Thomas Rest Haven

217 MAIN STREET, COON RAPIDS, IA 50058 (712) 999-2253
Non profit - Other 57 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
55/100
#237 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Thomas Rest Haven has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and falls in the middle of the pack compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #237 out of 392 facilities in Iowa, placing it in the bottom half, but is #2 out of 4 in Carroll County, indicating it is one of the better local options. The facility is showing improvement, having reduced its issues from four in 2024 to three in 2025. Staffing is a strength with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars, although the turnover rate is 51%, which is average for the state. Notably, while there have been no fines, the RN coverage is concerning, as it is lower than that of 91% of Iowa facilities. However, there have been serious incidents, such as a resident falling and sustaining injuries because they were left unattended during a transfer, which was against their care plan. Additionally, another resident fell after attempting to get up unassisted, resulting in a serious hip fracture. On a more routine note, the Dietary Manager lacks the necessary qualifications, which raises concerns about the oversight in food service. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and no fines, the facility has serious safety concerns that families should carefully consider.

Trust Score
C
55/100
In Iowa
#237/392
Bottom 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
4 → 3 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
51% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most Iowa facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Iowa. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
17 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 4 issues
2025: 3 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Iowa average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 51%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

The Ugly 17 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Sept 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to ensure that staff contacted the physician when a resident had a change in status for 1 of 2 residents reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, staff interviews and policy review the facility failed to ensure that staff contacted the physician when a resident had a change in status for 1 of 2 residents reviewed. Resident #31 had many falls during his stay and the chart lacked documentation of physician notification. The resident was found to have a bruised, swollen hand and staff failed to contact the doctor for direction or orders. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include:According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) date 8/11/25, Resident #31 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1 (severe cognitive deficits). The resident was independent with eating, transferring and walking 50 feet. Resident #31 had wandering behaviors that occurred 1 to 3 days a week. He had diagnoses that included cancer, anemia, deep venous thrombosis, benign prostatic hyperplasia and dementia. The Care Plan updated on 8/18/25, showed that Resident #31 was at risk for impaired skin integrity related to fragile and thin skin, friction and sheering potential. Staff were to complete weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility for respite care with the intention of returning to community upon discharge. On 8/7/25, the resident was accepted to a facility with a locked unit.The following documentation was included in the Nursing Progress Notes:a. On 8/2/25 at 3:59 PM, the resident was on the floor in front of the television. Nurse did vitals within normal limits (WNL). Did full skin assessment and neuro assessment. Chart lacked skin assessment and notification to family and/or physician. b. On 8/7/25 at 2:40 AM, resident on the floor on his side by the door. Nurse did full assessment and noted skin tear to left wrist and left elbow and on the back ribs. The chart lacked notifications to the doctor or to the family c. On 8/9/25 at 2:02 AM resident had bruising across the top of his left hand and swelling.d. On 8/9/25 at 4:33 AM left iliac crest 7 centimeter (cm) x 4 cm purple bruise on left rear flank, the medical doctor was not notified regarding wound condition.e. On 8/9/25 at 9:56 AM, an abrasion to top of scalp, top of left hand bruised and swollen. The chart lacked documentation of doctor notification of swollen hand.On 9/15/25 at 2:36 PM, Staff H, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said that he worked the overnight shift and many of the falls for Resident #31 were after 10:00 PM. He said that if it was an emergency, the day shift would do the notifications the next day.On 9/16/25 at 7:52 AM, the Administrator said that she came in at 4:00 AM the morning of 8/9/25, she and the overnight nurse looked at the swollen hand together and she had directed the nurse to call the doctor and to document. She said that she found out later that the doctor had not been contacted. She acknowledged that the doctor and family should have been contacted with falls and injuries. According to a document used to educate nursing staff, titled: Nursing Standards of Practice dated 2024, page 11, When documenting a change in condition or resident issue in the progress notes, it must be followed up with an appropriate solution or plan and order follow up assessment if needed. Notify the physician as needed with changes for further direction. Assess and notify the physician of concerns and follow orders as directed. Page 14 indicated that staff should set up follow up per-shift assessments with any incident on hot chart form to support evaluating for changes and documenting regarding effectiveness of interventions and resident status.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide timely and accurate assessment and interventions for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, family interview, staff interview and policy review, the facility failed to provide timely and accurate assessment and interventions for 1 of 2 residents reviewed (Resident #31.) Resident #31 had many falls and the staff failed to complete skin assessments with measurements and failed to document and monitor injuries. The facility reported a census of 31 residents. Findings include:According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) date 8/11/25, Resident #31 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 1 (severe cognitive deficits). The resident was independent with eating, transferring and walking 50 feet. Resident #31 had wandering behaviors that occurred 1 to 3 days a week. He had diagnoses that included cancer, anemia, deep venous thrombosis, benign prostatic hyperplasia and dementia. The Care Plan updated on 8/18/25, showed that Resident #31 was at risk for impaired skin integrity related to fragile and thin skin, friction and sheering potential. Staff were to complete weekly treatment documentation to include measurement of each area of skin breakdown, including; width, length, depth type of tissue and exudate and any other notable changes or observations. Resident #31 was admitted to the facility for respite care with the intention of returning to community upon discharge. On 8/7/25, the resident was accepted to a facility with a locked unit.The following was found in the Nursing Progress Notes:a. On 7/29/25 at 10:40 AM, Resident #31 was admitted to the facility for respite care. He had a history of falls, was disoriented, ambulatory and continent of bowel and bladder.b. On 8/2/25 at 3:59 PM the resident was on the floor in front of television. Vitals were taken and a full skin assessment completed (The chart lacked a skin assessment and lacked documentation of notification to family and/or physician).c. On 8/3/25 at 3:15 PM, the resident was found on the floor in his room. He had an abrasion on right lower leg and one on left lower leg. (The chart lacked a skin assessment or note related to measurements or descriptions of injuries).d. On 8/7/25 at 2:40 AM, the resident was found on the floor on his side by the door, the nurse did a full assessment and noted a skin tear to the left wrist and left elbow and on the left back ribs. (The chart lacked a skin assessment with measurements and lacked documentation that the physician had been notified).e. On 8/8/25 at 1:40 PM, dining room, resident was lying on left side on the floor, abrasion with bump noted on left side of forehead, injury type abrasion top of scalp. (The chart lacked a skin assessment with wound measurements and descriptions).f. On 8/9/25 at 2:02 AM, the resident was found to have bruising across the top of his left hand and swelling. (The chart lacked documentation of description and measurements).On 9/15/25 at 2:45 PM, a Family Member (FM) for Resident #31 said that he had so many falls she couldn't remember if they had been contacted for each one. FM said that she saw the residents swollen hand after 8/8/25 on more than one occasion, and the family was concerned about it. It was bruised, and huge. She said that another family member had asked staff if they would do a, X-ray and the response they got from a nurse was that it was not broken. FM said that they didn't know that they could have taken him to the clinic themselves, and they wished they would have done that. When he was transferred to a different facility, they took him right in for an X-Ray and found he had a couple of fractured bones. On 9/15/25 at 12:30 PM, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said that on the morning of 8/9, he assessed the resident's swollen hand after the night nurse pointed it out to him. He had the resident move his fingers and grip and he didn't seem to have any pain or any trouble moving it so they just monitored it from there. Staff C said that the resident's wife was visiting that day and she did not voice any concerns to him about wanting to get an X-Ray or further assessment. Staff C said that he was the nurse on duty when the resident fell on 8/8 and he did not have any pain, swelling, bruising at the time. He said that the overnight nurse would have started a skin assessment related to the bruising and swelling. On 9/16/25 at 11:21 AM, Staff B, CNA said that she saw the residents swollen hand and helped the wife get his ring off. Staff B reported the swelling to the nurse, Staff C, and his response was that it was okay and not broken. Staff B said that the wife had voiced concerns about getting further assessment. On 9/15/25 at 1:33 PM, a staff member from the receiving facility reported that when the resident was delivered to the facility on 8/12/25, a staff member met the family and the wife immediately asked them what they were going do about his hand. The nurse saw that it was bruised and swollen so they took him for an X-Ray and found fractures. According to the Imaging Report dated 8/12/25, an exam of left wrist showed fractures of the fourth and fifth metacarpals. On 9/16/25 at 7:52 AM, the Administrator said that she came into the facility at 4 AM on 8/9/25 when the nurse said that the morning it was discovered the swollen hand. She looked at it with the nurse and told him to call the doctor and to document. She said that she found out later he hadn't contacted the doctor. In the process of investigating the residents falls she discovered that skin assessments were not getting completed. The Administrator maintained that the wife had not expressed concerns about the swelling, nor did she ask for an X-Ray. According to a document used to educate nursing staff, titled: Nursing Standards of Practice, page 11, When documenting a change in donation or resident issue in the progress notes, it must be followed up with an appropriate solution or plan and order follow up assessment if needed. Notify the physician as needed with changes for further direction. Assess and notify the physician of concerns and follow orders as directed. Page 14 indicated that staff should set up follow up per-shift assessments with any incident on hot chart form to support evaluating for changes and documenting regarding effectiveness of interventions and resident status.
