Valley View Village

2571 GUTHRIE AVENUE, DES MOINES, IA 50317 (515) 265-2571
Non profit - Corporation 79 Beds CASSIA Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
53/100
#238 of 392 in IA
Last Inspection: May 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Valley View Village has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and positioned in the middle of the pack, indicating that while it is not the worst option, it does not stand out positively either. In Iowa, it ranks #238 out of 392 nursing homes, placing it in the bottom half, and #16 out of 29 in Polk County, where only one local facility is rated higher. The facility is currently improving, with reported issues decreasing from 7 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point with a perfect 5-star rating and a lower turnover of 37%, which is better than the state average of 44%, indicating that staff members are likely to stay longer and provide consistent care. However, there are concerning incidents, such as a resident suffering a ligament injury from an improper transfer and another resident experiencing severe health issues due to lack of adequate staff intervention. Additionally, there were failures in hand hygiene practices that could lead to infections. Overall, while there are strengths in staffing and a positive trend, families should be cautious of the serious care deficiencies noted.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In Iowa
#238/392
Bottom 40%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
7 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
37% turnover. Near Iowa's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$18,860 in fines. Higher than 72% of Iowa facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 96 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of Iowa nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
19 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 7 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent 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 (37%)

    11 points below Iowa average of 48%

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

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near Iowa average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Staff Turnover: 37%

