Trinity Center at Luther Park

1555 HULL AVENUE, DES MOINES, IA 50316 (515) 262-5639
Non profit - Corporation 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
21/100
#307 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Trinity Center at Luther Park has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor overall performance. It ranks #307 out of 392 nursing homes in Iowa, placing it in the bottom half of facilities statewide, and #22 out of 29 in Polk County, meaning only a few options in the area are worse. The facility's situation is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 3 in 2023 to 6 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 30%, which is below the state average. However, there are serious concerns as well, including $34,476 in fines, which is about average for the state, and less RN coverage than 89% of facilities, which raises alarms about the quality of care. Specific incidents include a failure to provide emergency care to a resident who was unresponsive and mismanagement of dietary needs for residents requiring a mechanical soft diet, both posing immediate jeopardy to resident safety.

Trust Score
F
21/100
In Iowa
#307/392
Bottom 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
3 → 6 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$34,476 in fines. Higher than 91% of Iowa facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for Iowa. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 3 issues
2024: 6 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below Iowa average of 48%

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

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below Iowa average (3.0)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 30%

15pts below Iowa avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $34,476

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Oct 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0661 (Tag F0661)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to complete a discharge summary and discharge pl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review, and staff interviews the facility failed to complete a discharge summary and discharge plan for 1 resident (#113). The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: The Electronic Health Record (EHR) revealed Resident #113 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for skilled services. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident #113 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 out of 15 which indicated completely intact cognition. The EHR included diagnoses of vertebral fractures (fractured back bones). It also documented she was independent with eating, required supervision with oral hygiene, and required maximum assistance with all other Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) except upper body dressing. The EHR lacked discharge plan and discharge summary documentation. On 10/31/24 at 8:33 AM, the administrator stated the discharge plan and discharge summary were not completed due to the circumstances surrounding the resident's discharge from the building. In an email on 10/31/24 at 11:19 AM, the administrator indicated the documentation was not completed. A policy titled Admission, Transfer, Discharge Policy revised 9/04/24 indicated resident-initiated discharge clinical records would contain a discharge care plan. The policy did not include specific directives regarding discharge summaries.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff used proper food handling procedures to prevent possible contamination of food during lunch service with f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff used proper food handling procedures to prevent possible contamination of food during lunch service with food uncovered. The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: During an observation 10/30/24 at 12:15 PM, the steam table was transported from unit B1 to unit C1 with the sweet potatoes and peas uncovered and with the bread partially uncovered. This steam table was transported from the dining room in unit B1, down a resident hallway, out into the main area and then into unit C1, down resident hallway in unit C1 and into the dining room in unit C1. Meals were then served to residents in unit C1 from the steam table. During an interview 10/30/24 at 12:50 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), stated food should be covered during transportation in the hallways and in main areas, for infection control purposes. The CDM stated an expectation food is covered during transportation. During an interview 10/30/24 at 4:30 PM, the Administrator acknowledged an expectation food is covered on the steam table during transportation from one unit to another unit. Review of facility policy Food Handling, with a revision date of 7/24/24, documented the facility will store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety. When meals are assembled in the kitchen and then delivered to residents' rooms or dining areas to be distributed, covering food is appropriate, either individually or in a mobile food cart.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interview, clinical record review and policy review the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter and peri-care for 1 of 1 resident (#103) to prevent a urinary tract...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview, clinical record review and policy review the facility failed to provide appropriate catheter and peri-care for 1 of 1 resident (#103) to prevent a urinary tract infection. The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: On 10/29/24 at 1:45 pm, Resident #103 stated he had a urine bag (indwelling catheter) but could not remember if he had taken an antibiotic. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #103 dated 8/06/24 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 10 out of 15 which indicated moderately impaired cognition. It included diagnoses of Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA- a brief blockage of blood flow to the brain that causes stroke-like symptoms), Cerebral Infarction (stroke caused by blocked blood flow to the brain), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and a history of Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs). The MDS indicated Resident #103 was independent with eating, required setup assistance with oral hygiene, and required moderate assistance with toileting hygiene, bathing, sit-to-stand and bed-to-chair transfers. It indicated the resident required intermittent catheterization. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) included a progress note dated 8/23/24 which indicated the resident had an indwelling catheter upon return from an acute care setting (hospital). It also included an order dated 10/14/24 for Cipro Oral Tablet 500 mg and instructed staff to give 1 tablet by mouth two (2) times per day for a UTI for seven (7) days. The Care Plan dated 9/26/24 directed staff to use extended barrier precautions (EBP) per Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) guidelines. On 10/30/24 at 10:08 AM, Staff A Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) and Staff B, CNA performed peri-care and indwelling catheter care for Resident #103. Continuous observation revealed Staff A and Staff B donned Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and entered the resident's room. They performed hand hygiene and donned gloves. Staff A placed a plastic bag on the resident's bed, removed her gloves, and got another bag. Staff B got a pack of Procare wipes and donned new gloves. She removed one (1) wipe from the package and wiped the resident's testicles in an upward toward the resident's penis and wiped the penis tip. She got another wipe from the packaging and wiped the resident's penis tip and catheter tubing away from the resident. At 10:21 am, Staff A and Staff B assisted the resident to a sitting position on the bedside. During repositioning, Staff B grabbed the catheter drainage bag by the drain spigot and adjusted it against the resident's leg. Staff B lowered the drainage bag above the urine cylinder, opened the spigot, and emptied the drainage bag. She closed the drainage bag, grabbed an alcohol wipe from Staff A, and wiped the spigot tip. Staff A took the cylinder and emptied the urine into the toilet. Staff B, removed her gloves, pulled the resident's pants back up, and helped him back to the chair. Staff B did not perform hand hygiene between peri-care and indwelling catheter care. At 10:33 am, the Director of Nursing (DON) informed Staff B she would be retrained on peri-care and catheter care. A facility policy titled Peri Care Policy revised 8/19/24 indicated the purpose of the policy was to prevent infections and directed staff to perform peri care on male residents by washing the perineal area starting with the urethra and working outward. A facility policy titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene revised 6/15/24 directed all personnel should follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. It also directed staff to use alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water before and after handling an invasive device.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to notify the Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of a resident transfer as required for 1 of 3 residents reviewed who were tr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to notify the Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman of a resident transfer as required for 1 of 3 residents reviewed who were transferred from the facility (Resident #75). The facility reported a census of 111 residents. Findings include: Resident#75's Clinical Census Report documented that the resident had transferred from the facility on 3/30/24 to a hospital, and reentered the facility on 4/8/24. The clinical record lacked the documentation of notification to the LTC Ombudsman that the Resident #75 had transferred to the hospital. During an interview 10/31/24 at 1:10 PM the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility did not report to the Ombudsman when the Resident #75 went to the hospital. The facility policy titled Admission, Transfer, Discharge revised 9/4/24 instructed the staff to notify the State Ombudsman of any/all facility-initiated discharges for assistance with transition and support of the resident and representative.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete an incident report and notify the physician and resident's emergency contact/next of kin for a n...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, resident and staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to complete an incident report and notify the physician and resident's emergency contact/next of kin for a new bruise for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 115 residents. Findings include: The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #1 dated 6/28/24, included diagnoses of Parkinson's (condition that deteriorates the brain) and Non-Alzheimer's. The MDS identified the resident was dependent on staff for toileting, dressing, and personal hygiene and had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 12, which indicated mild cognitive impairment for decision making. Interview on 8/14/24 at 10:45 AM, the resident stated she had a bruise on her upper right arm that is getting better; that she had woke up one morning and found the bruise. The resident stated she reported it to staff and was not sure what caused the bruise. Resident's progress notes documented on 6/28/24 at 9:12 PM - New skin issue of bruise on right upper arm, 3.5 centimeters (cm) length and 3.5 cm. width. Review of resident's progress notes for 6/28/24 - 7/1/24, lacked documentation of physician and emergency contact notification of new bruise. Facility policy, Notification of Changes reviewed/revised 2/2024 documented the purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility promptly consults the resident's physician and notifies the resident's representative when there is a change requiring notification. Interview on 8/14/24 at 11:15 AM, the Administrator (ADM) stated she had not been aware of the bruise, confirmed no incident report was completed, and the physician and family were not notified of the bruise at the time it was observed. The ADM stated her expectation with any bruise bigger than a quarter, the staff are to complete an incident report and the physician and family are to be notified at that time
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an alleged violation of abuse by a resident, by not interviewing staff regarding t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to conduct a thorough investigation of an alleged violation of abuse by a resident, by not interviewing staff regarding the allegation for one (Resident #5) of three residents reviewed. The facility reported a census of 115 residents. Findings included: The Five Day Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment for Resident #5 dated 1/14/24, included diagnoses of Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, Anxiety Disorder, and depression. The MDS indicated the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14, which indicated no cognitive impairment for decision making. Review of resident's progress note dated 3/7/24 at 3:10 PM documented: This nurse brought resident to the bathroom and saw a bruise located on resident's right cheek. Resident became tearful and stated, I got the shit beat out of me. Resident then finished using the bathroom and this nurse brought resident to the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) for further investigation. This nurse sat in the office with ADON while investigating. Resident appeared to be confused on where the actual location of bruise was at further in conversation. Resident was only able to describe the attackers skin color being, black, tan, I don't know, I don't like these questions. Resident did believe that the person was a couple of teen girls who room with her. Resident was unable to mention what she was stuck with. Resident feels scared. Resident called her daughter mom. Resident mentioned that confusion is her diagnosis. Resident was unable to give an exact time or date of when this event took place. Resident then was able to mention that this happened on Monday or Tuesday. Review of resident's incident report dated 3/7/24 at 2:25 PM documented: Nursing Description: resident reported to nurse that she had a bruise on her right cheek because someone beat the shit out of her. Resident reported that on Monday or Tuesday afternoon, she was sitting in her room when 1-2 teenage women she roomed with came up behind her and beat her up, hurt her arms, and drug her across the floor because she has nice clothes. Resident Description: I got the shit beat out of me. It wasn't yesterday. It was probably Monday or Tuesday. It was a woman she came up from behind me. I didn't see her. She said I better not tell. I'm scared to go back to my room. She didn't like the way I dress. She said I was showing off because I have nice clothes. It was two girls, but I don't know what they looked like. It was just my arms they got. They drug me across the floor. They had girlish clothes on. They were in their teens. Review of facility's Investigation Summary for Resident #5 3/7/24 documented: Immediate Action Taken: investigation started, physician and family notification, state initial report, and skin assessment, listed the resident health record documents reviewed, and concluded with summary further documented conclusion of unable to substantiate allegation and investigation completed. Investigation summary did not document any staff interviews completed. On 8/14/24 at 3:30 PM, review of facility's incident folder for Resident #5 dated 3/7/24, provided by the Administrator, lacked documentation of any staff interviews regarding incident of resident's allegation of abuse. Interview on 8/14/24 at 4:23 PM, Staff A, Certified Medication Aide stated has been employed at the facility for 2 years and was not interviewed regarding Resident #5's allegation incident on 3/7/24 and was not aware of the incident. Interview on 8/14/24 at 4:25 PM, Staff B, Certified Nurse Aide stated has been employed at the facility for 15 years and was not interviewed regarding Resident #5's allegation incident on 3/7/24 and was not aware of the incident. Interview on 8/14/24 at 4:27 PM, Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse stated she has been employed at the facility for 3 years and was not interviewed regarding Resident #5's allegation on 3/7/24 and was not aware of the incident, but was aware of a different reported incident with Resident #5. Facility policy, Abuse Prevention, Identification, Investigation, and Reporting Policy, reviewed/revised 8/5/24, included investigation protocols of attempt to obtain witness statements from all known witnesses. Interview on 8/14/24 at 6 PM, the Administrator (ADM) confirmed the incident folder for Resident #5 lacked documentation of any staff interviews completed. The ADM further stated expectation to complete staff interviews when doing investigations.