Apr 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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 observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide adequate nursing...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent an accident and injury by leaving a resident that needed assistance with transfers, was a high risk for falls, and care planned to not leave unattended in the bathroom, unattended on the toilet and the resident fell and received an abrasion to the elbow and abrasion to the hip/buttock for 1 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #1). The facility reported a census of 36 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) for Resident #1, dated 1/23/25, documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment for decision-making. The MDS included diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Parkinson's disease (progressive neurological condition), anxiety disorder, and depression. The MDS documented the resident required substantial/maximal assistance with toilet transfers, used a walker and wheelchair (w/c) for mobility, and used a bed and chair alarm daily. The MDS indicated the resident was always incontinent of bladder, frequently incontinent of bowel, and was dependent on staff for toilet hygiene. The Care Plan for Resident #1, revised on 4/30/24, included a focus area of resident at risk for falls related to impaired balance, poor safety awareness, functional impairment, and/or the use of medications that may increase fall risk and a history of falls. A Care Plan intervention of do not leave resident in bathroom unattended was initiated on 5/8/24. Observation on 3/31/25 at 11:28 AM, Resident #1 was in a recliner in the living room area with an alarm pad in the recliner. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) placed a gait belt on the resident and attempted to assist the resident to stand, the resident was not standing well, so another CNA assisted to transfer the resident from the recliner to the w/c, with the pad alarm moved to the W/C. Incident Report for Resident #1 for un-witnessed fall dated 1/18/25 at 4:50 PM, documented: Incident location in South Shower. Found resident on the floor, partially on top of the w/c scale in the south bath, bowel movement (BM) and blood visible. Resident awake, alert and breathing. Trauma assessment, treated wounds, staff who left the resident was sent home until investigation completed. Resident not taken to hospital. Injuries observed at time of incident: abrasion right buttock, abrasion and bruise right rear thigh, skin tear of right elbow and back of right hand. Predisposing factors: confused, gait imbalance, impaired memory, using walker, ambulating without assistance, and resident was left on the toilet in the south bath unattended by Training Nurse Assistant (TNA), nursing was unaware resident was in the bathroom, and unaware he was unattended. Resident #1's Progress Note titled Post Fall Evaluation, dated 1/18/25 at 5:47 PM, documented: 1/18/25 at 4:50 PM fall was not witnessed, attempting to get out of the bathroom unassisted, was left on the toilet unattended in the south bath by the TNA with the door closed, no other staff were aware resident was in there, injuries of multiple skin tears, abrasions and bruises, and skin tear on right and left elbow. Resident #1's Health Status Note dated 1/19/25 at 4:52 AM, documented: follow-up from fall on 1/18 25, resident complaining of pain to right arm and right flank/back area, has an abrasion to the right elbow/forearm, bandage changed due to bleeding through. Review of Resident #1's two Non-pressure Skin Assessments dated 1/20/25: a. Follow-up assessment for a skin area first observed on 1/17/25 for a skin tear of the right elbow (with multiple tears from previous fall on 1/17/25) that was 10 centimeters(cm.) length X 3.2 cm. width X 0.1 cm. in depth and described as wound bed is bright red, with moderate amount of bright red blood and physician notified on 1/17/25. b. Follow-up assessment for a skin area first observed on 1/20/25 for a bruise of the right buttock that was 10 cm. length X 10 cm. width and described as bruise is light purple, has an abrasion 1.5 cm. X 4 cm. X 0.1 cm. and physician notified on 1/17/25. Interview on 4/7/25 at 5:00 PM, Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) stated she works 2 days a week and completes the skin assessments. Staff A stated skin assessment forms were not completed on 1/18/25, the day of Resident #1's fall, so she completed the skin assessments on 1/20/25 for the injuries from Resident #1's fall on 1/18/25. Staff A reviewed the skin assessments dated 1/20/25 and confirmed the skin assessments she completed on 1/20/25 she had incorrectly dated as 1/17/25 and should have been dated as 1/18/25 for the date first observed and related to the fall on 1/18/25. Staff A stated at the time of the assessment, the skin tear on the right elbow was large, as the tear started above the right elbow, continued down, around and to below the elbow and had areas where the top layer of skin was missing and open and then patches that did have the top layer of skin in place. Staff A stated she completed the weekly assessment of the right elbow skin tear today and has healed to 0.2 cm. length X 0.5 cm. width X 0.1 cm. depth. Review of Fall Scales completed 11/13/24 - 1/18/25 for Resident #1, documented a total score of 45 and higher represented a high risk for falling: 11/13/24 with score of 80, 1/4/25 and 1/18/25 both with score of 110. Interview on 3/31/25 at 11:29 AM, Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) stated Resident #1 is an assistance of 1 staff for transfers. Staff B stated she knows the residents as she has worked at the facility awhile but staff can look up the residents' level of care in the CNA binder, also had pocket care plans when the facility had agency staff but she does not use personally. Staff B stated if a resident's status changes the changes are put in the communication book. Staff B stated Resident #1 is not to be left alone on the toilet as the resident has an alarm and any resident with an alarm she would not leave alone on the toilet. Interview on 3/31/25 at 11:33 AM, Staff C, CNA stated Resident #1 is a staff assistance of 1 with transfers but sometimes she uses 2 staff due to the alarm pad getting transferred also. Staff C stated the resident has a history of falling. Staff C stated the facility has a communication book for resident care changes and also has pocket care plans. Staff C stated any resident with an alarm she would not leave on the toilet alone, that Resident #1 is not to be left alone in the bathroom and he has an alarm. Interview on 3/31/25 at 11:50 AM, the Administrator/Director of Nursing (ADM/DON) stated the [NAME] is the most updated information for staff to look for the residents' care needs and the facility is no longer using pocket care plans. The ADM/DON stated on 1/22/25 she put a note in the communication book for the staff, due to Resident #1 being left alone on the toilet and falling on 1/18/25. Review of Resident List Report dated 1/22/25, revealed a list of the current residents with a note stating: People highlighted do not leave in the bathroom or on the bedside commode alone. Make sure you are following the [NAME] in the computer. We do not use pocket care plans any more. Resident #1 was highlighted, with a total of 9 resident names highlighted. Note was signed by the ADM/DON. Interview on 4/1/25 at 9:30 AM, Staff D, TNA started working at the facility 11/5/24 and received orientation with another CNA for 1 month. Staff D stated on 1/18/25 around 4:15 PM, Resident #1 was in the living room and trying to get up on his own to go to the bathroom. Staff D stated he took the resident to the south shower bathroom. Staff D stated he couldn't find a big enough brief for the resident so he went to the resident's room to get a brief and left the resident on the toilet. Staff D stated about 4:30 PM, while he was getting the brief from the resident's room, Staff G, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) radioed and told him to go to dinner. Staff D stated he was intimidated by Staff G, as she liked to pick on him and just was not thinking and Staff D went to dinner as he was told and forgot to tell someone that the resident was in the shower room on the toilet. Staff D stated it was his mistake. Staff D stated he came back after his meal break and Staff G asked Staff D if he had left Resident #1 alone in the bathroom. Staff D told Staff G that he did leave the resident alone in the bathroom. Staff D stated Staff G told him to leave for the rest of the day. Staff D stated he received a 3-day suspension and the ADM/DON educated him on not leaving residents alone, to look at the sheet in the communication book for residents' transfer assistance needed, and to call for help if needed. Staff D stated he was aware Resident #1 should not be left alone on the toilet as he had been verbally told by other CNAs during his training. Interview on 4/1/25 at 10:08 AM, Staff E, CNA stated areas to find the residents' care status are the resident's care plan or [NAME] and communication book. Staff E stated she would not leave any resident alone on the toilet that needs assistance. Staff E stated the residents that are in the living room are the residents they keep an eye on due to risk for falls, and she would not leave Resident #1 on the toilet alone as he is one of the residents in the living room that they keep a close eye on. Interview on 4/7/25 at 12:45 PM, Staff F, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) stated on 1/18/25 after 4 PM, she was doing the afternoon medication pass and did not see Resident #1 in the living room, so she figured staff had the resident in the bathroom or dining room. Staff F stated she then went looking for Resident #1 and found him in the south bath. Staff F stated the resident was on the floor by the scale, with his pants down to his knees and his legs out in front of him, with a huge skin tear on his right arm, and his arm bleeding a lot. Staff F stated she assumed the resident had been on the toilet and tried to get out of the bathroom. Staff F stated she called for the nurse on the walkie-talkie and Staff G came in and checked the resident, got stuff for the resident's arm, and staff got the resident cleaned up. Staff F stated at the time she did not know who had left the resident in the bathroom as are not supposed to leave the resident alone on the toilet. Staff F stated she was later told Staff D had left Resident #1 alone on the toilet. Interview on 4/7/25 at 1:00 PM, Staff G stated she was working on 1/18/25 and it was after 4:00 PM. Staff G stated Resident #1 was typically in the recliner in the living room, as he was a high fall risk and had a chair alarm. Staff G stated the CNAs started breaks at 4:00 PM and staggered their breaks every 15 minutes, so there are 2 CNAs on the floor. Staff G stated she and Staff F noticed Resident #1 was not in his recliner and started to question where the resident was. Staff G stated Staff F found the resident in the south bath. Staff G stated the resident had a skin tear on his right arm at the elbow and there was blood and BM on the floor, with the resident lying partially on the weight scale and partially on the floor. Staff G stated she completed an assessment on the resident and the resident was alert, conscious, and cussing he wanted to get up. Staff G stated staff got the resident cleaned up and out to the living room. Staff G stated she asked Staff D if he put the resident in the south bath and Staff D said yes. Staff G stated Staff D told her he took the resident to the south bath right before another staff went to break, which would have been approximately 4:15 PM. Staff G stated Staff D reported to her that he went to answer another call light. Staff G stated Staff D went to break at 4:30 PM and was on break when the resident was found in the south bath. Staff G stated she notified the ADM/DON and told Staff D to go home per the ADM/DON's instruction. Staff G stated the resident also had an abrasion on his right hip area and the next day had bruising on his right hip/buttock. Facility policy Falls Assessment Protocol revised 1/4/17, revealed residents identified as high risk for fall will have fall interventions implemented and interventions for reducing the residents' risks for falls will be resident specific and based on assessment findings. Facility policy Minimum Standards of Personal Cares dated 2024, revealed: Minimum standards will be used for all aspects of personal care for residents. If a resident requires care other than that established in the minimum standards, that care will be described in the resident's care plan. It is each staff member's responsibility to be knowledgeable of each resident's care plan and to meet each resident's individual need by following these minimum standards and the resident care plan. Interview on 4/1/25 at 3:45 PM, the ADM/DON stated she felt Staff D knew not to leave Resident #1 alone on the toilet, felt he was busy, made a mistake, and listened to the charge nurse when she told him to go to break. The ADM stated Staff D received a 3-day suspension and education due to the incident. The ADM/DON stated her expectation to not leave any resident that needs assistance alone on the toilet.
Oct 2024 4 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with dignity and re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents were treated with dignity and respect for 2 of 13 residents reviewed. Resident's #238 and #1 reported that a staff member instructed them to urinate in their adult briefs if/when they couldn't assist them to the restroom in a timely manner. The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: 1) According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #238 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 7 (moderate cognitive deficit). He had diagnoses that included heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, cerebrovascular accident, and traumatic brain injury. Resident #238 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The Care Plan for Resident #238, dated 10/8/24, showed that he had self-care deficits and required assistance with activities of daily living. He was unable to ambulate, used a wheelchair and required assistance of 2 staff with the sit to stand mechanical lift for transfers. The resident had bladder incontinence and staff were to clean him after each incontinence episode. On 10/14/24 at 11:00 AM, Resident #238 stated that the facility was under staffed and it often took over 20 minutes to get someone to help him to the toilet. He said that staff would tell him to go ahead and urinate in his brief and they would come and clean him up later. It was on the overnight shift that he was told this, and he didn't get cleaned up until the next morning. The resident said that initially, the staff had set a commode in the middle of the room for him to use, and then they stood back and kept asking if he was done. He said that he was unable to go when someone was watching or in the room, so he asked them to change that arrangement. They tried a couple of different things, such as using a urinal. At one point, the staff member that stood and held the urinal told him to hurry up, I ain't got all night Resident #238 indicated that this had been a stressful and degrading experience for him. A care conference note dated 10/15/24 at 10:45 AM, showed that Resident #238 expressed that it was taking the staff a long time to help him to the toilet. On 10/16/24 at 7:27 AM, Staff C, Certified Med Aide (CMA) said that she overheard staff members saying that a resident had been told to just pee in his brief, but she did not know a specific staff member but that is was an overnight staff. 2) According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #1 had a BIMS score of 15 (intact cognitive ability). The resident was totally dependent for dressing, and required partial assistance with toileting, sit to stand and transfers. He was frequently incontinent of urine, and always continent of bowel. The Care Plan updated on 9/11/24, showed that Resident #1 had self-care deficits and required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). He had impaired balance and Parkinson's Disease. They required assists of one for toileting and had constipation related to decreased mobility. On 10/17/24 at 7:18 AM, Resident #1 was in his room in the recliner. When asked if anyone had ever told him to urinate in his brief, the resident said that's happened to me. When the resident became hesitant and it seemed that the conversation was making him nervous. He said that he didn't remember any details. On 10/16/24 at 3:18 PM, Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) said that she knew that Staff B, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) told Resident #1 that he was on his call light too often and that he should pee in his brief. The resident then told Staff A that he wanted to get a urinary catheter so he wasn't bothering the night staff so much. Staff A said that she had a conversation with Staff B about this and Staff B responded that he was always on his call light. They have since he started using a urinal at night with him so they didn't have to transfer him. On 10/17/24 at 11:58 AM, Staff B, CNA said that Resident #238 had trouble urinating when someone was in the room. They tried the commode, and when he couldn't go she told him that if he has to go in his brief, it's okay and they could just clean him up later. She said that they had him on the commode one night and he couldn't so they put him back to bed and then he pooped his pants. Someone cleaned him up later. She said that they tried using a urinal, but he couldn't go when someone was there holding the urinal. They put a brief on him at night to help hold the urinal in place so he could hold onto it himself. She denied having told him just to go in his brief but said that if the staff weren't able to get to him in time and he has an accident, it's okay, and they would just clean him up later. Staff B said that Resident #1 always talked wanting to get a catheter and she denied telling him that he should urinate in brief. When asked if the staff were taught how to maintain a resident's dignity regarding incontinence cares, she said that she just tells the residents it's not a big deal when they have to clean them up. On 10/17/24 at 10:17 AM, the Administrator denied having any knowledge of staff telling residents to urinate in their brief and she said that this was intolerable. She acknowledged that Resident #1 had requested a catheter and she told him that there must be a medical need. She said they provide regular education with staff on dignity issues and incontinence issues were addressed. According to the Resident [NAME] of Rights, residents had a right to be treated with respect and dignity, including; the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and presences except when to do so would endanger the health or safety of the resident or other residents. An undated grievances policy indicated that the facility would encouraged residents to resolve concerns with management and administer without fear of reprisal or intimidation.