Good Samaritan Society - Algona

412 West Kennedy Street, Algona, IA 50511 (515) 295-2414
For profit - Corporation 76 Beds GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
50/100
#189 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: November 2024

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

Overview

Good Samaritan Society - Algona has received a Trust Grade of C, which indicates that it is average compared to other facilities, sitting in the middle of the pack. It ranks #189 out of 392 in Iowa, placing it in the top half of the state, but is last in Kossuth County at #4 of 4. The facility is showing improvement, with issues decreasing from 24 in 2023 to just 3 in 2024. Staffing is rated average, with a turnover rate of 44%, which is on par with the state average, and they have no fines on record, suggesting no compliance issues. However, there are some serious concerns, including a failure to properly treat a resident's pressure ulcer and ensuring safety to prevent falls, as well as delayed responses to call lights, which has left some residents waiting long periods for assistance. Overall, while there are strengths in its ranking and lack of fines, the facility must address these specific incidents to ensure resident safety and care quality.

Trust Score
C
50/100
In Iowa
#189/392
Top 48%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
24 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 24 issues
2024: 3 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Iowa average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Iowa average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy the facility failed to appropriately implement interventio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and facility policy the facility failed to appropriately implement interventions to protect 1 out of 1 residents (Resident #61) reviewed from personal degradation. The facility reported a census of 63 residents. The facility completed Social Media and HIPPA training on 10/22/24 prior to surveyors entering the facility on 11/18/24. The deficiency F600 sited at a D will be considered past non compliance. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #61 showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer ' s Disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), arthritis, hyperlipidemia (a condition where there are high levels of fats or lipids in the blood), and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Review of the facility self report revealed the facility was made aware on 10/22/24 at 11:30 AM, by Staff A, Dietary Manager, reported a video via social media of Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), having a conversation with Resident #61 while she was sitting in her wheelchair in her room. The video was sent to another dietary aid, who reported it to Staff A. Review of the facility investigation self-report incident occurring on 10/22/24 at approximately 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM revealed the following: Interview conducted with Staff A, Dietary Manager, according to her interview and written statement, Staff A stated that Staff C reported to her another staff member was posting videos on social media of herself with a resident. Staff A reported she received the videos through social media, where Staff B was talking to a resident and getting the resident in the video. Staff B was talking about being her friend, pulling her pants up and sitting on her lap. Staff A stated you can clearly see and hear the Resident in the video. I reported the videos to our Administrator. Interview conducted with Staff B, CNA according to her interview and written statement, Staff B denied the incident repeatedly and said nothing of this has ever occurred. Staff B was not able to state if anyone else was present in the room. Staff B stated that she is well aware of the social media and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) policies and that staff are not allowed to take videos or pictures without written permission. Interview conducted with Staff C, Dietary Aide, according to her interview and written statement, Staff C stated that she received the video over the weekend. Staff C stated that she sent it to Staff A to report the concern and denies sending it to anyone else. Staff C confirmed that she is aware of the HIPAA and social media policy and that videos and pictures cannot be taken or distributed without written permission of the resident or family. Interview on 11/19/24 at 9:30 AM with Staff A, Dietary Manager, reported to the Administrator on 10/22/24 that Staff C, dietary aide, received a video via social media of Resident #61. Staff A reported that she has the video. Staff A reported she saw the video on 10/22/24 and took it to the Administrator that day. Staff A stated she knows the CNA in the video but doesn't know the person's name. Staff A stated that this had never happened before and she along with all of the staff received education regarding phone use and HIPPA. Staff A reported she doesn't remember if this was reported to her before 10/22/24. Interview on 11/19/24 at 12:18 PM with Staff C, Dietary Aide, stated that she received from a friend who was a previous employee of the facility, a couple of videos. Staff C stated she received two videos/pictures on 10/18/24 and the third picture on 10/24/24. Staff C stated that the video on 10/18/24 were of Resident #61 and the picture was of a resident's feet. Staff C stated when asked if Staff B told her who's feet they were and she stated yes. The other picture Staff C received was one of a catheter bag and stated she didn't know which resident this was. Staff C stated she reported these to Staff D, Cook. Staff C revealed she couldn't remember if she sent them or showed them to Staff D. Staff C stated I went to report these to Staff A. Staff A then showed them to the Administrator. Staff C stated I talked to the Administrator in his office and explained how I received them. Staff C reported that she didn't show the video's to the Administrator. Staff C stated reported them on 10/18/24 to Staff D. Staff A stated they needed proof. Staff C reported that when she received the video and pictures she took them to Staff A. Staff C stated that she didn't report it to the Administrator because she didn't have his number and didn't know how to get in touch with him. Interview on 11/19/24 at 1:53 PM with Staff D, Dietary Cook, reported that