Jan 2023 3 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide basic life support...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to provide basic life support to a resident requiring emergency care. Resident #1 was found unresponsive at meal time on 7/9/22 around 12:15 p.m., staff initiated chest compressions but failed to access the emergency cart which contained emergency equipment including a suction machine and Ambu bag to provide rescue breathing. Upon arrival of emergency medical services (EMS) after 20 minutes unresponsive, suction produced removal of a large food bolus. EMS intubated and transported to hospital where resident later expired due to asphyxiation. This failure posed an Immediate Jeopardy to the residents health and safety. The facility reported a census of 108 residents and 31 residents who requested cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The State Agency informed the facility of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) that began as of July 9, 2022 on December 8, 2022 at 3:15 p.m the facility staff removed the immediate Jeopardy on December 9, 2022 through the following actions: * Staff re-educated on the CPR policy, where to locate the emergency equipment and provide rescue breathing when providing CPR (Education initiated and ongoing). *All supply areas have signs placed on doors to state emergency storage supply *Director of Nursing of designee will conduct three interview to three licensed nurses to validate CPR process by responding to the four processes identified on the audit sheet weekly for four weeks. The scope lowered from a K to a E at the time of the survey after ensuring the facility implemented education and their policy and procedures. The facility reported a resident census of 108. Findings include: A Policy and Procedure with revised date 4/13/22, documented the Emergency Procedure-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) stated: It is the policy of the facility to respond to medical emergencies for residents, staff and visitors. Policy Explanation and Compliance Guidelines: *The employee who first witnesses or is first on the site of a medical emergency, that are trained, will initiate immediate action, including CPR as appropriate basic first aid and summon for assistance. *A nurse will assess the situation and determine the severity of the emergency, stay with the resident, designate a staff member to announce a Code Blue if necessary, notify the physician and call 911 as needed. *All available staff will respond to the emergency accordingly. *Charge Nurse will designate a staff member to obtain emergency cart and bring to the code site, ensure accurate documentation of the event and delegate any other duties or tasks as needed. *this will continue until emergency personnel arrive and resident is transported to the emergency room by the EMS. *If the resident experiences cardiac arrest, the facility must provide basic life support, including CPR, prior to the arrival of emergency medical services. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 6/28/22, documented Resident #1 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, for which indicates moderately impaired with decision making abilities. The MDS revealed the resident required staff assistance for bed mobility and dressing, and independent with set up for eating, and functional limited range of motion in the lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot). The MDS revealed the resident's diagnoses included thyroid disorder, hip fractures, non-Alzheimer dementia, hemiplegia or hemiparesis, seizure disorder, epilepsy and bipolar disorder. An Iowa Physicians Orders for Scope of Treatment (IPOST) signed by family (Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care) on 6/29/22 at 1:39 p.m., identified the request for CPR for Resident #1. Record review revealed Progress Notes documented: * (late entry) dated 7/9/22 at 1:43 p.m., documented when the emergency medical technician (EMT) asked for a portable suction, I retrieved it and I hooked it up, but the emergency medical technician were the ones who used it. *on 7/9/22 at 1:53 p.m., Daughter called out to nurse that resident needs help, that she does not look good. Nurse immediately went into resident's room. Noted resident unresponsive, pale with food in front of her. ? resident choked on food. Did the Heimlich , no food noted in resident's mouth. Instructed the other nurse for us to put resident on the floor to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). CPR was started but, still no pulse. I and other nurse took turn doing chest compressions until paramedics arrived and took over. *on 7/9/22 4:18 p.m., I was in the room giving the res her scheduled Norco at 12:32 p.m., and res was eating and talking at that time. Then I went down to C hall to give insulin's. I gave my last insulin about 12:50 p.m., and was putting the insulin back in the cart when I heard the resident's daughter say she needed a nurse in her room, that she did not look good. I rushed to her room, upon entering the other nurse was doing the Heimlich maneuver. She said let's get the resident on the floor and me and the med aid lifted the resident to the floor and started doing CPR. We told the medication aid to call 911. When we switched doing chest compressions this nurse went out to call 911. I gave the 911 operator all the necessary info and I headed back to relieve the other nurse. We switched doing chest compressions until the EMT arrived to relieve us. I gave the EMT the info of what happened and stayed close the answer questions. At about 1:15 p.m., the EMT asked for portable suction; I retrieved the suction for them. *At about 1:30 p.m., the EMT said they had a rhythm on the resident and were going to transfer to the hospital. *at 4:31 p.m., On call physician notified of residents transfer to Methodist hospital. Phone call to daughter to follow up on the events that occurred this afternoon. Resident in critical care unit on life support at this time. During an interview 12/8/22 at 11:00 a.m., Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) confirmed her involvement with participation in the CPR process with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) . Staff B explained that when she entered the residents room, Staff A stated that they needed to lay the resident on the floor and begin CPR. Staff B explained that no mouth to mouth was given while she was in the residents room, only chest compressions until the ambulance arrived. Staff B was not able to determine how long chest compressions were being done, only it seemed like a long time. During an interview on 12/8/22 at 1:20 p.m., Staff C, certified medication aide (CMA) confirmed that he was in the residents room while Staff A and Staff B performed CPR on the resident. Staff C stated that he was in involved with the participation in the process of CPR. Staff C explained that while he was in the residents room only chest compressions were being performed on the resident and no mouth to mouth was performed. During an interview on 12/12/22 at 1:00 p.m., Staff A confirmed her involvement with participating in the CPR process with Staff B. Staff A confirmed that mouth to mouth was not performed and only chest compressions were performed on Resident #1. Staff A stated that she attempted the Heimlich maneuver on the resident but failed to check to see if anything was in Resident #1's airway. Staff A stated that the expectation of the nursing staff is to follow the policy and procedure for CPR. The Des Moines Fire Department patient record dated 7/9/22 documented at 1:11 p.m., responded to cardiac arrest patient at [NAME] Park nursing home. EMS given incorrect location from dispatch that was across the street from where patient resided. Police Officer arrived first at incorrect location. Delay resulted from incorrect location and the time it took to find the correct location through dispatch. Upon arrival at correct location, Lead and fire medic: brought [NAME] device, ambu bag, red bag, and monitor to patient room, Additional support brought stretcher and additional equipment when they arrived. Staff led EMS through nursing home (NH) to patient room on second floor. Patient was found unresponsive on floor of nursing home room with ineffective manual CPR being performed by NH staff. Patient had several family members in the room along with a roommate. It was unknown if arrest was witnessed. Patient's daughter stated that the patient had been in that state for at least 15 minutes. Patient's roommate stated that she was the last person to talk to the patient and that that was 30 min. prior td EMS arrival. The patient's daughter stated that she had POA and did not wish for her mother to be coded. When asked for documentation nursing home staff stated that patient did not have an advance directive and that the patient wished to be a full code to which daughter agreed. EMS had already placed patient on monitor with initial rhythm of Asystole (lack of cardiac activity). CPR was initiated, When advanced airway efforts were initiated, considerable amounts of food were found in the patient's airway. Intubation efforts were delayed to suction out the food and then the patient was intubated. No blood, bile or vomit were found in airway, Patient's rhythm during subsequent pulse checks. After administration of Epinephrine, return of spontaneous circulation was achieved with a strong pulse and normal sinus rhythm. CPR discontinued and RESQPOD ( a threshold device that attaches to the airway during CPR to enhance negative pressure and increase perfusion) was removed. Patient was moved onto a backboard and secured fully without issue. Patient lifted and placed on EMS stretcher without issue. Patient brought through nursing home to ambulance by stretcher. Phone report made to the hospital and transport initiated. Patient went back into cardiac arrest approximately 2 minutes prior to hospital arrival. At hospital, patient transferred to resuscitation room bed by backboard without issue. Patient care transferred to resuscitation team. During an interview on 12/7/22 at 1:45 p.m., the facility DON, confirmed and verified that the nurses are expected to follow the CPR policy and procedure and do mouth-mouth along with chest compressions and to obtain the crash cart. The State of Iowa Certificate of Death dated 7/18/22, documented the immediate cause of death-asphyxia (suffocation), due to choking on food bolus and description of injury -choked on food.
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to serve a resident a mechanical soft die...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, and staff interview, the facility failed to serve a resident a mechanical soft diet as ordered by the physician. During the noon meal service on 12/06/22, the ticket incorrectly directed staff to serve a regular diet to a resident who required a mechanical soft diet. During the process of serving the incorrect diet, this surveyor stopped the dietary staff from serving the meal. These circumstances posed an Immediate Jeopardy to the residents health and safety. (Resident #2). During closed record review the facility failed to serve the correct diets for 2 of 4 residents reviewed. (Resident #1 and Resident #3). The facility reported a census of 108 residents and identified 11 residents on a mechanical altered diet. The State Agency informed the facility of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) that began as of on July 9, 2022 on December 5, 2022 at 4:15 p.m. The facility staff removed the Immediate Jeopardy on December 7, 2022 through the following actions: Provided the following education to all staff: *Dietary Orders; *Dietary communication form to be completed with resident name, room number, allergies, and adaptive equipment *Copy of original physician diet order to be attached to dietary communication form and delivered to dietary department (kitchen) *Dietary staff will review diet order and if any changes are needed to meet the approved diet orders for [NAME] Center the nurse will be notified to obtain new order from provider. *Cullinary Coordinatro has been given access to point click care and [NAME] Brothers guest card as a back up to Certified dietary manager * Review the entire building diet report, compare to actual orders in point click care and resident physical chart for accuracy *Review and update all meal tickets for the current residents The scope lowered from a K to E at the time of the survey after ensuring the facility implemented education and their policy and procedures. The facility reported a resident census of 108. Findings include: 1. The 5 day Skilled Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #2 with diagnosis for which included anemia, malnutrition, adult failure to thrive, and underweight. The MDS documented the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 14 for which indicated no impaired decision making abilities, required set up assistance for eating and extensive assistance of one for bed mobility. The MDS revealed a swallowing disorder for which signs/symptoms of possible swallowing disorders as coughing or choking during meals or when swallowing medications, and mechanically altered diet is required for which is require change in texture of foods or liquids (pureed food, thickened liquids). The MDS documented weight of 83 pounds. The Discharge ordered dated 11/7/22 from Unity Point Health instructed staff to give Dysphasia level 5 diet- minced and moist. The International Dysphagia Diet Standardization Initiative (IDDSI) dated 2019, showed a level 5 diet as regular with minced and moist meat. During an interview on 12/8/22 at 10:45 a.m., the dietary manager stated that the definition of soft and bite sized food is that texture includes foods that are soft, tender and moist throughout, they can be mashed or broken down with pressure from a fork, spoon or chopsticks. food piece sizes should be no larger than 1.5 cm by 1.5 cm (size of a thumbnail) to minimize choking risks. The Clinical Physician Orders dated 11/7/2022 at 11:32 a.m., instructed staff to serve a Regular diet, Mechanical Soft texture, Thin consistency. The plan of care documented a problem of Resident #2 has a nutritional problem relate to history of inadequate intake of food/fluid and weight loss. Interventions include: *Provide, serve regular diet with mechanical soft texture and thin liquids as ordered. *Set-up/assist as needed. *Encourage good intake at all meals. *Monitor intake of food/fluid and record every meal. The Data Base for Nutritional Assessment/Reassessment and Resident Progress Notes dated and signed by the dietician on 11/16/22, documented, Resident was hospitalized recently and returned on skilled care with diet changed to regular with mechanical soft texture and thin liquids. Resident is being treated by speech therapy and was noted to cough at meal times 3. Resident is at nutritional risk related to anemia and depression, need for mechanical soft texture with some swallowing difficulty noted. Problem on going with change to mechanical soft texture. The Diet Type Report dated 12/5/22 at 11:25 a.m., documented Resident #2 to receive a Regular Mechanical Soft diet. The Week at a Glance menu for week 2 documented that following noon meal: *Caprese chicken *Garlic and basil pasta *Green beans *Blueberry pie bar Observation on 12/6/22 at 11:30 a.m., revealed during the noon meal service at the Redwoods dining room. Staff D (dietary cook) was plating the room tray for Resident #2, Staff D proceeded to place a regular piece of chicken, pasta, and mixed vegetables on the plate. This surveyor observed the dietary ticket that Staff D was using to plate Resident #2 food, the dietary ticket read regular-regular. The diet roster from 12/5/22 documented regular-mechanical soft diet. This surveyor questioned Staff D on the diet that was served to Resident #2. Staff D explained that they just follow the dietary ticket that is printed for the dietary staff to use. This surveyor questioned the diet that was served. Staff E (culinary chef) went to double check on the computer system the diet that was ordered by the physician. Staff E came back to the dining room and confirmed and verified that Resident #2 diet is regular-mechanical soft and handed Staff D a diet order communication form verifying the diet order. Staff D proceeded to give Resident #2 a regular-mechanical soft diet for which consisted of ground chicken. Staff D and Staff E confirmed and verified that Resident #2 was going to receive a regular piece of chicken, not the mechanical soft diet that was ordered. During an interview on 12/6/22 at 1:15 p.m., Staff D, confirmed and verified that the dietary ticket read regular-regular and that Staff D follows the diet ticket that is printed. During an interview on 12/6/22 at 1:22 p.m., Staff E, confirmed and verified that Resident #2 was on a mechanical soft/ground diet per Dr orders and that Staff D was going to serve a regular diet. During an interview on 12/6/22 at 5:15 p.m., Resident #2 confirmed and verified that they have been receiving a regular diet and would of ate the piece of chicken that would of been served to her. During an interview on 12/6/22 at 4:00 p.m., the facility director of nursing confirmed and verified that the facility failed to serve Resident #2 the correct diet of regular-mechanical soft, and verified during the noon service that staff were going to serve a regular piece of chicken. During an interview on 12/7/22 at 1:15 p.m., the facility dietary manger confirmed and verified that the dietary staff need to follow the resident right diet per physicians orders. The Dietary Spreadsheets for Week 2, instructed staff to serve a mechanical diet that consisted of 3 ounces of ground caprese chicken. 