RIPLEY CROSSING

1200 WHITLATCH WAY, MILAN, IN 47031 (812) 654-2231
Non profit - Corporation 100 Beds MAJOR HOSPITAL Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
46/100
#285 of 505 in IN
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Ripley Crossing has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance with some notable concerns. The facility ranks #285 out of 505 nursing homes in Indiana, placing it in the bottom half of the state, and #3 out of 5 in Ripley County, meaning only two other local options are better. Although the facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 9 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, there are significant concerns such as $14,265 in fines, which is higher than 86% of Indiana facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance issues. Staffing is a relative strength here, with a 4/5 rating and a turnover rate of 31%, which is lower than the state average of 47%, but RN coverage is a concern, being less than 76% of Indiana facilities. Specific incidents include a critical failure to ensure a resident's safety during a shower, resulting in serious injuries, and concerns about excessively hot water temperatures in resident bathrooms, indicating a need for improved safety measures. Overall, while Ripley Crossing has some strengths in staffing, the critical incidents and fines raise serious concerns that families should consider.

Trust Score
D
46/100
In Indiana
#285/505
Bottom 44%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
31% turnover. Near Indiana's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$14,265 in fines. Higher than 78% of Indiana facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Indiana. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 9 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (31%)

    17 points below Indiana average of 48%

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

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Indiana average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 31%

15pts below Indiana avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $14,265

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: MAJOR HOSPITAL

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines during a dressing change and touching the floor related to hand hygiene for 1 of 4 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines during a dressing change and touching the floor related to hand hygiene for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for infection control. (Resident B) Findings include: During an observation, on 03/10/25 at 9:26 A.M., RN (Registered Nurse) 3 preformed hand hygiene and donned a gown and gloves to begin a wound dressing change on Resident B. She began removing the dressing from Resident B's right breast. The dressing was saturated upon removal. An egg sized wound was visualized on Resident B's right breast. A piece of the gauze, fully saturated in drainage, fell onto the floor. RN 3 picked up the saturated gauze off the floor and discard it with the used dressing in a bag. RN 3 then began cleaning the resident's wound. No hand hygiene was completed or removal of gloves. After cleansing the wound RN 3 began applying the new dressing to Resident B's right breast. RN 3 proceeded to a second dressing change on Resident B's right foot. No hand hygiene was completed in-between dressings or after picking up soiled gauze off the floor. The RN removed the dressing and cleansed the resident's right heel wound with cleanser, patted it dry, and then applied the new dated dressing. No hand hygiene was observed. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 03/10/25 at 10:07 A.M. A Quarterly Minimal Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 12/22/24, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hypertension, anemia, and cancer. A Progress Note, dated 10/27/23 at 2:04 P.M., indicated that Resident B was complaining of right breast pain. Upon an assessment it was swollen and tender to touch with a hard area noted. Resident B had a diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the right breast. The family indicated that Resident B had refused treatment, and that the area flares up from time to time and will burst open and bleed. The area can get as large as a baseball during flare ups. A current physician's order, with a start date of 01/20/25, indicated the staff were to cleanse the wound to the right breast with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply petroleum jelly gauze, and apply a foam adhesive dressing every day and as needed for wound soilage/dislodgement. A current physician's order, with a start date of 11/12/24, indicated to staff were cleanse right heel with wound cleanser, pat dry, and apply a foam adhesive dressing every 3 days and as needed for soiled/dislodgement. During an interview on 03/10/25 at 1:52 P.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 indicated that after removing a dressing she would dispose of it and immediately perform hand hygiene. She would put on new gloves before cleaning and applying the new dressing. She would never touch the floor and then touch a wound. If she were to touch the floor during a dressing change, she would perform hand hygiene and don new gloves. The current facility policy, with a revision date of 08/15/22, titled Standard Precautions Infection Control was provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/10/25 at 2:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .a. During the delivery of resident care services, avoid unnecessary touching of surfaces in close proximity to the resident to prevent both contamination of clean hands from environmental surfaces and transmission of pathogens from contaminated hands to surfaces . The current facility policy, with a revision date of September 2013, titled Dressings, Dry/Clean was provided by the Director of Nursing (DON) on 03/10/25 at 2:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .6. Put on clean gloves. Loosen tape and remove soiled dressing. 7. Pull glove over dressing and discard into plastic or biohazard bag. 8. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 9. Open dry dressing(s) by pulling corners of the exterior wrapping outward, touching only the exterior surface. 10. Label tape or dressing with date, time and initials. Place on clean field. 11. Using clean technique, open other products (i.e., prescribed dressing; dry, clean gauze). 12. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. 13. Put on clean gloves. 14. Assess the wound and surrounding skin for edema, redness, drainage, tissue healing progress and wound stage. 15. Cleanse the wound with ordered cleanser. If using gauze, use clean gauze for each cleansing stroke. Clean from the least contaminated area to the most contaminated area (usually, from the center outward). 16. Use dry gauze to pat the wound dry. 17. Apply the ordered dressing and secure with tape or bordered dressing per order .Label with date and initials to top of dressing . This citation relates to Complaint IN00454176. 3.1-18(a)
Oct 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