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent falls ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide adequate nursing supervision to prevent falls for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #24). Resident #24 had a fall that caused injury after he got up from the chair without assistance. The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #24 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 0 (severe cognitive deficit). The resident had verbal and physical behavioral symptoms directed toward others 1-3 days a week. The resident used a wheel chair and a walker for mobility. He was totally dependent on staff for hygiene and dressing and required partial assistance with chair to bed transfers and toilet transfers. The Care Plan for Resident #24, dated 4/6/24, showed that he was at risk for falls due to impaired balance during transitions. He often slept in the recliner and staff were to monitor and assist him in getting out of the chair. The resident had increased anxiety when he was in his room, and this increased the risk of falls. A pressure alarm was used to the bed, recliner, and wheelchair to alert staff to when the resident was getting up. He was unable to utilize his call light, or to ask for assistance due to his cognitive impairment. Staff were to place a floor mat in front of the resident's bed when he was in bed. A Nursing Note dated 4/26/2024 at 6:50 PM, showed that Resident #24 had an unwitnessed fall in the dining room when he got up from the dining room chair and tried to walk back to the living room area. He was sent to the emergency room due to severe left hip pain. The personal alarm was not on the chair at the time. A hospital report dated 4/27/24 at 9:56 AM, showed the active admitting problem diagnosis included; fall as cause of accidental injury in residential institution as place of occurrence, and a closed fracture of neck of left femur. The plan of care included surgery for the following day to include 3 screws across the fracture to stabilize. According to a Nursing Note dated 4/30/24 at 3:11 PM, Resident #24 was readmitted to the facility after left hip repair. He was partial weight bearing for transfers only and staff provided a personal alarm. On 10/16/24 at 11:30 AM, Staff F, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) said that she was present when Resident #24 fell in the dining room. She didn't see him fall, but remembered that he had tried several times prior to get up and they redirected him to stay seated. Two other CNAs had been in the dining room at the time, one was transferring another resident and one CNA had been assisting a resident with her meal. Staff F said that Resident #24 was easily agitated and they tried to keep him in the recliner out by the TV to keep an eye on him. She said that he'd had some medication changes that had helped keep him calmer. Staff F said that the resident would normally stay in his wheel chair during meals rather than the dining room chair. She didn't remember for sure if he was in his wheel chair on the evening of 4/29/24. She couldn't say for sure if there had been an alarm on his chair, but the resident would stand up very quickly and she didn't know if an alarm would have made a difference because it happened so fast. On 10/16/24 at 11:21 AM, Staff E, CNA, said that she was in the dining room on the evening when Resident #24 got up from his chair and fell. She did not see him get up on his own because she was assisting another resident with a meal. Staff E said that the resident often attempted to get up on his own. She did not know if he had the alarm on or remember hearing the alarm. On 10/15/24 at 1:49 PM, Staff D, Dietary Aide (DA) remembered that he was working the evening that Resident #24 fell in the dining room. He didn't see it happened but heard the commotion. He came out of the kitchen and saw a couple of CNA's with the resident after the fall. The resident was agitated and trying to get up off the floor. Staff D said that Resident #24 was constantly trying to get up from the chair on his own. He didn't know if he had an alarm on, and didn't remember hearing an alarm. In an observation on 10/16/24 at 8:30 AM, Staff G, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) went to the room of Resident #24 to get him up for the morning. The resident was very sleepy, and said no many times while the CNA applied his support hose and sat him on the side of the bed. The motion sensor alarm was turned on and placed under the fitted sheet. Staff G used a gait belt to assist him to stand and he used a walker to ambulate into the bathroom. Staff G assisted the resident to sit on the toilet and he became more agitated and continued to say no. While Staff G turned her back to gather clothing from his closet, the resident stood up from the toilet with the use of his walker. Staff G turned back around to see him standing and quickly got him to sit back down on the toilet. At 8:45 AM, Staff G called for assistance and Staff I, CMA came in the room within a couple of minutes. Staff I stated that she had been present for one of the falls that Resident #24 had. She said the resident fell when he got up from the recliner and tried to walk to the kitchen. She said that he had taken the batteries out of the sensor alarm in the chair. Staff I stayed in the room briefly, then Staff G told her she felt that she could finish up okay without her help, and at 8:52 AM, Staff I left the room. While Resident #24 was sitting on the toilet, Staff G washed his legs and then slipped on a pair of sweat pants just to his ankles. The resident became increasingly agitated and continued to say no and moaned. Staff G stepped out of the bathroom and pulled the wheelchair closer to the bathroom door but failed to lock the wheels. At 9:00 AM, Staff G had the resident stand and hold onto the walker as she wiped his bottom and started to apply a clean brief. While she tried to secure the brief, Resident #24 started walking out of the bathroom with the brief partially attached and his pants still around his ankles. Staff G encouraged him to stop so she could pull up his pants but he kept walking out of the bathroom. She was finally able to secured the brief and pull up his pants just before he got to the wheelchair. She had him turn around with his bottom toward the seat of the wheel chair and he plopped down into the seat. Because the wheels were not locked, the wheel chair moved back slightly. Staff G immediately acknowledged that she should have engaged the brakes. On 10/16/24 at 11:10 AM, the Administrator said that they recently implemented team meetings to brainstorm root causes and possible interventions to decrease falls at the facility. On 10/17/24 at 10:24 AM, the Administrator said that Resident #24 had been a challenge with his impulsiveness and fall risk. She said they had tried many different interventions and she would expect staff to follow through with the Care Plan interventions such as use of motion alarms. She said staff were instructed to get help if/when the resident became agitated. She said that the resident had gotten much better since he had some medication changes. According to policy titled: Falls Assessment, last revised on 5/24/24, residents that were identified as high risk for falls would have fall interventions implemented. The interventions for reducing the residents' risk for fall would be resident specific and based on assessment findings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that staff were aware of the date that a stock ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that staff were aware of the date that a stock supplement had been opened before administering it to a resident for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #17). The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], Resident #17 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15. He was independent with sit to lying, sit to stand, and toilet transfers. His diagnoses included hypertension, diabetes, Alzheimer's, anxiety, depression. The Care Plan last updated on 10/10/24 showed that Resident #17 had self-care deficits and required assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADL). In an observation of the medication administration for Resident #17, on 10/15/24 at 7:18 AM, Staff H, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) prepared Vitamin B-12 500 micrograms (mcg). When asked about a documented open date on the bottle, Staff H acknowledged that there was not an open date, put a pill in with the rest of the medications and administered them to the resident. She then set the bottle aside and said that she would ask the Administrator what she should do with the bottle. Staff H later said that after talking to the Administrator she realized that she should not have administered the vitamin supplement to the resident. In the future, if there was a bottle unmarked, she would destroy the pills, get a new bottle, and document with the open date. On 10/17/24 at 10:26 AM, The Administrator said that she has a nurse go through the medication cart on a regular basis to look for open bottles with no opened date. She said that staff were taught to put the open date on as soon as they open the bottle. She looked through the facility policies and said that she did not find a medication policy that addressed open date documentation.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, facility policy review, and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interview, facility policy review, and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Manual, and policy review, the facility failed to complete and transmit a resident Minimum Data Set assessment upon a resident's discharge within the required time-frame for one of fourteen residents reviewed (Resident #10). The facility reported a census of 37 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 07/24/24 revealed the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) signed the assessment as completed on 08/01/24. The MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #10 admitted to the facility on [DATE], and discharged from the facility on 07/24/24. The MDS assessment revealed the DON signed the assessment as completed on 08/01/24. It further documented Staff J, MDS Consultant, signed and submitted the discharge, return not anticipated MDS on 10/17/2024. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed the discharge return not anticipated MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed on 08/01/24 but was not submitted to CMS. In an interview on 10/17/2024 at 09:16 AM with the Director of Nursing, she acknowledged that they had experienced issues with MDS, with the former MDS coordinator not really fitting in the position. She acknowledged the facility had not submitted the MDS for resident #10 within the required timeframe. The RAI Manual Version 3.0 revealed the discharge return not anticipated MDS assessment must be completed when the resident discharged from the facility and the resident not expected to return to the facility within 30 days. The discharge return not anticipated MDS must be completed within 14 days after the discharge date , and submitted within 14 days after the MDS completion date.
Jul 2023 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow physician orders for 2 of 13 residents reviewed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow physician orders for 2 of 13 residents reviewed (Resident #14 and #31). Following a procedure to remove ingrown toe nails, the podiatrist gave new orders for care of Resident #14's feet. During an interview and observation three days after the appointment revealed that the facility failed to complete the orders for Resident #14. The facility failed to apply Resident #31's ordered edema wear (special socks used to treat swelling) as ordered by the physician. Findings include: 1. Resident #14's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14, indicating intact cognition. Resident #14 required extensive assistance from two persons for toilet use and bed mobility. In addition, she needed extensive assistance from one person for hygiene and dressing needs. The Care Plan Focus revised 6/23/22 reflected that Resident #14 had a potential for impaired skin integrity related to fragile, thin skin, incontinence, friction, and shearing potential. Resident #14 had diagnoses of hypertension (high blood pressure), congestive heart failure (impaired heart function), and incontinence. The Goal indicated that Resident #14 would not have impaired skin through the review date. The Interventions revised 5/1/23 directed to provide treatments as ordered. On 7/25/23 at 10:10 AM while lying in bed on her back, Resident #14 said that she had chronic pain. She had a couple of ingrown toenails. She went to the podiatrist (foot doctor) a couple of days before to get them worked on. Following the procedure, the podiatrist ordered the staff to be soak her feet but that did not happened. Resident #14's July 2023 Medication Administration Record (MAR) / Treatment Administration Record (TAR) reviewed on 7/25/23 lacked treatment orders for her feet/toes. On 7/25/23 at 9:15 AM Staff B, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), explained that she did not know that Resident #14 had an order to soak her feet. The skin nurse would do the treatments on occasion. On 7/25/23 at 9:22 AM Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), reported that she worked as needed and did the skin assessments twice a week. She was not familiar with the order for Resident #14 to have her feet soaked. She looked in the electronic chart and could not find the order on the TAR or MAR. She acknowledged that the order did get entered on the 7/22/23 but it did not transfer to the MAR/TAR, so it appeared that the treatment did not get completed. On 7/25/23 at 9:54 AM Staff C removed the bandages from both of Resident #14's great toes (big toes). She reported that the bandages appeared as the same ones that the podiatrist's office applied. Resident #14 told Staff C that no one soaked her feet or completed her ordered treatments. The Order Audit Report reviewed on 7/26/23 listed an order dated 7/21/23 to soak both feet for 20 minutes in two quarts or warm water and one cup of Epsom salt. Apply triple antibiotic ointment (TAO) to both great toes and cover with a Band-aid two times a day for wound care. The revision history indicated that on 7/25/23 the original order included the original value of other orders (no documentation required). On 7/25/23 the staff updated the order to other orders - TAR. The Alert Note dated 7/26/23 at 11:11 AM indicated that Resident #14 returned on Friday July 21 from the podiatrist after having the ingrown section of bilateral great toes removed with new orders. The orders instructed to soak her feet twice a day with Epsom salt and apply TAO to her bilateral toes and cover with a Band-Aid. When the order was entered it did not automatically put on the TAR, resulting in Resident #14 missing three days of treatments. The nurse notified her family and physician. The undated Orders - New Order Process policy directed when receiving a new order via fax, physician visit, or physician rounds input the order into the electronic health record. Then update the MAR/TAR as warranted (needed). 2. Resident #31's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 6, indicating moderately impaired cognition. Resident #31 required limited assistance from one person for bed mobility, transfers, walking, and personal hygiene. The Care Plan Focus revised 7/19/23 reflected that Resident #31 had a diagnosis of hypertension and had an increase risk for chest pains, difficulty breathing, irregular heartbeat, fatigue (tiredness), confusion, and severe headaches. The Intervention dated 7/19/23 instructed to monitor and document any edema (swelling). The Care Plan Focus revised 7/19/23 indicated that Resident #31 had a potential for impaired skin integrity related to fragile, thin skin, and incontinence. The Intervention revised on 7/19/23 directed to provide treatments as ordered. The Order Details dated 6/30/23 included an order for Resident #31 to wear edema wear to her bilateral lower extremities in the morning and remove at bedtime. On 7/24/23 at 2:59 PM while sitting in her recliner, Resident #31 reported that she had pain in her back and was trying to get comfortable. She wore slip-on shoes with no stockings and her feet appeared swollen. She explained that she did not wear edema wear for the last couple of days. She thought she should have them on but she needed help to put them on. The edema wear laid on her dresser by the bed. She explained that she got them out and planned to ask the staff to put them on for her. On 7/27/23 at 7:28 AM the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) said that they didn't have any specific policy on assessment and intervention. She said that they would expect nursing to follow standards of practice for assessing residents and providing appropriate intervention. She acknowledged that Resident #31 should have been wearing the stockings to help prevent edema.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0943 (Tag F0943)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on personnel file review, facility policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide the recertification dependent adult abuse training within 3 years for 1 of 5 employee reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on personnel file review, facility policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to provide the recertification dependent adult abuse training within 3 years for 1 of 5 employee reviewed (Staff E, Certified Nurse Aide CNA). The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Findings include: Staff E's Dependent Adult Abuse Mandatory Report Training Certificate dated 5/14/20 listed that she completed the course for the total of two program hours of continuing education. The Certificate indicated that Staff E met the two hour core mandatory reporter training and required a one-hour refresher course within the next three years. On 7/26/23 the Administrative Assistant (AA) reported that Staff E did not have a refresher course certificate. They had her complete the training that afternoon. On 7/27/23 at 8:30 AM the AA said that she was working on a better spreadsheet to monitor and alert when trainings were due. The Abuse Prohibition policy dated July 2019 directed that each employee would take a one-hour recertification training within three years of the initial training and every three years thereafter.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interviews the facility failed to employ a staff member with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service by not having a qu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews the facility failed to employ a staff member with the appropriate competencies and skills sets to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service by not having a qualified professional serve as the dietary manager. The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Findings include: On 7/25/23 at 11:32 AM the Dietary Manager reported that she did not have the education and training required for a qualified professional to serve as the Dietary Manager at the facility. She added that she is taking the classes to become certified. On 7/25/23 at 11:45 AM the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed she expected the facility to have a Certified Dietary Manager in charge of the kitchen.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on staff interviews the facility failed to demonstrate its measures to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in the facilities building water systems such as by havin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on staff interviews the facility failed to demonstrate its measures to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in the facilities building water systems such as by having a documented water management program. The facility also failed to have an assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens (e.g., Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter) could grow and spread and measures to prevent the growth of opportunistic waterborne pathogens (also known as control measures), and how to monitor them. The facility reported a census of 33 residents. Findings include: The facility could not produce documentation of measures taken to track, assess, and prevent Legionella in the facility. On 7/25/23 at 8:55 AM the Maintenance Manager reported that the facility did not have a map of the water pipes. He added that the facility did not have stagnant water to his knowledge. On 7/25/23 at 2:43 PM the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the Director of Nursing (DON) explained that they never did anything regarding Legionella in the facility. They expected the facility to have a policy and procedure to track, assess, and prevent Legionella in the facility.
