SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to assure that a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interviews and facility policy review the facility failed to assure that a resident with a pressure ulcer received treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers from developing and to promote healing of a pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #38). The facility reported a census of 50.
Finding include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment identifies the definition of pressure ulcers:
Stage I is an intact skin with non-blanchable redness of a localized area usually over a bony prominence. Darkly pigmented skin may not have a visible blanching; in dark skin tones only it may appear with persistent blue or purple hues.
Stage II is a partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, with slough (dead tissue, usually cream or yellow in color). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister.
Stage III is full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible but bone, tendon or muscle is not exposed. Slough may be present but does not obscure the depth of tissue loss. May include undermining and tunneling.
Stage IV is full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar (dry, black, hard necrotic tissue) which may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often includes undermining and tunneling or eschar.
Unstageable Ulcer: inability to see the wound.
Other staging consideration include:
Deep Tissue Pressure Injury (DTPI): Persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon or purple discoloration. Intact skin with localized area of persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, purple discoloration due to damage of underlying tissue. This area may be preceded by tissue that is painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer, or cooler as compared to adjacent skin. These changes often precede skin color changes and discoloration may appear differently in darkly pigmented skin. This injury results from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface.
Resident #38's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #38 required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility and two persons with toileting use. The MDS identified Resident #38 required limited assistance of one person with transfers. The MDS included diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident (stroke), aphasia (difficulty with language), arthritis and overactive bladder. The MDS identified Resident #38 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers and did not have any pressure ulcers on assessment. The MDS documented Resident #38 had a pressure reducing device for the chair.
Resident's 38's Care Plan dated 9/14/23 documented the resident has a self-care performance deficit related to a history of a stroke. The care plan directed staff that she was able to move herself in bed but required assist by staff to get in and out bed, and required one staff assist for ambulation, toileting and transfers.
A Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had a new stage 2 pressure ulcer to the right buttocks.
The Progress Notes on 11/25/23 lacked documentation regarding a new stage 2 pressure ulcer to the right buttocks.
The Care Plan dated 11/29/23 documented the resident has a stage 2 pressure ulcer to her right buttock related to immobility. The care plan directed staff to:
-Monitor/remind/assist to turn and reposition at least every 2 hours. Reposition with repositioning wedge in bed.
-Assess/record/monitor wound healing daily. Report improvements and declines to the healthcare provider.
-Provide an air mattress on the bed and a roho cushion to chair/wheelchair.
-Notify the nurse immediately of any new areas of skin breakdown: redness, blisters, bruises, discoloration, etc. noted during bath or daily care.
The Care Plan lacked information regarding applying a treatment to the wound, nutrition and/or hydration interventions to promote healing.
The Care Plan prior to 11/29/23 did not identify Resident #38 was at risk for skin impairments and/or developing pressure ulcers. The care plan lacked focus areas, goals and interventions/tasks to manage, treat and prevent skin impairments and pressure ulcers.
The Braden Scale assessments (tool used to evaluate risk of development of a pressure ulcer) documented a score of 10-12 indicated that the resident had a high risk for pressure sore development, 13-14 meant the resident had a moderate risk, and 15-18 meant the resident had a risk for pressure ulcer development. The review of the Braden Scale assessments completed for Resident #38 from 9/23 to 10/23 documented scores on the following dates:
1. 9/14/23= 16
2. 9/25/223=14
3. 10/2/2=16
4. 10/9/23= 15
Resident #38's clinical records lacked a Braden Scale assessment after the development of the stage 2 pressure ulcer.
On 11/30/23 at 7:34 AM, The DON (Director of Nursing ) reported the facility had no straight policy for completing the Braden Scale. The DON stated the facility does the Braden Scale on Admission, Quarterly, and with Significant changes.
The facility policy titled Pressure Ulcer Treatment revised 2/7/23 instructed once a pressure ulcer had been identified, licensed personnel will complete a Braden Scale and implement additional interventions as appropriate.
Resident 38's wound evaluation form revealed the following information:
-11/25/23: Stage 2 pressure area to right buttocks that measured (Length x Width x Depth) 0.5cm x 1cm x 0cm. Wound bed not assessed. No drainage. Peri wound indurated. Comments on form stated: Will apply foam and tape to the area, apply air mattress to bed and roho cushion to wheelchair and also encourage Resident #38 to lay in bed between meals.
- 11/26/23: Stage 2 pressure area to right buttocks- Wound measurements and wound bed not assessed. Dressing present and intact. Resident #38 reported pain during assessment. No drainage. Peri wound intact and pink. Continue with current treatment.
-11/27/23: Stage 2 pressure area to right buttocks- Wound measurements and wound bed not assessed. Dressing present, clean, dry and intact. Minimum serosanguinous drainage. Peri wound indurated. Wound cleaned, foam and tape applied.
-11/28/23: Stage 2 pressure area to right buttocks- Wound measurements and wound bed not assessed. Dressing present and intact. No drainage. Peri wound indurated. No undermining or tunneling. Wound cleaned, foam and tape applied.
-11/29/23: Stage 2 pressure area to right buttocks that measured 1cm x 2cm x 0.1cm. Wound bed 25% epithelial and 75% granulation tissue. No slough or eschar. Dressing present and intact. No drainage. Peri wound intact and was pink in color. No undermining or tunneling. Applied foam and tape per Physician order.
-11/30/23 1st Assessment: Stage 2 pressure ulcer right buttocks that measured 1.8cm x 1.2cm x 0cm with redness and peeling skin surrounding the pressure ulcer with a total measurement of 3cm x 3cm. No dressing present. Center of the ulcer appeared dry. Wound bed 50% granulation and 50% eschar. Minimum amount of serous drainage with no odor. Peri ulcer denuded. Treatment changed per Physician order to clean with wound cleanser, apply Aquacel AG (silver impregnated dressing), foam and tape.
-11/30/23 2nd Assessment: Unstageable pressure ulcer to right buttocks that measured 3cm x 3cm x 0cm. The center of the wound bed was dark in color and measured 1.8cm x 1.2cm and unable to see the base of the wound. No dressing present. Center of the ulcer appeared dry. Wound bed 50% granulation and 50% eschar. Minimum amount of serous drainage with no odor. Peri ulcer denuded and reddened. Treatment changed per Physician order to clean with wound cleanser, apply Aquacel AG, foam and tape.
The Clinical Record lacked documentation from 11/25/23 to 11/27/23 regarding family and physician notification of the pressure ulcer to the right buttocks. The facility was not able to provide an incident report.
The Physician Order dated 11/28/23 directed staff to clean and apply foam/tape to wound on the right lower buttocks twice daily. The Clinical Record lacked a physician order for the treatment of foam and tape to the pressure ulcer to the right buttocks until 11/28/23.
On 11/29/23 at 3:20 PM, the DON reported she did not have an incident report for the pressure ulcer identified on 11/25/23. The DON stated she was not aware of the pressure ulcer until the afternoon of 11/27/23.
On 11/29/23 at 3:17 PM observed Resident #38 sitting in a recliner with feet elevated in her room with no cushion present in the recliner. Resident #38's wheelchair was in the hallway across from the room with the roho cushion in the wheelchair.
On 11/29/23 at 3:30 PM, Staff B, Nurse Manager reported she had communicated the pressure ulcer to the Dietary Manager on 11/28/23 so the Dietician could review Resident 38's nutritional status next time at the facility.
On 11/30/23 at 8:45 AM, the DON acknowledged and verified there was no skin care plan prior to the development of the pressure ulcer on 11/25/23 and no documented skin intervention in place to prevent the development of a pressure ulcer. The DON verified the physician was not notified until 11/27/23 of the pressure ulcer and the family was notified on 11/28/23. The DON reported she expected the Dr and family to be notified on the day the pressure ulcer was identified. The DON verified and acknowledged a treatment order was not obtained until 11/28/23. She stated she expected the facility to request a treatment order on the day the pressure ulcer was observed.
A Physician Order dated 11/30/23 directed staff to cleanse the right lower buttocks wounds with wound cleanser, add Aquacel AG, cover with foam and tape daily and as needed.