Near Iowa avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $18,860

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CASSIA

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 19 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
May 2025 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on resident record review, facility record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #28 & ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on resident record review, facility record review and staff interviews, the facility failed to submit the Minimum Data Set (MDS) in a timely manner for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #28 & #65). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: 1. The MDS for Resident #28 dated 3/20/25 documented a quarterly review and was signed by Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) on 5/1/25. The MDS 3.0 Final Report to verify assessment submission into the QIES ASAP System (Center for Medicare & Medicaid Network) revealed submission of the 3/20/25 quarterly assessment was submitted on 5/1/25. 2. The MDS for Resident #65 dated 3/20/25 documented annual review and was signed by Staff A, RN on 5/1/25. MDS 3.0 NH Final Validation Report to verify assessment submission into the QIES ASAP System revealed submission of the 3/20/25 Annual assessment was submitted on 5/2/25. During an interview on 05/07/25 04:36 PM the Administrator reported awareness there had been a gap in getting care plans updated and that MDS reporting was not in a timely manner and relayed staff that was responsible for MDS assessments and care plans was new. The Administrator stated prior to the new staff, the facility used remote staff that had gaps in reporting and struggled finding an MDS coordinator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to code an anticoagulant drug accurately on the M...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interview, and policy review the facility failed to code an anticoagulant drug accurately on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #17). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #17 documented a Brief Interview of Mental Status as 12 indicating moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS documented diagnosis of stroke. The MDS also documented the resident is taking an anticoagulant. The Orders in electronic health records for Resident #17 revealed an anticoagulant Eliquis, five milligram tablets, twice a day was discontinued on 2/6/25. During an interview on 05/07/25 at 4:36 PM, the Administrator reported awareness of MDS concerns due to staffing gaps, struggled finding an MDS coordinator, relayed current staff that is responsible for MDS assessments is new, 2-3 months, previously used remote staff and is working to correct MDS issues. The facility policy MDS assessments, last review date 3/28/24 documented assessments will be completed per the guidelines in the RAI Manual and include the Care Area Assessment (CAA) and care planning processes in compliance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and any state regulations.
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 record review, observation, and staff interviews and policy the facility failed to update Care Plans for 3 of 18 reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, observation, and staff interviews and policy the facility failed to update Care Plans for 3 of 18 residents reviewed (#R17, R54, R195) did not include pertinent medications or side effects, pressure ulcer and transfer technique. The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings Include: 1. The Quarterly, Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] for Resident #17 revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment scored 15 out of 15 indicating cognitive intact. Diagnosis included hypertension, peripheral vascular disease, mood disorder diagnoses included, non-Alzheimer's dementia, anxiety disorder. The MDS coded that antipsychotic medications were given on a routine basis. The MDS coded resident had pressure ulcers A Pharmacy Review, recommendation date 8/15/24 documented Resident #17 received an antipsychotic medication, Quetiapine 50 milligram (mg) at bedtime. A Pharmacy Review, recommendation date 3/25/24 documented Resident #17 received an antipsychotic medication 100 mg of Quetiapine 100 mg at bedtime. The Physician Order dated 4/28/25 documented a stage four pressure ulcer on the right ankle to use border gauze bandage The Care Plan focus last reviewed 5/7/25 documented behavior symptoms and mood and behavioral category included expressed feelings through inappropriate actions. The care plan did not include psychotropic or antipsychotic medication. The Care Plan did not include the pressure ulcer. The policy, Care Plan and Baseline Care Plan, last revised 10/14/22 documented, The care plan should include measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified through the comprehensive assessment. Included: Problems and strengths, measurable, individualized goal related to the identified problem, intervention/approach: Specific instructions on how the goal will be met. 2. The Annual MDS assessment, dated 4/15/25, revealed Resident #54 with a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 3, indicating severe cognitive deficit. The primary medical condition listed on the MDS was non-traumatic brain dysfunction. The MDS documented the use of an antipsychotic medication. Active Physician Orders, obtained on 5/7/25, listed the use of an antipsychotic Quetiapine 12.5 mg two times daily. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) confirmed the use and administration of Quetiapine at least since January 2025. Both the electronic Care Plan, obtained on 5/6/25, and the paper Pocket Care Plan, obtained on 5/8/25, lacked information regarding Resident #54's use of an antipsychotic medication. 3. The admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #195 with a BIMS of 15, indicating intact cognition. Diagnosis on the MDS include anemia, arthritis, diabetes, osteoporosis, and venous insufficiency (peripheral). The MDS noted a fall history prior to facility admission. The MDS reported Resident #195 requiring maximum to total staff assistance for transfers. Due to resident safety concerns, the resident's ability to walk 10 feet was not assessed. The New Admit Assessment Checklist, dated 4/25/25, listed Resident #195's diagnosis as a pubic rami fracture non-displaced. The checklist did not indicate which side the fracture occurred. The paper admission Care Plan and the New Admit Assessment Checklist both documented transfer needs as a 2-person assistance with use of a standing mechanical lift. The Pocket Care Plan, obtained on 5/6/25, indicated Resident #195's transfer needs as a 1-person assistance with the use of a standing mechanical lift. During an interview on 5/6/25 at 12:45 PM Staff G, Physical Therapy, Staff H, Certified Occupational Assistant, and Staff I, Physical Therapy Assist, explained Resident #195's staff assist level as a 2-person as explained on the admission Care Plan. Staff was not immediately aware of any changes. If therapy makes any new recommendations or updates, an email is sent to nursing staff. Therapy staff does not update or make any changes to a resident's Care Plan. This is completed by nursing. During an interview on 5/6/25 at 3:30 PM, Staff F, Registered Nurse, explained Pocket Care Plans are updated throughout the day by nursing staff and printed daily in the morning. The Pocket Care Plans are carried by floor staff for the most current information. Staff F reported an email from the therapy department, dated 4/28/25, changed the assistance level from a 2-person to 1-person. Staff F was unsure how or who would update the paper admission Care Plan/New Admit Assessment Checklist so the two Care Plans would match. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 4:35 PM, the Administrator acknowledged a gap with updating Care Plans in a timely manner and should reflect current resident cares. The Administrator acknowledged that Pocket Care Plan information should come from the regular Care Plan. The Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 (version 1.19.1 October 2024, pages N-5 and N-) identified antipsychotics as a high-risk drug. As such, the Care Plan should state the rationale for the medication initiation, non-pharmaological interventions, and possible adverse effects for staff to monitor.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) practi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to follow Enhanced Barrier Protection (EBP) practices for residents with an indwelling medical device and an open pressure injury for 2 of 2 residents reviewed for infection control (Residents #77 and #195). The facility reported a census of 70. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment, dated 4/8/25, revealed Resident #77 had diagnoses which include diabetes, obstructive uropathy, and septicemia. The MDS documented the presence of an indwelling catheter. The electronic Care Plan, last revised on 4/23/25, documented Resident #77 with an indwelling catheter related to the diagnoses of obstructive and reflux uropathy. The Pocket Care Plan, obtained on 5/7/25, alerted staff Resident #77 with a Foley and the abbreviations of EBP. During an observation on 5/7/25 at 1:25 PM, Staff B, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) and Staff C, CNA, washed their hands and donned gloves upon entering Resident #77's room to complete catheter and peri-cares. Once the resident was situated in bed, Staff B cleansed the catheter port with an alcohol swab, emptied the catheter bag, and cleansed the catheter port with a new alcohol swab. Staff B emptied the drainage graduate, threw away the used supplies, washed their hands, and donned a new pair of gloves. Staff B then proceeded to clean Resident #77's catheter tubing. Staff B held onto the urinary catheter, at the point where it entered the penis, and with a new peri-wipe, cleansed the tubing by wiping away from the body. Once this was done, Staff B and Staff C both proceeded to complete the rest of pericares. After all resident cares completed, Staff B and Staff C removed gloves and washed their hands. Neither staff member wore gowns during catheter cares. The resident's room door had signage which alerted staff the need for additional EBP or personal protective equipment (PPE). Gowns were stored in a small multi-drawer storage unit outside of the room. 2. The admission MDS assessment, dated 4/30/25, revealed Resident #195 had a one stage 3 pressure ulcer upon facility admission on [DATE]. Medical diagnoses listed on the MDS include anemia, chronic kidney disease-stage 4, diabetes, and peripheral venous insufficiency. Resident #195's Face Sheet also listed a diagnosis of influenza, which required the use of transmission based PPE upon facility admission. The paper admission Care Plan, initiated on 4/25/25, documented Resident #195 with a pressure ulcer and listed interventions. The Pocket Care Plan, obtained on 5/6/25, did not list the pressure ulcer. Neither Care Plan addressed the use of EBP. During an observation 5/7/25 at 10:15 AM, Staff D, Registered Nurse, washed their hands and donned a new pair gloves upon entering Resident #195's room. Staff E, Assistant Director of Nursing and Infection Preventionist, was present during cares to observe. After the resident was positioned in their bed and gloves changed, Staff D proceeded to complete wound cares. After this was completed, Staff D gathered used supplies, threw them away, removed gloves, and washed hands before exiting the room. Staff D did not wear a gown during wound cares. The resident's room lacked signage regarding the use of EBP or PPE required. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 10:30 AM, Staff E, Registered Nurse stated EBP precautions were not needed during Resident 195's wound care as the wound is considered acute. EBP are initiated with chronic wounds. Staff E unable to provide a specific timeframe when a wound is considered chronic. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 2:00 PM, Staff C, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) voiced they typically wear gowns for cares which involve catheter or open wounds. During an interview on 5/7/25 at 4:35 PM, the Administrator explained the facility initiates EBP with chronic wounds, which is defined as 3 months per the National Institute of Health. The Administrator acknowledged EBP not followed for Resident #195 since assessed as an acute wound (present less than 3 months). The policy Transmission-based Precautions and Enhanced Barrier Precautions, last reviewed 7/3/24, outlined EBP are recommended for residents with a chronic wound regardless of MDRO (multi-drug resistant organism) status and does not include small or short term wound and residents with an indwelling medical device. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) directs nursing facility staff to implement EBP for residents with wounds and/or indwelling medical devices, regardless of MDRO status, during high contact resident care activities to include wound cares and device care or use (https://www.cdc.gov/long-term-care-facilities/hcp/prevent-mdro/ppe.html?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/hai/containment/PPE-Nursing-Homes.html)