Apr 2022 6 deficiencies 1 Harm
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 observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to adequately supervise residents at r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews, the facility failed to adequately supervise residents at risk for falls for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #190 and #32). Resident #190 had a history of trying to get up by himself and not waiting for the staff to help him. Resident #190 required staff assistance of one with transfers. On 9/19/21, as a different resident walked by Resident #190's room, they noticed him on the floor. The other resident called for staff assistance. Once staff arrived they discovered Resident #190 lying on his left side complaining of pain to his left hip. Despite observing Resident #190 on his left side and complaining of pain to his left hip, three staff members assisted him off the floor and into his bed. After Resident #190 got into bed, the nurse noticed his hip appeared fractured. The nurse transferred Resident #190 to the hospital, where he received a diagnosis of a displaced mildly comminuted intertrochanteric fracture of his left femur (broken left hip). On the day of the fall, the staff witness reports documented that the last time the staff observed Resident #190 was while he ate at supper. One staff member reported they thought Resident #190 was independent with toileting. In interviews with the staff, a few staff members reported the resident showed increased confusion the week before his fall. Some of the staff reported that Resident #190 should be the first one helped after supper to prevent him from self-transferring. Resident #32 admitted to the facility on [DATE] following a fall at home resulting in a pelvic fracture. Resident #32's Baseline Care Plan indicated he had behavior concerns of getting up alone and safety concerns of a history of falls with a broken pelvis. Resident #32 required an assistance of one staff member with ambulation (walking). On 4/23/22, a Therapist discovered Resident #32 lying on his right side at 7:30 AM. At the time of assessment, Resident #32 complained of his right hip and groin hurting. Despite staff observing Resident #32 laying on his right side and complaining of hip pain, the nurse and Certified Nurse Aide (C.N.A.) assisted him into his wheelchair. Resident #32 transferred to the hospital and had an X-Ray that revealed a right femoral neck fracture (right broken hip) with some displacement of the fracture fragments. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #190's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed that Resident #190 required limited physical assistance of one staff member for bed mobility and transfers. Resident #190 required physical assistance of one staff member for ambulation, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS identified the resident's balance during transitions and walking, was not steady and he was only able to stabilize with staff assistance. The MDS indicated Resident #190 used a walker and wheelchair for mobility. The MDS documented diagnoses of orthostatic hypotension and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The MDS identified Resident #190 had a history of falls without injury. The Care Plan revised 9/10/21 identified Resident #190, as a risk for falls related to his impaired balance, poor safety awareness, neuromuscular, functional impairment, and/or his use of medication that could increase the risk of falls. The Care Plan interventions included: a. Date Initiated 9/21/21: Reminder signs posted in the resident's room to use a pendent and/or call light then wait for assistance. b. Revision date 8/12/21: Call pendent used to ask for assistance whenever or wherever Resident #190 was located throughout the facility c. Revision date 8/12/21: Encourage the resident to ask for assistance from the staff d. Revision date 8/12/21: Encourage the resident to participate in activities that promote exercise, physical activity for strengthening, and improved mobility e. Revision date 8/12/21: Ensure the resident wore appropriate footwear when ambulating or using his wheelchair f. Initiated 1/23/29: Follow facility fall protocol g. Revised 8/12/21: Keep the resident's personal items; wheelchair, walker and call light within his reach h. Initiated 1/23/20: Monitor, document, report for 72-hours to the physician any signs or symptoms of pain, bruises, change in mental status, new onset of confusion, sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, or agitation. The Care Plan revised 9/10/21, identified Resident #190 had self-care deficit as evidenced by Resident #190 required assistance with his activities of daily living (ADL's), impaired balance during transitions, incontinence, and the need for assistance with walking. The Care Plan interventions included: a. Revision date 6/3/21: Ambulation: assist of 1 staff with use of forward wheeled walker (FWW) b. Revision date 8/12/21: Mobility: assist of 1. Staff to push Resident #190's wheelchair for long distances. Resident #190 could propel himself at times c. Revision date 6/3/21: Toilet use: assist of 1. Provide incontinence cares with each incontinent episode as the resident allowed d. Revision date 8/19/21: Transfer: assist of 1 with an FWW Resident #190's Care Plan revised 9/10/21 identified the resident had impaired cognitive function and/or impaired thought processes as evidenced by short-term memory deficit, long-term memory deficit, impaired decision making, and/or impaired ability to understand others. The Care Plan interventions included: a. Revision date 8/12/21: Communication: Face the resident when speaking, make eye contact, and reduce any distractions. The resident could understand consistent, simple, and direct sentences. Provide the resident with necessary cues, stop, and return if he becomes agitated. b. Revision date 8/12/21: Use task segmentation to support short-term memory deficits and break down tasks to one step at a time. The Progress Notes for Resident #190 revealed: On 9/9/21 at 10:24 AM, the Health Status Note (HSN) documented that the staff observed the resident wheeling himself in his wheelchair in the wrong direction, going towards his room. The staff noticed a change in the resident's cognition and the resident reported his memory felt worse. The resident required increased assistance from the staff. On 9/16/21 at 5:02 PM, the HSN recorded that the resident transferred himself to the bathroom independently and sustained a skin tear. On 9/20/21 at 12:32 AM, the Incident Note documented that at approximately 7:00 PM another resident found Resident #190 on the floor. Resident #190 laid at the foot of the bed with his back to the wall, with his legs crossed, and he complained of left hip pain. Resident #190 said he attempted to go to bed and he observed a piece of paper on the floor. Resident #190 continued reporting that when he attempted to pick up the paper, his right foot slid, and he fell on his left hip. Resident #190 reported increased pain to his left hip. Three staff manually lifted Resident #190 and placed him in bed. Upon inspection, the left hip appeared fractured. Resident #190 was transported to the local emergency room (ER), at 8:30 PM the ER reported to the facility that Resident #190 went to surgery. The Fall Scale dated 9/1/21, identified Resident #190 at a high risk for falls with a score of 90. The score calculated from Resident #190's history of falls, more than one diagnosis, use of a walker, impaired gait (walk), and mental status. The Fall Investigation - Quality Improvement Document dated 9/19/21 at 7:00 PM recorded that Resident #190 attempted to self-transfer from his bed to his chair and his foot slipped. As Resident #190 fell, he landed on his left hip. The document questioned the following interventions a. Did the resident have an alarm - No alarm b. Was the resident's call light on - No c. Was the resident's call light within reach - yes d. Was the Care Plan followed - yes e. Was an assistive device being used - no f. Were there any environmental hazards present - Resident #190 had a box at the foot of his bed and he was trying to walk to his bed without assistance. The hospital Imaging Report dated 9/19/21 indicated Resident #190 had a displaced and mildly comminuted intertrochanteric fractured left femur (bony areas on the femur where the thighbone attaches to the hip broke into multiple pieces). Written Statements The Written Statement dated 9/19/21 completed by Staff O, RN, documented that Resident #190 became more confused the week before and attempted to transfer by himself to bed. The documentation indicated that the floor wasn't wet, the resident had on clothes, and shoes. Staff O documented that the resident needed an alarm. The Written Statement dated 9/19/21 completed by Staff P, CMA (certified medication aide), documented Resident #190 was really confused lately. Staff P documented that the resident was confused lately, he did not and had not used his call light that was attached to his chair. Staff P documented that Resident #190 stood behind his wheelchair independently at 2:30 PM on 9/19/21. Staff P informed Resident #190 to use their call light. The Written Statement dated 9/19/21 completed by Staff Q, CNA, documented Resident #190 seemed more confused. Staff Q documented that the last time she saw the resident was at supper. Staff Q reported the last time Resident #190 used the toilet was before supper. The Written Statement dated 9/19/21 completed by Staff R, CNA, documented that Resident #190 seemed more confused throughout the day. Staff R documented last seeing Resident #190 at supper and he went to the toilet before supper. Staff interviews On 4/4/22 at 9:36 AM, Staff J confirmed Resident #190 transferred himself to the bathroom on 9/16/21. Staff J denied knowing of any interventions put into place at that time to prevent falls. Staff J reported that at one time Resident #190 had an alarm. Staff J said she didn't know if the fall occurred during that time frame. Staff J stated eventually the facility did implement alarms for Resident #190. On 4/4/22 at 9:57 AM, Staff K reported that she was unsure if Resident #190 was independent at the time of his fall on 9/19/21. Staff K stated Resident #190 required assistance with staff for care, but she believed he ambulated himself to the bathroom. Staff K explained that the nursing staff checked on the resident regularly and the resident used his call light. Staff K said that Resident #190 would turn on his call light in the morning when he was ready to get up. Staff K reported if there were any changes with Resident #190, it would be communicated in the CNA binder at the nurse's station. Staff K stated they did not know if any additional interventions were implemented related to the resident's increased confusion. Staff K stated Resident #190 was intelligent and would outwit the staff. Staff K reported that she felt all the staff checked on the resident frequently to see if he needed assistance. Staff K remarked that they didn't work at the time of the fall on 9/19/21. On 4/4/22 at 11:15 AM, the MDS Coordinator explained that communication with the CNA's and nurses occurred between shifts if a resident had a change in condition. The MDS Coordinator added that an intervention was implemented for Resident #190. They put a sign on Resident #190's wall and a sign on his walker. The MDS Coordinator denied knowing of additional interventions put in place to prevent falls. The MDS Coordinator stated after supper, Resident #190 would propel himself to his room. If the staff saw the resident, they were to encourage him to stay in the main lobby. The MDS Coordinator reported that the resident required assistance with toilet use, transfers, and personal hygiene at time of the fall. On 4/4/22 at 11:35 AM, Staff J commented that she reviewed Resident #190's Care Plan from 9/16-9/19/21. During that time frame no additional interventions were added related to the resident getting up without assistance and/or related to his increased confusion. Staff J remarked that August 2021 was the last time Resident #190's fall interventions were revised. On 4/4/22 at 12:59 PM Staff L stated Resident #190 preferred to stay up late. Staff L stated Resident #190's routine after supper was to go to the recliner. Staff L said Resident #190 was one of the last residents to go to bed, at around 10:00 PM. Staff L reported that Resident #190 had a history of getting up without assistance. The facility put signs in his room to use his call light and to ask for help. One sign was placed on his walker and another on the wall beside his bed. Staff L explained they didn't recall when the signs were placed. Staff L remarked that the current DON and Administrator investigated Resident #190's fall on 9/19/21. Staff L stated the resident had been hallucinating and had an alarm placed, but didn't know when it was placed. Staff L added that the resident had incontinent issues and saw a mental health provider with numerous medication changes all at once due to his cognitive issues. Staff L commented notifying a change in resident's condition to the CNA's by report and/or the communication binder. On 4/4/22 at 2:51 PM Staff B, CNA, stated Resident #190 had increased difficulty with transfers and required increased assistance from staff. Staff B didn't remember if Resident #190 ever got up without waiting for assistance. On 4/4/22 at 3:15 PM, Staff S, CNA, reported that at times Resident #190 transferred himself without using his call light or without waiting for assistance from the staff. Staff S said that Resident #190 got a personal alarm after he fell and broke his hip. Staff S added that right after supper Resident #190 was transferred right away to the recliner in his room. Staff S wasn't sure what happened the night of his fall, as she didn't work that night. If the facility was short staffed, they would leave Resident #190 in the living room. If Resident #190 was left in the living room he would take himself to his room and attempt to self-transfer. Staff S said that the resident would stay in the recliner and then turn the light on when he was ready for bed. Staff S commented that the resident became more confused before his fall on 9/19/21, she didn't know if additional interventions were