On 11/30/23 at 11:52 AM observed Staff E, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) complete dressing change to right buttocks. Staff E reported she had looked at the wound earlier in the morning and had a nurse manager look at it also. Staff E stated she called the Physician to get the wound treatment changed as she knew the foam treatment was not going to cut it. Staff E placed a barrier on the bedside table and did not clean or sanitize the table prior. Staff E placed dressing items on top of the barrier (wound cleanser bottle, package of Aquacel AG, foam, scissors). Staff E cleansed her hands with hand sanitizer from the wall unit in the room and then put on a pair of gloves that were in her uniform pocket. Staff E proceeded to unfastened Resident #38's brief and assisted with rolling her on her left side. Staff E removed the old dressing from Resident #38's right buttocks and threw it in the garbage can next to the resident's bed. Staff E reported the old dressing contained a small amount of sanguineous drainage. Staff E then picked up the wound cleanser and sprayed the cleanser onto a piece of gauze and cleansed the wound. Staff E reported she did not stage the wound but felt the wound bed had slough in it. Observed wound edges to be red and irritated. Staff E then cut a piece of Aquacel AG and placed it on the wound on the right buttocks. Staff E then cut a piece of foam and Mepilex tape (soft silicon tape) and placed it over the Aquacel AG. Staff E did not label or date the dressing. Staff E did not change her gloves or sanitize her hand between cleansing the wound and applying a new dressing. Staff E verified and acknowledged she wore one pair of gloves through the entire dressing change and did not change her gloves or sanitize her hands between dirty and clean. Staff E acknowledged she touched the Aquacel AG, foam, and Mepilex tape with contaminated gloves. Staff E acknowledged she did not date or initial the dressing.
On 11/30/23 at 12:05 PM, Staff H, Nurse Manager reported she had looked at Resident #38's pressure wound that morning per request of Staff E. Staff H reported she felt the wound needed some sliver to help it heal as it had some drainage. Staff H stated she does not stage wounds. She stated another nurse manager does the wound measurements and staging so one person was doing the assessments consistently. Staff H verified she felt the pressure wound bed had slough present. She also verified the wound edges were red and irritated.
On 11/30/23 at 12:35 PM, the DON reported her expectation was for staff to change gloves and clean their hands between dirty and clean tasks. She stated she would prefer staff not to keep gloves in their pockets. The DON stated the expected staff to date and initial dressing changes.
On 11/30/23 at 2:35 PM, the DON reported if there was eschar documented in the wound bed then she would not consider the pressure ulcer a stage 2 and agreed the assessment was not accurate. The DON reported if the pressure ulcer was getting worse, then the facility would need to send Resident #38 to the clinic to be seen. The DON reported there was a wound nurse at the clinic that could see the wound.
On 11/30/23 at 2:45 PM, Staff B acknowledged she had coded 50% eschar and staged the wound a stage 2 pressure ulcer on Resident #38's wound assessment. Staff B acknowledged a stage 2 pressure ulcer does not have eschar present in the wound bed. Staff B stated she was not sure what to stage the wound but thought it might be unstageable due to the center of the wound bed was not being visible under the hard tissue. Staff B reported she was not sure how much of the wound bed had to be not visible to be coded unstageable. Staff B reported that she needed to have more training in wound care and that she was not an expert in wounds.
On 11/30/23 at 3:12 PM, Staff B completed an updated wound assessment and coded the pressure ulcer on right buttocks as unstageable.
A facility policy titled Skin Assessment Pressure Ulcer Prevention and Documentation revised 4/26/23 documented the purpose of the policy are the following:
-To systematically assess residents regarding risk of skin breakdown
-To accurately document observations and assessments of residents
-To appropriately use prevention techniques and pressure redistribution surfaces on those residents at risk for pressure ulcers.
The policy directed staff to do the following:
a. If a pressure ulcer is identified, cleanse the area prior to observation being made to allow the wound bed and depth to be more accurately observed. The registered nurse should record the type of wound and the degree of tissue damage on the wound assessment.
b. Notify the physician of the ulcer and the resident's condition to obtain orders for a treatment.
c. Notify the resident and/or family of the pressure ulcer, orders and planned interventions.
d. The interdisciplinary team should determine any modifications that are necessary to the resident's plan of care. Interventions should focus on physical, mental and psychosocial aspects that may be impacted. Treatments and interventions should be consistent with the resident's goals. Education should be provided to the resident and/or family.
SERIOUS
(G)
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, facility record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensu...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, facility record review, staff and resident interviews, the facility failed to ensure resident's environment remained free from accidents and hazards for 2 out of 5 residents reviewed (Residents #8, and #54) for falls/incidents. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #8 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene, and was limited to only walking once or twice. The MDS further documented diagnoses of diabetes, anemia, heart failure, anxiety, depression, and morbid obesity.
Resident #8's Care Plan dated 8/14/23 revealed that the resident was ambulatory with staff assistance as she desired.
In an interview with Resident #8 at 4:27 PM on 11/27/23, she stated that in September she broke her ankle by catching it on the edge of her recliner. She stated that Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was walking with her from her commode across the room to her recliner when she told her she wasn't going to make it and needed to sit down. She stated Staff G kept saying that she could make it. She stated that when she caught her foot on the recliner, she heard and felt a pop and told Staff G that she broke her ankle.
In an interview with Staff G at 9:10 AM on 11/29/23, she stated that Resident #8 had been complaining to staff that she came into the facility walking and no one ever had the time to walk with her now. She stated the resident said this again to her after lunch and she told her that she had time to walk with her now. Staff G stated she assisted the resident to ambulate with a walker and gait belt all the way around the dining room and that she did wonderful. She stated that later that day the resident was on the commode and wanted to go to her recliner. She stated she assisted the resident up, and they started walking across her room to the recliner, (approximately. 15 ft), when the resident's walker bumped the recliner. Staff G stated the resident started freaking out saying I'm gonna fall, get me a chair, I'm gonna fall, I'm gonna go down. She stated she reassured the resident that she wasn't going to let her fall, and Staff G stated I had my knee up her butt, she wasn't going anywhere. Staff G stated that she called for help on her walkie, but she didn't have access to a chair and she knew the resident could do it. She stated the resident lost all confidence in herself after bumping the recliner. She stated as she was helping the resident to sit down in the chair, the resident caught her foot underneath the edge of the recliner and the resident screamed at her you broke my ankle! Staff G stated she did hear a pop, but she personally had rolled her ankle before and heard it pop. She stated the resident did complain of some pain and she gave her ice and Tylenol. At supper time, she stated the resident stood to transfer and did not complain of pain at that time. She stated she let the night nurse know what happened and that she would need to schedule an X-ray for her ankle on Monday since it was the beginning of the weekend. The next day the night nurse reported to her that the resident did not complain of pain or request medication during the night.
The facility Investigation documented the incident occurred on 9/22/23 at 1:00 PM and was reported on 9/25/23 at 1:20 PM. The report documented the level of injury at the time to be a moderate injury (resulted in hospitalization/outside medical treatment). The report documented the resident reported she was ambulating with staff on 9/22/23 at 1:00 PM when her foot got caught on her recliner and she heard a pop. The resident stated she had pain all weekend (9/23 and 9/24/23) and ice was provided.
Review of Resident #8's clinical record Progress Notes revealed documentation that the resident was scheduled to have an X-ray of her right ankle on 9/25/23 at 1:15 PM, and follow up with the physician at 1:45 PM. The Progress Notes also revealed that on 9/25/23 at 1:12 PM, the facility was notified that the resident had a nondisplaced medial malleolus fracture. The Progress Notes lacked any documentation of the incident on 9/22/23 prior to 9/25/23.
The Care Plan for Resident #8 initiated on 10/2/23 documented an actual fall with no injury. The care plan lacked any documentation of an incident with injury or interventions on 9/22/23.
2. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #54 documented a BIMS score of 13 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #54 needed partial to moderate assistance with toileting, applying lower body clothing, shoes, and personal hygiene. It also documented partial to moderate assistance for transfers and ambulation. The MDS further documented diagnoses of stroke, traumatic brain injury, nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, irritable bowel syndrome, atrial fibrillation, cataracts, difficulty walking, and muscle weakness. The MDS documented the resident had two or more falls with no injury since the last assessment.
Resident #54's Care Plan with a revision date of 11/24/23 revealed that the resident had a Focus Area of falls related to intracranial hemorrhage, making poor choices, and confusion. The care plan directed staff with the following fall interventions:
On 7/6/23: Educate resident/family about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs.
On 11/2/23 revised: Grip strips to bathroom floor.
On 8/28/23: Make sure wearing rubber sole shoes.