Mar 2025 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the safety for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed. This failure caused har...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure the safety for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #2) reviewed. This failure caused harm when Resident #2 was improperly transferred and needed to be lowered to the floor. This transfer resulted in a ligament injury. The facility reported a census of 72 residents. Findings include: The Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS) of Resident #2, dated 11/18/24, identified a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed the resident required substantial/maximal assistance for sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair transfers and toilet transfer. The MDS documented diagnoses that included osteoporosis and Alzheimer's Disease. The MDS recorded the resident had not received any scheduled or as needed pain medication during the prior five days, and denied having any pain. The resident denied having had any pain during the prior 5 days of the look back period. The following Significant Change MDS Assessment for Resident #2, dated 1/23/25, revealed the resident was now totally dependent on staff for sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair transfers and toilet transfer. The MDS documented the resident received scheduled pain medication and non-medication interventions for pain. The resident reported she had pain during the prior 5 days of the look back period. The Care Plan of Resident #2 identified a problem area needing assistance with daily needs. It directed staff the resident required two staff members for transfers, dated 8/12/24. On 1/6/25, the Care Plan was updated to require the resident to transfer with a standing mechanical lift from her bed to her wheelchair only. The Care Plan was updated again on 2/7/25 directing the staff to use two staff members using a full body mechanical lift for transfers. The resident was receiving Physical Therapy at the facility and was seen on 11/18/24. The Physical Therapy Treatment Encounter note documented the following; Patient completes sit to stand transfers from wheelchair to four wheeled walker with minimal to moderate assist each time. Patient requires extensive cues for upright posture and full bilateral knee extension. The note did not detail the resident experiencing any pain in either leg. The Progress Note dated 11/19/24 documented staff reported to the Registered Nurse the resident had fallen. Upon assessment, the resident was found to be in a sitting position on the floor with her legs stretched. Staff reported the resident had started to fall and was lowered to the floor, and during the lowering, her right knee had bent. The resident was complaining of severe pain, and was unable to move or bend her right leg. The medical provider was notified and the facility received orders to send the resident to the emergency room (ER) for evaluation. The ER notes documented the following: Musculoskeletal exam: Swelling, tenderness, and signs of injury present. Right upper knee: Swelling and bony tenderness present. Decreased range of motion. Tenderness present over the medial joint line. Right upper leg: Tenderness present. No swelling, deformity or bony tenderness. Comments: Limited range of motion right lower extremity. - Findings: Ligamentous injury versus knee sprain. Knee immobilizer was avoided due to risk of pressure induced soft tissue injury due to age and lack of subcutaneous tissue. Placed in an ACE wrap. Non weight bearing at baseline. The Event Report dated 11/19/24 documented the resident received an injury to her right lower extremity, experiencing painful/limited range of motion. Her left lower extremity was documented as strong movement, and her right lower extremity was documented as weak movement. The Report documented the operational factors which led to the fall as Students transferred resident without gait belt and proper transfer. Lowered to floor. The written statement from Student #1 documented the Student went to answer the resident's call light and the resident stated she needed to use the restroom. The student retrieved the wheelchair and moved it next to the recliner. The statement documented the resident told the student that she could do it (stand up) on her own, but the student offered help by holding her hands, then moving into a hug position to lift the resident but she was unable to lift her alone. The student documented that she then called for a second person (Student #2). She wrote they tried to move the resident to her wheelchair but the resident had started calling out about her leg, so she attempted to move the resident back to her recliner and for extra help. She documented the resident was still complaining of her leg and she then noticed the resident's right leg was caught by the wheel of the wheelchair. At that time, the students lowered the resident to the ground, writing that because of the position of her right leg behind her bent at the knee, they were not able to lower her fully to the ground. Staff A, Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) entered the room to help support the resident to a safe position. The statement ended with noting the resident was complaining of right knee pain. The written statement from Student #2 documented she was in the hallway and heard Student #1 calling for help. Her statement noted the resident was unbalanced and leaning forward almost off of the recliner, so she and Student #1 attempted to move the resident to the wheelchair. The resident's right foot was caught on the wheelchair wheel and she was unable to stand. She wrote they then lowered her to the ground and her right knee was under the resident's buttocks. The two students called for help and Staff A, CNA came to assist. The written statement from Staff A, CNA documented she was alerted by students of needing help in Resident #2's room, and heard Resident #2 calling out before she got to the room. She wrote the students had attempted to transfer Resident #2 and had not used a gait belt. The students were attempting to hold the resident up and she instructed them to lower her to the floor. She stated when she asked the students what happened, they told her the resident needed to use the restroom, and they had positioned the wheelchair close to the resident and attempted to assist her due to the resident stating she could do it herself. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) of Resident #2 for November of 2024 documented an order for Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5/325 mg (a narcotic pain reliever mixed with acetaminophen/Tylenol) ordered to be given one tablet three times a day beginning 11/20/24. The MAR reflected the order was changed on 11/25/24 to a half tablet three times a day. The MAR reflected additional orders for an ice pack to the right knee for 20 minutes at a time as a non pharmacological pain intervention. The MAR for March of 2025 revealed the current pain medication order to be Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 5/325 mg, half a tablet, four times a day. Review of Progress Notes of Resident #2 identified the following: 11/20/24: Returned to facility on a stretcher via ambulance accompanied by two male staff. Transferred into her bed with assist x 4 without difficulty. Resident wakened during transfer from stretcher to bed and began crying out: Please leave me alone, please don't touch my leg it hurts. 11/20/24: Lying in bed resting soundly with eyes closed, no further crying out in pain after PRN Tramadol. She did refuse the scheduled ice pack to right knee yelling: stop it, no, I don't want it, leave me alone! 11/21/24: Resident has been resting quietly this shift without complaints voiced when lying still. Nurse placed pillow under legs to float heels which resident did wince at. Routine Norco (Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen) initiated with resident sleepy. 11/21/24: Patient has been in bed all shift again today. Did drink and eat better and her pain seems to be in better control. Cold pack applied several times to her right knee, patient tolerated well. Therapy was in and stated to use the Hoyer (full body mechanical) lift for resident when she gets up. 11/26/24: Removed ace wrap and floated heels on pillow. Ice three times a day continues. Right lower extremity remains edematous and resident has pain with movement and repositioning. 11/27/24: Continues to use Hoyer lift assist of two for transfers 11/30/24: Resident up in wheelchair this evening. Voiced no complaints of pain but did show symptoms during transfer to bed via Hoyer lift. 12/2/24: Hospice referral sent. 12/5/24: Resident denies complaints of pain unless she is moving. Assist of two with Hoyer lift for transfers. Ice, norco and ace wrap continue for swelling and pain issues. 12/13/24: Family requested decrease in pain medication due to resident being too sleepy 12/15/24: Edema remains to bilateral lower extremities, right greater than left. Assist of two via Hoyer lift for transfers 12/16/24: Staff requested to reinstate order for ice pack as an as needed order. Resident remains on scheduled narcotic pain medication four times a day which appears to manage pain at this time. Remains as a two person assist with a full body mechanical lift for transfers. Resident #2 was observed on 3/4/25 at 12:17 being transferred from her bed to her wheelchair by Staff B, CNA and Staff C, CNA. The full body mechanical lift sling was in place under the resident as she laid in bed. Staff B and Staff C secured the loops of the sling to the mechanical lift, verified placement and safety, and appropriately transferred Resident #2 from the bed to her wheelchair. Resident #2 stated during the transfer this leg hurts and indicated with her hand it was her right leg hurting. Observation ended after the resident was safely in her wheelchair, foot pedals were put in place, and staff was fixing her hair prior to taking her to lunch. On 3/4/25 at 4:57 pm, the Administrator stated the CNA students had been provided with pocket care guides. She said the students were eager to help and the resident told them it was fine. The Administrator verified the resident was care planned as a two staff assist but the students failed to use a gait belt. On 3/5/25 at 8:42 am, the Assistant Director of Nursing stated the resident only had the single injury to her knee in November of 2024 but has always had pain in her knee. On 3/5/25 at 9:29 am, the Physician Assistant from the facility stated the injury was a potential ligament injury. She stated due to the resident continuing to complain of pain, she did order a second x-ray (results were negative for any fractures). She stated the family ultimately chose to pursue hospice care as she had been declining prior to the injury related to advanced age and her diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease. She stated she feels the resident's right leg pain will always be chronic and they are treating it as much as possible to keep her comfortable. Her pain management regimen has changed a couple of times to try to give the most pain relief without causing sedation or other side effects. On 3/5/25 at 1:17 pm, Staff A stated when she entered the room, the resident was not yet lowered to the floor. She described the resident's left leg as being extended forward and her right leg was bent. Staff A stated she instructed the students the resident needed to be lowered to the floor. When she was lowered, due to her leg being bent, her right leg was going out to the side but underneath the resident as she was gently lowered. She stated the resident was either wearing tennis shoes or slippers with non slip grippers on them. She stated the students were not using a gait belt during the transfer. The facility policy Transfer/ambulation assist using gait/transfer belt, review date 3/25/24 documented the following: Policy: Gait/transfer belts will be used for all residents who require physical support for mobility or safety in transfers. The residents will be assessed for appropriate transfer status by PT, OT, or a nurse. Gait/transfer belt will be removed upon completion of transfer/ambulation. Follow care plan for number of staff assistance required. Procedure: Assist to stand 1. Identify resident. 2. Verify in care plan the number of staff required for transfer assistance. 3. Explain procedure as needed. 4. Provide privacy as needed. 5. Apply the gait/transfer belt snugly around the waist, over the clothing. Apply the belt snugly enough so it will not ride up or down on the resident's body. 6. Fasten the safety buckle in the front, slightly off center. 7. Bring the resident to a standing position, using one or two hands on the gait/transfer belt. Do not lift resident under their arms during transfers. If the belt loosens, tighten it again after the resident is standing.
May 2024 7 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0741 (Tag F0741)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on direct observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, family interviews, and policy review, the facility failed...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on direct observation, clinical record review, staff interviews, family interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to provide sufficient amount of properly trained staff to implement care plan interventions for 1 of 1 residents with self-injurious behavior. (Resident#37). The facility staff also failed to intervene when the resident displayed behaviors. This resulted in harm to the resident in the form of three occurrences of cellulitis and loss of the distal portion of the left index finger - the tip of the left index finger to the first finger joint. She was placed on antibiotics for the treatment of the cellulitis. The facility reported a census of 75. Findings include: Record review of Resident #37's Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] documented that a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) could not be completed due to the resident being rarely or never understood. The MDS also documented the need for significant assistance for transfers, dressing and toileting, supervision at meals with set up assistance, and assistance for bed mobility. The resident's diagnoses included, non-traumatic brain dysfunction, Alzheimer's disease, Non-Alzheimer's Dementia, diabetes, anxiety, depression, and pain. Record review of Resident #37's Care Plan last revised on 05/17/24 indicated staff should redirect self-harm behaviors by handing Resident #37 something to eat or giving her a stuffed dog. It indicated dependent care for oral hygiene. Review of oral hygiene charting revealed that oral cares were only recorded as completed on the following dates and times: 1. 04/29/24 at 10:52 AM 2. 04/30/24 at 12:24 AM 3. 05/07/24 at 02:48 PM 4. 05/08/24 at 09:23 AM 5. 05/09/24 at 04:25 AM 6. 05/10/24 at 12:35 PM 7. 05/11/24 at 03:55 PM 8. 05/12/24 at 10:21 AM 9. 05/13/24 at an undocumented time. Review of a Physician's Progress Note dated 04/15/24 revealed the following: 1. Resident #37 had a diagnosed history of advanced dementia. 2. She was placed on hospice services. 3. She had been persistently biting at her nails and fingers, ongoing for approximately two months as of the date of this progress note. 4. It began as minor wounds, but the patient had now chewed off the distal part of the left index finger near the distal interphalangeal (DIP) joint. 5. She had dementia related agitation, anxiety, and hallucinations. 6. The care team added Divalproex Sprinkles 125mg twice daily on 03/25/24. 