3. The clinical record for Resident 61 was reviewed on 10/21/24 at 9:16 A.M. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/10/24, indicated the resident was not assessed for section C, Cognitive Patterns, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
3. The clinical record for Resident 61 was reviewed on 10/21/24 at 9:16 A.M. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/10/24, indicated the resident was not assessed for section C, Cognitive Patterns, and section D, Mood. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:30 P.M., the MDS Coordinator indicated she was unaware as to why sections C and D, for the Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/10/24, were not assessed and the SSD completed those sections. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:34 P.M., the SSD indicated he filled out sections C and D on the MDS assessments. Sections C and D were completed on all Quarterly, Annual, and Significant Change assessments. He did not know why the sections were not completed. The Progress Notes for September 2024, were provided by the MDS Coordinator on 10/22/24 at 3:01 P.M., and included, but were not limited to, the following: - A Social Service note, dated 09/09/24 at 10:28 A.M., indicated the SSD had followed up with the resident. The resident voiced that she felt down due to their family being unable to visit due to their health. 3.1-31(c)(6) 3.1-31(c)(13) 3.1-31(c)(3) 3.1-31(c)(7) Based upon record review and interview the facility failed to accurately to complete Minimum Data Set assessments for 3 of 18 residents reviewed. (Residents 5, 57, and 61) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 5 was reviewed on 10/17/24 at 3:35 P.M. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 09/18/2024, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hypertension, diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and depression. Section O, Special Treatment and Programs, indicated the resident was receiving Hospice care. Section J, Health Conditions, indicated the resident did not have a terminal diagnosis. During an interview on 10/18/24 at 11:04 A.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated a local Hospice company provided care to the resident. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:21 P.M., the MDS Coordinator indicated she received information related to Hospice care from the resident's paper chart. The resident did have a terminal diagnosis and the MDS assessment should have been marked as such. 2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 10/18/24 at 1:10 P.M. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 09/27/24, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes, hypertension, dementia, anxiety, depression, and a psychotic disorder. Section N, Medications, indicated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) was attempted on 07/14/24 and the physician did not indicate it was contraindicated. A Consultant Pharmacist Communication to Physician form dated, 07/14/24, indicated Resident 57 received Olanzapine (an antipsychotic medication) 5 mg (milligrams) every morning for delusional disorder, and Risperidone (an antipsychotic medication) 0.25 mg every morning and 0.5 mg at bedtime for delusional disorder were to be continued as prescribed. The form was signed by the psychiatric nurse practitioner on 07/15/24. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:26 P.M., the MDS Coordinator indicated she received GDR information from the Social Service Director (SSD). During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:28 P.M., the SSD indicated he was unsure why the MDS assessment documentation said a GDR had been done when it had not. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 2:42 P.M., the MDS Coordinator indicated the facility did not have a policy related to MDS assessments. She followed the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor a dialysis access site for 1 of 1 resident that received dialysis treatments. (Resident 42) Findings inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor a dialysis access site for 1 of 1 resident that received dialysis treatments. (Resident 42) Findings include: During an interview on 10/16/24 at 1:29 P.M., Resident 42 indicated he received dialysis treatments three days a week. He had an arteriovenous (AV) shunt (an abnormal connection between an artery and a vein used for dialysis) in his left arm. The nurses at the facility did not assess the shunt, they did put a numbing cream on his arm before he went out to dialysis. The resident's left arm was observed on 10/22/24 at 2:07 P.M. there was no swelling, drainage, or signs of infection at the shunt site. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 9:56 A.M., Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) 2 indicated the resident went out for dialysis on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. He had a shunt in his arm for dialysis. On dialysis days the nurses were to fill out a form that went with the resident to dialysis. They would check and document the resident's vital signs, weigh him, and assess the dialysis shunt before he left and then again when he returned from dialysis. She did not assess the shunt on days the resident didn't go out for dialysis. The resident's clinical record was reviewed on 10/21/24 at 11:13 A.M. A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 08/07/24, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), diabetes, and heart failure. The resident received dialysis treatments. The resident's current physician's orders included an open-ended order, with a start date of 11/23/23, to assess the resident's dialysis shunt every shift for thrill and bruit, swelling, pain, and change in temperature. The physician's order did not appear on the resident's Electronic Medication Administration Record/Electronic Treatment Administration Record (EMAR/ETAR ). The shunt assessment was documented on the dialysis form on the days the resident went out for dialysis but was not routinely assessed on non-dialysis days. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 1:22 P.M., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the nurses should be looking at the resident's dialysis shunt every shift. There was a physician's order in the computer but there was nowhere to document any assessments. The order didn't show up on the EMAR/ETAR. The nurses probably didn't assess the dialysis shunt every shift because the order wasn't there to tell them to do it. The resident's current dialysis care plan, initiated on 11/10/23, included, but was not limited to, the following interventions: - Assess bruit and thrill every shift. The current facility policy, titled Hemodialysis, dated 01/13/22, was provided by the DON on 10/22/24 at 1:32 P.M. The policy indicated, .The nurse will ensure that the dialysis access site (e.g. AV shunt or graft) is checked before and after dialysis treatments and every shift as ordered by nephrologist for patency by auscultating for a bruit and palpating for a thrill. If absent, the nurse will immediately notify the attending physician, dialysis facility and/or nephrologist . 3.1-37(a)
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe water temperatures between 100 degrees a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to provide safe water temperatures between 100 degrees and 120 degrees Fahrenheit per the federal guidelines for 10 of 11 residents' bathroom water access observed. (Rooms 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 402, 403, and 404) Findings include: During an interview and observation on 10/17/24 at 10:35 A.M., Resident 61 indicated the water was hot but she had never been burned. The resident was standing at the sink in her room combing her hair and was able to safely walk around her room unassisted. The water stream was too hot to keep a hand under the water flow without discomfort. During an interview and observation on 10/17/24 at 10:58 A.M., Resident 33 indicated she had not had any problems with the water being too hot. The resident was able to propel herself in her wheelchair unassisted and walk with her walker. The water stream was too hot to keep a hand under the water flow without discomfort. During an interview and observation on 10/17/24 at 11:03 A.M., Resident 28 indicated the water took a while to get hot. She had never gotten burned by the water. The resident was able to propel herself in her wheelchair unassisted. The water stream was too hot to keep a hand under the water flow without discomfort. On 10/17/24 at 11:00 A.M., the following water temperatures were checked using a probe thermometer: - rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]'s shared bathroom sink, 120.4 degrees Fahrenheit, - rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]'s shared bathroom sink, 127.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and - rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]'s shared bathroom sink, 124.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Random water temperatures were observed with the Maintenance Director on 10/17/24 at 11:48 A.M. Upon entering room [ROOM NUMBER], he filled a plastic cup with hot water from the sink in the room and placed his thermometer in the cup. He indicated he thought the entire probe of the thermometer needed to be covered with water. He then tested the water temperatures by holding the tip of the facility's thermometer probe under the hot running water and obtained the following temperatures: - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the room, 128 degrees Fahrenheit, - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the room, 126 degrees Fahrenheit, the Maintenance Director said, Oww, while having his fingers under the flow of water, and - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the room, 125 degrees Fahrenheit. The Maintenance Director indicated he tried to keep the water temperatures at 120 degrees. He tested random rooms once a month. Each wing had a separate water heater for the resident rooms. When he tested water temperatures, he would sometimes get 125 degrees, but he did not know why because the water was circulated. The hot water heater on the 400 Hall was observed with the Maintenance Director on 10/17/24 at 1:42 P.M. The Maintenance Director pointed out the thermometer in the main water line coming off the hot water heater. He indicated he had turned down the blending/mixing valve to cool down the water and it had felt a little stuck when he had adjusted the valve. Water temperatures in sinks in residents' rooms and bathrooms were observed with the Maintenance Director on 10/22/24 at 10:43 A.M., and included, but were not limited to, the following: - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the private bathroom, 95.1 degrees Fahrenheit, - rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]'s shared bathroom sink, 99.3 degrees Fahrenheit, - rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]'s shared bathroom sink, 93.5 degrees Fahrenheit, - rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]'s shared bathroom sink, 102.3 degrees Fahrenheit, - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the room, 109.5 degrees Fahrenheit, - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the room, 108.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and - room [ROOM NUMBER], the sink in the room, 106.3 degrees Fahrenheit. The Water Temperature log sheets for 2024 were provided by the Administrator on 10/17/24 at 12:31 P.M., and indicated the following: - The 200 Hall residents' rooms ranged between 111 and 112 degrees Fahrenheit in August, September, and October, - The 300 Hall, all residents' rooms tested at 114 degrees Fahrenheit in August, September, and October, and - The 400 Hall, all residents' rooms tested at 112 degrees Fahrenheit in August, September, and October. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 11:06 A.M., the Maintenance Director indicated he had gotten a new thermometer for testing water temperatures, he had turned down the temperature on the water heaters because it was too hot, and the water temperatures should be between 110 and 120 degrees. During an interview on 10/22/24 at 11:09 A.M., the Administrator indicated they did not have a policy related to water temperatures, they followed the federal guidelines. 3.1-19(r)(1) 3.1-19(r)(2)
Sept 2024 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident F) Findings include: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was treated with respect and dignity for 1 of 5 residents reviewed for resident rights. (Resident F) Findings include: During an observation on 09/23/24 at 8:48 A.M., CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) 3 was observed standing beside Resident F's bedside and the CNA stated, I'm not dealing with people telling me to shut up . Well then someone else can deal with you then! and then exited the resident's room into the community living room. The CNA noticed she was being observed, then she turned around and walked back into Resident F's room and began asking what the resident would like to wear today. During an interview with Resident F on 09/23/24 at 12:59 P.M., she indicated that some of the staff are mean to her, but she can't remember their names. They come into her room and say what she needs to do in a nasty way. During an interview on 09/23/24 at 1:09 P.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 indicated that Resident F was pretty alert and that she talked to family daily. Resident F has dementia, but it was more of a short-term memory issue. She talked about her home land and her children regularly with staff. The clinical record for Resident F was reviewed on 09/23/24 1:57 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 09/01/24, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnosis included, but were not limited to, anemia, heart failure, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. A current facility policy titled Dignity, provided by the Administrator on 09/23/24 at 1:58 P.M., with a revision date of February 2021, stated .Each Resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances his or her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life, and feelings of self worth and self-esteem ., .Residents are treated with dignity and respect at all times . 3.1-3(t)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure misappropriation of resident's medications did not occur for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for misappropriation. (Residents B, D, and E)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure misappropriation of resident's medications did not occur for 3 of 5 residents reviewed for misappropriation. (Residents B, D, and E) Findings include: 1.The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 09/20/24 9:48 A.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 8/13/24, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnosis included, but were not limited to, anxiety and depression. A current physician's order, with a start date of 12/05/22, indicated the staff were to administer Norco (a pain medication), 5-325 mg (milligrams), 1 tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. A controlled drug record for Resident B, dated 07/12/24, shows documentation for the resident's Norco medication being signed out by RN (Registered Nurse) 2 on 08/25/24 at 8:00 A.M. and at 2:00 P.M. The facility as worked schedule, provided by the Administrator on 09/23/24 at 11:30 A.M., showed that RN 2 was not working on 08/25/24. The electronic medication administration record (EMAR) for Resident B on 08/25/24 showed the medication was only administered at 8:00 P.M. by a second shift nurse. During an interview with resident B, on 08/20/24 at 8:42 A.M., she indicated that she had an order for Norco if she had pain, but she did not like to take it because it made her feel sick and loopy. It had been months since she had taken one and she had only taken one then at night because she can sleep it off. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 09/23/24 at 9:21 A.M., she indicated that they noticed on 08/27/24 that RN 2 had signed out medications on 08/25/24 when they were not scheduled. The Director of Nursing (DON) and ADON met with RN 2 asking if there was a reason they signed out medications for a day they were not scheduled. RN 2 admitted ,at that time, of taking the medications home. A facility document provided by the ADON on 09/20/24 at 2:23 P.M. labeled Employee Counseling Record Form indicated that RN 2 was discharged from the facility for misappropriation of resident property on 08/27/24. 2. The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 09/23/24 9:45 A.M. An Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 06/29/24, indicated the resident was severely cognitive impaired. The diagnosis included, but were not limited to, non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease, anxiety, and depression. A physician's order for Resident D, with a start date of 10/27/23, indicated that staff were to administer Percocet (a pain medication), 5-325 mg (milligrams), 1 tablet by mouth every twelve hours as needed for breakthrough pain. A controlled drug record for Percocet for Resident D showed documentation for the medication being signed out by RN 2 on 08/22/24 at 4:00 P.M. The facility as worked schedule, provided by the Administrator on 09/23/24 at 11:30 A.M., showed that RN 2 was not working on 08/22/24. The electronic medication administration record for resident D on 08/22/24 showed the medication was only administered at 3:02 P.M. by the nurse scheduled to care for the resident that day. 3. The clinical record for Resident E was reviewed on 09/23/24 2:21 P.M. An Annual MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 06/20/24, indicated the resident was moderately cognitive impaired. The diagnosis included, but were not limited to, Alzheimer disease, hypertension, and atrial fibrillation. A physician's order for resident E, with the state date of 12/12/23, indicated that staff were to administer Norco (a pain medication), 5-325 mg (milligrams), 1 tablet by mouth every eight hours as needed for pain. A controlled drug record for Resident E, showed documentation for the Norco medication being signed out by RN 2 on 08/18/24 at 10:00 A.M., 08/20/24 at 1:30 P.M., and on 08/21/24 at 9:30 A.M. The electronic medication administration record for resident E showed the medication was not administered at any time on 08/17/24, 08/20/24, or 08/21/24. The current facility policy titled, Abuse and Neglect, dated August of 2018, was provided by the Administrator on 09/23/24 at 1:58 P.M. The policy indicated, .The facility will identify events, occurrences, patterns, and trends that may constitute .misappropriation of property . The deficient practice was corrected on 08/27/24 after the facility reviewed records, assessed residents, and educated staff on misappropriation of medication. The facility discharged RN 2 for misappropriation of resident's property. This Citation relates to Complaint IN00441965 3.1-28(a)
