/13/24 documented a 7/18/23 care area for attention: has difficulty focusing on what is going on around her during meals and focus activities around her with interventions of provide smaller group activities to decrease distraction and give verbal cues to help prompt; but no activity care area. 6. R14's face sheet documented an admission date of 11/30/21 with diagnoses including: major depressive disorder, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, hypertension, Parkinson's disease with dyskinesia. R14's full care plan printed 2/13/24 documented a 12/17/23 care area for behavior: physically aggressive behavior toward peers with a 12/17/23 intervention to provide diversional activities; but no activity care area. R14's 12/1/23 MDS documented a BIMS score of 7, indicating R14 was severely cognitively impaired. This same MDS documented it was very important to listen to music, be around animals such as pets, and somewhat important to do things with groups of people. 7. R26's face sheet documented an admission date of 8/14/18 with diagnoses including: dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, abnormalities of gait and mobility, chronic kidney disease stage 3. R26's full care plan printed 2/13/24 documented no activity care plan. R26's 1/5/24 MDS documented a BIMS score of 11, indicating R26 was moderately cognitively impaired. This same MDS documented it was very important to listen to music, keep up with the news, and do things with groups of people. On 2/13/24 at 11:59 AM, V5 said the facility's morning activities were different every day. V5 said sometimes she would play music or just talk to the residents. V5 was asked why there were very few residents participating in the group activities and V5 said she did not know. V5 was asked what activity had the most participation by residents and V5 said bingo had the most resident interest and would usually have 10 to 15 residents in attendance. The facility's revised June 2018 Activity Evaluation policy documented in part .1. An activity evaluation is conducted as part of the comprehensive assessment to help develop an activities plan that reflects the choices and interests of the resident. 2. The resident's activity evaluation is conducted by Activity Department personnel, in conjunction with other staff who evaluate related factors such as functional level, cognition and medical conditions that may affect activities participation . 6. The activity evaluation is used to develop an individual activities care plan (separate from or as part of the comprehensive care plan) that will allow the resident to participate in activities of his/ her choice and interest. 7. Each resident's activities care plan relates to his/ her comprehensive assessment and reflects his/ her individual needs. 8. Through the interdisciplinary process, the activity evaluation and activities care plan identify if a resident is capable of pursuing activities independently, or if supervision and assistance are needed .
CONCERN (F)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to keep resident care areas and equipment clean and in a good state of repair. This has the potential to affect all 60 residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to keep resident care areas and equipment clean and in a good state of repair. This has the potential to affect all 60 residents living in the facility. Findings include: On 02/06/24 at 12:14 PM, Dining room observed having brown ceiling tiles around ceiling vent area. On 02/08/24 at approximately 9:59 A.M., V4 (Maintenance Supervisor) and V11 (Regional Maintenance) were asked about the vent in the dining room with discolored tiles around it. V4 stated that he was aware of the discoloration of the ceiling tiles around the vent. V4 stated that it was on his list to do he has just been busy and it hasn't been that way long. V11 asked V4 if he had tiles available and V4 replied yes. On 02/06/2024 at 09:00 AM, observation in R10's room revealed the following: cove base in the bathroom ripped, dry wall exposed and ripped, dust and debris noted where the cove based stopped. On 02/06/2024 at 09:04 AM, observation in R24 and R212's room revealed the following: bathroom sink dripping, mildew build up around faucet and chipped/bent fixture by hot water handle. On 02/06/2024 at 09:35 AM observation in R52's room revealed a quarter bed rail loose, able to be shaken. On 02/06/2024 at 09:38 AM observation in R11's room revealed the following: on the right side of the wheelchair, the arm rest is tattered and torn, and the personal fan in the room had a gray / brown debris noted on it. On 02/06/2024 at 10:11 AM observation in R34's room: the faucet in the resident bathroom dripped and had a mildew like substance built up around faucets, paint chips, and a toilet