Staff C, texted her and told her that Staff B had taken pictures of the residents. Staff D stated that she has not seen the pictures or the videos. Staff D reported she can't remember when Staff C texted her. Staff D stated she thinks it had been over a month ago or month and a half ago that Staff D texted her. Staff D reported she told Staff C needed to report these to Staff A. Staff D reported this to Staff A. Staff D stated she thinks there was a second picture that this CNA posted, but she has never seen any of the pictures. Staff D reported I think Staff C reported it to me because I am a night cook and that I would immediately let Staff A know. Staff D reported that she does not have the text saved. Interview on 11/21/24 at 12:30 PM with Staff B, CNA, reported that she was in Resident #6' s room waiting for another staff member to come assist her in putting Resident #61 to bed. Staff B stated that Resident #61 was in her wheelchair and dressed. Staff B stated that no one else was in the room with them. Staff B stated that they were having a conversation and thought Resident #61 was being funny and Staff B started recording their conversation. Staff B stated that while she was holding onto her phone she bent down to do something and she didn't realize her phone turned towards Resident #61's face. Staff B stated she didn't realize her face was in the video and didn't think to go back and look at the video before she sent it. Staff B stated she couldn't remember the conversation that went on between her and the Resident. Staff B stated she was just talking with Resident #61 and didn't think she said anything to her. Staff B stated that she was just joking around with her and that they have a close relationship with her and it is normal to talk to her that way. Staff B stated she does not remember the date she took the video and she has not sent any previous videos or pictures. Staff B did admit to sending this video. Staff B stated that she sent this to a previous employee, this previous employee does not know Resident #61. Staff B stated she thought Resident #61 was being funny and this friend had worked at the facility previously and was a CNA. Staff B stated that she did not realize it was a HIPPA violation to record their conversation. Review of the facility provided policy titled Abuse and Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, Therapy and Rehab Policy dated 7/6/23 revealed the following information: The resident has the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, location employees, other residents, consultants or volunteers, employees of other agencies serving the resident, family members or legal guardians, friends or other individuals. To ensure that employees are knowledgeable regarding the reporting and investigative process of abuse and neglect allegations in the location. To ensure the location has an effective system in place that, regardless of the source, prevents mistreatment, neglect, exploitation and abuse of residents and misappropriation of their property. To ensure that residents are not subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, location employees, other residents, consultants or volunteers, employees of other agencies serving the individual, family members or legal guardians, friends or other individuals. To ensure that all identified incidents of alleged or suspected abuse/neglect, including injuries of unknown origin, are promptly reported and investigated. To ensure a complete review of existing incidents by the investigation team to identify events, such as suspicious bruising of residents, occurrences, patterns and trends that may constitute abuse and to determine the direction of the investigation
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of ab...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse within 2 hours to the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for abuse due to a staff member sending a video via social media with (Resident #61). The staff member was made aware of the allegations of possible abuse on 10/18/24, the Administrator was not made aware until 10/22/24. The staff member reported she did not know how to get a hold of the Administrator to report it. The facility reported a census of 63 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #61 showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), arthritis, hyperlipidemia (a condition where there are high levels of fats or lipids in the blood), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (a chronic condition that occurs when stomach contents leak back into the esophagus, the tube that carries food from the mouth to the stomach). The Care Plan dated 8/27/24 revealed Resident #61 required a stand pivot for transfers, needed assistance with ambulation, bathing, bed mobility, dressing, grooming and toilet use. The facility self reported on 10/22/24 to DIAL an allegation of abuse involving Resident #61. Interview on 11/19/24 at 9:30 AM with Staff A, Dietary Manager, stated reported to the administrator on 10/22/24 that Staff C, Dietary Aide, received a video via social media of Resident #61. Staff A reported she saw the video on 10/22/24 and took it to the Administrator that day. Staff A stated she knows the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in the video but doesn't know the CNA's name. Staff A stated that this had never happened before. Staff A reported she doesn't remember if this was reported to her before 10/22/24. Interview on 11/19/24 at 12:18 PM with Staff C, Dietary Aide, stated that she received a couple of videos from a friend who was a previous employee of the facility. Staff C stated she received a video and picture on 10/18/24 at 11:32 PM and the third picture on 10/24/24 at 7:21 PM. Staff C stated that the video on 10/18/24 were of Resident #61 and the picture of a resident's feet with a comment across the picture stating this man is literally dying. Staff C stated that she asked the previous employee if Staff B told her who's feet they were and she stated yes. The other picture Staff C received was one of a catheter bag with a comment the color a resident's piss and stated she didn't know which resident this was. Staff C stated she reported these to Staff D, Cook. Staff C revealed she couldn't remember if she sent them or showed them to Staff D. Staff C stated she went to report these to Staff A. Staff A then showed them to the Administrator. Staff C stated she talked to the