On 10/30/23: Monitor for significant changes in gait, mobility, balance and joint function. Ortho-static blood pressures every shift x 3 days and report to physician due to incident.
On 11/24/23 revised: When resident sitting in her recliner in her room, place walker to her right and within reach.
On 10/9/23 revised: Ensure/provide a safe environment with bed in low position. Frequently transfers self without calling for assist.
Observation on 11/27/23 at 2:20 PM, revealed that the resident did not respond to a knock on her door which was partially opened. The surveyor stepped just inside the resident's door and called out the resident's name which elicited no response from the resident. At 2:25 PM, Staff K, Restorative Nurse Aide entered the resident's room and looked in the bathroom, finding the resident laying on the floor. Staff K called out from the resident's doorway down the hallway saying Get the nurse, we got one down.
Review of Resident #54's Progress Notes revealed the resident had falls on 7/20, 7/21, 8/8, 8/9, 8/10, 8/13, 8/26, 9/11, 9/13, 9/23, 10/1, 10/29, 11/2, 11/24, and 11/27/23. The Progress Notes for the resident documented the following:
On 9/11/23 at 6:49 PM during report heard residents alarms sounding. Nurse went in room and resident sitting on the floor between her recliner and restroom with walker behind her and toothbrush with basin on the floor next to her. Right side of back with 2 abrasions. Resident stated she was trying to put her toothbrush away in the restroom. Staff reminded not to leave her while doing oral cares.
On 9/13/23 at 7:45 PM entered resident room and resident lying on her right side on top of her walker. Blood from under the right temple. Foley catheter intact and out of body laying on the bed. Resident stated it happened last night. Skin tear noted to right arm also. Order to send to the emergency room (ER) for stitches. Motion sensor was not on.
On 9/13/23 at 10:42 AM call from the ER who stated the resident will be admitted .
On 9/14/23 at 10:07 AM resident will return this morning. On antibiotic for urinary tract infection. Stitches to laceration on head and splint on her arm for a fracture.
The facility policy Fall Prevention and Management revised date of 3/29/23 documented the Purpose of the policy:
-To promote resident well-being by developing and implementing a fall prevention and management program.
-To identify risk factors and implement interventions before a fall occurs.
-To give prompt treatment after a fall occurs.
-To prevent further injury.
-To provide guidance for documentation.
The facility policy Procedure included the following:
1. Do not move the resident.
2. Remain calm and reassure and comfort the resident.
3. Stay with the resident and summon the nurse or other help. If able, observed the fall scene.
4. For a fall without injury, skip to Step 6.
5. For a fall with injury, do the following:
a. If the resident is bleeding, locate the injured area and apply continuous, firm pressure to the area.
b. Do not remove any blood soaked dressings or clothing.
c. Cover the resident and have her lay quiet until help arrives.
6. A nurse must observe the resident and perform a full body exam to determine if there may be suspected injury and direct whether to move the resident.
a. Obtain vitals.
b. If the fall was not witnessed, neurological checks are required.
c. Continue to monitor the resident's condition; communicate updates as needed.
d. Review medications for recent changes or medication that could have contributed to the fall.
e. Notify the physician and resident representative of the incident.
9. Document the physician's comments in the medical record.
17. Update the care plan with any changes/new interventions.
19. Continue to monitor condition and effectiveness of the interventions.
In an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/23 at 4:00 PM regarding the concerns, he stated that he had no questions and that everything was pretty black and white.
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and clinical record review, the facility failed to notify the physician or family for 1 o...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on resident and staff interviews and clinical record review, the facility failed to notify the physician or family for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #8), who suffered a fractured ankle during a transfer. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #8 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene, and was limited to only walking once or twice. The MDS further documented diagnoses of diabetes, anemia, heart failure, anxiety, depression, and morbid obesity.
Resident #8's Care Plan dated 8/14/23 revealed that the resident was ambulatory with staff assistance as she desired.
In an interview with Resident #8 at 4:27 PM on 11/27/23, she stated that in September she broke her ankle by catching it on the edge of her recliner. She stated that Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was walking with her from her commode across the room to her recliner when she told her she wasn't going to make it and needed to sit down. She stated Staff G kept saying that she could make it. She stated that when she caught her foot on the recliner, she heard and felt a pop and told Staff G that she broke her ankle.
In an interview with Staff G at 9:10 AM on 11/29/23, she stated that Resident #8 had been complaining to staff that she came into the facility walking and no one ever had the time to walk with her now. She stated the resident said this again to her after lunch and she told her that she had time to walk with her now. Staff G stated she assisted the resident to ambulate with a walker and gait belt all the way around the dining room and that she did wonderful. She stated that later that day the resident was on the commode and wanted to go to her recliner. She stated she assisted the resident up, and they started walking across her room to the recliner, (approximately. 15 ft), when the resident's walker bumped the recliner. Staff G stated the resident started freaking out saying I'm gonna fall, get me a chair, I'm gonna fall, I'm gonna go down. She stated she reassured the resident that she wasn't going to let her fall, and Staff G stated I had my knee up her butt, she wasn't going anywhere. Staff G stated that she called for help on her walkie, but she didn't have access to a chair and she knew the resident could do it. She stated the resident lost all confidence in herself after bumping the recliner. She stated as she was helping the resident to sit down in the chair, the resident caught her foot underneath the edge of the recliner and the resident screamed at her you broke my ankle! Staff G stated she did hear a pop, but she personally had rolled her ankle before and heard it pop. She stated the resident did complain of some pain and she gave her ice and Tylenol. At supper time, she stated the resident stood to transfer and did not complain of pain at that time. She stated she let the night nurse know what happened and that she would need to schedule an X-ray for her ankle on Monday since it was the beginning of the weekend. The next day the night nurse reported to her that the resident did not complain of pain or request medication during the night.
The faciity Investigation documented the incident occured on 9/22/23 at 1:00 PM and was reported on 9/25/23 at 1:20 PM. The report documented the level of injury at the time to be a moderate injury (resulted in hospitalization/outside medical treatment). The report documented the resident reported she was ambulating with staff on 9/22/23 at 1:00 PM when her foot got caught on her recliner and she heard a pop. The resident stated she had pain all weekend (9/23 and 9/24/23) and ice was provided.
Review of Resident #8's clinical record Progress Notes revealed documentation that the resident was scheduled to have an X-ray of her right ankle on 9/25/23 at 1:15 PM, and follow up with the physician at 1:45 PM. The Progress Notes also revealed that on 9/25/23 at 1:12 PM, the facility was notified that the resident had a nondisplaced medial malleolus fracture.
The Progress Notes lacked documentation of physician or family notification of the incident which occurred on 9/22/23 at approximately 3:00 PM.
The Incident Report dated 9/25/23 documented the resident's family and physician were not notified timely of the injury. The Incident Report revealed they were notified on 9/25/23 at 1:43 PM.
The facility policy Fall Prevention and Management revised date of 3/29/23 documented the Purpose of the policy:
-To promote resident well-being by developing and implementing a fall prevention and management program.
-To identify risk factors and implement interventions before a fall occurs.
-To give prompt treatment after a fall occurs.
-To prevent further injury.
-To provide guidance for documentation.
The facility policy Procedure included the following:
6. A nurse must observe the resident and perform a full body exam to determine if there may be suspected injury and direct whether to move the resident.
e. Notify the physician and resident representative of the incident.
In an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/23 at 4:00 PM regarding the concerns, he stated that he had no questions and that everything was pretty black and white.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to perform a caregiver background check for 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff and resident interview, the facility failed to perform a caregiver background check for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #8 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene, and was limited to only walking once or twice. The MDS further documented diagnoses of diabetes, anemia, heart failure, anxiety, depression, and morbid obesity.
Resident #8's Care Plan dated 8/14/23 revealed a Focus that the resident had an ADL self care performance deficit related to decreased mobility and range of motion. Interventions documented in the Care Plan included the following:
-Personal Caregiver assists the resident with showers. Resident requires assist of one.
-Personal Caregivers may come in at times to assist residents with morning and bedtime care/dressing.
In an interview with Resident #8 on 11/27/23 at 4:30 PM, she stated that she had a private caregiver that came into the facility several days a week to assist her with care. She stated the caregiver had been with her at home for 15 years before she came into the facility and she couldn't just let her go.