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a shower bed was comprehensively inspected for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a shower bed was comprehensively inspected for safety or function by the Maintenance staff or by the CNA prior to its use, failed to ensure a resident was repositioned on a shower bed using two staff in accordance with the plan of care, and failed to ensure the resident was rolled toward the CNA providing care in accordance with the CNA training record for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident B) This deficient practice resulted in Resident B falling from a shower bed and sustaining a subdural hematoma with midline shift (a potentially fatal traumatic brain injury), a fracture of the left humerus (the largest bone of the upper extremity), and a facial laceration. The immediate jeopardy began on 08/05/24, when the facility failed to ensure a resident's safety during a shower when a CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) did not follow proper procedure guidelines while turning a resident in a shower bed. The facility did not assess the shower beds for safety per the manufacturer's instructions and the Maintenance Director altered the shower bed by replacing pipes and putting the device back into service after the fall. The Administrator, DON (Director of Nursing), and ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) were notified of the Immediate Jeopardy on 08/08/24 at 6:44 P.M. Findings include: The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 08/08/24 at 9:29 A.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 06/21/24, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The resident's diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, hemiplegia (one-sided muscle paralysis or weakness), hypertension, renal insufficiency, diabetes, non-Alzheimer's dementia, seizure disorder, anxiety, and depression. The resident was dependent on staff for bathing/showering, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, personal hygiene, rolling left/right, and tub/shower transfers. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility. The resident had impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremity. The resident had no falls prior to the assessment. The resident's Care Plans were reviewed on 08/08/24 at 11:26 A.M., and included a care plan, with a most recent revision date of 04/04/23, that indicated the resident had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to impaired cognition, left sided hemiplegia, dementia, and history of a left humerus fracture. The interventions included, but were not limited to the following: - An intervention, dated 05/16/23, that indicated the resident required the use of a mechanical lift for transfers with the assistance of two staff members. - An intervention, dated 12/21/21, that indicated the resident required extensive assistance of one staff member for showers. - An intervention, dated 12/21/21, that indicated the resident required extensive assistance of two staff members for bed mobility. A Progress Note, dated 08/05/24 at 2:40 P.M., indicated the resident was in the shower room for her shower. CNA (2) reported that during the shower the side rail to the shower bed gave out. The resident fell while in the shower room. The fall report, dated 08/05/24 at 2:45 P.M., indicated Resident B was in the shower room. It was reported by CNA (2) that during the resident's shower the side rail to the shower bed gave out and the resident fell. The resident was awake and talking to the nurse. She verbalized some understanding of the incident. She was noted to have a one-inch laceration with a hematoma (bruise) present above the right eye. There was a mechanical failure with the shower bed rail. The resident was sent to the local hospital. A Local Emergency Department Physician's Note, dated 08/05/24 at 5:22 P.M., indicated the resident had fallen approximately three feet, hit her elbow, and left shoulder, and had a laceration to her right eyebrow and right elbow. The resident had a history of a stroke with left-sided weakness. The CT (Computed Tomography) scan of the resident's head showed a large acute subdural hematoma (a pool of mostly clotted blood caused by a broken blood vessel). An acute hemorrhage was also seen. There was a midline shift of the septum (thin wall separating the left and right sides of the brain) by about six to seven millimeters. The left humerus (upper part of the arm) was fractured. A Trauma History and Physical, dated 08/05/24 through 08/06/24, indicated the resident had a right forehead laceration and was disoriented. The CT scan of the head without contrast indicated the resident had a large right-sided subdural hemorrhage with significant midline effect and probable subfalcine herniation (midline shift) with a critical result if significant intracranial hemorrhage. The known injuries were SDH (subdural hemorrhage) with midline shift and humerus fracture. A Trauma Attending assessment, dated 08/05/24 at 7:13 P.M., indicated the resident's injuries by exam and radiographic findings/plan indicated the resident had a TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) with SDH and MLS (Midline Shift), neurosurgeon consulted and non-operation with poor prognosis, and a left humerus fracture with no intervention and given comfort care. A Trauma Attending Addendum Physician Note, dated 08/06/24 at 9:04 A.M., indicated the resident had a fall resulting in a severe TBI that was non-survivable and inoperable per the neurosurgeon. The resident was awaiting hospice and palliative care input. The resident died at the hospital on [DATE]. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 9:17 A.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 3 indicated Resident B passed away early that morning. She had been told the resident had a fall in the shower on 08/05/24 and was sent out to the hospital. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 9:53 A.M., LPN 6, while the DON was present, indicated on the day of the incident, 08/05/24, CNA 2 was giving Resident B a shower. The CNA started yelling for help in the shower room. She went into the shower room and the resident had fallen off the shower bed on to the floor, on Wing 3. The CNA indicated the bed rail had gave way on the shower bed. CNA 2 was the only staff in the shower room at the time of the fall. When she first observed the resident, she was lying face down on the floor. The resident was assessed and not moved, and the DON came and sat with the resident while she went and called EMS (Emergency Medical Services) to transport the resident to the hospital. The resident was breathing and stable after the fall. She didn't show any signs of distress. There was a small amount of blood present. The resident was able to squeeze her hand and had a laceration above her eye. The resident was transported to a local hospital. The physician and family were notified. The DON indicated due to the small amount of blood, she had placed a small towel under the resident's head prior to EMS arriving. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 10:01 A.M., the DON indicated when she entered the shower room the resident had fallen off the right side of the shower bed. The right-side rail had given way. One of the pins to the shower bed was lying on top of the bed. She wasn't sure how the pin got on the top of the bed. The right side of the rail was down. The pins were not to be removed while the resident was being showered only before and after the shower to get the resident in and out of the bed. There wasn't a problem with the shower bed. The Maintenance Director and Administrator checked the bed after the incident and there wasn't a problem with the shower bed. CNA 2 was terminated due to the incident. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 10:11 A.M., CNA 2 indicated she was giving Resident B a shower on the shower bed in the shower room alone. She was standing on the left side of the shower bed and turned the resident to her (the resident's) right side to rinse the soap off the resident. She understood the rail would be enough to hold the resident. The right-side shower bed PVC (Polyvinyl chloride) rail broke close to where the pin went in. She was unsure if the bed was broken prior to the shower. She had only moved the left side rail of the shower bed when she placed the resident on it. She never removed the pins or checked the pins on the right side. The shower bed had two to three inch pins that went into the four corners of the shower bed. When the resident fell, she called for help right away. She was the only staff member in the shower room at the time of the fall. She was re-educated via the telephone on rolling a resident towards the caregiver's body when another staff member wasn't present. A shower bed on Wing 3 that was used at the time of the fall on 08/05/24 was observed with the Maintenance Director, on 08/08/24 at 10:24 A.M. The bed frame and railings were made of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes. The bed lacked any identifying markers related to the weight limit. The bed was approximately three feet high, with rails on both sides that were approximately six inches high. A metal pin was attached at each of the four corners of the bed with a stiff plastic strip. The pins went into holes in the rails and held the rails in place. The Maintenance Director indicated staff would remove both pins on one side to lower the railing. He recently installed the plastic strips that attached the pins to the bed. Originally, there were thin black rubber strips that held the pins onto the bed, but they were easy to break. He was not in the facility when Resident B fell out of the shower bed, and he did not see the bed immediately after the incident. He was told after the incident that one of the four pins were found in the shower bed. The bed was taken out of service, and he took the bed outside and checked it for problems, there were none. He went through the bed and made sure no screws were cracked or missing. There were no documented routine checks on the beds, but staff would lose the pins a lot, so he did go around and check to make sure there were four pins in the beds. The shower bed was back in service and was used as needed. The shower bed on Wing 4 was observed with the Maintenance Director on 08/08/24 at 10:37 A.M. The shower bed was similar to the one on Wing 3, except there was a sticker at the foot of bed that identified it had a 500-pound weight capacity. The bed had the same white plastic strips holding the pins in place. The Maintenance Director indicated he had recently installed the white strips and replaced all four pins in that bed. The shower bed was in service and used as needed. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 10:45 A.M., Maintenance Staff 5 indicated on 08/05/24 a housekeeper had told him a resident had just had a fall. He went and looked at the shower bed to see what happened. The shower bed was brought out of the shower room. Each stationary corner of the bed, where the side rails connected in the upright position, contained solid rounded caps. One of the caps was off and missing. Where the cap was off, the PVC was broken. So, when the resident had rolled, the side rail gave way, and the resident fell to the floor. There wasn't enough plastic on the stationary corner to hold the pin in place. The maintenance didn't have routine checks on the shower beds. They would just take a quick look at them to make sure the wheels were working. The Maintenance Director had fixed the broken pipe after the fall. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 12:58 P.M., CNA 7 indicated the use of the shower bed was really based on the mobility needs of the resident. It took two staff members to get a resident on and off of the shower bed. You would have two staff members because you would be using a mechanical lift to transfer the resident onto the shower bed. If a resident was using a shower bed they would be using a mechanical lift too. Once the resident was on the shower bed you didn't need two staff members present to shower the resident if a staff member could roll the resident by themselves. Staff were trained on using the shower bed when they first started working at the facility, it was part of their orientation. When she used the shower bed, she looked to make sure the four pins were in place. You would have to remove two of the pins to lower the rail on one side to get the resident on the shower bed, and ensure the pins were back in place once the resident was on the bed. The rail would fall if both pins weren't in place. If one pin was in place the railing would stay up, but it would be super flimsy. She didn't really check the shower bed for cracks in the tubing or loose pieces before she used it. She did make sure the pins were in place. She was unaware of any problems with a shower bed prior to the incident that occurred with Resident B. During an interview on 08/08/2024 at 3:07 P.M., the Maintenance Director indicated he did, in fact, replace the pipes at the end of the shower bed observed on Wing 3 after Resident B fell out of it. A cap was off and it was nowhere to be found. There were two holes in one end of one of the pipes on the bed for the pins to be placed in, he didn't know if there was a good hole and a bad hole. He didn't know which hole was being used. He looked up the type of piping the bed was made of, but he used Schedule 40 PVC pipe on it instead. He replaced the pipes with heavier pipes he purchased from a local hardware store. He was unsure of how old the shower beds were, he couldn't find a purchase receipt or anything. In the last three months (May, June, and July) he had been using a Maintenance Checklist where he documented the rounds he did each month to check the rooms in the facility. At 6:07 P.M., the Maintenance Director indicated he checked the shower beds monthly. He checked to ensure the pins were present. He did not check the structure around the bed rails or around the pins for cracks. He only checked the bottom part of the frame for cracks and checked wheel function. During an interview on 08/09/2024 at 1:35 P.M., CNA 8 indicated staff should roll a resident towards themselves when using a shower bed. There was no situation in which they would roll them away from themselves when they were alone and giving a shower. The current facility policy titled, Accidents and Supervision with an implemented date of 9/1/22, indicated, .The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as is possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: Identifying hazard(s) and risk(s). Evaluating and analyzing hazard(s) and risk(s) .Monitoring for effectiveness and modifying interventions when necessary .The facility shall establish and utilize systemic approach to address resident risk and environmental hazards to minimize the likelihood of accident .All staff .are to be involved in observing and identifying potential hazards in the environment, while taking into consideration the unique characteristics and abilities of each resident . The current JOB ORIENTATION-CERTIFIED NURSE AIDE with a revised date of 1/9/2008, was provided by the Administrator on 08/08/24 at 1:20 P.M. The orientation indicated, .assisting residents in/out tub/shower .Showering residents . CNA 2's training record indicated the CNA training curriculum .PROCEDURE #30: TRANSFER: TO STRETCHER/SHOWER BED, dated 04/27/21, .included but was not limited to, place stretcher/shower bed at bedside. NOTE: Make certain wheels are locks. After locking wheels, ensure bed and stretcher/shower bed are at the same height. Then lower side rails .Staff should be present at the bedside as well as on the opposite side of stretcher/shower bed. (Requires a minimum of two staff members .Center and align resident. Place pillow under his/her head and cover with a blanket and raise the rails of stretcher/shower bed . The current facility policy titled, Resident Showers with a revised date of 02/22/24, was provided by the Administrator on 08/08/24 at 1:20 P.M. The policy indicated, .It is the practice of this facility to assist residents with bathing to maintain proper hygiene, stimulate circulation and help prevent skin issues as per current standards of practice . The undated OPERATION INSTRUCTIONS for the shower bed was provided by the Administrator on 08/08/24 at 11:12 A.M. The record indicated, .UNLESS TRANSFERRING, WHEN THE PATIENT IS ON THE SHOWER BED, KEEP RAILS UP AT ALL TIMES .WHEN USING A LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT IN AND OUT OF THE SHOWER BED, MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS KEEPING THE SIDERAILS UP AND LOCKED AT ALL TIMES .DO NOT ROLL USER AWAY FROM YOU UNLESS THERE IS A PARTNER CAREGIVER ON THE OTHER SIDE .SAFETY/MAINTENANCE INFORMATION .Check pipe and fittings for hairline fractures monthly .Check all junctures to make certain the pipe and fittings do not pull apart . The current, undated, manufacturer's PVC Healthcare Equipment catalog, indicated .[name of manufacturer] uses only top quality materials; a proprietary blend of PVC, strong and durable fittings specifically designed for healthcare and fabrics chosen for appearance and longevity .Surpasses all FDA [Food and Drug Administration] compliance standards . The Immediate Jeopardy, that began on 08/05/24, was removed on 08/10/24, when the facility conducted the following: The altered shower bed was taken out of service, the Maintenance Director received education to never alter medical equipment and to replace parts with the manufacturer's instructions, all residents who required the use of the shower bed were identified and the assignment sheet and care plan were updated, all staff were educated on the correct use, safety inspection, safety features of the bed and all safety measures to be taken related to the shower bed. This deficiency relates to Complaints IN00440484, IN00440575, and IN00440383. 3.1-45(a)(1) 3.1-45(a)(2)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care equipment was in safe operating condition for two of two shower beds reviewed. (Wing 3 shower bed and Wi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident care equipment was in safe operating condition for two of two shower beds reviewed. (Wing 3 shower bed and Wing 4 shower bed) Findings include: 1. The shower bed on Wing 3 that was being used when Resident B fell out of it on 08/05/24 was observed with the Maintenance Director on 08/08/24 at 10:24 A.M. The bed frame and railings were made of PVC (polyvinyl chloride) pipes. The bed lacked any identifying markers related to the weight limit. The bed was approximately three feet high, with rails on both sides that were approximately six inches high. A metal pin was attached at each of the four corners of the bed with a stiff plastic strip. The pins went into holes in the rails and held the rails in place. The Maintenance Director indicated staff would remove both pins on one side to lower the railing. He recently installed the plastic strips that attached the pins to the bed. Originally, there were thin black rubber strips that held the pins onto the bed, but they were easy to break. He was not in the facility when Resident B fell out of the shower bed, and he did not see the bed immediately after the incident. He was told after the incident that one of the four pins were found in the shower bed. The bed was taken out of service, and he took the bed outside and checked it for problems, there were none. He went through the bed and made sure no screws were cracked or missing. There were no documented routine checks on the beds, but staff would lose the pins a lot, so he did go around and check to make sure there were four pins in the beds. The shower bed was back in service and was used as needed. 2. The shower bed on Wing 4 was observed with the Maintenance Director on 08/08/24 at 10:37 A.M. The shower bed was similar to the one on Wing 3, except there was a sticker at the foot of bed that identified it had a 500-pound weight capacity. The bed had the same white plastic strips holding the pins in place. The Maintenance Director indicated he had recently installed the white strips and replaced all four pins in that bed. The shower bed was in service and used as needed. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 10:45 A.M., Maintenance Staff 5 indicated on 08/05/24 a housekeeper had told him a resident had just had a fall. He went and looked at the shower bed to see what happened. The shower bed was brought out of the shower room. Each stationary corner of the bed, where the side rails connected in the upright position, should have contained solid rounded caps. One of the caps was off and missing. Where the cap was off, the PVC was broken. There wasn't enough plastic on the stationary corner to hold the pin in place. The maintenance didn't have routine checks on the shower beds. They would just take a quick look at them to make sure the wheels were working. The Maintenance Director had replaced the pipe after a resident's fall. The fall report, dated 08/05/24 at 2:45 P.M., indicated Resident B was in the shower room. It was reported by CNA (Certified Nurse Aide 2) that during the resident's shower the side rail to the shower bed gave out and the resident fell. The resident was awake and talking to the nurse. She verbalized some understanding of the incident. She was noted to have a one-inch laceration with a hematoma (bruise) present above the right eye. There was a mechanical failure with the shower bed rail. The resident was sent to the local hospital. During an interview on 08/08/2024 at 3:07 P.M., the Maintenance Director indicated he did, in fact, replace the pipes at the end of the shower bed observed on Wing 3 after Resident B fell out of it. A cap was off and it was nowhere to be found. There were two holes in one end of one of the pipes on the bed for the pins to be placed in, he didn't know if there was a good hole and a bad hole. He didn't know which hole was being used. He looked up the type of piping the bed was made of, but he used Schedule 40 PVC pipe on it instead. He replaced the pipes with heavier pipes he purchased from a local hardware store. He was unsure of how old the shower beds were, he couldn't find a purchase receipt or anything. In the last three months (May, June, and July) he had been using a Maintenance Checklist where he documented the rounds he did each month to check the rooms in the facility. At 6:07 P.M., the Maintenance Director indicated he checked the shower beds monthly. He checked to ensure the pins were present. He did not check the structure around the bed rails or around the pins for cracks. He only checked the bottom part of the frame for cracks and checked wheel function. Maintenance Checklist documentation was provided on 08/08/24 at 6:07 P.M. The records indicated shower beds and shower chairs were checked in May, June, and July of 2024. The facility failed to provide any other documentation of monthly checks completed prior to May 2024. During an interview on 08/08/24 at 12:58 P.M., CNA 7 indicated staff were trained on using the shower bed when they first started working, it was part of their orientation. When she used the shower bed, she looked to make sure the four pins were in place. She didn't really check the shower bed for cracks in the tubing or loose pieces before she used it. She did make sure the pins were in place. The undated OPERATION INSTRUCTIONS for the shower bed was provided by the Administrator on 08/08/24 at 11:12 A.M. The record indicated, .UNLESS TRANSFERRING, WHEN THE PATIENT IS ON THE SHOWER BED, KEEP RAILS UP AT ALL TIMES .WHEN USING A LIFT TO TRANSFER THE PATIENT IN AND OUT OF THE SHOWER BED, MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDS KEEPING THE SIDERAILS UP AND LOCKED AT ALL TIMES .DO NOT ROLL USER AWAY FROM YOU UNLESS THERE IS A PARTNER CAREGIVER ON THE OTHER SIDE .SAFETY/MAINTENANCE INFORMATION .Check pipe and fittings for hairline fractures monthly .Check all junctures to make certain the pipe and fittings do not pull apart . The current, undated, manufacturer's PVC Healthcare Equipment catalog, indicated .[name of manufacturer] uses only top quality materials; a proprietary blend of PVC, strong and durable fittings specifically designed for healthcare and fabrics chosen for appearance and longevity .Surpasses all FDA [Food and Drug Administration] compliance standards . The current facility policy, titled Preventative Maintenance Program, with a revision date of 04/20/24, was provided by the Administrator on 08/08/24 at 1:20 P.M. The policy indicated, .A Preventative Maintenance Program shall be developed and implemented to ensure the provision of a safe, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff, and the public .The Maintenance Director is responsible for .maintaining a schedule of maintenance services to ensure .equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner .follow the manufacturers guidelines in the manuals provided with such equipment . This deficiency relates to Complaints IN00440484, IN00440575, and IN00440383. 3.1-19(bb)
Jun 2024 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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal and emotional abuse for 2 of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review and interview the facility failed to ensure residents were free from verbal and emotional abuse for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents D and B) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident D was reviewed on 06/04/24 at 11:15 A.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 04/13/24, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, Parkinson's disease, and hypertension. During an interview on 06/04/24 at 9:49 A.M., Resident D indicated she had been mistreated by CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) 5 at the facility. Her roommate (Resident B) couldn't reach her call light and Resident D had been helping her with the blankets on her bed. CNA 5 came into their room and thought Resident D was trying to transfer Resident B into bed. CNA 5 yelled at her and told her to get back to the other side of the room. The resident indicated she wasn't doing anything wrong. CNA 3 was there when it happened. The resident had heard CNA 5 had been fired. The SSD (Social Services Director) did talk to her and had asked her about the incident. A Progress Note written by LPN 4 (Licensed Practical Nurse), dated 05/19/24 at 5:27 P.M., indicated Resident D had spoken with her about an incident that happened the night before. The resident was upset with the CNAs on the evening shift after she said she was trying to help her roommate get her call light within reach and a CNA entered the room believing she was trying to assist her roommate to bed. She said a CNA yelled at her to get to her own side of the room. Apparently, an argument ensued between the CNA and the resident at that time. The roommate became upset over the confrontation and started to cry. This nurse had spoken with both residents in their room and received the same story. LPN 4 assured the residents that the incident would be addressed, and both residents were satisfied. 2. The clinical record for Resident B was reviewed on 06/04/24 at 11:26 A.M. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 03/13/24, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 1:38 P.M., Resident B indicated on the night of the incident she was getting ready for bed. Her roommate (Resident D) was helping her with some things. CNA 5 came in and started yelling at Resident D. CNA 5 thought Resident D was assisting Resident B into bed and she was not. CNA 5 left the room and CNA 3 finished helping Resident B. The whole incident upset her a little. The residents were not doing anything wrong, and CNA 5 yelled at Resident D. CNA 5 shouldn't have yelled at the resident. During the interview, Resident D indicated the residents would always hear CNA 5 yelling in the facility, but they never told anyone about it. During an interview on 06/04/24 at 2:08 P.M., CNA 3 indicated she had worked with CNA 5 on the evening of 05/18/24. CNA 3 went in Resident B and D's room that evening because Resident B's call light was on. Resident D was upset and told her that Resident B had not had her call light all day, that it had been out of her reach. Resident D was aggravated. CNA 3 felt like she needed help and had CNA 5 come in to assist her. When the CNAs returned to the room, Resident D was holding onto Resident B's wheelchair. CNA 5 told Resident D to go to her own side of the room. CNA 5 said it again and started getting louder. Resident D told CNA 5 to shut up. Resident B was getting teary eyed. CNA 3 was helping Resident B, and she was unsure of what Resident D was saying, it seemed like she said she wanted to go home. CNA 3 tried to keep everyone calm. CNA 5 was speaking in a louder voice than normal. CNA 3 made CNA 5 get out of the room. Other residents had expressed concerns regarding CNA 5 complaining a lot in the past. CNA 3 thought CNA 5 told the nurse about the incident. CNA 3 didn't report the incident to the nurse on duty, her brain went into a fog, and she was trying to get to another call light that was going off. CNA 5 worked the rest of the shift that night and worked the next day with CNA 3. CNA 3 indicated she was supposed to talk to the nurse in charge about what happened, and she failed to do that. She just was trying to get her residents taken care of. The as worked nursing schedule for 05/18/24 and 05/19/24 was provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 06/04/24 at 1:25 P.M. The record indicated CNA 5 and CNA 3 had worked on Wing 1 on both days from 2:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. During an interview on 06/04/24 at 1:38 P.M., LPN 2 indicated she remembered the incident from 05/18/24. It was in the evening; she was passing medications on Wing 1. CNA 3 was in the common area and asked CNA 5 to help her. Shortly after that, LPN 2 heard yelling. She went into the residents' room. Resident B was in bed and Resident D was sitting on her own bed. The two CNAs were not in the room. LPN 2 asked if everything was okay. Resident D indicated she would never do the things CNA 5 accused her of. She accused her of helping Resident B to walk. Resident D said she was just helping Resident B get her call light. LPN 2 tried to lighten the mood because Resident D seemed a little shaky. Resident D indicated she wanted to go home. Resident D indicated those CNAs were always rude to her. LPN 2 made sure the residents had their call lights and left the room. CNA 5 and CNA 3 were just sitting at the nurse's station. It was getting close to time for their shift to be over. LPN 2 did not say anything to the CNAs. She reported what happened to the oncoming nurse at 10:00 P.M. The Administrator had LPN 2 come into the facility on [DATE] and talked to her about the incident. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 2:14 P.M., LPN 7 indicated if she encountered a situation where a staff member was being abusive towards a resident she would immediately separate the two. She would make sure the resident was safe. She would call the Administrator and the Social Services Director at any time day or night. She would not wait, she would call them immediately, she wouldn't leave it for the next shift. During an interview on 06/04/2024 at 10:30 A.M., the Administrator indicated the staff were in-serviced and educated on abuse and neglect upon hire, annually, and any time there was an allegation of abuse or neglect. Education on abuse and neglect was part of the staff's orientation upon hire. After that, education was done annually facility wide. Signs were posted on every wing, by the time clock, and in the break room regarding reporting abuse. The signs were bright orange in color. They had not had any concerns with CNA 5 regarding abuse in the past. Residents B and D were alert and oriented. Both residents had the same story. CNA 3 came into the residents' room and had CNA 5 leave the room. The SSD was the Abuse Coordinator for the facility. Staff were supposed to call him, day, or night, to report any allegations or suspected abuse immediately. The current policy and procedure for Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation was provided by the Administrator on 06/04/24 at 11:20 A.M. The policy indicated, .It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse .Verbal Abuse .means the use of oral, written or gestured communication or sounds that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability .Mental Abuse .includes, but is not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment or deprivation .An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur .Room or staffing changes, if necessary, to protect the resident(s) from the alleged perpetrator .Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies .within specific timeframes .Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or .Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury . This citation relates to Complaint IN00434924. 3.1-27(a)(1) 5.1-27(b)
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure staff reported an allegation of abuse in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents D and B) Findings include:...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure staff reported an allegation of abuse in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed for abuse. (Residents D and B) Findings include: During an interview on 06/04/24 at 2:08 P.M., CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) 3 indicated she had worked with CNA 5 on the evening of 05/18/24. The CNAs entered Resident B and D's room to assist Resident B with care. Resident D was holding onto Resident B's wheelchair. CNA 5 told Resident D to go to her own side of the room. CNA 5 said it again and started getting louder. Resident D told CNA 5 to shut up. Resident B was getting teary eyed. CNA 3 was helping Resident B, and she was unsure of what Resident D was saying, it seemed like she said she wanted to go home. CNA 3 tried to keep everyone calm. CNA 5 was speaking in a louder voice than normal. CNA 3 made CNA 5 get out of the room. CNA 3 didn't report the incident to the nurse on duty. CNA 5 worked the rest of the shift that night and worked the next day with CNA 3. CNA 3 indicated she was supposed to talk to the nurse in charge about what happened, and she failed to do that. During an interview on 06/04/24 at 1:38 P.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 2 indicated she remembered the incident from 05/18/24. She heard some yelling in the direction of Resident B and D's room. When she entered the room, Resident B was in bed and Resident D was sitting on her own bed. The two CNAs were not in the room. Resident D indicated CNA 5 accused her of trying to help Resident B to walk. LPN 2 tried to lighten the mood because Resident D seemed a little shaky. Resident D indicated she wanted to go home. Resident D indicated those CNAs were always rude to her. LPN 2 made sure the residents had their call lights and left the room. CNA 5 and CNA 3 were just sitting at the nurse's station. It was getting close to time for their shift to be over. LPN 2 did not say anything to the CNAs. She reported what happened to the oncoming nurse at 10:00 P.M. A Progress Note written by LPN 4, dated 05/19/24 at 5:27 P.M., indicated Resident D had spoken with her about an incident that happened the night before. The resident was upset with the CNAs on the evening shift after she said she was trying to help her roommate get her call light within reach and a CNA entered the room believing she was trying to assist her roommate to bed. She said a CNA yelled at her to get to her own side of the room. Apparently, an argument ensued between the CNA and the resident at that time. The roommate became upset over the confrontation and started to cry. This nurse spoke with both residents in their room and received the same story. LPN 4 assured the residents that the incident would be addressed. There was no indication in Resident B or Resident D's records that the Administrator or SSD (Social Services Director) were notified of the incident. During an interview with the DON (Director of Nursing) and SSD on 06/05/24 at 9:46 A.M., the SSD indicated he came into work on 05/20/24 and found out about the incident when he was reviewing resident progress notes from over the weekend. Once he saw LPN 4's note about what happened, he immediately notified the Administrator and DON and started his investigation. He spoke with both residents. They remembered the incident. Both residents were very calm and showed no signs of psychological distress. The resident's families were notified, and the staff involved were interviewed. Staff were educated about reporting abuse. CNA 5 was initially suspended and then fired. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 2:14 P.M., LPN 7 indicated if she encountered a situation where a staff member was being abusive towards a resident she would immediately separate the two. She would make sure the resident was safe. She would call the Administrator and the Social Services Director at any time day or night. She would not wait, she would call them immediately, she wouldn't leave it for the next shift. During an interview on 06/05/24 at 2:11 P.M., CNA 6 indicated If she came upon a situation where a staff member was yelling at a resident or abusing a resident in any way, she would immediately intervene. She would make sure the resident was safe, she wouldn't leave the resident and she would tell the nurse what was going on. During an interview on 06/04/2024 at 10:30 A.M., the Administrator indicated the staff were in-serviced and educated on abuse and neglect upon hire, annually, and any time there was an allegation of abuse or neglect. Education on abuse and neglect was part of the staff's orientation upon hire. After that, education was done annually facility wide. Signs were posted on every wing, by the time clock, and in the break room regarding reporting abuse. The signs were bright orange in color. The SSD was the Abuse Coordinator for the facility. Staff were supposed to call him, day, or night, to report any allegations or suspected abuse immediately. The current policy and procedure for Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation was provided by the Administrator on 06/04/24 at 11:20 A.M. The policy indicated, .It is the policy of this facility to provide protections for the health, welfare and rights of each resident by developing and implementing written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse .Verbal Abuse .means the use of oral, written or gestured communication or sounds that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or within their hearing distance regardless of their age, ability to comprehend, or disability .Mental Abuse .includes, but is not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment or deprivation .An immediate investigation is warranted when suspicion of abuse, neglect or exploitation, or reports of abuse, neglect or exploitation occur .Reporting of all alleged violations to the Administrator, state agency, adult protective services and to all other required agencies .within specific timeframes .Immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or .Not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury . This citation relates to Complaint IN00434924. 3.1-28(c)
