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.