In an email to the Administrator on 11/29/23 at 1:14 PM, regarding whether or not the facility performed a background check on Resident #8's personal caregiver, he responded that they did not as the caregiver was not their employee or a volunteer.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record view and staff interview, the facility failed to transmit 1 of 3 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record view and staff interview, the facility failed to transmit 1 of 3 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments for the facility within the required timeframe. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The review of Resident #16's MDS assessment dated [DATE] lacked a transmission date.
On 11/30/23 at 2:34 PM, the Administrator emailed a copy of the transmission logs for October and November 2023 which documented Resident #16's MDS was rejected.
On 11/30/23 at 3:00 PM, Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN) and Health Information Director reported she opens and submits the MDS but that is all she does for the MDS.
During an interview on 11/30/23 at 3:05 PM, Staff B, RN reported she gets a report if a MDS is rejected. She reported she was unaware of Resident #16's MDS from 10/17/23 was rejected and will look into why it was rejected.
An email from the Administrator on 12/4/23 at 9:53 AM reported there was a glitch in the system that week. It was resubmitted and accepted.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately document and submit accurate resident Min...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review and staff interviews the facility failed to accurately document and submit accurate resident Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #58). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #58 discharging to an acute hospital.
Review of the progress notes from 9/5/23 documented Resident #58 discharged to home with her husband.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 4:40 PM the DON reported the MDS must have been marked in error because the resident discharged to home and not the hospital.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, which indicated intact cogn...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also documented diagnoses of diabetes, anemia, heart failure, anxiety, depression, and morbid obesity.
Review of Resident #8 ' s clinical record Orders revealed that resident had been receiving insulin daily as needed since 5/1/23.
Review of Resident #8 ' s Care Plan with a revision date of 11/28/23 revealed lack of Focus, Goal, or Intervention for the resident having diabetes. The only documentation of Resident #8 ' s diabetes was listed as a diagnosis.
In an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/23 at 4:00 PM regarding the concerns, he stated that he had no questions and that everything was pretty black and white.
Based on clinical record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to develop a care plan to address risk factors and interventions for 3 out of 16 residents (Residents #38, #52, #8) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
1. Resident #38's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #38 required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility and two persons with toileting use. The MDS identified Resident #38 required limited assistance of one person with transfers. The MDS included diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident (stroke), aphasia (difficulty with language), arthritis and overactive bladder. The MDS identified Resident #38 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The MDS documented Resident #38 had a pressure reducing device for the chair.
A Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had a new stage 2 pressure ulcer (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with red or pink wound bed, without slough or bruising) to the right buttocks.
A Wound Data Collection assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38's pressure ulcer to the right buttocks deteriorated and was documented as an unstageable pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss where the depth of the wound bed is obscured by eschar). The assessment documented the wound bed of the unstageable pressure ulcer with 50% eschar (necrotic, nonviable tissue) and 50% granulation (healthy) tissue.
The Care Plan with a target date 1/3/24 did not identify Resident #38 was at risk for skin impairments and/or developing pressure ulcers. The care plan lacked focus areas, goals and interventions/tasks to manage, treat and prevent skin impairments and pressure ulcers. The care plan was updated on 11/29/23 to reflect Resident #38 had a stage 2 pressure ulcer to the right buttocks related to immobility.
On 11/29/23 3:30 PM, Staff B, Nurse Manager acknowledge and verified a comprehensive skin/pressure ulcer care plan was not completed until after Resident #38 developed a pressure ulcer. Staff B acknowledged Resident #38 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers before the ulcer developed.
The facility policy titled Care Plan revised 11/1/23 documented residents will receive and be provided the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practical well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment. The policy further documented the care plan will emphasize the care and development of the whole person ensuring that the resident will receive appropriate care and services. The care plan will address the relationship of items or services required and facility responsibility for providing these services.
2. The MDS assessment for Resident #52 dated 8/26/23 identified a BIMS score of 14 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of anemia, heart failure (inability for the heart to pump enough blood), chronic kidney disease, hypoxemia (low level of oxygen in the blood) coronary artery disease, pulmonary emboli (blood clot in the artery of the lung) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The MDS documented Resident #52 received an anticoagulant medication 4 days during the assessment period (last 7 days).
A Physician order dated 4/7/23 directed staff to administer Apixaban (Eliquis) (anticoagulant) 5 mg (milligrams) by mouth twice a day for pulmonary embolism.
Review of Resident #52's care plan revised 9/19/23 revealed the anticoagulant medication, potential side effects and what to monitor for while taking the high risk medication was not addressed on the comprehensive care plan.
On 11/29/23 at 11:05 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager verified and acknowledged the anticoagulant medication was not addressed on the care plan. Staff B stated she would update the care plan.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to update the care plan for 1 ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to update the care plan for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #52) who was receiving an anticoagulant. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #52 dated 8/26/23 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of anemia, heart failure (inability for the heart to pump enough blood), chronic kidney disease, hypoxemia (low level of oxygen in the blood) coronary artery disease, pulmonary emboli (blood clot in the artery of the lung), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, anxiety and depression. The MDS documented Resident #52 received an antidepressant and diuretic medication 3 days during the assessment period (last 7 days).
A Physician order dated 4/7/2023 directed staff to administer Lexapro (antidepressant) 10 mg (milligrams) two tablets by mouth once a day for depression and anxiety.
A Physician order dated 5/5/2023 directed staff to administer Wellbutrin SR Extended Release (antidepressant) 150 mg one tablet by mouth once a day for depression.
A Physician order dated 8/23/2023 directed staff to administer Lasix (diuretic) 40 mg one tablet by mouth once a day for acute congestive heart failure.
Review of Resident #52's care plan revised 9/19/2023 revealed potential side effects and what to monitor for while taking diuretic medication and antidepressant medications were not addressed on the comprehensive care plan.
On 11/29/23 at 11:05 AM, Staff B, Nurse Manager verified and acknowledged side effects for the antidepressant and diuretic medications were not addressed on the care plan or CNA (Certified Nurse Assistant) [NAME]. Staff B stated she would update the care plan.
The facility policy titled Care Plan revised 11/1/23 documented residents will receive and be provided the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practical well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment. The policy further documented the plan of care will be modified to reflect the care currently required/provided for the resident.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide supervision with medication administration according to accepted standards of clinical practice for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide supervision with medication administration according to accepted standards of clinical practice for 1 of 7 residents reviewed (Residents #40). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #40 dated 9/7/23 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition.
On 11/29/23 at 8:00 AM observed Staff D, CMA (Certified Medication Aide) walk to the dining room with a pill cup in her hand. Staff D sat the pill cup on the table next to Resident #40 and returned to the medication cart without watching Resident #40 take her medications. Staff D acknowledged and verified she did not watch the resident take her medications. Staff D stated she knew Resident #40 would take them. Staff E, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) was present in the dining room, sat down next to Resident #40 and told the resident she needed to watch her take her medications.
The November 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) revealed Resident #40's morning (AM) medications on 11/29/23 were signed off by Staff D indicating she administered the medications.
The Clinical Record lacked documentation that Resident #40 could self-administer medications or had a physician order to do so.
On 11/29/23 at 10:38 AM, Staff D verified and acknowledged she signed off Resident #40's AM medications. Staff D reported that Staff E provided her education that she needed to stay with the resident while taking their medications to make sure the resident does not choke.
On 11/29/23 at 10:42 AM, Staff E reported the facility expectation was for nurses and CMAs to stay with the resident while they are taking their pills.
On 11/19/23 at 10:50 AM, the DON (Director of Nursing ) reported her expectation was for the nurses and CMAs to stay with the resident while they are taking their medications.
The facility policy titled Medication Administration including Scheduling and Medication Aides revised 3/29/23 instructed staff to do the following:
a. Administer only those medications that you prepared. Do not ask anyone else to administer medication that you prepared. Do not administer medications prepared by anyone else.
b. Do not leave medications at the bedside or at the table unless there is a specific physician order to do so, and the resident has been evaluated for self-administration. If the resident has not been assessed for safety for self-administration and there is not a physician order to leave the medication with the resident, stay with the resident until the medication is taken and you observe the resident swallow.
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 observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #49). The facility reported a census of 50....
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to follow physician's orders for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #49). The facility reported a census of 50.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #49 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented the resident had diagnosis of hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3, diabetes, chronic venous insufficiency and cellutitis.
The Care Plan documented Resident #49 to have ted hose on in AM and off at HS.
Review of the clinical records documented an order for ted hose on in AM and off at HS which started on 8/25/23. Further review documented a Clinic Referral document for the ted hose with a physician's signature on 8/25/23.
