AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN

1754-1760 CAPITAL STREET, ELGIN, IL 60124 (847) 531-6004
For profit - Individual 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
76/100
#16 of 665 in IL
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Avondale Estates of Elgin has received a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families considering options for their loved ones. The facility ranks #16 out of 665 nursing homes in Illinois, placing it in the top half of state facilities, and #2 out of 25 in Kane County, meaning only one local option is better. However, the facility's trend is worsening, as the number of reported issues increased from 2 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a mixed bag; while turnover is at a relatively low 36%, which is better than the state average, the facility only received 3 out of 5 stars for staffing, indicating average performance. Additionally, they faced fines totaling $15,958, which is average but could reflect some ongoing compliance issues. On the positive side, the facility has more registered nurse coverage than 88% of nursing homes in Illinois, ensuring that residents receive attentive care. Yet, there are notable concerns; for instance, the facility failed to conduct required testing for Legionella bacteria, which could pose health risks to residents. Furthermore, there was an incident where staff did not use the correct sanitizing solution in the kitchen, raising potential hygiene concerns. Lastly, medications were not securely stored for some residents, which could lead to safety issues. Overall, while Avondale Estates has strengths in staffing and RN coverage, the recent increase in issues and specific incidents highlight areas that need improvement.

Trust Score
B
76/100
In Illinois
#16/665
Top 2%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
2 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% turnover. Near Illinois's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$15,958 in fines. Higher than 95% of Illinois facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 70 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Illinois nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
11 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★★★
5.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (36%)

    12 points below Illinois average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 36%

10pts below Illinois avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $15,958

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 11 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jun 2025 5 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care to a resident resulting in resident acquiring MASD (Moisture Associated Skin Damage) to his ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide timely incontinence care to a resident resulting in resident acquiring MASD (Moisture Associated Skin Damage) to his left and right buttock. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R368) reviewed for incontinence care in a sample of 20. The findings include: On 6/25/2025 at 9:10 AM during incontinence care with V4 (RN-Registered Nurse/Wound Care Nurse) and V5 (CNA- Certified Nurse Assistant), redness was noted on R368's left and right buttocks. R368 said during midnight shift on 6/25/2025, V8 (CNA- Certified Nurse Assistant) did not dry him well after incontinence care. He said first, he waited for 45 minutes for his call light to be answered while observing V8 walking up and down the hallway and ignoring his call light. R368 said that when V8 finally provided incontinence care, she did not wipe and dry him well. He said he even had to request for V8 to change his bed pad because it was soaked with urine and sweat. R368 verbalized pain when reddened area was touched during assessment by V4 (RN). R368 said he is sure his skin issue is due to being left soaked for a long period of time. V4 assessed the reddened areas during incontinence care and said it was MASD because the skin felt moist to touch. During incontinence care at 9:10 AM, V5 said this was the first time she provided incontinence care to R368 since she started the shift at 6:00 AM. On 6/25/2025 at 9:40 AM, V6 (LPN-Licensed Practical Nurse) said she has no knowledge of R368's skin issue and the previous shift did not mention anything about R368's skin issue. On 6/26/2025 at 11:09 AM, V2 (ADON-Assistant Director of Nursing) said he expects staff to provide incontinence care every two hours and as needed. He said when providing incontinence care, he expects staff to make sure resident is dry to prevent skin breakdown. He said he expects staff to report to nurses if skin issues are discovered. R368's MDS (Minimum Data sheet) dated 6/20/2025 shows he needs substantial/maximal assistance for toileting hygiene and lower body dressing, and he needs partial/moderate assist with upper body dressing. It is documented that R368 is occasionally incontinent of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. R368's Braden Scale done 6/18/2025 documents R368 is at risk for pressure ulcer. R368's admission skin check done 6/18/2025 documents there were no skin issue to left and right buttock. On 6/25/2025, R368's POS Physician Order Sheet) did not show an order for any moisture barrier cream. Facility's Policy on Incontinent - Peri Care (revised on March 2020) showed the following: Purpose: The purpose of this procedure are to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition. Procedure: 8. After providing incontinent/peri-care, rinse the area thoroughly and pat dry after rinsing .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 resident's pain was managed. This applies to ...

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 resident's pain was managed. This applies to 1 resident (R369) reviewed for pain management in a sample of 20. Findings include: On 6/24/25 at 1:09 PM, R369 was sitting in the bed. Alert and well oriented. R369 stated when he was admitted the day before in the evening, his pain was at 8-9 out of 10. He stated that he was on Norco 1-2 pills every six hours as needed and that he had his own bottle of Norco with him. R369 stated that he did not sleep the whole night because of pain. R369 stated facility nurse would not give him anything for pain and so he took two pills of Norco from his own bottle around midnight and again two pills of Norco around 5:30 AM on 6/24/25. R369 stated that then the pain reduced. On 6/26/24 at 10:17 AM, V2 (ADON) stated R369 was admitted on [DATE] at 6:00 PM. V2 stated R369 did not receive any medication for pain from the facility since admission until 9:00 AM on 6/24/25 and R369's pain should have been managed better. V2 stated R369 should have received acetaminophen or norco as the orders were to be given for pain as needed. V2 stated the facility had these medications available in the facility for emergency use. R369's face-sheet showed that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of B-cell lymphoma and pain in left hip. R369's POS (Physician Order Sheet) for June 2025 included an order dated 6/23/25 for two tablets of Tylenol 500 mg by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. The same POS showed an admission order on 6/23/25 for Norco 5-325 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. R369's MAR (Medication Administration Record) for June 2025 showed he did not receive any medication for pain since admission on [DATE] at 6:00 PM, until 6/24/25 at 9:00 AM. R369's Vital Signs included pain score of 7 on 6/23/24 at 10:38 PM, and pain of 8 on 6/24/25 at 8:53 AM, both on a 1-10 scale. R369's progress notes dated 6/23/25 at 10:52 PM showed Pain intensity: 10 and that it was very severe and horrible. The note showed that the indicator for the pain was vocal complaints of pain at 7 out of 10 in the left knee, which was aching. Facility Pain Management policy (revised March 2021) showed 1. The pain management program is to provide comfort to the patient. 5. Resident's pain level should be assessed at least every shift and interventions implemented as appropriate .
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 secure medications. This applies to 5 out of 5 ( R28, ...