riser that appears to be a bed side commode place over the toilet, not affixed to anything. On 02/06/2024 at 10:21 AM observation in R6's room revealed the following: personal fan running with grey / brown dust debris observed to cover. Quarter rail observed to left upper side of bed, loose. On 02/06/2024 at 11:16 AM observation in R17's room revealed the following: Paint chips along with a small hole near the baseboard observed in room. Bathroom nonskid strip peeling in front of toilet. Mildew buildup observed on sink faucet. On 02/06/2024 at 11:41 AM observation in R44 and R12's room revealed the following: brown stained ceiling tiles x 6. On 02/08/2024 at approximately 10:00 A.M. an interview and tour with V4 and V11 was conducted. V4 stated that most of the items were on his list to do he has just been busy and hasn't gotten around to it. V11 stated that he expected all items to be corrected as soon as possible. V11 stated the fans with debris should be cleaned by housekeeping. V11 instructed V4 to start fixing the items immediately. Interview of V4 about the procedure of being notified of maintenance issues, V4 stated that when a maintenance issue arises there is a work order for that is filled out. After the work order form is filled out, V4 then puts them on a list to be completed. On 02/08/2024 at 11:13 AM, V12 (Housekeeping Manager) stated that housekeeping staff should be cleaning the personal fans. On 2/6/24 at 8:52 AM, the men's bathroom on the 600 hall had a crack in the floor between the sink and the urinal and another crack in the floor between the urinal and the toilet. The base boards around the urinal were peeling off the wall. The flooring below the urinal was stained yellowish. The sink had approximately 8 sharp edged areas where pieces of the front bottom edge of the sink was broken. Three ceiling tiles were discolored yellowish from water damage. On 2/6/24 at 8:55 AM, the 600 hallway walls had multiple vertical lines of wallpaper peeling up from the wall. Approximately 6 areas of peeling wall paper had a piece of clear tape at the bottom of the wall where the wall paper started. On 2/9/24 at 10:48 AM, V11 (Regional Maintenance) said he was not aware of the wall paper peeling off the wall on the 600 hallway. V11 said he was not aware of the men's bathroom on the 600 hall having a crack in the floor, the base boards peeling off the wall, the stained flooring under the urinal, or the water damaged ceiling tiles. The facility provided a list of male residents who were able to use the men's bathroom on the 600 hall indicating R28, R32, R49, R51, R57, and R59. The facility's Census List printed 2/6/24 documented residents residing on the 600 hall include: R13, R27, R32, R33, R45, R49, R51, R53, R56, R59, R262. The facility's revised May 2017 Quality of Life - Homelike Environment documented in part . 2. The facility staff and management shall maximize, to the extent possible, the characteristics of the facility that reflect a personalized, homelike setting. These characteristics include: a. Clean, sanitary and orderly environment; The Long Term Care Facility application for Medicare and Medicaid dated 2/6/24, documents 60 residents reside in the facility.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that food items in the kitchen were properly stored/labeled and equipment was properly cleaned and maintained. This fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that food items in the kitchen were properly stored/labeled and equipment was properly cleaned and maintained. This failure has the potential to affect all 60 residents residing in the facility. The Finings Include: During the initial tour of the facility on 2/6/24 at 8:40 AM the following concerns were noted: 1. A one gallon container of milk was in the refrigerator without a lid and not dated/labeled. 2. An open bag of shredded white and yellow cheese was found in the reach in refrigerator opened and not dated. The white shredded cheese was not sealed open to air in original bag. 3. A tray of drinks not labeled, not dated and uncovered were found in the reach in refrigerator. V40 (Corporate Director of Culinary Services) stated that they are drinks for the day for the residents. 