During an observation on 11/27/23 at 4:26 PM Resident #49's left lower leg wrapped with ace wraps and nothing on right lower leg.
During an observation on 11/28/23 at 9:00 AM Resident #49's left lower leg wrapped with ace wraps and nothing on right lower leg.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 4:35 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she could not find documentation of resident refusing ted hose or that the order was discontinued. She didn't know why staff were not following the physician's orders.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy, the facility failed to provide complete and appropriate incontinence ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview and facility policy, the facility failed to provide complete and appropriate incontinence care in a manner to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 3 residents observed (Resident #32). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Finding include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #32 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #32 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and locomotion. The MDS further documented diagnoses of nontraumatic brain dysfunction, non-Alzheimer's dementia, painful urination, blood in urine, urinary retention, unspecified diarrhea, restlessness, and agitation.
Resident #32's Care Plan with a revision date of 11/24/23 revealed a Focus indicating that the resident had 18F indwelling catheter related to urinary retention and history of Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) and inability to void independently, with a goal that the resident will show no signs or symptoms of urinary infection through the review date of 12/8/23. Interventions include catheter care by the aide every shift, keep the drainage bag lower than the bladder at all times, encourage fluid intake, and report signs and symptoms of UTI to the nurse.
Clinical record review of Resident #32's Progress Notes revealed the resident was diagnosed with UTI's on 5/19, 7/20, 8/18, 9/2, and 11/24/23. The resident was currently receiving antibiotic therapy.
On 11/29/23 at 10:00 AM, along with Nurse Consultant, observation of Staff L, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) who performed catheter and peri care for the resident. Staff L was not observed to wash or sanitize hands prior to care. Staf L applied gloves, opened wipes and laid several open on the bedside table. She then opened the tabs on resident's disposable briefs and pulled it down on resident's thighs to perform care. Staff L performed catheter and front peri care, removed her gloves, tossing them into the garbage can, and then with bare hands pulled the resident's dirty brief back up and fastened it.
Review of facility policy titled Catheter: Care, Insertion & Removal, Drainage Bags, Irrigation, Specimen - Assisted Living, Rehab/Skilled with a reviewed/revised date of 2/10/2023, revealed that care is to include performing hand hygiene before applying gloves. Standards of care would include that the used brief would be removed and a clean brief be put on after performing catheter care.
In an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/23 at 4:00 PM regarding the concerns, he stated that he had no questions and that everything was pretty black and white.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #52) for respiratory se...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, record review, staff interviews, resident interview and policy review, the facility failed to change oxygen tubing for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #52) for respiratory services. The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings Include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #52 dated 8/26/23 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of anemia, heart failure (inability for the heart to pump enough blood), chronic kidney disease, hypoxemia (low level of oxygen in the blood), coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The MDS documented Resident #52 was on oxygen therapy while a resident at the facility.
The Care Plan revised 8/23/23 identified Resident #52 had oxygen therapy related to congestive heart failure. The care plan directed staff to change the oxygen tubing and bag weekly.
On 11/27/23 at 3:04 PM, Resident #52 reported her oxygen tubing does not get changed very often. Observed the oxygen tubing was not marked with a date on when the last time the tubing had been changed.
On 11/28/23 at 3:37 PM observed Resident 52's oxygen tubing remained undated. Resident #52 verified she did not see any markings on the tubing.
On 11/28/23 at 4:15 PM, Staff A, Registered Nurse reported the oxygen tubing was to be changed weekly on Sunday nights and was to be documented on the Treatment Administration Records (TAR).
The Treatment Administration Records (TAR) from August 2023 through November 2023 lacked documentation that the oxygen tubing had been changed.
On 11/28/23 at 4:20 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported her expectation was for the oxygen tubing to be changed weekly on Sunday evening and documented on the TAR. The DON acknowledged and verified Resident #52's tubing was not on the TAR to be changed weekly.
The facility policy titled Oxygen Administration revised 6/30/23 documented the purpose of the policy was to do the following:
a. To administer and store oxygen in a safe manner.
b. To keep oxygen equipment clean and maintained in good condition
c. To administer various levels of oxygen concentration and/or humidity in a safe manner.
The policy directed disposable equipment to be changed weekly and marked with dates and initials.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, resident, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer medicatio...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, resident, family and staff interviews, the facility failed to administer medications within the correct time frame for 1 of 7 residents reviewed (Resident #29). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
Resident #29 MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition.
On 11/29/23 at 9:22 Am Resident #29's daughter reported he had not received his morning medications and she was going to go talk to staff about them being late.
An observation on 11/29/23 at 9:23 AM observed Staff D, Certified Medication Aid (CMA) give resident #29's morning medications in which two of the medications were scheduled for 8:00 AM.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 9:29 AM Staff D, CMA reported she was unsure of what to do regarding late administration of medications but will speak with the nurse about it and get back to this surveyor on what to do.
On 11/29/23 at 9:31 AM, Staff E, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) reported she would check on the medications given to Resident #29 and get back to this surveyor.
On 11/29/23 at 9:34 AM, Staff E, LPN reported she checked about the medication and the acetaminophen and Carbidopa/Levodopa were given late and not during the appropriate time frame so she would notify the physician and speak with the CMA.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 9:43 AM, Resident #29 reported he received his medication late and does many times. He reported not getting his Carbidopa/ Levodopa on time affects his Parkinson's and he notices when it is given late.
On 11/29/23 at 10:38 AM, the DON reported she was unaware of any medications given late or not at the correct time. She reported she expected staff to give medications at the correct time as it is ordered.
On 11/29/23 at 11:18 AM, the DON provided the administration times of the two medications since 11/20/23 per request and the documents revealed on 4 mornings since 11/20/23 Resident #29 received the two medications late.
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 clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide an appropriate clinical rationale for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) declination for 1 out o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interview and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide an appropriate clinical rationale for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) declination for 1 out of 5 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. (Resident #52) The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #52 dated 8/26/23 identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS included diagnoses of anxiety and depression. The MDS documented Resident #52 received an antidepressant medication 3 days during the assessment period (last 7 days).
A Physician Order dated 4/7/23 directed staff to administer Lexapro (antidepressant) 10 mg (milligrams) two tablets by mouth once a day for depression and anxiety.
A Physician Order dated 5/5/23 directed staff to administer Wellbutrin SR Extended Release (antidepressant) 150 mg one tablet by mouth once a day for depression.
An untiled Pharmacy form dated 7/9/23 documented the physician response for a gradual dose reduction (GDR) request for Resident #52's Lexapro and Wellbutrin medication was denied due to the benefit of the medications outweighs the risk. The pharmacy form lacked a clinical rationale for not making any changes in the orders. The Physician signed the form on 7/21/23.
On 11/29/23 at 10:57 AM, the DON (Director of Nursing) acknowledged and verified the pharmacy form lacked a clinical rationale for continuing the Lexapro and Wellbutrin without any changes. The DON reported she did not have additional pharmacy forms requesting a GDR for the antidepressants.
The facility policy titled Psychotropic Medications revised on 12/9/22 documented during the first year in which a resident is admitted on a psychotropic medication, or after the location has initiated such medication, the location should attempt to tape the medication during at least two separate quarters (with one month between attempts), unless clinically contraindicated. After the first year, tapering should be attempted annually unless clinical contraindicated.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0811
(Tag F0811)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to utilize a Paid Nutritional Assistant ...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to utilize a Paid Nutritional Assistant (PNA) appropriately for 2 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #6 and #19). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings Include:
1.The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #6 has coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications. The MDS documented the resident receives a mechanically altered diet and is total assistance with meals.
The Care Plan for Resident #6 documented the resident requires total dependence on staff with meals since 3/31/18. It documented the resident has a nutritional problem related to anoxic brain injury and decreased swallowing ability with need for mechanically altered texture food and fluids.
An observation of the dining room on 11/28/23 at 7:35 AM revealed Resident #6 being assisted by Staff, F, PNA.
An observation of the dining room on 11/29/23 at 8:00 AM revealed Resident #6 being assisted by Staff, F, PNA.
During an interview on 11/29/23 the Corporate Consultant stated she was not aware that the facility was using PNAs at this time. She did not know if there was a policy on PNAs but would find out.