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 secure medications. This applies to 5 out of 5 ( R28, R49, R56, R269, R369) reviewed for medications in a sample size of 20. The findings include: 1. On 6/24/25 at 1:09 PM, R369 was sitting on the bed. Alert and well oriented. R369 stated that he was on Norco 1-2 pills every six hours as needed and that he had his own bottle of Norco with him. R369 stated he had a pill box full of his pills in his drawer. A weekly pill box with medications for three times a day dosing filled with pills was in R369's drawer. Also in his drawer was one bottle of acetaminophen (500 mg/325 caplets) almost full, and two boxes containing 15 patches of 4% Lidocaine gel. The drawer with medications was not locked. R369's progress notes dated 6/23/25 at 22:59 showed R369 had his own medications with him. On 6/24/25 at 10:44 AM, V15 (RN-Registered Nurse) stated on 6/24/25, she took away a bottle of Norco from R369 after V16's (Physician) rounded in the morning. V15 stated from the time R369 was admitted on [DATE] at 6:00 PM until the doctor rounded on 6/24/25 morning, R369 had the bottle of Norco with him. V15 stated she gave that bottle of Norco to V3 (ADON-Assistant Director of Nursing). V15 stated around 2:00 PM on 6/24/25, R369 was moved to another room and his pill box filled with medications, the bottle of acetaminophen, and the lidocaine patches were also sent with him to his new room and left in his drawer. On 6/26/25 at 10:50 AM, V3 stated, R369 had these medications at his bedside from 6/23/25 at 6:00 PM till 6/24/25 afternoon. On 6/26/25 at 10:44 AM, V2 (DON) stated, there were no Physician orders and no assessment done for R369 to keep his medications at his bedside. 2. 6/26/25 at 09:57 AM, a bottle of TUMS antacid was noted on R56's bedside table. She said she brought it from home and takes 2 tablets every night for indigestion. R56's POS (Physician Order Sheet) was reviewed, no order for TUMS was included, and no order for medication to stay at the bedside. 3. On 6/24/2025 at 9:59 AM, an unlabeled Albuterol Sulfate HFA was noted on R49's bed side table. He said he brought it from home and self-administers it once daily in the morning. R49's POS was reviewed, there is an order for Albuterol Sulfate but no order to keep any medication at bedside. 4. On 6/24/2025 at 10:13 AM R28 had a bottle of TUMS antacid on her bed side table. She said she uses it for heartburn and the medication was brought in by family. R28 also had a tube of Ketoconazole cream 2%, and Hydrocortisone cream 2.5% on top of her bedside table. She said she brought both creams from home and puts it on her left forehead. R28's POS included no orders for any medications found by bed side, and she had no order for medications to stay by bedside. 5. On 06/24/25 at 10:22 AM, unlabeled Symbicort inhaler was seen on R269's bedside table. He said he uses it when he has shortness of breath and he brought it from home. R269's POS included no order for the medication and no order for medication to stay at bedside. On 6/26/2025 at 11:09 AM, V2 (ADON) said there are no residents with orders for medication to stay at the bedside. V2 stated if medications are kept at bedside, they should be kept in a drawer that has a lock so nobody can have access to it aside from the resident for safety reasons. On 6/25/25 at 11:45 AM V6 (LPN-Licensed Practical Nurse) stated, if a resident's mental capacity is normal and if they want to have medications with them, then facility need to do assessment and get Physician orders for those medications to be kept at bedside. If all this not applicable, they cannot have their medications at bedside. Facility's Policy on Storage of Medications revised on March 2020 stated the following: Policy Statement: The facility shall store all drugs and biologicals safely, securely and orderly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when caring for residents needing those precautions. This applies to 4 of 4 (R2, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) when caring for residents needing those precautions. This applies to 4 of 4 (R2, R27, R56 and R369) residents reviewed for infection control in a sample of 20. Findings include: 1. On 6/23/25 at 1:41 PM, R2 exited the washroom in her room and V18 (CNA-Certified Nursing Assistant) was still in the washroom tying up the garbage. V18 stated she helped R2 to clean up after using the toilet. V18 did not wear a gown. A sign outside R2's room door showed EBP and there was a bin with PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) outside R2's room. R2's Physician Order Sheet (POS) dated 6/10/25 showed EBP related to wound 2. On 6/24/25 at 11:40 AM, observed V19 (OT-Occupational Therapist) and V20 (Physical Therapist) provide therapy to R369 in his room, including transfers from & to bed. R369 had a PICC (intravenous) line with a dressing on it on R369's right upper arm. Neither V19 or V20 wore a gown, and there was no sign outside the door indicating EBP was required. On 6/26/25 at 9:30 AM, there was still no EBP outside R369's door. R369's Physician order dated 6/26/25 (during the survey) showed EBP related to intravenous access. 3. On 6/26/25 at 9:46 AM, observed V21 (CNA) provided a bed bath to R27 without wearing a gown. R27 had a urinary catheter. R27 had a sign indicating EBP outside the door. R27's Physician order dated 4/18/25 showed EBP related to urinary catheter. On 6/26/25 at 9:52 AM, V22 (RN-Registered Nurse) stated R27 was on EBP for use of a urinary catheter and V21 should have worn gown and gloves while giving him a bath for infection control reasons. 4. On 6/23/2025 at 2:45 PM, V7 (RN-Registered Nurse) administered R56's IV (intravenous) medication. V7 wore gloves and was not wearing a gown. On 6/26/2025 at 9:50 AM, V2 (ADON- Assistant Director of Nursing) said nurses should wear a gown and gloves when giving injections and IV medication. V2 stated nurses should wear proper PPE to prevent contamination. R56's POS documents R56 is on EBP for PICC (Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter) line. R56 has an order for Cefazolin Sodium 2 grams intravenously three times a day for infection. On 6/26/25 at 10:20 AM, V2 (ADON-Assistant Director of Nursing) stated, V18 and V21 should have worn gown while providing care to R2 and R27, respectively, as both residents were on EBP. V2 stated the nursing staff should have put EBP signage outside the door of R369 so that therapists and other staff would know to follow the EBP precautions. V2 stated, any staff caring for residents on EBP must wear gown and gloves as per facility policy. Facility's Policy/Guidelines on Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) dated 9/23/2022 documents the following: 5. c) Use of PPE: ii.Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) require the use of a gown and gloves when performing high-contact resident care activities. 6. What are High-Contact Resident Care Activities: g. Device care or use (urinary catheters, feeding tubes, tracheostomy/ventilator, central lines.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow an Antibiotic Stewardship Program for residents receiving antibiotics. This applies to 5 of 5 residents (R216, R217, R167, R23, R24)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow an Antibiotic Stewardship Program for residents receiving antibiotics. This applies to 5 of 5 residents (R216, R217, R167, R23, R24) reviewed for Antibiotic Stewardship in a sample of 20. The findings include: On June 25, 2025 at 2:03 PM, V2 (ADON/Assistant Director of Nursing) went over the Antibiotic Stewardship Program. V2 said the McGeers tool was used to determine whether the resident meets the requirement for the use of antibiotics. V2 said the tool should be used before the resident has started on the antibiotic. V2 said residents admitted from the hospital with antibiotics should also have the McGeers tool completed to ensure the antibiotics were appropriate to continue in the facility. 1. R23's face sheet showed he was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including sepsis and urinary tract infections. R23's POS showed an order for Macrobid Oral 100 MG for UTI starting June 20, 2025 ending June 25, 2025. R23's McGeers Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) Surveillance Definitions tool dated June 20, 2025 showed R23 did not meet urinary tract infection criteria. R23's EMR showed she was still given antibiotics. At 2:03 PM, V2 said he filled out the McGeers tool on June 20, 2025 because that was when he was made aware of the symptoms. V2 said he filled out the form based on the resident's symptoms at the time. 2. R24's face sheet showed he was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including follicular disorder. R24's POS showed orders for Cephalexin Oral 500 MG two times a day related to follicular disorder starting June 20, 2025 and ending June 27, 2025. At 2:03 PM, V2 said R24 had wounds on her head and the Nurse Practitioner ordered Cephalexin. V2 said he was notified of the use of antibiotics after R24 had been started on the antibiotic. V2 said the McGeers tool should have been done before the resident was started on the antibiotic. V2 said he filled out R24's McGeers tool incorrectly. R23's McGeers tool dated June 20, 2025 showed Skin and Soft Tissue Infection Criteria not met. 1. R216's face sheet showed he was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diverticulitis, bacteremia, and elevated white blood cell count. R216's POS (Physician Order Sheet) showed an order dated June 18, 2025 for Meropenem Intravenous 1 gram intravenously two times a day for bacteremia until June 29, 2025 11:59 PM. 3. At 2:03 PM, V2 said R216 came from the hospital with an order for IV (Intravenous) antibiotic. V2 said neither the McGeers tool nor any standardized tool was used when R216 was admitted to the facility from the hospital. V2 said the facility just followed the orders the resident was sent with from the hospital. V2 said he completed an antibiotic time out tool. R216's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed an Antibiotic Time Out form dated June 20, 2025 showed the doctor ordered to continue with current antibiotic therapy. 4. R217's face sheet showed she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cellulitis of the right and left lower limbs. R217's POS showed orders for metronidazole oral tablet 500 MG (Milligrams) three times a day for BLE (Bilateral Lower Extremity) wounds for 10 days, which started April 25, 2025 and ended May 5, 2025, Cefdinir 300 MG, two times a day for BLE wounds for 10 days, which started April 25, 2025 and ended May 5, 2025, Bactrim 800-160 MG for UTI (Urinary Tract Infection) for 7 days, started June 15, 2025 and ending June 22, 2025, Ceftazidime 500 MG IV for UTI for 7 days, started June 15, 2025 through June 23, 2025, Fosfomycin Tromethamine 3 Grams for UTI for three administrations, starting June 15, 2025 through June 22, 2025, Meropenem 1 Gram IV for UTI, starting June 3, 2025 through June 6, 2025. At 2:03 PM, V2 said R217 was admitted from the hospital with oral Cefdinir 300 MG and oral Flagyl 500 MG. V2 said he reviewed the hospital records when she was admitted , which showed to continue the antibiotics. V2 said he did not have a McGeers tool completed for R217 for the antibiotics she was admitted with. V2 said R217 was also prescribed Meropenem 1 Gram IV on June 3, 2025 and Ceftazidime 500 MG IV on June 16, 2025 because R217 had acquired ESBL (Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases) of the urine in the facility. V2 said he did not complete the McGeers tool because he was not made aware of the infections until after R217 was already started on antibiotics. V2 said he did not fill out the McGeers tool for the Ceftazidime 500 MG because they were treating the same infection. V2 said if there was another antibiotic ordered, he should have also filled out the Antibiotic Time Out form. 5. R167's face sheet showed he was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cellulitis of right lower limb, bacteremia, and sepsis. R167's POS showed orders for Cefazolin Sodium 2 Grams IV for wounds starting June 17, 2025 with no end date, Cefazolin Sodium 2 Grams for wounds starting June 17, 2025 and ending July 23, 2025, and a third order for Cefazolin Sodium 2 Grams for wounds starting June 16, 2025 with no end date. The facility was unable to provide the McGeers tools or Antibiotic Time Out completed for any of the antibiotics ordered and administered for R167.
May 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to attempt to remove an indwelling urinary catheter that ...