4. The deep fryer located next to the oven was found to have food crumbs on the edges of it and floating in oil. 5. The walk-in freezer was found with the door not latched and ice accumulation on the floor under the bottom rack directly under the condenser unit approximately 12 inches deep and sloping out into the walking space. Ice was also found accumulating directly under the condenser unit forming a thick ice covering an electrical cord and outlet inside the walk in freezer unit. On 2/6/24 at 9:43 AM, V3 (Dietary Manager) stated, that he just started cooking last Wednesday and he noticed the ice then but did not report it to anyone. V3 stated that the ice looks the same as it did last Wednesday. V3 went on to state that the deep fryer is cleaned every couple weeks, but they do not keep a log of when it is to be cleaned. V3 thinks the deep fryer was cleaned at least a couple weeks ago. On 2/6/24 at 9:50 AM, V4 (Maintenance Supervisor) did not know of any issues with the freezer having ice buildup. V4 stated that he has not been notified of any issues with the freezer until now, but will start to work on it now. On 2/6/24 at 11:21 AM, V6 (Cook) stated that she is the afternoon cook and noticed the ice build up about 2 days ago, and it has been growing. V6 stated that she has not told anyone because she leaves after her shift about 8 PM and no one is around and she doesn't think about it when she gets here in the afternoon. On 2/8/24 at 1:32 PM, V11 (Regional Maintenance) stated that he has called a local heating and cooling company to verify that he has fixed the problem with the walk-in freezer. On 2/9/24 at 8:51AM, V11 stated that the local heating and cooling company found the unit had a leak in it and they filled it with freon. The Long Term Care Facility application for Medicare and Medicaid dated 2/6/24, documents 60 residents reside in the facility. The Labeling and Dating Foods (Date Marking) policy from contracted dietary company dated 2016 documents: All foods stored will be properly labeled according to the following guidelines .2. Date marking for refrigerated storage food items .once opened, all ready to eat, potentially hazardous food will be re-dated with a use by date according to current safe food storage guidelines or by the manufacturers expiration date.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on record review and interview the facility failed to maintain documentation of holding quarterly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings (QAPI). This has the potential to affect ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to maintain documentation of holding quarterly Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement meetings (QAPI). This has the potential to affect all 60 residents residing in the facility. The Findings Include: During the investigation and review of facility records no evidence of quarterly QAPI meeting attendance or meeting information was found or produced by the facility. On 2/9/24 at 2:30 PM, V1 (Administrator) stated that he is not able to find any documentation of minutes or attendance sheets prior to January 2024 for the facility's quarterly QAPI meeting. V1 went on to state that he started his employment at this facility in January 2024 and no QA information is able to be accessed prior to that. The Long Term Care Facility application for Medicare and Medicaid dated 2/6/24, documents 60 residents reside in the facility.
Dec 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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from resident to resident abuse for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse in the sample of 4. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was free from resident to resident abuse for 1 of 3 residents (R1) reviewed for abuse in the sample of 4. Findings include: A Facility Reported Incident document submitted to IDPH (Illinois Department of Public Health) dated 12/17/23 stated, It was reported at 10:00am on 12/17/23 that (R2) was attempting to wheel around R1 (in wheelchair) in the hallway when they began a verbal argument. As (R2) went around (R1), (R2's) wheelchair rolled over (R1's) toe. Residents were separated and nurse assessment completed on (R1's) toe, noting light bruising to big toe, attending physician and POA (Power of Attorney) notified. Orders received to x-ray (R1's) toe. Local police and Ombudsman notified. Investigation started. Final (investigation) will be sent in five days. R1's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 3/27/21 and diagnoses including Unspecified Dementia. R1's Nurse's Note dated 12/17/23 at 10:44am documents that (R1) allegedly ran over residents feet. Assessment made on resident left anterior foot appears to be bruised w/ (with) redness. Received order from on-call doctor at (local hospital Emergency Room) for STAT (immediately) x-ray and to remain non-weight bearing until results. R1's Observation and Assessment Documentation dated 12/17/23 at 11:25am under Observation Summary documents that R2 has bruising to left toes. On 12/27/23 at 11:46am, R1 observed sitting in her wheelchair, alert only to self. R1 was asked if she could recall another resident running over her foot and she said no. On 12/27/23 at 1:05pm, V9 was observed providing a skin check on R1's left foot. No injuries, bruises, or open areas were noted. R2's