7. This was reported to have slowed her behaviors, but staff reported finger chewing worsened as of the writing of this progress note. 8. Other measures have failed to stop chewing, included bandages and gloves. The Progress Notes for the resident documented the following: a. On 02/07/24 at 05:24 AM the resident was agitated, yelling, and biting an open area on the middle finger of the left hand. The area appeared swollen, red, and painful. The area was cleansed and covered. b.On 02/07/24 at 12:45 PM the resident was seen by the physician's assistant (PA) for an acute visit in which the resident presented with a swollen finger. The resident was prescribed Keflex 500mg two times daily for ten days, the wound to be covered, and triple antibiotic ointment to be applied to the left middle finger. c.On 02/12/24 at 07:31 AM the resident remained on antibiotics for cellulitis of the left middle finger. Resident #37 continued to bite at the area, and had removed the bandages, but fresh bandages were applied. It noted a scant amount of serosanguinous drainage present on the dressing. d.On 02/24/24 at 05:48 PM The resident continued to bite at her left index finger. e.On 02/25/24 at 06:23 AM The resident bit her left index finger nail causing mild bleeding. f.On 02/25/24 at 03:48 PM The resident had new wounds on left index and middle fingers. It noted the resident had been chewing on fingers, staff covered wounds with dressings, and resident continued to remove dressings and chew on fingers. g.On 02/29/24 at 01:45 PM Nursing staff dressed the left index finger and lower left extremities, at this time it was noted the left index finger nail had nearly fallen off. h.On 03/01/24 at 05:10 PM The resident continued to chew on her fingers. i.On 03/04/24 at 02:37 PM noted the resident had gloves added as an intervention which successfully prevented chewing behavior. j.On 03/05/24 at 06:19 AM the resident continued biting behavior and refused to allow staff to apply gloves or dressing. k.On 03/10/24 at 06:28 AM Noted the resident had bitten off nails on left index and middle fingers. A geri sleeve was placed over the dressing as a deterrent, which proved effective. l.On 03/15/24 at 03:13 PM The resident removed the dressing from her fingers. Nursing staff noted the fingers were red and warm to the touch. At 05:13 PM an order for Augmentin was clarified and changed to Doxycycline 100mg two times a day for ten days related to a second occurrence of cellulitis in the left fingers. m.On 04/12/2024 at 05:56 AM Noted that the resident had bitten her left index finger down to the distal interphalangeal joint and had bitten the fingernail off of her left middle finger. n.On 04/19/2024 at 03:43 PM Noted resident was placed on Bactrim for ten days due to another occurrence of cellulitis in the left finger. o.On 04/28/2024 at 10:42 AM Noted the resident continued to chew on fingers and is quickly removing bandages and dressings. Review of a Provider Progress Note dated 04/15/24 recorded Resident #37 had been persistently biting at her nails and fingers; ongoing for approximately two months. These began has minor wounds, but patient had since chewed off distal part of the left index finger, nearly to the distal interphalangeal joint. Divalproex sprinkles 125mg twice daily was added at 03/25/24, which first appeared to have slowed the chewing behavior, but was reported to have failed as of the writing of this note. A direct observation on 05/28/24 at 01:00 PM revealed wounds on Resident #37's legs and bandages on her left hand with no blood visible on the bandages at the time of this observation. A continuous direct observation on 05/29/24 from 12:12 PM to 12:40 PM revealed the following: 1. At 12:12 PM, Resident #37 in the dining room attempting to free herself from her wheelchair. When attempts failed to free herself from her wheelchair she began to bite the bandage on her left middle finger. A red mark on the bandage was present. 2. At 12:14 PM, Staff B, Therapeutic Activities Coordinator, walked past Resident #37. No attempts were made at redirection and the nurse was not notified. Resident continued to chew the bandage on her left middle finger. 3. At 12:17 PM, Staff C, CNA, seated another resident next to Resident #37, then placed a clothing protector on Resident #37. No attempts were made to redirect the resident from chewing. Nurse was not notified. Resident continued to chew on the bandage on her left middle finger. 4. At 12:19 PM, Staff D, CNA, walked past Resident #37 as she freed her finger from the bandage. Staff D commented That didn't last long and continued to seat residents at the dining tables. No attempts were made to redirect at this time. The nurse was not notified. Resident #37 began to chew on the proximal interphalangeal joint of her left middle finger - the middle joint of her middle finger. 5. At 12:25 PM, Resident #37 continued to chew on the proximal interphalangeal joint of her middle finger, but asked for help from Staff F, Culinary Assistant. Staff F did not acknowledge Resident #37. Staff F left the dining room without informing nursing staff. 6. At 12:27 PM, The Director of Food and Nutrition Services offered Resident #37 a glass of water. Resident #37 accepted the drink and stopped chewing. The chewing did not resume until the glass of water had been consumed. At 12:32 PM Resident #37 resumed chewing on the proximal interphalangeal joint of her left middle finger. Redness is noted on the finger at this time. 7. At 12:32 PM, Resident #37 had a dessert placed just out of her reach by the Director of Food and Nutrition Services. She continued chewing behavior in clear sight of Staff C and Staff D. No attempts to redirect were made. 8. At 12:40 PM, Staff G, RN noted resident was actively engaged in chewing behavior. Staff G placed the dessert in reach of Resident #37. Resident immediately ceased chewing behavior and began eating the dessert. In an interview on 05/29/24 at 03:23, PM Staff C stated they do not feel they have enough staff to handle the needs of residents in the Memory Care unit. She noted that several residents require a mechanical lift with an assist of two, leaving only on person on the floor to monitor all residents in Memory Care. She acknowledged the biting behavior but noted it happens so frequently it fades into the background. She acknowledged that staff should attempt to redirect when they notice. In an interview on 05/30/24 at 09:28 AM, Staff D noted staff are to attempt to redirect Resident #37 when they notice her biting or attempting to free herself from her wheelchair. She noted that interventions are not always successful, but staff are still supposed to attempt to distract or redirect the resident. She stated she feels they need more staff in Memory Care. She stated that it is hard to tend to resident needs when they are dealing with a two person assist. She noted it leaves only one staff member to monitor the rest of the floor. In an interview on 05/30/24 at 09:06 AM A family member of Resident #37 stated he feels the facility does not have enough staff to adequately care for all of the residents in the Memory Care Unit. He noted when a resident is being assisted it often leaves only one person to watch the entire floor. He noted he visits every morning and most evenings. The family member gave permission to take pictures of Resident #37's fingers. These pictures were taken on 05/30/24 at 01:05 PM. They revealed scabs on the distal phalangeal joint, with a finger missing above that point on the left index finger. The fingernail of the middle left finger had been removed and there was an open wound with a small white area protruding from the nail bed. There was recent trauma to the proximal phalangeal joint present with some scabbing noted. In an interview on 05/29/24 at 4:46 PM The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged the expectation is for nursing staff to attempt redirection as soon as they witnessed the self-injurious behavior. She noted kitchen and activities staff are expected to say something to nursing staff when they witness the behavior so that nursing staff can attempt to implement interventions in accordance with Resident #37's care plan. She stated she did not believe the facility could provide one on one care for Resident #37 at this time. Review of a visual body inspection dated 05/24/24 documented that the resident had no new injuries or damaged skin present. Review of a facility document titled Behavioral Health Services last reviewed on 03/18/24, documented the facility's interdisciplinary team (IDT) will evaluate behavior health symptoms to determine the degree of severity, distress and potential safety risk to the resident and effectiveness of interventions. If necessary, safety strategies will be implemented immediately to protect the resident or others from harm. If a resident is having behaviors that are not responding to current interventions, staff will complete a behavioral expression-elevated event and this will be reviewed by the IDT. Facility staff will receive education to ensure competency in meeting the behavioral health needs of residents. Review of a facility document titled Dementia Care last reviewed on 03/28/24, documented the facility will use consulting psychologists as needed for assessment and intervention, and should it be deemed necessary for the well-being of the resident, safety of other residents, and/or staff, the use of geriatric inpatient mental health units. The facility did not provide evidence that this occurred.
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** 3. The Comprehensive Skin Risk assessment dated , of Resident #30, reflected a Braden score of 14, which indicates a moderate ri...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. The Comprehensive Skin Risk assessment dated , of Resident #30, reflected a Braden score of 14, which indicates a moderate risk of pressure wound development. The Care Plan revision date of 5/13/24 indicated Resident #30 to be at risk for alteration of skin integrity related to poor skin turgor, poor safety awareness, impulsivity, and Foley catheter. Resident #30 had a prior treatment order to the left buttock/gluteal fold wound which read: Apply Calmoseptine to pressure ulcer on Left buttock every shift until healed. This treatment was initiated on 4/17/24 and discontinued on 5/11/23 as the site had healed. Resident #30 has an active wound care orders for the right buttock initiated on 5/20/24 which reads: Cleanse wound on right buttock with wound cleanser of choice. Pat dry. Cover with bordered foam dressing. Change 2 times weekly until healed. Check Placement of dressing every shift. Progress note entries from 5/26/24 and 5/27/24 document that Resident refused turns, Calmoseptine treatment during the night. Wound care observation completed on 5/28/24 at approximately 3:15 pm for Resident #30 with Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN), and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). Wound care to the right buttock started after cares to the calf and heel completed. Staff A, RN and the ADON wore personal protection as per Enhanced Barrier Protection. Supplies were set up on a barrier on bedside table which include Calmoseptine and wound cleanser. No copy of treatment administration record observed in room for staff to compare and verify treatments. When Staff A, RN began treatment on the right buttock, Staff A, RN noted a dressing on the wound and asked the ADON about it. The ADON ungowned and went to verify the wound care order. The ADON returned with the ordered dressing as this was not brought into the room prior to cares. Resident #30 had a large bowel movement with incontinent care completes. A reddened wound bed observed. The wound was cleansed with normal saline; No wiping observed. Staff A, RN applied Calmoseptine followed by the dressing. Staff A, RN then dated the dressing. 2. The Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] documented Resident #67 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses to include medically complex conditions, diabetes mellitus, hip fracture and respiratory failure. The Care Plan for Resident #67, with a start date of 2/21/24, documented nutritional status under a problem area with a goal no significant weight changes will be observed and an approach weights and medications per doctor of medicine (MD) order. Review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for Resident #67 showed a Physician Order with a start date 5/10/24 with an order for daily weights and to notify the physician if weight gain of 3 pounds in between weights or weight gain of 5 pounds in 1 week. Review of the EHR for Resident #67 revealed no weights recorded for the dates of 5/16/24 and 5/17/24 and no explanation as to why weights were not recorded. The resident's weight on 5/15/24 was recorded as 276.5 pounds, the resident's weight on 5/18/24 was recorded as 281.2 pounds, a weight gain of 4.7 pounds in between weights. Review of the EHR for Resident #67 revealed lack of documentation of notification to the physician of the 4.7 pound weight gain on 5/18/24. During an interview 5/29/24 at 2:00 PM, the Administrator advised the weight for Resident #67 was not recorded 5/16/24 or 5/17/24. Review of email documentation on 5/29/24 at 2:53 PM from the Administrator. The Administrator documented in email the nurse on 5/16/24 was contacted and recalls Resident #67 refused weight and will make a late entry. At this point, we are unable to reach the nurse from 5/17/24 but messages have been left. The Administrator documented our expectation would be that we would notify the doctor if the resident refused his weights and was showing symptoms of increased fluid retention. During an interview 5/29/24 at 03:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated an expectation physician orders are followed and Resident #67's weight would be taken every day, and if not, a reason why should be documented. The DON acknowledged weights were not obtained on the 16th and 17th of May, and no documentation is present as to why. The DON stated an expectation staff contact the physician on the 18th of May to inform the physician of the weight gain. The DON acknowledged the physician was not contacted on 5/18/24. Based on observation, clinical record review, resident interview, staff interviews and facility policy review, the facility failed to follow physician orders for 3 of 18 residents reviewed (Residents #20, #30 & #67). Resident #20 consistently received medications significantly past the ordered time, Resident #30 was administered a treatment that had been previously discontinued, and the facility failed to obtain ordered