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 attempt to remove an indwelling urinary catheter that was placed after recent surgery, failed to ensure the drainage bag did not touch the floor and failed to have a baseline care plan for indwelling catheter care. This applies to 1 of 3 residents (R47) reviewed for urinary catheter care in the sample of 17. Findings include: R47's EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed R47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with multiple diagnoses including, presence of left hip artificial joint aftercare, chronic diastolic congestive heart failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus with other diabetic kidney complications, essential hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and leukocytosis. R47's MDS (Minimum Data Set) dated April 26, 2024, showed R47 was moderately cognitively impaired and required assistance with ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) including partial staff assistance with eating, oral and personal hygiene, dependent on staff for assistance with toileting, and substantial assistance required with bathing, dressing, bed mobility, and transfer. On May 22, 2024, at 1:00 PM, V2 (IP Nurse) stated when a resident is admitted to the facility with an indwelling urinary catheter, the facility should be sure there is a follow up appointment with urology and a voiding trial should be attempted to remove the catheter if possible. V2 stated the facility did not do a voiding trial for R47. V2 also stated he spoke with R47's NP (Nurse Practitioner) today who ordered a voiding trial for R47. R47's EMR showed R47's Incontinence/Indwelling Foley Catheter Observation dated April 24, 2024, showed .7. Has a trial of a toileting program (e.g., . scheduled toileting, prompted voiding, or bladder training) been attempted on admission/entry or reentry or since urinary incontinence was noted in this facility? .answer No . 8.What was the resident's response to the trial program? .answer, not assessed .9. Current toileting program or trial? answer .not assessed/no information. There was no additional catheter assessment completed. On May 22, 2024, at 10:50 AM, V4 (MDS/Care Plan Nurse) showed a baseline care plan dated April 24, 2024, that did not have a plan for indwelling urinary catheter. V4 stated the care plan had no goal and no interventions listed for catheter care and maintenance. V4 stated the care plan for indwelling catheter care should include to maintain the drainage bag in a privacy bag, be sure there were no kinks in the tubing and be sure the drainage bag was not on the floor. The care plan for indwelling urinary catheter was initiated on May 22, 2024. On May 20, 2024, at 10:49 AM, R47 was in bed, receiving care from V8 (Wound Care Nurse) at the end of the bed, the urinary drainage bag was lying on the floor, next to the privacy bag on the left side visible from the doorway. On May 22, 2024, at 10:45 AM, V6 (LPN) stated R47's indwelling urinary catheter was inserted in the hospital on April 21, 2024. R47's hospital assessment and plan dated April 19, 2024, showed R47 had acute urinary retention most likely due to recent anesthesia effect, does have recurrent urinary retention s/p (status post) indwelling urinary catheter placement. The facility's policy titled Catheter Care, Urinary, dated November 2017, showed Infection Control .c. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are below the resident's bladder and kept off the floor .e. Cover the urinary bag to provide privacy.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

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 three resident's central venous catheter dress...