Aug 2023 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate oversight of a resident's medication during 1 of 11 medication administration observations. (Resident 1) F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to ensure appropriate oversight of a resident's medication during 1 of 11 medication administration observations. (Resident 1) Findings Include: An observation of medication administration with RN 5, on 08/16/23 at 2:41 P.M., of Wing 4 indicated the RN prepared a cup of medications for Resident 1. The cup contained one Gabapentin 100 mg (milligrams) tablet and two Tylenol 325 mg tablets. The RN walked into the resident's room at 2:49 P.M. The resident was brushing her teeth in her bathroom and the nurse asked if she just wanted her medications left at the bedside to take at her convenience and the resident indicated, Yes. The RN left the medication cup on her over the bed table and exited the room. During an interview on 08/18/23 at 2:18 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated she was not aware of any residents on the Health Care side of the facility that self-medicated. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 11:30 A.M., RN 5 indicated there were seven residents on Wing 4 who were independently mobile. The clinical record for Resident 1 was reviewed on 08/22/23 at 12:12 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/05/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, anxiety, dysphagia, diabetes, and heart failure. The current physician's orders record was provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 12:17 P.M. The record lacked an order permitting the resident to self-medicate or leave medications at the bedside. The complete Care Plan was provided by the MDS Coordinator on 08/22/23 at 1:28 P.M. Care Plans included, but were not limited to, a Focus indicating the resident had a knowledge deficit related to short term memory loss with an initiated date of 02/13/18. The resident record lacked a Care Plan indicating she was assessed or permitted to self-administer her medications. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 2:06 P.M., the DON indicated staff were not allowed to leave residents' medications at the bedside unless they were Care Planned to do so. The current Administering Medications policy, with a revised date of April 2019, indicated, .Medications are administered in a safe .manner, and as prescribed .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 . The current Accidents and Supervision policy with an implemented date of 09/01/22, was provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 1:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as is possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: .Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s) .Implementation of Interventions-using specific interventions to try to reduce a resident's risks from hazards in the environment. The process includes: .Communicating the interventions to all relevant staff .Providing training as needed .Ensuring that the interventions are put into action . 3.1-11(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 08/17/23 at 2:42 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/07/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were n...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 08/17/23 at 2:42 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/07/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, anemia, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. The resident received a diuretic medication for seven of the seven days during the review period. The TAR for June, July, and August 2023, was provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 10:13 A.M., and contained the following physician's order: - Daily weight at 6:00 A.M. If a weight gain greater than 3 pounds in a day or 5 pounds in a week, Call the MD, with a start date of 08/16/22. The records indicated the resident had weight changes of three pounds or more on the following dates: June 2023: - 06/08/23, weight was 195, - 06/09/23, weight was 198.2, a change of 3.2 pounds, and - 06/14/23, weight was 196.7, - 06/15/23, weight was 200.6, a change of 3.9 pounds. July 2023: - 07/14/23, weight was 200.2, - 07/15/23, weight was 204.5, a change of 4.5 pounds. August 2023: - 08/12/23, weight was 199.7, - 08/13/23, weight was 203.2, a change of 3.5 pounds. The Progress Notes for June, July, and August 2023, were provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 10:13 A.M. The record lacked documentation the physician had been notified of the changes in the resident's weights. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 2:33 P.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 2 indicated when a resident was to have a daily weight, the resident would be weighed as soon as they awoke for the morning. If the physician needed notified due to a weight gain, they would call the physician. If no one answered she would leave a message. When the physician was notified a progress note would be entered that they had been notified. The current facility policy titled, Change in Resident's Condition or Status, with a revised date of February 2021, was provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 1:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .promptly notifies the resident, his or her attending physician, and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status (e.g. changes in level of care, billing/payments, resident rights, etc.) .The nurse will notify the resident's attending physician or physician on call when there has been a(an): .specific instruction to notify the physician of changes in resident's condition . 3.1-5(a)(3) Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to notify the physician for a change in residents' condition related to the notification of weight changes for 2 of 5 residents reviewed for notification. (Residents 47 and 57) Findings include: 1. The clinical record for Resident 47 was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 3:05 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 07/29/23, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, and hypertension. The resident received a diuretic (water pill) medication for seven of the seven days during the review period. The Care Plan, with an initiated date of 06/07/23, indicating the resident was at risk for decreased cardiac output related to chronic kidney disease stage three, peripheral vascular disease, and atherosclerotic heart disease. The interventions included, but were not limited to, .Daily weights; Notify physician if weight gain is greater than 3 pounds in 24 hours or 5 pounds in a week . The TAR (Treatment Administration Record) for June, July, and August 2023, were provided by the ADON (assistant director of nursing) on 08/22/23 at 10:09 A.M., and contained the following physician's order: - Obtain daily weight every day shift related to chronic kidney disease stage three and call for three pound weight changes, with a start date of 06/07/23. The records indicated the resident had weight changes of three pounds or more on the following dates: June 2023: - 06/19/23, weight was 258.5, - 06/20/23, weight was 249.5, a change of 9 pounds, and - 06/29/23, weight was 253.5, - 06/30/23, weight was 250, a change of 3.5 pounds. July 2023: - 07/29/23, weight was 246.6, - 07/30/23, weight was 243, a change of 3.6 pounds. August 2023: - 08/15/23, weight was 244.4, - 08/16/23, weight was 240.3, a change of 4.1 pounds. The Progress Notes for June, July, and August 2023, were provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 10:09 A.M. The record lacked documentation the physician had been notified of the changes in the resident's weights.
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 ensure a care plan was initiated for a resident with an intravaginal device for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident 53) Fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was initiated for a resident with an intravaginal device for 1 of 20 residents reviewed for care plans. (Resident 53) Findings include: During an interview on 08/16/23 at 1:41 P.M., Resident 53 indicated she took water pills and had to go to the bathroom often. The resident's clinical record was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 10:01 A.M. An admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 06/12/23, indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. The resident required limited staff assistance for most ADLs (Activities of Daily Living), including toileting, but required extensive staff assistance with personal hygiene. The resident was occasionally incontinent of urine, and frequently incontinent of bowel. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, uterovaginal prolapse, and the presence of urinogenital implants. A facility admission Assessment, dated 06/05/23, indicated the resident was incontinent of bladder. A note in the genitourinary section of the assessment indicated pessary maintenance. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 10:59 A.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 7 indicated the resident did have a pessary (a device placed in the vagina to support the uterus or bladder and rectum that helped decrease urine leakage). The resident went to her Gynecologist in June 2023, and had a follow up appointment in four months. There were no issues with the pessary. There was a vaginal gel that was administered on night shift. A REPORT OF CONSULTATION, dated 06/26/23, indicated the resident's physician changed and cleansed her pessary device. The resident was to follow up in four months and nursing staff were to continue administering the vaginal gel twice a week. The resident's current MD orders included, but were not limited to, an open-ended order, with a start date of 06/30/23, for Oxyquinolone Sulfate vaginal gel, insert one application vaginally at bedtime every Tuesday and Friday for pessary maintenance. The resident's complete Care Plan was provided by the MDS Coordinator on 08/22/23, at 9:35 A.M. There was no indication the resident had a pessary, and there was no plan of care related to the resident's pessary device. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 10:19 A.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated the resident did have a pessary and had MD orders for the vaginal gel. The resident should have a care plan that indicated she had a pessary device. The current facility policy, titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, with a revised on date of 12/2016, was provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 08/22/23 at 1:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's .needs is developed and implemented for each resident . 3.1-35(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow manufacturer's guidelines related to insulin pen usage for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for Quality of Care. (Resident 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow manufacturer's guidelines related to insulin pen usage for 1 of 11 residents reviewed for Quality of Care. (Resident 135) Findings include: Medication administration was observed on 08/17/23 at 11:33 A.M., on Wing 5 with RN 3. The RN prepared to check the blood sugar level of Resident 135. The nurse took a basket of supplies, donned clean gloves, and checked the resident's blood sugar level. The level was 204. The nurse unlocked the medication cart, removed a bag containing a Lispro insulin pen, indicated the resident was to receive two units of insulin, used hand sanitizer, removed the pen from the bag, removed the pen cap, applied the needle to the end of the insulin pen, turned the dose knob to two units, and administered the insulin. The nurse did not clean the hub of the pen prior to applying the needle, nor did she prime the pen before use. During an interview on 08/17/23 at 11:44 A.M., RN 3 indicated she was not trained to clean the hub of the insulin pen before applying the needle. She looks at the pen to see if there was air in the pen. She did not prime the pen before each dose. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 2:02 P.M., the DON indicated insulin pens should be cleaned with alcohol before applying the needle to the pen. She had no comment regarding priming the insulin pens. The Medication Review Report was provided by the DON on 08/22/23 at 2:56 P.M. The report indicated the resident was to receive two units of Lispro insulin, subcutaneously, in the afternoon for diabetes. The Lispro insulin pen package insert was provided by the DON on 08/22/23 at 2:56 P.M. The directions for use indicated, .Pull the Pen Cap straight off .Wipe the Rubber Seal with an alcohol swab .Push the capped Needle straight onto the Pen .Prime before each injection .Priming your Pen means removing the air from the Needle and Cartridge that may collect during normal use and ensures the Pen is working correctly .If you do not prime before each injection, you may get too much or too little insulin .To prime your Pen, turn the Dose Knob to select 2 units .hold your Pen with the Needle pointing up. Tap the Cartridge Holder gently to collect air bubbles at the top . The current Facility Insulin Pen policy, with an implemented date of 03/2023, was provided by the DON on 08/22/23 at 2:56 P.M. The policy indicated, .Procedure .Remove the pen cap from the insulin pen .Wipe the rubber seal with an alcohol pad .Screw the pen needle onto the insulin pen .Twist open and remove outer cover from the pen needle .Prime the insulin pen .Dial 2 units .With the needle point up, push the plunger, and watch to see that at least one drop of insulin appears on the tip of the needle . 3.1- 37(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 08/17/23 at 2:42 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/07/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were n...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. The clinical record for Resident 57 was reviewed on 08/17/23 at 2:42 P.M. An Annual MDS assessment, dated 07/07/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, anemia, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. The resident required extensive assistance of two staff members for transferring and toileting. A Progress Note, dated 12/26/22 at 8:55 P.M., indicated the resident was lowered to the floor that evening at 8:25 P.M. There were no visible injuries. A Late Entry Progress Note, dated 12/26/22 at 8:35 P.M., indicated an after fall investigation was completed. The resident was being transferred by a CNA from the toilet to his wheelchair when he lost his balance, resulting in a fall/assist to the floor. There were no injuries at the time of the fall. A new intervention was put into place, the staff were educated on following the recommended number of staff needed for resident's transfers. A Progress Note, dated 03/29/23 at 7:44 A.M., indicated an after fall investigation was completed. The resident's foot slipped when a CNA was assisting with a transfer from the toilet to the wheelchair that resulted in a witnessed fall. The resident was lowered to the floor by the CNA. There were no injuries noted. A new intervention was put into place to offer the resident a urinal or bedpan when needing to use the bathroom until two staff were available for safe transfers. The Care Plan for the resident was provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 08/22/23 at 10:13 A.M. The care plan contained the following: - Activities of Daily of Living Self Care Performance Deficit related to right sided hemiplegia with a start date of 08/22/22. The care plan inventions included, but were not limited to, extensive assist of 2 staff for toileting, with a start date of 08/16/22, and extensive assist of 2 staff for transfer with a start date of 08/16/22. - Potential for injuries/falls related to right sided hemiplegia with a start date of 08/22/22. The care plan interventions included, but was not limited to, staff (CNA) educated on following number of staff needed for resident's transfers. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 10:27 A.M., QMA (Qualified Medication Aide) 11 indicated the resident was to have two staff assistance for transfers. He had been a 2 person transfer since she had been working in the facility for the last 6 months. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 9:38 A.M., CNA 10 indicated the resident was impatient when wanting to get off the toilet at times. When the resident fell in March, the other aide on the wing was getting someone up out of bed and the resident was getting agitated, so she transferred him by herself. She had to lower him to the floor. The resident was supposed to be a two person transfer at the time of the fall. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 1:13 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated the CNA did not follow the intervention from the previous fall and she should have gotten assistance to transfer the resident. The current Accidents and Supervision policy with an implemented date of 09/01/22, was provided by the ADON on 08/22/23 at 1:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .The resident environment will remain as free of accident hazards as is possible. Each resident will receive adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: .Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s) .Implementation of Interventions-using specific interventions to try to reduce a resident's risks from hazards in the environment. The process includes: .Communicating the interventions to all relevant staff .Providing training as needed .Ensuring that the interventions are put into action . 3.1-45(a)(2) Based on record review, interview, and observation, the facility failed to ensure a resident's safety during bus transport (Resident 15), follow and implement fall interventions (Resident 57) for 2 of 6 residents reviewed for accident hazards. Findings include: 1. Resident 15's clinical record was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 2:32 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment, dated 07/15/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, hypertension, hemiplegia, and anxiety. The resident required extensive staff assistance with bed mobility and transfers. The resident's functional range of motion was impaired on one side of their upper and lower extremities. A Health Status Note, dated 08/02/23 at 6:18 P.M., indicated the FBD (Facility Bus Driver) indicated the resident was currently at the hospital. On the way to a dental appointment that afternoon a vehicle pulled out in front of her as she was driving, and she had to slam on her brakes. The resident was in a wheelchair and slid under her safety belt and was sitting on the wheelchair leg rests. The resident complained of leg pain, so the FBD called 911 and the resident was transported by stretcher to the local hospital ER for evaluation. A Health Status Note, dated 08/02/23 at 8:30 P.M., indicated the resident was evaluated and there were no injuries related to the incident. During an interview on 08/17/23 at 2:27 P.M., the resident indicated she did have an incident on the bus. When the bus stopped, she thought the whole wheelchair moved on the bus. The wheelchair was locked in place, but it moved. Her legs hurt, she thought she was injured. She would not ride in the bus again. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 11:39 A.M., the FBD indicated the resident had a dentist appointment on 08/02/23. She took her to the appointment, but when they got there, they realized it was the wrong location. They called the dentist's office and since they weren't very far away, they could still go to the appointment. The bus driver loaded the resident back into the bus and headed toward the correct location. The road was being worked on and traffic was a little backed up. Suddenly, she saw a van coming across her lane, so she hit the brakes. The resident's wheelchair was reclined, and her leg was up on the foot pedal. The resident slid down in her wheelchair, and she couldn't get her up. The resident's leg slid, and she hit her leg on the back of the front passenger seat. At first the resident said she was ok, but then she said her hip hurt. The FBD called 911 and the resident was transported to a local ER to be evaluated. When she put the resident in the van, she put the wheel locks in place and cranked them to make sure they were tight. She fastened the seat belt around the resident and the wheelchair. She was not sure how tight the seatbelt was since it went around resident and the wheelchair. Usually everyone sits up in their wheelchair, but this wheelchair was in a reclined position and the resident was half laying down. It was a high backed wheelchair, she had been driving the bus for a year, and this was the only resident that she transported in a wheelchair that was reclined. She left the wheelchair reclined because staff said the resident would slide out of the wheelchair if it was not reclined. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 10:06 A.M., CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) 6 indicated she was working on the day the resident went out for her dental appointment. The resident had a standard wheelchair in her room that she used when she got out of bed. Her feet were always elevated in the wheelchair, especially her bad leg. The day of the appointment, they put her in her regular wheelchair, but she kept sliding out, so they put her in another resident's high backed wheelchair. They reclined the wheelchair, and her legs were resting on the extended foot pedals. The facility bus was observed with the FBD on 08/22/23 at 11:44 A.M. The FBD brought a regular wheelchair to demonstrate how the resident was positioned in the bus. They could not locate a highbacked wheelchair to use that was not already being used by another resident. The FBD locked the wheelchair wheels in place on the bus. The seatbelt came out from the floor and was attached around from the back to the front of the wheelchair. The FBD indicated on 08/02/23, the resident's wheelchair was reclined, but the seatbelt was in place. When she hit the brakes, the resident slid down the wheelchair and the resident's buttocks were sitting on the padded leg rests that were located at the top of the wheelchair foot pedals. The resident's right leg hit the back of the front passenger seat. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 1:55 P.M., the Administrator indicated she did investigate what happened. She made sure the bus equipment was functioning properly and that the FBD knew how to properly secure residents on the bus, and there were no issues. The resident suffered no injuries. At the time, they considered transporting the resident via stretcher, but the resident's husband wanted the resident to go in the facility bus. The current facility TRANSPORTATION job description, dated 2022, was provided by the Administrator on 08/21/23 at 1:02 P.M. The form indicated, .Additional Assigned Tasks .Follows appropriate safety and hygiene measures at all times to protect residents . The current, undated facility policy, titled Vehicle Lift Safety, was provided by the Administrator on 08/21/23 at 1:40 P.M. The policy indicated, .All wheelchairs must be secured in the vehicle .
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 acknowledge a nutrition recommendation and document m...