daily weights for Resident #67. The facility reported a census of 75. Findings include: 1. The Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) Assessment of Resident #20, dated 4/22/24 identified a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 which indicated cognition intact. The Care Plan of Resident #20 documented a Focus Area of Preferences dated 9/12/23. The Care Plan identified the goal, with a target date of 7/17/24 to be My preferences will be respected to the extent able, provided consideration of mine and other's safety. The Care Plan additionally documented a Focus Area of Cognition/Communication dated 5/16/23 which stated I am alert and oriented. I am able to make needs known to staff, though I can be forgetful at times. On 5/28/24 at 12:08 pm, Resident #20 stated that his bedtime medications are sometimes administered as late at 1:00 am. He stated he wishes to go to sleep earlier in the night and does not want to be woken up for medications after he goes to sleep. He voiced that there are two regular night shift nurses, and one of the two usually brought his medications before 9:30 pm but the other nurse was consistently late in administering the medicines. The undated document titled Medication Pass times provided by the facility during the survey documented HS (hour of sleep/bedtime) medications are to be administered between 7:00 pm and 10:00 pm. The Medication Administration Record of Resident #20 for the month of May, 2024 revealed the following seven medications were ordered for HS, 7:00-10:00 pm which were administered significantly late multiple times throughout the month: Donepezil, 10 milligrams (mg) ( treat memory loss and mental changes) Doxazosin 4 mg (for high blood pressure) Memantine 10 mg (treat memory loss) Omeprazole, 20 mg (for increased acid in stomach) Quetiapine 50 mg (for depression) Simvastatin 20 mg (for high cholesterol and triglycerides) Venlafaxine 75 mg (for depression) The MAR documented the following information: On 5/2/24 the HS meds were administered on 5/3/24 at 12:01 am. On 5/7/24, the HS meds were not administered due to resident being asleep, documented at 11:56 pm. On 5/10/24 the HS meds were administered at 11:15 pm. On 5/11/24 the HS meds were administered at 11:14 pm. On 5/21/24 the HS meds were administered at 10:52 pm. On 5/26/24, the HS meds were administered at 11:20 pm. On 5/30/24, at 11:25 am, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that she is aware of the situation and that Resident #20 had previously expressed his concerns regarding this to her. She stated she has provided education to the nurse and is continuing to work with her. The orders of Resident #20 revealed an order dated 8/8/23 which stated Facility May Use Liberal Med Pass Times The facility policy Medication Management, review date of March 4, 2024 documented: Point 12 - Medications may be given 1 hour before or 1 hour after scheduled administration time unless there is a specific order or indication otherwise. Facilities using liberalized medication pass times will administer meds during the ranges given in the liberalized medication pass times and will not have an additional hour before or after those times.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to provide neces...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, resident interview, staff interview, record review and policy review, the facility failed to provide necessary services to maintain grooming for nail care for 1 of 1 residents (Resident #67) reviewed for Activities of Daily Living (ADL). The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] documented Resident #67 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 14, which indicated intact cognition. The MDS further documented the resident had diagnoses to include medically complex conditions, diabetes mellitus, hip fracture and respiratory failure. The Care Plan for Resident #67, dated 4/26/24, with a problem area for ADL, documented resident admitted to facility for skilled services, had a hospitalization after a fall with femur fracture and surgery. Resident needed assistance with ADL's, unable to complete them without assistance. The approach section of the Care Plan documented staff to provide assist with grooming. During an observation 5/28/24 at 2:11 PM, Resident #67's fingernails were long and jagged, they were brown in color and dirty under the nails. During an interview 5/28/24 at 2:11 PM, Resident #67 advised the facility has not trimmed his nails in a while and stated he relies on the facility to trim his fingernails, especially due to his diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. During an observation 5/29/24 at 1:50 PM, Resident #67's fingernails were long and jagged, brown in color with dirt under the nails. Review of the Electronic Health Record (EHR) for Resident #67, under the observation section, a skin inspection form was completed on 5/23/24 and 5/16/24, the form directed staff to observe resident nails and provide nail care as indicated. The form did not contain documentation nail care was completed. Review of the progress notes section of the EHR did not contain documentation regarding nail care. During an interview 5/29/24 at 2:30 PM, the Administrator advised she is not aware of other documentation regarding nail care for Resident #67 being completed. During an interview 5/29/24 at 3:15 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) advised Resident #67's fingernails were just observed by her to be long and dirty. The DON stated the resident's fingernails should have been trimmed prior to this date given their length and appearance. The DON stated an expectation the resident's nails are observed weekly during the skin assessment, and trimmed regularly. The DON stated there is no documentation regarding the resident refusing to have his nails trimmed. The resident has diabetes mellitus and requires assistance with trimming fingernails. Review of facility policy titled Nail Care, with a revision date of 3/27/24, documented all residents will receive medically indicated nail care as required. Nails will be maintained in a clean and neat manner to support resident dignity and to avoid problems associated with rough, cracked, overly long, or broken nails. Nail care will be provided with the resident's weekly bath and/or as needed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, provider interview, and policy review, the facility failed to document a reason for declining a Gradua...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record, provider interview, and policy review, the facility failed to document a reason for declining a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for 1 of 5 residents reviewed (Resident #42). The facility reported a census of 75. Findings include: The Significant Change Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] shows a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 4, which indicated a severe cognitive impairment. Active diagnoses include Huntington's Disease, anxiety disorder, and cognitive-communication deficit. The MDS documents improved behaviors since the last submitted MDS on 2/12/24. The Care Plan documented a Problem with the start date of 3/30/21 as follows; I receive an antipsychotic medication for my diagnosis of Huntington's disease with a goal of I will not require an increase in my antipsychotic mediations during my stay at this facility Interventions include attempt at dose reduction per regulatory guidelines as condition warrants, per physician/nurse practitioner (NP) order, pharmacy review monthly and as needed. Clinical record review documented a GDR recommendation on 10/5/24 with the primary care provider PCP) responding on 10/25/23. The PCP agreed to a dose reduction for Lorazepam but failed to address the request for a dose reduction for Risperidone. A second documented GDR recommendation for Risperidone noted on 4/2/24 with the primary care provider PCP) responding on 4/15/24. The PCP agreed to a dose reduction for Sertraline but failed to address the request for a dose reduction for Risperidone. An email received from the PCP on 5/30/24, provided rationale for not addressing the Risperidone. This was not documented in the clinical medical record or on the Pharmacist's Recommendation to Prescriber forms. No further documented attempt by the nursing staff identified. The policy Psychotropic Medication Monitoring, review date 3/4/24, documented As part of routine medication regimen reviews, the consultant pharmacist will review all psychotropic medications for appropriate indications of use, monitoring for efficacy, potential adverse effects and potential for dose reduction. The policy Medication Review Management, reviewed on 3/4/24, outlines the produce for regulatory compliance: 1. For documentation of non-clinical related concerns related to regulatory compliance, the consultant pharmacist may use a supplemental medication regimen review communication form to alert the director of nursing of issues requiring clarification or follow-up. 2. The attending physician will document in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it. If there is to be no change in the medication, the attending physician should document his or her rationale in the resident's medical record. These non-urgent recommendations should be reviewed and acted upon during the next scheduled physician visit (within 60 days). 3. If the attending physician has not responded to the medication regimen review within 75 days the Director of Nursing (or designee) will notify the Medical Director to respond to the pending medication regimen review reports. If the attending physician is also the medical director, the DON (or designee) will escalate the issue to the facility administrator. 4. If there is potential for serious harm and the attending physician does not concur with the recommendation, or the attending physician refuses to document an explanation for disagreement, the director of nursing and/or consultant pharmacist will contact the medical director for review. 5. If the attending physician disagrees with the consultant pharmacist and is also the medical director, the consultant pharmacist and the director of nursing will arrange a meeting with the medical director to discuss the identified irregularities. All parties must come to an agreement or a formal complaint should be initiated according to facility policy. If there is potential for serious harm to the resident, this process must be completed in a manner to ensure no actual harm occurs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect medical records in a confidential and secure manner for 2 of 19 (Resident #41, #26) residents reviewe...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to protect medical records in a confidential and secure manner for 2 of 19 (Resident #41, #26) residents reviewed for medication administration. The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: Observations revealed the following: 1. On 5/28/24 at 11:47 AM, medication cart with laptop was left unattended, no privacy screen initiated, displaying resident medication list (Resident # 41). 2. On 5/28/24 at 12:47 AM, medication cart with laptop was left unattended, no privacy screen initiated, displaying resident medication list (Resident # 26). 05/30/24 03:11 PM Director of Nursing (DON) said staff are to lock the computer screen and their cart before walking away. Staff are trained to lock their computer screen and complete the staff orientation checklist. The facility policy titled Resident Rights undated included the following documentation: Point 1- We are required by law to maintain the privacy and security of your protected health information.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and facility policy the staff failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent the spread of possible food borne illness for one of one meal observation. The facility reporte...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility policy the staff failed to perform hand hygiene to prevent the spread of possible food borne illness for one of one meal observation. The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: Observation on 05/29/24 at 12:38 PM revealed Staff F, Culinary Assistant (CA) did not perform hand hygiene at the hand washing station before beginning to serve lunch plates. While serving plates of food, Staff F continually touched the top of the resident's plates, and on two occasions used his thumb to hold food in place. Observation on 05/29/24 at 12:41 PM revealed Staff F pick up and handle paperwork to a coworker, then continue to serve food. No hand sanitation was completed at this time. In an interview on 05/30/24 at 02:20 PM the Director of Food and Nutrition services acknowledged Staff F should not have used his fingers to hold food in place and should have washed hands after handling other objects. She agreed that Staff F required more training. Review of a facility policy titled Food Preparation and Services, last reviewed on 01/12/24, documented facility staff should wash their hands before serving food to residents. It further documented bare hand contact with food is prohibited.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to place a barrier prior to performing blood glucose monitoring for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Residents #13, #26...