put into place. Staff S remarked that before his fall on 9/19/21, Resident #190 couldn't alert staff of the need to use the bathroom, because he wasn't aware of the need to go. On 4/4/22 at 4:19 PM Staff M reported that Resident #190 was very forgetful and didn't use the call light or wait for assistance from the staff. Staff M stated that Resident #190 had alarms in place, a note by his bed, and a note on his walker to remind him to ask for help. On 4/5/22 at 7:37 AM Staff T, CNA, reported that Resident #190 had alarms in place before his fall on 9/19/21, but they weren't enforced. Staff T explained that the resident didn't always have the alarms in place, and they weren't used consistently. Staff T added that after supper Resident #190 was the first one done and he would take himself in his wheelchair half-way to his room. Staff T added that the staff would assist Resident #190 to his room, help him to the bathroom, and assist him into the recliner. Staff T commented that the resident used a call pendant or the staff would stop in his room between 6:45 PM and 7:00 PM to see what time Resident #190 wanted to go to bed. Staff T explained that Resident #190 went to bed later, as he was one of the last ones. Staff T said that Resident #190 would not tell the staff when he needed to use the bathroom, as he didn't know. Staff T stated she would check on Resident #190 every 2 hours and offer him the bathroom, but he was incontinent. Staff T said Resident #190 always attempted to self-transfer and didn't wait for assistance from the staff. On 4/5/22 at 7:44 AM, Staff U, CNA, recalled Resident #190's fall and hip fracture, but said she wasn't working at the time. Staff U stated the resident became more unsteady and had a long history of not waiting for staff's help. Staff U reported that if Resident #190 had a wheelchair or walker in reach he would attempt to self-transfer. Staff U reported that it wasn't uncommon for Resident #190 to get up with his walker and go. Staff U stated that once staff took Resident #190 to his room, they knew he needed assistance with the bathroom. After he used the bathroom, the staff assisted Resident #190 to the recliner so he wouldn't transfer himself. Staff U remarked that she knew the resident would transfer himself if he went to his room without staff. On 4/5/22 at 7:56 AM Staff V, CNA, said Resident #190 self-transferred all the time. Staff V reported that she found the resident taking himself to the bathroom at night. Staff V explained that at times the resident used the call light, but he usually got up by himself and went to the bathroom. On 4/5/22 at 9:33 AM, the DON reported that the Resident #190 started to use an alarm after his fall on 9/19/21. The DON stated that she discussed with the staff the need to take the resident back to his room and transfer him right away after meals to his recliner. The DON denied documentation of that, but reported that she did have a discussion to take Resident #190 to his room after meals and transfer him to his recliner. The DON stated Resident #190 propelled himself independently in his wheelchair to his room after meals. The DON denied knowing what Resident #190 did after supper on the night of his fall. The DON stated Resident #190 was incontinent of urine, but didn't know if he had a toileting program, the staff did go in more frequently to assist and encourage Resident #190 to use the toilet. The DON added that the resident would deny the need of assistance from the staff. After his fracture, he required total assistance from the staff. The DON discussed the resident's changes and reminded the CNA's to assist the resident, but denied documentation of the education. The DON reported that the CNA's didn't always read the communication book and a lot of the communication occurred by word of mouth. On 4/5/22 at 10:28 AM Staff W, CNA, stated that the resident had a history of not waiting for staff to assist him with transfers. Staff W added that the resident got up a ton without staff assistance. Staff W reported that the resident did not use his call light and would just get up without help. Staff W declared that Resident #190 was incontinent of urine. Staff W explained that when Resident #190 became incontinent he knew and attempted to take himself to the bathroom. Staff W reported that she usually helped him after meals. Staff W explained that she would assist the resident to his room and transfer him to the recliner after helping him in the bathroom if needed, but didn't think she worked the night of his fall. Staff W remarked that Resident #190 was a fall risk, so she checked him a couple of times. Staff W stated that the resident preferred to go to bed later, and liked to stay up in his recliner. 2. Resident #32's MDS assessment dated [DATE], identified a BIMS score of 12, indicating moderately impaired cognition. The MDS revealed the resident required limited physical assistance of one to two staff for bed mobility, transfers, ambulation, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS coded the resident's balance during transitions and walking as not steady and only able to stabilize with staff assistance. The MDS documented diagnoses of hypertension, vertigo (dizziness), and ataxia (impaired balance). The MDS identified that the resident had a fall in the last month prior to his admission to the facility and one fall with a major injury since admission to the facility. Resident interview On 3/29/22 at 12:45 PM, during the initial tour, observed Resident #32, well-groomed, in his recliner. Resident #32 explained that he attempted to go home the week before on his birthday, just a few weeks ago. Resident #32 explained that it didn't work out because he fell and broke his ribs. After that he came back to the facility. Resident #32 stated that he required assistance from the staff to get up with his walker. An observation showed a urinal in a bucket beside the recliner. Resident #32 explained that he previously fell and got a fracture while at the nursing home, however, he wasn't able to recall the specifics due the length of time that passed. The Baseline Care Plan with an admission date of 4/21/21, identified Resident #32: a. Cognition - alert/cognitively intact b. History of falls - history of a fall resulting in a broken pelvis c. Behavior concern - Resident #32 does get up alone d. Assist of one with bed mobility, transfer, walking, toilet use, and locomotion e. History of falls with injury Progress Notes review On 4/21/21 at 3:41 PM, the admission Summary identified Resident #32 admitted to the facility from the local hospital. At the time of admission Resident #32 noted to be alert and oriented x 3 (person, place, and time), in good spirits, and accepting of his placement for skilled services. The resident identified with a history of falls and a bed alarm while in the hospital during the night. The resident had vertigo at times and required assistance of 1 with a forward wheeled walker. Resident #32 received orientation to the facility, room, call light, and meal time. On 4/22/21 at 3:06 PM, the Skilled Evaluation identified that Resident #32 obeyed commands and alert and oriented x 3. Resident #32 displayed a pleasant mood without behaviors. On 4/23/21 at 1:20 PM, the Health Status Note (HSN) documented that the aide heard Resident #32, then found him on the floor in the bathroom. Resident #32 denied hitting his head but did complain of pain to his right hip. The head-to-toe assessment revealed no shortening or rotation of his right leg. The staff assisted Resident #32 to his wheelchair with an assistance of three. Resident #32 did not apply pressure to his right leg. The staff notified the son and sent Resident #32 to the local emergency room. On 4/24/21 at 4:12 PM, the HSN revealed that the resident had surgery for a right hip repair. Clinical record review The Fall Investigation - Quality Improvement Document dated 4/23/21, no time, completed by Staff Y, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) identified Resident #32 fell in the bathroom. Resident #32 reported that he just fell. The following interventions were reviewed and answered by Staff Y a. Did Resident #32 have a personal alarm, chair alarm, or bed alarm? If Resident #32 used any type of alarm, was it on and functioning? - not applicable b. Was Resident #32's call light on - no c. Was Resident #32's call light in reach of resident - no d. Was Resident #32's Care Plan followed - yes e. Was an assistive device in use - yes f. Was there any environmental hazards present - no The undated Facility Investigation identified a Therapist found Resident #32 on the floor in the bathroom on 4/23/21 at 7:30 AM. The Therapist observed the call light on and notified the nursing personnel immediately of Resident #32's fall. The Rehab Communications dated 4/23/21 indicaed Resident #32 requires staff assistance of one staff with transfers and gait with FWW to patient's tolerance or two to three times daily. The Occupational Therapy Plan of Care dated 4/21/22 documented precautions of a fall risk. Resident #32 required supervision or touching assistance, helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying for mobility toilet transfer. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intemittently. The Emergency Room's X-Ray report dated 4/23/21 at 11:36 AM revealed Resident #32 had a right femoral neck (a hip fracture involving the thigh bone just below the ball-and-socket hip joint) fracture. Staff Interviews On 4/4/22 at 9:23 AM Staff J, Registered Nurse (RN), confirmed the Baseline Care Plan contained only an admission date of 4/21/21 with undated interventions. Staff J reported the facility implemented a checklist for Baseline Care Plans completed in the resident's electronic health record (EHR). The facility started to use a Baseline Care Plan on the computer, which made it consistent for all staff and dated. Staff J stated that when the Baseline Care Plan was completed on paper, it was a hot mess. Staff J reported the facility nurses were instructed on how to implement fall interventions in the resident's EHR. Staff J remarked that the nurses however, documented the intervention in the resident's progress notes and the MDS nurse added the intervention to the resident's Care Plan in the EHR. Staff J said that when the nurse admits a resident to the facility, they complete the Admit Screener and initiate a Baseline Care Plan, then the Certified Nurse's Aides (CNA) were able to access the Care Plan interventions through the [NAME] in the EHR. Staff J explained that with new admissions to the facility, a document titled admission Care Plan was placed in the CNA's communication book to make the CNA's aware of the new resident needs. Staff J reported being unaware of the fall interventions in place for Resident #32 at the time of his admission on [DATE]. Staff J reported being unaware of the length of time Resident #32's call light was on before therapy found him on the floor on 4/23/21. Staff J remarked they were unaware if Resident #32 preferred to get up early. Staff J commented that Resident #32 wasn't much of a breakfast person, however, it was possible he was at the time of the fall. On 4/4/22 at 11:10 AM, the MDS Coordinator confirmed that she couldn't determine the dates of interventions on Resident #32's Baseline Care Plan. The MDS Coordinator stated with each new resident's admission a document that provided the information for care was placed in the CNA's binder at the nurse's station. The MDS Coordinator denied knowing how long Resident #32's call light was on before therapy found him on the floor on 4/23/21. The MDS coordinator remarked that due to Resident #32's admission on [DATE], the facility staff didn't know the resident's routine, and if he preferred to get up early. The MDS Coordinator added that when Resident #32 returned to the facility on 4/26/21, the Baseline Care Plan received updated interventions for the admission date of 4/21/21. The MDS Coordinator confirmed that the facility should have dated the new interventions. On 4/4/22 at 11:30 AM, Staff J stated the CNA received the undated document titled admission Care plan, at the time of Resident #32's admission on [DATE]. On 4/4/22 at 12:54 PM, Staff L, RN (the former Director of Nursing, DON), stated at the time of Resident #32's admission to the facility on 4/21/21, he was alert and oriented x 3. Staff L stated Resident #32 turned on his call light, but didn't wait for staff to assist him to the bathroom. Staff L remarked that Resident #32 told the MDS Coordinator that he thought he could make it to the bathroom by himself and that he should have waited for assistance. Staff L explained that the call light record checked at the time of the fall, showed the call light wasn't on even five minutes. Staff L denied knowing when the report had been printed out. Staff L stated that the CNA's headed to Resident #32's room first thing due to the call light being on. Resident #32 was one of the first residents to get up in the mornings per his preference. Staff L stated Resident #32 used his call light; but he just didn't wait for staff assistance. Staff L denied knowing that Resident #32 got up without assistance before the fall. Staff L denied knowing if Resident #32 was incontinent at the time of the fall. On 4/4/22 at 4:19 PM, Staff M, CNA, said that when Resident #32 first admitted to the facility on [DATE], he was confused and required staff assistance from one person. Staff M stated that the nursing staff reminded the resident to use his call light. Staff M stated she believed Resident #32 had an alarm in place due to a band on his wrist from the hospital, indicating a fall risk. Staff M stated Resident #32 used a urinal beside his recliner and he was continent of urine. On 4/5/22 at 9:27 AM, the DON didn't know how long Resident #32's call light was on at the time of the fall on 4/23/21. The DON denied knowing when therapy completed the screening evaluation for Resident #32. The DON reported that the nurse who completed the admission Assessment, completed the admission Care Plan sheet provided to the CNAs. The staff attempted to do a small huddle to review the new admission, however, it didn't always happen. The DON added she implemented starting the Baseline Care Plan in the resident's EHR, connecting it to the CNA's tasks for the new resident.