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 three resident's central venous catheter dressings were changed within 48 hours as per the facility policy. This applies to 3 of 3 residents (R44, R23, and R357) reviewed for central venous catheters in the sample of 17. The findings include: 1. R44 is a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Aftercare Following Joint Replacement Surgery, and Infection and Inflammatory Reaction Due to Other Internal Joint Prosthesis. On May 20, 2024 at 11:38 AM, R44 had a right upper arm central venous catheter with gauze covering the insertion site, and a transparent dressing was on top. The dressing was dated May 19, 2024. R44 stated they changed his central line venous dressing yesterday. On May 22, 2024 at 9:05 AM with V7 (RN), R44's right upper arm central venous catheter dressing was still dated May 19, 2024, and the insertion site was still covered with the same gauze and transparent dressing. 2. R23 is a [AGE] year old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Bacteremia and Effusion of Left Knee. On May 20, 2024 at 3:06 PM, R23 had a left upper arm central venous catheter with gauze covering the insertion site, and the transparent dressing on top was dated May 19, 2024. On May 22, 2024 at 9:07 AM with V7, R23's left upper arm central venous catheter dressing was still dated May 19, 2024, and the insertion site was still covered with the same gauze and transparent dressing. 3. R357 is a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that include Osteomyelitis, Inflammatory Conditions of Jaws, and Cutaneous Abscess of Face. On May 20, 2024 at 3:08 PM R357's had a right upper arm central venous catheter with gauze covering the insertion site, and the transparent dressing on top was dated May 19, 2024. On May 22, 2024 at 9:11 AM with V7, R357's right upper arm central venous catheter dressing was still dated May 19, 2024, and the insertion site was still covered with the same gauze and transparent dressing. V7 stated that she is not aware what the policy is in regards to changing the central venous catheter dressings. V7 stated V2 (Infection Preventionist) would know. On May 22, 2024 at 1:58 PM, V2 (Infection Preventionist) stated that peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lines or midline catheter insertion site dressing changes should be completed every 5-7 days. However, if gauze is used on the dressing the dressing should be changed every 48 hours. On May 23, 2024 at 10:28 AM, V2 stated that the reason for changing central venous line dressing with gauze is to prevent infection and to monitor the insertion site and integrity of the dressing. R44, R23, and R357's Treatment Administration Records showed that their central venous line dressings were all last changed on May 19, 2024. The facility's Midline Dressing Policy dated September 2, 2016 showed the following: Policy: Midline catheter dressings will be changed at specified intervals, or when needed, to prevent catheter-related infections associated with contaminated, loosened or soiled catheter-site dressings. General Guidelines: 4. Use a sterile, transparent, semi-permeable membrane (TSM) or gauze dressing. If gauze dressing is used, cover the gauze with a TSM dressing and change the dressing every 48 hours.
Jul 2023 4 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B. Based on interview and record the facility failed to follow their Water Management Program and test yearly for the Legionella...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** B. Based on interview and record the facility failed to follow their Water Management Program and test yearly for the Legionella bacteria. This applies to all 77 (Census on form 672) residents residing in the facility. The findings include: The facility provided their Water Management binder. Review of the binder showed the facility water had been tested for the Legionella bacteria in September 2018. On June 29, 2023 at 12:46 PM V28 (Maintenance Director) and V29 (Assistant Maintenance Director) said they test the water temperatures in the building, but they are not testing the water for Legionella and do not think there is a company coming in to do it. On June 29, 2023 at 1:02 PM, V1 (Administrator) said they do not have a company coming to do annual testing. Facility provided policy dated October 2018, titled Water Management Program Policy and Procedure showed Policy: The facility will implement the Water Management Program to reduce the risk for Legionnaire's disease associated with the building water system and devices, reduce the growth and spread of Legionella bacteria in the facility, and to identify areas or devices in the facility where Legionella might grow or spread to people so the facility can reduce that risk 4. Control measures and Corrective Actions: .C. The following but not limited to are the areas that will be routinely checked: Quality of Water: On a quarterly basis a culture sampling and analysis shall be performed during the first year of the program and annually thereafter (and PRN (as needed) basis). The facility failed to implement acceptable standard of infection control practices regarding the following: (due to two failures noted under this regulation, there are two deficient practice statements). A. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and ensure a resident (R362) with diagnosis of Candida Auris (highly contagious fungal rash infection) and with drainage from a non-contained open wound rash was placed on contact precautions, failed to prevent cross contamination during wound dressing change and while removing contaminated medications from the isolation room, failed to utilize dedicated medical equipment in an isolation room, and failed to educate staff and family regarding necessary contact precautions and use of protective equipment. This failure resulted in Immediate Jeopardy when R362 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was not placed on contact isolation precautions. This applies to 30 of 30 residents (R1, R18, R20, R28, R39, R40, R47, R48, R50, R53, R54, R57, R117, R118, R119, R120, R121, R122, R123, R124, R125, R126, R127, R128, R129, R141, R361, R362, R363 and R354) reviewed for infection control. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 6/19/23 at 8:00 PM when R362 was admitted to the facility. V1 (Administrator) and V2 (Director of Nursing) was notified of the immediate jeopardy on 6/28/23 at 11:58 AM. The surveyor confirmed by observation, interview, and record review that the immediate jeopardy was removed on 6/29/2023 at 9:51 A.M., but noncompliance remains at Level Two because additional time is needed to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the removal plan, including in-service training of staff on infection control. The findings include: The EMR (Electronic Medical Record) showed that R362, a [AGE] year-old, was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. R362's diagnoses included Candida Auris (Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dated December 27, 2022: a fungal infection that presents a serious global health threat, often a multi drug resistant infection that can cause an outbreak in a facility settings), syncope and collapse, epilepsy, congestive heart disease, chronic embolism, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, non-pressure chronic ulcer of the right calf, transient ischemic attack, protein calorie malnutrition, and thrombosis. The MDS (Minimum Data Sheet), dated 5/23/23, shows R362's cognition was moderately impaired, and R362 required limited to extensive assistance from staff for ADLs (Activities of Daily Living) including hygiene, transfers, toileting, dressing and bed mobility. The transfer order dated 6/19/23, shows that R362 was transferred to the facility with a physician order, dated 6/18/23, for contact precautions due to Candida Auris to the right axilla. On 6/27/23 at 3:01 PM, V6 (Registered Nurse- admission Nurse) stated that R362 was admitted to the facility with an order of contact precautions due to Candida Auris to the right axilla. V6 stated he overlooked the order of contact precautions and failed to transcribe it into R362's admission orders to the facility. This resulted in R362 not being placed in contact isolation precautions. V6 further said that no one screened resident' clinical needs prior to admission except when the resident was already in the facility, and this had delayed placing R362 on contact isolation precautions. V6 also said it was 3 days that R362 was not on contact isolation precautions, and it was only when V16 ([NAME] County Health Department) had called and informed the facility that R362 was positive for Candida Auris and was on their surveillance