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to place a barrier prior to performing blood glucose monitoring for 3 of 3 residents reviewed (Residents #13, #26, #55), additionally the facility failed to have a sharp container when needed by staff for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #13, #26, #55), and the facility failed to properly locate the accu monitor while being cleansed by disinfecting wipe while using the same monitor for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #13, #26, #55). The facility also failed to follow infection control during dining service. The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: Observations revealed the following: a. On 5/28/24 at 11:25 AM, staff placed blood glucose items on surface without barrier, staff did not place lancet in sharp container after use, and staff wrapped blood glucose monitor with disinfecting wipe and placed it in the tray with clean blood glucose items. b. On 5/28/24 at 11:28 AM, staff placed blood glucose items on surface without barrier, staff did not place lancet in sharp container after used, and staff wrapped blood glucose monitor with disinfecting wipe and placed it in the tray with clean blood glucose items, used the same monitor from previous resident. c.On 5/28/24 at 11:33 AM, staff placed blood glucose items on surface without barrier, staff did not place lancet in sharp container after used, and staff wrapped blood glucose monitor with disinfecting wipe and placed it in the tray with clean blood glucose items, used the same monitor from previous resident. On 5/30/24 3:11 PM, The Director of Nursing (DON) reported staff should be using a paper towel or a barrier, sharp container is located on the medication cart, each resident has their own monitor that is stored in their own bag, and monitor should be on a barrier on the med cart to allow to dry. The facility policy title Blood Glucose Monitoring-Assure Prism revised 3/28/24 included the following documentation: Number 2- Gather the following equipment: test strips, glucose monitor, lancets, cotton balls, sharps container. Number 3- Place equipment on a clean barrier. The facility policy titled Clean-disinfect glucometer revised 7/24/23 included the following documentation: Policy statement- This glucometer is disinfected after use and stored in designated location. Number 1- Each resident's glucometer will be stored individually. Number 2- Clean per manufacturer's instructions. Number 3- Store individual glucometers in Ziploc bag or similar to keep separated from other machines.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on clinical record review, resident interview, staff interview and a lift device user's manual review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained a safe and secure environment for 2 of 3 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on clinical record review, resident interview, staff interview and a lift device user's manual review, the facility failed to ensure staff maintained a safe and secure environment for 2 of 3 residents reviewed (Resident #3 and #5) which resulted in falls. The facility identified a census of 75 residents. Findings include: 1. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment form dated 10.2.23 indicated Resident #3 had diagnosis that included morbidly obese, osteoarthritis and dependence on a wheel chair. The assessment indicated the resident had Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 12 out of 15 (moderately impaired cognitive skills), non-ambulatory and extensive assistance of two (2) staff with transfers. A Care Plan identified the following problems and approaches as dated: a. Required staff assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's). (dated 2.11.23) 1. Non-ambulatory. (dated 2.11.23) 2. Extensive assistance of 2 staff with transfers and a lift device. b. At risk for falls related to (r/t) weakness, required a lift device for transfers, generalized medical condition and multiple medications. A Fall Risk Assessment form dated 12.27.23 at 7:49 a.m. indicated the resident as a high risk for falls. A Fall Incident report form dated 11.20.23 at 8:48 a.m. indicated the root cause of the fall had been improper sling placement. A Patient Report form dated 11.20.23 (no time) indicated the resident's right humerus (arm) demonstrated no fracture. During an interview on 12.28.23 at 12:29 p.m. Staff A, certified nursing assistant (CNA) indicated on the date in question she entered the resident's room and assisted an unknown staff member as they transferred the resident out of bed however the lift device sling had been placed half way under the resident's buttocks prior to her arrival. Staff used the assistive device connected to the sling and transferred the resident out of bed however as they lifted her up the resident slipped from the sling and fell approximately a yard and ½ from the bed. The resident landed on her right side and her arm hit the floor. During an interview on 12.28.23 at 11:18 a.m. the resident and a family member confirmed the resident fell from a lift device because the staff placed a transfer sling device half way across her bottom which caused her to slip from the device onto the floor which caused bruising to her right elbow but no fracture. The resident described the incident as scary which caused her to be afraid of transfers with the lift device. During an interview on 12.28.23 at 11:00 a.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed when the resident fell from the lift device, staff failed to properly place the sling device and the resident fell to the floor. A User's manual (not dated) included the following directives: a. Staff to have placed the sling behind the patient's/resident's back with the center handle as it faced away from the patient/resident. b. Alignment of the lower sling webbed with the patient's coccyx having kept the center handle along the center of the patient's resident's back. c. Assurance the sling had been centered under the resident. d. Staff should have pulled the strap under the patient's/resident's thigh with ensuring no twisting had occurred. 2. A MDS assessment form dated 7.10.23 indicated Resident #5 had diagnosis that included arthritis, osteoporosis, cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and non-Alzheimer's dementia. The assessment indicated the resident had a BIMS score of 11 (moderately impaired cognitive skills), non-ambulatory and required extensive assistance of 2 staff with transfers. A Care Plan identified the following problems and approaches as dated: a. Required assistance with ADL's. (dated 9.12.22) 1. Non-ambulatory (dated 9.12.22) 2. Staff assistance of one (1) or two (2) with toileting and transfers. (dated 9.12.22) b. Actual alteration in cognition due to a diagnosis of cognitive communication deficit. (dated 5.28.21) 1. I had trouble making myself understood and understanding others. (dated 9.12.22) 2. Staff anticipated my needs if I suffered the inability to communicate those needs to staff. (dated 9.12.22) c. At risk for falls due to weakness, cognition, medication use and multiple medical diagnosis. (dated 5.27.21) According to a Fall Risk Assessment Tool dated 7.9.23 at 4:27 p.m. it indicated the resident at a high risk for falls. Review of the resident's Progress Notes revealed the following entries as dated: a. Observed the resident as she laid on her left side on the bathroom floor next to the toilet. The resident loudly called out her back and left hurt badly as she guarded those areas. Assessment revealed the resident unable to extend her left leg, leg appeared slightly shorter than the right with no rotation. Although the resident had been under Hospice care staff sent her to the hospital via ambulance dated 9.13.23 at 2:54 p.m. included the following information: b. The resident returned to the facility via ambulance. No imaging completed at the hospital. Resident had no complaints of pain at that time, passive range of motion to extremities without signs or complaints of pain. An Even Report form dated 9.13.23 at 8:26 p.m. indicated 1 of the root causes of the fall had been staff left the resident unattended on the toilet and she attempted to self transfer. During an interview on 12.28.23 at 12:41 p.m. Staff A, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) confirmed residents at a fall risk should not have been left unattended in the bathroom.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, observation, staff interviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff completed and documented skin assessments for 1 of 4 residents reviewed who had a wound or skin concern (Resident #5). The facility reported a census of 70 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed Resident #5 had diagnoses of wound infection, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), left below the knee amputation (BKA), and right great toe amputation. The MDS documented the resident had moisture associated skin disorder and a skin tear, and had a risk for pressure ulcer development. The MDS also indicated the resident took an antibiotic 1 of 7 days during the look-back period. The Care Plan initiated 9/8/22 revealed the resident had a risk for altered skin integrity related to neuropathy, diabetes, nutritional status, mobility limitations, and a history of amputation. The staff directives included complete a visual body observation weekly, implement appropriate interventions for any areas of concern, and notify the provider and family of any new areas of concern. In addition, the care plan directives for certified nursing assistants (CNA) included to observe resident's skin daily during cares and notify the nurse promptly of any areas of concern. A Wound Management Detail Report revealed the following: a. A blister on the right shin identified on 5/31/23 at 2:32 PM, and discontinued on 8/4/23 at 8:26 PM by Staff A, Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The observation history revealed no observations recorded for this wound. b. A skin tear on the right 2nd toe identified on 4/30/23 at 2:50 PM. On 5/31/23 at 2:31 PM, the wound measured 1.5 centimeters (cm) x 1.0 cm, and had a scant amount of seropululent (yellow or tan, cloudy, thick) drainage. A total flap loss exposed the entire wound. Staff A, LPN, documented the wound assessment discontinued on 8/4/23 at 8:25 PM because the toe removed due to osteomyelitis (infection into the bone). c. A skin tear on top of the right foot identified on 4/30/23 at 2:53 PM, and discontinued on 5/31/23 at 2:31 PM. The observation history revealed no observations recorded for this wound. A visual body inspection revealed the following: a. On 5/31/23, no bruises, skin tears, pressure areas or new skin issues. b. On 6/7/23 both heels skin intact and free of deep tissue injury (DTI) or other skin alteration. No bruises, new skin tears, or pressure areas noted. c. On 7/5/23 both heels skin intact and free of DTI or other skin alteration. No bruises, new skin tears, or pressure areas noted. d. On 7/19/23 right heel intact. No bruises, new skin tears, or pressure areas noted. e. On 8/4/23, heels not inspected. Resident had left BKA. Right heel wrapped with dressing that cannot be removed. Bath Sheets revealed the following: a. On 7/8/23, resident had known skin issue to his right lower leg b. On 7/22/23, resident had red open area to toes but no new conditions c. On 7/26/23, resident had known skin issue open area to right toes, open area had a raw, reddened area with swelling present. Resident reported area numb and painful. d. On 8/5/23, no new skin concerns. Right leg wrapped. The clinical record and facility records lacked further documentation of skin assessments performed and documented. The Progress Notes revealed: a. On 4/30/23 at 1:05 PM, resident sustained 2 cm x 1 cm skin tear to his right 2nd toe and a 2.5 cm x 2 cm skin tear to the top of his right foot when he lost his footing, slid, and went face forward into the recliner. Nurse completed assessment and submitted a SBAR communication/notification to the Physician's Assistant (PA-C). b. On 5/10/23 at 4:34 PM, the right lower extremity (RLE) had a wound with slough but no signs or symptoms of infection. c. On 6/7/23 at 4:50 PM, PA-C saw resident. New wound orders to RLE. d. On 7/31/23 1:29 PM (but recorded as a late entry on 8/1/23 at 10:30 AM), revealed while resident at a foot doctor (Dr) appointment, the Dr's office called and stated they were sending Resident #5 to the Emergency Department for evaluation of his right toe. e. On 8/4/23 at 5:12 PM, resident returned to the facility from the hospital. The resident was diagnosed with right foot osteomyelitis and had his second toe on the right foot amputated. During an observation on 8/22/23 at 3:15 PM, Staff G, Registered Nurse (RN) removed a dressing to the resident's right lower leg and right foot. The right shin had an open area measuring 6 cm x 5.5 cm. The right second toe had sutures intact and the surrounding skin had dried, dark blood. In an interview 8/22/23 at 2:40 PM, Staff B, LPN, reported the nurses completed a skin assessment on residents weekly and documented the assessment in the resident's electronic medical record. The nurse filled out a SBAR and completed another section in wound management assessment whenever the resident had an abnormal skin assessment. Staff B stated the shower aide also filled out a paper form and noted any bruises, skin redness, or wounds. In an interview 8/22/23 at 3:00 PM, Staff D, RN, reported resident skin assessments completed weekly and typically done on the resident's shower day. Staff D reported if the resident had a skin concern or abnormality, the assessment documented on the wound management assessment, and the physician and family contacted. The wound or skin concern checked weekly and documented in wound management. Staff D also stated the CNA filled out a skin sheet on paper if the aide noted a skin concern during cares or called the nurse into the resident's room to look at the area. Staff D reported the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) completed resident wound assessment and measured the wound if a resident had a bigger wound or skin concern such as pressure area. The nurse on the unit managed a resident's skin tear because they typically had orders to do a treatment and/or dressing change. In an interview 8/23/23 at 11:05 AM, Staff E, LPN, reported the nurse on the unit completed skin assessments on the residents. The CNA's also let the nurse know if they saw something pertaining to skin concerns during resident cares. Staff E reported Staff F, ADON, completed wound assessments on pressure areas and bigger wounds, but Staff F went on leave for 8 weeks, then left the position about a month ago. Staff E reported another ADON recently hired. In an interview 8/23/23 at 11:40 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) confirmed Staff F performed and documented a wound assessment if a resident had a pressure ulcer but did not perform skin assessments on bruises or skin tears. Staff F left the facility and went on leave for a couple of months, then left the position. During the transition of Staff F on leave, the DON stated she tag-teamed with another nurse and tried to perform pressure ulcer wound assessments. The DON reported she expected nurses performed a visual body inspection weekly and document the assessment on the visual body inspection form under observation section in the EHR. If a resident had a wound, such as a pressure ulcer, laceration, bruise, or blister, then the skin assessment documented under wound management. The DON reported she identified a concern a few weeks ago the nurses had not done measurements on resident's skin concerns or performed follow up