On 11/29/23 at 1:56 PM the Administrator emailed a copy of the PNA policy.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:28 PM the DON reported she was unaware the PNA could not assist residents with swallowing or complicated feedings. She reported she was unaware the quarterly dining assistance assessment was not being filled out completely. She reported her expectations of staff would be to fill it out completely each quarter.
Review of the facility policy titled Dining Assistant documents the PNA only feeds residents who have no complicated feeding problems. Complicated feeding problems include, but not limited to, difficulty swallowing and recurrent lung aspirations.
2. The MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #19 with a diagnosis of dysphagia which is the medical term for difficulty swallowing.
The Care Plan for Resident #19 documented the resident has nectar thickened liquids and special instructions how to assist the resident with liquids.
An observation of the dining room on 11/28/23 at 8:32 AM revealed Resident #19 being assisted by Staff, F, PNA.
An observation of the dining room on 11/29/23 at 8:26 AM revealed Resident #19 being assisted by Staff, F, PNA.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident interview, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure resident records accurately portrayed the resident with thorough documentation for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (Resident #8). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
The Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident #8 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #8 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene, and was limited to only walking once or twice. The MDS further documented diagnoses of diabetes, anemia, heart failure, anxiety, depression, and morbid obesity.
Resident #8's Care Plan dated 8/14/23 revealed that the resident was ambulatory with staff assistance as she desired.
Review of Resident #8's clinical record Progress Notes lacked documentation of an incident that occurred on 9/22/23 at approximately 3:00 PM in which the resident suffered an ankle fracture during a transfer. The first documentation in the resident's Progress Notes regarding the incident was on 9/25/23 at 1:15 PM, in which it was reported that the resident was scheduled to have an X-ray of her right ankle on and follow up with the physician at 1:45 PM. The Progress Notes also revealed that on 9/25/23 at 1:12 PM, the facility was notified that the resident had a nondisplaced medial malleolus fracture.
In an interview with Resident #8 at 4:27 PM on 11/27/23, she stated that in September she broke her ankle by catching it on the edge of her recliner. She stated that Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) was walking with her from her commode across the room to her recliner when she told her she wasn't going to make it and needed to sit down. She stated Staff G kept saying that she could make it. She stated that when she caught her foot on the recliner, she heard and felt a pop and told Staff G that she broke her ankle.
In an interview with Staff G at 9:10 AM on 11/29/23, she stated that Resident #8 had been complaining to staff that she came into the facility walking and no one ever had the time to walk with her now. She stated the resident said this again to her after lunch and she told her that she had time to walk with her now. Staff G stated she assisted the resident to ambulate with a walker and gait belt all the way around the dining room and that she did wonderful. She stated that later that day the resident was on the commode and wanted to go to her recliner. She stated she assisted the resident up, and they started walking across her room to the recliner, (approximately. 15 ft), when the resident's walker bumped the recliner. Staff G stated the resident started freaking out saying I'm gonna fall, get me a chair, I'm gonna fall, I'm gonna go down. She stated she reassured the resident that she wasn't going to let her fall, and Staff G stated I had my knee up her butt, she wasn't going anywhere. Staff G stated that she called for help on her walkie, but she didn't have access to a chair and she knew the resident could do it. She stated the resident lost all confidence in herself after bumping the recliner. She stated as she was helping the resident to sit down in the chair, the resident caught her foot underneath the edge of the recliner and the resident screamed at her you broke my ankle! Staff G stated she did hear a pop, but she personally had rolled her ankle before and heard it pop. She stated the resident did complain of some pain and she gave her ice and Tylenol. At supper time, she stated the resident stood to transfer and did not complain of pain at that time. She stated she let the night nurse know what happened and that she would need to schedule an X-ray for her ankle on Monday since it was the beginning of the weekend. The next day the night nurse reported to her that the resident did not complain of pain or request medication during the night.
Review of facility document titled Nursing Documentation Guidelines, Timelines- Rehab/Skilled, with a reviewed/revised date of 04/26/2023, revealed that incidental charting - day-to-day type documentation of specific occurrences will be completed by a licensed nurse in the appropriate progress note determined by the content of the note.
In an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/23 at 4:00 PM regarding the concerns, he stated that he had no questions and that everything was pretty black and white.
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #32 documented a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, which indicated moderately impaired...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. The MDS assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #32 documented a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. The MDS also documented that Resident #32 needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene, and locomotion. The MDS further documented diagnoses of nontraumatic brain dysfunction, non-Alzheimer's dementia, painful urination, blood in urine, urinary retention, unspecified diarrhea, restlessness, and agitation.
Resident #32's Care Plan with a revision date of 11/24/23 revealed a Focus indicating that the resident had 18F indwelling catheter related to urinary retention and history of Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) and inability to void independently, with a goal that the resident will show no signs or symptoms of urinary infection through the review date of 12/8/23. Interventions include Catheter care by CNA every shift, keep the drainage bag lower than the bladder at all times, encourage fluid intake, and report signs and symptoms of UTI to the nurse.
Clinical record review of Resident #32's Progress Notes revealed the resident was diagnosed with UTI' s on 5/19, 7/20, 8/18, 9/2, and 11/24/23. The resident was currently receiving antibiotic therapy.
On 11/29/23 at 10:00 AM, along with the Nurse Consultant, observation of Staff L, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) who performed catheter and peri care for the resident. Staff L was not observed to wash or sanitize hands prior to care. Staf L applied gloves, opened wipes and laid several open on the bedside table. She then opened the tabs on resident's disposable briefs and pulled it down on resident ' s thighs to perform care. Staff L performed catheter and front peri care, removed her gloves, tossing them into the garbage can, and then with bare hands pulled the resident's dirty brief back up and fastened it.
Review of facility policy titled Catheter: Care, Insertion & Removal, Drainage Bags, Irrigation, Specimen - Assisted Living, Rehab/Skilled with a reviewed/revised date of 2/10/2023, revealed that care is to include performing hand hygiene before applying gloves. Standards of care would include that the used brief would be removed and a clean brief be put on after performing catheter care.
In an interview with the Administrator on 11/30/23 at 4:00 PM regarding the concerns, he stated that he had no questions and that everything was pretty black and white.
Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections. The facility failed to follow hand hygiene and gloving practices consistent with accepted standards of practice for 2 of 2 residents reviewed (Residents #38, #32). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
1. Resident #38's MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS identified Resident #38 required extensive assistance of one person with bed mobility and two persons with toileting use. The MDS identified Resident #38 required limited assistance of one person with transfers. The MDS included diagnoses of cerebrovascular accident (stroke), aphasia (difficulty with language), arthritis and overactive bladder. The MDS identified Resident #38 was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. The MDS documented Resident #12 had a pressure reducing device for the chair.
A Wound RN assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38 had a new stage 2 pressure ulcer (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with red or pink wound bed, without slough or bruising) to the right buttocks.
A Wound Data Collection assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #38's pressure ulcer to the right buttocks deteriorated and was documented as an unstageable pressure ulcer (full thickness tissue loss where the depth of the wound bed is obscured by eschar). The assessment documented the wound bed of the unstageable pressure ulcer with 50% eschar (necrotic, nonviable tissue) and 50% granulation (healthy) tissue.
A Physician order dated 11/30/23 directed staff to cleanse the right lower buttocks wounds with wound cleanser, add Aquacel AG (silver impregnated dressing), cover with foam and tape daily and as needed.
On 11/30/23 at 11:52 AM observed Staff E, LPN (Licensed Practical Nurse) place a barrier on the bedside table. The bedside table was not cleaned or sanitized prior to placing the barrier. Staff E placed dressing items on top of the barrier (wound cleanser bottle, package of Aquacel AG, foam, scissors). Staff E cleansed her hands with hand sanitizer from the wall unit in the room and then put on a pair of gloves that were in her uniform pocket. Staff E proceeded to unfastened Resident #38's brief and assisted with rolling her on her left side. Staff E removed the old dressing from Resident #38's right buttocks and threw it in the garbage can next to the resident's bed. The old dressing contained a small amount of sanguineous drainage. Staff E then picked up the wound cleanser and sprayed the cleanser onto a piece of gauze and cleansed the wound. Staff E then cut a piece of Aquacel AG and placed it on the wound on the right buttocks. Staff E then cut a piece of foam and mepilex tape (soft silicon tape) and placed it over the Aquacel AG. Staff E did not label or date the dressing. Staff E did not change her gloves or sanitize her hand between cleansing the wound and applying a new dressing. Staff E verified and acknowledged she wore one pair of gloves through the entire dressing change and did not change her gloves or sanitize her hands between dirty and clean. Staff E acknowledged she touched the Aquacel AG, foam, and mepilex tape with contaminated gloves. Staff E acknowledged she did not date or initial the dressing.