CONCERN (D)

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** 2) According to the MDS dated [DATE], Resident #192 had a BIMS score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2) According to the MDS dated [DATE], Resident #192 had a BIMS score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #192 exhibited physical and verbal behavioral symptoms toward others for one to three days in the lookback period. Resident #192 rejected care for one to three times in the lookback period. Resident #192 required extensive assistance of two people for bed mobility and dressing. Resident #192 was totally dependent with help of two people for transfers and toilet use. The Care Plan Focus dated 1/19/21 documented Resident #192 had self-care deficits as evidenced by her need for assistance activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, and incontinence. The Care Plan Focus dated 1/20/21 indicated that Resident #192 had episodes of behaviors as evidenced by combativeness, negative verbalizations, name calling, and resisting cares. The Focus included an intervention dated 1/20/21 directed staff to intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others. The intervention indicated to approach the resident in a calm manner, divert her attention, and observe for early warning signs of agitation. The Care Plan Focus dated 1/20/21 recorded that Resident #192 had impaired cognitive function and/or impaired thought processes as evidenced by short and long-term memory deficits, impaired decision making, and/or impaired ability to understand others. The Focus included the intervention dated 1/20/21 explaining that Resident #192 understood simple directives. The staff were to provide her with cues, stop, and return if or when she was agitated. According to a self-report to the Department of Inspections and Appeals (DIA) dated 12/23/21 at 4:27 PM, on 12/17/21 at 7:00 AM Staff C, CNA, was assisting Resident #192 with morning cares, Staff D, CNA, overheard Resident #192 call out get this fat bitch away from me. Staff D reported that she heard Staff C respond to Resident #192 saying that if you want to see what a bitch looks like I'll get you a fucking mirror. Staff D approach Staff C and told her to calm down and slow down while providing cares. On 4/4/22 at 11:28 AM, Staff D said that she remembered the incident when Staff C swore at Resident #192. Staff D said that she had worked with Staff C many times and she often swore at other staff in passing. On 4/5/22 at 7:57 AM Staff G, CNA, said that she worked with Staff C many times and she did swear often. On 4/4/22 at 3:11 PM Staff A, Licensed Practicing Nurse (LPN), said that she worked with Staff C many times and she had a short fuse and it didn't take much to get her upset. On 4/5/22 at 2:24 Staff C said she remembered the incident with Resident #192 and said that the resident was calling her names. She said that her response to Resident #192 was that she wasn't fat, but pregnant. Staff C said that the resident would call the staff names every day and every name in the book. Staff C explained that this was the only time that she had been disciplined for swearing and there weren't any other warnings related to disrespectful interactions with residents. The Performance Development Plan written by the DON on 3/3/20 for Staff C documented the date of performance issue for 2/12 and 2/19. On 2/12 documents that Staff C had reports of swearing, neglect, or lack of care to residents. On 2/19 documentation indicated that numerous staff complained of Staff C having inability to work with all staff and continued to have a lack of care to residents. The expectations/consequences explained that complaints continued to happen. The expectation was for employees to work as scheduled. The staff should perform duties as assigned without harm to residents and/or interruption in their daily lives. The plan indicated as the a written one was signed by Staff C on 3/9/20. On 3/3/20, the DON notified Staff C in writing that the facility received numerous complaints by staff, families, and even resident involving inappropriate dress, inappropriate language, inappropriate use of time, and inability to complete all tasks as assigned. Multiple conversations occurred regarding the complaints. The DON documented her main concern was for the safety and care for the residents. The letter continued to direct that as of 3/3/20, Staff C remained in a probation like status until noted improvement in her work abilities and attendance was noted. The notification continued to inform that if continued issues occurred it could result in immediate termination. On 6/12/20, a written notice completed by the DON notified Staff C of notice to terminate her employment due to frequency of absences. On 6/12/20, written notice by the DON and Administrator indicated that Staff C reported a lifting restriction on 6/10/20. Staff C received notification to report her progress on her condition before 7/8/20. The Performance Development Plan dated 2021 marked as the Final Written indicated performance issues on 12/17/21 and 12/19/21. As Staff C helped a resident, the resident got upset as she felt Staff C rushed her. Resident #192 called Staff C a foul word FB. Staff C's response to Resident #192 by telling her that she would get a mirror so she could see what a foul word FB looked like. The form indicated that was Dependent Adult Abuse and was unacceptable behavior. The Expectation was immediate and sustaining improvement in the following areas of resident safety a. Not rush the client b. Be gentle and caring c. Staff C must step away if the client pushed her beyond being able to control her words. The Exit Interview form dated 2/3/22 indicated that Staff C's last date worked was 12/19/21. The type of action indicated as discharged and termed on 2/3/22. The interviewer's comments and evaluation of reasons for departure recorded that Staff C was suspended on 11/21 for elder abuse. 3) According to the MDS dated [DATE], Resident #191 had a BIMS score of 3, indicating severe cognitive deficit. Resident #191's Mood indicated they felt short-tempered, easily annoyed nearly every day. Resident #191 exhibited physical and verbal behavioral symptoms daily in the lookback period. Resident #191 rejected care for four to six days in the lookback period. Resident #191 required extensive assistance of two people for transfers, walking, dressing and toilet use. Resident #191's Care Plan Focus dated 10/16/20, documented they had physical behaviors towards others such as hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching and grabbing firmly. The Focus included the following interventions dated 10/16/20 a. Allow Resident #191 to have control over situations, if possible. Allow Resident #191 to make decisions, set schedules, set realistic goals, meet challenges, and participate in self-care. b. Convey an attitude of acceptance towards Resident #191. c. Maintain a calm environment and approach when interacting or providing care to Resident #191. d When Resident #191 became physically abusive, STOP, and try task later. Do not force him to do the task. The undated New Employee Record Checklist indicated that Staff F did their Dependent Adult Abuse Training on 2/20/20. The Employee Disciplinary Action dated 11/17/20 for Staff F, CNA, documented a suspension warning due to violation of company policies. The Description of Infraction indicated that Staff F was suspended pending the results of the DIA investigation. If the DIA determined no abuse occured to Resident #191, then Staff F would be allowed to return to work and would be compensated for her missed scheduled days. If Staff F was found guilty of abuse, she would then be terminated. Staff F's Letter of Suspension dated 11/17/20 signed by the Administrator documented that on 11/16/20 at 4:30 AM Staff E was assisting CNA Staff F to change the bedding and clothing of Resident #191. While providing care, the resident became agitated and struck Staff F in the face. According to Staff E, Staff F became angry and retaliated against the resident by prying his clenched hand open, grabbing his pinky finger, and bending it back toward his wrist until he screamed. Staff E reported that Staff F then said that she wanted to beat the s**t out of him. Staff F was suspended pending investigation. Staff F continued to stand next to Resident #191 and tell him that he was an a**hole and a pain the a**. Once Staff E reported the incident they told the Administrator they never saw such evil. Staff E received notice that they would be suspended without pay until the completion of investigation from the DIA. The Exit Interview dated 2/3/22 for Staff F indiated not applicable for the last date worked. The type of action indicated discharged . The Interviewer's comments and evaluation for reasons for departure indicated suspended for elder abuse with a case open. Not willing to bring Staff F back as an employee due to the severity of the abuse case. The form recorded in termed 2/3/22. On 4/4/22 at 1:09 Staff E said that she worked with Staff F and remembered that one of the first nights that she had worked at the facility she was working with Staff F on an overnight shift. When Staff E asked about doing rounds to check and change residents, Staff F told her that they didn't do the changes until 4:00 AM. At around 4:30 AM they then went in to change Resident #191. He became agitated and was swinging his arms around. As he swung his arms he hit Staff F in the face. She got very upset and grabbed the resident's hand. While holding Resident #191's hand, she pulled back his pinky finger so far that Resident #191 started to scream. Staff E said that it had been just the two of them in the hallway at that time and the nurse on duty did not hear or see the incident. On 4/5/22 at 11:37 AM, Staff H, Registered Nurse (RN), reported that she was the interim DON for a couple of months during the time of the incident with Resident #191. She had assessed the resident on 11/17/20 and didn't find any injury to his fingers. Staff H explained that she worked with Staff F on other occasions, and that she saw Staff F get verbally harsh and impatient with Resident #191. According to the facility policy titled: Nursing Facility Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation and Reporting Policy dated January 2022, all residents have the right to be free from abuse. The policy documented that verbal abuse could be considered to be a type of mental abuse and verbal abuse. Verbal abuse included the use of communication to a resident such as mocking, insulting, and ridiculing. Based on observation, record review, policy review, and staff interview the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity for 3 of 15 (Residents #22, #191, and #192) residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #22 dated 2/17/22, included diagnoses of heart failure, morbid obesity, left, and right foot drop. The MDS documented the resident needed extensive assist of 1 staff for locomotion, personal hygiene, bathing and extensive assist of 2 staff for bed mobility and transfers. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating mild cognitive impairment for decision-making. During an observation on 3/31/22 at 10:17 AM, Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA),was in the hallway with Resident #22 as the Director of Nursing (DON) was in the same hallway. Resident #22 was in a shower chair with a blanket wrapped around him, his lower legs and feet were exposed. As Staff B moved the shower chair, Resident #22's feet slid across the carpeted floor. Staff B proceeded to pull Resident #22, in the shower chair, backwards down Hall 300 and into the 200 Hall shower room, approximately 60 feet. During an interview on 3/31/22 at 10:22 AM, the DON confirmed she witnessed the observation and stated expectation for residents completely covered when transported to the shower room, not pulled backwards in the shower chair, and feet not rubbing against the floor. The facility policy labeled Resident's [NAME] of Rights revised 3/21, documented that the resident has the right to a dignified existence. The facility must treat each resident with respect, 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.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed to refer 1 of 1 residents (Resident #5)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, and staff interviews the facility failed to refer 1 of 1 residents (Resident #5) with a negative Level 1 result for the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), who later identified with a newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or other related condition to the appropriate state-designated authority for Level II PASRR evaluation and determination to ensure the resident received proper placement and services needed. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings Include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], for Resident #5, identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS identified verbal behavioral symptoms directed towards others for one to three days in the last 7 days. The behaviors significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others. The MDS documented diagnoses that included: non-Alzheimer's dementia, depression, psychotic disorder, and unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance. The MDS coded the resident received antipsychotic and antidepressant medications for seven of seven days in the lookback period. The Care Plan revised 10/21/21, identified Resident #5 at risk for adverse effects due to use of psychotropic medication to aide with the treatment of dementia, depression, psychotic disorder, and major depression. The care plan interventions included: a. Alert the resident's physician of abnormal findings with medication use as indicated revised 8/16/21. b. Monitor, document, and report as needed any adverse reaction of the antipsychotic medication: unsteady gait, tardive dyskinesia, shuffling gait, rigid muscles, shaking, frequent falls, refusal to eat, difficulty swallowing, dry mouth, depression, suicidal ideations, social isolation, blurred vision, diarrhea, fatigue, insomnia, loss of appetite, weight loss, muscle cramps, nausea, vomiting, behavior symptoms not usual to the person dated 6/25/21. c. Observe for side effects of antidepressant medications: anorexia, anxiety, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, nausea, pay special attention to increased risk of suicidal thinking, and behavior revised 8/16/21. d. Pharmacy review monthly and as indicated revised 8/16/21. The Care Plan revised 3/14/22, identified Resident #5 had episodes of behaviors or potential for behaviors as evidenced by negative verbalization, name calling, crying episodes, and attention seeking behavior such as throwing items. The care plan interventions revised 3/14/22 included: a. Administer medications as ordered and monitor/document side effects and effectiveness b. Intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others c. Approach/speak in a calm manner, divert attention, and remove from the situation d. Minimize potential for disruptive behaviors by offering tasks which divert attention e. Observe & chart behaviors, and report to the physician as indicated f. Observe for early warning signs of behavior: approach in a calm manner, call the resident by name, and remove unwanted stimuli g. Refer for psychological/psychiatric consult as indicated initiated on 6/24/21. Progress notes On 6/20/21 at 8:15 AM, the Behavior note (BN) recorded that the resident continued to be hyperfixated with hate and anger towards a Staff M, CNA (Certified Nurse's Assistant). Resident #5 reported that the Staff M took the resident out of the facility on days that Staff M didn't come to the facility and the resident was accounted for on all shifts. The facility staff encouraged the resident that she was safe and to decrease behaviors. Staff M did not provide cares to Resident #5. On 6/21/21 at 11:45 AM, the Health Status Note (HSN) documented that Resident #5 continued to fixate anger against Staff M. Staff M didn't provide cares to the resident and the resident continued to insist that Staff M took the resident out of the facility during the night. The resident was comforted and informed that she was safe. The Facility document titled Fax dated 6/24/21, documented by the MDS Coordinator that Resident #5 had increased agitation and verbal aggression towards certain staff and resident in the last 2 weeks. Resident #5 fixated on things that didn't occur. The MDS Coordinator asked the primary care provider (PCP) if any medication changes would help with the behavior. The PCP responded with a diagnosis of dementia with delusions and ordered Seroquel 25 milligrams (mg) two times a day. On 6/24/21 at 7:37 PM, the HSN revealed Resident #5's PCP was in the facility for rounds. The PCP addressed the fax related to the resident's increased agitation and anger with delusions. Resident #5 received a diagnosis of dementia with delusions and new order for Seroquel 25 mg two times a day, then monitor her for tiredness and effectiveness. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated April 2022, revealed an order dated 6/25/21 for Seroquel (antipsychotic) 25 mg two times a day for psychotic disorder with delusions. The document titled Notice of Negative Level I Screen Outcome dated 6/3/15, recorded that no Level II Condition-Level I Negative. The rationale provided that Resident #5 had diagnoses of dementia, neurocognitive disorder, and mild situational depression. The resident didn't exhibit any signs or symptoms related to mental illness in the past six months. Resident #5 didn't have an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, no recent psychiatric behavioral evaluation, or significant life disruptions due to mental health symptoms in the last 2 years. No intellectual disabilities or related conditions reported for Resident #5. Based on the information received, no Level 2 condition/Level 1 Negative approval given. Should an exacerbation related to mental illness or a discrepancy in the reported information occur, a status change should be submitted for further evaluation. On 3/30/22 at 12:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified Resident #5's PASRR dated 6/3/15 didn't contain a psychotic disorder. During a joint review with the DON related to Resident #5's order dated 6/24/21 for seroquel, the diagnosis of dementia with delusions, and the diagnosis dated 6/25/21 of psychotic disorder with delusions, the DON stated they were unaware of the need for a new PASRR as they were still learning. On 3/30/22 at 4:42 PM, the Social Service Designee (SSD) stated they were unaware of new and/or change in Resident #5's medications and/or any new diagnoses. The SSD stated they were involved with the new admission PASRR's but not with the change in status PASRR's. The SSD stated the facility needed to communicate with the team when changes occurred with the residents. The SSD added that the MDS Coordinator and the DON were also involved with PASRR's. During a follow up interview on 4/5/22 at 9:15 AM the DON remarked that they believed that the facility should complete a PASRR change in status for Resident #5, however, added they were still learning. The DON reported that they should have completed an updated PASRR with the new diagnosis. The DON remarked that it was one of those things that slipped through the cracks like many things.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to complete a thorough assessment of a pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record review, and staff interview the facility failed to complete a thorough assessment of a pressure ulcer for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #29). Resident #29 admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a Stage 1 Pressure ulcer. The facility failed to notify the dietary department of a pressure ulcer at the time of Resident #29'a admission, failed to thoroughly complete a weekly assessment of the pressure ulcer that resulted in deterioration of the wound, and the facility failed to accurately complete a comprehensive care plan to include the identified pressure ulcer. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #29, dated 11/9/21, identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating intact cognition (memory). The MDS documented the resident required extensive physical assistance of 1 to 2 people for bed mobility, transfers, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS coded that the resident was occasionally incontinent of urine. The MDS documented diagnoses of hypertension and arthritis. The MDS revealed that the resident had a 5% weight loss in the last 6 months. The MDS identified the resident had a pressure ulcer and was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The MDS coded the resident admitted to the facility with a Stage 1 pressure ulcer. The MDS identified the resident had a pressure device for bed and chair, pressure ulcer care, and application of ointment/medications. The MDS assessment for Resident #29 dated 1/12/22, identified a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented that the resident required extensive physical assistance of 2 people for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, personal hygiene, and dependent on one person for dressing. The MDS coded that the resident was occasionally incontinent of urine. The MDS documented diagnoses of hypertension, rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor multiple site, osteoarthritis, and arthritis. The MDS identified the resident had a pressure ulcer and at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The MDS coded the resident with a Stage 2 pressure ulcer. The MDS identified the resident had a pressure device for their bed, pressure device for their chair, received pressure ulcer care, nutritional interventions, hydration interventions to manage skin problems, application of non-surgical dressing, medications, and ointments. The MDS identified the following descriptions of pressure ulcers: Stage I 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 partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red or pink wound bed, without slough (moist dead tissue). May also present as an intact or open/ruptured blister. Stage III 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 full thickness tissue loss with exposed bone, tendon or muscle. Slough or eschar (black, dead tissue) may be present on some parts of the wound bed. Often includes undermining and tunneling. Unstageable ulcer, due to the inability to see the wound bed due to the coverage of slough and/or eschar. Deep Tissue Pressure Injury (DTPI): intact skin with localized persistent non-blanchable deep red, maroon, or purple discoloration due to the damage of underlying tissue. The area may be preceded by tissue that was painful, firm, mushy, boggy, warmer or cooler as compared to adjacent tissue. These changes often precede skin color changes and discoloration may appear differently in dark pigmented skin. This injury results from intense and/or prolonged pressure and shear forces at the bone-muscle interface. Resident interview On 3/29/22 at 4:24 PM, during the initial tour, Resident #29 explained that she had an area on her bottom that required a daily dressing change. Resident #29 remarked that she believed the area healed and that the nursing staff checked it every day. Resident #29 confirmed that she had a cushion in her recliner. Resident's Representative interview On 3/29/22 at 4:59 PM, Resident #29's daughter confirmed the area to the resident's coccyx improved. Resident #29 stated that she was upset by the pressure area because she never had open areas when she lived at home. Observations On 3/30/22 at 9:45 AM, observation of Resident #29 with Staff I Registered Nurse (RN) revealed an increased red area to the right inner buttock with small chaffed (dry peeling skin) area without open areas. The red area size appeared approximately 2 cm x 1 cm. On 3/31/22 at 8:00 AM, an observation of Resident #29 showed her up in her recliner with the cushion in place, eating breakfast independently. Care Plan reviews Resident #29's Baseline Care Plan completed oon 10/31/21 revealed: a. Cognition - alert/cognitively intact b. Dietary - regular diet and ensure (dietary supplement) daily c. ADL's (activities of daily living) - assist of 2+ (plus) people for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use d. Bowel and Bladder - continent of bowel and incontinent/continent of bladder use of briefs or pads e. Skin concerns - current Stage 1 pressure ulcer to coccyx. Turn and reposition every 2 hours, cushion or wedge in their wheelchair, cushion or wedge in their recliner, treatment of soothe and cool (moisture barrier) to coccyx (very bottom portion of the spine). Resident #29's Care Plan initiated 2/28/22 revealed self-care deficits as evidenced by, they required assistance with ADL's and incontinence. The care plan interventions included: a. Bed mobility, assist of 1 b. Mobility, assist of 1 c. Positioning device: ½ side rail x 2 to assist with bed mobility, repositioning and promote independence. Resident #29 usually slept in their recliner and rarely slept in their bed. d. Transfer, assist of 2 people with a gait belt Resident #29's Care Plan initiated 2/28/22 revealed a potential risk for impaired skin integrity related to fragile, thin skin, urinary incontinence, friction and shearing potential. The care plan goal dated 12/7/21, documented no impaired skin integrity through next review date. The care plan interventions included: a. Encourage good nutrition and hydration to promote healthier skin b. Caution during transfers and bed mobility to prevent striking arms, legs, and hands against sharp or hard surfaces c. Utilize pressure reduction equipment and procedures as indicated for preventative measures. Cushion to wheelchair, specialty mattress to bed as needed for skin integrity, turn and reposition. d. Weekly skin assessment by licensed nurse and report any negative findings to physician. Obtain orders for treatment as needed. Resident #29's Care Plan initiated 12/9/21 identified a nutritional risk due to limited use of arm, assistance with eating, tracheostomy, small stature, and body mass index (BMI, indicate healthy body weight) 19.2 (typically healthy weight 18.5-24.9). The care plan interventions included: a. Resident #29's family or the facility staff assisted them with eating until they could eat independently. b. Personal supplements per order c. Provide and serve diet as ordered. d. Monitor intake and record every meal e. Supplements per order Progress Notes reviews On 11/4/21 at 11:01 AM, the admission Summary revealed the resident admitted to the facility for skilled care following gall bladder surgery and placement of a drainage system. The resident was alert and orientated to all three spheres (person, place, and time), dependent on one person for mobility, assist of two people for transfers, and required the assistance of one to two for ADL's. The resident was continent of bowel and bladder, however, wore incontinent products. Noted breakdown/fragile skin to coccyx area upon assessment. On 11/4/21 at 8:46 PM, the Dietician's progress note recorded a weight of 90# (pounds) with a significant weight loss from their admission weight of 97#. Resident #29's weight at time of the Progress Note was similar to the previous February weight of 88#. Resident #29 was unable to reach her mouth due to arthritis. Ensure was appropriate for additional calories, protein, and fluids. No pressure related skin issues noted. On 11/29/21 at 1:01 PM, the Order Note indicated a new order received to discontinue soothe and cool then start to apply mepilex (foam dressing) on bath days and as needed. On 12/6/21 at 12:36 PM, the Skin Note revealed a Stage 1 pressure area to Resident #29's coccyx opened and measured 1 centimeter (cm) by (x) 0.5 cm. Resident #29's PCP (primary care provider) faxed to continue mepilex and dycem (non-slip product) applied to the recliner to prevent worsening of pressure wound due to the resident frequently sliding in the recliner. On 12/7/21 at 10:05 AM, the Order Note revealed a new order received to continue mepilex to their coccyx and dycem to recliner to prevent further shearing. On 12/9/21 at 11:33 AM, the Skin/Wound Note by the Dietician identified staff reported the resident had a stage 1 area on admission and progressed to a Stage 2 due to her small stature and sitting in her chair. The resident's family offered to bring in the resident's recliner from home, but the resident refused. Discussed if an Occupational Therapy consult would benefit. Resident #29 had a caloric supplement, no multivitamin. Multivitamin offered due to skin and Resident #29 considered the order. On 12/15/21 at 3:00 PM, late entry the Health Status Note (HSN) revealed Resident #29's family would bring the resident's recliner from home. On 12/16/21 at 7:17 AM, the Psychosocial Note indicated the facility had a care conference on 12/15/21 with the family. Resident #29's daughter expressed concerned regarding an open area on Resident #29's coccyx. Resident #29 and her family believed that the cushion she used caused her to slide. The skin nurse would offer a different style of cushion and Resident #29's family would bring in her recliner from home. The staff would continue to monitor the area to Resident #29's coccyx closely. On 1/14/22 at 10:54 AM, the Skin/Wound Note by the Dietician revealed Resident #29 continued to have a pressure area. Resident #29 accepted 4 ounces (oz) of house supplement at 100 percent (%) daily and took various multivitamins. Resident #29 weighed 81# at the end of December and was eating independently per the documentation. Resident #29 ate in her room with her spouse. On 1/26/22 at 8:10 AM, the Order Note indicated Resident #29 had a Wound Consultant visit on 1/25/22. The Wound Consultant gave new orders to: cleanse wound with wound cleanser, mix one packet of collagen powder with 5 milliliters (ml) of anasept (wound gel to keep the wound moist to help with healing) gel, apply to Resident #29's wound bed, cover the area with a border foam dressing, and change daily. On 2/3/22 at 2:58 PM, the Skin/Wound Note documented by the Dietician identified Resident #29 continued to have a pressure area to her coccyx. The Dietician faxed Resident #29's PCP to request to increase her house supplement to twice daily. The Dietician indicated that Resident #29 didn't take a multivitamin and included in the fax to add an multivitamin daily. On 2/24/22 at 8:21 AM, the Skin/Wound note indicated the Wound Consultant visited on 2/22/22 and gave no new orders. On 3/3/22 at 3:42 PM, the Dietician Progress Note indicated the resident accepted the supplement twice per day and continued to take the multivitamin. Resident #29's pressure area noted to be improving. On 3/10/22 at 9:55 AM, the Skin/Wound Note identified a complete body assessment to Resident #29. Resident #29's area to her coccyx showed improvement; the area observed to be light pink with no open areas. On 3/24/22 at 3:40 PM, the Dietician Progress Note documented that Resident #29 recently returned from the hospital. Resident #29 reported that she was going to sleep in the bed which would help her skin and prevent swelling from returning in her legs. On 3/25/22 at 7:24 AM, the Order Note revealed a new order for a dressing to Resident #29's coccyx On 4/3/22 at 8:15 PM, the admission Summary Note revealed an area to Resident #29's sacrum/coccyx area healed. Resident #29 continued to receive prophylactic treatment to the area. Clinical record review The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcer Risk for Resident #29 dated 10/29/21 revealed: Score 16, at risk due to: slightly limited sensory perception, occasionally moist, chair fast, slightly limited mobility, friction and shear potential problem. Clinical Suggestions: wheelchair cushion, elevate heels off bed, pillows to position and off load pressure, position change at least every hour in wheelchair, turn and reposition every 2 hours in bed, encourage small frequent position changes, and educate resident/family regarding importance of position changes. The documents titled Wound/Skin Record, Pressure Injury for Resident #29 revealed: a. Date of onset 10/29/21, admission 1. Site A/Location: Coccyx, Stage 1 2. 