assessments under wound management, and had not closed out or healed the wound or skin concern under wound management when the area had healed or resolved. The DON reported she and Staff E provided staff education. At the time, the DON reviewed Resident #5's visual body inspection and wound management documentation history and reported those were all of the skin assessments documented on the resident. The DON confirmed resident #5 had an open area to his right shin and right toe amputation surgical site, and no skin assessment documented. On 8/23/23 at 1:50 PM, Staff E, advised surveyor of where to view wound assessments on residents. Staff E reported choose resident, go to wound management, click on wound history, enter dates to view assessments, select the wound type, and search. All of the wound assessments showed under the search results, and showed when the wound/skin area was identified, the date it was resolved. Click on action to view the details of the wound, and the successive wound assessments on that wound/skin area. At the time, Staff E reviewed Resident #5's wound management documents and verified no other skin assessments completed on the resident's right shin or the top of his right foot. Staff E confirmed Resident #5 had an open area to the right shin and a surgical wound/amputation of the right second toe. In an interview 8/24/23 at 8:45 AM, Staff C, RN, reported skin and wound assessments populated on the computer screen whenever a resident's skin assessment needed done. Staff C stated the facility recently changed their process for the assessments to show up on the dashboard with a widget for check skins, and staff able to view which assessments due or overdue. Staff C reported prior to this change, she went to wound management to see if any follow up assessment needed done. A skin integrity policy revised 8/5/22 revealed the skin integrity documented on the wound management assessment in the EHR. Licensed nursing staff performed and documented a visual head to toe skin inspection on the designated observation in the EHR upon admission and weekly. A comprehensive skin risk assessment completed and documented if the wound was a pressure area, arterial, venous, diabetic, neuropathic, or mixed etiology. Documentation included the specific location of the wound or skin concern and measurements.
Mar 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to treat residents with dignity for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #59). The facility scheduled an appoi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record review, and resident and staff interviews the facility failed to treat residents with dignity for 1 of 8 residents reviewed (Resident #59). The facility scheduled an appointment on the resident's behalf and without his knowledge; the facility failed to provide information to the resident and caused him to miss the appointment for Resident #59. The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: The Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 2/6/23, documented Resident #59 scored 15 of 15 possible points on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) test, which meant the resident demonstrated intact cognitive abilities. The MDS also documented the resident required assist of 1 staff for bed mobility, transfers between locations, dressing, and toilet use use. The MDS identified Resident #59 had diagnoses that included amputation, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, muscle weakness, and neuralgia. The care plan revised on 2/14/23, documented Resident #59 as alert and oriented with the ability to understand and be understood. Review of the Residents Rights form given to residents by the facility upon admission relayed residents have the right to be informed of their health status and medical condition and to participate in their treatment. The form documented additional right which included the right to be informed in advance. Care Conference Notes documented Resident #59 and family attended and asked staff when the resident would get a prosthetic. Progress Notes on 02/21/23 at 4:46 PM, documented the prosthesis provider called the facility to make an appointment for Resident #59. The Notes revealed staff scheduled the appointment for 2/28/23 at 10:00 AM, updated the computer, and emailed the bussing scheduler. On 02/28/23 at 08:46 AM Resident #59 reported the staff informed him this morning of an appointment for his prosthesis, and added that nobody had ever told him about this. He also reported he did not feel well, was not ready to go, and staff should have told him (before this). An observation at the time of the interview revealed Resident #59 had an amputation of his left foot with the stump wrapped. On 2/28/23 at 8:47 AM Staff B, Registered Nurse (RN) verified Resident #59 did not feel well. When asked, the RN reported she did not know if Resident #59 had advance notice of his prosthetic appointment for today. On 2/28/23 at 03:00 PM, The Director of Nursing (DON) said the facility addressed the appointment with the resident and family member at the care conference meeting and they were aware of the appointment scheduled for this morning. The DON speculated Resident #59 may have forgotten and his family member likely also forgot as they are also elderly. On 3/01/23 at 09:09 AM, Resident #59 said he recalled the care plan meeting and verified his family member/advocate attended. The resident then called his family member via speaker phone. The family member reported she did not know about the appointment and the facility did not inform them at the care plan meeting. The family member clarified that she had inquired about when a prosthetic appointment could occur during the care conference. On 3/01/23 at 03:45 PM, the DON reported Resident #59 likely made the appointment himself as it was discussed at the care conference. The DON also reported the missed appointment concerned a podiatrist rather than a prosthesis and said she intended to clear this up with resident and take someone along as a witness. In an interview with the DON accompanied by the social services director on 3/01/23 at 04:00 PM, the DON reported she had been incorrect; she learned the resident did have an appointment for a prosthesis. She added the appointment was scheduled after the prosthesis provider called the facility's health center clerk, who then scheduled the appointment. The DON verified they should have informed Resident #59 about the appointment.
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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of medication administration leaving medication at bedside (Resident #50). The facility reported a census of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of medication administration leaving medication at bedside (Resident #50). The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: 1. A Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 1/30/23, documented Resident #50 had diagnoses that included renal disease, anxiety, schizoaffective, bipolar type and anemia. This resident's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15, which indicated intact cognitive abilities. Observation on 2/28/23 8:15 AM showed Resident #50's bedside table contained a medication cup with pills. The medication included one large vitamin- like pill, half of another large pill, and two smaller pills. During an interview on 2/28/23 at 8:16 AM, the resident reported the nurse left the pills on the bedside table. On 2/28/23 at 08:30 AM, Staff A, Registered Nurse (RN) acknowledged she had left the pills with the resident on the bedside table and said, I should go back and watch her take them. In an interview on 2/28/23 at 02:25 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) verified staff should not leave medications - the RN should have ensured the resident took them. Resident #50's care plan last reviewed/revised on 02/8/23 directed staff to manage medications. The care plan directed nursing staff to provide medication support by physically providing the resident with verbal reminders to take their medication as distributed. The Medication Administration facility policy last reviewed 10/26/22 directed medications will be administered by licensed nurses or trained medication aides under the supervision of a licensed nurse
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, record and policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide grooming/bathing assistance for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #59). The facility...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, record and policy review, and resident and staff interviews, the facility failed to provide grooming/bathing assistance for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #59). The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: According to the Minimum Data Set, (MDS) assessment tool dated 02/06/23, Resident #59 scored 15 of 15 possible points on the Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) test, which meant the resident demonstrated intact cognitive abilities. The MDS documented Resident #59 required extensive assist of one staff for mobility, transfers between locations, dressing, and toilet use. The MDS revealed diagnoses that included amputation, heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, muscle weakness, and neuralgia. The care plan reviewed/revised on 02/14/23 directed staff to provide assist with grooming, which includes trimming Resident #59's beard/facial hair in the way he prefers. The care plan also directed staff to provide assist for bathing, which includes assistance with getting in and out of the shower and washing harder to reach places. Review of the Bath list/sign off sheet for week 02/27/23 revealed no documentation to show staff bathed or showered Resident #59 that week. In an interview on 02/28/23 at 08:51 AM, Resident #59 reported he did not get a shower yesterday, but he should have. The resident also reported he needs help shaving and it has been a week or more since he last shaved. Resident #59 added he does not like having the facial hair. Observations revealed: On 03/28/23 at 08:51 AM, Resident #59 unshaven with approximate 1/4 inch hair growth. On 03/01/23 at 08:30 AM, Resident #59 reported he is waiting for shaving help, although staff delivered an electric shaver today. Closer observation revealed an electric razor in the box on the table. The resident added he had problems with his hands included difficulty with grasping (items) - one finger never healed right after a fall. On 03/01/23 at 02:40 PM, Resident observed in recliner with a towel on part of one side of his face, trying shave himself. He reported staff wanted him to do it himself, and it's been over a week since he received any assistance shaving. He also reported it is difficult with longer hair growth and hand issues, which included difficulty grasping. 3/02/23 09:12 AM, Resident had a partially shaved face. Feeling his face, he stated I really don't like it this way. When I was home, I shaved, but now I need more help - I wish I could get more help. On 3/02/23 at 12:46 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing verified the resident did not get grooming assistance/shower as scheduled on Monday and verified staff should help with shaving.
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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the head of the bed was elevated while the gastrostomy (g-tube) (tube inserted directly into the stomach through...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure the head of the bed was elevated while the gastrostomy (g-tube) (tube inserted directly into the stomach through the abdomen) feeding infused for 1 of 1 residents reviewed (Resident #43). The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: The significant change Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment tool dated 1/22/23 documented Resident #64 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicating severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident #64 carried the diagnosis of gastrostomy status, anxiety disorder, depression, altered mental status, and dysphagia following cerebral infarction. The MDS documented the resident had a feeding tube. Resident #64's care plan initiated 5/26/22 documented resident as at risk for nutritional and hydration deficits related to use of g-tube feeding status post stroke. The care plan had goals Resident #64 would have no significant weight changes, no signs of dehydration, would tolerate food and fluids served and would tolerate g-tube feedings with no nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or constipation. Some interventions documented included to check g-tube placement and residuals per physician orders and to elevate the head of bed 30-45 degrees while g-tube feeding was running. During an observation on 3/1/23 at 10:13, Staff C, Registered Nurse (RN), initiated the resident's tube feeding. Staff C, RN ensured the head of the bed was elevated 30 to 45 degrees, assessed the g-tube site, and primed the g-tube tubing. He then pushed air into the g-tube and auscultated the stomach with a stethoscope to ensure proper placement of the g-tube. Staff C, RN programmed the feeding pump to run the Osmolite feeding at 120 milliliters (ml) per hour for 8 hours with a flush to be completed by the feeding pump every 3 hours. Staff C, RN flushed the g-tube with water, connected the tubing and started the g-tube feeding. During an observation on 3/1/23 at 11:37 AM, Staff C, RN completed a med pass for Resident #64 via g-tube. Upon entering the room it was noted Resident #64's head of bed was flat and the feeding was infusing at 120 ml per hour via feeding pump. Staff C, RN raised the head of bed to 30 degrees prior to holding the feeding to administer the resident's medications. Staff C, RN stated one of the aides must have been in to work with the resident and put the head of the bed down at that time but did not put it back up when finished. In an interview on 3/2/23 at 8:10 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was the expectation anytime a resident was receiving feeding, fluids or medications through a g-tube, the head of the bed was to be elevated 30-45 degrees and the nurse was to check on them every 30 minutes or so. Facility provided policy titled Tube feeding: Pump Feedings (gastrostomy/nasogastric/jejunostomy), last reviewed on 10/17/22 stated staff were to elevate head of bed 30-45 degrees during feedings.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