list. V6 stated V16's call had prompted the facility to place R362 on contact isolation precautions. V6 stated he should have looked at the transfer records thoroughly and it would help if referral documentation was screened by clinician prior to resident' admission so the appropriate infection control would be timely implemented. V6 stated no one at the facility screened the admission referral except the admitting nurse which was V6 who stated he overlooked the resident's infection control precautions order. V6 stated if he had identified R362 as needing to be placed on contact precautions, he would have referred R362 to V7 (Infection Control Preventionist Nurse) to ensure correct management of the infection control precautions. On 6/27/23 at 1:05 PM, V16 ([NAME] County Public Health) stated she informed the facility that R362 was on their list for surveillance/tracking due to positive diagnosis of Candida Auris of the right axilla. On 6/28/23 at 11:40 AM, V9 (Attending Physician/ Medical Director) stated that a resident's transfer order should be carried out and be continued when transferred to the admitting facility which includes any orders for transmission-based precautions. V9 also stated he was made aware of R362's contact isolation precautions due to Candida Auris recently on 6/22/2023 when [NAME] County Public Health had called the facility for tracking. V9 stated if R362 has drainage and flaky substances from the axilla, then R362 is considered contagious and able to transmit Candida Auris and therefore strict contact precautions should be continued. V9 stated the facility required guidance to manage this highly contagious disease. On 6/26/23, at 10:00 AM, during the initial tour with V10 (Registered Nurse), it was observed at the entrance of R362's door that there was a sign which showed Contact Isolation. V10 stated, The contact isolation sign was a mistake. V10 stated (R362) is only on Enhanced Barrier Precautions due to a wound on her buttocks related to Moisture Associated Skin Damage (MASD). V10 stated only gloves were required to enter the room. V10 and the surveyor entered R362's room wearing only gloves. Inside room of R362, there was no dedicated medical equipment such as stethoscope, sphygmomanometer, and thermometer. V10 said that the medical equipment used for R362 is the same medical equipment used and shared with other residents on the third floor. R362 was lying in bed, awake, confused. There was an open box of Debrox eardrop medication on the bed, on R362's left side near her left hand and left thigh. V10 took the open eardrop medication and stated, (R362) cannot administer this because she is confused. V10 picked up the medication, removed her gloves, and took the mediation out of R362's room. V10 continued to hold the Debrox medication with her bare hands and walked in and out several resident rooms including R361, R47, R118, R39 and placed it on top of their beds, overbed tables, and nightstands. V10 then took the medication to the nursing station, placed it on the nursing station countertop, and called a physician for orders. V10 then proceeded to place the medication on top of the [NAME] Unit medication cart. V13 (R362's daughter) and V12 (R362's son) were in R362's room and they were not wearing any PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). V13 stated she had not been provided any education regarding R362's infection, was not aware she needed to wear any PPE in the room, and V13 only understood R362 has rashes on the axilla. V13 also said no one provided education regarding handling R362's soiled laundry as V13 does R362's personal laundry. On 6/26/23 at 3:00 PM, the EMR was reviewed. During the review, the surveyor had identified that R362's current POS (Physician Order Sheet) for the month of June 2023 showed a physician order dated 6/22/2023 for contact isolation precautions due to Candida Auris of the right axilla. On 6/26/23 at 3:45 PM, surveyor verified with V10 regarding R362' current isolation precaution. V10 said she made a mistake and thought that R362 was on Enhance Barrier Precaution. In addition, V10 was not observed providing education to V12 and V13 regarding use of PPE, and V12 and V13 were seen going in and out of R362's room. On 6/26/2023 at 3:45 P.M., V18 (CNA/Certified Nurse Assistant) said she does not know what kind of precaution that R362 was on. On 6/27/23 at 4:30 PM, V7 (Infection Control Preventionist) stated he did not receive information from V6 regarding R362 being admitted with orders for isolation precautions. V7 stated if he had received notice R362 had a diagnosis of Candida Auris he would have placed R362 on isolation precautions and would have referred R362 to the Infectious Disease specialist for proper management. V7 stated R362's infection was not a contained wound due to the blood that was oozing from the infected area, right axilla, and that the axilla still has a flaky substances from the rash. V7 stated that (R362) has symptoms of oozing blood and flaky substances from the infected side (right axilla and under breasts), this indicates the presence of an active infection is still ongoing and strict contact isolation precautions should be maintained. V7 stated R362 was placed on strict contact isolation precautions as of 6/27/23 at 3:33 PM. V7 explained that strict contact precautions meant that R362 was not to be removed from the room for therapies and all services should be performed inside her room. V7 further said that there should be dedicated medical equipment such as a thermometer, stethoscope, and sphygmomanometer, and they should be kept inside R362's room to ensure no occurrence of cross contamination. The skin admission assessment dated [DATE]: -right axilla with erythema moisture associated skin damage with dressing of less than 25% saturation. -6/20/2023: - right axilla fungal rash, and bilateral breasts fold with rashes. The assessment also shows that right axilla skin was macerated, fungal rash noted under bilateral breasts folds. -6/22/2023: fungal rash under right axilla noted with erythema and drainage. -6/26/2023: right axilla Candida Auris, right axilla noted with decreased erythema (skin persistent redness irritation), papule (a raised area of skin tissue that is an inflamed bumps in the skin that might suggest skin condition that possible signs of undelaying skin condition/infection). On 6/26/23 at 5:11 PM, V12, and V13 were in R362's room with V18. They were not wearing gloves and gowns. V18 was leaning against R362's bed with no PPE talking with the family. V18 exited the room and stated she was aware that she should have worn PPE. V12, V13 and V18 stated they had not been provided information about Candida Auris, and how they should handle R362's personal laundry. On 6/26/2023 at 3:52 P.M., V19 (LPN/License Practical Nurse) said R362's family goes in and out of R362's room and does not wear PPE. V19 also said that R362's is on contact precaution and that anyone entering R362's room should wear PPE. On 6/27/2023 at 4:45 P.M., V8 (Housekeeping/Laundry Department) said that R362's linens are washed at the facility. V8 also said that R362's personal clothing is handled by the family. V8 added that she did not provide education to R362's family on how to properly disinfect soiled clothing to prevent cross contamination. V8 said it is up to nursing to do that. On 6/27/2023 at 11:43 A.M. R362 was observed for wound dressing change and skin observation. V3 (LPN/Wound Care Nurse) and V10 (CNA) did the wound dressing change. R362 was lying in bed, awake and alert with bouts of confusion. R362 said It is itchy around my breasts, under my breast and my armpits and I sometimes scratch it. V12 was present in R362's room, wearing a pair of gloves. V12 said he was informed by V13 as of 6/26/2023 to wear gloves only when entering R362's room. Prior to start of dressing change, V5 (CNA) was asked when was the last time R362 was provided skin care. V5 said that this morning at 7:00 A.M. I gave her a bed bath. I noticed a lump of dried blood on the creases of (R362's) right axilla and accumulation of flaky substance around her axilla and underneath her breasts. The wound dressing change observation were as follows: -V3 said that R362 has a rash under breasts, right axilla, left hip skin tear and MASD to the left buttock and sacrum. V3 gathered the following treatment supplies: Gathered supplies: -Nystatin powder -Hydrocolloid x2 -Xerofoam dressing -Bordered gauze dressing -Skin prep pads (times 2) At 11:43 AM, V3, V10 and surveyors entered R362's room with PPE on. R362 was lying in bed. R362 said she complains of itchiness to her right axilla from warm clothes. -V10 used disinfectant wipe to clean the over the bed tray table, and bath