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 acknowledge a nutrition recommendation and document meal consumption for 1 of 2 residents reviewed for nutrition. (Resident 6) Findings include: 1a. During an interview on 8/15/23 at 12:06 P.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 7 indicated the resident lost weight and had a poor appetite. They had increased her health shakes and she had a lot of snacks in her room. The resident had a stable weight at the time of 115 pounds. She was only 5 foot tall. She had a stroke recently and thought it might have affected the part of the brain the had to do with hunger because she just wasn't hungry anymore. During an observation and interview on 08/18/23 at 12:43 P.M., Resident 6 was sitting in her recliner in her room. She indicated she was a picky eater. She ate oatmeal every morning for breakfast. The facility was accommodating if she didn't like what was being served. She believed she had lost weight because she wasn't as active as she used to be. The Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 05/16/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. The resident required supervision with eating, she weighed 114 pounds, and had weight loss and was not on a prescribed weight loss regimen. The resident admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The following weights were documented: - On, 02/08/23 the resident weighed 122.6 pounds, - On, 02/13/23 the resident weighed 117.9 pounds, - On 02/18/23 the resident weighed 121.5 pounds, - On 03/18/23 the resident weighed 118.1 pounds, - On 04/18/23 the resident weighed 119.4 pounds, - On 05/10/23 the resident weighed 114.0 pounds, - On 06/10/23 the resident weighed 114.0 pounds, - On 07/10/23 the resident weighed 115.7 pounds, - On 08/10/23 the resident weighed 112.0 pounds, and - On 08/20/23 the resident weighed 114.0 pounds. The resident had the following physician orders: - A current physician's order, with a start date of 03/09/23, indicated the resident was on a regular texture diet, - A current physician's order, with a start date of 02/13/23, indicated the resident was to receive four ounces of a health shake, three times a day, and - A current physician's order, with a start date of 02/21/23, indicated the resident was to receive 120 milliliters of Med Pass (a fortified nutritional supplement) in the morning and at bedtime. A Nutrition/Dietary Progress Note, dated 05/12/23 at 12:50 P.M., indicated the resident was being monitored for weight loss weekly. Her most recent weight of 114 pounds, showed a loss of 7.9% in 3 months. The resident received health shakes, three times a day. She consumed 50-100% of most meals. Dietary would continue to monitor the resident weights and intakes. She would be referred to the RD (Registered Dietician) as needed. A Nutrition/Dietary Progress Note, dated 05/16/23 at 12:10 P.M., indicated the resident was being monitored for weight loss weekly. The most recent weight of 114 pounds, showed a loss of 5.2% in 20 days. The resident received health shakes, three times a day. She consumed 50 to 100% of most meals. Dietary would continue to monitor the resident weights and intakes. She would be referred to the Registered Dietician as needed. A Nutrition/Dietary RD Progress Note, dated 05/31/23 at 9:56 P.M., indicated the resident was on a regular diet with shakes three times a day and Med Pass 2.0, twice a day. She fed herself and her seven-day meal consumption average was 61%. The resident's weight on 05/10/23 was 114 pounds and reflected an insidious weight loss of 4.2% for 1 month and significant weight loss of 7.9% in 2 months, and 13.8% in 6 months. A recommendation was made to add fortified cereal with breakfast for added calories and protein to aid in weight loss prevention. A Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 06/07/23 at 11:41 A.M., indicated the resident was being monitored for weight loss weekly. The most recent weight of 114 pounds, showed a loss of 5.6% in 2 months and 13.6% in 6 months. The resident received health shakes, three times a day. She consumed 50 to 100% of most meals. See RD recommendations from 05/31/23. Dietary would continue to monitor the resident weights and intakes. A Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 07/20/23 at 12:37 P.M., indicated the resident was being monitored for weight loss weekly. The most recent weight of 110.5 pounds, showed a loss of 6.5% in 3 weeks, and 8.1% in 3 months The resident had a gradual decline in weight. The resident received health shakes, three times a day. Her appetite varied. Dietary would continue to monitor the resident weights and intakes. She would be referred to the RD as needed. A Nutrition/Dietary Note, dated 08/07/23 at 8:15 A.M., indicated the resident received a regular diet. Her most recent weight was 114 pounds and was stable at that time. The resident's appetite varied. She received health shakes three times a day. Dietary would continue to monitor the resident weights and intakes. The NAR (Nutritionally At Risk) Master List, were provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing), on 08/22/23 at 9:45 A.M. The forms indicated the following for Resident 6: - dated 05/02/23, the resident was a watch for weight decrease of 6.1 pounds in 9 days and was fairly stable for 3 months, - dated 05/09/23, the reason for NAR was the resident was down 7.9% of weight in 3 months. The interventions included, to request oatmeal at breakfast, health shakes three times a day, - dated 05/15/23, the reason for NAR was the resident was down 5.2% of weight in 20 days. The interventions included, to request oatmeal at breakfast, health shakes three times a day, - dated 05/22/23, the reason for NAR was the resident was down 5.2% of weight in 20 days and 13.8% of weight in 5 months. The interventions included, health shakes three times a day, and Med Pass twice a day, - dated 05/29/23, the reason for NAR was the resident was down 5.2% of weight in 1 month and down 7.9% in 3 months. The interventions included, daily weights, health shake three times a day, and Med Pass twice a day, - dated 06/05/23, the reason for NAR was the resident was down 5.6% of weight in 2 months and down 13.8% in 6 months. The interventions included, health shake three times a day, Med Pass twice a day. An intervention was listed for an RD recommendation of fortified cereal on 05/31/23 with a question mark beside it. The resident weight was stable for 1 month, and - dated 07/17/23, the reason for NAR was the resident had decline in weight. The interventions included Med Pass twice a day, and health shakes three times a day. The resident was not listed on the NAR notes for 06/12/23, 06/20/23, 06/26/23, 07/10/23, 07/31/23, 08/07/23, 08/14/23, and 08/21/23. The clinical record lacked documentation the resident's physician was notified of the RD recommendation to add fortified cereal with breakfast. During an interview on 08/18/23 at 9:04 A.M., LPN 7 indicated the resident really liked oatmeal with brown sugar for breakfast. She was a sweets eater. She received house shakes and Med Pass. She had never received fortified foods. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 10:38 A.M., CNA (Certified Nurse Aide) 12 indicated the resident would feed herself. The resident always ate oatmeal for breakfast. She liked to snack a lot. The resident always ate regular oatmeal at breakfast. She had never gotten fortified oatmeal. If the resident was to have fortified oatmeal it would be indicated on her meal card. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 10:51 A.M., the Dietary Manager indicated when the RD made a recommendation it would be written on the NAR and then sent to the DON (Director of Nursing), ADON, and the Administrator. They would then be sent to the physician. The physician would then agree or disagree with the recommendation. If the physician agreed with the recommendation the order would be implemented and if they disagreed, they would let the DON know why the disagreed and it would be documented in a progress note. She wasn't sure what happened with the fortified cereal recommendation. The resident had received health shakes and was on a regular diet. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 11:30 A.M., the DON indicated if the NP (Nurse Practitioner) disagreed with an RD recommendation a progress note would have been created. She didn't see anything on the physician visit note on 05/31/23 that it was addressed. During an interview on 08/21/23 at 1:14 P.M., the DON indicated she wasn't sure what happened to the RD recommendation. It should have been documented that the physician agreed or disagreed with the recommendation. The current facility policy titled, Nutritional Management, with an implemented date of 09-01-2022 was provided by the ADON on 0822/23 at 1:15 P.M. The policy indicated, .The facility provides care and services to each resident to ensure the resident maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status in the context of his or her overall condition . The current, undated, facility policy titled, CONSULTING REGISTERED DIETICIAN REPORTS, was provided by the DON on 08/22/23 at 1:42 P.M. The policy indicated, .A record of the consultant dietician's observations and recommendations is made available in an easily retrievable for to nurses, physician's and the care planning team .Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or prescriber. If the prescriber does not respond to the recommendations within a reasonable timeframe, the Director of Nursing and/or the consultant registered dietician may contact the medical director, as needed . 1b. The Amount Eaten Record for Resident 6 was provided by the ADON on 08/21/23 at 4:17 P.M. The record lacked documented meals for the following dates and meals: - On 05/02/23 at breakfast, - On 05/13/23 at dinner, - On 05/22/23 at breakfast and lunch, - On 05/25/23 at dinner, - On 05/28/23 at dinner, - On 06/03/23 at breakfast, - On 06/04/23 at breakfast, - On 06/19/23 at dinner, - On 07/02/23 at breakfast, - On 07/03/23 at breakfast, - On 07/08/23 at dinner, - On 07/17/23 at dinner, - On 07/20/23 at breakfast, - On 07/22/23 at dinner, - On 07/23/23 at dinner, - On 08/05/23 at dinner, - On 08/06/23 at dinner, and - On 08/14/23 at dinner. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 9:34 A.M., CNA 10 indicated the amount of food the resident ate was entered in the computer system at the end of each shift. It should be documented for each meal. The supplements the residents received were not to be entered into the computer with the meals. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 10:19 A.M., the Dietary Manager indicated resident meal consumptions were reviewed for NAR and by the RD. The current facility policy titled, Recording Percent of Meal Consumed, dated 2021, was provided by the DON on 08/22/23 at 1:42 P.M. The policy indicated, .Staff will document the percentage of each meal consumed for each individual on a daily basis . 3.1-46(a)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. Resident 15's clinical record was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 2:32 P.M. A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/15/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not l...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. Resident 15's clinical record was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 2:32 P.M. A Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/15/23, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, hypertension, hemiplegia, and personal history of other diseases of the digestive system. A Consultant Pharmacy Communication to Nursing form, dated 02/25/23, indicated the resident received Colestid (Colestipol, a cholesterol medication that was used to treat diarrhea), 1 gram, once in the morning and again at bedtime. Clinical Pharmacology sources indicated other medications the resident took should be administered at least an hour before or at least 4 hours after the Colestipol. Based on administration times for the resident's other medications, the Colestipol could be administered at 11:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. The response section of the form, signed by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and dated 03/01/23, indicated the Colestipol medication administration times were adjusted to 11:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. The March 2023 EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) included, but was not limited to the following MD orders: - An MD order, with a start date of 03/02/23, to administer Colestid, 1 gram, by mouth, in the morning for diarrhea. The administration time was 11:00 A.M. The medication was administered as ordered until the order was discontinued on 03/06/23. - An open ended MD order, with a start date of 03/07/23, to administer Colestid, 1 gram, by mouth in the morning for diarrhea. The administration time was UPON (upon rising). The resident's EMARs from March 2023 to August 2023 indicated the resident received a morning dose of Colestid with all her other morning medications and an evening dose of the medication at 4:00 P.M. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 10:13 A.M., RN 4 indicated the resident received the Colestid with all her other morning medications upon rising, and received an additional dose of the medication by itself at 4:00 P.M. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 10:29 A.M., the DON indicated the facility switched pharmacies in March. The order for the morning dose of the medication should have been entered into the computer to reflect the 11:00 A.M. administration time. The medication should have been administered at 11:00 A.M., not upon rising and not with the other medications.Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately monitor the disbursement of a controlled substance (Resident 24) and follow pharmacy recommendations (Residents 15 and 44) for 3 of 16 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. Findings include: 1. Medication administration was observed on Wing 3 on 08/17/23 at 10:20 A.M. LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 was giving Resident 24 liquid morphine prior to pericare. The label on the bottle indicated there was 100 mg (milligrams) of morphine in every 5 ml (milliliters) of fluid. The resident's dose was 0.25 ml (5 mg) sublingually (under the tongue). The LPN drew the morphine out of the bottle using a small easy to read syringe. After the nurse administered the morphine, she rinsed the syringe in the sink, placed the syringe in a new plastic bag used for crushing medications, and placed it in the dark plastic bag with the bottle of morphine. She documented on the paper Controlled Drug Record for Liquids form following the administration. The drug record indicated the resident should have had 1.5 (six doses) ml left in the bottle. The LPN drew up the liquid morphine left in bottle and the amount was between 0.25 and 0.5 ml (less than two doses) . The narcotics count book indicted the resident should have had 1.5 ml left in the bottle following the administration of the dose of morphine. The LPN indicated she would contact the DON (Director of Nursing) in regard to the discrepancy. On 08/17/23 at 10:38 A.M., LPN 4 contacted the DON from the unit phone. On 08/17/23 at 10:39 A.M., the DON arrived at the medication cart on Wing 3. The LPN explained the bottle of Morphine contained between 0.25 and 0.5 ml and the Controlled Substance Log indicated the resident should have had 1.5 ml left in the bottle. On 08/17/23 at 10:41 A.M., the bottle of morphine was observed and indicated it had contained 15 ml upon delivery from the pharmacy. The LPN indicated the resident had been on 0.25 ml since she had started on the medication. The dose had not changed. During an interview on 08/17/23 at 11:56 A.M., the DON indicated there was spillage in the plastic bags, of which she indicated there were two, within the plastic bag with the morphine bottle. During an interview on 08/18/23 at 12:35 P.M., LPN 4 indicated when the bottle of liquid morphine would get below the last line it was hard to tell how much was in the bottle. The Controlled Drug Record for Liquids was provided by the DON on 08/17/23 at 10:42 A.M. The record indicated the resident had received 53 doses of 0.25 ml. The bottle contained 15 ml (60 doses). The resident should have had seven doses left in the bottle. Less than two doses remained in the bottle. During an interview on 08/17/23 at 10:58 A.M., the DON indicated staff were supposed to document on the Controlled Drug Record when a dose was administered. The current facility policy title, MEDICATION STORAGE IN THE FACILITY-CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE STORAGE, with a revision date of 02/2023, was provided by the DON on 08/17/23 at 3:39 P.M. The policy indicated, .Schedule medications and other medications subject to abuse or diversion are stored in a permanently affixed, [double-locked] compartment separate from all other medications or per state regulations .At each shift change, or when keys are transferred, a physical inventory of all controlled substances, including refrigerated items is conducted by two licensed nurses and is documented .Any discrepancy in controlled substance counts is reported to the director of nursing immediately .Liquid narcotics will be overfilled in comparison to the quantity written on the label. This is a pharmacy industry standard. To account for excess amount, the nurse checking in the bottle of liquid controlled substance, should eliminate the quantity by using the measurement grid, located on the bottle .This amount should be recorded as the starting quantity . 3. Resident 44's clinical record was reviewed on 08/21/23 at 10:26 A.M. A Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/07/23, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, hypertension, anemia, diabetes, anxiety, and depression. A Consultant Pharmacy Communication to Nursing form, dated 05/23/23, indicated the resident's order from the recent hospital discharge was for Bupropion XL (An antidepressant). This medication was entered in the EMAR as Bupropion SR which was not the same dosage form. The response section of the form, signed by the DON and dated 05/25/23, indicated the medication had been changed to XL. The hospital discharge orders, dated 05/20/23, indicated the resident was to continue Bupropion XL (150 mg/24 hours) one oral tablet every 24 hours. The May 2023 EMAR included, but were not limited to the following orders: - A MD order, with a start date of 04/30/23, for Bupropion HCL (hydrogen chloride) ER (extended release) (XL) oral tablet, Extended Release 24 hour 150 mg. Give one tablet in the morning for depression. The medication was administered as ordered until the order was discontinued on 05/18/23. - A MD order, with a start date of 05/21/23, for Bupropion HCL ER (SR) oral tablet, Extended Release 12 hour 150 mg. Give one tablet in the morning for major depressive disorder. The medication was administered as ordered until the order was discontinued on 05/24/23 at 4:23 P.M. - An open-ended MD order, with a start date of 05/25/23, for Bupropion HCL ER (XL) oral tablet extended release 24 hour. Give one tablet in the morning for major depressive disorder. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 10:15 A.M., RN 5 indicated when a resident came back from the hospital with orders, the orders were written on an order form in the chart and written in the computer as a new order. The orders were faxed to the pharmacy and would be delivered either the same day or the next day depending on the time the orders were faxed. The current Administering Medications policy, with a revised date of April 2019, indicated .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame . 3.1-25(b)(3) 3.1-25(b)(5) 3.1-25(e)(2) 3.1-25(e)(3) 3.1-25(m) 3.1-25(n)
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 and interview, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control guidelines during medication administration for 1 of 11 residents observed. (Resident 57) Findings inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to follow appropriate infection control guidelines during medication administration for 1 of 11 residents observed. (Resident 57) Findings include: Medication administration was observed on Wing 4 on 08/17/23 at 11:03 A.M., with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 2. The nurse was preparing to check the blood sugar of Resident 57 and indicated he was to receive six units of scheduled insulin before meals. The nurse donned gloves, then dropped the packet containing an alcohol wipe to be used for the procedure on floor. The LPN picked the alcohol wipe packet up with her gloved hand and went to check the resident's blood sugar. The resident was sitting at a table in the dining area. The nurse laid her supplies on the table and was preparing to open the packet she had just picked up off the floor. When asked what she should do since she dropped the alcohol wipe packet on the floor, she said she should get another one. She doffed her gloves and threw away the alcohol wipe, used hand sanitizer, got keys out of her pocket, got a new alcohol wipe packet out of the medication cart, donned clean gloves, and proceeded to check the resident's blood sugar level. Following the procedure, the nurse wiped down the blood sugar checking machine with an alcohol wipe. The LPN indicated the blood sugar machine was used for the whole wing. The Medication Review Report was provided by the DON (Director of Nursing) on 08/22/23 at 2:56 P.M. The report indicated the resident was to receive Novolog insulin, six units, subcutaneously before meals. The current Administering Medications policy, with a revised date of April 2019, was provided by the DON on 08/17/23 at 3:39 P.M. The policy indicated, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner .Staff follows established facility infection control procedures (e.g., handwashing, antiseptic [sic] technique, gloves, isolation precautions, etc.) for the administration of medications, as applicable . The current Infection Prevention and Control Program policy, with a reviewed date of 05/12/23, was provided following the Entrance conference. The policy indicated, .facility .maintains an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment . 3.1-18(a)
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