2. During an observation on 3/1/23 at 8:20 AM, Staff B, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), completed a blood glucose check using a glucometer machine for Resident #43. Staff B, CMA used good technique, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. During an observation on 3/1/23 at 8:20 AM, Staff B, Certified Medication Aide (CMA), completed a blood glucose check using a glucometer machine for Resident #43. Staff B, CMA used good technique, which included glove use and hand hygiene before and after. Staff B, CMA used an alcohol swab to cleanse the blood sugar machine upon completion. Record review revealed the AM blood sugar on 3/1/23 was 137 and completed by Staff B, CMA. Based on observations, clinical record review, staff interview, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff utilized infection control techniques and disinfect a glucometer machine appropriately for 2 of 3 glucometer use observations. Facility staff also failed to wear gloves when they provided a blood sugar check and when they gave insulin injections for 1 of 1 residents with an injection ordered. The facility reported a census of 75 residents. Findings include: 1. During observation on 3/1/23 at 7:51 AM, Staff A, Registered Nurse, took a lancet and poked Resident #125's finger. Staff A squeezed the resident's finger, wiped the drop of blood off with an alcohol swab, squeezed the resident's finger again, obtained a drop of blood, and then placed the drop of blood on a glucometer strip inside a blood sugar machine. Staff A reported resident had a blood sugar of 175, then removed the strip from the machine. Staff A did not wear gloves during the procedure. Staff A proceeded to reach into her uniform pocket, pulled out a bottle of hand sanitizer, and sprayed her hands with hand sanitizer. At 7:55 AM, Staff A used an alcohol swab and cleansed the blood sugar machine and the exterior of the glucometer strip bottle. At 07:57 AM, Staff A, prepared Lantus (Glargine) and novolog insulin for Resident # 125, and administered each dose of insulin to the left upper quadrant (LUQ) of the resident's abdomen. Staff A failed to wear gloves when she administered the insulin doses. The medication administration record revealed Staff A completed Resident #125's AM blood sugar check on 3/1/23. The medication administration record revealed Staff A administered Resident #125's 8:00 AM dose of Glargine insulin and novolog insulin on 3/1/23. During an interview 3/2/23 at 8:10 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) reported she expected staff to cleanse the glucometer machines before and after use by using the purple labeled container of sanitizing wipes located on the medication carts. The DON reported she expected staff to wear gloves whenever staff performed a blood sugar check or administered insulin and injections. The DON stated there was a risk for blood contact or exposure whenever staff performed a blood sugar check or provided an injection injection, and the reason gloves worn during these procedures. A policy titled Clean-Disinfect Glucometer reviewed on 8/12/22 revealed the glucometer disinfected after use using sanitizing wipes and then allowed to dry per manufacture's recommendations. A Blood Glucose Monitoring policy dated 10/17/22 revealed gloves applied prior to using a lancet to obtain a sample of blood for a glucometer test. An Insulin Administration policy dated 2/20/23 revealed gloves applied prior to injection of insulin.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 37% turnover. Below Iowa's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 harm violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 19 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $18,860 in fines. Above average for Iowa. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Valley View Village's CMS Rating?

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

How is Valley View Village Staffed?

CMS rates Valley View Village's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the Iowa average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Valley View Village?

State health inspectors documented 19 deficiencies at Valley View Village during 2023 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Valley View Village?

Valley View Village is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by CASSIA, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 79 certified beds and approximately 71 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in DES MOINES, Iowa.

How Does Valley View Village Compare to Other Iowa Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Iowa, Valley View Village's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Valley View Village?

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

Is Valley View Village Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Valley View Village Stick Around?

Valley View Village has a staff turnover rate of 37%, 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 Valley View Village Ever Fined?

Valley View Village has been fined $18,860 across 2 penalty actions. This is below the Iowa average of $33,267. 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 Valley View Village on Any Federal Watch List?

Valley View Village 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.