On 11/30/23 at 12:35 PM, the DON (Director of Nursing) reported her expectation was for staff to change gloves and clean their hands between dirty and clean tasks. She stated she would prefer staff not to keep gloves in their pockets. The DON stated the expected staff to date and initial dressing changes.
The facility policy titled Wound Dressing Changes revised on 11/2/23 documented the purpose of the policy was to promote wound healing and to help the wound remain free of infection. The procedure section of the policy directed staff to do the following:
1. Check physician's order, review previous assessments and notes.
2. Perform the beginning five (assemble equipment, knock on door, identify resident, explain procedure and provide privacy, perform hand hygiene).
3. Position resident for comfort and to accommodate dressing change.
4. Put on gloves.
5. Remove soiled dressing and discard in a plastic bag, avoiding contact and thus contamination of other surfaces. Remove gloves and discard in the same plastic bag. Perform hand hygiene.
6. Create a field with equipment/dressing wrappers.
7. Open all supplies and poor solutions if ordered.
8. Put on gloves.
9. Cleans the skin and wound thoroughly with normal saline using gauze wipes, wound cleanser or ordered antiseptic solution. Remove gloves and perform hand hygiene.
10. Put on gloves.
11. Remove dressing from inner wrapper, avoiding finger contact with dressing. Position the dressing over the wound and press gently down on the skin.
12. Place all disposable items in the plastic bag with dressing, seal and discard according to procedure.
13. Identify time, date and initials on dressing.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, resident, family, and staff interviews, and review of the Resident Council Meeting...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, resident, family, and staff interviews, and review of the Resident Council Meeting minutes, the facility failed to answer call lights in a timely manner for 4 of 7 residents reviewed (Resident #34, #29, #2, and #41). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings Include:
1.Resident #34 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition.
During an interview on 11/28/23 Resident #34 reported that she sometimes has to wait 45 minutes or longer for assistance and once ended up wetting herself due to waiting so long. She reported she felt stupid and embarrassed when she wet herself but just couldn't hold it any longer. She reported it is all shifts that the call lights go a long time without being answered.
An observation on 11/29/23 of Resident #34 call light oserved it on at 7:42 AM and not answered until 8:27 AM.
2. Resident #29 MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 8:35 AM Resident #29's daughter reported that the facility is short staffed frequently and that her dad waits a long time for his call light to be answered. She reported her dad didn't tell the other surveyor the truth when she interviewed due to being worried of backlash from staff.
3. Resident #2 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition.
During an interview on 11/27/23 at 1:51 PM Resident #2 reported sometimes she waits a long time for her call light to be answered. She reported sometimes she has waited up to 30 minutes for it to be answered.
An observation on 11/29/23, observed Resident #2's call light on at 7:32 AM and answered at 7:55 AM.
4. Resident #41 Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition.
An interview on 11/27/23 Resident #4 reported she sometimes waits up to an hour for help when she puts her call light on.
A Review of the Resident Council Meeting Minutes revealed the following:
a. 0n 9/11/23- concern of call lights not being answered, long wait times and staff turning them off and not returning was a large part of the discussion for the meeting.
b. 0n 10/9/23- residents reporting they have to wait up to 45 minutes or longer for call light to be answered. Residents report they spend a lot of time in the bathroom waiting for help and aids turn off the lights and say they will be back but don't come back.
c. On 11/6/23- Residents report the call lights are not improving. They reported the wait is still up to 45 minutes or longer. One resident report they wait so long that their roommate finally will get up on their own and they are not to be walking alone.
During an interview on 11/28/23 at 3:00 PM the Social worker reported she let the Administrator and DON know about call light concerns from resident council meetings. She reported the Administrator and DON were doing call light audits.
On 11/29/23 at 8:07 AM the Administrator emailed they do manual audits of call lights but didn't recall any recent audits for this.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was labeled with dates after opening, discarded after product recommended date, record temperatur...
Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure food was labeled with dates after opening, discarded after product recommended date, record temperatures of freezers/refrigerators to ensure safe food storage, record food temps prior to serving and complete test strips and temperatures on the dishwasher and with manual washing to ensure proper sanitation of dishes. The facility identified a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
1. An initial kitchen tour conducted on 11/27/23 at 10:10 AM, of the kitchen revealed the following items were stored in the upper level kitchen's refrigerator ready for service:
a. Tartar Sauce- two squeeze bottles- one labeled 10/24 and one not labeled/dated.
b. Squeeze bottle with white substance- not labeled or dated.
c. Squeeze bottle with dark red substance- not labeled or dated.
d. Squeeze bottle with red substance- not labeled or dated.
The following item was stored in the lower level refrigerator ready for service:
a. Chocolate Milk- expiration date 11/20/23.
Review of Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature logs for the upper level refrigerator, store room freezer, walk in fridge/freezer, dining room refrigerator and lower level refrigerator revealed temperatures were not recorded consistently during the month of November 2023. The log did not provide any directions or how often to check the refrigerator temperatures.
November 2023 upper level refrigerator temperatures were not recorded on the following dates and times: 11/4, 11/5, 11/9, 11/14, 11/22, and 11/24/23. The other days of the month the temperatures were recorded daily.
November 2023 store room freezer temperatures were not recorded on the following dates and times: 11/4, 11/5, 11/9, 11/14, 11/22, and 11/24/23. The other days of the month the temperatures were recorded daily.
November 2023 walk-in refrigerator/freezer temperatures were not recorded on the following dates and times: 11/4, 11/5, 11/9, 11/14, 11/22, and 11/24/23. The other days of the month the temperatures were recorded daily.
November 2023 dining room refrigerator temperatures were not recorded on the following dates and times: 11/4, 11/5, 11/9, 11/14, 11/22, and 11/24/23. The other days of the month the temperatures were recorded daily.
November 2023 lower level refrigerator temperatures were not recorded on the following dates and times: 11/4, 11/5, 11/9, 11/11, 11/14, 11/15, 11/19, and 11/22/23. The other days of the month the temperatures were recorded daily.
On 11/27/23 at 10:30 AM, Staff I, [NAME] reported she tried to do the temperature checks each day she worked but she does not work every day.
Review of Dish Machine Temperature/Chemical log revealed temperatures and testing strips were not recorded consistently during the month of November 2023 for the upper level dishwasher. The log directed staff to record temperatures and testing strips three times a day (morning, noon and evening).
November 2023 upper level dish machine temperatures and test strips were not recorded on the following dates and times:
11/1 to 11/26- evening
11/4- morning, noon and evening
11/5- morning, noon and evening
11/9- noon and evening
11/10- morning, noon and evening
11/11- morning and evening
11/12- morning and evening
11/15- morning, noon and evening
11/16- noon and evening
11/17-morning, noon and evening
11/19 through 11/22- morning, noon and evening
11/24- morning, noon and evening
Review of high temp dish machine temperature log revealed temperatures were not recorded consistently during the month of November 2023 for the lower level dishwasher. The log directed staff to record temperatures three times a day (breakfast, lunch and supper).
November 2023 lower level high temp dish machine temperatures were not recorded on the following dates and times:
11/4- supper
11/5- supper
11/10- breakfast, lunch and supper
11/13- lunch
11/14- breakfast and lunch
11/17- lunch and supper
11/18- breakfast
11/19- breakfast and lunch
11/20- supper
11/22- supper
11/23- breakfast and lunch
11/24- breakfast, lunch and supper
Review of manual ware washing/chemical log for pot and pan sink revealed temperatures and testing strips were not recorded consistently during the month of November 2023. The log directed staff to record temperatures and testing strips three times a day (morning, noon and evening).
November 2023 manual ware washing temperatures and test strips for the pot and pan sink were not recorded on the following dates and times:
11/4- evening
11/5- evening
11/6- evening
11/8- evening
11/11- evening
11/12- evening
11/13- evening
11/5- evening
11/18- evening
11/19- evening
11/23- evening
11/24- evening
On 11/27/23 at 11:00 AM observed the chlorine test strips for the dishwasher had an expiration date of March 2022. Staff I, [NAME] acknowledged and verified the test strips were expired. Staff I reported she could not locate a new bottle of test strips. Staff I reported it was an expectation to record temperatures and test strips three times a day. She acknowledged and verified the temps and sanitizing checks were not completed as expected.