2. On 08/22/23 at 2:21 P.M., Wing 3's Medication Cart was observed with LPN 9. The following was observed: - A vial of Lantus (insulin) for Resident 29, that was 1/4 full had an open date of 7/22. LPN...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. On 08/22/23 at 2:21 P.M., Wing 3's Medication Cart was observed with LPN 9. The following was observed: - A vial of Lantus (insulin) for Resident 29, that was 1/4 full had an open date of 7/22. LPN 9 indicated the medication was good for 28 days after it was opened and should have been discarded. During a Narcotic Count with the LPN the following was observed: - Resident 72 had 28 lorazepam (an antianxiety medication) tablets. Tablet 28 in the narcotic blister pack had been punched out and taped back into place. The LPN indicated the pill had probably been removed by accident and a staff member taped it back into the blister pack. If a pill had been removed from the blister pack, then it should be discarded appropriately. - Resident 70 had a bottle of Tramadol (a pain medication). The narcotic count sheet indicated the resident should have had 58 tramadol tablets. Inside the bottle of medication was a plastic pill crusher package that had whole pills inside. The package was stapled shut and had 30 written on the outside of it. There were other loose pills inside the bottle. LPN 9 indicated she didn't have a pill counter to be able to count the pills and had not counted them that morning. After a few seconds she retrieved a clean plastic spoon and clean plastic cup and started counting the loose pills. The loose pills totaled 28. She did not count the pills inside the plastic package. She indicated she did not count them that morning when she took over the medication cart from the other nurse. All narcotic medications should be counted at each shift change and the 30 tablets inside the plastic package should have been counted every shift. The current facility policy title, MEDICATION STORAGE IN THE FACILITY-CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE STORAGE, with a revision date of 02/2023, was provided by the DON on 08/17/23 at 3:39 P.M. The policy indicated, .Schedule medications and other medications subject to abuse or diversion are stored in a permanently affixed, [double-locked] compartment separate from all other medications or per state regulations .At each shift change, or when keys are transferred, a physical inventory of all controlled substances, including refrigerated items is conducted by two licensed nurses and is documented .Any discrepancy in controlled substance counts is reported to the director of nursing immediately .Liquid narcotics will be overfilled in comparison to the quantity written on the label. This is a pharmacy industry standard. To account for excess amount, the nurse checking in the bottle of liquid controlled substance, should eliminate the quantity by using the measurement grid, located on the bottle .This amount should be recorded as the starting quantity . 3.1-25(b)(5) 3.1-25(e)(3) 3.1-25(m) 3.1-25(n) Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications appropriately for 2 of 3 medication carts reviewed. (Wing 1 and Wing 3 medication carts) Findings include: 1. The medication cart on Wing 1 was observed on 08/21/23 at 3:42 P.M., with LPN 7. The top drawer of the cart contained several medication cups containing pills nested together. The LPN indicated it was medications for the 4:00 P.M. medication pass. The cups were labeled with the residents' initials only. She was unaware of the facility policy. The cups contained the following medications for the following residents as described by the LPN: - Resident 14, bupropion (antidepressant), - Resident 42, Protonix, Gabapentin (a nerve medication), - Resident 58, Xanax (antianxiety medication, a controlled substance), - Resident 13, two Metformin tablets, - Resident 6, two Tylenol, Metformin, Buspar (antianxiety medication), - Resident 22, Metformin, - Resident 49, two Tylenol, 1.5 tabs of Lasix, - Resident 39, two Demadex (a diuretic medication), two Tylenol, - Resident 3, two Tylenol, and - Resident 63, Buspar (an antidepressant). The LPN indicated she gets the pills out so she can help with the supper trays. She thought she could prepare for one medication pass. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 2:06 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated staff were not allowed to preset medications. During an interview on 08/22/23 at 2:47 P.M., the DON indicated antianxiety and antidepressant medications were not kept in the double locked narcotics box in the medication carts if they were routinely scheduled medications. The were kept in the locked narcotics box only if they were ordered as needed. Xanax and Buspar were not narcotics. During an observation and interview on 08/22/23 at 2:51 P.M., the medication cart on Wing 1 was reviewed with RN 8. The RN indicated Xanax was kept in the narcotics drawer. Resident 58's card of Xanax pills was observed and in the double locked narcotics box. The medication was a routinely scheduled medication. Xanax should be double locked per the RN. The Controlled Drug Record for Resident 58's Xanax (alprazolam) was provided by RN 8 on 08/22/23 at 2:55 P.M. The record indicated the medication was scheduled, and the resident was to take one tablet by mouth twice a day.
Sept 2022 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor and administer treatments to surgical sites that became infected for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for Quality...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to adequately monitor and administer treatments to surgical sites that became infected for 1 of 4 residents reviewed for Quality of Care related to non-pressure skin conditions. (Resident 49) Findings include: During an interview on 09/12/22 at 12:23 P.M., Resident 49 indicated he recently had surgery on some areas on his back. He was currently taking antibiotics for an infection in the wounds. During an interview on 09/14/22 at 10:47 A.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 5 indicated the resident had two lipomas removed, so he had two incisions on his back. Currently, the treatment was to cleanse the areas with soap and water each shift until they were healed. The resident was receiving an antibiotic for an infection in the wounds. Since the resident was taking an antibiotic, nursing staff documented observations of the wounds and monitored the resident related to antibiotic usage in a progress note each shift. She didn't think the surgical sites were monitored in the resident's clinical record before the infection was identified. The resident's surgical incisions were observed with LPN 7 on 09/16/22 at 10:26 A.M. There were only faint lines where the incisions were that measured approximately 2.5 cm (centimeters) and 1.5 cm in length. There was no drainage, redness, or other signs of infection. The sutures had been removed and the wounds were nearly healed. The resident's clinical record was reviewed on 09/19/22 at 9:25 A.M. An admission MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 08/24/22, indicated the resident was cognitively intact. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, stroke, heart failure, hypertension, and diabetes. The resident was at risk for pressure ulcers but had no ulcers or wounds on his skin during the assessment review period. A Report of Consultation Note in the resident's chart, dated 08/29/22, indicated the resident underwent a surgical procedure. The resident could shower. The resident's suture lines were to be cleansed daily with soap and water, and the resident could use an ice pack for pain. Follow up with the MD in 10 to 14 days. A Progress Note, dated 08/29/22 at 1:37 P.M., indicated the resident could shower and use an ice pack to his back as needed. The resident was to follow up with the doctor in 10 to 14 days to remove the sutures on his back. The resident's clinical record lacked documentation that the resident's surgical sites were cleansed daily or monitored after the surgical procedure on 08/28/22 until 09/08/22. A Progress Note, dated 09/08/22 at 1:44 P.M., indicated the incisions on the resident's back were red, swollen, and draining clear fluid and blood. The areas were cleansed, and a dressing was applied. The sutures remained intact. A call was placed to the MD's office, and a possible infection was reported to the nurse. An Order Note, dated 09/08/2022 at 5:01 P.M., indicated a physician's order was entered for Bactrim DS (an antibiotic). Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for the infected incisions for 10 days. A Progress Note, dated 09/09/22 at 10:34 A.M., indicated the MD was in to check the incisions on the resident's back. The physician removed 1 stitch from the lower incision and 2 stitches from upper incision to aid in draining the infection. During an interview on 09/19/22 at 12:13 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated normally nursing staff would monitor a surgical site each shift. They would observe for signs of infection and count the sutures, if applicable. The resident did come back with a dressing on his back, the MD indicated when the dressing fell off, they could just leave it off. The wounds did get infected. There should be documentation of the treatment and documentation that the surgical sites were monitored in the resident's clinical record. The current facility policy, titled Documentation of Wound Treatments, with a revision date of 11/24/21, was provided by the DON on 09/19/22 at 1:50 P.M. The policy indicated, .The facility completes accurate documentation of wound assessments and treatments .wound treatments are documented at the time of each treatment .if no treatment is due, and indication on the status of the dressing shall be documented each shift . 3.1-37(a)
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor, accurately stage, and administer treatments appropriately for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to monitor, accurately stage, and administer treatments appropriately for 1 of 1 resident reviewed for pressure ulcers. (Resident 60) Findings include: During an observation on 09/16/22 at 11:23 P.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 2 had gathered supplies from a medication room on Wing 2. She went to Resident 60's room, closed the door. She donned the gloves, held the bed controller with her gloved right hand and raised the bed, removed the residents covers, and explained what she was going to do. All of the wound treatment supplies were laying on the resident's bed. The resident was lying on her left side. The nurse removed the brief covering the resident's buttocks and removed an undated dressing on the resident's coccyx. The nurse then covered the resident, removed her gloves, indicated she had forgotten her wound cleanser and left the room. She returned within a few moments and donned gloves that were sitting on the bedside table. The nurse removed the blanket, sprayed wound cleanser on a gauze pad, and cleansed the wound. She threw the gauze into the garbage can. She applied medihoney cream to a gauze pad and then indicated she wasn't going to use the cream she was going to use a medihoney strip. The strip was applied to the wound using her gloved right hand. She opened a foam dressing and had touched the inside of the dressing with her gloved right hand and placed the dressing over the wound. The wound was approximately the size of a silver dollar and black in color. The skin surrounding the outside of the wound was pink. LPN 2 indicated The nurse on the floor complete the wound assessments weekly that included staging the wounds. She would consider the resident's wound a Stage 2 (partial-thickness skin loss with exposed dermis) pressure ulcer based on the reference to what a Stage 2 pressure ulcer was. The clinical record for Resident 60 was reviewed on 09/13/22 at 3:01 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 08/31/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included but were not limited to, diabetes, depression, hypertension, and Alzheimer's disease. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 05/11/22, indicated the resident had MASD (Moister Associated Skin Damage) to the upper coccyx and buttocks. The area was moist with granulation (beefy red) tissue present. The area measured 0.2 cm (centimeters) X (by) 0.2 cm. The treatment plan was for calmoseptine (moisture barrier cream) every shift and as needed. The resident's clinical record including the May 2022 EMAR/ETAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record/Electronic Treatment Administration Record) lacked documentation that the treatment for calmoseptine was initiated. The clinical record lacked a weekly wound assessment from 05/11/22 through 06/28/22 for the MASD to the coccyx. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 06/28/22, indicated the resident had a facility acquired Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx with a start date of 06/28/22. There was epithelial (pink) tissue present with a moderate amount of serosanguineous (yellow with small amounts of blood) drainage. The wound measured 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm. A treatment was initiated. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 07/27/22, indicated the resident had a facility acquired Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx. There was epithelial (pink) tissue present. The wound measured 1.8 cm X 1.8 cm. The wound was worsening, and a new treatment was initiated. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 08/10/22, indicated the resident had a facility acquired Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx. There was 90% slough (yellow, tan, white, stringy) tissue present with a scant amount of purulent (white, yellow, brown) drainage. The wound measured 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm. There were no changes in the treatment plan. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 08/18/22, indicated the resident had a facility acquired Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx. There was 75% slough tissue present with a scant amount of purulent drainage. The wound measured 0.9 cm X 1.0 cm. There were no changes in the treatment plan. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 08/31/22, indicated the resident had a facility acquired Stage 2 pressure ulcer to the coccyx. There was a dark scabbed area over the wound. The wound measured 1.5 cm X 1.5 cm and was worsening. There were no changes in the treatment plan. A Wound Weekly Observation Tool, dated 09/07/22, indicated the resident had an area to the coccyx. The wound area was scabbed over and the wound itself was bigger. The wound measured 3.5 cm X 2.5 cm. The treatment was changed from twice a day to once a day. During an interview on 09/16/22 at 1:45 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing)/ ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) indicated the resident's wound had looked necrotic last week and the dressing had recently been changed from twice a day to once a day. The resident's wound at this time was Unstageable (Full thickness tissue loss in which actual depth of the ulcer was completely obscured by slough and/or eschar [dead tissue] in the wound bed) due to the amount of necrosis. Any wounds would be assessed weekly by the nurses on the floor, and they would look at them as needed. The nurses would document the staging of the wounds and if they were worsening. The nurses input the new orders related to treatments for skins/wounds. This resident didn't typically sleep in bed and liked to sleep in a recliner. The resident had a care plan to turn and reposition while in bed, a pressure reducing cushion to the wheelchair, and to toilet with meals and at bedtime. They were unsure if therapy had worked with the resident on any skin concerns and sleeping in the recliner. The current facility policy, titled Prevention of Pressure Injuries with a revised date of April 2020, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Review the resident's care plan and identify the risk factors as well as the interventions designed to reduce or eliminate those considered modifiable .Asses the resident on admission (within eight hours) for existing pressure injury risk factors. Repeat the risk assessment weekly and upon any changes in condition . The current facility policy, titled Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown-Clinical Protocol with a revised date of April 2018, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .In addition, the nurse shall describe and document/report the following: Full assessment of pressure sore including location, stage, length, width, and depth, presence of exudate or necrotic .Monitoring .During resident visits, the physician will evaluate and document the progress of wound healing-especially for those with complicated, extensive, or poorly-healing wounds . The current facility policy, titled Wound Care, with a revised date of October 2010, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for the care of wounds to promote healing .use disposable cloth (paper towel is adequate) to establish clean field on resident's overbed table. Place all items to be used during procedure on the clean field. Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. Position resident. Put on exam gloves. Loosen tape and remove dressing. Pull Gloves over dressing and discard .Wash and dry your hands thoroughly. Put on gloves .Use no touch technique .Dress wound .Be certain all clean items are on clean field .Wash and dry your hands thoroughly . 3.1-40(a)(1) 3.1-40(a)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow interventions for a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 60) Findings include: The clinical record for Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow interventions for a fall for 1 of 3 residents reviewed for accidents. (Resident 60) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 60 was reviewed on 09/13/22 at 3:01 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 08/31/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes, depression, hypertension, and Alzheimer's disease. An Incident Documentation and Investigation Tool, dated 06/29/22, indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall in the common area. The resident had been sitting at the breakfast table in the common area and slid out of her wheelchair. A new intervention was initiated for dycem to the wheelchair. An Incident Documentation and Investigation Tool, dated 08/24/22, indicated the resident had an unwitnessed fall in the common area. The resident had been sitting in her wheelchair. The resident's dycem was not in her wheelchair at the time of the incident. During an interview on 09/16/22 at 10:31 A.