Face Sheet documented an admission date of 11/30/21 and diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Anxiety Disorder. On 12/27/23 at 11:20am , R2 was alert and oriented to person, place, and time. R2 acknowledged he purposely ran over R1's toe with his wheelchair. R2 stated R1 was in the hall blocking his access to get to the dining room. R2 stated he asked R1 to move three times, and when she didn't, he purposely ran over her toe. R2 stated staff, saw it on the camera and came over to where they were. R2 stated if the situation again presented itself, he would talk to staff instead. On 12/27/23 at 2:20pm V7, Housekeeper, stated on 12/17/23 at about 10am, she was walking toward the short hall entranceway to the dining room. V7 could hear R2 talking loud about being tired of people in his way, and he was going to start stepping on peoples toes. V7 then heard R1 say ouch. R2 then rolled out of the dining room mumbling under his breath, and R1 had a shocked look on her face. V7 stated she finished cleaning the dining room and then reported the incident to V10, Registered Nurse. On 12/27/23 at 2:30pm, V11, Activity Aid/Former Housekeeper, stated she also witnessed the altercation between R1 and R2. V11 stated R1 was in the short hallway leading into the dining room, sleeping in her wheelchair. V11 stated she saw R2 tell R1 to move. V11 stated she told R2 that R1 was asleep. R2 stated he was going to start running over people's toes. V11 heard R1 say, Ouch, my toe. V11 stated R2 said, I'm tired of people getting in my way. V11 stated she and V7 finished putting the cleaning cart up and went and reported the incident to V10. V10 told them to call V1. On 12/28/23 at 10:20am, V1 stated staff are to report abuse immediately to her, and she is the facility's Abuse Coordinator. V1 stated V1's understanding is that V7 and V11 reported the incident immediately to V10. V1 stated she began an immediate investigation after she was notified and she notified law enforcement, the facility's Ombudsman representative, R1 and R2's Physicians and [NAME] of Attorney, and IDPH. The Facility's Abuse Prevention Policy dated 8/16/21 stated, This facility affirms the right of our residents to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion. The facility therefore prohibits mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of its residents, and has attempted to establish a resident sensitive and resident secure environment.
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure preventative cleaning measures were implemented to promote pest control and maintain an environment free of insects. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review the facility failed to ensure preventative cleaning measures were implemented to promote pest control and maintain an environment free of insects. This failure has the ability to affect all 62 residents living at the facility. Findings include: On 12/27/23 at 11:40am, R4 was alert and oriented to person, place, time and purpose. R4 stated she has seen roaches in the facility dining room on her table within the past few weeks. On 12/28/23 at 8:50am, a roach was observed crawling on the floor of the Activity/Alternate Dining Room. On 12/28/23 at 9:00am, the facility kitchen was toured. V4, Cook, stated for past 2 to 3 weeks he has seen roaches in the dish room. The floor of the dish room was flooded with food debris under the garbage disposal. The dish room smelled of rotting food. V4 stated V5, Dietary Manager, and V1, Administrator, are aware of this issue. V4 stated it is his understanding is they are trying to get an exterminator to come to the facility. V4 stated the roaches are probably due to the disposal leaking and attracting them. V4 stated the disposal got fixed 3 to 4 weeks ago but is broken again and has been leaking for the past week. V4 stated V6, Maintenance Director, has looked at it several times. V4 stated all shifts are to clean and he hasn't had a chance to clean yet today. A shelf by the service window containing a tray of clean cups was noted to have a roach crawling on the tray, with food debris and grime on the tray. Shelving over the food preparation (prep) area held a container, covered with grime, which held brown sugar, cheese puffs, and vanilla wafers which were open to air. A sign over the prep area stated, Everything must be sealed, labeled, and dated. A food prep table in the center of the room under which there was shelving, and this shelving was heavy with grime and food crumbs. Clean sheet pans were being stored on this shelf. Utensils such as spatulas were stored on the prep table in a grimy container in which there was food debris. Also on the prep table were roach adhesive traps containing dead roaches. A grimy container with oven mitts was observed to