2. An admission MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #1 with a BIMS score of 12, for which indicates moderately impaired with decision making abilities. The MDS revealed the resident required staff assistance for bed mobility and dressing, and independent with set up for eating, and functional limited range of motion in the lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot). The MDS revealed the resident's diagnoses included thyroid disorder, hip fractures, non-Alzheimer dementia, hemiplegia or hemiparesis, seizure disorder, epilepsy and bipolar disorder. The MDS also documented no nutritional approaches. The plan of care had a problem for potential of nutritional problem related to dementia, depression and chronic pain diagnosis along with new admission. Interventions include: *Provide, serve regular diet with regular texture and thin liquids. *Foods should be soft/moist and bite size. *Monitor intake of food/fluid and record every meal. A Speech Therapy Progress Note dated 6/15/22 at 1:47 p.m., Patient seen for on going dysphagia intervention. Co-treatment occurred with Occupational Therapy, working on self-feeding. Patient was pleasant and cooperative, more interactive today. Patient was able to feed herself when food/cup placed in her hand with assistance. No anterior loss or spillage noted. Mastication was slightly prolonged but functional with good bolus control. No overt sign/symptoms of aspiration or penetration appreciated. Recommend patient remain on Level 7: easy to chew diet with Level 0: thin liquids but up grade to bite size eat. Assistance with feeding as needed, single drinks from straw, medications whole in puree. The After Visit Summary from Unity Point Health dated 6/22/22, documented discharge diet orders: *drink consistency-level 0 *thin and food texture- level 7, Easy to Chew, bite sized meat. The Clinical Physicians Orders dated 6/22/22, documented an order for regular diet, regular texture, thin consistency, soft and bite sized. The Week at a Glance for Week 5 had a menu of: *Bacon Wrapped Pork Loin *Baked Sweet Potato *Pickled Beets *Bread/Margarine *Cookie The Progress Notes dated 7/9/2022 at 1:43 p.m., documented Late Entry: When the emergency medical technician (EMT) asked for a portable suction, I retrieved it and I hooked it up, but the EMTs were the ones who used it. The Progress Notes dated 7/9/2022 at 1:52 p.m., documented, Daughter called out to nurse that resident needs help, that she does not look good. Nurse immediately went into resident's room. Noted resident unresponsive, pale with food in front of her. Question if resident choked on food. Did the Heimlich, no food noted in resident's mouth. Instructed the other nurse for us to put resident on the floor to start CPR. CPR was started but, still no pulse. I and other nurse took turn doing chest compressions until paramedics arrived and took over. The Progress Notes dated 7/9/2022 at 4:18 p.m., documented, Incident Note Note: I was in the room giving the res her scheduled Norco at 12:32 p.m., and resident was eating and talking at that time. Then I went down to C hall to give insulin's. I gave my last insulin about 12:50 p.m., and was putting the insulin back in the cart when I heard the res's daughter say she needed a nurse in her room, that she did not look good. I rushed to her room, upon entering the other nurse was doing the Heimlich maneuver. She said let's get to res on the floor and me and the med aid lifted the res to the floor and started doing CPR. We told the med aid to call 911. When we switched doing chest compressions this nurse went out to call 911. I gave the 911 operator all the necessary information and I headed back to relieve the other nurse. We switched doing chest compressions until the EMT arrived to relieve us. I gave the EMT the info of what happened and stayed close the answer questions. At about 1:15 p.m.,the EMT asked for portable suction; I retrieved the suction for them. About 1:30 p.m., the EMT said they had a rhythm on the resident and were going to transfer to the hospital. The Progress Notes dated 7/9/2022 at 4:31 p.m., documented: On call physician notified of residents transfer to Methodist hospital. Phone call to daughter to follow up on the events that occurred this afternoon. Resident in critical care unit on life support at this time. The Progress Notes dated 7/9/2022 at 4:39 p.m.,documented late Entry: Res's family had asked the nursing staff to stop CPR, but because the resident was a full code we could not stop CPR until the EMTs were here. This was explained to the family. The Progress Notes dated 7/10/2022 at 10:56 a.m., documented Late Entry: This nurse spoke with the daughter, and her husband. They came to pick up all of the resident's belonging because they said they had decided to disconnect the life support and the resident had passed away that morning. This nurse offered a hug and condolences. The Des Moines Fire Department patient record dated 7/9/22 documented at 1:11 p.m., responded to cardiac arrest patient at [NAME] Park nursing home. EMS given incorrect location from dispatch that was across the street from where patient resided. Police Officer arrived first at incorrect location. Delay resulted from incorrect location and the time it took to find the correct location through dispatch. Upon arrival at correct location, Lead and fire medic: brought [NAME] device, ambu bag, red bag, and monitor to patient room, Additional support brought stretcher and additional equipment when they arrived. Staff led EMS through nursing home to patient room on second floor. Patient was found unresponsive on floor of nursing home room with ineffective manual CPR being performed by NH staff. Patient had several family members in the room along with a roommate. It was unknown if arrest was witnessed. Patient's daughter stated that the patient had been in that state for at least 15 minutes. Patient's roommate stated that she was the last person to talk to the patient and that that was 30 min. prior td EMS arrival. The patient's daughter stated that she had POA and did not wish for her mother to be coded. When asked for documentation nursing home staff stated that patient did not have an advance directive and that the patient wished to be a full code to which daughter agreed. EMS had already placed patient on monitor with initial rhythm of Asystote. CPR was initiated, When advanced airway efforts were initiated, considerable amounts of food were found in the patient's airway. Intubation efforts were delayed to suction out the food and then the patient was intubated. No blood, bile or vomit were found in airway, Patient's rhythm during subsequent pulse checks. After administration of Epinephrine, return of spontaneous circulation was achieved with a strong pulse and normal sinus rhythm. CPR discontinued and RESQPOD ( a threshold device that attaches to the airway during CPR to enhance negative pressure and increase perfusion) was removed. Patient was moved onto a backboard and secured fully without issue. Patient lifted and placed on EMS stretcher without issue. Patient brought through nursing home to ambulance by stretcher. Phone report made to the hospital and transport initiated. Patient went back into cardiac arrest approximately 2 minutes prior to hospital arrival. At hospital, patient transferred to resuscitation room bed by backboard without issue. Patient care transferred to resuscitation team. The History and Physical from Unity Point Health dated 7/9/22 at 2:01 p.m., documented that patient presents with unresponsive episode-found unresponsive at [NAME] Park, brought in by Des Moines. Found food in mouth. Narrative note-Patient is a [AGE] year old female presenting to the Emergency Department by ambulance for unresponsive. Per EMS, the patient was found unresponsive at [NAME] Park. Upon arrival the patient did not have a pulse, she was then in asystole on the monitor. CPR was given as well as epinephrine and she was also intubated. Pulse returned about 20 minutes after CPR. EMS states that when they intubated the patient there was food in her throat so they suctioned and then there was successful placement of the tube. A Physician Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 8:35 p.m., documented, Patient is a [AGE] year old woman who is admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) today after cardiac arrest. Her family was visiting her today at the facility and upon walking into her room, notes that she was slumped over, blue, and agonallly breathing. She did look like she had been eating with food around her and in her lap. Her roommate said she had been speaking to her about 10 minutes prior. They checker her pulse and it was absent. They yelled for help and staff started CPR. EMS was called and arrived in about 20 minutes. They then took over CPR and it was another several minutes before ROSC was achieved. EMS intubated her and discovered some food in her mouth/airway upon doing this. She was previously admitted to the hospital about a month in June after a fall resulting in a hip fracture. During that stay, she did have an aspiration event with resulted in right lower lung collapse. Assessment/Plan- Acute hypoxic respiratory failure, now status post cardiac arrest-likely due to aspiration event. Shock, likely cardiogenic. Discussed with family about a prolonged cardiopulmonary resuscitation effort, her comorbidities, and age, her chances of a meaningful neurogenic recovery are extremely low. She is requiring significant support at this time. They have opted to not pursue any further aggressive measures. We will compassionately extubate and focus on comfort measures after additional family has had time to arrive. A physician note dated 7/9/22 at 9:39 p.m., documented, called to see patient for unresponsiveness. On exam the patient did not respond to verbal or physical stimuli. No heart of lung sounds were heard and the patient had no response to painful stimuli. Pupils were fixed and dilated. Patient pronounced dated at 5:54 p.m. Next of kin/family at bedside. Autopsy offered and declined. Direct cause of death was cardiopulmonary arrest which occurred as a result of likely aspiration event. A State of Iowa Certificate of Death dated 7/18/22, with a death date of 7/9/22 at 7:54 p.m., documented immediate cause of death-asphyxia due to choking on food bolus. During an interview on 12/7/22 at 1:15 p.m., the dietary manager commented that the prior chef was warned for putting resident diets into the [NAME] brothers system due to the chef not having the qualifications as needed. The dietary manager stated that the chef admitted to putting diet orders into the computer system. The dietary manager heard about the incident with Resident #1 on 7/11/22, the dietary manager was able to see that the chef put regular-regular diet into the [NAME] Brothers computer system and failed to add the moist, bite size. The dietary manager was not able to produce the diet ticket for Resident #1, said that normally after the resident get there food at meal times the tickets are thrown away. During an interview on 12/7/22 at 3:54 p.m., the family stated that they came to see their mom on 7/9/22 around noon and found mom slumped over in the recliner. The family member hollered for a nurse to come to the room. The family member stated that when they went into the room they noticed some meat on their mom shirt, they were not able to remember if the meat was bite size or not, only that it was a white meat. During an interview on 12/8/22 at 11:00 a.m., Staff B (registered nurse), explained that Resident #1 was sitting up in the recliner and had her noon meal on a tray table in front of her, Staff B was not able to remember what was on the room meal tray. During an interview on 12/8/22 at 1:20 p.m., Staff C (certified medication aide), explained that he saw her noon meal on the tray table and saw some white meat but was not able to remember what kind of food was on her room tray. During an interview on 12/12/22 at 1:00 p.m., Staff A (licensed practical nurse) confirmed and verified that Resident #1 was sitting in a recliner with table tray across her lap with noon meal on it. Staff A could not remember what was on the tray. Resident #1 was unresponsive so Staff A attempted to do the Heimlich maneuver, Staff B came into the room and resident was transferred to the floor and CPR was initiated. During an interview on 12/20/22 at 1:06 p.m., Staff G (certified nurse aide), stated that she remembers white meat on Resident #1 room tray. Staff G stated that the meat was not moist and no gravy present. Resident #1 eats independently in her room. During an interview on 12/14/22 at 5:15 p.m., Staff F (speech/language pathologist) explained that a moist, bite size pieces mean usually a 1.5 by 1.5 cm size of meat. Most facilities will go with a mechanical soft or ground meats with a level 7 diet that comes from the hospital. During an interview on 12/19/22 at 4:15 p.m., the dietary manager explained that when Resident #1 came to the facility it was ordered as a level 7 diet with moist bite size pieces for which should of been a mechanical soft/ground meet diet at the facility. The dietary manager acknowledged that the facility and clinical record lacked any documentation of diet communication forms for Resident #1. 3. A Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], documented Resident #3 with diagnosis for include heart failure, renal insufficiency, renal failure, and diabetes mellitus. The MDS documented a BIMS of 13 for which no impaired decision making abilities, needs extensive assistance of two for bed mobility and is independent after set up for eating. Resident with weight loss that is not physician prescribed weight loss regimen. The plan of care with a revision date of 8/15/22, documented Resident #3 has a nutritional problem related to Diabetes, GERD, anemia, chronic renal failure and morbid obesity diagnosis along with increased nutritional needs for healing. Interventions include: *Resident is allergic to citrus foods. Staff will ensure that these foods are not served to her. *Provide, serve regular diet with regular texture and thin liquids as ordered. *She is to avoid high potassium and high sodium foods and fluids are limited to 1500 ml daily. *Encourage appropriate choices at meals and snacks. *Encourage protein intake. *Monitor intake of food/fluid and record every meal. The Unity Point Internal Medicine Discharge summary dated [DATE] at 10:28 a.m., documented diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state, with discharge diet orders of Diabetic Diet. The Medication Review Report signed and dated by the nurse practitioner on 6/7/22, documented a diet order of regular diet, regular texture, thin consistency with a start date of 6/2/22. A Resident Diet Order Communication form dated 6/2/22, documented a new admit, diet order-regular foods, regular texture, thin liquids. A physician consultation form with an encounter date 7/8/22 at 10:30 a.m., documented: I have ordered a low potassium diet at the care center- I understand this is challenging so I asked the patient to avoid high potassium foods. She is having labs completed every other week for close monitoring. Diabetes Mellitus- uncontrolled. A physician telephone orders dated 7/8/22 documented low potassium diet. A Resident Diet Order Communication form with no date, documented Resident #3 to receive a low potassium diet. A Data Base for Nutritional Assessment/Reassessment signed and dated by the dietician on 6/9/22, documented a regular diet with regular texture. The Resident Progress Notes dated and signed by the dietician on 6/9/22, documented Nutritional status triggered. Resident is eating well at most meals and is tolerating a regular diet with regular texture and thin liquids. She is allergic to citrus and staff will ensure that she is not served citrus foods. During an interview on 12/19/22 at 4:15 p.m., the dietary manger confirmed that the chef texted the manager on 7/15/22 with a diet order change. The diet order change was for Resident #3. The new diet order that came into the kitchen was a low potassium on the dietary communication for and the diet was entered into the [NAME] Brothers computer system as a renal diet for which the facility does not offer, so the dietary manager change the diet in the [NAME] brothers computer system to a regular diet, regular texture with thin liquids and low potassium food. The dietary manager confirmed and verified that the chef failed to enter the diet as ordered and failed to follow the standardized diets that the facility has to offer and placed the resident at risk.