towel was placed on table, then the dressing supplies were put on the table. V10 had pulled down R362's blanket towards feet and upper shirt was pulled up exposing R362's upper chest to feet. R362's right breast was observed with 4 raised, fluid filled skin papules that were yellowish in color. The size was approximately 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in diameter. V3 said the raised skin are pimples and with yellowish fluid blisters. The raised skin was surrounded with flaky yellow substances. V3 said the largest papule near the skin fold like a pimple with a white head. R362's right forearm was slightly pulled away by V10 to expose R362's right axilla. The right axilla has an open area and creases and fresh red blood combined with serosanguinous drainage coming out of the right axilla. V3 measured R362's right axilla and measurement showed 5.5 cm x 7 cm (L x W) with an open area measuring 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm. R362's left breast- one area close to the medial chest measuring ¼ inch raised area that is red and appears to be scabbed. Red rash area under breast described as flaky per V3. V3 changed gloves after lifting breast to arm to look at axilla areas. Placed the box of gloves on R362's bed to grab new gloves to put on. There was no hand hygiene after removing gloves and putting on new gloves. After both staff removed new gloves from the box, the box was removed from the bed to the dresser in the room. R362's right shin has a dry flaky rash. R362's left rash on anterior right shin extends from the ankle to below the knee and extends to the posterior calf. R362 was turned onto her right side to make left hip visible. Left hip showed a skin tear measuring 1.1 cm x 0.5 cm. Left hip was cleaned with saline by V3, she then removed gloves, no hand hygiene, new gloves, dressing applied. After done applying dressing, V3 had removed gloves, washed hands with soap and water, put on new gloves. R362's incontinence brief was opened by V3 and V10. R362 was turned to her right side, two dressings were noted to the resident's left buttock and sacral area. R362's incontinence brief was noted to be wet and there was a small smear of stool. V3 said there was no stool, and surveyor pointed out the stool that was noted in between buttocks. V3 had removed the two dressings (sacral and left buttock) before providing incontinence care. There were two open wounds that were exposed to contaminant (urine and stool). V10 went to bathroom and filled 2 basins, one with water and body wash and other basin with plain warm water. V3 followed V10 into the bathroom and was heard talking Spanish to the V10, when V10 came from bathroom and went to the right side of bed with R362 facing her. V10 took a washcloth with water and body wash, V10 leaned over R362, V10's thighs, upper legs and abdomen were in direct contact with R362's when she leaned over the resident. V10 was wiping R362's stool from the rectal area, from front to back towards the open sores which were exposed, and this had open to cross contamination of the open wounds. Surveyor asked V10 to come around the bed to the side where she would be able to see what she was doing. V3 measured R362's wound on left buttock and the measurement were 1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.0. Wound on sacral area 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm, x 0.0. V3 continued to clean R362's left buttock was cleaned with saline and applied skin prep and hydrocolloid dressing. V3 then proceeded with R362's sacral wound, cleaned with saline, skin prep applied, and hydrocolloid dressing. During this wound dressing observation, hand hygiene was not consistently implemented, only one time V3 was observed with hand hygiene despite multiple changing of gloves after removing contaminated dressings. V10 never did hand hygiene during the process. On 6/29/2023 at 11:30 A.M., V20 (Wound Care Physician) said that regarding Candida Auris, a group of specialists including epidemiologist guidance should be sought to ensure proper care and management of the infection. On 6/28/2023 at 1:25 P.M., V1 (Administrator) and V2 (Director of Nursing) said that staffing on the third floor were scheduled and assigned permanently as possible on the third floor. R362 resides currently on the third floor. V1 and V2 said that third floor currently housed 30 residents including R362. There were multiple facility's policies that were reviewed with V2 on 6/29/2023 at 1:30 P.M. 1. The facility's admission policy dated January 2011 shows: Before or at time of admission, the resident's attending physician must provide facility with information needed for immediate care of the resident .Acceptance of residents with certain conditions or needs may require authorization or approval by Medical director Administrator and DON . The Administrator through the admission department shall assure that the resident and facility follow applicable admission policies. 2. The undated facility's admission check list showed that it included checking to ensure any isolation was needed. 3. The facility's Physician Orders-Medication & Treatment policy dated 11/2027 shows that 1. The physician's orders shall be entered or transcribed in the resident's medical records. 2. Medications and Treatments shall be transcribed in the resident's medical records when ordered upon admission . 4. The facility's admission Policy of Residents of Communicable Disease shows ensure to provide appropriate medical and nursing care Prior to or upon admission the infection control nurse will assess the following infection risk for each admission .A resident who is transferred to an acute facility with infection . should be reviewed prior to admission the facility. 5. The facility's policy dated 6/21/2023 regarding Transmission Based Precautions policy showed that the purpose of this policy is to summarize best practices for the use of transmission-based precaution to assist with decision making regarding the placement of residents with organisms of concern.XDRO (Extensively Drug Resistant Organisms) refers to organisms that being entered into the XDRO registry and conditions of these infections included but not limited to [NAME] Auris . Transmission based precautions are for patients known or suspected to be infected or colonized with infectious agents including will require additional control measures to effectively prevent transmission. When implementing TBP (Transmission Based Precautions) XDRO, contact precautions should be implemented with drainage that cannot be contained. 6. The facility's policy dated 1/2023 for Candida Auris shows that facility will implement the procedures for infection prevention and control for Candida Auris .Have healthcare personnel and visitor who enter the isolation room should have PPE donned prior to entering room including gown, gloves, and facial mask in case of unexpected contamination from the source of infection. When leaving the isolation room, removed PPE, dispose to appropriate receptacle, wash hands thoroughly. The soiled should be handled with the use of recommended disinfectant to prevent cross contamination. If family does laundry of the infected residents, should be given education how to handle soiled clothing using appropriate disinfectant. 7. The facility's wound care policy dated 11/2025 showed that staff should wash hands thoroughly before the dressing change, maintained clean barrier field, wash hands/hand hygiene after removing gloves. Do not cross contaminate by exposing open wound with no dressing with contaminants such as bowl, urine and bodily fluids. The Immediate Jeopardy that began on 6/19/2023 at 8:00 P.M., was removed on 6/29/2023 at 9:51 A.M. when the facility took the following actions to remove the immediacy: a. On 6-27-23, R362 was placed on strict contact precautions for C. Auris at 15:33pm (See attachment A) b. On 6-27-23, R362's care plan was also updated indicating strict contact isolation (cannot leave the room for therapy/dining/activities all services are provided in the room) versus previous contact isolation (can leave the room for therapy/dining/activities/services) (See Attachment B) c. On 6-22-23 the order for contact precautions was entered and implemented into the patients record. On 6/27/23 strict contact precautions were entered and implemented into the patient's chart (See Attachment C) d. On 6-26-23 the object which was the Debrox that was removed from the patient's room was discarded and a new medication was purchased. a. Contact tracing was conducted of all patients that were assigned to V10. Body assessments were completed, vitals monitored with no acute findings. (No redness, rashes or new skin alterations noted and no complaints of pruritus) (See Attachment D) b. Housekeeping immediately deep cleaned all resident rooms and patient areas including nurses station using an EPA approved cleanser for candida Arius. 