On 11/28/23 9:30 AM, Staff I, [NAME] reported she was unable to locate new test strips for the dishwasher. She stated the batch of test strips that were located were all expired.
Reviewed food temperature logs for the past 30 days revealed multiple temperatures missing from the logs.
10/29- supper
10/31- supper
11/6- supper
11/8- supper
11/10- supper
11/12- supper
11/13- supper
11/14- breakfast, lunch and supper
11/15- lunch, supper
11/19- lunch
11/20- supper
11/21- supper
11/22- breakfast, lunch
11/24- breakfast, lunch, and supper
On 11/28/23 at 11:30 AM, Staff I, [NAME] reported there were no food temperature logs for the lower level serving area. Staff I stated food temperatures are taken when the food comes out of the oven and not before serving. Staff I stated the food comes out of the oven and then goes into the steam tables.
On 11/28/23 at 11:35 AM, Staff I obtained food temperatures and then started serving the resident. No hand hygiene was observed prior to taking food temperatures or serving.
On 11/28/23 at 12:00 PM, Staff I did not perform hand hygiene prior to serving the upper level dining room. Observed Staff I touched multiple surfaces prior to serving as she had pushed the refrigerated cart from the lower level in the elevator, had taken chicken out of the oven, and touched several dishes/pans preparing to serve.
On 11/28/23 at 12:05 PM, Staff I left the dining room to check on where the aides were at and when she returned she did not complete hand hygiene prior to serving.
On 11/18/23 at 12:20 PM, Staff I left the dining room to check on where two residents were and when she returned she did not complete hand hygiene prior to continuing to serve. She prepared a plate for a resident who had not come to the dining room to eat and placed it in the refrigerator for later.
On 11/30/23 at 8:30 AM, Staff J, Regional Food and Nutrition Consultant reported she would expect food to be labeled and dated and expired food items to be discarded. She would expect food temperatures to be taken at a cook temp and prior to serving. She would expect handwashing to be completed in between tasks and prior to serving.
On 11/30/23 at 10:45 AM, Staff J reported she would expect manual washing sanitation to be completed when water is visibly dirty or depleted. She reported basically before doing the dishes. Staff J stated she would expect sanitation checks to be completed on the dishwashers three times a day and refrigerator/freezer temps to be taken at BID.
The facility policy titled Food-Supply Storage revised 6/21/22 documented internal temperatures of all refrigerators and freezers in the food and nutrition department, dining room and nourishment areas are recorded twice daily on the refrigerator/freezer temperature log.
The facility policy titled Warewashing-Mechanical and Manual revised 4/3/23 documented the purpose of the policy is to promote good practice ware washing regarding prevention of foodborne illness.
a. The Mechanical Ware Washing Operation portion of the policy directed staff to record temperatures and chemical concentrations on the Dish Machine Temperature Log. The policy further directed to check compliance for wash and rinse cycles at each meal service.
b. The Manual Ware Washing portion of the policy directed temperature and chemical concentration to be recorded on a Chemical Sanitizing Log or a Pot/Pan Hot Water Sanitizing log. The policy documented proper test strips and thermometers to be available for frequent measuring of the washing and sanitizing water temperature.
The facility policy titled Food Temperature Monitoring revised 2/2/23 documented the following:
a. Food is cooked, reheated or cooled to ensure proper holding temperatures before each meal service.
b. Food temperatures are taken and recorded before each meal service. Periodically, temperatures are taken at other times during or at the end of the meal service to ensure temperatures are held within acceptable ranges.
c. Food is served at proper serving temperatures.
The policy directed staff before meal service, the cook or designee to take the cook-to and serve temperatures of all menu items and record on the Weekly Food Temperature Record.
The policy titled Hand Washing and Glove Us- Food Nutrition Services revised 8/11/22 documented the purpose of the policy was to provide guidelines regarding hand hygiene and glove use, to reduce risk of cross-contamination when serving highly susceptible populations. The policy directed staff to wash hands before handling food, after handling raw meat, when switching tasks, and performing any activity that could contaminate hands. The further directed staff involved in food preparation, distribution and serving must consistently utilize good hygienic practices and techniques.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and facility polic...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines and facility policy review, the facility failed to screen for eligibility, offer, provide education and document vaccine consent or refusal for the pneumococcal immunization for 3 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #1, #38 and #41). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of clinical records for immunizations lacked documentation Resident #1 received Prevnar 13 (PCV13) on 10/2/2015 and Pneumovax 23 (PPSV23) on 11/23/2016 but lacked documentation of being offered, educated or consent for or refusal of the Prevnar 20 (PCV20).
2. Resident #38's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Review of clinical records for immunizations lacked documentation Resident #38 received PCV13 on 10/10/2010 and PPSV23 on 11/28/2016 but lacked documentation of being offered, educated or consent for or refusal of the PCV20.
3. Resident #41's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Review of clinical records for immunizations lacked documentation Resident #41 received PPSV23 on 06/21/2007 and PCV13 on 10/26/2016 but lacked documentation of being offered, educated or consent for or refusal of the PCV20.
During an interview on 11/29/23 at 2:58 PM Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) reported they have not offered residents the PCV20 vaccine at this time.
On 11/29/23 at 4:25 PM the DON reported the facility has not offered PCV20 at this time. She was unaware Resident #1, #38 and #41 were able to take the PCV20 if they wish to. She reported she was not aware of the guidelines with the vaccine.
Review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) document titled, Pneumococcal Vaccine Timing for Adults, dated 09/22/2023 revealed adults older than [AGE] years of age are recommended to have both Prevnar (PCV) 13 or 20 and Pneumovax (PPSV) 23 given at least 1 year apart or Prevnar (PCV) 20 alone. Prevnar (PCV) 20 given at least 5 years after PCV13 and PPSV23.
A review of the facility policy titled Immunizations/Vaccinations for Residents, Pneumococcal, Influenza, COVID-19 documented residents will be reviewed for vaccine eligibility on an ongoing basis as immunization recommendations change. Education, consent and screening are done for vaccine.
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0887
(Tag F0887)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to screen for eligibility, off...
Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to screen for eligibility, offer, provide education and document vaccine consent or refusal for the Coronavirus booster vaccine to 5 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #1, #15, #38, #41, and #51). The facility reported a census of 50 residents.
Findings include:
1. Resident #1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #1's Immunization Record listed that she received her first dose of COVID-19 vaccine on 03/10/21 and second dose on 04/7/21. The Immunization Record documentation she received her first booster on 10/25/2021 and second booster on 06/7/23 but lacked documentation of any further boosters offered.
2. Resident #15's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #15's Immunization Record listed that she received her first dose of COVID-19 vaccine on 01/13/21 and the second dose on 02/11/21. The Immunization Record documented she received her first booster on 6/07/22 but refused the further boosters. The clinical record lacked documentation of education provided for the refusal of the boosters.
3. Resident #38's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Resident #38's Immunization Record listed that she received her first dose of COVID-19 vaccine on 03/11/21 and second dose on 04/7/21. The Immunization Record documentation she received her first booster on 03/01/2022 but lacked documentation of any further boosters offered.
4. Resident #41's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 15 out of 15, indicating intact cognition. Resident #41's Immunization Record listed that she received her first dose of COVID-19 vaccine on 01/13/21 and second dose on 02/11/21. The Immunization Record documentation she received her first booster on 11/11/2021 and second booster on 04/21/22 but lacked documentation of any further boosters offered.
5. Resident #51's MDS assessment dated [DATE] identified a BIMS score of 10 out of 15, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Resident #51's Immunization Record listed that he refused the vaccine. The progress notes documented resident refused the vaccine but lacked documentation of education regarding the vaccine.
During an interview on 11/29/23 2:58 PM Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) reported they have not offered residents the PCV20 vaccine at this time.
On 11/29/23 at 4:25 PM the Director of Nursing reported the facility has not offered PCV20 at this time. She was unaware Resident #1, #38 and #41 were able to take the PCV20 if they wish to. She reported she was not aware of the guidelines with the vaccine.
A review of the facility policy titled Immunizations/Vaccinations for Residents, Pneumococcal, Influenza, COVID-19 documented residents will be reviewed for vaccine eligibility on an ongoing basis as immunization recommendations change. Education, consent and screening are done for vaccine.