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, facility policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to report an unusual occurrence to the state agency, Iowa Department of Inspection and Appeals (DIA) i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, facility policy review and staff interviews, the facility failed to report an unusual occurrence to the state agency, Iowa Department of Inspection and Appeals (DIA) in a timely manner. Resident #1 had an incident for which placed the resident in the hospital and later died. The facility reported a census of 108 residents. Findings included: An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool, dated 6/28/22, documented Resident #1 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12, for which indicated moderately impaired with decision making abilities. The MDS documented that the resident required extensive staff assistance for bed mobility and dressing, and independent with set up for eating. The MDS indicated that the resident had functional limited range of motion in the lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot). The MDS documented that the resident had the diagnoses including thyroid disorder, hip fractures, non-Alzheimer dementia, hemiplegia or hemiparesis, seizure disorder and bipolar disorder. Record review revealed Progress Notes documented: * (late entry) dated 7/9/22 at 1:43 p.m., documented when the emergency medical technician asked for a portable suction, I retrieved it and I hooked it up, but the emergency medical technician were the ones who used it. *on 7/9/22 at 1:53 p.m., Daughter called out to nurse that resident needs help, that she does not look good. Nurse immediately went into resident's room. Noted resident unresponsive, pale with food in front of her. The resident choked on food. Did the Heimlich , no food noted in resident's mouth. Instructed the other nurse for us to put resident (res) on the floor to start cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). CPR was started but, still no pulse. I and other nurse took turn doing chest compressions until paramedics arrived and took over. *on 7/9/22 4:18 p.m., I was in the room giving the res her scheduled Norco at 12:32 p.m., and res was eating and talking at that time. Then I went down to C hall to give insulin's. I gave my last insulin about 12:50 p.m., and was putting the insulin back in the cart when I heard the res's daughter say she needed a nurse in her room, that she did not look good. I rushed to her room, upon entering the other nurse was doing the Heimlich maneuver. She said let's get to res on the floor and me and the med aid lifted the res to the floor and started doing CPR. We told the med aid to call 911. When we switched doing chest compressions this nurse went out to call 911. I gave the 911 operator all the necessary info and I headed back to relieve the other nurse. We switched doing chest compressions until the emergency medical technician (EMT) arrived to relieve us. I gave the EMT the information of what happened and stayed close the answer questions. At about 1:15 p.m., the EMT asked for portable suction; I retrieved the suction for them. *At about 1:30 p.m., the EMT said they had a rhythm on the resident and were going to transfer to the hospital. *at 4:31 p.m., On call physician notified of residents transfer to Methodist hospital. Phone call to daughter to follow up on the events that occurred this afternoon. Resident in critical care unit on life support at this time. Review of Progress Notes dated 7/10/2022 at 10:56 a.m., revealed (late entry), This nurse spoke with the daughter, and her husband. They came to pick up all of the residents belonging because they said they had decided to disconnect the life support and the resident had passed away that morning. This nurse offered a hug and condolences. The Policy and Procedure for Abuse Policy with revised date 6/20/22, identified the policy: All resident have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the residents medical condition. *Neglect of a dependent adult, means deprivation of the minimum food, shelter, clothing, supervision, physical or mental health care, or other care necessary to maintain a dependent adults life or physical or mental health. *All allegations of resident abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, injuries of unknown origin and misappropriation shall be reported to the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals, no later then two (2) hours after the allegation is made, or no later than twenty-four (24) hours if the events that cause the allegation involve neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, injuries of unknown origin and misappropriation but do not resulted in serious bodily injury. *Serious bodily injury is an injury involving extreme physical pain: involving substantial risk of death; involving protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or requiring surgery, hospitalization, or physical rehabilitation. During an interview on 12/20/22 at 11:15 a.m., the facility director of nursing stated that looking back at the incident and reviewing the investigation, the facility failed to notify DIA of the episode.
Aug 2022 15 deficiencies
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** Based on documents review, observations, and interviews, the facility did not ensure to honor preferences regarding schedules of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on documents review, observations, and interviews, the facility did not ensure to honor preferences regarding schedules of medication administration, meals, and changing of leg wraps for 1 of 4 residents (Resident # 2) in the sample reviewed for dignity. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings include: The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented that Resident#2 had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hypertension, and thyroid disorder. The resident scored a 11 out of 15 for the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated the moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated application of non-surgical dressings to feet, and ointments/medications. The MDS also documented that Resident # 2 required limited assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and required set up assistance for eating. The Order Summary Report with Active Orders as of 8/4/22 included the following; Levothyroxine Sodium tablet 137.5 micrograms by mouth in the morning for hypothyroidism; elevate Bilateral Lower Extremities (BLE) feet as tolerated by the resident during the day, everyday and evening shift, compression wrap to left arm ON IN AM, OFF AT Hour of Sleep (HS) everyday and evening shift, and compression Velcro device to BLE wear compression device, to only be removed for an hour to complete leg hygiene, then reapply every day. The Care plan for the resident indicated Activities of Daily Living (ADL) self-care performance deficit related to (r/t) the need of supervision and minimal assist as needed (prn) for safety. The care plan directed staff to provide assistance with setting up and cutting up food; assist with dressing, and personal and oral hygiene. The care plan also indicated the application of edema wraps to BLE. On 8/1/22 at 3:04 PM, Resident#2 reported about staff being late in giving her medications. Resident#2 she had 2 pills that should be taken on a empty stomach, a thyroid pill and another one but I don't get them until after breakfast. Resident#2 she kept telling them. Resident#2 also reported that the facility had been late in serving meals, and that today she did not get her lunch until after 1:20 PM, and breakfast had been close to 9:00 AM. On 8/3/22 at 7:54 AM, Resident#2's room door had been wide open, which revealed the resident sitting quietly in her wheelchair while she held a word puzzle book on top of the bedside table, the television had also been on. At 8:08 AM, Resident#2 could be heard from the hallway sobbing. Resident#2 invited the surveyor into her room while she continued to cry and reported to watch television to stay awake, and she did not get breakfast yet. Resident # 2 then reported that on Monday morning she did not get breakfast until 9:30 AM, I was told they were so slow in the kitchen. Resident#2 also reported that she got herself up from bed this morning and that nobody helped her. Resident#2 further pointed to her unmade bed, and reported that nobody entered to make her bed yet. Resident#2 stated that she had wraps that wear put every 24 hours, and they are supposed to be changed everyday. Resident#2 reported that staff members had not been consistent in changing the wraps on her lower extremities. Resident#2 said, that last Monday it had been 3:00 PM, and nobody had come to change the wraps. The resident told the lady that came in and she said the other girl went home at 2:00 PM, and nobody was going to do it. The resident reported she wore the wraps from 7/31/22 until 8/2/22 before they got changed, and they are to be changed everyday. On 8/3/22 at 8:47 AM, the Activities Director (AD) entered and served Resident#2's breakfast food. Resident#2 asked the AD for medications that she was supposed to get before eating. The AD told the Resident#2 that she (AD) was going to get somebody to give Resident#2 those medications. On 8/3/22 at 8:53 AM, once the AD left the room, Resident#2 started to cry again, as observed and heard from the hallway. Resident#2 did not touch her breakfast food. On 8/3/22 at 8:54 AM, Staff L, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) entered Resident#2's room and Resident#2 requested her medicines before she ate her food, and indicated she wanted those medications on an empty stomach. Resident#2 also told Staff L that on Monday she did not eat until past 9:00 AM, and did not get her medications before meal. Staff L report she would make sure to schedule her (Resident#2 s') medications earlier so it could be given before breakfast. On 8/3/22 at 8:57 AM, Staff N Certified Medication Aide (CMA) entered Resident#2's room and told Resident#2 that he was the one to prepare and give her medications. At 9:04 AM, Resident#2's crying had been audible in the hallway, Resident#2 ate her breakfast food and drank her orange juice, without waiting for her medications. At 9:06 AM, Staff N re-entered the room and offered Resident#2's morning medications. At 9:09 AM, Staff N reported that there were no directions for staff to give Resident#2's pills on empty stomach. Staff N reported that that he thought that is only what she prefers. On 8/4/22 at 9:29 AM, Staff O Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) that Resident#2 is very particular and wants things done in certain ways and times --and when we say somebody will go in and do the wraps, she gets anxious when it takes longer. Staff O verified that the leg wraps should be done daily, and reported that she did the wrap on Tuesday and the resident told her that it was not changed on Monday. Staff O, reported she did not know who worked that day. On 8/4/22 at 9:52 AM, Staff L, ADON acknowledged the importance of following best practice guidelines in administration of medication and treaments, and also the importance of honoring residents' choices and that providing consistency in schedules could relieve Resident #2's anxiety. The facility's schedule for meal times show: Breakfast hours: 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM; Lunch hours: 11:45 AM to 12:30 PM; and Supper Hours: 5:30 AM to 6:15 AM. The manufacturer's information for Levothyroxine or Synthroid (https://www.synthroid.com) provides, Take SYNTHROID as a single dose, preferably on an empty stomach, one-half to one hour before breakfast. The facility's policy titled, Resident Rights with revised date 1/21/22 noted that the facility will ensure all direct care and indirect care staff members are educated on the rights of residents and the responsibility of the facility to properly care for its residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on Observation, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to have a process for unidentified personal property that is found in the facility. The facility reported a census of 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on Observation, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to have a process for unidentified personal property that is found in the facility. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings: Observation of Aspen Hall medication cart on 8/3/22 at 10:26 a.m. revealed two unsecured and unidentified gold rings, one gold ring had a diamond solitaire. During an interview on 8/3/22 at 10:30 a.m. with Staff D, Certified Medication Aide (CMA) revealed she did not know whose rings were in the narcotic drawer. Staff D verified there was not a name on the two gold rings found and did not know how long they had been in the drawer. During an interview on 8/3/22 at 11:08 a.m. with Director of Nursing (DON) revealed the facility does not have a process for found items but the facility will be getting a safe for such items. DON stated she was not aware of any residents lost rings. During an interview on 8/4/22 at 8:20 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) revealed she was not aware who owned the gold rings found belong to or how long they have been in the narcotic drawer. ADON stated the gold rings were placed in a safe in the business office. During an interview on 8/8/22 at 9:03 a.m. with the DON revealed she wrote a new policy for found items and will begin to educate staff on the process. Facility policy titled, Abuse Policy, with a revision date of 6/2022 revealed: All residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, exploitation, corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, and any physical or chemical restraint not required. Misappropriation of Resident property is defined as the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful temporary or permanent use of a Resident's belongings or money without the Resident's consent. Facility policy titled, Lost and Found Items, dated 8/6/22 revealed, found item form will be completed by the person finding the item and the form will include: 1. Description of item found 2. Person who found item 3. Date and time item was found 4. Nursing unit or area of facility where item was found 5. Detailed description of where item was found The found item will be placed in plastic bag with form and given to charge nurse. The charge nurse will give to a member of the clinical management team The clinical administrative assistant or designee will review pictures of resident's valuables to determine if item is documented. If item is in pictures, it will be confirmed and returned to resident. If unable to determine the owner, the found item will be given to the business office manager to secure in lock box.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Requirements (Tag F0622)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and family interviews the facility failed to demonstrate the rationale for an emergenc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and family interviews the facility failed to demonstrate the rationale for an emergency discharge, attempted interventions and a secure discharge plan for 1 of 1 residents (#310) sampled. The facility reported a census of 110. Findings included : The Discharge assessment-return not anticipated Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident#310 had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS documented diagnoses that included: [NAME] Body dementia, psychotic disorder, and chronic kidney failure. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 4:43 PM (as a late entry) documented as follows; Notified Dr. [NAME] of resident's behavior, and an order had been obtained to send the resident to the emergency room for evaluation. Two Certified Nurses Aides (CNA) reported to the nurse that the resident had been out of control, he hit a CNA a couple of times, and tried to choke another CNA. The resident became aggressive at times kicking at staff with his legs, and hitting staff when the staff attempted to redirect the resident. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 4:50 PM documented that the residents' wife had been called with an update on the resident, and that the resident would go to the emergency room for evaluation. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 4:55 PM documented the resident left the facility after 911 call as other transportation services had not been available. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 6:02 PM (as a late entry) documented that the nurse called Lutheran emergency room (ER), and told the nurse who took care of the resident in the ER that the facility could not accept the resident back due to not being able to keep the resident and other residents safe on the unit. The ER staff nurse requested to have a voluntary discharge paperwork delivered to the ER in person. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 8:30 PM documented as follows; that the facility social worker went to the hospital and gave a copy of the involuntary discharge paperwork to the wife of the resident, and another copy to the hospital. The facility social worker informed the wife that she had up to seven days to appeal the decision, and provider the wife with the appeal information. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 8:17 PM documented as follows; the involuntary discharge paperwork had been sent via certified mail to Dr. [NAME], Medical Director, the State Longterm Care Ombudsman, and the Department of Inspections and Appeals. A Nurses Note dated [DATE] at 11:30 AM documented as follows; the residents spouse and daughter had a meeting with the facility quality assurance director, social services, activities director, assistance administrator, and the director of nursing at which time they expressed their concerns as to the reasons why the involuntary discharge had been put into action, and if they would even be able to find another facility for the residents placement. A Progress Note dated [DATE] 4:37 PM documented as follows; the residents daughter requested assistance on how to get a psychiatric evaluation for the resident to help with the placement process, the facility staff reviewed how they obtain evaluation, and then directed the daughter to ask for help from the hospital. A Plan of Care Note dated [DATE] at 2:49 PM documented as follows; A hearing had been scheduled for an appeal on [DATE] related to the residents involuntary discharge. The facility social worker consulted with the state ombudsman, whom recommended that the facility hold the residents room at no charge until a decision had been reached with the appeal process. Upon review of the residents clinical record the documentation lacked evidence that the resident had been physically aggressive towards other residents prior to the involuntary discharge. A letter dated to Resident#310 dated [DATE] titled Emergency Involuntary Discharge revealed Resident 310 was discharged to Iowa Lutheran Hospital. A court document case number 22DIAID0005 dated [DATE] documented the emergency discharge was reversed. The court document included that the facility did not provide assistance in helping the resident find appropriate placement. The document also indicated that while at the hospital the resident had been sleeping better, and his wandering had decreased, and that the resident needed a secured memory unit. An interview on [DATE] at 12:30 PM Resident's wife and Power of Attorney(POA) revealed the facility discharged the resident to an emergency room on [DATE]. She reported Resident 310 did not return to the facility after the reversal and died [DATE] at home. An interview on [DATE] at 12:30 PM the Director of Nursing(DON) acknowledged the involuntary discharge and ruling of the discharge being reversed. The DON indicated the emergency discharge is a process in progress.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review and staff interview that facility failed to provide resident or family with bed hold notif...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, policy review and staff interview that facility failed to provide resident or family with bed hold notification on 1 of 3 residents (Resident 80) sample. The facility reported a census of 110. Findings included: A Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident#80 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15, which indicated no identified cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses that included heart failure, neurogenic bladder and stroke. A Progress Note dated 6/7/22 at 9:40 PM documented the resident transferred to Methodist Hospital emergency room. Clinical Record lacked documentation of the bed hold policy being offered to the resident or the residents responsible person. The Clinical Census for the resident documented a hospital unpaid lead date of 6/7/22. The Clinical MDS form documented an accepted Discharge Return Anticipated MDS completed on 6/7/22. On 8/9/22 at 9:30 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the resident had been hospitalized on [DATE] and the Bed Hold notification had not been provided. Facility document titled Bed Hold Policy dated 5/14/20 revealed A. The bedhold policy and reserve bed payment policy notification would be documented in the medical record. B. Multiple attempts would be made and documented.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement: intervention...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record reviews, observations, resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to develop and implement: interventions for the management of resident's edema; activity plans considering resident's capabilities and choices; action plans to ensure continuity of restorative nursing activities for 2 of 27 residents (Resident # 2 and Resident # 1) in the sample reviewed for care plans. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings include: 1. The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented that Resident#2 had diagnoses including atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hypertension, and thyroid disorder. The resident scored a 11 out of 15 for the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) which indicated the moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated application of non-surgical dressings to feet, and ointments/medications. The MDS also documented that Resident # 2 required limited assistance of one person for bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene, and required set up assistance for eating. The Order Summary Report with Active Orders as of 8/4/22 included the following; elevate Bilateral Lower Extremities (BLE) feet as tolerated by the resident during the day, everyday and evening shift, compression wrap to left arm ON IN AM, OFF AT Hour of Sleep (HS) everyday and evening shift, and compression Velcro device to BLE wear compression device, to only be removed for an hour to complete leg hygiene, then reapply every day . Resident#2's care plan identified Resident#2's risk for fluid volume deficit related to the use of diuretics. However, the care plan directed staff to apply edema wraps to BLE, on in the morning and off at night, contrary to order (noted above) to keep edema wraps to BLE 23/24 hour daily. On 8/3/22 at 8:08 AM, Resident#2 reported that she wore leg wraps for 24 hours and they are supposed to be changed everyday, however staff members had not been consistent in changing the wraps on her lower extremities. Resident#2 reported that last Monday it had been 3:00 PM, and nobody had changed her wraps. The resident reported it to a staff member, and she said the other girl went home at 2:00 PM, and nobody would do it. The resident reported that she wore the wraps Sunday and they did not get changed until the following Tuesday, and are supposed to be changed everyday. On 8/4/22 at 9:29 AM, Staff O Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) reported that Resident#2's leg wraps should be changed everyday, and also stated she did the wraps on Tuesday [8/2/22] and Resident#2 told her that they was not changed on Monday [8/1/22]. Staff O, reported that she did not I don't know who was working that day. Staff O also stated that the treatments were actually scheduled in the evening shift, but when she or Staff P work in the morning shift, they would just do it. Staff O stated understanding how that could be confusing and could be missed by some staff at times. On 8/4/22 at 9:46 AM, Staff P LPN performed the treatments on Resident#2's BLE which included changing the edema wraps. However, when records were reviewed with the surveyor at 9:55 AM, Staff P acknowledged that he did not sign in the Medication Administration Record/Treatment Administration Record, because it was scheduled in the evening. On 8/4/22 at 9:52 AM Staff L Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) acknowledged the importance of consistency of orders, care plan, and staff practices in order to ensure continuity of treatments and cares. 2. Resident#1's Re-entry Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated a moderately impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12. The MDS listed Resident#1's active diagnoses which included severely impaired vision, stroke, heart failure, hip fracture, hemiplegia (paralysis on side of body), seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, asthma, cerebral infarction due to thrombus of right post cerebral artery, RLS (restless leg syndrome), legal blindness, and sensorineural hearing loss. The MDS also indicated that Resident#1 was on a antidepressant. The MDS further showed Resident#1 required extensive assistance and one-person physical assistance with most Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). The Physician's Order dated 6/23/22, directed staff to initiate piano time 30-60 minutes daily. On 8/2/22 at 9:35 AM, Resident#1 reported having not much interest in the activities that the facility offers. Resident#1 reported he was a music man and really enjoys that activity and reading books through his device and the computer. Resident#1 said that the Internet connection at the facility has been very weak and he felt stuck with what were programmed on his phone and on the TV, where he also did not have any control with what station to put on because of being blind and had no control of the TV remote control. On 8/4/22 at 10:30 AM, Resident#1 laid in bed and listened to a program on his phone. Resident # 1 reported that nobody had started any piano activity with him yet and had not been aware that there had been an order for it. The Care Plan described Resident#1 as follows; little or no activity involvement related to (r/t) physical limitations, resident wishes not to participate. The care plan goals included a goal for Resident#1 to participate in activities of choice throughout the week when feeling up to it. The Care Plan directed staff to establish and record Resident#1's prior level of activity involvement and interests by talking with the resident, caregivers, and family on admission and as necessary. However, the Care Plan lacked action plans or activities that are individualized and meaningful for Resident#1 to include piano time as ordered, or any kind of music activities, book reading, and computer time. The Care Conference Notes dated 8/10/22 documented that the resident did not always go out and play the piano anymore due to it causing him pain in his hands, and he could not physically do it anymore. The Care Conference Notes failed to document any new alternate interventions to be updated on the residents care plan to meet the residents interest in music. The Care Conference Notes did document the new order for a topical pain medication to assist with the complaint of wrist pain. On 8/4/22 at 11:35 AM, the Activities Director (AD) acknowledged the lack of documentation to show thorough assessment of Resident#1's activity preferences, activity action plans to address these preferences, and monitoring of participation and progress related to these activities. At 12:18 PM, the AD also verified that Resident#1's activities log did not have the piano activities with the frequency as ordered, and did not include Internet connection for him to read his books. The AD acknowledged the importance of providing activities that matter or that is meaningful to residents, and identifying these in the care plan. The facility's Activity policy, revised on 2/16/22, indicated facility's policy to provide an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities based on their comprehensive assessment, care plan, and preferences. Facility-sponsored group, individual, and independent activities will be designed to meet the interests of each resident, as well as support their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Activities will encourage both independence and interaction within the community. 3. Resident#1's Re-entry MDS dated [DATE], indicated a moderately impaired cognition with a BIMS score of 12. The MDS listed Resident # 1's active diagnoses including severely impaired vision, stroke, heart failure, hip fracture, hemiplegia (paralysis on side of body), seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, cerebral infarction due to thrombus of right post cerebral artery, RLS (restless leg syndrome), legal blindness, and sensorineural hearing loss. The MDS showed Resident # 1 required extensive assistance and one-person physical assistance with most activities of daily living (ADLs), such as bed mobility, transfer, ambulation, personal hygiene, and toilet use. The MDS also indicated that physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy ended on 6/17/22. The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed that Resident#1 did not participate in any restorative nursing program activity, as indicated by 00 for all restorative nursing program activities. On 8/2/22 at 9:35 AM, Resident#1 reported having a stroke and was pretty much done with therapy services at the facility. Resident # 1's Care Plan identified ADL self-care performance deficit r/t stroke. The care plan directed extensive staff assistance by 1 person for dressing, personal hygiene, and toilet use, stand-by assist of 1 person for transfers with a cane, however, there lacked directions for Resident # 1's assistance need for ambulation. The care plan also identified Resident#1 as high risk for falls r/t gait/balance problems, and being blind. The care plan interventions include encouraging assistance with transfer and ambulation, and being proactive to offer assistance with toileting round the clock. The care plan lacked action plans for implementation of the PT and OT discharge recommendations for restorative programs. On 8/4/22 at 4:07 PM the DON verified that Resident#1's care plan lacked clear and specific directions on how staff will ensure maintenance or continuity of progress of Resident#1's physical positioning and mobility. The DON acknowledged the importance of including these in residents' plan of care for staff implementation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to revise a Care Plan when oxygen the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, staff interview and policy review the facility failed to revise a Care Plan when oxygen therapy was initiated for 1 of 1 residents sampled. The facility reported a census of 110. Findings included; Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident# 57 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 8 of 15. A BIMS of 8 indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses that included: heart failure, hypertension and Alzheimers disease. Observations revelaed the following; A.On 08/01/22 at 02:10 PM, Resident# 57 sat a in recliner and wore oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula with no date. B.On 08/02/22 at 10:30 AM, Residen#t 57 sat in the recliner and wore oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula. C.On 08/03/22 08:59 AM, Resident# 57 sat in a recliner and wore oxygen at 2 liters via nasal cannula with no date. Clinical Physician Orders with revision date 7/17/21 documented keep oxygen saturation greater than 90%. Order lacked oxygen setting. Care Plan initiated 9/24/2020 lacked documention of oxygen use and staff directives. An interview on 8/9/22 at 12:30 PM Staff G Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) stated he would expect to see oxygen on a careplan. An interview on 8/9/22 at 12:40 PM Staff H, CNA stated she expected to see oxygen on a careplan. An interview on 8/9/22 at 12:50 PM Staff I Registered Nurse (RN) stated she expected to see oxygen on a careplan. She expected careplans to be updated and completed at the end of each shift. An interview on 8/9/22 at 12:30 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she expected treatments including oxygen placed on a careplans. She expected careplans to be updated as soon as possible, safety concerns would be a top priority and updated within twenty four hours. Policy titled Care Plan Revisions Upon Status Change dated 5/14/20 failed to document an expected timeframe for careplans to be updated with status change, new treatments and medications.