2. All residents on the third floor were identified as having the potential to be affected by this alleged deficient practice. a. See attached census of residents on the third floor on 6/26 (total of 30 patients) (See Attachment E) b. On 6/26/23 skin assessments were completed for all resident on the third floor with no abnormal findings (no redness, rashes or new skin alterations noted and no complaints of pruritus) and will continue to be monitored and will notify physician for any changes of condition and immediately placed on strict contact isolation. c. Vitals were taken for all residents on the third floor with all patients remaining afebrile and will continue to be monitored and will notify physician for any changes of condition. d. All affected residents will be monitored for 30 days from potential exposure per the guidance of the [NAME] County health department. Facility has left messages with the IDPH communicable disease department to determine their guidelines. Will follow [NAME] County recommendations until able to speak with IDPH. 3. Measures, systems, and changes taken to prevent a recurrence of this alleged deficiency include but are not limited to: a. On 6-26-23, the Administrator, Director of Nursing, and Infection Preventionist reviewed the policy on the use of Transmission Based Precautions for XDROs and implemented the policy accordingly. (See Attachment F) b. In services will be completed by a total of 75% or greater at time of abatement 6/28/23 using in person and phone inservice (See attachment G) c. On 6-28-23, the Administrator, Director of Nursing, or designee in-serviced the nurses on the following topics: i. Upon admission physician orders will be entered into the medical records and implemented appropriately, especially with those requiring isolation precautions such as Candida Auris. ii. Upon admission, place the patient on appropriate precautions based on ongoing infection symptoms or ongoing infection. iii. When providing wound care prevent cross contamination especially during wound dressing change and peri care. iv. Any objects that are in a resident's room that is under contact precautions should be contained in the resident's environment. v. The staff shall not be allowed to work until they are in service on the topics stated above. vi. The administrator in serviced the infection preventionist and housekeeping director on educating the family. a. Type of isolation/precaution that needs to be practiced reducing potential for spread including but not limited to proper handling of laundry and other personal belongings vii. The Administrator in service the admissions team and clinical management staff to ensure that they are aware of the facilities clinical capabilities and are notifying the Administrator and DON of isolation status of a potential admission prior to admission. 4. How the facility will monitor its corrective actions to ensure that the deficient practice is abated, corrected, and will not recur: a. The Administrator, Director of Nursing, and or designee will conduct an audit using a QA tool on all admissions to check: (Attachment H) i. The admission order from the hospital or other SNF for contact, droplet, or enhanced barrier precautions was carried out and entered in the order section of the resident's medical record by the admitting nurse, then audited by the overnight nurse by using the admission checklist and then audited by the Director of Nursing or designee within 24 hours of admission. ii. If there is a care plan initiated indicating the type of precaution that needs to be implemented for the resident upon admission iii. If there is a bin outside the resident's door for PPE and appropriate signage placed outside the resident's door; iv. If there is dedicated medical equipment such as a BP cuff, stethoscope, and blood glucose machine (if indicated) inside the resident's room. v. If the resident and family education was provided on the type of infection control precaution and the use of PPE while inside the resident's room as well as education on how to handle laundry and personal belongings. vi. Staff compliance with the use of PPE when entering and exiting the room. b. The Administrator and/or designee will conduct an audit of all new admissions to ensure that isolation orders are followed and carried out as outlined above until the facility has achieved resolution c. The findings of the QA audit shall be submitted to the QAPI Committee which meets monthly. d. The QAPI Committee will review to determine the level of compliance and the need for additional training, corrective actions, and follow-up. 5. The QAPI Committee met on 6/28/23 to review the abatement plan and all members including the Medical Director agree with the implementation of the plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to assess for food preferences and failed to provide nutritional interventions to maintain weight and prevent a significant weight...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to assess for food preferences and failed to provide nutritional interventions to maintain weight and prevent a significant weight loss. This applies to 1 of 2 (R11) residents reviewed for nutrition in a sample of 19. The findings include: R11's admission record shows her diagnoses included heart failure, pneumonia, and a fracture of the right femur with surgical repair. R11 was admitted for rehabilitation on May 21, 2023 with a plan to return to assisted living. R11's MDS (minimum data set) dated May 24, 2023 shows R11 is cognitively intact and requires only set up assistance for eating. R11's POS (physician order summary) of June 2023 shows her diet order to be regular consistency, thin liquids and NAS (no added salt). There was a nutritional supplement drink ordered one can daily on May 31, 2023. R11 also receives a diuretic medication daily, the dose has not changed throughout the month. An additional supplement, frozen nutritional cup was ordered on June 25, 2023. R11 experienced a significant weight loss. R11 weighed 119 lbs. (pounds) on admission and 105.1 lbs on June 25, 2023, an eleven percent weight loss over the month of June 2023. The nutrition progress note of June 25, 2023 shows R11's weight loss is not desired at this time. On June 26, 2023 at 11:25 AM, V15 (MDS Nurse) attributed R11's weight loss to being a picky eater, having edema and use of diuretic medication. R11's progress notes from May 30, 2023 through June 28, 2023, shows R11's HCP (health care provider) documented minimal non- pitting edema in both ankles once on June 19, 2023 and ten entries describing no edema in bilateral lower extremities. On June 26, 2023 at 12:00 noon there was no frozen nutritional cup observed on R11's lunch tray. On June 28, 2023 at 11:40 AM there was no frozen nutritional cup, but there was an unopened nutritional shake container on R11's lunch tray and R11 stated I'm not going to drink that. V17 (food service supervisor) stated on June 28, 2023 at 12:42 PM that there is no frozen nutritional cup in the facility as they are unable to obtain it from the food vendor for several months and it should not have been ordered for R11. A review of R11's June MAR (medication administration record) shows nurses initials for three times a day administration of magic cup from June 25 through June 28, 2023. On June 29, 2023 at 08:43 AM R11 stated she is being served too much food at mealtime. R11 further stated at home she usually eats smaller meals more frequently. R11 stated she usually eats dry cereal with milk and coffee and fruit juice for breakfast, has a mid -morning snack, and at lunch she eats a sandwich. If she goes out to eat, she likes a waffle with fruit and whipped cream. R11 described an eating pattern of six smaller meals during the day and at bedtime a snack of short bread cookies. R11 stated she also enjoys ice cream, pudding and cottage cheese with fruit. R11 had an unopened container of nutritional drink at the bedside and stated she prefers the drink to be cold or served over ice. There was no documentation of R11's food preferences in the EHR. On June 29, 2023 at 11:22 AM, V17 (food service supervisor) stated that there was no documentation of resident food preferences that they rely upon the select menu to obtain what residents prefer to eat. V17 further stated there is a spread sheet and menu available for six small meals per day and there is a select menu for that meal pattern. V17 was not aware of R11's prior eating pattern of six small meals a day or food preferences including cottage cheese and fruit, ice cream and pudding. The facility's policy Weight Assessment and Interventions, dated November 2015, shows Policy Statement: 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 .