Administrator in his office and explained how she received them. Staff C reported that she didn't show the videos to the Administrator. Staff C reported them on 10/18/24 to Staff D. Staff A stated they needed proof. Staff C reported that when she received the video and pictures she took them to Staff A. Staff C stated that she didn't report it to the Administrator because she didn't have his number and didn't know how to get in touch with him. Interview on 11/19/24 at 1:53 PM with Staff D, Dietary Cook, reported that Staff C texted her and told her that Staff B, CNA, had taken pictures of the residents. Staff D stated that she has not seen the pictures or the videos. Staff D reported she can't remember the dates Staff C texted her. Staff D stated she thinks it had been over a month ago or month and a half ago that Staff D texted her. Staff D reported she told Staff C needed to report these to Staff A. Staff D reported this to Staff A. Staff D stated she thinks there was a second picture that this CNA posted, but she has never seen any of the pictures. Staff D reported I think Staff C reported it to me because I am a night cook and that I would immediately let Staff A know. Staff D reported that she does not have the text saved. Interview on 11/21/24 at 12:30 PM with Staff B, CNA, reported that she was in Resident #61's room waiting for another staff member to come assist her in putting Resident #61 to bed. Staff B stated that Resident #61 was in her wheelchair and dressed. Staff B stated that no one else was in the room with them. Staff B stated that they were having a conversation and thought Resident #61 was being funny and Staff B started recording their conversation. Staff B stated that while she was holding onto her phone she bent down to do something and she didn't realize her phone turned towards Resident #61's face. Staff B stated she didn't realize her face was in the video and didn't think to go back and look at the video before she sent it. Staff B stated she couldn't remember the conversation that went on between her and the Resident. Staff B stated she was just talking with Resident #61 and didn't think she said anything to her. Staff B stated that she was just joking around with her and that they have a close relationship with her and it is normal to talk to her that way. Staff B stated she does not remember the date she took the video and she has not sent any previous videos or pictures. Staff B did admit to sending this video. Staff B stated that she sent this to a previous employee, this previous employee does not know Resident #61. Staff B stated she thought Resident #61 was being funny and this friend had worked at the facility previously and was a CNA. Staff B stated that she did not realize it was a HIPPA violation to record their conversation. Interview on 11/25/24 at 11:43 AM with the Administrator stated that he was not aware of the incident before 10/22/24 and his expectation would be to have the staff bring it to him or their supervisor so they can get it reported in a timely manner, in that 2 hour window. Interview on 11/25/24 at 4:09 PM with Staff A revealed that she did tell Staff D that they would need proof of the video/pictures. Staff A revealed she didn't remember the exact date this was reported to her, but knows it was a couple of days before 10/22/24 when she went to the Administrator. Review of the facility provided policy titled Abuse and Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, Therapy and Rehab Policy dated 7/6/23 revealed the following information: Alleged or suspected violations involving any mistreatment, neglect, exploitation or abuse including injuries of unknown origin will be reported immediately to the administrator. In the absence of the administrator from the location, the following individuals have the administrative authority of the administrator for purposes of immediate reporting of alleged violations: the director of nursing services or the supervisor of social services. These designated individuals are delegated the authority by the administrator to: 1. Intervene in any situation in order to protect residents. 2. Remove any individual from the location necessary for the protection of residents or employees, including but not limited to employees, visitors, contractors or family members. 3. Call local law enforcement for assistance with interventions necessary for the protection of residents or employees. 4. Call 911 for any type of emergency assistance. The location will have evidence that all alleged or suspected violations are thoroughly investigated and will prevent further potential abuse while the investigation is in progress. Results of all investigations will be reported to the administrator or designated representative and to other officials in accordance with state law, including to the state survey and certification agency within five working days of the incident, or sooner as designated by state law. If the alleged or suspected violation is verified, appropriate corrective action will be taken.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, policy review, and staff interview, the facility failed to immediately report an allegation of abuse to the Department of Inspection and Appeals and Licensing (DIAL) for personal degradation, and failed to separate the staff member from the resident after the incident for 1 of 1 residents reviewed for an allegation of abuse (Resident #61). The facility reported a census of 63 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #61 showed the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 03, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer ' s Disease, hypertension (high blood pressure), arthritis, hyperlipidemia (a condition where there are high levels of fats or lipids in the blood), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (a chronic condition that occurs when stomach contents leak back into the esophagus, the tube that carries food from the mouth to the stomach). The Care Plan dated 8/27/24 revealed Resident #61 required a stand pivot for transfers, needed assistance with ambulation, bathing, bed mobility, dressing, grooming and toilet use. Interview on 11/19/24 at 9:30 AM with Staff A, Dietary Manager, stated reported to the administrator on 10/22/24 that Staff C, dietary aide, received a video via social media of Resident #61. Staff A reported that she has the video. Staff A reported she saw the video on 10/22/24 and took it to the