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 observations, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility policy review, staff failed to meet p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, resident and staff interviews, clinical record review, and facility policy review, staff failed to meet professional standards with medication administration by applying a medication with an expired physician order for 1 of 1 resident reviewed (#94). The facility reported a census of 110 at the time of the survey. Findings: 1. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #94 had a Brief Mental Score (BIMS) of 10 out of 15, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Resident #94 received scheduled non-opioid medication for pain during the lookback period. Observation of Resident #94 on [DATE] at 8:24 a.m. revealed resident rubbing her low back. During an interview with Resident #94 on [DATE] at 11:00 a.m. revealed she wore a patch on her low back for pain and stated when she walks too far, her pain will increase. Resident #94 stated staff often request she sit across the dining room and it is too far. Observation of Resident #94 on [DATE] at 11:35 a.m. revealed staff request resident to walk to a dining table across the room. Resident #94 stood still and rubbed her back and slowly walked to table. Observation of Resident #94 on [DATE] at 10:15 a.m. revealed her sitting in a recliner in her room. Resident #94 denied back pain, then stood to demonstrate the patch on her low back, dated [DATE]. During an interview with Resident #94 on [DATE] at 4:03 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) revealed all medication changes are double checked by the on-coming nurse then the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) will check again every day. Observation of Resident #94 on [DATE] at 8:10 a.m. revealed her at the dining table eating breakfast. Resident #94 inquired how long she would need to wear the patch on her back then demonstrated the patch in place and dated [DATE]. During an observation of Resident #94 and ADON on [DATE] at 8:20 a.m. revealed the ADON direct the resident to her room and removed patch from her low back that was dated [DATE] with Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) initials. ADON stated the patch was a Lidocaine patch and that the order had been discontinued. Record review of Order Summary, dated [DATE], revealed: Lidocaine Patch 4%, apply to affected area topically in the morning for 14 days. Start date [DATE] and End date [DATE]. Review of facility policy titled Medication Error, with a revised date of [DATE], revealed: the facility shall ensure medications will be administered as follows: 1. According to the physician's order a. Incorrect dose, route of administration, dosage form, time of administration b. Medication omission c. Incorrect medication 2. Per manufacturer's specifications 3. In accordance with accepted standards and principles which apply to professionals providing services. 4. To prevent medication errors and ensure safe medication administration, nurses should verify the following information: a. Right medication, dose, route, and time of administration. b. Right resident and right documentation
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records review, observations, and interviews, the facility did not ensure activities that are individualized and meanin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on records review, observations, and interviews, the facility did not ensure activities that are individualized and meaningful for 1 of 3 residents (Resident#1) in the sample reviewed for activities. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings include: Resident#1's Re-entry Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated a moderately impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12. The MDS listed Resident#1's active diagnoses which included severely impaired vision, stroke, heart failure, hip fracture, hemiplegia (paralysis on side of body), seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, asthma, cerebral infarction due to thrombus of right post cerebral artery, RLS (restless leg syndrome), legal blindness, and sensorineural hearing loss. The MDS also indicated that Resident#1 was on a antidepressant. The MDS further showed Resident#1 required extensive assistance and one-person physical assistance with most Activities of Daily Living (ADL's). The order dated 6/23/22, directed staff to initiate piano time 30-60 minutes daily. The Care Plan described Resident#1 as follows; little or no activity involvement related to (r/t) physical limitations, resident wishes not to participate. The care plan goals included a goal for Resident#1 to participate in activities of choice throughout the week when feeling up to it. The Care Plan directed staff to establish and record Resident#1's prior level of activity involvement and interests by talking with the resident, caregivers, and family on admission and as necessary. However, the Care Plan lacked action plans or activities that are individualized and meaningful for Resident#1 to include piano time as ordered, or any kind of music activities, book reading, and computer time. The Care Conference Notes dated 8/10/22 documented that the resident did not always go out and play the piano anymore due to it causing him pain in his hands, and he could not physically do it anymore. The Care Conference Notes failed to document any new alternate interventions to be updated on the residents care plan to meet the residents interest in music. The Care Conference Notes did document the new order for a topical pain medication to assist with the complaint of wrist pain. Observations and interviews related to Resident # 1's activities include the following: On 8/1/22 at 1:02 PM, Resident#1 was in reclined chair with eyes closed and television (TV) was on. On 8/2/22 at 9:35 AM, Resident#1 said, There's not much that I am really interested in that the facility offered. Resident # 1 said that Internet had been weak for the 2 and a 1/2 months that he lived at the facility. Resident # 1 also said, I feel am stuck, and really not have the freedom to listen to what I want the way most people would . I had to use the TV but being blind, I have no control on the TV remote, if they [staff] are in the room they can set the volume for me, otherwise, I will just wait if somebody answers my call. Resident # 1 further shared that he was a music person, and have a couple of devices which are a little bit of the ordinary that is not that hard to set up, at least of what I think. Resident # 1 said he wanted to read books but must depend on Internet, and that he was more familiar with the computer than the cellular phone. On 8/3/22 at 9:21 AM, Resident#1 was in reclined chair with the TV on, and at 2:41 PM, Resident#1 was still sitting in recliner with the TV on. On 8/3/22 at 2:43 PM, Staff Q Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) reported that Resident#1 preferred to be by himself in his room, and uses Alexa that had programs set up that were set on his phone like ball games. When asked how staff ensure meaningful activities for Resident #1, Staff Q replied that she knew Resident#1's preferences and that if she worked she would go in to check on Resident#1 and stated, because I know, I do not know what the others do. On 8/3/22 at 2:50 PM, Staff R Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) said she had worked at the facility for more than a week now but had not seen Resident#1 come out from his room. On 8/4/22 at 10:30 AM, Resident#1 was in bed listening to program on his phone. Resident # 1 said that nobody has started any piano activity with him yet and was not aware that there was an order for it. On 8/4/22 at 11:35 AM, the Activities Director (AD) reported that the only documentation that activity staff members do is contained in a document titled REDWOODS BLVD ACTIVITIES CHARTING which lists the names of residents and where staff members write the activity involvement of a particular resident. The AD provided the facility's activities log from 6/23/22 to 7/31/22, which showed that for 37 days, Resident # 1 was only marked 5 times for piano on the following dates: 6/29, 6/30, 7/8, 7/20, and 7/26. In addition, the documentation or activities lacked pertinent details of the activities such as length of activity, place of activity, facilitator, if any or the one who charted the activity, and other indications to show Resident # 1's participation and engagement with activities. The AD verified that the progress notes also lacked entries to show thorough assessment, activity action plans and participation, and progress monitoring related to Resident#1's activity preferences. On 8/4/22 at 12:18 PM, the AD reported that Resident#1's activities log did not have the piano activities with the frequency as ordered, and did not include Internet connection for him to read his books. The AD acknowledged the importance of providing activities that matter or that is meaningful to residents. The AD said she will follow-up with Resident#1 to see how the facility could accommodate his activities needs. The facility's Activity policy, revised on 2/16/22, indicated facility's policy to provide an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities based on their comprehensive assessment, care plan, and preferences. The policy also indicated that activities will be designed to meet the interests of each resident, as well as support their physical, mental, and psychological well-being. The policy indicated that activities may be conducted in different ways that are person-appropriate or relevant to the specific needs, interests, culture, background of the resident they are developed for. The policy further indicated that the facility will consider accommodations in schedules, supplies, and timing to optimize a resident's ability to participate in activity of choice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on documents review, observations, and interviews, the facility did not ensure consistent treatments and care for 1 of 1 r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on documents review, observations, and interviews, the facility did not ensure consistent treatments and care for 1 of 1 resident (Resident#2) in the sample reviewed for edema management. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings include: The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], documented that Resident#2 scored a 11 out 15 for a Brief Interview for mental status change review, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnoses that included; atrial fibrillation, heart failure, hypertension, and thyroid disorder. The MDS indicated an application of non-surgical dressings to feet, and ointments/medications. The orders for Resident#2, directed staff to do the following: Elevate bilateral lower extremities (BLE) as tolerated by resident during the day, everyday and evening shift; and compression Velcro device wear compression device 23/24 hour every day. The orders also directed staff to ensure the Velcro device placement as noted, If the device slides, down, remove and reapply. Inspect the skin before application every evening shift for Wraps wash the BLE, rinse, dry and apply moisturizing creme to legs. Apply a clean liner to the legs. Ensure no wrinkles. Pull extra liner up temporarily above the knee. Follow instructions for application in the Narcotics book. Resident # 2's care plan identified Resident # 2's risk for fluid volume deficit related to the use of diuretics. However, the care plan directed staff to apply edema wraps to BLE, on in the morning and off at night, contrary to order (noted above) to keep edema wraps to BLE 23/24 hour daily. On 8/3/22 at 8:08 AM, Resident # 2 said, I have wraps that I wear 24 hours and they are supposed to be changed everyday. However, Resident#2 said staff members have not been consistent in changing the wraps on her lower extremities. Resident # 2 said, Last Monday it was already 3 [PM] and nobody was coming to change it, I told the lady who came in and she said the other girl went home at 2 [PM] and nobody was going to do it. I wore them Sunday and they only changed it yesterday [Tuesday], but are supposed to be changed everyday. On 8/4/22 at 9:29 AM, Staff O, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) reported that the resident is very particular and wants things done in certain ways and times --and when we say somebody will go in and do the wraps, she gets anxious when it takes longer. Staff O verified that the wraps should be changed everyday, and also said, I did the wrap on Tuesday and the Resident told me that it had not been changed on Monday, I don't know who was working that day. Staff O stated that the treatments were actually scheduled in the evening shift but when either she or Staff P work in the morning shift, they would just do it. Staff O stated understanding how that could be confusing and could be missed at times. On 8/4/22 at 9:46 AM, Staff P, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) performed the treatments on Resident#2's BLE which included changing of the edema wraps. However, Staff P did not sign completion of the treatment/s in the MAR/TAR (medication administration record/treatment administration record). At 9:55 AM, Staff P verified that the leg wraps were scheduled in the evening shift according to the order and as indicated in the MAR/TAR. Staff P said, I thought something popped out about treatment schedule to be completed in the AM shift, it was actually the one for the left arm and not for the legs. Staff P acknowledged that he did not sign the correct procedure he completed in the MAR/TAR. Resident#2's MAR/TAR for 8/2022 showed that the leg treatments and wraps were signed by the evening staff members even though they did not perform the procedures for the 3 of 3 days reviewed, as follows: - On 8/1/22, Resident#2 reported on different times (to Staff O on 8/2/22 and to surveyor on 8/3/22) that the leg wraps had not been changed on this date; - On 8/2/22, Staff O reported performing the procedure on this date but was not the one who signed in the MAR/TAR; - On 8/4/22, Staff P was observed doing the procedure but did not sign the MAR/TAR. On 8/4/22 at 9:52 AM, Staff L, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) acknowledged the importance of consistency of orders, care plan and practices in order to ensure continuity of treatments and cares for residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on documents review, observations and interviews, the facility did not ensure restorative nursing services for 1 of 3 resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on documents review, observations and interviews, the facility did not ensure restorative nursing services for 1 of 3 residents (Resident#1) in the sample reviewed for positioning and limited range of motion. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings include: Resident#1's Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE], indicated a moderately impaired cognition with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12. The MDS documented that Resident#1's active diagnoses included severely impaired vision, stroke, heart failure, hip fracture, hemiplegia (paralysis on side of body), seizure disorder, anxiety disorder, depression, cerebral infarction due to thrombus of right post cerebral artery, RLS (restless leg syndrome), legal blindness, and sensorineural hearing loss. The MDS showed Resident # 1 required extensive assistance and one-person physical assistance with most ADLs (activities of daily living), such as bed mobility, transfer, ambulation, personal hygiene, and toilet use. The MDS also indicated that physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy ended on 6/17/22. The quarterly MDS dated [DATE] showed that Resident # 1 did not participate in any restorative nursing program activity, as indicated by 00 for all nursing program activities. On 8/2/22 at 9:35 AM, Resident#1 said, I had a stroke before I got here, a left- sided stroke but physical therapy was pretty much done. Resident#1 said, I have the will to do it but the left hand does not cooperate and therapy here is not as regular as when I first had the stroke, and for right now I am just being treated as somebody who is retired. Resident#1 also said, I thought my stroke was on the process of being healed but that's past, my left hand is not going to improve, and I am not going back to be a performing pianist again. The therapy documents include an Occupational Therapy (OT) Discharge Summary dated 6/17/22, with discharge recommendations and status that recommended Restorative Assistance (RA) three times a week and noted prognosis to maintain current level of function (CLOF) as Good with consistent staff follow-through. The therapy documents also include a Physical Therapy (PT) Discharge Summary dated 6/17/22 with discharge recommendations for use of assistive device for safe functional mobility and assistance with instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). The PT discharge recommendations indicated restorative programs from ambulation, transfer, and bed mobility, and noted prognosis to maintain CLOF was good with consistent staff follow-through. Resident#1's Care Plan identified ADL self-care performance deficit related to (r/t) stroke. The Care Plan directed extensive staff assistance by 1 person for dressing, personal hygiene, and toilet use, stand-by assist of 1 person for transfers with a cane, however, there lacked directions for Resident#1's assistance need for ambulation. The Care Plan also identified Resident#1 as high risk for falls r/t gait/balance problems, and being blind. The Care Plan interventions include encouraging assistance with transfer and ambulation, and being proactive to offer assistance with toileting round the clock. On 8/4/22 at 4:07 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the lack of documentation to show Resident#1's participation in restorative programs. The DON acknowledged that the PT and OT recommendations for restorative programs when Resident#1 had been discharged from therapy services on 6/17/22, have not been communicated to staff for implementation. The DON also verified Resident#1 as a high risk for falls, with a history of falling with major injury on the very same day of discharge from therapy services on 5/25/22. The DON reported expectations that communication and collaboration among staff members pertaining to cares and required assistance could prevent falls from re-occurring. In addition, the DON verified Resident#1's Care Plan lacked clear directions or action plans to ensure maintenance, continuity and progress of Resident#1's physical positioning and mobility. The facility's policy titled, Rehabilitation Services revised on 6/6/22, indicated that rehabilitative services are provided as indicated to ensure the needs of the residents are met in accordance with their comprehensive plan of care. The policy also indicated the provision of care deemed necessary to help residents achieve or maintain their highest practicable level of functioning.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to respond to re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, facility record review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to respond to residents' call lights in a timely manner (within 15 minutes) for 3 of 7 residents reviewed (Residents #16, #28, and #76). The facility reported a census of 110 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #16 had diagnoses that included renal insufficiency, traumatic muscle ischemia (lack of blood flow), and chronic pain syndrome. The MDS revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated memory and cognition intact. The resident required extensive assistance of two for bed mobility, and had total dependence on two staff for toileting. The Call Light Report revealed it took longer than 15 minutes to answer Resident #16's call light 12 times between the dates of 7/25/22 to 7/31/22. In an interview 8/1/22 at 1:27 PM, Resident #16 reported it took 1 to 3 hours before staff answered her call light. The resident reported call light response times had been worse during the night. In an interview 8/8/22 at 3:50 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she expected staff responded to call lights as soon as possible or within 15 minutes. The DON reported staff sometimes forgot to turn the call light off. The DON reported she completed call light audits whenever they had a complaint about call light response times. A facility policy with subject category of Call Lights dated 7/26/22 revealed call light system alerted staff members through a walkie talkie. All staff who heard an activated call light over the walkie talkie had responsibility for responding to the call light. The policy did not address call light response times. 2. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] documented Resident #28 had diagnoses that included cancer, septicemia (blood infection), diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and chronic right heel and midfoot ulcers. The MDS indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 15, indicating intact memory and cognition. The MDS documented the resident required extensive assistance of one for bed mobility and dressing. The Call Light Report revealed it took longer than 15 minutes to answer Resident #28's call light 8 times between the dates of 7/25/22 to 7/31/22. In an interview 8/2/22 at 11:51 AM, Resident #28 reported it took up to 45 minutes before staff answered his call light. The resident reported the facility didn't have enough help. 3. The Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #76 had diagnoses that included heart failure, diabetes, and a fracture. The MDS indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated memory and cognition intact. The MDS documented the resident required extensive assistance of one for bed mobility and toileting, and limited assistance of one person for transfers. The Call Light Report revealed it took longer than 15 minutes to answer Resident #76's call light 6 times between the dates of 7/25/22 to 7/31/22. In an interview 8/2/22 at 10:07 AM, Resident #76 reported it took staff 15-60 minutes before staff responded to her call light, it just depended upon what staff were doing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, facility staff failed to store drugs in accordance with currently accepted professional principles leaving in an unlocked drawer fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and facility policy review, facility staff failed to store drugs in accordance with currently accepted professional principles leaving in an unlocked drawer for an hour and a half. The facility reported a census of 110 residents. Findings include: Observation on 8/3/22 at 10:10 a.m. revealed and unlocked drawer on the Cedar Hall med cart with a bottle of Morphine elixir inside along with a syringe. Staff C, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) stated she put the bottle in the drawer as she was in a hurry to help a resident. Staff C stated she made an error and should have taken the time to lock the Morphine. Staff C stated narcotics are counted at the start/end of every shift. During an interview on 8/4/22 at 8:20 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated all narcotics are kept under 2 locks and only the charge nurse has the keys. ADON stated the nurse should immediately lock up the narcotic after removing the dose and never put in an unlocked drawer. During an interview on 8/4/22 on 2:55 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Staff C, LPN should have locked the Morphine in the locked drawer but had to assist another resident who had an emergency. DON was unable to state what an acceptable amount of time to not have the medication locked up would be. Facility document titled, Controlled Drug Receipt/Record/Disposition Form, for the date range of 7/29/22 through 8/4/22, demonstrated order for Morphine Sulfate solution 20 milligram (MG)/milliliter (ML) give 5 MG by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain, shortness of breath (SOB), as needed every 2 hours for Resident #12. Documentation revealed Morphine was administered at 8:42 a.m. to Resident #12. Facility document titled Order Details, dated 8/2/22 revealed physician order for Resident #12 for Morphine Sulfate (Concentrate) Solution 20 MG/ML *Controlled Drug* Give 25 ML sublingually every 4 hours for pain and dyspnea (SOB) and give every 2 hours as needed for pain. Facility policy titled Scheduled II and Other Controlled Substances, with a revised date of 3/8/22 revealed: Controlled substances are stored in the medication cart or medication refrigerator in a locked drawer/container, separate from other non-controlled medications. This drawer/container must remain locked at all times, except when it is accessed to obtain medications for residents.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, documents review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the correct serving size for 4 of 4...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, documents review, and staff interviews, the facility failed to ensure the correct serving size for 4 of 4 residents with pureed texture diet (Resident#32, Resident#25, Resident#110, and Resident#53) during a meal observed. The facility reported a census of 110 residents at the time of the survey. Findings include: The facility's menu document titled, Trinity Center at [NAME] Park SS 2022 for Week 4 Wednesday listed the food items planned for lunch on 8/3/22 to include the following: fried chicken, mashed potatoes, cream gravy, carrots, maraschino cherry cake, and milk. Observations and interviews during preparation of the pureed food on 8/3/22 at 10:34 AM, showed Staff S (Cook) prepared pureed food for 15 residents. Staff S took 16 pieces of chicken for the 15 residents saying that 1 resident had an order for double portions. Staff S added chicken broth to the chicken meat that resulted to 3.5 quarts or 112 ounces. Staff S divided 112/16 servings and reported 7 ounces per serving. Staff S took scoop # 8 (gray scoop), which is for 4 ounces and # 12 scoop (green scoop), which is for 3.2 ounces. Staff S put 4 servings in one container, labeled with chicken #8 and # 12 and then said that was for the upstairs residents. On 8/3/22 at 11:55 AM, Staff T (Cook) was at the 2nd floor kitchenette and serving lunch. Staff T opened the foil cover of the pureed chicken meat and only used the # 8 (gray scoop) serving 4 ounces each to Resident # 25, Resident # 53, Resident # 110, and Resident # 32. On 8/3/22 at 1:03 PM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) verified that using the # 8 scoop only gave the 4 residents on pureed diet 4 ounces of chicken meat (protein) instead of 7 ounces, which was the correct serving size, as prepared. The CDM acknowledged the importance of ensuring residents receive the correct serving sizes.