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to follow their Pneumococcal Vaccine Policy. This applies to 4 of 5 (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 follow their Pneumococcal Vaccine Policy. This applies to 4 of 5 (R11, R27, R362, R364) residents reviewed in the sample of 19. The findings include: The resident's face sheet showed the following residents were greater than [AGE] years old and: 1. R11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Consent dated May 21, 2023 showed family checked No, I do not want [R11] to receive the Pneumococcal Prevnar 23 vaccine because:_______. The form was not completed to show a reason for refusal or if any education had been done. R11's record did not indicate if she had previously received PCV13 (Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine). 2. R27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission date of June 20, 2023. Consent dated August 10, 2022, prior to admission showed yes [R27] had received PCV 23 on October 1, 2021. Facility documented PCV23, full name Pneumococcal Polysaccharide PPV23 was given October 1, 2021. There was no clarification which vaccine the resident received PCV13 of PPSV23. 3.R362 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] Consent dated June 19, 2023 showed unable to recall date 2012. There was no documentation or follow up to identify which pneumonia vaccine R362 received in 2012. No documentation to show if education had been provided. 4. R364 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documentation to show if [R364] had received any version of the pneumococcal vaccine, if facility offered the pneumococcal vaccine, or if any education was provided. On June 29, 2023 at 10:12 AM, V7 (Infection Prevention Nurse) said the facility will schedule vaccine clinics and the pharmacy will come into the facility to administer the vaccines. V7 said they offer PCV13 (Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine), Prevnar 23, and also PVC20. When a resident is admitted to the facility, the admission nurse will ask the resident or their representative if the resident has had any form of the pneumonia vaccine (PCV13, PPSV23, PCV20). If the resident or the resident representative are not sure of dates or which specific vaccine the resident received, V7 said he will notify the PCP (Primary Care Physician) the resident sees in the community. If we still are unable to figure it out, we will offer PCV20. Consent form was reviewed with V7. The form showed the pneumonia vaccine was referred to as pneumococcal or pneumococcal Prevnar 23 vaccine. Consent does not identify PCV13, PPSV23, or PCV20. V7 said he will write on the form what vaccine was given (PCV13, PPSV23, or PCV20). Facility provided policy titled, Pneumococcal Vaccine dated November 2017, showed Policy Statement Residents in the facility will be offered pneumococcal vaccine to aid in preventing pneumococcal infections .Policy Interpretation and Implementation .1. The staff of the facility should provide each resident or resident's representative education regarding benefits and potential side effects of the immunization. 2. Residents in the facility will be offered the vaccine unless medically contraindicated or if the resident has already had the vaccine 4 If refused, appropriate entries will be documented in each resident's medical record indicating the refusal of the pneumococcal vaccine.
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 utilize chemical sanitizing solution at concentrations per manufacturer's instructions to sanitize food contact surfaces and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to utilize chemical sanitizing solution at concentrations per manufacturer's instructions to sanitize food contact surfaces and sanitize equipment in the three compartment sink. This applies to all 77 residents residing in the facility. The findings include: Resident Census and Conditions of Residents form, dated 6/26/23, shows the facility census was 77 residents. Facility document, undated, shows there were two residents residing in the facility with physician orders that included NPO (nothing by mouth). On 6/26/23 at 10:20 AM during initial tour of the kitchen with V17 (Food Service Director), V23 (Cook) was swabbing his cook work station with a cloth from his chemical sanitizing solution bucket at his station. V17 stated the sanitizing chemical utilized in the sanitation buckets and in the three compartment sinks was quaternary ammonium and the concentration of the sanitizing solution was expected to measure between 150-400 ppm (parts per million). V17 stated kitchen staff fill their sanitizing buckets from the sanitizing solution prepared in the three compartment sink. V23 measured the concentration of the sanitizing solution in his sanitizing bucket and the concentration measured 100 ppm of quaternary ammonium. Above the three compartment sink, manufacturer's instructions for preparation of the chemical sanitizer utilized in the three compartment sink was posted above the sink. The instructions showed the final chemical sanitizing solution of the three compartment sink was expected to measure 150-400 parts per million. V17 measured the concentration of the chemical sanitizer in the third compartment which measured only 100 ppm. There were pots/pans and utensils soaking in the sanitizing/third compartment of the three compartment sink. Review of the HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) Sanitation Bucket PPM Log posted next to the three compartment sink showed staff measured the concentration of four sanitation buckets on both the AM shifts and PM shifts between 6/1/23 and 6/25/23 and recorded the results on the log. The log showed the concentrations of the sanitizing buckets only measured 100 ppm in all sanitizing buckets measured for the month. The log showed the concentration of quaternary ammonium was expected to measure 150-400 ppm or 200-400 ppm. Facility Manual Sanitizing In Three-Compartment Sink policy/procedure, dated 2001, shows, After washing and rinsing utensils and equipment are sanitized in the third sink by immersion in either: * Hot water . * Chemical sanitizing solution used according to manufacturer's instructions. Facility Sanitation Buckets/Wiping Cloths Food Contact Surfaces and Equipment Too Large To Immerse In The Sink policy/procedure, dated 2021, shows the concentration of quaternary sanitizing solution in the sanitation buckets was expected to measure 150-400 or 200-400 ppm per manufacturer's directions.
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 36% turnover. Below Illinois's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 11 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $15,958 in fines. Above average for Illinois. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Avondale Estates Of Elgin's CMS Rating?

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

How is Avondale Estates Of Elgin Staffed?

CMS rates AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the Illinois average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Avondale Estates Of Elgin?

State health inspectors documented 11 deficiencies at AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 10 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 Avondale Estates Of Elgin?

AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 120 certified beds and approximately 65 residents (about 54% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in ELGIN, Illinois.

How Does Avondale Estates Of Elgin Compare to Other Illinois Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Illinois, AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 2.5, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Avondale Estates Of Elgin?

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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Avondale Estates Of Elgin Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Avondale Estates Of Elgin Stick Around?

AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN has a staff turnover rate of 36%, which is about average for Illinois nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Avondale Estates Of Elgin Ever Fined?

AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN has been fined $15,958 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Illinois average of $33,238. 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 Avondale Estates Of Elgin on Any Federal Watch List?

AVONDALE ESTATES OF ELGIN 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.