contain food particles. Gnats were flying around and landing on the utensils. A toaster oven was soiled with grime and crumbs. A flat top grill's grease trap was full of congealed oil and chunks of food. A deep fryer was full of dark oil with food debris and heavy grime on its surfaces. The freezer area contained a laundry basket of dirty rags with gnats flying around it. Bins of flour and sugar being stored on the floor were heavily soiled with grime. An empty steam table was noted to have food particles in the compartments. The dining room had built in drawers with various items such as drinking straws, and was noted to have dead roaches in all the drawers. On 12/28/23 at 9:40am, V7, Housekeeping staff, stated she has been employed at the facility for about a year and has observed roaches in the building on a daily basis since then. V7 stated she has observed roaches crawling on trays and food during meal service. V7 stated while standing at the service window, she has observed roaches crawling on the walls in the kitchen. V7 stated it is dietary staff's responsibility to clean the kitchen. V7 stated a pest control company comes and sprays periodically but it never seems to help. On 12/28/23 at 10:00am V5 stated there have been roaches since about 11/27/23, and V1 is aware. V5 stated a pest control contractor comes and sprays every few weeks, and was last here about 3 weeks ago. V5 stated as far as V5 knows, he hasn't been back and nobody has called him. V5 stated the disposal was fixed a few weeks ago but has been leaking again for about a week. V5 stated he not sure what is wrong with it but he thinks it may be due to kitchen staff getting it too full without flushing it with water. On 12/28/23 at 10:20am, V1 stated she was not aware of roaches or disposal issues in the kitchen, but a family member told her yesterday there was a roach in a resident room. V1 stated the facility's pest control contractor is scheduled to come monthly and if there is a problem between appointments, the facility can notify them and they will come out. V1 stated the pest control vendor was last at the facility on 12/10/23. On 12/28/2023 at 10:45am, V6 stated the garbage disposal has been having problems for about a month. V6 stated the unit was fixed but began acting up again on 12/26/23. V6 stated he examined it and found the collar on the unit had failed. V6 stated he called his corporate Maintenance Director who then ordered a new collar, which has not yet arrived. V6 denied ever seeing roaches in the kitchen but acknowledged that residents have complained about roaches. V6 stated he believes the pest control contractor sprayed a couple of weeks ago. V6 stated he does not accompany the contractor when he visits. On 12/28/23 at 11:11am, V6 reported a garbage disposal had been located at a sister facility and it would be delivered on 12/28/23 and the project would be completed by the morning of 12/29/2023. An undated Pest Control and Prevention Policy stated, It is the policy of this facility to control pests and vermin and provide a clean, safe environment for its residents and staff and to establish procedures that ensure those conditions are maintained on a continuous basis. Procedure step 4 of the same policy documents The facility shall enforce rules and regulations related to the storage of perishable items from meals to prevent opportunistic pestilence such as gnats and rodents. At each facility, residents will be assisted to ensure all food items are kept in sealed containers or contained in original sealed packages. Under the section titled Control step 1 documents Each facility's daily sanitation inspection of the facility shall include checking for presence of pests or vermin. It will also include proper disposal of trash and food waste, properly stored food items and lids on dumpsters are closed. Supplies will be removed from cardboard boxes where possible upon receipt. According to terminex.com/roachcontrol, the following things attract roaches: Food, Water, Shelter. Recommendations include to eliminate access to food by throwing away food that has been left out on counters .throw garbage away every night. Clean by wiping surface of food prep areas and remove any crumbs from the floor. Deep cleaning is important .clean under appliances and wipe down appliances on the counter .clean underneath and behind refrigerator, stove and check drawers for leftover food debris. Store food in airtight containers .or in airtight bags that are stored off the floor, ideally in a cabinet or pantry. Remove standing water by checking pipes and repairing any leaks . A Room Roster dated 12/27/23 documented a total of 62 residents living at the facility.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately label insulin with resident's name and date...