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** 4. Observation on 8/4/22 at 7:49 a.m. of Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) revealed medication administration to Residents #10 and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Observation on 8/4/22 at 7:49 a.m. of Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) revealed medication administration to Residents #10 and #30. Staff B failed to perform hand hygiene between before, during, or between residents. During an interview on 8/4/22 at 8:20 a.m. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated her expectation is for staff to perform hand hygiene between residents or glove use when performing medication administration. Review of facility policy titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised date of 5/6/22, revealed: A. All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors. B. Use an alcohol-based hand rub if not available use soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: before and after direct contact with residents; and before preparing or handling medications. Based on clinical record review, observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to apply a wound debridement agent appropriately for 1 of 2 residents observed for wound treatment (Resident # 16), failed to ensure staff changed gloves when contaminated, failed to sanitize scissors appropriately and in a safe manner, and failed to followed infection control practices for 1 of 2 residents observed for wound dressing change (Resident # 28). The facility also failed to ensure staff removed personal protective equipment prior to exit from a COVID-19 designated unit and follow infection control practices to protect against cross contamination and potential spread of infection for 1 of 3 units observed. The facility identified a census of 110 residents. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #16 revealed the resident had a diagnoses of traumatic ischemia (decreased blood flow) of the muscle and a Stage 3 pressure ulcer. The Care Plan revealed the resident had a Stage 3 pressure ulcer on her left greater trochanter (hip) related to traumatic ischemia of the muscle due to a fall. The care plan listed a goal that the pressure ulcer would show signs of healing and remain free from infection. Staff directives included to administer treatments as ordered and monitor for effectiveness. The Order Summary Report revealed an order to apply a nickel thick layer of Santyl (an ointment used to remove dead tissue from wounds so they can start to heal) to slough area (dead tissue separating from living tissue) on the left greater trochanter, apply dry 2x2 gauze to cover the wound cavity, and apply a silicone super absorbent dressing daily and PRN (as needed) with start date of 7/22/22. The Treatment Administration Record (TAR) had an order with start date of 7/23/22 as follows; to cleanse the left greater trochanter with normal saline, apply collagen on red granulation area, apply a nickel thick layer of Santyl to the slough area, pat the area dry, cover the wound cavity with a 2x2 gauze, then apply a silicone super absorbent dressing daily every evening shift and PRN. The Progress Note dated 7/29/22 at 1:38 PM revealed the left greater trochanter wound measured 6.0 centimeters (cm) x 3.0 cm x 2.2 cm and had two open areas connected with a tunnel undermining at 6-7 o'clock, with the deepest area of 1.2 cm at 7 o'clock. The wound had 60% red granulation with 40% slough, and a moderate amount of drainage. During observations on 8/3/22 at 3:36 PM, Staff F, Registered Nurse (RN), placed Santyl ointment into a medication cup. Staff F donned a pair of gloves, then removed a soiled dressing from Resident #16's left hip dated 8/2. Staff F removed his gloves and sanitized his hands, then donned another pair of gloves. Staff F sprayed wound cleanser to the wound on the resident's left hip, cleansed the area with gauze, then changed his gloves. Staff F used his gloved finger and applied Santyl over healthy, intact skin that surrounded the open wound bed. Staff F continued to dip his gloved finger into a medication cup with santyl and applied the ointment to the area. Staff F changed gloves, applied a collagen dressing and another padded dressing to the area, then removed his gloves and sanitized his hands. In an interview 8/4/22 at 3:35 PM, Staff L, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) reported she expected staff used a q-tip to apply Santyl to a wound. The ADON reported Santyl product used for debridement of wound and needed to go on or in the wound bed. 2. The Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #28 had diagnoses of cancer, septicemia, diabetes, and chronic ulcers to the right heel and midfoot, and a diabetic foot ulcer. The Care Plan revealed the resident had a diabetic ulcer of the right distal plantar (foot), right heel, and left lateral foot. The Order Summary Report dated 8/4/22 revealed the following orders: a. Cleanse right heel and left medial foot with betadine, apply Silver Alginate over wound bed, cover area with an ABD pad and gauze, and wrap with coban three times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and PRN for diabetic ulcer. The order had a start date 7/11/22. b. Cleanse right lateral plantar foot with cleanser of choice, apply skin prep, cover area with ABD pad and gauze dressing, and wrap with coban three times a week on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and PRN for diabetic ulcer. The order had a start date 7/23/22. During observation on 8/3/22 at 1:55 PM, Staff E, RN, placed supplies (gauze, betadine swabs, skin prep, 4x4's, and coban) on a barrier cloth on an overbed table, then donned a pair of gloves. Staff E poured hand sanitizer over the scissors, then rubbed the hand sanitizer over the scissor blades with her fingers. Staff E removed her gloves and sanitized her hands. At 2:08 PM, Staff E placed a large roll of foam dressing on the bed by Resident #28's leg. The bedsheet by the resident's foot had a dried brown substance that appeared to be drainage from the resident's wounds. Staff E then cut approximately a 4 inch piece of foam dressing from the large roll, folded the foam dressing in half, and cut the middle out of the foam dressing. Staff E used scissors to cut off soiled dressing, then removed dressing and foam dressing that surrounded the resident's right foot and heel wounds. Observation revealed an open wound to the resident's right heel and right little toe. Staff E took a bottle of wound cleanser located next to a urinal on a stand in the room and sprayed the wound cleanser on the wound, then cleansed the wounds with gauze, and applied foam border around the wound on the resident's little toe, then applied gauze and a coban dressing to the area. Staff E changed her gloves, then removed the foam dressing on the right heel. Staff E used her fingers to pull on loose skin and peeled off a portion of dry skin by the resident's right heel. Staff E applied betadine to the right heel wound, applied a border foam dressing around the wound bed, then cut a piece of calcium alginate and applied calcium alginate and gauze to the wound bed. Staff E wrapped the area with a coban dressing. At 2:36 PM, Staff E donned a pair of gloves and cleansed the scissors with hand sanitizer. Staff E removed a dressing from the resident's left foot, applied betadine to the wound, and removed her gloves. Staff E then donned gloves and applied skin prep to the surrounding area. Staff E rubbed hand sanitizer on the scissors with her fingers, then used the scissors to cut a piece of calcium alginate. Staff E then applied calcium alginate to the wound, cut a piece of foam dressing and applied the foam border dressing around the wound bed on the left foot, and applied gauze and coban. During observations, Staff E used gloves from a box that sat on a stand next to a urinal with no lid. Staff L, Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), stood in the room with surveyor during observations. The facility's skin management policy reviewed 5/12/22 revealed skin assessment performed and appropriate interventions implemented to prevent, maintain, and heal skin issues. The facility's Standard Precautions policy dated 5/24/22 revealed licensed staff shall handle sharps in a safe manner to prevent injuries and contamination. In a Standard Precautions policy dated 5/24/22 revealed during delivery of resident care, unnecessary touching of surfaces near the resident avoided to prevent contamination of hands from environmental surfaces and transmission of pathogens. In an interview 8/4/22 at 3:35 PM, Staff L, ADON, reported she expected staff changed gloves when soiled and before cleansed a wound or applied a new dressing. In an interview 8/9/22 at 2:55 PM, the DON reported she expected staff sanitized scissors with an alcohol wipe, and changed gloves whenever went from a dirty to a clean area. 3. Observations on 8/1/22 at 1:02 PM revealed a plastic bin with drawers contained personal protective equipment (PPE) and disposable wipes inside. Two white trash bins sat by the hallway railing by room [ROOM NUMBER]. One trash bin had a yellow biohazard bag labeled laundry and one trash bin labeled trash. The trash bin had part of blue gown exposed by the lid of the trash bin. A sign on the wall by room [ROOM NUMBER] read Full DON, Full DOFF. Observations on 8/3/22 at 9:00 AM revealed double doors closed to a COVID designated area (across from the main dining room). A sign on the door to the unit revealed droplet precautions. A 3-drawer bin with PPE supplies sat by the door outside the COVID designated area. A trash bin with a lid sat next to the 3 drawer bin with PPE supplies. Observations on 8/3/22 at 3:20 PM, Staff M, certified nursing assistant, exited the double doors from the COVID designated unit and had an isolation gown, gloves, N95 mask, and goggles on. Staff M removed isolation gown and placed the gown into a lidded trashcan outside the unit doors. Staff M then removed her gloves, opened the 3 drawer bin, obtained a bottle of hand sanitizer and sanitized her hands. In an interview 8/4/22 at 3:40 PM, the Infection Preventionist reported two residents had tested positive for covid-19 and in the covid-19 designated unit, which was the alternate dining room across from main dining room. The infection preventionist agreed the 3 drawer bin with the PPE considered a clean area and should be separate from trash bins. The infection preventionist reported trash bins needed to be on one side away from the 3 drawer bins with PPE, preferably on the inside of the unit. The infection preventionist agreed it would be better to have staff don PPE and enter through doors to the covid unit, and remove PPE before left the unit. In a Transmission Based Precautions (TBP) policy reviewed 6/14/22 revealed TBP are additional measures and precautions that protect staff, visitors and other residents from becoming infected or colonized with certain infectious agents and prevent transmission of infection. Droplet precautions are intended to prevent transmission and implemented for residents known or suspected to be infected with microorganisms transmitted through close respiratory or mucous membrane contact with respiratory secretions. The policy revealed PPE discarded before exited a resident room with at least three foot of physical distance maintained between resident and the person leaving the room after PPE removed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain, clean, and label foods for personal re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, policy review and staff interview, the facility failed to maintain, clean, and label foods for personal refrigerators kept in residents' rooms for 2 of 2 residents sampled. (Residents 80 and 91) The facility reported a census of 110. Findings included: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident# 80 documented a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 15 out of 15. A BIMS of 15 indicated no identified cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated the resident had diagnoses which included heart failure, neurogenic bladder and stroke. An observation on 08/03/22 at 09:50 AM Resident 80's personal refrigerator had an undated and unlabeled Tupperware container with a thick creamy substance. Resident 80 identified the item as [NAME] pudding brought in by family about two days prior. Resident 80 stated no one assisted with the maintenance of the refrigerator or assisted with outdated food items. Observation failed to reveal a thermometer inside the refrigerator or a temperature log attached to the refrigerator. 2. MDS dated [DATE] for Resident 91 documented a BIMS of 15 of 15. A BIMS of 15 indicated no identified cognitive impairment. Diagnoses included heart failure, renal failure, and hypertension. An observation on 08/03/22 at 10:01 AM Resident 91's personal refrigerator showed approximately one and a half inches of ice in freezer and ice hung over the side of the freezer compartment that appeared to be refrozen from thawed ice. Resident 91 stated no one had offered to assist him with his refrigerator and his family had taken items out of the refrigerator. Resident was unaware of the need to have items dated and freezer to be dethawed. Observation failed to reveal a thermometer inside the refrigerator or temperature log attached to the refrigerator. Interviews reveled the following; A. On 8/9/22 at 12:30 PM Staff G, Certified Nurses Aid (CNA) stated he did not know who was responsible for maintenance of the refrigerators. He stated staff had no right to get into the residents personal belongings and it was not his right to bother the personal refrigerator. B. On 8/9/22 at 12:40 PM Staff H, CNA stated she was unsure of who was responsible for the refrigerators, possibly maintenance or housekeeping. She was unaware of any policy related to outside food being brought into the facility. C. On 8/9/22 at 12:50 PM Staff I, Registered Nurse (RN) stated she was unaware residents had personal refrigerators, and stated she would expect dietary to be responsible for maintaining. D. On 8/9/22 at 12:30 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the refrigerators were new to the facility and a policy had been written. A facility titled Refrigerators in Residents Rooms dated 2/8/22 revealed the following; This facility does not provide a refrigerator in a resident's room. However, it is the policy of this facility to ensure safe and sanitary use of any resident-owned refrigerators. A. Dietary staff shall record refrigerator temperature weekly on temperature log attached to the refrigerator B. A thermometer shall remain in the refrigerator C. Housekeeping staff shall clean the refrigerator weekly and discard any food that are out of compliance. Nursing staff shall clean up spills as needed or refer to housekeeping staff. D. Residents and staff shall comply with safe food handling and storage principles. E. Leftovers shall be dated upon receipt and discard within three days F. The resident and/or family shall be educated on safe food storage and use of the refrigerator prior to its use, and as needed.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 30% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $34,476 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 24 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $34,476 in fines. Higher than 94% of Iowa facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (21/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 21/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Trinity Center At Luther Park's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns Trinity Center at Luther Park an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within Iowa, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Trinity Center At Luther Park Staffed?

CMS rates Trinity Center at Luther Park's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Trinity Center At Luther Park?

State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at Trinity Center at Luther Park during 2022 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 21 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Trinity Center At Luther Park?

Trinity Center at Luther Park 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 120 certified beds and approximately 111 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in DES MOINES, Iowa.

How Does Trinity Center At Luther Park Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Trinity Center at Luther Park's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.0, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Trinity Center At Luther Park?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Trinity Center At Luther Park Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, Trinity Center at Luther Park has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in Iowa. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Trinity Center At Luther Park Stick Around?

Trinity Center at Luther Park has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 Trinity Center At Luther Park Ever Fined?

Trinity Center at Luther Park has been fined $34,476 across 1 penalty action. The Iowa average is $33,424. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Trinity Center At Luther Park on Any Federal Watch List?

Trinity Center at Luther Park 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.