administrator that day. Staff A stated she knows the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in the video but doesn't know the person's name. Staff A stated that this had never happened before. Staff A reported she doesn't remember if this was reported to her before 10/22/24. Interview on 11/19/24 at 12:18 PM with Staff C, Dietary Aide, stated that she received a couple of videos from a friend who was a previous employee of the facility. Staff C stated she received two videos/pictures on 10/18/24 and the third picture on 10/24/24. Staff C stated that the videos on 10/18/24 were of Resident #61 and the picture was of a resident's feet with a comment across the picture stating this man is literally dying. Staff C stated that she asked the previous employee if Staff B told her who's feet they were and she stated yes. The other picture Staff C received was one of a catheter bag with a comment the color a resident's pissand stated she didn't know which resident this was. Staff C stated she reported these to Staff D, Cook. Staff C revealed she couldn't remember if she sent them or showed them to Staff D. Staff C stated she reported these to Staff A. Staff A then showed them to the Administrator. Staff C stated she talked to the Administrator in his office and explained how she received them. Staff C reported that she didn't show the videos to the Administrator. Staff C reported them on 10/18/24 to Staff D. Staff A stated they needed proof. Staff C reported that when she received the video and pictures she took them to Staff A. Staff C stated that she didn't report it to the Administrator because she didn't have his number and didn't know how to get in touch with him. Interview on 11/19/24 at 1:53 PM with Staff D, Dietary Cook, reported that Staff C texted her and told her that Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), had taken pictures of the residents. Staff D stated that she has not seen the pictures or the videos. Staff D reported she can't remember when Staff C texted her. Staff D stated she thinks it had been over a month ago or month and a half ago that Staff D texted her. Staff D reported she told Staff C she needed to report these to Staff A. Staff D reported this to Staff A. Staff D stated she thinks there was a second picture that the CNA posted, but she has never seen any of the pictures or video. Staff D reported I think Staff C reported it to me because I am a night cook and that I would immediately let Staff A know. Staff D reported that she does not have the text saved. Interview on 11/21/24 at 12:30 PM with Staff B, CNA, reported that she was in Resident #61's room waiting for another staff member to come assist her in putting Resident #61 to bed. Staff B stated that Resident #61 was in her wheelchair and dressed. Staff B stated that no one else was in the room with them. Staff B stated that they were having a conversation and thought Resident #61 was being funny and Staff B started recording their conversation. Staff B stated that while she was holding onto her phone she bent down to do something and she didn't realize her phone turned towards Resident #61's face. Staff B stated she didn't realize her face was in the video and didn't think to go back and look at the video before she sent it. Staff B stated she couldn't remember the conversation that went on between her and the Resident. Staff B stated she was just talking with Resident #61 and didn't think she said anything to her. Staff B stated that she was just joking around with her and that they have a close relationship with her and it is normal to talk to her that way. Staff B stated she does not remember the date she took the video and she has not sent any previous videos or pictures. Staff B did admit to sending this video. Staff B stated that she sent this to a previous employee, this previous employee does not know Resident #61. Staff B stated she thought Resident #61 was being funny and this friend had worked at the facility previously and was a CNA. Staff B stated that she did not realize it was a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) violation to record their conversation. Interview on 11/25/24 at 4:09 PM with Staff A revealed that she did tell Staff D that they would need proof of the video/pictures. Staff A revealed she didn't remember the exact date this was reported to her, but knows it was a couple of days before 10/22/24 when she went to the Administrator. Interview on 11/25/24 at 11:43 AM with the Administrator stated that he was not aware of the incident before 10/22/24 and his expectation would be to have the staff bring it to him or their supervisor so they can get it reported in a timely manner, in that 2 hour window. Review of Staff B's time sheet revealed the following information: On 10/20/24 punch in at 3:57 PM and punch out 10/20/24 at 9:38 PM. On 10/21/24 punch in at 4:05 PM and out for lunch punch 5:50 PM and in punch at 6:22 PM and out on 10/21/24 at 10:04 PM. Review of the facility provided policy titled Abuse and Neglect-Rehab/Skilled, Therapy and Rehab Policy dated 7/6/23 revealed the following information: 1. If an employee receives an allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property or witnesses suspected abuse, neglect or misappropriation of resident property, the employee will take measures to protect the resident, provided the safety of the employee is not jeopardized. The employee will then report the allegation to a supervisor. 2. The charge nurse or licensed nurse will be notified immediately, assess the situation to determine whether any emergency treatment or action is required and complete an initial investigation. If this is an injury of unknown origin, he or she also will attempt to determine the cause of the injury. The charge nurse also will ensure that any potential for further abuse is eliminated by taking one of the following actions: a. If this is an allegation of employee to resident abuse, the employee will be removed from providing direct care to all residents. Additionally, the employee will be placed on suspension pending the results of the internal investigation. Another employee will be assigned to complete the care of the resident. 3. A designated individual will complete the documentation. 