3 cm x 4 cm 3. PCP faxed 4. Family aware b. On 11/3/21 1. Site A, Stage 1 2. 3 cm x 3.8 cm 3. No exudate (drainage) 4. No odor 5. Wound bed: epithelial 6. Surrounding skin color: normal 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: no change 9. Pain: no c. On 11/10/21 1. Site A, Stage 1 2. 3 cm x 3.6 cm 3. No exudate 4. No odor 5. Wound Bed: epithelial 6. Surrounding skin color: normal 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: improved 9. Pain: no d. On 11/30/21 1. Site A, Stage 1 2. 5 cm x 8 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: epithelial 6. Surrounding skin color: normal 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: deteriorated 9. Pain: no 10. Comments: new treatment, increased redness, physician and family notified e. On 12/6/21 1. Site A, Stage 2 2. 1 cm x 0.5 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: granulation 6. Surrounding skin color: pink 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: deterioration 9. Pain: no 10. Comments: faxed the PCP, dycem applied to recliner, physician, family, and dietary notified f. On 12/8/21 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm 3. Exudate: none 4. Odor: none 5. Wound bed: granulation 6. Surrounding skin color: pink 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: no change 9. Pain: yes, see flow sheet 10. Comments: painful to touch g. On 12/15/21 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm 3. Exudate: light 4. Odor: none 5. Wound bed: granulation 6. Surrounding skin color: pink 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: deteriorated 9. Pain: blank h. On 12/22/21 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 0.5 x 0.5 cm 3. Exudate: light 4. Odor: none 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: normal 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: normal 8. Response to treatment: improved 9. Pain: blank i. On 1/5/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 1 x 1 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank j. On 1/12/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 1 x 1 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank 10. Comments: smaller dressing k. On 1/25/22 1. Site blank, Stage: unstageable 2. 1.2 x 0.7 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank 10. Comments: wound consult l. On 2/2/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 1 x 1 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: no change 9. Pain: blank m. On 2/9/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 1 x 0.5 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank n. On 2/22/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 0.4 x 0.3 x depth <0.2 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank 10. Comments: wound consult visit, no treatment change. Physician notified 2/24/22 and family 2/22/22 o. On 2/28/22 re-admit from the local hospital 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. Exudate: blank 3. Odor: blank 4. Wound bed: blank 5. Surrounding skin color: blank 6. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 7. Response to treatment: blank 8. Pain: blank 9. Comments: 1 x 0.3 cm p. On 3/2/23 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 1 x 0.3 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank 10. Comments: pink q. On 3/10/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 3 x 2 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank 10. Comments: pink, not open r. On 3/16/22 - no documentation, all blank s. On 3/22/22 1. Site blank, Stage blank 2. 2.5 x 1.5 cm 3. Exudate: blank 4. Odor: blank 5. Wound bed: blank 6. Surrounding skin color: blank 7. Surrounding tissue/wound edges: blank 8. Response to treatment: blank 9. Pain: blank 10. Comments: pink, not closed The facility documents titled Wound Care-Skin Integrity-Evaluation for Resident #29 revealed: a. On 1/25/22 1. Wound: Coccyx 2. Date of onset: 11/3/21 3. Exudate: moderate 4. Thickness: full thickness 5. Etiology: Pressure, unstageable 6. Size: 1.2 x 0.7 cm and depth unable to determine 7. Tunneling: none 8. Undermining: none 9. Drainage: serous 10. Wound bed: red 20%, pink/red; healthy granulation; yellow 80%, slough 11. Peri-wound/wound edges: intact/uninvolved tissues flush with wound base; edge epithelializing flush with wound base 12. Wound pain: rating 3 (1-10 scale); coccyx; acute wound pain 13. Treatment intervention: cleanse wound with cleanser of choice, mix 1 packet of collagen powder with 5 ml anasept gel, apply to wound bed, and cover with border foam dressing daily and as needed b. On 2/22/22 1. Wound: Coccyx 2. Date of onset: 11/3/21 3. Exudate: moderate 4. Thickness: full thickness 5. Etiology: Pressure, Stage 3 6. Size: 0.4 x 0.3 cm and depth <0.2 cm 7. Tunneling: none 8. Undermining: none 9. Drainage: serous 10. Wound bed: red 100%, pink/red; healthy granulation 11. Peri-wound/wound edges: intact/uninvolved tissues flush with wound base; edge epithelializing flush with wound base 12. Wound pain: rating 3 (1-10 scale); coccyx; acute wound pain 13. Treatment intervention: cleanse wound with cleanser of choice, mix 1 packet of collagen powder with 5 ml anasept gel, apply to wound bed, and cover with border foam dressing daily and as needed Review of the clinical record revealed the facility failed notify the dietary department of the pressure upon the resident's admission to the facility on [DATE], until deterioration occurred on 12/6/21. The facility failed to complete a thorough assessment of the pressure ulcer weekly, which resulted in deterioration of the wound. The facility failed to accurately complete a comprehensive care plan to include the identified pressure ulcer. Director of Nursing (DON) Interviews On 3/31/22 at 1:25 PM, the DON stated the facility didn't have a policy or procedure related to pressure ulcers. During a follow-up interview on 4/5/22 at 9:19 AM, the DON stated the facility's guidance for pressure ulcers included; weekly assessment and if the wound didn't improve in two to three weeks to notify the physician. The DON added the facility didn't have a policy related to pressure ulcers. The DON explained that the facility implemented wound care visits for Resident #29 when the wound didn't healing. The DON said that the wound care visits occurred monthly to assist her with ensuring the correct treatment. The DON added that she expected the weekly assessment of the pressure ulcer to include: measurement and a full assessment. The DON stated she could not answer if dietary received notification of Resident #29's pressure ulcer at her admission to the facility. The DON reported that facility lacked a set defined guidelines on what the facility should do with a pressure ulcer. The DON commented that the facility would implement a multivitamin. The DON stated that the facility conducted clinical meetings weekly on Thursdays and was unaware if they missed Resident #29's pressure ulcer. The DON remarked that she expected a thorough weekly skin assessment to be completed for all residents with pressure ulcers. During an additional follow-up interview on 4/5/22 at 11:47 AM, the DON reported not being able to locate the comprehensive care plan for Resident #29 between the Baseline Care Plan dated 10/31/21 and the Care Plan initiated on 12/7/21. The DON confirmed the Comprehensive Care Plan didn't include Resident #29's pressure ulcer. The DON explained the Care Plan only included the risk for pressure ulcers. The DON expected the Care Plan to include Resident #29's pressure ulcer. The DON confirmed the initiation of the Care Plan Focus Area on 2/28/22 related to the risk for pressure ulcers.
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** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to use appropr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, clinical record reviews, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to use appropriate infection control standards of practice by not changing oxygen tubing and a nebulizer mask for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #23 and #27) reviewed. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: 1. Resident #23's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. The MDS included a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, indicating severe cognitive (memory) impairment. The MDS documented that the resident received oxygen therapy while a resident in the fourteen day lookback period. During an observation on 3/29/22 at 2:48 P.M., observed Resident #23 in bed with oxygen (O2) administered per nasal cannula (NC), with no date on the O2 tubing. A bag hanged from the O2 concentrator with the date of 3/11/22. Resident #23's Order Summary Report indicating active orders as of 3/30/22 included the following orders dated 2/10/22 for a. O2 at two liters (L) two times a day. b. Change and date the O2 tubing and nasal cannula weekly and as needed (PRN). Clean the filter every Wednesday night shift and label with date and initials. Resident #23's Treatment Administration Records (TAR) dated 3/1/22 - 3/31/22, lacked documentation of the O2 tubing change completed on the scheduled days of 3/2, 3/9, 3/16, and 3/23/22. 2. Resident #27's MDS assessment dated [DATE] included diagnoses of pneumonia and Pulmonary Fibrosis (damaged and scarred lung tissue). The MDS included a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 15, indicating intact cognition. The MDS documented the resident received oxygen therapy while a resident during the fourteen day lookback period. During an observation on 3/29/22 at 12:41 PM, Resident #27 sat in his recliner with O2 administered per NC. The O2 tubing lacked a date and the date on the nebulizer mask was 3/19/22. Resident #27's Order Summary Report indicated the active orders as of 3/30/22 included the following orders dated 2/16/22 for a. O2 at 1 L by NC continuously. b. Levalbuterol HCl Nebulization Solution 1.25 milligrams (MG) by (/) 3 milliliters (ML). Resident #27 to inhale medication by nebulizer three times a day related to pulmonary fibrosis. The Order Summary Report lacked documentation of an order to change the oxygen tubing and/or the nebulizer mask. Resident #27's TAR dated 3/1/202- 3/31/22, lacked documentation of an order to change the oxygen tubing and/or the nebulizer mask. The Respiratory Equipment Cleaning Procedure revised 3/17/20, documented that O2 tubing, nasal cannula/mask would be changed weekly. During an interview on 3/30/22 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing stated her expectation for the changing of the O2 tubing and nebulizer mask should be done weekly. Once changed it should be labeled with a date, initials, and documented on the TAR.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observations, facility policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to ensure drugs used in the facility were stored in accordance with the currently accepted professional principles. The facility failed to keep the medication cart locked while not in the direct line of site by the licensed nurse. The facility reported a census of 42 residents. Findings include: During an observation on 3/29/22 at 12:11 PM, observed the North Medication Cart unlocked without nursing staff in the direct line of site. Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN), left the medication cart and proceeded into the dining room. At 12:12 PM, Staff A returned to the medication cart. During an observation on 3/31/22 at 7:39 AM, observed the North Medication Cart located at the top of the 300 hall by room [ROOM NUMBER] unlocked. At time of observation, no nursing staff were present at the medication cart. Staff A found in room [ROOM NUMBER] without a direct line of site to the medication cart. The Housekeeper came in and out of room [ROOM NUMBER]. Resident #17 with a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 6, indicating severe cognitive impairment; ambulated independently past the cart to the end of the hallway. At 7:42 AM the Director of Nursing approached and confirmed that the medication cart was unlocked without nursing staff present. The facility document titled Resident Daily Living Vital Info dated 3/29/22, identified 6 current residents with a wanderguard in place and a high risk for elopement. On 4/5/22 at 9:11 AM, the Director of Nursing stated she expected the medication carts to be locked when the nurse wasn't present and the computer screen to be locked. The DON reported that the facility did not have a policy in place related to the medication cart being locked when unattended.
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.
Concerns
  • • 17 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade C (55/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 55/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Thomas Rest Haven's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Thomas Rest Haven 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 Thomas Rest Haven Staffed?

CMS rates Thomas Rest Haven's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 51%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. RN turnover specifically is 67%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Thomas Rest Haven?

State health inspectors documented 17 deficiencies at Thomas Rest Haven during 2022 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 14 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Thomas Rest Haven?

Thomas Rest Haven is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 57 certified beds and approximately 33 residents (about 58% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in COON RAPIDS, Iowa.

How Does Thomas Rest Haven Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Thomas Rest Haven's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (51%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Thomas Rest Haven?

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 Thomas Rest Haven Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Thomas Rest Haven 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 Thomas Rest Haven Stick Around?

Thomas Rest Haven has a staff turnover rate of 51%, 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 Thomas Rest Haven Ever Fined?

Thomas Rest Haven 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 Thomas Rest Haven on Any Federal Watch List?

Thomas Rest Haven 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.