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 accurately label insulin with resident's name and date of opening for 6 (R3, R7, R11, R14, R16, R37) of 12 residents reviewed for medication labeling and storage in a sample of 26. Findings include: On [DATE] at 10:10AM, the medication cart serving rooms 100 through 308 was observed to have 1 Novolog Flexpen with no name or open date, 2 of R14's Humalog Kwikpens with no open date, 1 Levemir Flextouch with no name or open date, 1 Humalog Kwikpen with no name or open date, 1 of R11's Basaglar pens with no date, 1 Lantus vial with no name or date, and 1 of R14's Lantus vials with no open date. V4 (Registered Nurse/RN) said all the insulins should be labeled with the resident's name and date of opening. R7's face sheet documented an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including: hypertension, heart failure, major depressive disorder. R7's Physician Order Sheet (POS) documented an [DATE] order for Lantus 100 unit/ ml (milliliter) 25 units every morning. R11's face sheet documented an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including: hypertension, anxiety disorder, cerebral infarction, fatty liver. R11's POS documented a [DATE] order for Basaglar 100 unit/ ml 35 units at bedtime, an [DATE] order for Novolog 100 unit/ ml 8 units 3 times a day before meals, and a [DATE] order for Novolog 100 unit/ ml sliding scale three times a day. R14's face sheet documented an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including: anxiety disorder, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension. R14's POS documented a [DATE] order for Lantus 100 unit/ ml 12 units twice a day, [DATE] order for Humalog 100 unit/ ml sliding scale twice a day. R37's face sheet documented an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including: anemia in chronic kidney disease, end stage renal failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension. R37's POS documented a [DATE] order for Humalog 100 unit/ ml 3 units with meals three times daily, and a [DATE] order for Humalog 100 unit/ ml sliding scale twice a day. On [DATE] at 1:38PM, V2 (Director of Nursing/DON) said R7, R11, R14, and R37 were the only residents served from the 100 through 308 medication cart with orders for the types of undated insulins found. On [DATE] at 9:56AM, the medication cart serving rooms 400 through 504 was observed to have 2 Basaglar pens with no name or open date, 2 Novolog Flexpens with no name or open date, 2 Levemir Flextouch with no name or open date, 1 Humalog Kwikpen with R16's name written on it but no opened date. V5 (Licensed Practical Nurse/LPN) said he was unsure who the different insulins belonged to because he mostly worked dayshift and those different type of insulins were given on a different shift. V5 said the resident's name and date of opening should be written on them. R3's face sheet documented an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including: chronic diastolic heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, anemia in chronic kidney disease. R3's POS documented a [DATE] order for Levemir 100 unit/ ml 20 units every morning, and a [DATE] order for Levemir 100 units/ ml 10 units every night. R16's face sheet documented an admission date of [DATE] and diagnoses including: heart failure, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, obstructive sleep apnea. R16's POS documented a [DATE] order for Basaglar 100 unit/ ml 40 units twice a day, a [DATE] Humalog 100 unit/ ml sliding scale twice a day. On [DATE] at 1:38PM, V2 (DON) said R3 and R16 were the only residents served from the 400 through 504 medication cart with orders for the types of undated insulins found. V2 said all insulin pens and vials should have the resident's name and date of opening on them. V2 said once insulin pens and vials are opened, they have an expiration date depending on the type of insulin some being 28 days and some being 31 days. V2 said if there was no open date on the insulin, staff would not know when the insulin becomes expired. V2 said all insulins in the medication cart belong to specific residents and no multidose insulin pens or vials were stock medications used for multiple residents. The facility's [DATE] Insulin Administration policy documented in part .5. The nursing staff will have access to specific instructions . on all forms of insulin delivery system(s) prior to their use 8. Facility will follow the manufacturer guidelines for stability of insulins and pens. For storage and use . the vial or pen should be dated when it is opened .Stability of Common Insulins in Vials and Pens . Opened at Room or Refrigerator Temperature (days): Novolog FlexPen 28 days, Levmir FlexPen 42 days, Basaglar 28 days, Humalog 28 days, Lantus 28 days .
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: 2 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 32 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $23,989 in fines. Higher than 94% of Illinois facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (4/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 4/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within Illinois, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare Staffed?

CMS rates ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 100%, which is 53 percentage points above the Illinois average of 47%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 100%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare?

State health inspectors documented 32 deficiencies at ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 30 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 Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare?

ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE 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 WLC MANAGEMENT FIRM, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 56 residents (about 57% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ELDORADO, Illinois.

How Does Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (100%) is significantly higher than the state average of 47%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare?

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 Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Illinois. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare Stick Around?

Staff turnover at ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE is high. At 100%, the facility is 53 percentage points above the Illinois average of 47%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 100%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. 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 Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare Ever Fined?

ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE has been fined $23,989 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Illinois average of $33,319. 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 Eldorado Rehab & Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?

ELDORADO REHAB & HEALTHCARE 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.