4. Notification procedures: a. Alleged or suspected violations involving any mistreatment, neglect, exploitation or abuse including injuries of unknown origin will be reported immediately to the administrator. b. In case of absence of the administrator, follow the chain of command for notification (director of nursing services, social worker,). If the alleged perpetrator is one's supervisor or department manager, notify his or her supervisor. Document this notification in the electronic health record. c. Designated agencies will be notified in accordance with state law, including the State Survey and Certification Agency. If applicable, Adult Protective Services will be notified where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care centers. i. If there is an allegation of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, and/or there is serious bodily injury, then it will be reported immediately, but not later then two hours after the allegation is made. ii. If there is an allegation that does not involve abuse and there is no serious bodily injury, then it will be reported not later than 24 hours after the allegation is made. d. If the designated agency(ies) requests a written report, notify the social worker and administrator. e. Employees will exercise caution when handling evidence that could be used in a criminal investigation. Do not tamper with or destroy anything that may be evidence. Notify law enforcement of the alleged crime and protect the crime scene to prevent the destruction or contamination of evidence. Secure the scene until law enforcement arrives. f. Disclosure of the resident's protected health information may need to be recorded for compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Contact the privacy point of contact for assistance with logging the disclosure. g. Notify the physician and family regarding the facts of the situation. If there is alleged or suspected abuse/neglect or an injury of unknown origin, inform them that an investigation is in progress. Record this notification. h. Immediately contact regional leadership when there is alleged/verified abuse (sexual, physical, neglect) to a resident that requires outside medical treatment, hospitalization or results in death or causes physical harm, pain or mental anguish. 5. After the initial documentation of the incident, if there is a need for additional documentation, this will be completed. 6. The investigation team (social worker, administrator and director of nursing services) will review all incidents no later than the next working day following the incident.
Dec 2023 21 deficiencies 2 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on 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.
Mar 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy and procedure review and staff interviews the facility failed to treat a resident with respect an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy and procedure review and staff interviews the facility failed to treat a resident with respect and dignity in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life. (Resident #1). The facility identified a census of 58 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #1 with short and long term memory problems and moderately impaired for daily decision making abilities with verbal behavior symptoms directed towards others and rejection of cares. The MDS also documented the resident as independent for transfers, walk in room and corridor and locomotion on and off the unit with a walker and diagnosis for which included Alzheimer's Disease, depression and psychotic disorder. The Plan of Care with an initiated date 7/8/2020, showed the resident has impaired cognitive related to diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease evidenced by refuses cares, showers and meals frequently. Poor decision making skills about personal hygiene and social interactions with others. Interventions include: *Resident needs redirection by staff at times when she becomes agitated with other resident's or visitors in conversations. * Resident understands consistent, simple, direct sentences. *Provide resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated. *Provide alternative measures of communication with family/visitors. An Incident Report dated 1/3/23 at 8:02 a.m., for incident that occurred on 1/1/23 at 5:15 p.m., reported that Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), forced Resident #1 into a dining room chair and dragged the resident by the arms of the chair across the room. Resident #1 grabbed Staff A's hood of sweatshirt and ripped the necklace. Staff A, stated you broke my necklace with my dead dogs name on it, you witch. Staff A, then removed themselves from the situation. No harm or injuries noted. Review of Form #2010, on 1/1/23 at 5:15 p.m., documented, Resident #1 was in activity room where another resident and their family were having Christmas dinner. Family had asked this resident multiple times if she would leave so they could have privacy and resident refused. It was reported to the nursing department and Staff A and Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), intervened attempting to get this resident to leave the activity room. The resident refused and was resistive. At that time Staff A moved resident away from the activity room and placed resident into a dining room chair. Once this resident was in the dining room chair, Staff A drug the resident by the arms of the chair over to the dining room table to eat supper. This resident continued to be resistive and combative, grabbing Staff A's hoodie and necklace, breaking the necklace. Refer to investigation notes for further information. Resident confirmed some of the events, but was unable to provide specific information. Resident denies injured or causing distress. See investigative notes. No injuries noted to resident. Staff A removed themselves immediately. The Progress Notes dated 1/3/2023 at 1:45 p.m., documented: Visited with resident in her room. She is up and about in her room independently using her front wheeled walker. Ambulating per her usual with no difficulty. She is pleasant and talkative to this nurse. Friendly in her conversation. When asked how her day is going she voices that she is having a good and that she feels good. She voices no complaints of pain or discomfort. She did voice that her toenail on her right big toe is a bit sore when she wears her shoes but other than that not pain or discomfort. This nurse looks at her toenail and it is quite obvious she has thick long toenails. At this time she did not want this nurse to cut her toenails or file them down. She agreed to have this nurse do a skin assessment. She is free from red areas and bruising. She did take off her multiple shirts and sweaters without difficulty. This nurse assisted getting them back on and adjusted for comfort. This nurse thanks her for her time and for the conversation and she voices the same appreciation. The Progress Notes dated 1/3/2023 at 2:31 p.m., documented, Mood/Behavior: One to one with resident in Social Service office. Resident vented her feelings. To me it don't matter. I profess to the Lord and trust him. This Social Service completed interview and added information to care plan. Social Service asked resident if she had any pain or concerns? No. This Social Service gave support and encouragement. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 4:00 p.m , Staff B stated that Resident #1 was attempting to go into the activity room on 1/1/23 around 5:30 p.m. and that Resident #1 was not going to give up until she got in that room, where a family was having a Christmas supper. The family asked if there was any way that Staff B would be able to assist Resident #1 away from the door, Staff B attempted to talk to the resident and the resident started to hit, swing and kick. Staff A, came over and said that she would take over attempted to assist Resident #1 away from the activity room door. Staff B grabbed a dining room chair due to Resident #1 was losing her balance while having those behaviors. Staff A and Staff B proceeded to assist Resident #1 into an armed dining room chair and pulled the resident back to the dining room table for supper. Resident #1 had a hold of Staff A's hoodie. Staff B confirmed and verified that they heard Staff A stated you broke my chain you witch. In an interview on 3/28/23 at 9:00 a m , Staff C, (Dietary Cook) stated that on 1/1/23 around 5:30 p.m., Resident #1 was attempting to go into the activity room. Staff C confirmed and verified that Staff A and Staff B assisted Resident #1 into an armed dining room chair and proceeded to pull the chair to the dining room table. Staff C stated that they heard Staff A state you broke my chain you witch, as Staff A walked by the steam table to leave the dining room. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 3:38 p.m , Staff A, confirmed and verified that they worked the 6:00 a.m., -6:00 p.m., shift on 1/1/23. Staff A stated that around 5:30 p.m., they were passing supper medications in the dining room. Resident #1 was attempting to go into the activity room due to a family was having their Christmas supper. Staff A and Staff B assisted Resident #1 into an armed dining room chair and pulled the resident to the dining room table. Staff A confirmed and verified that Resident #1 had a hold of Staff A's hoodie and necklace and that Resident #1 broke the chain on the necklace. Staff A also confirmed and verified that they said you broke my necklace you witch. Staff A then stated that they excused themselves from the situation. Staff A confirmed and verified that they needed to treat the resident with dignity and respect. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 10:10 a.m., the facility Administrator confirmed and verified that the expectation of all staff is to treat the residents with dignity and respect. The Resident Rights for Skilled Nursing Facilities dated 11/2016, documented, the resident has a right a dignified existence, self-determination and communication with and access to person and services inside and outside the facility: A facility must treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each residents individuality. The facility must protect and promote the rights of the resident.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violation...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview and review of policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving mistreatment, neglect, or abuse of a resident and/or residents are reported immediately to management staff per facility policy and to the Iowa Department of Inspection and Appeals timely for 1 of 1 resident reviewed, (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 58 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #1 with short and long term memory problems and moderately impaired for daily decision making abilities with verbal behavior symptoms directed towards others and rejection of cares. The MDS also documented the resident as independent for transfers, walk in room and corridor and locomotion on and off the unit with a walker and diagnosis for which included Alzheimer's Disease, depression and psychotic disorder. The Plan of Care with an initiated date 7/8/2020, stated the resident has impaired cognitive related to diagnosis of Alzheimer Disease evidenced by refuses cares, showers and meals frequently. Poor decision making skills about personal hygiene and social interactions with others. Interventions include: *Resident needs redirection by staff at times when she becomes agitated with other resident's or visitors in conversations. * Resident understands consistent, simple, direct sentences. *Provide resident with necessary cues- stop and return if agitated. *Provide alternative measures of communication with family/visitors. An Incident Report dated 1/3/23 at 8:02 a.m., documented an incident occurred on 1/1/23 at 5:15 p.m., reported that Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), forced Resident #1 into a dining room chair and dragged the resident by the arms of the chair across the room. Resident #1 grabbed Staff A's hood of sweatshirt and ripped the necklace. Staff A, stated you broke my necklace with my dead dogs name on it, you witch. Staff A, then removed themselves from the situation. No harm or injuries noted. Review of Form #2010, on 1/1/23 at 5:15 p.m., documented, Resident #1 was in activity room where another resident and their family were having Christmas dinner. Family had asked this resident multiple times if she would leave so they could have privacy and resident refused. It was reported to the nursing department and Staff A and Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), intervened attempting to get this resident to leave the activity room. The resident refused and was resistive. At that time Staff A moved resident away from the activity room and placed resident into a dining room chair. Once this resident was in the dining room chair, Staff A drug the resident by the arms of the chair over to the dining room table to eat supper. This resident continued to be resistive and combative, grabbing Staff A's hoodie and necklace, breaking the necklace. Refer to investigation notes for further information. Resident confirmed some of the events, but was unable to provide specific information. Resident denies injured or causing distress. See investigative notes. No injuries noted to resident. Staff A removed themselves immediately. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 4:00 p.m , Staff B stated that Resident #1 was attempting to go into the activity room on 1/1/23 around 5:30 p.m. and that Resident #1 was not going to give up until she got in that room, where a family was having a Christmas supper. The family asked if there was any way that Staff B would be able to assist Resident #1 away from the door, Staff B attempted to talk to the resident and the resident started to hit, swing and kick. Staff A, came over and said that she would take over attempted to assist Resident #1 away from the activity room door. Staff B grabbed a dining room chair due to Resident #1 was losing her balance while having those behaviors. Staff A and Staff B proceeded to assist Resident #1 into an armed dining room chair and pulled the resident back to the dining room table for supper. Resident #1 had a hold of Staff A's hoodie. Staff B confirmed and verified that they heard Staff A stated you broke my chain you witch. In an interview on 3/28/23 at 9:00 a m., Staff C, (Dietary Cook) stated that on 1/1/23 around 5:30 p.m., Resident #1 was attempting to go into the activity room. Staff C confirmed and verified that Staff A and Staff B assisted Resident #1 into an armed dining room chair and proceeded to pull the chair to the dining room table. Staff C stated that they heard Staff A state you broke my chain you witch, as Staff A walked by the steam table to leave the dining room. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 3:38 p.m , Staff A, confirmed and verified that they worked the 6:00 a.m., -6:00 p.m., shift on 1/1/23. Staff A stated that around 5:30 p.m., they were passing supper medications in the dining room. Resident #1 was attempting to go into the activity room due to a family was having their Christmas supper. Staff A and Staff B assisted Resident #1 into an armed dining room chair and pulled the resident to the dining room table. Staff A confirmed and verified that Resident #1 had a hold of Staff A's hoodie and necklace and that Resident #1 broke the chain on the necklace. Staff A also confirmed and verified that they said you broke my necklace you witch. Staff A then stated that they excused themselves from the situation. Staff A confirmed and verified that they needed to treat the resident with dignity and respect. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 10:10 a.m., the facility Administrator confirmed and verified that the expectation of all staff is to report the allegation of abuse immediately to the administration and all staff have been educated on the reporting of alleged abuse. The Abuse and Neglect Policy dated 10/13/22, documented the policy of the facility is that the resident has the right to be free from abuse, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This included but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Residents must not be subjected to abuse by anyone, including, but not limited to, location employees, others residents, consultants or volunteers, employees of other agencies serving the resident, family members or legal guardians, friends or other individuals. The Staff To Resident Allegation of Abuse with no date, documented: 1. Immediately separate staff from residents. Suspend pending further investigation. 2. Call Director of Nursing Services, Administrator, Social Services, if off hours, do not text, continue to call until a response is noted as they will need to come on site for investigation. 18. Report to state within 2 hours. 19. Make sure all staff are up to date with Iowa Dependent Adult Abuse required course.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0561 (Tag F0561)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy and procedure, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to ensure 4 residents were given the right to s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on policy and procedure, staff and resident interviews the facility failed to ensure 4 residents were given the right to self-determination/choice with preferences to getting dressed for the day, (Resident #2, #3, #4, and #5). The facility identified a census of 58 residents. Finding include: 1. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment date 1/31/2023, documented Resident #2 with a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 8 for which indicated moderately impaired decision making abilities. The resident had been resistive to cares and required extensive assistance of one staff for dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The MDS documented heart failure, repeated fall and pain as diagnosis. The Plan of Care with an initiated date 8/14/21, documented, The resident has impaired cognitive function related to health decline evidenced by refused meal, yelled out recently with getting a roommate. confusion at times (thinks her family is coming to take her home). Interventions include: * Present just one thought, idea, question or command at a time. *Resident understands consistent, simple, direct sentences. *MOBILITY: Resident requires staff assistance with mobility removing and hanging clothing from closet. *TRANSFER: Resident requires assist of one for transfers and toileting. *Attempts to transfer self even with frequent education not to do so. *Offer to take resident to the bathroom on rounds during the night. 2. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #3 with a BIMS score of 15 for which indicates no impaired decision making abilities. The resident had been resistive to cares and required extensive assistance of two for bed mobility, dressing and personal hygiene and total dependence of two staff for transfers, locomotion on and off the unit and toilet use. The MDS documented hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cerebral palsy and depression for diagnosis. The Plan of Care with an initiated date 10/28/2015, documented, the resident has impaired thought processes related to intellectual disabilities evidenced by history of will yell and swear at staff when frustrated or doesn't want to talk. History of being resistive to cares at times such as brushing her teeth. Interventions include: *Resident understands consistent, simple, direct sentences. *MOBILITY: Resident requires staff assistance with wheelchair, able to propel independently at times. Does not ambulate. *Resident is using a wheelchair at this time with total lift with Large high back for transfers. *TRANSFER - Transfer from Lying to Sitting: total lift with large sling with 2 staff. Leave sling under resident after transfers. *TOILET USE: Check and change on rounds and as needed. Resident will alert staff when she needs to be changed. *DRESSING/GROOMING: Resident requires total assist with dressing. In an interview on 3/29/23 at 1:15 p.m., resident confirmed and verified that staff get them dressed before 6:00 a.m., and that they would rather get dressed after 6:00 a.m. 3. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #4 with short and long term memory problems and severely impaired for decision making abilities, physical behaviors directed towards others and required total dependence of one-two staff for all activities of daily living. The MDS documented hypertension, Alzheimer disease, glaucoma, restlessness and agitation for diagnosis. The Plan of Care with an initiated date 9/2/2014, the resident has impaired cognitive function related to Alzheimer's evidenced by easily annoyed and grabs out at times and history of being resistive. Interventions include: *Resident understands consistent, simple, direct sentences. Speak in soft tones. *MOBILITY: Resident uses geri chair for locomotion. Stiffens up and tends to slide down in chair, will tip geri chair back to prevent sliding out of chair. *TOILET USE: Resident is not toileted. Check and change on rounds and PRN. *TRANSFER: Resident requires Total lift with 2 staff assist. Medium sling. Does not ambulate. *Assist in check and change on rounds & prn 4. The Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #5 with short and long term memory problems and severely impaired for decision making abilities, and required total dependence of one-two staff for all activities of daily living. The MDS documented arthritis and Alzheimer's disease for diagnosis. The Plan of Care with an initiated date 10/13/2015, included the resident has impaired cognitive function related to Alzheimer's evidenced by, resident depends on staff to make all decisions for her. Interventions include: *Resident needs assistance with all decision making. *MOBILITY: Transfers with 2 staff and hoyer lift with medium full body sling and uses a gerichair for mobility with total staff assistance. *Total lift with two staff assistance. Leave sling under resident after transfers. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 1:00 p.m., Resident #6, confirmed and verified that staff get Resident #2 up around 4:00 a.m., ambulate Resident #2 to the bathroom, dress the resident and then lie them back down. In an interview on 3/27/23 at 4:05 pm., Staff B, CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) confirmed and verified that residents are dressed prior to 6:00 a.m. Staff B stated that the night shift will get residents dressed on last rounds between 4:00 a.m., and 6:00 a.m. In an interview on 3/28/23 at 2:05 pm., Staff D, CNA, confirmed and verified that residents are fully dressed and lying in bed prior to 6:00 a.m. In an interview on 3/28/23 at 2:15 p.m., Staff E, CNA, confirmed and verified that residents are fully dressed and lying in bed prior to 6:00 a.m. In an interview on 3/28/23 at 1:45 pm., Staff F, CNA, confirmed and verified that after last rounds, on the night shift, residents are being fully dressed prior to 6:00 a.m. In an interview on 3/29/23 at 12:00 p.m., the facility Administrator confirmed and verified that it is the expectation of the staff to follow the preferences of the residents, and that staff get the resident up and dressed after 6:00 a.m. The Resident dignity policy dated 10/26/2022, documented the location will promote care for residents in a manner and in an environment that maintains or enhances each residents dignity and respect in full recognition of his or her individuality. Procedure: *Grooming residents as they wish to be groomed (hair combed and styled). *Encouraging and assisting residents to dress in their own clothes appropriate to the time of day and individual preferences. *The social worker will assist in developing a plan of care that will respect the residents preferences and former life style.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
  • • 44% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 27 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (50/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 50/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Good Samaritan Society - Algona's CMS Rating?

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

How is Good Samaritan Society - Algona Staffed?

CMS rates Good Samaritan Society - Algona's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Good Samaritan Society - Algona?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at Good Samaritan Society - Algona during 2023 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 25 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Good Samaritan Society - Algona?

Good Samaritan Society - Algona is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by GOOD SAMARITAN SOCIETY, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 76 certified beds and approximately 61 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in Algona, Iowa.

How Does Good Samaritan Society - Algona Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Good Samaritan Society - Algona's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Good Samaritan Society - Algona?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Good Samaritan Society - Algona Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Good Samaritan Society - Algona has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Good Samaritan Society - Algona Stick Around?

Good Samaritan Society - Algona has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Iowa nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Good Samaritan Society - Algona Ever Fined?

Good Samaritan Society - Algona has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Good Samaritan Society - Algona on Any Federal Watch List?

Good Samaritan Society - Algona is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.