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated the nursing staff should follow all interventions for resident's and the staff were reeducated to ensure the dycem was in place. An Incident Documentation and Investigation Tool, dated 09/05/22, indicated the resident had a witnessed fall. CNAs (Certified Nurse Aide) 3 and 9 were attempting to transfer the resident to the recliner when the resident leaned forward and fell out of her chair. The CNAs were educated to use a gait belt when transferring residents. During an observation on 09/14/22 at 2:17 P.M., the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) and the DON were assisting Resident 60 from her wheelchair to a recliner in the common area. The ADON had her left arm under Resident 60's left arm and was pulling the resident up while the DON assisted with grabbing the resident's pants on the left side and help by pushing on the residents left hip to turn her towards a recliner. A gait belt was not in use. During an interview on 09/15/22 at 3:20 P.M., CNA 4 indicated on 09/05/22 she was going to assist CNA 9 to assist Resident 60 into a recliner in the common area. The nurse wanted to assess the resident's vital signs before staff assisted her out of her wheelchair. CNA 4 put her hand on the resident's shoulder to wait for the nurse and had moved it away for a brief second when the resident leaned forward and fell to the floor. They were not in the process of physically transferring the resident. CNA 4 and CNA 9 were educated to use a gait belt with transfers. During an interview on 09/16/22 at 10:31 A.M., the DON indicated a fall packet was completed with each fall and an assessment was completed in the computer. The ADON would review the packets. New interventions would be put into place and updated on the care plan. A therapist would evaluate the resident within two to three days after a fall. They would talk to the staff involved after a fall if they had doubts about a report. Staff members should use gait belts when transferring residents. The current facility policy, titled Falls-Clinical Protocol, with a revised date of March 2018, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Based on preceding assessment, the staff and physician will identify pertinent interventions to try to prevent subsequent falls and to address the risks of clinically significant consequences of falling . The current facility policy, titled Assessing Falls and Their Causes, with a revised date of March 2018, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for assessing a resident after a fall and to assist staff in identifying causes of the fall . The current facility policy, titled Gait Belt, with a revised date of 09/23/19, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .To prevent injury to staff members and residents while offering security and balance to resident during a transfer or while ambulating .Gait belts are available for staff to facilitate transfers utilizing proper body mechanics for both residents and staff. All staff will be educated in the proper use of gait belts for transfer and ambulation assistance .Failure to utilize gait belts on designated resident is a danger to BOTH the resident and the staff member . 3.1-45(a)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order related to a blood glucose medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 60) F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order related to a blood glucose medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 60) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 60 was reviewed on 09/13/22 at 3:01 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 08/31/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, diabetes, depression, hypertension, and Alzheimer's disease. A Physician Progress Note, dated 07/25/22, indicated the resident's assessment and plan was to continue metformin (a diabetic medication) 500 mg (milligrams), twice a day, and to hold the medication for a blood sugar that was less than or equal to 90. An open-ended physician's order, with a start date of 07/25/22, indicated the resident was to receive Metformin 500 mg, upon rising, in the morning for diabetes. The medication was to be held for a blood glucose less than 90. The July through September 2022 EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) indicated the resident had received the Metformin medication in the morning when her blood glucose was less than 90 on the following dates: - 07/28/22, the blood glucose was 69, - 07/31/22, the blood glucose was 67, - 08/07/22, the blood glucose was 64, - 08/10/22, the blood glucose was 83, - 08/11/22, the blood glucose was 53, - 08/12/22, the blood glucose was 83, - 08/20/22, the blood glucose was 74, - 08/21/22, the blood glucose was 83, - 09/01/22, the blood glucose was 87, and - 09/03/22, the blood glucose was 81. The clinical record lacked documentation the medication had been held when the blood glucose was less than 90 in the morning. During an interview on 09/14/22 at 9:49 A.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 indicated if a resident's medication had hold parameters, then the nurse would check the blood glucose level prior to administering the medication. The medication would be held if the blood glucose level was outside the parameters. She would then document in the EMAR or nurses note why the medication was held. During an interview on 09/19/22 at 12:45 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated the resident should have had hold parameters in place for her metformin. The current facility policy, titled Medication and Treatment Orders, with a revised date of July 2016, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principals of safe and effective order writing . The current facility policy, titled Administering Medications, with a revised date of April 2019, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Medications are administered in a safe and timely manner, and as prescribed .Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frames . 3.1-48(a)(3)
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for a psychotropic medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 65) Findings ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for a psychotropic medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident 65) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 65 was reviewed on 09/14/22 at 1:31 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 08/03/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, hypertension, hip fracture, and non-Alzheimer's dementia. A physician's order, dated 01/31/22 through 03/16/22, indicated the resident was to take Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication), 12.5 mg (milligrams) at bedtime. A telephone order, dated 03/16/22, indicated to increase the resident's Seroquel to 25 mg in the evening. The March 2022 EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) indicated a physician's order, dated 03/16/22 through 03/28/22 for Seroquel 25 mg. Staff were to give the resident 12.5 mg at bedtime. The resident had received 12.5 mg of the medication from 03/16/22 through 03/28/22, not the prescribed 25 mg. During an interview on 09/16/22 at 10:16 A.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 2 indicated when the Nurse Practitioners would write new orders on a telephone order and the nurses would input the orders into the computer system. During an interview on 09/16/22 at 1:41 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated, the resident was given the wrong dose of Seroquel from 03/16/22 through 03/28/22. It should have been 25 mg instead of the 12.5 mg. The current facility policy, titled Medication and Treatment Orders, with a revised date of July 2016, was provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principals of safe and effective order writing . 3.1-48(a)(6)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the physician's order related to monitoring a blood glucose level prior to administration of diabetic medication for 1 of 6 resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow the physician's order related to monitoring a blood glucose level prior to administration of diabetic medication for 1 of 6 residents reviewed for significant medication error. (Resident 60) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 60 was reviewed on 09/13/22 at 3:01 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 08/31/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included but were not limited to, diabetes, depression, hypertension, and Alzheimer's disease. A Physician Progress Note, dated 07/25/22, indicated the resident's assessment and plan was to continue Metformin (a diabetic medication) 500 mg (milligrams), twice a day, and to hold the medication for a blood sugar that was less than or equal to 90. The September 2022 EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) was reviewed and indicated the resident had an order for Metformin 500 mg at bedtime. The order lacked parameters to hold the medication if the blood sugar was less than or equal to 90. An Incident Progress Note, dated 09/06/22 at 7:24 P.M., indicated the residents blood glucose was 46. The resident was diaphoretic (excessive sweating) and had trouble arousing with excessive sleepiness. The nurse administered Glucagon (treatment of low blood sugar) 1 mg (milligrams), subcutaneous, in the right lower abdomen. The resident's blood sugar was rechecked and was 58. The nurse had went to obtain another dose of glucagon from the emergency drug kit, she rechecked the resident blood glucose and it was 76. She did not administer a second dose of glucagon. The resident then became awake but lethargic. The resident was able to consume some orange juice. The resident had complaints of being tired and lethargic. The physician was made aware. A Medication Administration Audit Report, was provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 09/19/22 at 11:14 A.M. The report indicated the resident had received her bedtime Metformin on 09/06/22 at 6:47 P.M., and her glucose was checked at 7:39 P.M. During an interview on 09/14/22 at 9:49 A.M., LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 4 indicated if a resident's medication had hold parameters, then the nurse would check the blood glucose level prior to administering the medication. The medication would be held if the blood glucose level was outside the parameters. She would then document in the EMAR or nurses note why the medication was held. During an interview on 09/19/22 at 12:40 P.M., Nurse Practitioner 8 indicated the residents Metformin would not drop the residents blood glucose as much as her Levemir (an blood glucose medication) would, but she wanted to give hold parameters on the medications due to the resident had not been eating well and had a significant decline in her health. During an interview on 09/19/22 at 12:45 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated the resident should have had hold parameters in place for her Metformin medication. The current facility policy, titled Medication and Treatment Orders, with a revised date of July 2016, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Orders for medications and treatments will be consistent with principals of safe and effective order writing . The current facility policy, titled Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors, with a revision date of April 2014, was provided by the ADON on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .Residents receiving and medication that has a potential for an adverse consequence will be monitored to ensure that any such consequences are promptly identified and reported . A medication error is defined as the preparation or administration of drugs or biologicals which is not in accordance with physician's orders, manufacturer specifications, or accepted professional standards and principals of the professional(s) providing services . 3.1-48(c)(2)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications appropriately related to labeling medications in 2 of 4 medication carts and for 1 of 4 medication rooms re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications appropriately related to labeling medications in 2 of 4 medication carts and for 1 of 4 medication rooms reviewed for medication storage and labeling. (Unit 3 medication cart, Unit 4 medication cart, and Unit 3 medication room) Findings include: 1. A medication cart on the Unit 3 was observed on 09/12/22 at 10:27 A.M., with LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) 5, and contained the following medications: - A bottle of Refresh Tears was 1/2 full with no opened date for Resident 20, - A tube of Erythromycin 5 mg/gm (milligram per gram) antibiotic ointment was 1/2 full with no opened date for Resident 10, - A bottle of latanoprost solution 0.005% eye drops was less than 1/2 full with no opened date for Resident 41. 2. The medication room refrigerator on Unit 3 was observed on 09/12/22 at 10:29 A.M., with LPN 5. The refrigerator contained a bottle of Aplisol (tuberculin [TB] solution) less than 1/4 full with an opened date of 08/08/22. 3. A medication cart on the Unit 4 was observed on 09/19/22 at 2:10 P.M., with RN 6, and contained the following medications: - A bottle of Refresh Tears 0.5% eye drops was 3/4 full with no opened date for Resident 34, - A bottle of ciprofloxacin 0.3% eye drops was 1/2 full with no open date for Resident 35. During an interview on 09/19/22 at 02:12 P.M., RN 6 indicated there should be an opened date on medications to identify when the medication was opened. During an interview on 09/19/22 at 3:14 P.M., the DON (Director of Nursing) indicated medications should have an opened date and the Aplisol was only good for 30 days once it was opened. No resident had received the Aplisol after 09/07/22. The Aplisol package insert was provided by the DON on 09/19/22 at 3:10 P.M., indicated .Aplisol vials should be inspected visually for both particulate matter and discoloration prior to administration and discarded if either is seen. Vials in use for more than 30 days should be discarded . The current Administering Medications Policy, with a revised date of April 2019, was provided by the DON on 09/19/22 at 3:10 P.M. The policy indicated, .The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked prior to administering. When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened is recorded on the container . 3.1-25(j) 3.1-25(o)
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order related to a laboratory test for 1 of 19 residents reviewed for laboratory services. (Resident 14) Findings incl...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to follow a physician's order related to a laboratory test for 1 of 19 residents reviewed for laboratory services. (Resident 14) Findings include: The clinical record for Resident 14 was reviewed on 09/13/22 at 2:28 P.M. A Quarterly MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment, dated 06/24/22, indicated the resident was severely cognitively impaired. The diagnoses included, but were not limited to, dementia, hyponatremia, and hyperlipidemia. An open-ended physician's order, with a revision date of 02/01/21, indicated the resident was to have a lipid profile, yearly in July, for hyperlipidemia. The resident's laboratory results from June 2022 through September (current) were provided by the DON (Director of Nursing) on 09/16/22. The laboratory results lacked a lipid profile. During an interview on 09/16/22 at 1:42 P.M., the DON indicated the resident should have had a lipid profile completed in July per the physician's order. The current facility policy, titled Lab and Diagnostic Test Results-Clinical Protocol, with a revised date of November 2018, was provided by the ADON (Assistant Director of Nursing) on 09/19/22 at 10:18 A.M. The policy indicated, .The staff will process test requisitions and arrange for tests . 3.1-49(a)
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
  • • 31% turnover. Below Indiana's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $14,265 in fines. Above average for Indiana. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade D (46/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 46/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Ripley Crossing's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns RIPLEY CROSSING an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within Indiana, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Ripley Crossing Staffed?

CMS rates RIPLEY CROSSING's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the Indiana average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Ripley Crossing?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at RIPLEY CROSSING during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 26 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 Ripley Crossing?

RIPLEY CROSSING is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by MAJOR HOSPITAL, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 100 certified beds and approximately 89 residents (about 89% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MILAN, Indiana.

How Does Ripley Crossing Compare to Other Indiana Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Indiana, RIPLEY CROSSING's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Ripley Crossing?

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 Ripley Crossing Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, RIPLEY CROSSING 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Indiana. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Ripley Crossing Stick Around?

RIPLEY CROSSING has a staff turnover rate of 31%, which is about average for Indiana 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 Ripley Crossing Ever Fined?

RIPLEY CROSSING has been fined $14,265 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Indiana average of $33,222. 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 Ripley Crossing on Any Federal Watch List?

RIPLEY CROSSING 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.